If conditions have changed since the last assessment in 2019/2020, the timeframe for TOD development in station areas can be updated in BART’s TOD Work Plan. Key considerations by BART for prioritizing development projects are 1) availability of local funding and resources to support development, including staff support and funding for community outreach, affordable housing, and infrastructure, and 2) seamless coordination with local jurisdiction staff.
Jurisdictions with station areas that are currently listed in BART’s TOD Work Plan timeframes of Midterm or Long-term need to meet the following conditions to be considered for prioritization:
1. Local Support for TOD:
a. Local Support and Funding: First and foremost, BART views TOD projects on its land as BART and local jurisdiction partnerships. BART TOD projects are civic destinations, transformative to the community, and often includes off-site improvements. The City must be committed to working closely with BART to find funds and resources to facilitate community outreach, discussions, and decisions on TOD development and area-wide parking. It takes several years of pre-development work prior to issuance of a Request for Proposal for developers, therefore, any development of BART land within the planning period of 2023-2031 requires sufficient dedicated BART and County staff time to advance a TOD project within a reasonable timeframe.
b. Prohousing Designation: BART will prioritize projects in jurisdictions that are pursuing a Prohousing Designation by California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Prohousing Designation is emblematic of local support for housing and provides jurisdictions with an advantage such as priority processing or funding points for certain funding programs. This is a designation that has emerged from HCD since BART originally completed its work plan.
c. Environmental Studies: Locally supportive zoning is a minimum standard for gauging local support. For BART’s purposes, BART will determine that local zoning is supportive of TOD if the density allowed is 75 units per acre or greater, and such a density is assumed in environmental documents.
2. Infrastructure Needs:
a. Station Access and Parking Strategies: BART has evaluated its development priorities based on the anticipated cost of new infrastructure, including parking replacement. As such, until BART is able to secure external sources of funding to support construction of necessary infrastructure, BART cannot pursue development. In areas requiring substantial amounts of parking (e.g. auto dependent and auto reliant stations, partner jurisdictions will need to support BART in securing funding for parking replacement or other station access improvements.
Further, to address potential community opposition to replacing surface parking with housing, the City should plan for and implement a locally led parking resource assessment and management plan for at least ¼-mile radius around the station area. It should identify parking opportunities for BART riders that would minimize the number of spaces to be included the TOD project and address spillover parking concerns by neighbors. BART staff will work with the jurisdiction to provide support and guidance as needed but implementation of a parking management plan will be a local requirement.
3. BART Policies and Standards: Any development on BART’s land is subject to BART’s review procedures and approvals and shall follow relevant guidelines, policies, and regulations. The August 3, 2022
jurisdiction should commit to support and meet BART’s policies and standards. Most of these policies and are summarized on our TOD Guidelines and Procedures webpage.
We look forward to building our partnerships with the City of Hayward to realize our shared goal of increasing the amount of housing near transit. Please contact us to further our conversation on advancing TOD projects on BART’s land.
Sincerely,
________________________________________
Tim Chan
Group Manager – Station Area Planning
Campaign for Fair Housing Elements
fairhousingelements.org
The City of Hayward
Via email: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
August 14, 2022
Re: Hayward’s Draft Housing Element
To the City of Hayward:
The Campaign for Fair Housing Elements and YIMBY Law believe that the City’s draft housing element is a good start. We appreciate the City’s attention to protecting tenants against displacement (Draft, pp.85-86), as well as its commitment to rezone for affordable development as required by State law (Id. at p.74; see Gov. Code § 65583.2, subds. (c), (h)). We simply advise the City to approve more homes, much faster. First, the City should better substantiate its assumptions about future development. Second, the City should augment its capacity buffer, by allowing more density everywhere. And third, the City should abolish its Design Guidelines and reorient development review toward safety and infrastructure.
First, substantiate assumptions about future development. As you know, State law requires the City to discount its home production estimates by “realistic development capacity.” (Gov. Code § 65583.2(c)(2).) The City “assumes” its realistic capacity to be “75 percent,” but does not say how it arrived at that estimate. (See Draft, p.42.) It only lists some factors that are acknowledged to “impact” development. (Ibid.) The City should provide data to justify its assumption. We repeat this comment for the City’s ADU production estimate, for which the City claims but fails to show its data. (See id. p.40.) Second, augment the site capacity buffer. California has a housing shortage because it’s currently illegal to build the missing housing. Hayward can lead Bay Area cities by simply legalizing the missing housing. Rather than pick and choose “approximately 1,558” single-family parcels for upzoning (id. p.78)–which is a good start–the City should preempt all questions about its capacity by allowing multifamily construction throughout its territory.
Finally, the City must do more to “remove” its own constraints on development. (Id. p.75; Gov. Code § 65583(c)(3).) The City recognizes as a constraint, but gives no concrete plan to remove, its “permit and approval processes.” (Draft, p.52.) The Draft concedes the City’s inability to clearly say when its own “development review process … may include” any of a half-dozen different land-use procedures, and further admits that “the time for entitlement review may vary considerably in cost and time to process.” (Ibid., italics added.) This should not be difficult to explain, and we submit that the difficulty has much to do with a planning emphasis on design rather than infrastructure. (See Alain Bertaud, Order Without Design (2018) pp.288-92 [showing how Indonesian cities accommodate lower-income housing need by focusing on infrastructure rather than design].) Please, abolish your design guidelines now, reorient toward safety and infrastructure, and leave architecture to the architects.
We look forward to the City’s next draft. Please contact me if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Keith Diggs
Housing Elements Advocacy Manager, YIMBY Law
[email protected]
Campaign for Fair Housing Elements
fairhousingelements.org 2
August 5, 2022
Jeremy Lochirco - By Email Only - [email protected] Planning Manager
City of Hayward
RE: Draft Housing Element
Mr. Lochirco,
East Bay for Everyone is a membership organization advocating for housing, transit, tenant rights, and long-term planning in the East Bay. We write to provide comments on the City of Hayward’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Public Review Draft (“Draft”).
Summary
- We think it's unlikely Hayward will be able to meet its RHNA target without rezoning - The Draft document does not analyze the impact of land use constraints, for example parking, setbacks, FAR have on housing production in Hayward.
Constraints Analysis
○ Hayward should conduct a governmental constraints analysis that examines its zoning and development standards relative to peer cities in the East Bay. For example:
■ The 20’ front setback for RM and RH zones is excessive relative to similar mixed residential and high density residential zones in peer cities. ■ The density maximum for Hayward’s RH zone three story buildings on lots 120’ wide or greater is 1,250 square feet (“sqf”) of land per unit. By comparison neighboring San Leandro’s densest residential zone requires 875 sqf of land per unit (RM-875). The density requirements for Hayward’s RH zone pose a barrier to development.
■ Parking requirements, especially around transit, represent an additional cost of $40k per space or higher if underground. Hayward requires two parking spaces per 2-bedroom unit. Consider reducing or zeroing out these parking minimums around transit.
1 Programs and Policies
● Goal H-5 - Density Bonus
○ Action 5.3 - Consider increasing density bonus beyond State Density Bonus Law ■ We highly encourage Hayward to pursue this action. Given the uncertainty around construction costs and interest rates, it will be important to base any local density bonus program off of an economic feasibility analysis. ● Goal H-3 - Suitable Sites
○ Policy H-3.2 - Transit Oriented Development
■ This promotion of TOD is important but Hayward does not offer concrete, actionable steps to achieve this goal. There are no actions associated with this policy.
■ Consider re-zoning areas around Hayward and South Hayward BART stations as well as the Line 10 and Line 99 AC Transit routes to allow for higher densities and height.
● Goal H-4 - Mitigate Constraints to Development
○ Program H-14 - Development Incentives
■ The potential incentives include “disposition of public land.” This should be clarified to articulate a policy of long-term ground leases, which is the best practice employed by San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland in the development of land for mixed-income and affordable housing. Hayward should retain title to the land in order to realize the long-term upside of development and rising land values.
● Goal H-1 - Maintain Existing Housing Opportunities
○ To Add - Codify SB330/SB8 Tenant Demolition Protections and Right to Return ■ SB330/SB8 create demolition protections for protected units (deed-restricted, rent-controlled and those occupied by low-income renters) when demolition is proposed. Development applicants must replace the protected units 1 to 1 and provide a right to return at deed-restricted or rent-control levels for displaced tenants. ■ Hayward should codify these protections into its municipal code. ■ Hayward should update its development application to inform potential applicants about SB330/SB8 tenant demolition protections and right to return. In addition, the development application should require a section requesting information about the existence of SB330/SB8 protected units 2 that may be demolished as part of a project, plans for replacement and right to return of displaced tenants. Oakland and Los Angeles already do this for their development applications.
Site Inventory
● Hayward claims that it will meet its RHNA goals through existing zoned capacity. ○ Hayward relies on its Downtown Specific Plan to provide 1,606 units within the 6th Cycle.
○ Please confirm that all sites that have been re-used within the past two cycles will be re-zoned to allow for by-right development per AB1397. ○ What is the basis for the column labeled “Site Available” in the site inventory Table A?Is it written documentation of interest from the landowner?If so, will Hayward make this documentation available to the public?
○ Many of the sites identified are owned by Hayward. Does Hayward have an articulated program for planning and development of city-owned land? We request Hayward consider use of long-term ground leases to develop mixed-income and affordable housing as a tool to retain long-term ownership and benefits of development.
● Within the Downtown Specific Plan, two zones are slated to provide housing to meet this 1,606 figure: Central City High Density Residential (CC-HDR) and Central City Retail and Office Commercial (CC-ROC).
○ The Draft says that 35 units will be delivered within the CC-HDR zones within the 6th Cycle.
■ 507 C Street is a non-vacant parcel that has been re-used from prior planning periods. There is no analysis of why this time will be different.
Please confirm that this parcel will be re-zoned to allow by-right approval per AB1397.
■ 22756 Alice Street is a non-vacant parcel that has been re-used from prior planning periods. There is no analysis of why this time will be different.
Please confirm that this parcel will be re-zoned to allow by-right approval per AB1397.
○ The Draft states that 1,571 units can be delivered within the CC-RCO zones of the Downtown Specific Plan within the 6th Cycle.
3 ■ The block bounded by C Street, Grand Street, Alice Street and Claire Street includes a number of non-vacant sites zoned CC-RCO. All of these sites have been in prior housing elements. There is no analysis of why these existing industrial uses are likely to be redeveloped within the 6th Cycle. In addition, there is no analysis of any additional costs associated with potential remediation from the mid-century automotive and industrial uses on the sites. Please confirm that this parcel will be re-zoned to allow by-right approval per AB1397.
● The Draft relies on the Mission Boulevard Code to provide 1,388 units within the 6th Cycle.
○ 25376 Mission Boulevard is a good site, but the amount of zoned capacity provided (48 units on 1.86 acres) is insufficient to outbid an existing auto sales use. Increase the allowable density on this site. Please confirm that this parcel will be re-zoned to allow by-right approval per AB1397.
○ 29459 Mission Boulevard is a parking lot used by LiUNA Laborers Local 304. Has LiUNA indicated it intends to redevelop this lot during the planning period? Do they intend to move their local office?It has previously been used in prior cycles.
Please confirm that this parcel will be re-zoned to allow by-right approval per AB1397.
We look forward to continuing to engage with the City of Hayward in this process.
John Minot
Co-Executive
East Bay for Everyone
4 August 8, 2022
Hayward Planning Division and City Council
777 B Street, First Floor
Hayward, CA 94541
Re: Hayward needs transformative parking measures to eliminate development constraints Dear City of Hayward Planning Division and Hayward City Council, TransForm is a regional non-profit focused on creating connected and healthy communities that can meet climate goals, reduce traffic, and include housing affordable to everyone. We applaud Hayward’s work to date on the Draft Housing Element. However, to meet housing, transportation, and climate goals, Hayward needs to expand on its successful programs and initiate some new ones.
In particular, there will need to be an effective mix of:
● Planning for growth in walkable areas near transit
● Reducing the amount of parking mandated for housing and providing incentives and programs to drive less (Transportation Demand Management or TDM) ● Developing sufficient programs to meet affordable home targets of RHNA We were disappointed to see only passing reference to parking as a constraint to development, in Hayward’s draft Housing Element. The city code currently requires at least 1.5 parking spaces per unit for multi-family developments, and at least 2 spaces for 2+ bedrooms. Hayward eliminated parking minimums in the Mission Boulevard Corridor, but as the public recommended, these standards should also apply to the Downtown Area.
The need to eliminate or greatly reduce parking minimums is more important than ever. Each new parking space costs $30,000-$80,000.
1 With inflation driving up construction costs since
these estimates, two spaces may now cost up to $200,000. Beyond construction costs, parking takes up essential space that could provide more homes, services, or community amenities.
This raises the cost of housing development and makes it hard to meet production goals. 1 https://www.shoupdogg.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/05/Cutting-the-Cost-of-Parking-Requireme nts.pdf
560 14TH STREET, SUITE 400, OAKLAND, CA 94612 | T: 510.740.3150 | WWW.TRANSFORMCA.ORG 1 TransForm recommends that Hayward consider the following policies in the Housing Element:
1. Funding a dedicated study of parking reforms, particularly how smart parking policies could positively impact housing, transportation and other goals.
2. Requiring unbundled parking for certain transit oriented developments. This is easier for building managers to implement now with new parking tech tools like Parkade.
3. Expanding the Transportation Demand Management program by requiring provision of transit passes to each resident.
To show the tremendous transportation and climate benefits of these policies, as well as some of the financial savings for residents and reduced costs for development, we have used our GreenTRIP Connect tool to create scenarios for a potential future development site at 22765 Grand Street. This parcel is identified in Hayward’s draft Housing Element Site Inventory as a potential development site in the UN zone of the Downtown Area. This also means this development would be allowed to provide slightly fewer parking spaces based on its proximity to transit. The California Office of Planning and Research recommends GreenTRIP Connect as a tool to use while developing General Plans and is especially useful during the development of Housing Elements (the tool is free to use and supports better planning at the site and city-wide level).
By implementing the strategies above at 22765 Grand Street, GreenTRIP Connect predicts:
1. With unbundling and providing transit passes at this site, we saw a 37% decrease in parking and resident transportation savings of $1,020 per year.
2. With right-sized parking, incorporating the benefits of good location, unbundled parking and free transit passes, the development would cost $2,002,000 less to build relative to current parking standards.
3. When combined with 100% affordable housing these strategies resulted in an incredible 61% reduction in driving and greenhouse gas emissions for the site, compared to the city average.
4. If an affordable development with smart parking strategies were built on this site each household would drive 7,132 less miles per year creating a greener and safer community.
By reducing the number of community members that face extreme housing cost burdens, getting priced out of their community, and/or becoming unsheltered. Residents, new and old alike, will greatly benefit from the reduction in vehicle traffic and associated air pollution (see scenarios here).
In addition to parking and transportation strategies, we applaud some of the proposed strategies to support more affordable homes, since these would have such tremendous benefits as noted in the GreenTRIP scenario. Two of the most important are Actions 4.4 and 4.5 which will 2 560 14TH STREET, SUITE 400, OAKLAND, CA 94612 | T: 510.740.3150 | WWW.TRANSFORMCA.ORG reimburse the cost of land for BMR developments and subsidize the development of affordable units on City-owned land, respectively. These programs are a cost-effective complement to strategies focused on housing production.
The GreenTRIP scenarios and the chart on the final page of our Scenario document also show the imperative of programs to accelerate development of affordable homes, like Actions 4.4 and
4.5. Not only do lower-income households use transit more and drive much less than average, but success in this area can help provide homes for unsheltered individuals and families. A commitment to these programs will show that Hayward is committed to planning for all levels of the 2,509 RHNA BMR units anticipated in this cycle.
Please let me know if you have any questions. TransForm hopes this information explains why Hayward should make parking reform a priority in the Housing Element update.
Sincerely,
Kendra Ma
Housing Policy Analyst
[email protected]
3 560 14TH STREET, SUITE 400, OAKLAND, CA 94612 | T: 510.740.3150 | WWW.TRANSFORMCA.ORG
From: Glenn Kirby
To: List-Mayor-Council
Cc: Planning Division; Leigha Schmidt; Christina Morales; Sara Buizer; Jennifer Ott Subject: Comments on Housing Plan Revision
Date: Saturday, August 13, 2022 9:58:21 PM
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.
Comments on Housing Plan Revision
Submitted by Ro Aguilar
August 13, 2022
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
I have been following the revision of the Housing Plan over the last couple of years with specific interest in “Goal H-2: Assist in the provision of housing that meets the needs of all socioeconomic segments of the community.” Two of the six policies in support of Goal H-2 are as follows:
H-2.3 Inclusionary Housing: The city shall enforce the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to ensure that a certain percentage of new residential units will be made affordable to lower- and moderate-income households or to ensure the payment of affordable housing in-lieu fees to subsidize the development of affordable housing.
H-2.4: Integration of Affordable Housing: The City shall encourage a mix of affordability levels in residential projects and encourage the dispersal of such units to achieve greater integration of affordable housing throughout the community.
Inclusionary housing is a key policy in creating upward mobility for lower income families according a recent Harvard Study. One of the findings reveals that the more cross class interaction people (particularly children) have, the better their chances to move into the middle class. All affordable housing is not equal in achieving this outcome – location within a higher income neighborhood is a critical factor!
While H-2.3 speaks to enforcing the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the language as stated gives the developer the power to opt out of building on-site affordable housing and instead pay an in-lieu fee. Given this choice, very few developers have chosen to build affordable housing units within market-rate residential developments and thus, the City has very few market rate projects (rental and owner-occupied) that include affordable housing units. As stated in Policy H-2.4: the City is empowered only to encourage integration of affordable housing and we know from reviewing residential projects over the last decade, that this current policy is not working for a number of reasons.
So why adopt the proposed Housing Plan when it is basically maintaining the status quo regarding inclusionary affordable housing? The City Council is choosing to leave responsibility for building affordable housing to the developer and thus the City can expect very little progress in addressing the affordable inclusionary housing deficit, especially in the category of owner-occupied housing. While there are incentives for developers to build inclusionary affordable housing and higher densities, these incentives have not worked because of the political delays of neighborhood opposition and an unpredictable City Council vote.
I urge the City Council a make an effective, equity based revision to the Housing Plan and require every residential development in the City to include a percentage of moderate/lowincome housing, fulfilling its responsibility to create housing opportunities for all its residents.
This change would provide financial certainty to the developer because inclusionary affordable housing would be a requirement of the ordinance and a commitment by the City Council.
While the staff proposes a year-long study before possibly making this change in 2024, I propose the City Council make the change now in this Housing Plan and study the results compared to what has been built in the last 8 years. Current zoning laws tend to segregate residents according to income and class, substituting socioeconomic status as a proxy for race.
Since we are currently faced with a housing crisis and a widening gap between the haves and have nots, the Housing Plan must require developers to build on-site inclusionary housing units, increasing opportunities for low-income residents and repairing discriminatory housing policies.
( Submitted via email only )
Cc:
Planning Commission Members
Jennifer Ott
Sara Buizer
Christina Morales
Leigha Schmidt
From: Mary Ann Higgs
To: HousingElementUpdate
Subject: Comments on Plans
Date: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 4:42:53 PM
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.
Hello Team,
I have a general concern about housing development over the next 8 years. While I understand the importance of having a plan and looking for opportunities to create affordable housing options for a variety of people, my concern is whether or not building on a large scale is a smart thing to do right now. While many people will cite concerns about whether or not our infrastructure, particularly our roads, can handle an increase in housing, my concern is more basic.
In California, we have lived through several years of drought. And with each new residential unit, whether it's an apartment, townhouse, single family home, or ADU, it requires water.
People need water. And water is something that has been in short supply in the last several years and things are not getting better. I am concerned that adding housing of any type puts an undue burden on this limited resource.
So, my suggestion is that while it makes sense to have a plan, I think there should be some kind of caveat that the plans can only be executed if there is adequate water to support the individuals who will be residing in these residential units. Maybe the caveat is there must be 3 consecutive years of average or above average rainfall/snowpack before 'x' number of housing units can be built. I'm sure someone has data on how much water a family of 4 needs on a weekly, monthly, and yearly basis. Low flow toilets, low flow faucets, and drought resistant landscaping can only take us so far. Until we have the water across the state to meet the need of the people, the agriculture industry, and our environment (fish hatcheries, lakes, rivers, etc.), I think it makes sense to limit new building.
Please add this comment to the overall input from residents that is part of the overall process.
Thanks,
Mary Ann Higgs
Westview Way
Hayward, CA
[email protected]
From: Roland L McCready
To: HousingElementUpdate
Subject: Draft Housing Plan
Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 10:00:25 AM
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.
Hello,
I read through this plan. I am a senior citizen home owner who lives in the Jackson Triangle. How will this effect me?
Thank you
From: Sandy Stark
To: HousingElementUpdate
Subject: 50 stories up!
Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 4:27:56 PM
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.
My only comment and complaint is, why aren’t you building Tower cities, 50 stories, or at least 20, because they are needed terribly!
Make sure each Tower has all things so some or all can get rid of their personal vehicles, and just rent one whenever needed! Include: groceries, gyms, car rentals, hospitals/clinics, vets, indoor terrariums and parks, and indoor vertical food gardens, are necessities.
If you don’t you’ll just have worse traffic congestion, and worse air to breathe.
From: [email protected]
To: HousingElementUpdate
Subject: Live work units
Date: Friday, July 22, 2022 7:41:30 PM
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.
To whom it may concern, Hello, I didn’t see a mention of live/work housing? I am a muralist and teaching artist for MOCHA. I need to be in Hayward to care for my Mom, and would love to live with my granddaughter who is about to turn 18. (So no senior housing.) We are both artists and to have a separate studio isn’t the best option, financially or creatively.
I appreciate the direction Hayward seems to be going. Thank you for your mindfulness and planning.
Sincerely,
Tammy Artis
Hayward resident
Sent from my iPhone
From: Marla Lyons
To: HousingElementUpdate
Subject: Include this feature please
Date: Monday, July 18, 2022 5:19:28 PM
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.
Good day
Please when constructing these housing communities that they are Better “soundproofed” so All your movements can be private.
Thank You
Sent from my iPhone
From: Zachariah Oquenda
To: HousingElementUpdate
Subject: Housing Element Comment
Date: Thursday, July 14, 2022 11:06:09 AM
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.
Dear Leigha and Housing Team,
I wanted to send my appreciation for your hard work on this draft housing element and housing plan. It is really strong. I also just find the draft useful in providing all the contextual information to get a grip on the scope of different housing issues and solutions in Hayward.
I have one comment/question. Can we include something in the policies explicitly supporting people in reentry to have a fair chance to access housing opportunities? H-6.1 Fair Housing Services policy generally refers to fair housing which is a policy prohibiting discrimination based on a protected classification, such as race or disability. I reviewed Appendix F, and it mirrors that understanding in affirmatively furthering fair housing.
Somewhat separate but aligned with fair housing goals is fair chance housing which relates to discrimination against people based on their criminal record. There is a nexus between discrimination based on race and disability as these are two protected classes that are disproportionately impacted by the criminal legal system. The Alameda County Justice Reinvestment Coalition finds that 1 of 4 people in Alameda County have a criminal record and that South Hayward is one area where there is an above average concentration of people with records that would tend to lead to disproportionate discrimination in South Hayward neighborhoods.
I wanted to encourage staff to raise this issue before city council and ask the council to consider including the mention of supporting programs and services to prevent discrimination against formerly incarcerated people in housing.
Is there any chance of staff raising this concern/issue before the city council? If we really support "Equal Housing Opportunities for All Persons" as our draft Housing Element states, then I think we should not shy away from being willing to identify the population of justice-impacted individuals and families needing and deserving of support. If there is any way I can be helpful in offering my expertise or experience to this discussion, I'd be more than willing to do so.
I appreciate your time and consideration.
Thank you,
Zachariah
Zachariah Oquenda, Esq., M.P.P.
he/him/his
California Policy Attorney, SBN 336420
Root & Rebound | www.rootandrebound.org
Planning Commissioner,
Hayward Planning Commission
Community Advisor,
Hayward Community Advisory Panel to the Chief of Police [email protected]
909-450-9214
Schedule a Meeting
From: Dr. Commish
To: HousingElementUpdate
Subject: Housing comments
Date: Monday, July 18, 2022 12:44:47 PM
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.
Hi:
Looking at the renderings that are part of the plans there seem to be a number of multi-story housing units suggested. My suggestion would be to incorporate single-story houses for those with ambulatory concerns, ie. bad knees/backs with will preclude one from negotiating stairs.
Just a thought!
D. Yates, Ph.D. Professor Emerita
2014-2016 and 2019-2020 CSUEB Faculty Marshal
National Gang Crime Research Center, Professional Level 2 Specialist Program; 24 hours of Specialized Training in Female Gangs/Female Gang Members & Management & Supervision Skills for Gang Specialist
Certified, Mental Health First Aid (2011-2017),
G.R.E.A.T. Certified (Gang Resistance Education and Training) P=PRACTICE
L=LAUGHING
A=AT
Y=YOURSELF!
LIFE IS ABOUT HOW YOU HANDLE PLAN B! LET'S MAKE AMERICA SANE AGAIN!
"With confidence, you have won before you have started." Marcus Garvey
Don't sweat the small stuff, cause it's all small stuff in the grander scheme of things! October is Domestic Violence Month
Every 15 seconds in this country a woman is physically abused by her partner! Violence is preventable and can be prevented.
Support the victims!
From: Rafael V
To: HousingElementUpdate
Subject: Hayward Draft Housing Element Comments
Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 12:05:41 PM
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.
Hi,
Thank you for the very detailed Draft Housing Element and for the opportunity to provide feedback. There are some great proposals that I hope will serve our community well.
My name is Rafael Velazquez Cardenas and I am a proud educator for our public schools here in Hayward. I also grew up here in Hayward and am happy to be serving my community. The draft element has lots of great information that I am also hoping to include in my curriculum in the future, especially since the housing crisis has really created lots of issues and questions about what is happening in our communities.
The following questions and points are the feedback that I would like to share:
1) Under Appendix E, the review of our city’s past accomplishments, why were we severely under the RNHA goal for our severely low through moderate income homes in our past efforts? What policies or city ordinances can be put in place to make sure we are not neglecting our lower income residents while clearly exceeding the needs for the above moderate-income residents? How can we prevent this in upcoming building of housing? 2) Under the Inclusionary housing section, new buildings need to provide Affordable rental units at 6% of the built units? Why such a low percentage when the median income of our city is close to 56k per year and when the need is much higher in Hayward? Can this percentage be increased through city policies or incentives in order to build more affordable housing? 3) Under the Inclusionary housing section, affordable ownership units must be 10% of units built for moderate income households, but a fee can be paid in lieu if developers do not meet the quota. What is this fee and is it substantial enough to dissuade developers from avoiding affordable ownership units? I also wonder if this fee would end up costing our city and residents in the long run if developers do not build enough housing to meet the community's needs. Are there any city ordinances/policies that can make this loophole harder for developers to exploit?
4) Under Action 13.2, why don’t we amend the zoning to also permit building of multi-family housing/apartments in these low-density neighborhoods? Why does the proposal only create middle housing types of new units (condos, duplex, etc)? 5) Are there any policies or ordinances we can add to also protect and meet the housing need for our large undocumented population in Hayward? Immigrant families cannot access Section 8 housing and may not seek help due to the fear of family separation. Possibly stronger rent stabilization, education, and anti-harassment policies can be very helpful. Our Hayward 2019 Rent Stabilization ordinance is a good start; however, it is definitely not enough. The 5% cap on rental increases annually is far above what our average workers earn and increases on rent can have drastic impacts on family health and stability. Our immigrant workers, who tend to have very low wage work and do not see the wage increases of other workers, are especially vulnerable. Are there ways our housing element can make the rent stabilization even stronger than the 5% cap annually on certain units?
6) Do we have any city-owned public rent controlled spaces? How can we build these up and use them to serve our vulnerable populations?
I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback.
regards,
Rafael Velazquez Cardenas
Open Questions for Staff:
● Do we have a vacancy registry or atlas where residents can learn: average vacancy rate, how many units are empty, how long they’ve been empty, who the landlord is for a given property, rent costs, evictions rates, % of security deposits withheld at a certain property, and more?
● How can we prioritize lowering rental barriers? Application fees, fair chance housing, etc?
● Can Hayward provide hotel vouchers or incentives for hotel/motel businesses to help with transitional housing supply?
Chapter 1. Introduction
Pg 24 - Ground leasing public land vs. selling
Comment: HUGE SUPPORT, our land is our most valuable asset, we should not give up our public resources.
Pg. 25 - City partnerships with Chabot & CSUEB for housing.
Question: Can we explore housing options for employees of other Hayward anchor institutions (defined as employing 1%+ of the workforce)? St. Rose, City of Hayward, HUSD (especially since education/healthcare/services sector is increasing - noted on pg. 28) Chapter 2. Housing Needs Summary
Pg. 29 - only 20% of rental units are 3 bedrooms or more.
Comment: Appendix A describes significant overcrowding, how is the housing element specifically addressing/prioritizing affordable 3+ br rentals? Chapter 3. Projected Housing Need
Pg. 36 - references a “graphic below” at the end of the first paragraph, but I’m not seeing one.
Pg. 36 - 6th Cycle of RHNA is an 18% increase over the last one Question: How much did we build relative to our allocation? Chapter 4. Housing Resources
Pg. 40 - ADU’s
Comment/Question: Will only contribute 7% towards RHNA goals (if estimated 40 units/year is achieved). How can we streamline this process to avoid spending staff time on a relatively small stock of housing?
Pg. 43 - Summary of Adequate Sites
Question: What would it take to change zoning districts to accommodate more lower income units beyond the current 1607?
Pg. 45 - Home Investment Partnership Program
Comment/Question: 482k doesn’t seem like a lot, how are HOME funds currently being divided among the services listed? What adjustments can we make to allocations to provide more value?
Pg. 45 - SB2 Grants
Question: How much are we collecting from these grants? What are we spending it on? Pg. 46 - LEAP Grants
How much of the $119M is Hayward receiving? How is it being allocated currently? Pg. 47 - Code Enforcement
What does this process currently look like? Any notes on streamlining this process? Chapter 5. Housing Constraints
Pg. 52 - Permit, Processing, Procedures
Where can I find a schedule of these fees? Do we have data on how often they’re waived (or in lieu of fees are paid), and the impact these fees have on increasing project times? Pg. 54 - Market Activity
What resources does the city have available to combat loan denial rates in communities of color?
Chapter 6. Fair Housing
Pg. 59 - Fair Housing Goals & Priorities (6.3)
Can we be proactive about sending tenants resources? I know Berkeley sends a packet with resources to all new renters.
Chapter 7. Housing Plan
Pg 63 - Program H-2, Action 2.2
What enforcement mechanisms will tenants have to ensure this is being done in a timely manner?
Pg 64 - Program H-3, Action 3.4
Can we implement a tenant opportunity to purchase program here as well? Pg 66 - Program H-2.5
What flexibility do we have to increase in-lieu of fees to discourage developers from avoiding building affordable units? What is the current in-lieu of fee? Pg 66 - Program H-2.6
Is this specific to rental units or just homeownership? Pg 66 - Program H-4
How can we prioritize 3+ BR development to address overcrowding? Pg 68 - Action 6.4
What is the justification for spending 4 years assessing? Pg 69 - Action 7.6
Does the city have any mechanisms to force acceptance of Housing Choice Vouchers? Pg 75 - Program H-13
Can the city explore opportunities to provide incentives or benefits for local residents and Hayward employees?
Pg 75 - Policy H-4.1
How much is the current process contributing to construction costs? On average, how much would streamlining these processes reduce overall costs? Pg 75 - Policy H-4.2
Similar to the previous question - how much will these incentives and bonuses reduce overall costs? Is there an average percentage of dollars saved per project? Pg 76 - Program H-14
Comment: I hope public land disposition means leasing only. Hayward should not sell its land off!
Pg 76 - Program H-14 Action 14.3
Will this reduce the likelihood of higher density units being built? Pg 77 - Action 16.3
Could this be amended to include greenspace, mixed-use, and other development amenities that make for more livable, walkable neighborhoods?
Pg 77 - Action 16.4
Where can I learn more about the current process for project review? Pg 78 - Action 17.2
How much staff time will be allocated to this given the relatively small amount of units it provides?
Pg 80 - H-5.7 Family Housing
I love this! Are there specific percentages the city is aiming for? Can the city development Community Benefit Agreements that include this as part of project approval? Pg 81 - Action 19.4
Comment: I appreciate this effort but wonder if there are more systemic approaches we can take beyond supporting just 10 people/year
Pg 81 - Action 19.5
Where will this data be published?
Pg 81 - Action 19.9
How much would the city budget towards this?
Pg 81 - Action 19.11
Comment: I LOVE THIS
Pg 82 - Action 20.3
Comment: Add Eden Community Land Trust, Hayward Area Planners Association, and HayCoCoa to this list please!
Pg 82 - Action 20.4
Comment: Would like to explore ways to disseminate this info more widely/regularly Pg 82 - Action 20.5
Comment: Great!!
Pg 83 - Policy H-6.2
Can we push for fair chance housing to remove discrimination based on criminal record and add sexual orientation to this list?
Pg 85 - Program H-22
Can we develop a streamlined process for tenants to report potential violations (maybe through Access Hayward or the city website?)
Pg 86 - Program H-24
What can the city do when Landlords fail to pay for required relocation assistance? Pg 86 - Action 24.2
Can we be more proactive about this information, maybe send something to newly registered tenants with their first utility bill? (Also this table might be duplicated in the draft element on Pg 87)
Response to Public Comments
Response to Public Comments
1 Response to Public Comments
Commenter
Comment
Number Public Comment City Response
BART A1 BART has limited staff resources and funding opportunities for infrastructure, especially parking development, which is often required for BART’s developable land. With current resources, it is challenging for BART to support the development of all the plans proposed in partner jurisdictions within the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
On March 7, 2022, the City received a letter from BART providing information related to their position about using BART properties in upcoming Housing Elements. That letter organized properties into near term, mid-term and long-term timeframes for initiating development. The Downtown Hayward station was placed in the near-term category and South Hayward station was placed in the midterm category. For station areas characterized as near-term, BART supported including the station in the Housing Element. For stations in the mid-term category, BART indicated uncertainty about developing timing and noted that further discussions would be necessary to understand what would be needed to develop the site.
Following a conversation with BART, the City did include the South Hayward Station in the inventory based on the fact that there was significant growth in South Hayward in the areas near the BART Station in the last cycle. Based on those recent trends, the City believes that there is a strong potential for development of the site.
A2 BART-owned properties in Hayward and South Hayward Stations showed that all units are in the Lower Income Capacity Category.
The amount of affordable housing on BART property is dependent on the amount of affordable housing funding available including local subsidies. Given current funding availability, the size of BART properties included in the site inventory and the cost of developing the land with access and parking improvements, achieving 100% affordability may not be feasible.
Following a conversation with BART, the City decided to include the South Hayward Station in the inventory based on the fact that there was significant growth in South Hayward in the areas near the BART Station in the 5th cycle. Based on those recent trends, the City believes that there is a strong potential for development of the site.
However, the City does understand that it is more realistic to assume a mix of affordability on the site. BART-owned properties were revised to assume a mix of lower-, moderate-, and above moderate-income units instead of assuming 100 percent
affordability.
A3 Developing TODs on BART land is more involved and requires strong partnerships between BART and local jurisdictions. BART’s TOD Work Plan prioritizes stations that have market readiness, local support, and infrastructure needs. Key considerations by BART for prioritizing development projects are 1) availability of local funding and resources to support development, including staff support and funding for community outreach, affordable housing, and infrastructure, and 2) seamless coordination with local jurisdiction staff.
The City acknowledges and understands BART's position that development will require a strong partnership with jurisdictions among other factors outlined in the comment. The City of Hayward has a strong track record of working with regional agencies in seeing development of publicly owned land. As detailed in Appendix E, Review of Past Accomplishments, in 2016, the City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Caltrans to manage the disposition and development of former right of way for the former 238 bypass. During the last cycle, the City was able to entitle five of the parcels for a total of 933 new units, 358 of which are deed restricted for moderate and low income households. The City is Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2 Commenter
Comment
Number Public Comment City Response
Current listings in BART’s TOD Work Plan timeframes of Midterm or Long-term need to meet the following conditions to be considered for prioritization:
Local Support for TOD
Local Support and Funding
Proposing Designation
Environmental Studies
Infrastructure Needs
Station Access and Parking Strategies
BART Policies and Standards
committed to and has shown the ability to make these partnerships work. The Housing Plan includes policies and programs intended to foster a strong partnership with BART and meet the conditions facilitate development on these sites.
Campaign for Fair
Housing Elements
and YIMBY Law
B1 The City should better substantiate its assumptions about future development. The City “assumes” its realistic capacity to be “75 percent,” but does not say how it arrived at that estimate. (See Draft, p.42.) The City should provide data to justify its assumption.
This comment is also valid for the City’s ASU production estimate, for which the City claims but fails to show its data. (See id. p.40.) The City is obligated to identify sites suitable for development to meet the RHNA. The sites inventory buffer accounts for the possibility of units not being developed from pipeline projects or on inventory sites. The 75 percent development capacity estimate is considered conservative for the region and based on Hayward’s pipeline list. Specifically, projects currently in Hayward’s pipeline are averaging buildout densities of 88 percent of the maximum allowable density. Additional justification of this assumption was added to Appendix C, Housing Resources.
B2 The City should augment its capacity buffer, by allowing more density everywhere. Rather than pick and choose “approximately 1,558” single-family parcels for upzoning (id. p.78)–which is a good start–the City should preempt all questions about its capacity by allowing multifamily construction throughout its territory through legalizing the missing housing.
In 2019, the City received a Senate Bill 2 grant to comprehensively upzone approximately 1,558 parcels to match a higher density General Plan designation. This comprehensive upzoning project outlined above will be accompanied by an update to the City's Objective Standards to further streamline development. The project is currently underway, and the City expects it to be completed by 2023. Further, through the implementation of Senate Bill 9, any single-family parcel can be subdivided into two parcels and a duplex may be built on each parcel which allows for development of multifamily housing in the Single Family Residential District.
B3 The City should abolish its Design Guidelines and reorient development review toward safety and infrastructure. The City recognizes the Design Guidelines as a constraint, but gives no concrete plan to remove, its “permit and approval processes.” (Draft, p.52.) Please, abolish your design guidelines now, reorient toward safety and infrastructure, and leave architecture to the architects.
Please see comment B2 above regarding the City's Objective Design Guidelines update currently underway.
3 Commenter
Comment
Number Public Comment City Response
East Bay for
Everyone
C1 Hayward should conduct a governmental constraints analysis that examines its zoning and development standards relative to peer cities in the East Bay. For example:
The 20’ front setback for RM and RH zones is excessive relative to similar mixed residential and high density residential zones in peer cities.
The density maximum for Hayward’s RH zone three story buildings on lots 120’ wide or greater is 1,250 square feet (“sqf”) of land per unit. By comparison neighboring San Leandro’s densest residential zone requires 875 sqf of land per unit (RM875). The density requirements for Hayward’s RH zone pose a barrier to development.
Parking requirements, especially around transit, represent an additional cost of $40k per space or higher if underground.
Hayward requires two parking spaces per 2-bedroom unit.
Consider reducing or zeroing out these parking minimums around transit.
The City is currently preparing a set of Objective Design Guidelines.
Updates to setbacks among other development standards will be included in the update. With regard to parking requirements, the Mission Boulevard Form Based Code (MBFBC) and Downtown
Specific Plan (DTSP) do not require two parking spaces per unit as suggested by the commenter. Specifically, the MB-FBC has no parking minimums and the DTSP requires one parking space per unit. As part of the Objective Design Guidelines, the City is considering requiring one parking space per unit in the MB-FBC similar to the DTSP, depending on parking demand and feasibility analysis being prepared at this time.
C2 Goal H-5 - Density Bonus
Action 5.3 - Consider increasing density bonus beyond State Density Bonus Law
We highly encourage Hayward to pursue this action. Given the uncertainty around construction costs and interest rates, it will be important to base any local density bonus program off of an economic feasibility analysis.
In 2022, the City initiated an update to the Density Bonus Ordinance. As detailed in Draft Housing Element Program H-5, the City plans to update the Density Bonus Ordinance by June 2023.
C3 Goal H-3 - Suitable Sites
Policy H-3.2 - Transit Oriented Development
This promotion of TOD is important but Hayward does not offer concrete, actionable steps to achieve this goal. There are no actions associated with this policy.
Consider re-zoning areas around Hayward and South Hayward BART stations as well as the Line 10 and Line 99 AC Transit routes to allow for higher densities and height.
Goal H-3 contains a number of policies to support a diversity of housing type, size, location, price and tenure. In 2019, the City adopted the Downtown Specific Plan (Hayward Municipal Code Chapter 10, Article 28) and in 2020, the City adopted the Mission Boulevard Form Based Code (Hayward Municipal Code Chapter 10, Article 24). Both of those plans contain concrete actionable steps and related development standards and densities to support transitoriented development. No additional action items are needed in Housing Plan.
C4 Goal H-4 - Mitigate Constraints to Development
Program H-14 - Development Incentives
Thank you for this suggestion. Disposition of public land could involve sale of land or long-term ground leases as suggested. It is not within the purview of this Housing Element to make specific decisions related to the disposition of land without any details Response to Public Comments
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4 Commenter
Comment
Number Public Comment City Response
The potential incentives include “disposition of public land.” This should be clarified to articulate a policy of long-term ground leases, which is the best
practice employed by San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland in the development of land for mixed-income and affordable housing. Hayward should retain title to the land in order to realize the long-term upside of development and rising land values.
regarding the location and type of development being proposed.
The City Council will review and make these decisions on a case-bycase basis.
C5 Goal H-1 - Maintain Existing Housing Opportunities to Add:
Codify SB330/SB8 Tenant Demolition Protections and Right to Return
SB330/SB8 create demolition protections for protected units (deed-restricted, rent-controlled and those occupied by lowincome renters) when demolition is proposed. Development applicants must replace the protected units 1 to 1 and provide a right to return at deed-restricted or rent-control levels for displaced tenants.
Hayward should codify these protections into its municipal code.
Hayward should update its development application to inform potential applicants about SB330/SB8 tenant demolition
protections and right to return. In addition, the development application should require a section requesting information about the existence of SB330/SB8 protected units that may be demolished as part of a project, plans for replacement and right to return of displaced tenants. Oakland and Los Angeles already do this for their development applications.
These provisions are included in the Draft Housing Element as Program H-10, Replacement Housing.
C6 Hayward claims that it will meet its RHNA goals through existing zoned capacity. Please confirm that all sites that have been re-used within the past two cycles will be re-zoned to allow for by-right development per AB1397.
By-right requirement under AB 1397 applies to sites that were identified in previous housing element updates as sites that could accommodate lower-income units. Parcels will be rezoned for byright development if the parcel was used for lower income housing in the 5th cycle and again in the 6th cycle in accordance State law.
C7 Hayward claims that it will meet its RHNA goals through existing zoned capacity.
What is the basis for the column labeled “Site Available” in the site inventory Table A? Is it written documentation of interest from the "Site Available" means that there is not currently a development application for the site.
5 Commenter
Comment
Number Public Comment City Response
landowner? If so, will Hayward make this documentation available to the public?
C8 Hayward claims that it will meet its RHNA goals through existing zoned capacity.
Many of the sites identified are owned by Hayward. Does Hayward have an articulated program for planning and development of cityowned land? We request Hayward consider use of long-term ground leases to develop mixed-income and affordable housing as a tool to retain long-term ownership and benefits of development.
Please see response to comments C4 and C11.
C9 The Draft says that 35 units will be delivered within the CC-HDR zones within the 6th Cycle.
507 C Street is a non-vacant parcel that has been re-used from prior planning periods. There is no analysis of why this time will be different. Please confirm that this parcel will be re-zoned to allow by-right approval per AB1397.
This site will not be rezoned because lower-income units are not assumed on the site and is therefore not subject to AB 1397 by-right approval. This site continues to have high potential of redevelopment based on the site selection analysis included in Appendix C. The City will work to facilitate the redevelopment of this site.
C10 The Draft says that 35 units will be delivered within the CC-HDR zones within the 6th Cycle.
22756 Alice Street is a non-vacant parcel that has been re-used from prior planning periods. There is no analysis of why this time will be different. Please confirm that this parcel will be re-zoned to allow by-right approval per AB1397.
See response to comment C9.
C11 The Draft states that 1,571 units can be delivered within the CC-RCO zones of the Downtown Specific Plan within the 6th Cycle.
The block bounded by C Street, Grand Street, Alice Street and Claire Street includes a number of non-vacant sites zoned CC-RCO. All of these sites have been in prior housing elements. There is no analysis of why these existing industrial uses are likely to be redeveloped within the 6th Cycle. In addition, there is no analysis of any additional costs associated with potential remediation from the mid-century automotive and industrial uses on the sites. Please confirm that this parcel will be re-zoned to allow by-right approval per AB1397.
This site will be rezoned because lower-income units are assumed on the site and is therefore subject to AB 1397 by right approval.
This site continues to have high potential of redevelopment based on the site selection analysis included in Appendix C. The City will work to facilitate the redevelopment of this site.
C12 The Draft relies on the Mission Boulevard Code to provide 1,388 units within the 6th Cycle.
25376 Mission Boulevard is a good site, but the amount of zoned capacity provided (48 units on 1.86 acres) is insufficient to outbid an existing auto sales use. Increase the allowable density on this site.
The Sites Inventory follows HCD's site selection criteria and realistic capacity based on local development trends. It's possible that a project with larger capacity than assumed will occur. This site will not be rezoned because lower-income units are not assumed on the site and is therefore not subject to AB 1397 by right approval. This Response to Public Comments
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
6 Commenter
Comment
Number Public Comment City Response
Please confirm that this parcel will be re-zoned to allow by-right approval per AB1397.
site continues to have high potential of redevelopment based on the site selection analysis included in Appendix C. The City will work to facilitate the redevelopment of this site.
C13 The Draft relies on the Mission Boulevard Code to provide 1,388 units within the 6th Cycle.
29459 Mission Boulevard is a parking lot used by LiUNA Laborers Local 304. Has LiUNA indicated it intends to redevelop this lot during the planning period? Do they intend to move their local office? It has previously been used in prior cycles. Please confirm that this parcel will be re-zoned to allow by-right approval per AB1397.
Thank you for your comment. After further analysis, the City has determined that this site does not meet it’s criteria for inclusion on the Sites Inventory. This site has been removed from consideration.
Transform CA D1 To meet housing, transportation, and climate goals, Hayward needs to expand on its successful programs and initiate some new ones.
In particular, there will need to be an effective mix of:
Planning for growth in walkable areas near transit
Reducing the amount of parking mandated for housing and providing incentives and programs to drive less (Transportation Demand Management or TDM)
Developing sufficient programs to meet affordable home targets of RHNA
The City has implemented these goals and programs particularly in the Downtown Specific Plan (Hayward Municipal Code Chapter 10, Article 28) which was adopted in 2019, and in the Mission Boulevard Form Based Code (Hayward Municipal Code Chapter 10, Article 24) which was adopted in 2020. Those areas have reduced parking requirements and are subject to reduced parking analysis based on VMT screens for affordable housing near transit
(https://www.hayward-ca.gov/discover/maps/726). Both of those plans contain concrete actionable steps and related development standards and densities to support transit-oriented development.
D2 TransForm recommends that Hayward consider the following policies in the Housing Element:
Funding a dedicated study of parking reforms, particularly how smart parking policies could positively impact housing, transportation, and other goals.
Requiring unbundled parking for certain transit-oriented developments. This is easier for building managers to
implement now with new parking tech tools like Parkade. Expanding the Transportation Demand Management program by requiring provision of transit passes to each resident.
Parking requirements are low where redevelopment is expected to occur, specifically in the Downtown Specific Plan and Mission Boulevard Corridor. The City will continue to monitor its parking standards and revise if these standards are identified as a constraint to housing development.
D3 We have used our GreenTRIP Connect tool to create scenarios for a potential future development site at 22765 Grand Street. This parcel is identified in Hayward’s draft Housing Element Site Inventory as a potential development site in the UN zone of the Downtown Area, meaning it would provide slightly few parking spaces based on proximity to transit. The California Office of Planning and Research That you for the comment. The City will take this information into consideration.
7 Commenter
Comment
Number Public Comment City Response
recommends GreenTRIP Connect as a tool to use while developing General Plans and is especially useful during the development of Housing Elements.
By implementing these strategies at 22765 Grand Street, GreenTRIP Connect predicts:
With unbundling and providing transit passes at this site, we saw a 37% decrease in parking and resident transportation savings of $1,020 per year.
With right-sized parking, incorporating the benefits of good location, unbundled parking and free transit passes, the development would cost $2,002,000 less to build relative to current parking standards.
When combined with 100% affordable housing these strategies resulted in an incredible 61% reduction in driving and
greenhouse gas emissions for the site, compared to the city average.
If an affordable development with smart parking strategies were built on this site each household would drive 7,132 less miles per year creating a greener and safer community.
D4 Actions 4.4 and 4.5 are two of the most important actions in the Housing Element because they are a cost-effective complement to strategies focused on housing production. The GreenTRIP scenarios and the chart on the final page of our Scenario document also show the imperative of programs to accelerate development of affordable homes, like Actions 4.4 and 4.5. Not only do lower-income households use transit more and drive much less than average, but success in this area can help provide homes for unsheltered individuals and families. A commitment to these programs will show that Hayward is committed to planning for all levels of the 2,509 RHNA BMR units anticipated in this cycle.
That you for the comment. The City will take this information into consideration.
Response to Public Comments
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
8 Commenter
Comment
Number Public Comment City Response
Carpenters Local
713
E1 The Draft City of Hayward Housing Element notes in its housing constraints analysis that “there are a variety of factors outside of the City’s control that could influence whether or not that housing is build such as…availability of labor.” However, there are policies the City can adopt that would nurture the workforce necessary to realize the City’s housing construction needs.
To support the policy goals of the Housing Element, Local 713 is requesting that the City add local hire and apprenticeship requirements to the final Housing Element for all residential construction projects larger than 10 units.
This suggestion is not within the purview of the Housing Element, which is intended to identify and remove constraints associated with development of housing. Introducing such a policy or Ordinance would increase the cost of housing production which is an identified constraint to housing production.
E2 The Carpenters propose the following additions to the Municipal Code of the City of Hayward for any residential projects larger than 10 units.
Permitting requirements: A person, firm, corporation, or other entity applying for a building permit under the relevant section of the Municipal Code of the City of Hayward, California shall be required to comply with the apprenticeship, healthcare, and local hire requirements of the Housing Element of the General Plan.
Failure to comply with the requirements set forth in this section shall be deemed a violation of this article.
See response to comment E1.
E3 Apprenticeship: For every apprenticeable craft, each general contractor and each subcontractors (at every tier for the project) will sigh a certified statement under penalty of perjury that it participated in a Joint Apprenticeship Program Approved by the State if California, Division of Apprenticeship Standards OR in an apprenticeship program approved by the State of California Division of Apprenticeship Standards that has a graduation rate of 50% of higher and has graduated at least thirty (#) apprentices each consecutive year for the five (45) years immediately preceding submission of the prequalification documents. The contractor or subcontractor will also maintain at least the ratio of apprentices required by California Labor Code section 1777.5.
See response to comment E1.
E4 Local Hire Policy: Contractor will be required to provide documentation that the contractor will hire a minimum of twentyfive percent (25%) of staff for any job classification with more than four (4) employees employed whose primary residence, which is not a pose office box, is , and has been, within Alameda county within See response to comment E1.
9 Commenter
Comment
Number Public Comment City Response
180 days of the expected date of issuance of the Notice to Proceed for the project.
Glenn Kirby P1 As Currently stated, Goal H-2.3 Inclusionary Housing gives the developer the power to opt out of building on-site affordable housing and instead pay an in-lieu fee. Given this choice, very few developers have chosen to build affordable housing units within market-rate residential developments and thus, the City has very few market rate projects (rental and owner-occupied) that include affordable housing units.
Thank you for these comments which are related the Affordable Housing Ordinance (Hayward Municipal Code Chapter 10, Article 17). The Ordinance allows developers to choose how they would like to satisfy their affordable housing obligation. Two of the options are to provide affordable housing within the development or to pay an in-lieu fee. In lieu fees are placed in an affordable housing trust fund and used to create new affordable housing units. The commenter is requesting that the City Council consider
amendments to the Ordinance to require that developers provide on-site affordable units rather than allowing the developer to choose to pay in lieu fees. Draft Housing Element Goal H-2 lists a host of programs that can be used to incentivize the development of affordable housing. Inclusionary Housing (Policy H-2.3) is only one program listed within that goal and further detailed in Program H-6.
Pursuant to that Program, the City of Hayward Housing Division has initiated the process to update the Affordable Housing Ordinance and expects to modify the Ordinance, based on updated feasibility analysis, by January 2024. The recommendations for how to update the Ordinance will be based on the findings and recommendations set forth in the feasibility analysis.
P2 In Policy H-2.4, the City is empowered only to encourage integration of affordable housing and we know from reviewing residential projects over the last decade, that this current policy is not working for a number of reasons.
See response to comment P1.
P3 I urge the City Council a make an effective, equity-based revision to the Housing Plan and require every residential development in the City to include a percentage of moderate/low-income housing, fulfilling its responsibility to create housing opportunities for all its residents. This change would provide financial certainty to the developer because inclusionary affordable housing would be a requirement of the ordinance and a commitment by the City Council.
See response to comment P1.
Response to Public Comments
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
10 Commenter
Comment
Number Public Comment City Response
Mary Ann Higgs P4 My concern is whether building on a large scale is a smart thing to do right now. My main concern is water supply since we are in a drought and things are not getting better. I am concerned that adding housing of any type puts an undue burden on this limited resource. I think there should be a caveat that the plans can only be executed if there is adequate water to support individuals that will be residing in these units. Maybe the caveat is there must be ‘X’ consecutive years of average or above average rainfall/snowpack before ‘X’ number of housing is built.
Thank you for the comment. Water supply capacity and other services will be considered on a project-by-project basis.
Roland L.
McCready
P5 I read through this plan. I am a senior citizen homeowner who lives in the Jackson Triangle. How will this affect me?
Thank you for your comment. The Housing Element is a planning document that allows the City to plan for a variety of housing at all income levels for the next 8 years. The Housing Plan also contains educational opportunities, outreach and resources for senior citizens on fixed incomes among others.
Sandy Stark P6 My only comment and complaint is, why aren’t you building Tower cities, 50 stories, or at least 20, because they are needed terribly! Make sure each Tower has all things so some or all can get rid of their personal vehicles, and just rent one whenever needed! Include: groceries, gyms, car rentals, hospitals/clinics, vets, indoor terrariums and parks, and indoor vertical food gardens, are necessities. If you don’t you’ll just have worse traffic congestion, and worse air to breathe.
Thank you for your comment. Your response has been noted.
Tammy Artis P7 I didn’t see a mention of live/work housing? Live/Work housing is a type of use and housing form (Shopfront) that is permitted in the Downtown Specific Plan and in the Mission Boulevard Form Based Code areas.
Marla Lyons P8 Please when constructing these housing communities that they are Better “soundproofed” so all your movements can be private.
Thank you for your comment. Your response has been noted.
Zachariah
Oquenda
P9 Can we include something in the policies explicitly supporting people in reentry to have a fair chance to access housing opportunities? There is a nexus between discrimination based on race and disability as these are two protected classes that are disproportionately impacted by the criminal legal system. South Hayward is one area where there is an above average concentration of people with records that would tend to lead to disproportionate discrimination in South Hayward neighborhoods.
Thank you for this comment. The City will add a new policy related to "Fair Chance Housing" to explore opportunities to assist individuals with poor credit history, poor landlord
referral/references, formerly incarcerated or otherwise require mitigating circumstances in their evaluation prior to denial. 11 Commenter
Comment
Number Public Comment City Response
D. Yates, Ph.D.
Professor Emerita
P10 Looking at the renderings that are part of the plans there seem to be a number of multi-story housing units suggested. My suggestion would be to incorporate single-story houses for those with ambulatory concerns, i.e.. bad knees/backs with will preclude one from negotiating stairs.
Thank you for your comment. Your response has been noted.
Rafael Velazquez
Cardenas
P11 Under Appendix E, the review of our city’s past accomplishments, why were we severely under the RNHA goal for our severely low through moderate income homes in our past efforts? What policies or city ordinances can be put in place to make sure we are not neglecting our lower income residents while clearly exceeding the needs for the above moderate-income residents? How can we prevent this in upcoming building of housing?
Thank you for this comment and questions. The City of Hayward, like most other jurisdictions throughout the state, had difficulty meeting the Regional Housing Need Allocation for low- and moderate-income households. It is important to note that the City does not build housing. Development of affordable housing is reliant on numerous factors including financing, land availability, cost of construction and labor that are outside of the City's control.
The Draft Housing Element contains Goals, Policies and Programs specifically focused on development of housing at a variety of income levels. Please see Goal H-2 to assist in the development of affordable housing and related programs; Goal H-3, to provide suitable sites for a variety of housing types; and Goal H-4 to mitigate potential constraints to housing production, and related Policies and Programs.
P12 Under the Inclusionary housing section, new buildings need to provide affordable rental units at 6% of the built units? Why such a low percentage when the median income of our city is close to 56k per year and when the need is much higher in Hayward? Can this percentage be increased through city policies or incentives in order to build more affordable housing?
Draft Housing Element Goal H-2 lists a host of programs that can be used to incentivize the development of affordable housing.
Inclusionary Housing (Policy H-2.3) is only one program listed within that goal and further detailed in Program H-6. Pursuant to that Program, the City of Hayward Housing Division has initiated the process to update the Affordable Housing Ordinance and expects to modify the Ordinance, based on updated feasibility analysis, by January 2024. The recommendations for how to update the Ordinance will be based on the findings and recommendations set forth in the feasibility analysis.
P13 Under the Inclusionary housing section, affordable ownership units must be 10% of units built for moderate income households, but a fee can be paid in lieu if developers do not meet the quota. What is this fee and is it substantial enough to dissuade developers from avoiding affordable ownership units? I also wonder if this fee would end up costing our city and residents in the long run if developers do not build enough housing to meet the community's needs. Are there any city ordinances/policies that can make this loophole harder for developers to exploit?
The Affordable Housing In-Lieu fee is available on the City's Master Fee Schedule available at this link: https://www.haywardca.gov/your-government/documents/master-fee-schedule. See page 21 of the PDF. Please also see response to comment above about the Affordable Housing Ordinance update.
Response to Public Comments
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
12 Commenter
Comment
Number Public Comment City Response
P14 Under Action 13.2, why don’t we amend the zoning to also permit building of multi-family housing/apartments in these low-density neighborhoods? Why does the proposal only create middle housing types of new units (condos, duplex, etc.)?
The Draft Housing Element demonstrates that the City has adequate sites and zoning to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation therefore rezoning is not necessary at this time. The City does assume that some lower density areas will become more dense through construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and new State Laws including Senate Bill 9 (SB9) which allows any single family lot to be split into two lots and for duplexes to be built on each lot. The City does have Program H-18 to monitor these ADU and SB9 projects and to ensure equitable distribution of such projects throughout the City in the next Housing Element cycle.
P15 Are there any policies or ordinances we can add to also protect and meet the housing need for our large undocumented population in Hayward? Immigrant families cannot access Section8 housing and may not seek help due to the fear of family separation. Possibly stronger rent stabilization, education, and anti-harassment policies can be very helpful. Our Hayward 2019 Rent Stabilization ordinance is a good start; however, it is definitely not enough. The 5% cap on rental increases annually is far above what our average workers earn and increases on rent can have drastic impacts on family health and stability. Our immigrant workers, who tend to have very low wage work and do not see the wage increases of other workers, are especially vulnerable. Are there ways our housing element can make the rent stabilization even stronger than the 5% cap annually on certain units?
The City of Hayward is a Sanctuary City and provides services to all residents regardless of immigration status https://www.haywardca.gov/residents/undocumented-residents/city-policies-and-faq.
Therefore, all of the services and resources available to special needs populations, including low-income households would be available to the undocumented population where not in conflict with Federal Law. In 2020, the City Council considered decreasing the rent cap in the Rent Stabilization Ordinance and ultimately did not adopt changes to the Ordinance. The City Council may opt to update the Ordinance in the future.
P16 Do we have any city-owned public rent controlled spaces? How can we build these up and use them to serve our vulnerable
populations?
There are City and other public agency owned properties that are identified on the Housing Sites Inventory included in Appendix C and there is a specific Program related to development of a variety of housing types on publicly owned properties in the Draft Housing Element (Program H-13).
13 Commenter
Comment
Number Public Comment City Response
George Syrop F1 Do we have a vacancy registry or atlas where residents can learn:
average vacancy rate, how many units are empty, how long they’ve been empty, who the landlord is for a given property, rent costs, evictions rates, % of security deposits withheld at a certain property, and more?
Thank you for this question. As described in the Draft Housing Element, the City's Code Enforcement Division maintains a list of rental properties and periodically conducts rental inspections however the information retained as part of that program does not include rent costs, security deposits or other information of that nature.
F2 How can we prioritize lowering rental barriers? Application fees, fair chance housing, etc.?
The Draft Housing Element contains Goals, Policies and Programs to incentivize the development of affordable housing and to reduce barriers to access to housing.
F3 Can Hayward provide hotel vouchers or incentives for hotel/motel businesses to help with transitional housing supply?
As part of the Let’s House Hayward! homelessness reduction plan, the City will continue leveraging partnerships between non-profit housing developers, Alameda County, and regional jurisdictions to support the creation of hotel conversion projects by communitybased entities. Additionally, The City provides a limited amount of short-term hotel stays for individuals experiencing homelessness.
Individuals may be referred by City staff or partner nonprofit agencies.
F4 Pg 24 - Ground leasing public land vs. selling.
Comment: HUGE SUPPORT, our land is our most valuable asset, we should not give up our public resources.
This comment has been noted.
F5 Pg. 25 - City partnerships with Chabot & CSUEB for housing.
Question: Can we explore housing options for employees of other Hayward anchor institutions (defined as employing 1%+ of the workforce)? St. Rose, City of Hayward, HUSD (especially since education/healthcare/services sector is increasing - noted on pg. 28) The City will work with large employers to house their workforces.
Those employers can approach the City at any time to discuss options to develop housing throughout Hayward. However, the City will prioritize the groups described in the Housing Element for City resources and funds.
F6 Pg. 29 - only 20% of rental units are 3 bedrooms or more. Comment:
Appendix A describes significant overcrowding, how is the housing element specifically addressing/prioritizing affordable 3+ bedroom rentals?
The City prioritizes development of larger units in applications for Notices of Funding Availability (NOFA) for public funds in that additional “points” are awarded to projects that contain a larger proportion of large units. See Draft Housing Element Program H-4, Affordable Housing Development Assistance, and Policy H-5.7, Family Housing.
F7 Pg. 36 - references a “graphic below” at the end of the first paragraph, but I’m not seeing one.
Reference to a "graphic below" has been removed on page 36.
F8 Pg. 36 - 6th Cycle of RHNA is an 18% increase over the last one.
Question: How much did we build relative to our allocation? Please see Table E-1, Quantified Housing Objective and Achieved Accomplishments in Appendix E, Review of Past Accomplishments Response to Public Comments
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
14 Commenter
Comment
Number Public Comment City Response
to see how many building permits were issued during the 5th Cycle Housing Element.
F9 Pg. 40 - ADU’s Comment/Question: Will only contribute 7% towards RHNA goals (if estimated 40 units/year is achieved). How can we streamline this process to avoid spending staff time on a relatively small stock of housing?
The ADU review and approval process was streamlined during the last Housing Element cycle. The Planning Division created a simple checklist that applicants submit with a building permit for a Junior/Accessory Dwelling Unit. This process eliminated the need for a separate Planning approval process.
F10 Pg. 43 - Summary of Adequate Sites. Question: What would it take to change zoning districts to accommodate more lower income units beyond the current 1607?
The City has complied with State Law and provided an inventory that demonstrates that the City has adequate zoned land to accommodate the Regional Housing Need Allocation. Wholesale rezoning efforts would require initiation of the project by the City Council and allocation of appropriate funding and staff resources to conduct outreach, analysis, preparation of maps and plans and environmental analysis.
F11 Pg. 45 - Home Investment Partnership Program.
Comment/Question: 482k doesn’t seem like a lot, how are HOME funds currently being divided among the services listed? What adjustments can we make to allocations to provide more value? Half of HOME funds are used for tenant based rental based assistance for former foster care youth while the remainder of HOME funds are combined with other financial resources to fund affordable housing projects.
F12 Pg. 45 - SB2 Grants Question: How much are we collecting from these grants? What are we spending it on?
The City received $310,000 in SB2 Grants and $495,000 in LEAP grant funding. The City is currently using the funds to prepare the Draft Housing Element and related General Plan Amendments, to update the Density Bonus, to prepare Objective Standards and related zoning update and to develop an ADU program.
F13 Pg. 46 - LEAP Grants How much of the $119M is Hayward receiving? How is it being allocated currently?
Please see response to comment F12.
F14 Pg. 47 - Code Enforcement What does this process currently look like? Any notes on streamlining this process?
Please see Draft Housing Element Program H-2, Residential Rental Inspection Program, for information and metrics related to this program.
F15 Pg. 52 - Permit, Processing, Procedures. Where can I find a schedule of these fees? Do we have data on how often they’re waived (or in lieu of fees are paid), and the impact these fees have on increasing project times?
The City's Fee Schedule is available at this link:
https://www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/Adopted%20FY%202023%20Master%20Fe e%20Schedule_1.pdf. All projects must pay a variety of impact fees which may be reduced depending on the development but are not generally waived.
F16 Pg. 54 - Market Activity. What resources does the city have available to combat loan denial rates in communities of color?
Residential lending practices are regulated by the federal government. The City funds homeownership counseling agencies to 15 Commenter
Comment
Number Public Comment City Response
educate homeowners on purchasing processes. The City also funds default counseling to avoid foreclosure.
F17 Pg. 59 - Fair Housing Goals & Priorities (6.3). Can we be proactive about sending tenants resources? I know Berkeley sends a packet with resources to all new renters.
Draft Housing Element Program H-20, describes various actions that the City will take during the next Housing Element cycle to broaden outreach.
F18 Pg 63 - Program H-2, Action 2.2. What enforcement mechanisms will tenants have to ensure this is being done in a timely manner? The City's Code Enforcement Division will take the lead on ensuring compliance with these provisions.
F19 Pg 64 - Program H-3, Action 3.4. Can we implement a tenant opportunity to purchase program here as well?
The City explored the opportunity to transition rental to ownership units in 2020 and found that this conversion would require significant financial subsidies to cover retrofitting the units to meet ownership/condominium standards, attorney fees to develop legal documents and additional staffing resources to cover the processing of conversion from rental to ownership. However, this process could be accomplished by a private or nonprofit entity.
F20 Pg 66 - Program H-2.5. What flexibility do we have to increase inlieu of fees to discourage developers from avoiding building affordable units? What is the current in-lieu of fee?
The Affordable Housing In Lieu fee is available on the City's Master Fee Schedule available at this link: https://www.haywardca.gov/your-government/documents/master-fee-schedule. Please see responses to comments on the Affordable Housing Update above.
F21 Pg 66 - Program H-2.6. Is this specific to rental units or just homeownership?
This program is applicable to both rental and ownership units.
F22 Pg 66 - Program H-4. How can we prioritize 3+ BR development to address overcrowding?
As noted above, the City prioritizes development of larger units in applications for Notices of Funding Availability (NOFA) for public funds. See Draft Housing Element Program H-4, Affordable Housing Development Assistance, and Policy H-5.7, Family Housing.
F23 Pg 68 - Action 6.4. What is the justification for spending 4 years assessing?
There is no Action 6.4 listed on page 68.
F24 Pg 69 - Action 7.6. Does the city have any mechanisms to force acceptance of Housing Choice Vouchers?
The City's Rent Stabilization Ordinance prohibits landlords from discriminating against tenants on the basis of income, including the use of Housing Choice Vouchers. However, the City cannot force landlords to accept Vouchers.
F25 Pg 75 - Program H-13. Can the city explore opportunities to provide incentives or benefits for local residents and Hayward employees? The City will provide resources to all individuals who demonstrate need and are qualified for housing.
Response to Public Comments
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
16 Commenter
Comment
Number Public Comment City Response
F26 Pg 75 - Policy H-4.1. How much is the current process contributing to construction costs? On average, how much would streamlining these processes reduce overall costs?
As noted in Appendix D, Housing Constraints, and in conversations with developers, length of time processing permits increases the cost of a development project. Staff does not have data on the quantitative results of such streamlining.
F27 Pg 75 – Policy H-4.2. Similar to the previous question – how much will these incentives and bonuses reduce overall costs? Is there an average percentage of dollars saved per project?
As noted above, this information is anecdotal and accepted as common knowledge across the industry. Streamlining the
development review process will save time which in turn will save money in the development process.
F28 Pg 76 – Program H-14. Comment: I hope public land disposition means leasing only. Hayward should not sell its land off! Thank you for your comment. Your response has been noted.
F29 Pg 76 – Program H-14 Action 14.3. Will this reduce the likelihood of higher density units being built?
Density is related to the applicable zoning regulations. Action 14.3 would not reduce density permitted on specific parcels.
F30 Pg 77 – Action 16.3. Could this be amended to include greenspace, mixed-use, and other development amenities that make for more livable, walkable neighborhoods?
This Action is applicable to all types of development and City goals outlined in the General Plan and applicable Specific Plans support the development of greenspace and livable, walkable
neighborhoods.
F31 Pg 77 – Action 16.4. Where can I learn more about the current process for project review?
Please refer to Appendix D, Housing Constraints, for a general overview of the project review process.
F32 Pg 78 – Action 17.2. How much staff time will be allocated to this given the relatively small amount of units it provides? As noted above, the ADU process was streamlined to eliminate a planning permit and to just require approval of a building permit.
F33 Pg 80 - H-5.7 Family Housing. I love this! Are there specific percentages the city is aiming for? Can the city development Community Benefit Agreements that include this as part of project approval?
The City has not identified specific percentages in the housing unit mix but does encourage provision of larger units through the planning process. Further, projects that provide higher number or proportion of large units are allocated more points for the City's affordable housing funding. Introducing a Community Benefits Agreement for all residential development projects would introduce a new constraint and added costs to development.
F34 Pg 81 - Action 19.4. Comment: I appreciate this effort but wonder if there are more systemic approaches we can take beyond supporting just 10 people/year
These Actions represent a realistic goal considering other programs, policies, and actions in addition to staffing and resource limitations.
There is not limit to the number of people the City can help if resources are identified to provide toward this action item.
F35 Pg 81 - Action 19.5. Where will this data be published? The City reports data on homelessness to the City Council every other year following release of the Point in Time (PIT) count.
F36 Pg 81 - Action 19.9. How much would the city budget towards this? The City is allocating $1.5 million in ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) funds.
17 Commenter
Comment
Number Public Comment City Response
F37 Pg 82 - Action 20.3. Comment: Add Eden Community Land Trust, Hayward Area Planners Association, and HayCoCoa to this list please!
Thank you for the comment. These organizations have been added to action 20.3.
F38 Pg 82 - Action 20.4. Comment: Would like to explore ways to disseminate this info more widely/regularly
As noted above, these Actions represent a realistic goal but would not preclude the City from conducting additional outreach.
F39 Pg 83 - Policy H-6.2. Can we push for fair chance housing to remove discrimination based on criminal record and add sexual orientation to this list?
Thank you for this comment. The City will add a new policy related to "Fair Chance Housing" to explore opportunities to assist individuals with poor credit history, poor landlord
referral/references, formerly incarcerated or otherwise require mitigating circumstances in their evaluation prior to denial.
F40 Pg 85 - Program H-22. Can we develop a streamlined process for tenants to report potential violations (maybe through Access Hayward or the city website?)
The City contracts with Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) to provide fair housing assistance and tenant landlord mediation. Inquiring and comments are provided to the City through email, walk-in and occasionally Access Hayward, and those inquiries are referred to ECHO.
F41 Pg 86 - Program H-24. What can the city do when Landlords fail to pay for required relocation assistance?
Please see Hayward Municipal Code Chapter 12, Article 2 Tenant Relocation Assistance. The Ordinance outlined the applicability, obligations and remedies for tenants. If a landlord fails to provide relocation assistance, the tenant may pursue legal recourse in small claims court.
F42 Pg 86 - Action 24.2. Can we be more proactive about this information, maybe send something to newly registered tenants with their first utility bill? (Also this table might be duplicated in the draft element on Pg 87)
Thank you for this suggestion. The City is continually exploring opportunities to expand outreach.
Response to Public Comments
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
18 This page intentionally left blank.
January 2023
Oakland, California 94612
449 15th Street
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
prepared with the assistance of
Hayward, California 94541
777 B Street
Planning Division, Department of Development Services
City of Hayward
prepared by
(2023-2031)
Hayward Housing Element
Appendix B – Housing Needs Assessment
(5128-8323
ATTACHMENT VI
Table of Contents
i
Table of Contents
Housing Needs Assessment............................................................................................................1 Population Characteristics..................................................................................................1 Population Growth .............................................................................................1 Age Characteristics..............................................................................................................2 Race and Ethnicity...............................................................................................................3 Economic Characteristics....................................................................................................4 Employment........................................................................................................4 Household Income..............................................................................................6 Household Characteristics ..................................................................................................9 Household Type and Size....................................................................................9 Special Needs Groups ...................................................................................................... 10 Seniors ............................................................................................................. 11 Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities ................................... 12 Large Households ............................................................................................ 15 Single-Parent Households................................................................................ 16 Extremely Low-Income Households................................................................ 16 Farmworkers.................................................................................................... 17 Individuals Experiencing Homelessness .......................................................... 18 College Students.............................................................................................. 20 Housing Stock Characteristics.......................................................................................... 21 Housing Type ................................................................................................... 21 Tenure.............................................................................................................. 22 Vacancy............................................................................................................ 24 Housing Age and Condition ............................................................................. 24 Overcrowding .................................................................................................. 26 Housing Costs and Affordability....................................................................................... 27 Home Values.................................................................................................... 27 Rental Costs..................................................................................................... 28 Housing Affordability....................................................................................... 29 Cost Burden ..................................................................................................... 30 Eviction............................................................................................................................. 31 Affordable Housing .......................................................................................................... 32 Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing.... 32 Tenant-Based Rental Housing Assistance........................................................ 33 Publicly Assisted Rental Housing ..................................................................... 33 Preservation of At-Risk Housing ...................................................................... 35 Preservation Options....................................................................................... 35 Resources for Preservation.............................................................................. 37 Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
ii
Tables
Table B-1 Population Growth..............................................................................................................2 Table B-2 Age Characteristics..............................................................................................................2 Table B-3 Race/Ethnicity .....................................................................................................................3 Table B-4 Major Employers in Hayward..............................................................................................4 Table B-5 Employment Characteristics...............................................................................................5 Table B-6 Mean Salary by Occupation – Alameda County..................................................................6 Table B-7 Household Income by Tenure (2014-2018) ........................................................................7 Table B-8 Median Household Income (2015-2019)............................................................................8 Table B-9 Household Characteristics ..................................................................................................9 Table B-10 Household Size by Type ................................................................................................... 10 Table B-11 Average Persons per Household by Jurisdiction.............................................................. 10 Table B-12 Special Needs Groups in Hayward ................................................................................... 11 Table B-13 Persons Aged 65 and Over............................................................................................... 11 Table B-14 Disabilities Tallied in Hayward (2019).............................................................................. 13 Table B-15 Persons with Developmental Disabilities Served by RCEB by Age Group in Hayward .... 14 Table B-16 Large Households (2019) ................................................................................................. 15 Table B-17 Single-Parent Households (2019)..................................................................................... 16 Table B-18 Homelessness in Hayward and Surrounding Cities (2022) .............................................. 19 Table B-19 Housing Unit Growth (2000 to 2019)............................................................................... 21 Table B-20 Housing Unit Type............................................................................................................ 22 Table B-21 Household Size by Tenure................................................................................................ 22 Table B-22 Vacancy Rates by Community (2019) .............................................................................. 24 Table B-23 Substandard Units (2019) ................................................................................................ 25 Table B-24 Overcrowding................................................................................................................... 26 Table B-25 Comparison of Zillow Home Value Index (2015-2020) .................................................... 28 Table B-26 Comparison of Median Monthly Rent (2021).................................................................. 29 Table B-27 Alameda County Income Limits (2021)............................................................................ 30 Table B-28 Housing Cost Burden by Tenure (2014-2018).................................................................. 31 Table B-29 Inventory of Assisted Rental Housing .............................................................................. 34 Figures
Figure B-1 Comparison of Median Household Income (2015-2019) Household Income ....................7 Figure B-2 Household Income (2015-2019) .........................................................................................8 Figure B-3 Distribution of Units by Number of Bedrooms and Tenure (2019) ................................. 23 Figure B-4 Tenure by Race of Householder (2015-2019).................................................................. 23 Figure B-5 Housing Stock Age (2015-2019)....................................................................................... 25 Figure B-6 Median Home Values (2020) ........................................................................................... 27 Figure B-7 Household Income by Rent in Hayward........................................................................... 28 Figure B-8 Number of Unlawful Detainer Filings and Judgements Issued........................................ 32 Housing Needs Assessment
1 Housing Needs Assessment
Ensuring adequate housing for all Hayward’s present and future residents is a primary housing goal for the City. To realize this goal, the City must effectively target its programs and resources toward those households with the greatest need. An assessment of the demographic, socioeconomic, and housing characteristics in Hayward helps determine the specific housing needs of present and future residents. This section discusses the characteristics of Hayward’s population and housing stock to better define the nature and extent of unmet housing needs in the city.
This section includes the following sections:
Population Characteristics
Age Characteristics
Race and Ethnicity
Economic Characteristics
Household Characteristics
Special Needs Groups
Housing Stock Characteristics
Affordable Housing in Hayward
Population Characteristics
Population characteristics affect the type and amount of housing needed in a community. Factors such as population growth, age and income distribution, and employment trends influence housing needs including the type and affordability of housing. The following section describes and analyzes the various population characteristics and trends that affect housing needs.
Population Growth
The City of Hayward encompasses over 64 square miles of Alameda County and is located along the east side of San Francisco Bay between the unincorporated communities of Castro Valley, Ashland, and Cherryland to the north, and Union City to the south. The City’s incorporated area extends from the shoreline of the Bay into the east Hayward Hills. Incorporated in 1876, Hayward remained a small agricultural town until after World War II when the population rapidly increased the demand for suburban homes. More recently, Hayward continued to grow as the Bay Area’s tech boom further increased demand for housing within commuting distance of employment centers in Silicon Valley.
From 1990 to 2000, Hayward’s population increased by over 25 percent to 140,030 residents.
Growth in the city slowed from 2000 to 2010, with an increase of 3 percent. From 2000 to 2020 Hayward’s population grew by 15 percent. Hayward’s population grew 44 percent in the 30 years since 1990.
Because the full release of the 2020 Census was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, only limited high level demographic data was available for 2020. Therefore, the more detailed analyses presented in this housing element are based on the 2019 American Community Survey 5-year Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2 Estimate Tables from the U.S. Census Bureau. Table B-1 compares the population changes since 1990 of Hayward, five Alameda County cities, and the County as a whole.
Table B-1 Population Growth
1990 2000 2010 2020
Percent
Change
1990-2000
Percent
Change
2010-2020
Percent
Change
1990-2020
Oakland 372,242 399,566 390,724 419,571 7.3% 7.4% 12.7% Fremont 173,339 203,413 214,089 234,220 17.3% 9.4% 35.1% Berkeley 102,724 102,743 112,580 122,580 0.0% 8.9% 19.3% San Leandro 68,223 79,452 84,950 87,930 16.5% 3.5% 28.9% Union City 53,762 66,869 69,516 73,637 24.4% 5.9% 37.0% Hayward 111,343 140,030 144,186 160,834 25.8% 11.5% 44.4% Alameda County 1,276,702 1,443,939 1,510,271 1,670,834 13.1% 10.6% 30.9% Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series.
Age Characteristics
A community’s current and future housing needs are determined in part by the age characteristics of residents. Typically, each age group has distinct lifestyles, family types and sizes, incomes, and housing preferences. As people move through each stage of life, housing needs and preferences may change. To create a balanced community that accommodates all age groups, it is important to provide housing options that suit a variety of needs.
Table B-2 shows the proportional populations by age group in the City of Hayward. While the City’s total population grew by approximately 14 percent, the child and youth population (ages 0-4 and 5- 19 years), decreased by approximately 13 percent and 8 percent respectively between 2000 and 2019. Much more growth was seen in Hayward’s older age categories. Between 2000 and 2019 the population of seniors (ages 65+) in the city grew by approximately 35 percent, which is the largest growth of any age category. In the same period, the population of adults between the ages of 35 and 64 grew by approximately 27 percent. This represents an increase in the proportion of Hayward’s population in the 34–64-year age group from approximately 35 percent in 2000 to 39 percent in 2019. Hayward’s median age has increased steadily from 31.9 years of age in 2000 to
35.5 years of age in 2019.
Table B-2 Age Characteristics
Age Groups
2000
Persons
2000
Percent
2010
Persons
2010
Percent
2019
Persons
2019
Percent
Percent Change
(2000-2019)
Under 5 years 11,011 7.9% 10,774 7.5% 9,618 6.0% -12.7% 5-19 years 30,494 21.8% 29,126 20.2% 28,221 17.7% -7.5% 20-34 years 35,761 25.5% 35,401 24.6% 40,415 25.4% 13.0% 35-64 years 48,537 34.7% 54,243 37.6% 61,827 38.8% 27.4% 65+ years 14,227 10.2% 14,642 10.2% 19,212 12.1% 35.0%
Total Population 140,030 100.0% 144,186 100.0% 159,293 100.0% 13.8% Median Age (years) 31.9 33.5 35.5
Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000. Bureau of the Census, 2010. ACS, 2019.
Housing Needs Assessment
3 Race and Ethnicity
The race and ethnicity of residents is important to an analysis of housing needs and conditions for several reasons. Residential segregation and exclusion, whether by race and ethnicity, disability, or income, is a result of numerous housing policies, practices, and procedures—both public and private—that have enduring and pervasive negative impacts. Overt and covert housing discrimination through land use policy, shifting housing markets, and patterns of investment and disinvestment, have restricted meaningful fair housing choice and equitable access to opportunity, particularly for communities of color. Historic patterns of segregation persist in California despite the long-standing federal mandate, established by the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (FHA), that federal agencies and federal grantees affirmatively further the purposes of the FHA. To this end, it is important for a city to understand the interplay of racial and ethnic demographics and housing issues. Further in-depth analysis and discussion of housing segregation and disproportionate burden can be found in Appendix F, Fair Housing Assessment.
Alameda County has become increasingly diverse in terms of race and ethnicity. As shown in Table B-3, Hispanic/Latino residents comprise the largest racial/ethnic group in Hayward, followed by Asian residents (which encompasses many different ethnic groups of Asia and the Indian Subcontinent) and non-Hispanic White residents. The proportion of Hispanic/Latino residents grew from approximately 34 percent in 2000 to 41 percent in 2010 and has remained largely consistent through 2019. In the same period, the proportion of Asian residents has increased steadily from an estimated 19 percent in 2000 to 27 percent in 2019. The proportion of non-Hispanic White residents has decreased from approximately 29 percent in 2000 to 16 percent in 2019. In the same period, the proportion of African American residents of Hayward has decreased slightly from 11 percent to 9 percent. American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander have each consistently accounted for 3 percent or less of the population of the city since 2000.
Because of increasing family and household formation among members of different racial/ethnic groups, the 2000 Census introduced a new category – “two or more races” – to better represent the growing number of Americans who identify with multiple races or ethnic groups. This census category has become more important, particularly in ethnically and racially diverse regions like the Bay Area. According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS), an estimated 5 percent of Hayward residents identified as being of a mixed racial/ethnic background.
Table B-3 Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity
2000
Persons
2000
Percent
2010
Persons
2010
Percent
2019
Persons
2019
Percent
Non-Hispanic White 40,896 29.2% 27,178 18.8% 25,757 16.2% African American 14,846 10.6% 16,297 11.3% 14,598 9.2%
Asian 26,189 18.7% 31,090 21.6% 43,088 27.0%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander
2,511 1.8% 4,290 3.0% 3,461 2.2%
Hispanic/Latino 47,850 34.2% 58,730 40.7% 64,269 40.3%
American Indian or Alaska Native 570 0.4% 492 0.3% 576 0.4% Other Race or Two or More Races 7,168 5.1% 6,109 4.2% 7,544 4.7% Total 140,030 100% 144,186 100% 159,293 100%
Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000. Bureau of the Census, 2010. ACS, 2019.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4 Economic Characteristics
Employment has an important impact on housing needs. Incomes associated with different jobs and the number of workers in a household determines the type and size of housing a household can afford. Higher-paying jobs provide broader housing opportunities for residents, while lower-paying jobs limit housing options. Additionally, employment growth is a major factor affecting the demand for housing in a community. In some cases, the types of jobs themselves can affect housing needs and demand (such as in communities with military installations, college campuses, and large amounts of seasonal agriculture).
Employment
Hayward’s proximity to major transportation corridors makes it attractive to major firms throughout the San Francisco Bay region. The city is home to a variety of employers including large public entities such as Alameda County Sheriff’s Department and California State University East Bay, as well as bio-medical and industrial corporations like Baxter Bio Pharma, Illumina, Plastikon Industries Inc., and Kobe Precision. Table B-4 lists the major employers located in Hayward, as reported in the City’s 2020 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).
Table B-4 Major Employers in Hayward
Name of Employer Type of Service
Alameda County Sheriff's Department Law Enforcement/Security Baxter Bio Pharma Bio-Medical
California State University East Bay Education
Chabot Community College Education
Costco Warehouse Retail/Grocery
Fremont Bank Operations Center Finance
Hayward Unified School District Education
Illumina Bio-Medical
Inland Marine Industries, Inc. Manufacturing
New Century Beverage (Pepsi) Beverage Production
Maleko Personnel, Inc. Staffing Services
Plastikon Industries, Inc. Bio-Medical
Gillig Corporation Manufacturing
St. Rose Hospital Hospital & Medical Services
City of Hayward Government
Kobe Precision Semiconductors
Note: The City’s CAFR did not report the number of employees at each firm in 2020.
Source: City of Hayward, 2020
Table B-5 summarizes the employment characteristics of the City’s civilian population. In 2000, the two largest occupational categories for residents were manufacturing and education/health/social services, accounting for approximately 16 percent and 15 percent of workers, respectively. These two categories represent just under one-third of jobs held by Hayward residents. By 2019, the employment share of the manufacturing sector in Hayward had fallen to 11 percent and the Housing Needs Assessment
5 employment share of the education/health/social services sector had grown to 20 percent. Both changes are consistent with employment trends in Alameda County and the broader Bay Area Region. According to ACS, education/health/social services had overtaken manufacturing as the sector employing the largest percentage of workers in the city with professional services following with 14 percent of workers in 2019. Approximately one-third of working residents of Hayward are employed in either of these two sectors. In Alameda County, education, health, social, and professional services account for 41 percent of employment in 2019.
Table B-5 Employment Characteristics
Industry
Percent of City
Employment in
2000
Percent of County
Employment in
2000
Percent of City
Employment in
2019
Percent of County
Employment in
2019
Agriculture, forestry, hunting,
fishing, and Mining
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4
Construction 7.6 5.6 7.9 5.3
Manufacturing 16.3 14.2 11.4 9.8
Wholesale Trade 6.3 4.1 3.0 2.5
Retail Trade 12.7 10.8 10.7 8.9
Transportation and warehousing,
Utilities
7.9 5.8 7.3 5.1
Information 3.9 4.8 2.1 3.5
Finance, Insurance, and Real
Estate
6.3 6.8 5.3 6.1
Professional Services 10.4 14.8 13.9 19.9
Education, health, and social
services
14.6 18.3 20.2 21.4
Arts, entertainment, and
recreation
6.3 6.4 9.2 8.8
Other Services, except Public
Administration
4.4 4.5 5.3 4.9
Public Administration 3.1 3.7 3.3 3.5
Total 100 100 100 100
Sources: Bureau of the Census, 2000 and American Community Survey, 2015-2019.
Table B-6 displays mean annual wage data for occupations compiled by the California Employment Development Department (EDD) for Alameda County. Management, legal, and professional occupations generally off the highest wages while food service, manufacturing, and personal care occupations offer lower wages.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
6 Table B-6 Mean Salary by Occupation – Alameda County
Occupation Average Salary
Management Occupations $158,446
Legal Occupations $146,544
Computer and Mathematical Occupations $124,151
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations $121,183 Architecture and Engineering Occupations $109,102
Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations $103,059 Business and Financial Operations Occupations $97,088
Construction and Extraction Occupations $79,163
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations $77,908 Protective Service Occupations $71,366
Educational Instruction and Library Occupations $70,691 Community and Social Service Occupations $68,136
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations $67,785 Sales and Related Occupations $59,555
Office and Administrative Support Occupations $55,056
Production Occupations $51,926
Transportation and Material Moving Occupations $48,835
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations $48,311 Personal Care and Service Occupations $42,532
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations $42,154
Healthcare Support Occupations $40,799
Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations $38,872 All Occupations $76,328
Sources: California Employment Development Department, Occupational Wage data, 2021 Household Income
Household income is directly connected to the ability to afford housing. Higher income households are more likely to own a home rather than rent housing. Lower income households are more likely to occupy overcrowded or substandard housing and tend to pay a higher percentage of their income for their housing.
For planning and funding purposes, the California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has developed the following income categories based on the Area Median Income (AMI) of metropolitan areas such as Alameda County:
Extremely low-income: households earning up to 30 percent of the AMI Very low-income: households earning between 31 and 50 percent of the AMI Low-Income: households earning between 51 percent and 80 percent of the AMI Moderate-Income: households earning between 81 percent and 120 percent of the AMI Above Moderate-income: households earning over 120 percent of the AMI Housing Needs Assessment
7 Combined, the extremely low, very low, and low-income groups are referred to as lower-income.1 Between 2014 and 2018, approximately 59 percent of Hayward households earned moderate or above moderate incomes, while 42 percent of households had lower incomes. Renters typically had lower household incomes than homeowners with 53 percent of renter households having incomes less 80 percent AMI compared approximately 31% of owner households (Table B-7).
Table B-7 Household Income by Tenure (2014-2018)
Income Category (% of County AMI)
Percent of
Owners
Percent of
Renters
Total
Households
Percent of Total
Households
Extremely Low (30% AMI or less) 8.2% 18.6% 6,295 13.2%
Very Low (31 to 50% AMI) 9.6% 16.0% 6,060 12.7%
Low (51 to 80% AMI) 12.8% 18.5% 7,430 15.6%
Moderate or Above (over 80% AMI) 69.4% 46.9% 27,980 58.6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 47,770 100.0%
Source: HUD; Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2014-2018.
Household incomes in Hayward tend to be lower than those in Alameda County as a whole. The ACS estimates the median household income in Hayward between 2015 and 2019 to be $86,744, compared to $99,406 in the County. Figure B-1 compares household income in Hayward and Alameda County between 2015 and 2019.
Figure B-1 Comparison of Median Household Income (2015-2019) Household Income Source: Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2015-2019. 1 Federal housing and community development programs typically assist households with incomes up to 80 percent of the AMI and use different terminology. For example, the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program refers households with incomes between 51 and 80 percent AMI as moderate income (compared to low-income based on State definition). $162,419
$133,354
$85,530 $78,003
$114,681
$86,744
$99,406
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
$180,000
Oakland Fremont Berkeley San Leandro Union City Hayward Median Household Income Alameda County Median Household Income Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
8 Table B-8 compares median income in Hayward to neighboring cities and the region. Median household income in the city is approximately 13 percent lower than Alameda County’s AMI, but similar to Berkeley’s AMI.
Table B-8 Median Household Income (2015-2019)
Jurisdiction Median Household Income Percent above/below Regional Median San Leandro $78,003 -21.5%
Berkeley $85,530 -14.0%
Hayward $86,744 -12.7%
Union City $114,681 15.4%
Fremont $133,354 34.2%
Oakland $162,419 63.4%
Alameda County $99,406 0.0%
Source: Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2015-2019.
As shown in Figure B-2, 17 percent of Hayward households earned less than $35,000 per year in 2019. By contrast, about 21 percent of Hayward households earned $150,000 or more per year.
Hayward has a higher concentration of low- and middle-income households and a lower proportion of higher income households than Alameda County.
Figure B-2 Household Income (2015-2019)
Source: Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2015-2019.
Less than
$14,999
$15,000 -
$34,999
$35,000 -
$49,999
$50,000 -
$74,999
$75,000 -
$99,999
$100,000
- $149,999
$150,000
- $199,999
$200,000
+
Hayward 5.9% 10.6% 8.9% 17.4% 14.8% 21.4% 10.0% 11.1%
Alameda 7.6% 11.0% 7.7% 12.5% 11.5% 18.1% 12.3% 19.4%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Hayward Alameda
Housing Needs Assessment
9 Household Characteristics
The Census defines a household as all persons who occupy a housing unit, which may include single persons living alone, families related through marriage or blood, and unrelated individuals living together. Persons living in retirement or convalescent homes, dormitories, or other group living situations are not considered households. Household type and size, income levels, the presence of special needs populations, and other household characteristics determine the type of housing needed by residents, their preferences, and their ability to obtain housing that meets their needs.
For example, single-person households tend to reside in apartment units or smaller single-family homes. Households with multiple people, such as families with children or grandparents in the home, typically require residences with several bedrooms. This section details the various household characteristics represented in Hayward.
Household Type and Size
Hayward had an estimated 47,666 households in 2019, representing an estimated 6 percent increase since 2000. As shown in Table B-9, 74 percent of the city’s households in 2018 were families. The proportion of single occupant households and other non-family households both declined slightly from 2000 to 2019. In the same period the proportion of households composed of a married couple with children declined from 27 percent in 2000 to 23 percent in 2019. In the same period, the average household size has increased from 3.07 to 3.27.
Table B-9 Household Characteristics
Household Type
2000
Number
2000
Percent
2010
Number
2010
Percent
2019
Number
2019
Percent
Percent Change
(2000-2019)
Households 44,809 100% 44,380 100% 47,666 100% 6.4%
Family Households 32,228 71.9% 31,038 69.9% 35,233 73.9% 9.3% Married with Children 12,349 27.6% 9,931 22.4% 10,741 22.5% -13.0% Married No Children 10,588 23.6% 10,852 24.5% 13,663 28.7% 29.0% Other Families 9,291 20.7% 10,255 23.1% 10,829 22.7% 16.6% Non-Family Households 12,581 28.1% 13,342 30.1% 12,433 26.1% -1.2% Householder Living Alone 9,356 20.9% 10,332 23.3% 8,710 18.3% 15.7% Elderly Living Alone 3,423 7.6% 3,508 7.9% 3,179 6.7% -7.1% Other Non-Families 3,225 7.2% 3,087 7.0% 3,723 7.8% 15.4% Average Household Size 3.07 – 3.15 – 3.27 – 6.1%
Sources: Bureau of the Census, 1990-2010. American Community Survey 2015-2019.
Household size is a significant factor in housing demand. Often, household size can be used to predict the size of housing unit that a household will require. For example, housing units with up to two bedrooms are suitable for small households (one to three persons per household) while units with three to four bedrooms are more suitable for large households (five or more persons per household). Housing choices are often more of a function of economics than preference, as many households are obligated to rent smaller units or extend beyond their financial means to access larger homes. Table B-10 shows that family households to be significantly larger than non-family households.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
10 Table B-10 Household Size by Type
Household Type Average Household Size
Married-Couple Family Household 3.90
Male Householder (No Spouse Present) 3.92
Female Householder (No Spouse Present) 3.80
Nonfamily Household 1.55
All Households 3.27
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019.
In 2019, the average number of persons per household in Alameda County was 2.82 persons. The City of Hayward had an average of 3.27 persons per household in the same year, representing an increase from an average of 3.07 persons per household in 2000. Table B-11 compares household size in Hayward to household size in surrounding cities and the County as a whole. Household size varied among the cities, with Union City having the highest average household size among surrounding Alameda County jurisdictions.
Table B-11 Average Persons per Household by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Average Household Size (2015-2019)
Berkeley 2.39
Oakland 2.58
San Leandro 2.85
Fremont 3.09
Hayward 3.27
Union City 3.39
Alameda County 2.82
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019.
Special Needs Groups
Certain segments of the population may have more difficulty in finding decent, affordable housing due to their special needs. Special circumstances may be related to one’s employment and income, family characteristics, disability, or household characteristics, among other factors. Government Code Section 65583(a)(7) requires an analysis of the needs of “special needs” groups including persons with disabilities, the elderly, large households, single-parent and particularly femaleheaded, single-parent households, people experiencing homelessness, and farmworkers. The special needs groups analyzed in this section include those groups required by state law as well as people living in poverty and college students (Table B-12). Many of these groups overlap, for example some farm workers are homeless, and many seniors have a disability of some type. This section contains a discussion of the housing needs facing each of these groups. Most of these special needs groups could be assisted by an increase in affordable housing, especially housing located near public transportation and services.
Housing Needs Assessment
11 Table B-12 Special Needs Groups in Hayward
Special Needs Group
Number of
Persons or Households
Percent of Total
Persons or Households
Households with Seniors 12,927 27.1%
Senior Headed Households 9,288 19.5%
Seniors Living Alone 3,179 6.7%
Persons with Disabilities 14,022 8.9%
Large Households (5+ persons) 9,150 19.2%
Single-Parent Households 3,255 6.8%
Female Headed Households (no spouse present) 11,636 24.4% Female Headed Households with children 2,591 5.4%
People Living in Poverty 13,084 8.4%
Farmworkers* < 593 –
Homeless 381 0.2%
Students 14,059 8.8%
*City level data on the population of farmworkers in Hayward is not available. 593 value represents the number of farmworkers in Alameda County.
Sources: American Community Survey (ACS), 2015-2019; EveryOne Counts! 2022 Homeless Count and Survey, Hayward, CA, 2019; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers, 2017.
The following sections provide a detailed discussion of the housing needs facing each special needs group as well as programs and services available to address their housing needs. While the programs and resources discussed below are available to assist many special needs households and individuals, households and individuals with these special needs still face significant hardship in accessing adequate and affordable housing. Chapter 6, Housing Plan, discusses how Hayward intends to address the limitations of the resources presented in this section.
Seniors
The limited income of many seniors often makes it difficult to find affordable housing. Table B-12 shows that 9,288 households were headed by seniors, which accounts for approximately 20 percent of total households. Table B-13 shows that 19,212 persons aged 65 and over resided in Hayward in 2019. This accounted for approximately 13 percent of residents; a similar or slightly lower proportion of seniors residing in other Alameda County cities.
Table B-13 Persons Aged 65 and Over
Jurisdiction Total Age 65+ Percent Age 65+
Hayward 159,293 19,212 12.1%
Fremont 235,740 29,846 12.7%
Oakland 425,097 55,715 13.1%
Berkeley 121,485 17,429 14.3%
San Leandro 90,025 13,558 15.1%
Union City 74,722 11,921 16.0%
Alameda County 1,656,754 224,026 13.5%
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
12 Of households headed by seniors, an estimated 73 percent owned their homes, while the remainder (27 percent) rented their homes. According to the ACS, among 9,288 senior-headed households, approximately 6,544 (or 71 percent) can be considered extremely low, very low, and low income (earning less than 80 percent of the AMI).
In addition to disproportionate cost burden problems faced by seniors due to their relatively fixed incomes, many are faced with various disabilities. Senior renters, age 65 or over, in Alameda County and Hayward are increasingly cost-burdened. Since 2010, there was a 71 percent increase in costburdened seniors in Hayward, compared to a 51 percent increase in Alameda County2 . Roughly 33
percent of Hayward’s senior population was listed as having one or more disabilities according to the 2015-2019 ACS. Further discussion of the types of housing problems seniors face can be found in Appendix F: Fair Housing Assessment.
Resources
The special needs of seniors can be met through a range of services, including congregate care, rent subsides, shared housing, and housing rehabilitation assistance. For seniors with physical limitations or disabilities, housing can be modified with features that help ensure continued independent living arrangements. The City of Hayward allocates approximately $300,000 in CDBG funds to two housing rehabilitation programs that assist homeowners with home repair grants that can be used to make accessibility improvements.
Several businesses and community institutions provide services to the elder community in Hayward.
The Hayward Area Senior Center offers recreation and resources aimed at helping seniors age in their own homes. Innovage, a holistic health provider specifically for seniors, offers transportation, in-home care, recreation, physical therapy, and many other supportive services designed to assist the large proportion of seniors living independently.
As of October 2021, 33 licensed elderly residential facilities were located in Hayward with a total capacity of 766 beds. The City of Hayward allows by right elder care homes smaller than six residents in all residential zones. Group homes for more than six persons are permitted in the Suburban Residential (RS), Residential Natural Preservation (RNP), Medium Density Residential (RM), High-Density Residential (RH), Agriculture (A), and Residential office (RO) zones, subject to a conditional use permit.
Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities
Physical, mental, and/or developmental disabilities may provide challenges to gaining employment, mobility, or independent living. Persons with disabilities may experience housing burdens and other challenges due to restricted income and/or accessibility needs. The living arrangement of disabled persons depends on the severity of the disability. Many persons with disabilities live at home independently or with family members. Independent living can be supported through special housing features for the people with disabilities, income support, and in-home supportive services.
Some persons with disabilities may require housing in a supportive or institutional setting.
Housing for persons with disabilities must be adapted according to individual needs. Various types of housing may be inaccessible to persons with mobility and sensory limitations. Housing may need to be adapted to accommodate widened doorways and hallways, access ramps, larger bathrooms, lowered countertops, and other features necessary for accessibility, and many housing types may 2 City of Hayward, Displacement Study (2021)
Housing Needs Assessment
13 not have suitable space for such adaptations. Location of housing is also an important factor for persons with mobility restrictions who rely on public transportation for travel.
Some residents suffer from disabilities that require living in a supportive or institutional setting.
According to 2015-2019 ACS data, approximately 9 percent of Hayward residents had a disability.
Table B-14 shows the total number of disabled persons per age group in the city.
Table B-14 Disabilities Tallied in Hayward (2019)
Disability Type Under 18 Age 18 to 64 Age 65+ Total
Total Disabled Persons 915 6,845 6,253 14,013
Note: A person can have multiple disabilities.
Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census; American Community Survey, 2006-2010 and 2015-2019.
Persons with Developmental Disabilities
State law requires the Housing Element to discuss the housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities. As defined by federal law, “developmental disability” means a severe, chronic disability of an individual that:
Is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments;
Is manifested before the individual attains age 18;
Is likely to continue indefinitely;
Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity: a) self-care; b) receptive and expressive language; c) learning; d) mobility; e) selfdirection; f) capacity for independent living; or g) economic self- sufficiency; and Reflects the individual’s need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, or generic services, individualized supports, or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated.
Many persons with developmental disabilities can live and work independently in a conventional housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment with supervision. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment with medical services and physical therapy. Many persons with developmental disabilities require supportive services during the transition from childhood to a more independent living situation as an adult.
The California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) estimates that, in 2022, 1,768 individuals with developmental disabilities were living in Hayward. Of individuals with developmental disabilities, 43 percent were children under 18 and 57 percent were adults.
The DDS currently provides community-based services to approximately 243,000 persons with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of 21 regional centers, four developmental centers, and two community-based facilities. The center is a private, non-profit community agency that contracts with local businesses to offer a wide range of services to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. According to DDS, as of December 2020, 23,423 individuals with developmental disabilities were being assisted at the Regional Center of the East Bay (RCEB) 11,078 of which were residents of Alameda County. Of these individuals Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
14 served, approximately 24 percent were Hispanic, 18 percent were Asian, and 26 percent were white. Table B-15 shows the age distribution of people with developmental disabilities in Hayward.
Table B-15 Persons with Developmental Disabilities Served by RCEB by Age Group in Hayward
Age Group 0 – 14 15 – 22 23 – 54 55 – 56 65+ Total
Persons with Disabilities 511
(29%)
299
(17%)
650
(37%)
169
(10%)
139
(8%)
1,768
(100%)
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Data recorded by the RCEB is not a total count of persons with disabilities in San Leandro.
Source: Regional Center of the East Bay, 2022.
Resources
There are a number of housing resources that improve access to housing for people living with a development disability. These resources include rent-subsidized homes, licensed and unlicensed group homes in single-family neighborhoods, Section 8 vouchers, special programs for home purchase, HUD housing, and residential care facilities. The design of housing-accessibility modifications, the proximity to services and transit, and the availability of group living opportunities represent some of the types of considerations that are important in serving this need group. The City of Hayward allocates approximately $300,000 in CDBG funds to two housing rehabilitation programs that assist homeowners with home repair grants that can be used to make accessibility improvements.
Incorporating barrier-free design in all new multifamily housing, as required by California and Federal Fair Housing laws, is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for disabled residents. The Fair Housing Act requires builders of multi-family housing projects to be accessible to people with disabilities through considerations in seven key areas3 :
Accessible building entrance on an accessible route
Accessible and usable public and common use areas
Usable doors
Accessible route into and through the covered unit
Light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and other environmental controls in accessible locations
Reinforced walls for grab bars
Usable kitchens and bathrooms
While the Fair Housing Act creates a national baseline for multifamily housing accessibility, a citywide Universal Design Ordinance can go further to increase the usability of homes and apartments by people of all ages, sizes, and abilities. The Center for Universal Design4 defines the seven principles of Universal Design as:
Equitable use
Flexibility in use
3 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fair Housing Act Design Manual (1998) 4 North Carolina State University, The Center for Universal Design, The Principles of Universal Design (1997) Housing Needs Assessment
15 Simple and intuitive use
Perceptible information
Tolerance for error
Low physical effort
Size and space approach and use
A home that complies with a Universal Design Ordinance that aligns with these principles enhances the ability of all residents to live independently in their own homes as long as possible by allowing the house to adapt to a lifetime of changing needs. As detailed in Program H-19 of the Housing Plan, the city seeks to develop and adopt a Universal Design Ordinance by January 2025.
Lastly, the City of Hayward operates a paratransit service for adults unable to ride other public transit due to a medical or other disabling condition. This service is intended to supplement the East Bay Paratransit Service when it is unable to provide service. Arc of the East Bay is the largest of Hayward’s providers of non-medical care services and day programs to the developmentally disabled community.
Large Households
Large households are defined as those consisting of five or more members. These households comprise a special need group because of the frequently limited supply of adequately sized and affordable housing units in a community. To save for other basic necessities such as food, clothing, and medical care, it is common for lower-income large households to reside in smaller units. This frequently results in overcrowding and could accelerate unit deterioration.
Table B-16 compares the number of large households in Hayward to that of Alameda County.
Approximately 19 percent of households in Hayward consisted of five or more persons, compared to approximately 11 percent region wide.
Table B-16 Large Households (2019)
Jurisdiction
# of Large
Households
% of Total
Households
# of Large
Owner
Households
% of Total
Households
# of Large
Renter
Households
% of Total
Households
Hayward 9,150 19.2% 4,910 10.3% 4,240 8.9%
Alameda County 62,587 10.8% 34,619 6.0% 27,968 4.8%
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019.
Resources
Lower and moderate-income large households can benefit from various affordable housing programs. These include the Homeownership Education classes, Mortgage Credit Certificate program, affordable housing development assisted with City, State, and federal funds, and Housing Choice Vouchers, among others.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
16 Single-Parent Households
Single-parent families, particularly female-headed, single-parent families with children often experience a higher housing cost burden relative to the general population and may require assistance to access affordable day care, health care, and other supportive services to ensure fair access to housing and other resources. As a result, State housing element law requires that jurisdictions analyze the particular needs of single-parent households especially female-headed single-parent households. An estimated 7 percent of Hayward households were headed by single parents in 2019 (Table B-17), the majority of which (80 percent) were headed by females. This is compared to an estimated 5 percent of households in Alameda County, 80 percent of which were headed by females. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, 25 percent of female-headed single-parent households had incomes below the poverty level.
Table B-17 Single-Parent Households (2019)
Total
Households
Single-Parent
Households
Percent Total
Households
Female-Headed
Households
with Children
Percent of
Single-Parent
Households
Hayward 47,666 3,255 6.8% 2,591 79.6%
Alameda County 577,177 29,653 5.1% 23,572 79.5%
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019.
Resources
Lower-income single-parent households can benefit from City programs that provide direct rental assistance or that will facilitate the development of deed restricted affordable housing. Affordable housing opportunities can also be expanded for low- and moderate- income single-parent households through the Housing Choice Vouchers, Homeownership Education classes, and the Mortgage Credit Certificate program.
Extremely Low-Income Households
Extremely low-income households are defined by HCD as households with income less than 30 percent of AMI. The 2021 AMI in Alameda County for a family of four is $125,600. For extremely low-income households, this translates to an annual income of $54,300 or less. Households with extremely low-income have a variety of housing situations and needs. For example, most families and individuals receiving public assistance, such as social security insurance (SSI) or disability insurance are considered extremely low-income households.
As referenced in Section 1.4.2, approximately 6,295 extremely low-income households reside in the city, representing approximately 13 percent of the total households. The proportion of extremely low-income households in Hayward is lower than in Alameda County, where 16 percent of households are extremely low-income. Approximately 8 percent of owner-occupied households and 19 percent of renter-occupied households are extremely low-income. Therefore, extremely lowincome households are more likely than other households in the city to rent their homes.
Some extremely low-income households could have physical or mental disabilities and/or other special needs. There is overlap between extremely low-income households and particular housing needs. Approximately 8 percent of extremely low-income households (664 households) are large families (five or more people per household), and 850 female-headed households with children live in poverty. Among senior households that earned 100 percent or less of the AMI, the greatest Housing Needs Assessment
17 number were extremely low-income households: 2,220 senior households earned 30 percent or below of the AMI. In comparison, 1,740 senior households earned 31-50 percent of the AMI, 1,315 that earned 51-80 percent AMI, and 729 earned 81-100 percent AMI. Additionally, the 2013-2017 CHAS estimates indicate that 70 percent of extremely low-income households faced housing problems (defined as cost burden greater than 30 percent of income and/or overcrowding and/or without complete kitchen or plumbing facilities). As discussed in Section 1.8.4, extremely lowincome households are likely to be cost burdened for both renters (82.6 percent) and homeowners (70.4 percent), where a total of 78.6 percent of ELI low-income households are cost burdened (spending more than 30 percent of monthly income on housing costs). The 2014-2018 CHAS data reported that 3,525 extremely low-income households that rent reported experiencing housing cost burden and 3,040 experience severe housing cost burden (spending more than 50 percent of monthly income on housing costs).
Race and ethnicity differences are also apparent with extremely low-income household characteristics. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, residents who identify as White (Hispanic and nonHispanic), Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, and American Indian/Alaska Native had a higher poverty rate than Other Race or Multiple Race and Asian American/Pacific Islander residents.
It can be difficult to project the number of extremely low-income households for future years.
However, in a review of trends for families earning an income below the poverty level, the percent of families in poverty has decreased since the ACS 2013-2017 dataset was compiled and has generally decreased since the 2010-2015 time period by a couple percentage points per available dataset.
Resources
The City regulates supportive housing as a residential use, provided supportive services are subordinate to the residential use. The city has 1,567 subsidized affordable housing units.
Affordable housing opportunities for extremely low-income households can be expanded for households through the Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA)'s Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program that overwhelmingly service extremely low-income households. HUD estimates that 2,018 households receive HCVs in Hayward. There are 3,585 households served by affordable housing units and housing vouchers, which has met over half of the housing needs of the city’s 4,270 households that are extremely low-income renters.
To address the range of needs, the City will employ programs to support affordable housing development, remove constraints, and support development of housing types that may fit the needs of extremely low-income residents, such as supportive housing. During the planning period, the City will continue to encourage affordable housing developers to apply for HCVs through HACA vouchers to more deeply subsidize affordable housing units constructed in the city. The City continues to fund or partner with local and regional organizations to provide HCVs, housing rehabilitation grants, fair housing education and counseling, legal aid, and expand affordable housing opportunities for extremely low-income households.
Farmworkers
The US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 2017 Census of Agriculture reported that in Alameda County, a total of 593 persons were hired farm labor with 305 of these workers employed for 150 days or more, and 288 for 150 days or less. The special housing needs of many agricultural workers stem from their low wages and seasonal employment. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, the total number of residents employed in farming, fishing, and forestry was less than one percent of the Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
18 city’s population. Given the low number of persons employed in agricultural-related industries, the City can address the needs of the farmworker population through its overall affordable housing programs. Because Hayward is an urban/suburban community on the shore of the San Francisco Bay, those persons identified as having agricultural jobs are most likely employed at plant nurseries and small-scale fishing operations and thus are not anticipated to have the seasonal housing needs associated with crop-related farmworker jobs.
The City does have an agricultural zoning designation, but this is mostly utilized for open-space preservation and ranchette-style residential properties. There are no large-scale agricultural operations in Hayward. Therefore, there is no need for land use regulations to address the State Employee Housing Act (Section 17000 of the Health and Safety Code).
Resources
Because farmworkers make up a small percentage of the City’s population, no specific housing programs are necessary. The housing needs of farmworkers in Hayward can be addressed through the City’s general affordable housing programs for lower-income households. Certain programs and services offered by agencies detailed in Hayward’s Housing Plan can also be of assistance to Hayward’s farmworkers.
Individuals Experiencing Homelessness
Throughout the country and the Bay Area, homelessness has become an increasingly important issue. According to the Everyone Counts! 2019 Homeless Count and Survey the factors contributing to the rise in homelessness in Alameda County include the loss of employment (13 percent of respondents), a mental health issue (12 percent of respondents), substance abuse issue (10 percent of respondents), eviction or foreclosure (9 percent of respondents), rent increase (9 percent of respondents), and incarceration (8 percent of respondents).
California Housing Element law (California Government Code Section 65583(1)(6)) requires municipalities to address the special needs of individuals experiencing homelessness within their jurisdictional boundaries. Individuals experiencing “homelessness” as defined by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Title 42 U.S. Code Section 11302, describes an individual (not imprisoned or otherwise detained) who:
Lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and Has a primary nighttime residence that is:
A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);
An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or
A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.
This definition does not include persons living in substandard housing, unless it has been officially condemned; persons living in overcrowded housing, persons being discharged from mental health facilities (unless the person was homeless when entering and is considered to be homeless at discharge), or persons who may be at risk of homelessness (for example, living temporarily with family or friends).
Housing Needs Assessment
19 Homelessness continues to be a regional and national issue. Services and facilities available for the homeless are coordinated in Hayward and Alameda County as a continuum of care. The continuum of care begins with assessment of the needs of the homeless individual or family. The person/family may then be referred to permanent housing or to transitional housing where supportive services are provided to mitigate any potential underlying causes of homelessness. The goal of a comprehensive homeless service system is to ensure that individuals and families experiencing homelessness move from homelessness to permanent housing and have access to support systems to maintain that housing.
HUD requires that every other year, regional continuums of care conduct a point in time (PIT) count of all sheltered and unsheltered people experiencing homelessness on a single night in January.
Alameda County’s PIT count of people experiencing homelessness was put on hold in 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, this report references data from the County’s 2022 PIT count.
According to the 2022 Alameda County PIT count, 114 sheltered and 267 unsheltered individuals experience homelessness in Hayward. Table B-18 shows the number of sheltered and unsheltered people experiencing homelessness in Hayward and surrounding cities. Hayward’s population of people experiencing homelessness accounts for 4 percent of the county’s homelessness. A similar proportion of people experiencing homelessness are sheltered in Hayward when compared to other Alameda County cities.
Table B-18 Homelessness in Hayward and Surrounding Cities (2022) Jurisdiction Sheltered Unsheltered Total % Sheltered
% of Total Homeless
Population in Alameda County
Oakland 1,718 3,337 5,055 34.0% 51.9%
Fremont 160 886 1,026 15.6% 10.5%
Berkeley 254 803 1,057 24.0% 10.8%
San Leandro 97 312 409 23.7% 4.2%
Hayward 114 267 381 29.9% 3.9%
Alameda County 2,612 7,135 9,747 26.8% 100%
Source: EveryOne Counts! 2022 Homeless Count and Survey, Alameda County, 2022.
Resources
The city is included within the Alameda County Continuum of Care, which is a regional or local planning body that coordinates housing and services funding for homeless families and individuals.
Homeless prevention activities in the Alameda County Continuum of Care include income support, CalWorks, CalFresh, Section 8 Vouchers, mental health and addiction treatment services, and rental assistance.
In 2021, the City adopted the Let’s House Hayward! Homelessness Reduction Strategic Plan to address the increasingly urgent issue of homelessness in the city. The strategic plan leans heavily on the findings of the 2019 EveryoneCounts PIT survey of homeless persons residing in Hayward. Let’s House Hayward! identified and outlined three specific goals and associated action items to address homelessness. These goals are:
Formalize a coordinated and compassionate response to homelessness and develop wider community understanding and engagement.
Increase the availability of an reduce barriers to homelessness crisis response services.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
20 Ensure access to and retention of affordable permanent housing.
To achieve these goals the City is facilitating inter-departmental and inter-agency collaboration to expand emergency and transitional shelter capacity; increase the availability and efficacy of holistic supportive services; and invest in eviction prevention, anti-displacement, and rapid re-housing initiatives.
Resources and programs in the Homeless Strategic Plan include six emergency shelters with a total of 155 beds, two winter warming shelters operated by South Hayward Parish and First Presbyterian Church, a rent stabilization and tenant protection ordinance, expanded COVID-19 rent mediation and assistance programs, and a policy of streamlining the development process for affordable housing units. The City intends to further expand shelter capacity and offer other low-barrier supportive services as the plan is implemented as well as reduce regulatory and zoning barriers to shelter and affordable housing development.
Currently, the City’s Zoning Ordinance defines “homeless shelter” as “an institution that provides shelter for individuals and families with no limitation on the length of stay.” The City accommodates homeless shelters in all General Commercial (CG), Mission Boulevard sub-areas (MB-CN/NN), and Industrial (I) zones provided the site and development meets the requirements and standards defined in the zoning code.
College Students
Hayward is home to California State University, East Bay (CSU East Bay) and Chabot Community College. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, approximately 14,059 (9 percent) of Hayward residents were enrolled in a college or graduate school between 2015 and 2019. The college student population (those enrolled or identified in a program above grade 12) is another significant factor that affects housing demand. Although students represent a temporary housing need, the impact upon housing demand is critical in areas immediately adjacent to trade schools, colleges, and universities. Given student income limitations, the same market forces that impact the lower income housing market also influences student housing.
Resources
Students can take advantage of all of the City’s housing stock, but they tend to most commonly utilize multi-family rentals given their needs and the cost of housing in the region. Multi-family housing is permitted in almost all zoning districts including the Mission Boulevard Form Based Code area, Downtown Specific Plan area, Commercial zoning districts and Medium and High-Density Residential Districts and Residential Office District with approval of Site Plan Review for new construction. A 2018, AB 990 Analysis for the CSU East Bay found that there were 129 multi-family units within a 3-mile radius of the university. In 2018, the average rent for a 1-bedroom unit across these properties was $1,7215
.
Cal State East Bay offers limited on-campus student accommodation across two residential complexes, Pioneer Heights, and University Village. Chabot Community College does not offer on campus housing, but it does contract with a homestay agency to assist students with housing in the vicinity. These local student populations potentially generate demand for low-cost housing needs in Hayward and surrounding communities.
5 CSU East Bay, AB990 Off-Campus Housing Analysis (2018) Housing Needs Assessment
21 Housing Stock Characteristics
The characteristics of the housing stock, including housing production, type, age, condition, tenure, vacancy rates, housing costs, and affordability are important in determining the housing needs for the community. This section details the characteristics of the housing supply to identify how well the current housing stock meets the needs of current and future residents of the city.
Table B-19 shows a comparison of growth in the number of housing units since 2000 across Alameda County cities. The housing stock in most comparable cities grew faster from 2000 to 2010 than the following 9-year period. The number of housing units in Hayward grew approximately 5 percent from 2000 to 2010 but grew less than 4 percent from 2010 to 2019. The number of housing units in Hayward grew slightly slower than Alameda County which grew by approximately 13 percent between 2000 and 2019.
Table B-19 Housing Unit Growth (2000 to 2019)
Jurisdiction 2000 2010 2019
Percent Change
2000-2010
Percent Change
2010-2019
Percent Change
2000 - 2019
Berkeley 46,875 49,454 48,674 5.5% -1.6% 3.8%
San Leandro 31,300 32,419 32,844 3.6% 1.3% 4.9%
Hayward 45,960 48,296 50,052 5.1% 3.6% 8.9%
Oakland 157,505 169,710 173,300 7.7% 2.1% 10.0%
Fremont 69,452 73,989 79,170 6.5% 7.0% 14.0%
Union City 18,862 21,258 22,903 12.7% 7.7% 21.4%
Alameda County 540,183 582,549 608,096 7.8% 4.4% 12.6%
Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000-2010. American Community Survey, 2015-2019.
Housing Type
Over 60 percent of Hayward housing stock consists of single-family homes. Multi-family dwellings account for 33 percent of homes in the city, while mobile homes and vehicles comprise 5 percent of all homes in the community. Between 2000 and 2019, the proportion of single-family homes, both detached and attached, has increased from 58 to 62 percent of units in Hayward. Correspondingly, the proportion of multi-family homes has decreased slightly from approximately 37 to 33 percent, and the proportion of mobile homes in the city was consistent in this same period.
According to HCD, there are 2,268 mobile home spaces in Hayward across 10 mobile home parks. 6 As a means to protect lower-income residents, mobile home spaces in Hayward are subject to a rent stabilization ordinance which limits a mobile home park owner from raising rent on a space more than the greater of three percent in twelve months or 60 percent of the percent change in the consumer price index (CPI).
6 State Department of Housing and Community Development Mobile home and RV Parking Listing. Accessed October 2021.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
22 Table B-20 Housing Unit Type
Housing Unit Type
2000
Units
2000
Percent
of Total
2010
Units
2010
Percent
of Total
2019
Units
2019
Percent
of Total
Percent
Change
2000-2010
Percent
Change
2010-2019
Single-Family Homes 25,814 57.5% 29,718 60.7% 31,062 62.1% 15.1% 4.5% Detached 22,423 49.9% 25,557 52.2% 25,641 51.2% 14.0% 0.3% Attached 3,391 7.6% 4,161 8.5% 5,421 10.8% 22.7% 30.3%
Multi-Family Homes 16,881 36.7% 16,876 34.5% 16,494 33.0% 0.0% -2.3% 2-4 units 3,274 7.3% 2,974 6.1% 2,626 5.2% -9.2% -11.7% 5+ units 13,607 30.3% 13,902 28.4% 13,868 27.7% 2.2% -0.2% Mobile Homes/Other 2,207 4.9% 2,353 4.8% 2,496 4.9% 6.6% 6.1% Total Housing Units 45,960 100% 48,947 100% 50,052 100% 6.5% 2.3% Sources: Bureau of the Census, 2000; American Community Survey, 2006-2010 and 2015-2019.
Tenure
Housing tenure refers to whether a unit is owned or rented. The owner versus renter distribution of a community’s housing stock influences several aspects of the local housing market. Residential stability is influenced by tenure, with ownership housing being associated with a lower turnover rate than rental housing. Housing cost burden (sometimes referred to as overpayment), while faced by many households regardless of tenure, is generally far more prevalent among renters. Tenure is primarily related to household income, housing type, and age of the householder.
Table B-21 Household Size by Tenure
Tenure Average Household Size 2000 Average Household Size 2010 Average Household Size 2019 Owner-Occupied 3.08 3.14 3.32
Renter-Occupied 3.13 3.10 3.22
Total 3.02 3.12 3.27
Sources: Bureau of the Census, 2000 and 2010; American Community Survey, 2015-2019.
In 2019, among the City’s occupied housing units, an estimated 54 percent were owner-occupied, while 46 percent were renter occupied. As shown in Figure B-3, renter-occupied households had a slightly smaller average household size than owner-occupied households in 2019. The average renter-household size in 2019 was 3.22 persons compared to 3.32 persons for the average ownerhousehold. Though the average homeowner household size and renter household size is similar, the City's rental housing stock offers a smaller percentage of larger units (three and four bedrooms).
Figure B-4 shows that larger units were more likely to be owner occupied than rented. Larger sized units constituted 79 percent of owner-occupied housing and only 20 percent of renter-occupied units. This disparity in the availability larger sized rental housing may make accessing adequate housing difficult for larger households unable to afford home ownership.
Housing Needs Assessment
23 Figure B-3 Distribution of Units by Number of Bedrooms and Tenure (2019) Source: American Community Survey 2015-2019
Due to historical patterns of segregation, discriminatory lending, and urban renewal, non-white households are less likely to own their home and access the wealth building opportunity that ownership offers. Figure B-4 shows that rates of home ownership are significantly higher among non-Hispanic White and Asian householders than Black/African American householders, Hispanic/Latino householders, and householders belonging to another racial group. 7 Figure B-4 Tenure by Race of Householder (2015-2019)
Source: American Community Survey 2015-2019
7 Urban Institute, 2021. Available: https://apps.urban.org/features/tracking-housing-wealth-equity/ 0 2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
No bedrooms 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms 5+ Bedrooms Owner Households Renter Households
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Asian
Black/African American
White
Hispanic/Latino
Another Race
Owner Renter
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
24 Vacancy
Vacancy rates are an important housing indicator because they indicate the degree of choice available. Too high a vacancy rate can make it difficult for owners trying to sell or rent. Low vacancy rates usually indicate high demand and/or low supply conditions in the housing market. A vacancy rate that is too low can force prices up, making it more difficult for lower and moderate-income households to find housing. Vacancy rates between two and three percent for single-family housing and between 5 and 6 percent for multi-family housing are usually considered optimal for a healthy housing market. However, vacancy rates are not the sole indicator of market conditions. They must be viewed in the context of all the characteristics of the local and regional market. Low rentalhousing vacancy rates in a community, common especially in high demand regions like the Bay Area, also contribute to increased rents, increased housing costs, increased homelessness, and difficulties exiting homelessness. Table B-22 shows a comparison of vacancy rates across Alameda County.
With a housing stock of 54 percent owner-occupied and 46 percent renter-occupied, the weighted optimum vacancy rate in Hayward should be between 3 and 4 percent. In 2019, the vacancy rate was 5 percent, which is comparable to other cities in Alameda County.
Table B-22 Vacancy Rates by Community (2019)
Jurisdiction % Vacant Total Units # Vacant
Oakland 6.3% 173,300 10,881
Fremont 4.4% 79,170 3,483
Berkeley 6.8% 48,674 3,322
San Leandro 4.3% 32,844 1,410
Union City 4.6% 22,903 1,051
Hayward 4.8% 50,052 2,386
Alameda County 5.1% 60,8096 30,919
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019.
Housing Age and Condition
Housing age can be an important indicator of housing condition in a community. Like any other tangible asset, housing is subject to gradual physical deterioration over time. If not properly and regularly maintained, housing can deteriorate and threaten the health and safety of residents, as well depress neighboring property values and discourage reinvestment. Many federal and state programs also use the age of housing as a factor in determining housing rehabilitation needs.
Typically, housing over 30 years of age is more likely to have rehabilitation needs that may include new plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work, and other repairs.
Figure B-5 shows the age of housing stock in Hayward compared to Alameda County. As of 2019, 80 percent of all housing units in Hayward were built prior to 1990, potentially requiring repairs and modernization improvements. Only 4 percent of the city’s housing units were built after 2010.
Housing Needs Assessment
25 Figure B-5 Housing Stock Age (2015-2019)
Source: American Community Survey 2015-2019
Although the Census does not include statistics on housing condition based upon observations, it includes statistics that correlate closely with substandard housing conditions. Three factors most commonly used to determine housing conditions are age of housing, overcrowding, and lack of plumbing/kitchen facilities. Table B-23 below summarizes the availability of plumbing and kitchen facilities. In the past, lack of telephone service was also an indicator of housing conditions. Today, however, with the widespread availability of cell and internet phone services, many households have chosen not to install land line telephone services.
Table B-23 Substandard Units (2019)
Condition Number Percentage
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 137 0.3%
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 268 0.6%
Total occupied units 47,666 100.0%
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019.
According to Table B-23, less than 1 percent of occupied units in Hayward lack plumbing and/or kitchen facilities. The City’s Code Enforcement Division is familiar with the condition of housing and neighborhoods, in general. Because each of the officers within Code Enforcement is assigned to specific districts, the staff gains an in-depth insight into the condition of specific properties.
The Code Enforcement Division considers housing units in compliance with State minimum housing standards, as established under the California Health and Safety Code, and California Building Codes, to be standard and habitable units. Any housing unit that does not meet these requirements is considered substandard. Hayward’s Code Enforcement Department estimates that, based on past experiences and knowledge of specific neighborhoods related to code enforcement cases, 10 percent (approximately 4,700 units) of the City’s occupied units can be considered substandard and in need of rehabilitation and replacement. Housing that is not maintained can discourage 1939 -
earlier
1940 -
1949
1950 -
1959
1960 -
1969
1970 -
1979
1980 -
1989
1990 -
1999
2000 -
2009
2010 -
2013
2014 or
later
Hayward 3.5% 4.3% 24.7% 13.9% 20.5% 13.1% 8.7% 7.2% 2.0% 2.1% Alameda County 19.5% 6.8% 12.8% 13.6% 15.4% 12.5% 8.8% 7.4% 1.6% 1.6%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Hayward Alameda County
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
26 reinvestment, depress neighboring property values, and can negatively impact the quality of life in a neighborhood. Improving housing is an important goal of the City. Common housing code violations and substandard conditions in Hayward include - unpermitted construction, moisture damage, Faulty electrical wiring, plumbing, windows, and roof systems, deteriorated exterior siding, and faulty heating and mechanical systems. Most of Hayward’s substandard units are suitable for rehabilitation.
Overcrowding
The combination of low-incomes and high housing costs has forced many households to live in overcrowded housing conditions. “Overcrowding” is generally defined as a housing unit occupied by more than one person per room. Rooms can include living rooms and dining rooms but excludes hallways, kitchens, and bathrooms. Significant overcrowding can indicate that a community does not have an adequate supply of affordable housing, especially housing that could accommodate large families.
Overcrowding typically occurs when there are not enough adequately sized units in a community, when high housing costs relative to income force more individuals to share a housing unit than it can adequately accommodate, or when families reside in smaller units than they need to devote income to other necessities, such as food and health care. Overcrowding tends to accelerate the physical deterioration of housing and disproportionately affects renter-households.
Table B-24 summarizes overcrowding in Hayward. Overcrowding decreased from approximately 20 to 11 percent between 2000 and 2010, but it rose to 14 percent by 2019. Similarly, the rate of severe overcrowding decreased from 11 percent in 2000 to 4 percent in 2010 and has stayed relatively stable through 2019. Approximately 21 percent of all renters lived in overcrowded conditions compared to 8 percent of owners according to ACS data. This disparity in the rates of overcrowding between owner and renter households is likely due to the relative scarcity of larger housing units available on the rental market as shown in Figure B-3.
Table B-24 Overcrowding
Owner-Households Renter-Households Total Households
Overcrowding Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 2000
Total Overcrowded
(> 1.0 person/room)
2,930 12.2% 5,874 28.0% 8,804 19.7%
Severely Overcrowded
(>1.5 persons/room)
1,639 6.8% 3,369 16.1% 5,008 11.2%
2010
Total Overcrowded
(> 1.0 person/room)
1,375 6.0% 3,827 16.7% 4,767 11.0%
Severely Overcrowded
(>1.5 persons/room)
298 1.3% 1,627 7.1% 1,733 4.0%
2019
Total Overcrowded
(> 1.0 person/room)
1,948 7.7% 4,618 20.6% 6,566 13.8%
Severely Overcrowded
(>1.5 persons/room)
488 1.9% 1,683 7.5% 2,171 4.6%
Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census; American Community Survey, 2006-2010 and 2015-2019.
Housing Needs Assessment
27 Housing Costs and Affordability
Housing costs are indicative of housing accessibility to all economic segments of the community.
The cost of housing in a community is directly correlated to the number of housing problems and affordability issues. High housing costs can price low-income families out of the market, cause extreme cost burdens, or force households into overcrowded or substandard conditions. This section summarizes the cost and affordability of the housing stock to Hayward residents.
Home Values
The real estate listing services company Zillow estimates that Hayward’s typical home value in December of 2020 was approximately $745,855. This value is lower than the countywide typical value of $951,381 and the Bay Area as a whole (Figure B-6). Home values in the city were approximately 12 percent lower than Oakland and 22 percent lower than Alameda County as a whole, but comparable to home values in San Leandro.
Figure B-6 Median Home Values (2020)
Source: Home Value Index, Zillow, 2020.
As demonstrated in Table B-25, home values in Hayward increased by about 41 percent between 2015 and 2020. Other Alameda County cities also saw significant increases in median home prices during this time, as did Alameda County as a whole.
$100,000
$300,000
$500,000
$700,000
$900,000
$1,100,000
$1,300,000
20012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020 Bay Area Alameda County Hayward
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
28 Table B-25 Comparison of Zillow Home Value Index (2015-2020) Jurisdiction December 2015 Price December 2020 Price
Percent Change
in Home Value Index
Oakland $598,530 $845,670 +41.3%
Fremont $886,652 $1,180,205 +33.1%
Berkeley $1,031,750 $1,405,908 +36.3%
San Leandro $540,460 $763,777 +41.3%
Union City $706,084 $991,876 +40.5%
Hayward $527,757 $745,855 +41.3%
Alameda County $710,019 $951,381 +34.0%
Source: Home Value Index, Zillow, 2020.
Rental Costs
Less than half of Hayward households (46 percent) live in rental housing. According to the 2015- 2019 ACS, monthly rent ranges from less than $500 per month (3 percent of Hayward renters) to more than $2,000 per month (38 percent of Hayward renters). The most common rent category in the city is greater than $2,000 per month. Figure B-7 shows the distribution of monthly rental rates by income category.
Figure B-7 Household Income by Rent in Hayward
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019.
As shown on Table B-26, average monthly rents in Hayward ranged from $2,079 for a one-bedroom apartment to $2,523 for a three-bedroom apartment in 2021. Rents for efficiency units (studios) in Hayward are typically higher than comparable units in other Alameda County jurisdictions, but larger units in Hayward were significantly less expensive than similar units in Oakland, Fremont, and Less than
$10,000
$10,000 -
$19,999
$20,000 -
$34,999
$35,000 -
$49,999
$50,000 -
$74,999
$75,000 -
$99,999 $100,000+
<$500/mo 181 265 49 40 57 10 0
$500-1000/mo 93 318 412 113 184 100 119
$1,000-1,500/mo 162 319 660 769 1087 660 610
$1,500-2000/mo 202 597 700 1034 1847 1393 1514
>$2,000/mo 258 233 267 714 1548 1320 4058
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Renter Housholds
Income Category
Housing Needs Assessment
29 Berkeley. Only in the City of San Leandro are apartments of all sizes typically less expensive than apartments in Hayward.
Table B-26 Comparison of Median Monthly Rent (2021)
Unit Size Studio 1-Bed 2-Bed 3-Bed
Oakland $1,405 $2,626 $3,642 $6,154
Fremont $2,090 $2,293 $2,782 $3,883
Berkeley $1,741 $1,904 $3,938 $4,052
San Leandro $1,709 $1,701 $2,047 $2,483
Hayward $2,159 $2,079 $2,608 $2,523
Source: Median rent search conducted on October 10, 2021, on Apartments.com.
Rents increased throughout the nation during the 2009 recession in response to continued high foreclosure rates, few new units, tightened standards for home loans, and demand from young workers. In addition, more people moved from homeownership to renting, which increased demand on rental housing. According to HCD’s Final Statewide Housing Assessment, rental costs in California have continued upward from 1990.
Housing Affordability
The cost of housing compared to the income of local households is used to determine the affordability of an area. If costs are high relative to income, housing problems such as overcrowding, and cost burden are more likely to occur. The lack of affordable housing contributes to cost burden, overcrowding, and even homelessness. “Affordable housing cost” for lower-income households is defined in California law as not more than 30 percent of gross household income with variations (Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5). The comparable federal limit, more widely used, is 30 percent of gross income, with variations. “Housing cost” commonly includes rent or mortgage payments, utilities (gas, electricity, water, sewer, garbage, recycling), and property taxes and insurance on owner-occupied housing.
The median income for renter households in Hayward $68,591 which equates to an affordable monthly housing cost of $1,714. The median income for owner households is $109,359 which equates to an affordable monthly housing cost of $2,740. According to CHAS data, half of all renters and 30 percent of homeowners in Hayward spend more than 30 percent of their gross monthly income on housing.
Severe cost burden occurs when 50 percent of a household’s monthly income goes towards paying housing costs. In Hayward, 23 percent of renter households experience severe cost burden.
Comparing rental housing costs in Hayward and maximum affordable prices for low-income households in Alameda County shows that households with HUD defined low-income can afford rental housing in Hayward. Very- and extremely low- income households (the majority of which are renter households) are being priced out of Hayward.
Table B-27 shows the affordable rent for each income category as shown in the Alameda County HCD income limits. According to the table, affordable monthly rent for lower income households (0- 80 percent AMI) would range from $1,028 at 30 percent AMI to $2,740 at 80 percent AMI.
Alternatively, households in the moderate and above moderate-income categories could afford rent over $3,700.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
30 Table B-27 Alameda County Income Limits (2021)
AMI 4-Person Household Standard HUD Income Groups
Adjusted HUD
4 – Person
Household
Adjusted
HUD Income
as % of AMI
Affordable
Monthly
Rent
$125,600 Extremely Low Income (30% AMI) $41,100 32.7% $1,028 Very Low Income (50% AMI) $68,500 54.5% $1,713
Low Income (80% AMI) $109,600 87.2% $2,740
Moderate Income (120% AMI) $150,700 – $3,768
Above Moderate (> 120% AMI) > $150,700 – > $3,768
The defined “Affordable Monthly Rent” is affordable for households at the income threshold. The Alameda County income levels are upwardly adjusted for high housing costs using the VLI 4-person household as the basis for all other income calculations for HUD’s income groups.
The ELI, VLI and LI income groups are provided by HUD, Moderate and Above Moderate are generated using HUD-provided ratios.
Source: Alameda County Housing & Community Development Income and Rent Limits, 2021.
Source: HUD adjusts income limits upward to account for high-cost housing markets such as Alameda County.
Housing affordability can be inferred by comparing the cost of renting or owning a home in the city with the maximum affordable housing costs for households at different income levels. Taken together, this information can generally show who can afford what size and type of housing and indicate the type of households most likely to experience overcrowding and overpayment.
HUD conducts annual household income surveys nationwide to determine a household’s eligibility for federal housing assistance. Based on this survey, HCD developed income limits that can be used to determine the maximum price that could be affordable to households in the upper range of their respective income category. Households in the lower end of each category can afford less by comparison than those at the upper end.
Cost Burden
Measuring the portion of a household’s gross income that is spent for housing is an indicator of the dynamics of demand and supply. This measurement is often expressed in terms of “over payers”:
households paying an excessive amount of their income for housing, thereby decreasing the amount of disposable income available for other needs. This indicator is an important measurement of local housing market conditions because it reflects the affordability of housing in the community. Federal and state agencies use overpayment indicators to determine the extent and level of funding and support that should be allocated to a community. State and federal programs typically define overpayers as those lower-income households paying over 30 percent of household income for housing costs. A household is considered experiencing a severe cost burden if it spends more than 50 percent of its gross income on housing.
Housing cost burden affects a substantial portion of households in Hayward, particularly lower income renter households and Hispanic/Latino and Black/African American households. Table B-28 presented earlier provides overpayment detail by income group and household type in Hayward between 2014 and 2018. At lower-income levels, cost burden has a greater impact on renters than on owners. For households with moderate and above moderate incomes, cost burden is less prevalent and impacts renters and owners at similar rates. While approximately 40 percent of all households in Hayward are housing cost burdened, 48 percent of Hispanic/Latino households and 53 percent of Black/African American households are cost burdened.
Housing Needs Assessment
31 Table B-28 also details the housing assistance needs for lower-income households that rent or own in Hayward. The types of problems vary according to household income, type, and tenure. Some notable trends include:
Low-income households are more likely to rent their homes; Renter-households are significantly more likely to experience housing cost burden (50 percent) compared to owner-households (30 percent);
Approximately 79 percent of extremely low-income households, 76 percent of very low-income households, and 63 percent of low-income households are housing cost burdened; and Over 71 percent of extremely low-income renter households spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing and 83 percent spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing.
Table B-28 Housing Cost Burden by Tenure (2014-2018)
Household by Tenure,
Income, and Cost Burden Renters Owners Total Households Extremely low-income (0-30% AMI) 4,270 2,025 6,295
With cost burden >30% 82.6% 70.4% 78.6%
With cost burden > 50% 71.2% 58.0% 67.0%
Very low-income (31-50% AMI) 3,680 2,380 6,060
With cost burden >30% 88.7% 57.4% 76.4%
With cost burden > 50% 41.3% 38.7% 40.3%
Low-income (51-80% AMI) 4,260 3,170 7,430
With cost burden >30% 68.9% 54.7% 62.9%
With cost burden > 50% 14.9% 12.3% 13.8%
Moderate & Above Income (>80% AMI) 10,800 17,805 27,980 With cost burden >30% 16.6% 16.6% 17.0%
With cost burden > 50% 1.1% 1.7% 1.5%
Total Households 23,015 24,755 47,770
With cost burden >30% 50.0% 30.2% 39.8%
With cost burden > 50% 23.1% 11.3% 16.9%
Note: Data presented in this table are based on special tabulations from the American Community Survey (ACS) data. Due to the small sample size, the margins of errors can be significant. Interpretations of these data should focus on the proportion of households in need of assistance rather than on precise numbers.
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2014-2018.
Eviction
From 2000 to 2019, the annual number of unlawful detainer filings in the City of Hayward averaged 984 per year, with a peak in 2008 of 1,664 filings. As shown on Figure B-8, filings declined steadily from 2008, plateaued from 2016 to 2019, then dropped significantly beginning in March 2020 due to the local, state, and federal COVID-19 eviction moratoria. The proportion of filings that resulted in a judgment (as opposed to a dismissal) remained consistent with the number of filings, as shown in the chart below. From 2010 (when data become available) through 2019, approximately 31% of judgments resulted in a completed writ of possession (i.e., the Sheriff’s Office removed the tenants).
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
32 In 2020 and 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic and its corresponding eviction moratoria, an average of 8% of judgments resulted in a completed writ of possession.
Figure B-8 Number of Unlawful Detainer Filings and Judgements Issued Notes. iWrit of possession data are only available beginning in 2010. iiData source: California Superior Court of Alameda In July 2019, Hayward City Council enacted the Residential Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection Ordinance (RRSO), which created a rent increase threshold for covered rental units1 and just cause eviction protections for all rental units with few exceptions. The number of unlawful detainer filings in the nine months following the enactment of the RRSO decreased by 13% compared to the nine months before the RRSO was passed.
Affordable Housing
The City of Hayward is committed to facilitating and preserving affordable housing opportunities for its residents. State law requires the analysis of government-subsidized housing that may change from low-income housing to market-rate housing during the next 10 years. This section summarizes tenant-based rental housing in the city as well as affordable housing at-risk of converting to market rates and the cost to preserve or replace the at-risk units.
Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Naturally Occurring
Affordable Housing
In June of 2019, the City of Hayward adopted the Residential Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection Ordinance (RRSO) to encourage investment in local residential rental housing by allowing landlords to make a fair return on their real estate investments while also protecting the welfare of its citizens who are its tenants. The aim of the RRSO is to help mitigate housing problems caused by the lack of available housing for lower income households and rapidly rising rents. Under the RRSO, Housing Needs Assessment
33 landlords of units built before July 1, 1979, may raise the rent of those units a maximum of 5 percent per year. In 2019, the RRSO was updated and extended protections to approximately 12,000 rental units that were initially subject to the City’s 1983 Residential Rent Stabilization Ordinance.
Older housing stock can provide a source of naturally occurring affordable housing which is not subject to rent control or deed restriction. As these units undergo refurbishment or a change in ownership, they will often see an increase in market-rate rent thereby becoming unaffordable to lower income households. There may be significant opportunity for the City to purchase these units outright or facilitate a transfer of ownership to a non-profit entity to maintain affordability in perpetuity. The city seeks to develop and adopt a program to facilitate the purchase of naturally occurring affordable housing to convert to deed restricted affordable housing.
Tenant-Based Rental Housing Assistance
The Housing Authority of Alameda County (HACA) serves Hayward and provides housing choice vouchers for lower-income households. The Section 8 Rental Assistance Program provides rental subsidies to low-income families that spend more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs. Additionally, Section 202 program funds development of affordable housing for senior households and Section 811 program provides non-profits with funding to provide supportive housing for disabled, very- and extremely low-income persons. HACA currently provides over 7,000 Alameda County families with housing vouchers through HUD assistance programs. The Alameda County Housing Choice Voucher waiting list is currently closed and fewer than 10 families are placed in assisted housing per month. The City also uses a portion of its HOME allocation to fund a rental assistance program for transition age youth who have “aged-out” of the foster care system. This program typically serves 12 transition age youth (TAY) per year. The City is in the process of establishing a shallow subsidy pilot program, which will provide small monthly rental subsidies to between 40 and 50 extremely low-income households for 12–18-month durations.
Publicly Assisted Rental Housing
The City of Hayward uses various funding sources, including HUD’s housing voucher programs, Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), HOME funds, Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Funds and Affordable Housing Ordinance in lieu fees to preserve and increase the supply of affordable housing in the city through the acquisition and/or rehabilitation of renter-occupied units and the rehabilitation of owner-occupied units.
The city has a range of publicly assisted rental housing affordable to lower and moderate-income households.
Table B-29 provides a summary listing of affordable projects in the city. Overall, 23 projects provide a total of 1,567 assisted rental housing units in the city.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
34 Table B-29 Inventory of Assisted Rental Housing
Project Name Total Units Assisted Units Funding Source
Earliest Date
of Conversion
At risk of conversion before 2031
Hayward Villa 78 78 Section 8 New Construction 10/31/2025 Josephine Lum Lodge 150 106 Section 8 LMSA 12/31/2025
Sycamore Square 26 26 Section 8 New Construction 12/31/2028 Wittenberg Manor II 65 64 Section 202/Section 811 9/30/2022 Weinreb Place 22 21 Section 202/PRAC 12/31/2021
Properties at risk of conversion after 2031
EC Magnolia Court 21 21 Section 8/Section 202 3/31/2033 Eden Issei Terrace 100 100 Section 8 New Construction 3/31/2033 Montgomery Plaza 50 50 Section 8 New Construction 3/31/2034 Olive Tree Plaza 26 26 Section 8/Section 202 3/31/2033
Tennyson Gardens
Apartments/Faith Manor
158 155 Section 8 LMSA/RDA/TC 12/31/2073
Wittenberg Manor 95 95 Section 8 New Construction 5/31/2040 Villa Springs 66 66 RDA/TC 2065
C & Grand Senior Housing 60 60 Inclusionary/RDA/TC 2064 The Majestic Apartments 81 81 Bond/RDA/TC 2063
Walker Landing 78 78 Inclusionary/Bond/TC 2062
Huntwood Commons 40 40 HOME/WFHRGP 2061
Lord Tennyson 252 252 Bond/TC 2060
Sara Connor Court 57 57 HOME/RDA/TC 2059
Park Manor Apartments 81 81 TC/CDBG 2031
742 Harris Court 4 4 HOME 2054
Harris Court Apartments 20 20 HOME/TC 2053
Glen Berry 50 50 HOME/CDBG/TC 2048
Glen Eden 36 36 CDBG/RDA/TC 2047
Total 1,567
Source: City of Hayward, 2021; HUD Section 8 Database, accessed October 2021 Sycamore Square, Tennyson Gardens Apartments, and Wittenberg Manor II are owned by a nonprofit entity and are therefore at low risk of conversion before 2031. Josephine Lum Lodge is owned by a limited dividend housing corporation and is also at a low risk of conversion. Hayward Villa is owned and managed by for-profit entities and is therefore at a higher risk of conversion when its affordability controls expire in 2025. The City will continue to monitor the status of these at-risk units. Should a Notice of Intent to opt out of the voucher program be filed, the City will ensure that tenants are properly notified of their rights under California law. The following section outlines several avenues the City may pursue to preserve affordable housing stock.
Housing Needs Assessment
35 Preservation of At-Risk Housing
State law requires that the City identify, analyze, and propose programs to preserve existing multifamily rental units that are eligible to convert to non- low-income housing uses due to termination of subsidy contract, mortgage prepayment, or expiring use restrictions during the next 10 years.
Thus, this at-risk housing analysis covers the period from January 2023 and January 2033. Consistent with State law, this section identifies publicly assisted housing units in Hayward, analyzes their potential to convert to market rate housing uses, and analyzes the cost to preserve or replace those units.
Within the 2023-2033 “at-risk” housing analysis period, three of the City’s affordable housing projects are considered at low risk and one is considered at higher risk of being converted to market rate. While the HUD renewal process occurs periodically every five years, the approval is fairly automatic. Though unlikely, it is possible 295 of the City’s affordable housing units could convert to market-rate at some point in the planning period.
Preservation Options
Depending on the circumstances of the at-risk projects, different options may be used to preserve or replace the units. Preservation options typically include: 1) transfer of units to non-profit ownership; and 2) purchase of affordability covenants. In terms of replacement, the most direct option is the development of new assisted multi-family housing units. The following discussion highlights ways that the City’s at-risk projects could be preserved as affordable housing. All the presented alternatives are costly and beyond the ability of the City of Hayward to manage without large subsidies from federal and/or State resources. These options are described below.
Transfer of Ownership
Typically, transferring ownership of an at-risk project to a non-profit housing provider is one of the least costly ways to ensure that the at-risk units remain affordable for the long term. By transferring property ownership to a non-profit organization, low-income restrictions can be secured, and the project would become potentially eligible for a greater range of governmental assistance.
If the current nonprofit organizations managing the units at risk are no longer able to maintain the project, transferring ownership of the affordable units to another nonprofit housing organization is a viable way to preserve affordable housing for the long term. The feasibility of this option depends on the willingness of the owner to sell, funding sources to buy the property, and the existence of a nonprofit organization with sufficient administrative capacity to manage the property. Additionally, projects such as Hayward Villa and Wittenberg Manor, in which all units are affordable, can participate in ownership transfers more easily and are therefore more likely to be feasible. The City will track the at-risk status of these at-risk projects. If these properties indicate plans to convert to market rate, the City will contact qualified entities to explore transfer of ownership options.
California Government Code 65863.11 requires that nonprofit housing organizations are notified of an impending transfer of ownership, but there is no requirement that the current owner sell to an affordable housing developer or organization. Most assisted rental housing units in Hayward are already operated by nonprofit organizations; as such, no changes in ownership in the near future are anticipated.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
36 Rental Assistance
Similar to Housing Choice Vouchers, the City could provide rent subsidies to tenants of at-risk units through a variety of potential funding sources. The level of the subsidy required to preserve the atrisk units is estimated to equal the Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a unit minus the housing cost affordable to a lower income household. Units in the at-risk projects include 74 studios, 189 onebedroom units, 6 two-bedroom units, and 24 three-bedroom units. According to 2022 data from HUD, FMR for these units range from $1,595 for a studio to $3,196 for a 3-bedroom apartment.
State, local, or other funding sources can also be used to provide rental subsidies to maintain the affordability of at-risk projects. These subsidies can be structured to mirror the voucher program, whereby the subsidy covers the cost of the unit above what is determined to be affordable for the tenants’ household income (including a utility allowance) up to the fair market value of the apartment. The per-unit subsidy is based on the difference between fair market rents and the annual amount affordable to a low-income household. Assuming a renter contribution of 30% of the fair market rent of each unit, the total subsidy needed for the 295 at-risk affordable units in the city is $4.8 million.
Purchase of Affordability Covenants
Another option to preserve the affordability of the at-risk project is to provide a financial assistance package to the owner to maintain the project as affordable housing. Assistance could include bonds, writing down the interest rate on the remaining loan balance, providing a lump-sum payment, and/or supplementing the rents to market levels. The feasibility and cost of this option depends on whether the complex is too highly leveraged. By providing lump sum financial incentives or ongoing subsidies in rents or reduced mortgage interest rates to the owner, the City could ensure that some or all the units remain affordable.
Construction of Replacement Units
The construction of new low-income housing units is a means of replacing the at-risk units if they are converted to market-rate units. The cost of developing housing depends upon a variety of factors, including density, size of the units (i.e., square footage and number of bedrooms), location, land costs, and type of construction. According to the 2019 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) staff reports, the typical cost of construction for below market rate housing in Alameda County in 2019 was $726,469 per unit. The total cost to replace the 295 at-risk affordable units with new construction would be approximately $214 million.
Cost Comparisons
The above analysis attempts to estimate the cost of preserving the at-risk units under various options. However, because different projects have different circumstances and therefore different options available, a direct comparison would not be appropriate. In general, providing additional incentives/subsidies to extend the affordability covenant would require the least funding over the long run, whereas the construction of new units would be the costliest option. Over the short term, providing rent subsidies would be least costly, but this option does not guarantee the long-term affordability of the units.
To estimate the market value for the at-risk units, the price of multi-family housing developments in the City that are for sale and in good condition were analyzed to calculate an average price per unit.
According to recent multifamily developments for sale as of December 2021, the cost per unit is Housing Needs Assessment
37 approximately $410,000. Therefore, the market value to replace the units at risk for conversion is roughly $121 million (295 affordable at-risk units multiplied by $410,000).
Resources for Preservation
Preservation of at-risk housing requires not only financial resources but also administrative capacity of nonprofit organizations. These resources are discussed in detail later in this Housing Element in Appendix C, Housing Resources.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
38 This page intentionally left blank.
January 2023
Oakland, California 94612
449 15th Street
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
prepared with the assistance of
Hayward, California 94541
777 B Street
Planning Division, Department of Development Services
City of Hayward
prepared by
(2023-2031)
Hayward Housing Element
Appendix C – Housing Resources
ATTACHMENT VII
Table of Contents
i
Table of Contents
Housing Resources..........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Future Housing Needs.........................................................................................................1
1.1.1 Regional Housing Needs Assessment Requirement...........................................1
1.1.2 Units Planned or Approved.................................................................................2
1.1.3 Accessory Dwelling Units....................................................................................8
1.1.4 Remaining Share of RHNA ..................................................................................8
1.2 Residential Sites Inventory..................................................................................................9
1.2.1 Methodology ......................................................................................................9
1.2.2 Hayward Downtown Specific Plan................................................................... 14
1.2.3 Mission Boulevard Corridor............................................................................. 18
1.2.4 Former Route 238 Corridor ............................................................................. 22
1.3 Adequacy of Residential Sites Inventory in Meeting RHNA............................................. 26
1.3.1 Recycling Trends.............................................................................................. 27
1.4 Availability of Infrastructure and Services....................................................................... 37
1.4.1 Wastewater System......................................................................................... 37
1.4.2 Potable Water System..................................................................................... 38
1.4.3 Storm Water and Drainage.............................................................................. 38
1.4.4 Circulation System........................................................................................... 39
1.4.5 Dry Utilities...................................................................................................... 39
1.5 Environmental Constraints .............................................................................................. 39
1.6 Financial Resources for Affordable Housing .................................................................... 40
1.6.1 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) ............................................... 41
1.6.2 Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME)............................................ 41
1.6.3 Senate Bill 2 Planning Grant ............................................................................ 42
1.6.4 Local Early Action Planning Grant.................................................................... 42
1.6.5 Local Funding Sources ..................................................................................... 42
1.7 Administrative Resources ................................................................................................ 43
1.7.1 City of Hayward Planning Division................................................................... 43
1.7.2 County of Alameda .......................................................................................... 43
1.7.3 Affordable Housing Providers.......................................................................... 43
1.7.4 Opportunities for Energy Conservation........................................................... 45 Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
ii
Tables
Table C-1 Hayward Housing Needs for 2023-2031..........................................................................1 Table C-2 Affordability Mechanisms for Pipeline Projects ..............................................................3 Table C-3 Planned, Approved, and Pending Projects ......................................................................5 Table C-4 Percent of ADUs Affordable to Different Income Categories..........................................8 Table C-5 Remaining Share of RHNA ...............................................................................................9 Table C-6 BART-Owned Sites........................................................................................................ 12 Table C-7 City-Owned Sites........................................................................................................... 14 Table C-8 Residential Development Potential in the Downtown Specific Plan Area ................... 15 Table C-9 Mission Boulevard Corridor Code Allowed Densities................................................... 20 Table C-10 Residential Development Potential in the Mission Boulevard Corridor Code Area..... 20 Table C-11 Residential Development Potential along the Former Route 238 Corridor................. 24 Table C-12 Adequacy of Residential Sites Inventory ...................................................................... 26 Table C-13 Previous Conditions of Pipeline Projects...................................................................... 28 Table C-14 Affordable Housing Providers in Hayward.................................................................... 44 Figures
Figure C-1 Planned or Approved Projects.........................................................................................7 Figure C-2 Vacant and Underutilized Sites within the Downtown Specific Plan Area................... 17 Figure C-3 Vacant and Underutilized Sites within the Mission Boulevard Corridor Code Area .... 21 Figure C-4 Underutilized Sites within the former Route 238 Corridor .......................................... 25 Housing Resources
1 Housing Resources
This chapter documents the methodology and results of the housing sites inventory analysis conducted to demonstrate the City of Hayward’s ability to satisfy its share of the region’s future housing need. Infrastructure, services, and financial and administrative resources that are available for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing in the City of Hayward are also discussed in this chapter.
1.1 Future Housing Needs
State law requires each community to play a role in meeting the region’s housing needs. A jurisdiction must demonstrate in its Housing Element that its land inventory is adequate to accommodate its share of the region’s projected growth. This section assesses the adequacy of Hayward’s land inventory in meeting future housing needs.
1.1.1 Regional Housing Needs Assessment Requirement
This update of the City’s Housing Element covers the planning period of January 2023 through January 2031 (called the 6th Cycle Housing Element update). Hayward’s share of the regional housing need is allocated by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and based on recent growth trends, income distribution, and capacity for future growth. Hayward must identify adequate land with appropriate zoning and development standards to accommodate its assigned share of the region’s housing needs.
Hayward’s share of regional future housing needs is 4,624 total units. The number of units is distributed among five income categories, as shown below in Table C-1.
Table C-1 Hayward Housing Needs for 2023-2031
Income Category (% of Alameda
County Area Median Income [AMI]) Number of Units Percent of Total Units Extremely Low (< 30% of AMI)* 547 12.4%
Very Low (30 to 50% of AMI) 528 12.7%
Low (51 to 80% of AMI) 617 15.6%
Moderate (81% to 120% of AMI) 817 16.1%
Above Moderate (> 120% of AMI) 2,115 43.0%
Total 4,624 100.0%
*The RHNA does not project the need for extremely low-income units, but pursuant to State law (AB 2634), the City must project its extremely low-income housing needs based on Census income distribution or assume 50 percent of the very low-income units required by the RHNA as extremely low-income units. The City’s very low-income requirement is 1,075 units. The number of extremely lowincome units that the City must plan for shown here was projected using Census data. According to the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), data developed by HUD, 25.8 percent of households in the city earned less than 50 percent of the AMI.
Among these households, 50.9 percent earned incomes below 30 percent (extremely low). Therefore, the City’s RHNA allocation of 1,075 very low-income units was distributed as 547 extremely low (50.9 percent of the 1,075 very low-income units required by the RHNA) and 528 very low-income units. However, for purposes of identifying adequate sites for the RHNA allocation, State law does not mandate the separate accounting for the extremely low-income category.
Source: Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation, ABAG, 2022 Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2 1.1.2 Units Planned or Approved
Residential developments approved and permitted, but not yet built (“pipeline projects”) can be credited towards the City’s RHNA for the 6th cycle Housing Element provided it can be demonstrated that the units can be built by the end of the 6th cycle’s planning period. Similarly, units that have received a certificate of occupancy as of June 30, 2022 can also be credited towards the RHNA.
Affordability (the income category in which the units are counted) is based on the actual or projected sale prices, rent levels, or other mechanisms establishing affordability of the units within the project. Single-family homes are usually sold at market-rate prices, with no affordability covenants attached to the land. Multifamily or single-family developments that use density bonuses, public subsidies, or other mechanisms that restrict rents or sales prices would be restricted to specified below-market rate prices affordable to households in the various income categories described above. Local, state, or federal rules would establish rules for which income categories must be served by each development.
Residential development is very active in Hayward. Of projects currently in the pipeline, 12 consist solely of market-rate units affordable to above-moderate households, while 20 projects have an affordability component. These projects are generally clustered along the Mission Boulevard corridor as well as within Hayward’s Downtown. All projects with affordability components have restricted rents or sales price resulting from city intervention including development subsidy, negotiated land disposition agreement, or in the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO). In some cases, the project also has been approved for a density bonus as shown by the listed projects that exceed maximum density or exceed the minimum requirements of the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance. Rents are restricted by a regulatory agreement while resale prices are restricted by a Borrower’s Occupancy and Resale Restriction Agreement. Table C-2 shows the mechanisms utilized to enable the affordable housing project. Projects that are currently in the pipeline collectively achieve an average density of approximately 91 percent of the zoning district’s maximum allowable density. Table C-3 identifies the approved or pending projects that are credited towards meeting the City’s RHNA. Table C-3 is not an exhaustive list of all housing entitlements active in the city. None of the projects listed in Table C-3 involved phasing and all project and units are anticipated to be developed during the planning period. The locations of these projects are symbolized with the corresponding Map ID numbers on Figure C-1.
Housing Resources
3 Table C-2 Affordability Mechanisms for Pipeline Projects Project Name Affordability Mechanism
Oak Street Affordable Housing Ordinance
Parcel Group 8 SB35, Density Bonus, Publicly Owned Land Regulatory Agreement resulting from (Federal, state, local) government development subsidy.
21659 Mission Boulevard Affordable Housing Ordinance
Maple and Main Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Ordinance 420 Smalley Avenue Affordable Housing Ordinance
Pimentel Place Affordable Housing Developer
Regulatory Agreement resulting from (Federal, state, local) government development subsidy.
Pine Vista Condos Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Ordinance O’Neil Ave Apartments Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Ordinance La Playa Subdivision Affordable Housing Ordinance, Concessions for requesting approval of Rezoning to Planned Development
Berry Avenue Multifamily Affordable Housing Ordinance
Parcel Group 5 Affordable Housing Ordinance, Surplus Land Act, Publicly Owned Land 27177-27283 Mission Blvd Affordable Housing Ordinance, Density Bonus Mission Paradise Affordable Housing Developer
Regulatory Agreement resulting from (Federal, state, local) government development subsidy.
Parcel Group 3 – La Vista Residential Density Bonus, Publicly Owned Land, Low Income Housing Tax Credit, Taxexempt Bonds, CalHFA MIP Huntwood Affordable Housing Ordinance
Mission Terraces SB35, Density Bonus
SoMi (True Life) Affordable Housing Ordinance
603 A Street SB35, Density Bonus, Affordable Housing Ordinance 27287 Patrick Ave SB35, Density Bonus, Affordable Housing Ordinance The vast majority of entitled projects are developed within three to six years of entitlement.
Reasons for delay between entitlement and submittal of subsequent applications (grading permits, improvement plans and building permits) vary and typically revolve around financing, changing market conditions, changing materials and labor costs, stability of the firm, funding gaps for affordable housing developments among others. Drop-out rates where a developer allows an entitlement to expire are relatively low. Specifically, in the 5th Cycle, four development applications were withdrawn and did not develop in accordance with the entitlements for varying reasons. Two of the developments fell through due to private financing and the developers were not able to sell the entitled projects prior to their expiration. One project did not have private financing lined up and let the project expire. They have since resubmitted a new entitlement application for a revised site plan modified to address changing market conditions (larger units) and to add units on the site.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4 One project was an affordable housing development that had a funding gap. They have since filled the gap with County funds and are submitting a new entitlement application in early 2023 to re-entitle the project.
Housing Resources
5 Table C-3 Planned, Approved, and Pending Projects
Map ID Project Name ELI* Units VLI* Units LI* Units MI* Units AMI*
Units
Total
Units
Max
Units
Allowed
% of Max
Units
Allowed
Entitlement
Status
Estimated
Completion Date
1 Oak Street – – – 4 36 40 56 71% Approved 2025
2 Parcel Group 8 – 24 51 20 1 96 54 178% Approved 2025
3 21659 Mission
Boulevard
– 1 – 3 41 45 63 72% Approved 2023
4 420 Smalley
Avenue
– – – 1 7 8 8 100% Approved 2024
5 Maple and Main 16 3 – – 295 314 343 92% Approved 2026 6 1200 A Street – – – – 155 155 149 104% Approved 2024
7 4th and B – – – – 41 41 78 53% Approved 2025
8 Pimentel Place 15 20 11 10 1 57 57 100% Approved 2024 9 Pine Vista
Condos
– – – 7 33 40 32 125% Approved 2025
10 Carlos Bee – – – 6 9 15 14 107% Approved 2025
11 O’Neil Ave
Apartments
– 1 – - 8 9 13 71% Approved 2023
12 Berry Avenue
Multifamily
– 1 – 1 16 18 29 63% Approved 2024
13 Parcel Group 5 – 18 – – 74 92 122 75% Approved 2025
14 Cavallo
Highlands
– – – – 20 20 38 52% Approved 2025
15 27177-27283
Mission Blvd
– – – 6 49 55 86 64% Approved 2023
16 Mission Paradise 15 20 40 – - 75 104 73% Approved 2023 17 28049 Mission
Boulevard
– – - – 25 25 37 68% Approved 2023
18 Parcel Group 3 -
La Vista
Residential
– 36 138 – 2 176 194 91% Approved 2025
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
6 Map ID Project Name ELI* Units VLI* Units LI* Units MI* Units AMI*
Units
Total
Units
Max
Units
Allowed
% of Max
Units
Allowed
Entitlement
Status
Estimated
Completion Date
19 Mission Terraces – 76 33 - 1 110 91 121% Approved 2023 20 SoMi (True Life) – – – 20 169 189 174 109% Approved 2023 21 Mission Seniors – – – – 203 203 228 89% Approved 2024 22 Mission Villages – – – – 72 72 188 38% Approved 2023 23 Huntwood – – - 1 13 14 21 65% Under Review 2026
24 Vagabond – – – – 8 8 8 100% Approved 2024
25 Harvey Avenue – – – – 17 17 14 121% Approved 2023
26 Hesperian
Subdivision
– – – – 19 19 16 122% Approved 2023
27 La Playa
Commons
– – 2 3 42 47 47 100% Approved 2024
28 603 A Street 29 50 – – 1 80 56 142% Approved 2025
29 27287 Patrick
Ave
10 – – – – 10 6 166% Under Review 2026
30 25107 Belmont
Ave
– – – – 6 6 7 95% Under Review 2026
31 1434 Grove Way – – – – 5 5 13 38% Under Review 2026
32 24656-24764
Mohr Drive
– – – – 12 12 18 66% Approved 2026
Total Units 85 250 275 82 1,381 2,073 Average
% of
Max
Density
91%
Notes: ELI = Extremely-Low Income; VLI = Very-Low Income: LI = Low Income; MI = Moderate Income; AMI = Above-Moderate Income Housing Resources
7 Figure C-1 Planned or Approved Projects
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
8 1.1.3 Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) anticipated to be built between 2023 and 2031 are also credited towards the City’s RHNA. An ADU is a secondary dwelling unit located on residentially zoned property that has an existing single-family or multi-family residence. Due to its small square footage, it could provide affordable housing options for family members, friends, students, the elderly, inhome health care providers, the disabled, and others.
Trends in Hayward indicate that the number of ADU permit applications have been increasing in recent years. The City of Hayward Building Division permitted and finaled 21 ADUs in 2018, 20 ADU units in 2019, 79 ADUs in 2020 and 44 in 2021. This overall increase in ADU permits is likely due to recent State legislation that has reduced regulatory barriers to build and permit ADUs.
Conservatively assuming that annual permits will average 40 units per year, the City has assumed a total of 320 ADUs will be permitted between 2023 and 2031.
In 2020, the Center for Community Innovation at the University of California at Berkeley (UC Berkeley) undertook a comprehensive, statewide survey of ADUs, resulting in a document entitled “Implementing the Backyard Revolution: Perspectives of California’s ADU Homeowners”, released on April 22, 2021. This memo uses and extends that research, providing a foundation that Bay Area jurisdictions may build upon as they consider ADU affordability levels while developing their Housing Element sites inventory analyses. The study concluded that the assumptions listed in Table C-4 are generally applicable across Bay Area jurisdictions1. The City will pursue mechanisms to facilitate the construction of ADUs and, if assumptions are not met, the City will implement additional actions to incentivize ADU production (Program H-17).
Table C-4 Percent of ADUs Affordable to Different Income Categories Affordability Category ABAG Recommended Percentage Estimated ADUs Very-Low 30% 96
Low 30% 96
Moderate 30% 96
Above Moderate 10% 32
Total 100% 320
1.1.4 Remaining Share of RHNA
After counting anticipated units from pipeline projects and ADUs, the City must demonstrate its ability to meet its remaining housing needs through the identification of sites suitable for housing development. Table C-5 shows the remaining RHNA after accounting for units that are pending or approved as of June 30, 2022, and the number of ADUs assumed to be permitted between 2023 and 2031.
1 https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-06/ADUs-Projections-Memo_final.pdf Housing Resources
9 Table C-5 Remaining Share of RHNA
Affordability Category
RHNA
Allocation
Units Pending or Approved
or Under Construction Estimated ADUs Remaining RHNA
Very-Low 1,075 335 96 644
Low 617 275 96 246
Moderate 817 82 96 639
Above Moderate 2,115 1,381 32 702
Total 4,624 2,073 320 2,231
After accounting for planned and approved units and projected ADU development the City has satisfied approximately 48 percent of its total allocation for the 2023-2031 planning period. The City must demonstrate the availability of sites with appropriate zoning and development standards that allow and encourage the development of an additional 2,231 units. This total includes 644 very lowincome, 246 low-income, 639 moderate-income, and 702 above moderate-income units.
1.2 Residential Sites Inventory
New residential development in the City of Hayward is expected to occur primarily in the areas covered by the following plans:
Downtown Specific Plan
Mission Boulevard Specific Plan (Mixed Use Corridor PDA) Former Route 238 Corridor
The Sites Inventory identifies vacant and underutilized sites within these plan areas that have the capacity to accommodate the City’s remaining RHNA. A detailed, parcel-specific Sites Inventory is provided in Appendix C. The sites identified in this inventory have a potential development capacity of 3,449 new housing units.
1.2.1 Methodology
Suitable Sites for Affordable Housing
State law requires that jurisdictions demonstrate in the Housing Element that the land inventory is adequate to accommodate that jurisdiction’s share of the regional growth. State law has established “default” density standards for the purpose of estimating potential units by income range:
A density standard of 0 to 14 units per acre (primarily for single-family homes) is assumed to facilitate the development of housing in the above moderate-income category. A density standard of 15 to 29 units per acre (primarily for medium density multi-family developments) would facilitate the development of housing in the moderate-income category. A density standard of 30 or more units per acre (primarily for higher density multi-family developments) would facilitate the development of housing in the low- and very low-income category.
In addition to default density standards, the California Legislature established size requirements for parcels intended to support the development of lower income units. Government Code Section 65583.2 establishes that sites between 0.5 and 10 acres in size which are zoned for residential Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
10 development at greater than 30 units per acre are suitable for lower-income projects. Very small parcels, even when zoned for high densities, may not facilitate the scale of development required to access competitive funding resources. Conversely, typically lower-resource affordable housing developers may be unable to finance the scale of project necessitated by very large parcels. The Sites Inventory includes two instances of lot consolidation due to common ownership of contiguous parcels. With consolidation, these parcels meet the 0.5-acre size requirement for lower-income. No standalone parcels smaller than 0.5 acres include lower-income units. Additionally, no larger than 10 acres is assumed for residential development on any site.
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites
To identify potential sites for additional development, geospatial data was used to identify vacant and nonvacant but underutilized properties within the city. Nonvacant parcels were chosen as sites likely to be redeveloped during the planning period based on the following factors:
Improvement-To-Land Value Ratio
A parcel’s improvement-to-land value (ILV) ratio can help quickly identify properties that are potentially underutilized. A ratio of less than 1.0 indicates that the real estate market values the land itself more highly than what is currently built on that land. These underutilized parcels represent opportunities for property owners and developers to invest in further improvements that increase the overall value of the property. It should be noted that the improvement-to-land value ratio of a property does not necessarily consider development standards or environmental constraints that may impact the feasibility of redevelopment on the site. Approximately 95 percent of the total units are located on sites with an ILV ratio of less than 1.0. Additionally, multiple pending projects including 420 Smalley Avenue (2.33), Pina Vista Condos (2.33) Mission Terraces (3.46), Mission Villages (1.89), 603 A Street (1.33), and 7287 Patrick Avenue (1.07), have ILV ratios over 1.0, indicating that redevelopment is feasible on parcels with high ILV ratios. The Sites Inventory includes ILV ratio for each site.
Existing Use vs. Zoned Use
A comparison of a site’s current use to the use for which it is zoned can also help identify underutilized properties. For example, a parcel currently occupied by a parking lot or single-family home which is zoned for high-density housing or high intensity commercial development represents an opportunity for the property owner to convert the property to a higher value use. As part of the Alameda County Housing Collaborative discussion series, developers in Alameda County indicated that nonvacant sites currently occupied by a single-tenant retail or office use are ideal for redevelopment. These sites usually have existing utility connections on site, and single ownership and tenancy reduces the potential complexity of a change in ownership or use. This developer feedback was considered during the site selection process. All nonvacant sites have existing uses that have a likelihood of redevelopment, such as warehouses, auto repair services, single-tenant commercial, and surface parking. The redevelopment of these existing uses is consistent with citywide development trends that occurred during the 5th Cycle Planning Period (see Section 1.3.1).
Although the City has experienced development of low-density residential uses, sites currently used for residential are included on the inventory.
Housing Resources
11 Age of Structure
The age of a structure is useful in demonstrating that a site is not likely to redevelop. New construction on the site indicates that a property owner is unlikely to invest in additional improvements or redevelop the site in the near future. All nonvacant sites have existing structures that are at least 40 years old. Citywide development trends indicate that parcels with older structures are suitable to include on the Sites Inventory (see Section 1.3.1). The Sites Inventory includes structure age for each site.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Low floor area ratios further indicate underutilization especially in downtown areas or upzoned2 corridors. Conversely, developed sites with higher floor area ratios are less likely to redevelop as the land and demolition costs would be high. Sites were selected with FAR’s significantly lower than what is allowed in each zone district. All nonvacant sites have FAR values less than 1.0 and approximately 70 percent of the nonvacant sites (excluding vacant sites), have FAR values below
0.5. Citywide development trends indicate that structures with FAR values as high as 0.8 are likely to redevelop (see Section 1.3.1). The Sites Inventory includes FAR values for each site.
Ownership patterns
In cases where site consolidation (i.e., merging parcels) is required for redevelopment, properties owned by a single entity are simpler to consolidate and/or redevelop. Publicly owned land can be more easily developed as affordable housing because land acquisition costs for developers are lower or nonexistent. The Sites Inventory assumes two instances of consolidation of commonly owned parcels. Through consolidation, these parcels meet the minimum 0.5-acre size threshold for lower-income units:
Downtown BART: 428-0046-053-00, 428-0046-054-00, and 428-0046-052-02 (51 units) Mission Boulevard Used Car dealership: 078C-0626-003-12 and 078C-0626-003-23 (170 units) Potential sites were then reviewed based on these criteria to eliminate those unlikely to be redeveloped in the near term.
Realistic Development Capacity
The City assumed that the realistic development capacity of the chosen sites may be significantly less than the full development capacity allowed by the parcel’s zoning or land use designation. This assumption is based on site specific conditions and development standards that may reduce the development potential of a given site. Steep slopes, protected wetlands or watercourses, open space or parking requirements, and irregularly shaped parcels all impact the ability to achieve the maximum density allowed by the zoning code. Additionally, all General Plan designations have a minimum and maximum density ranges. While Density Bonus allows a development project to exceed the maximum density, there no mechanism to approve a development project that proposes a density under the minimum density prescribed by the General Plan because the proposed development would not be found consistent with City objective standards.
On average, the pending and approved projects shown in Table C-3 achieved a density equal to approximately 91 percent of the maximum density allowed on the site. Based on that finding, the 2 Upzone is the reclassification of a site or area to a higher zone, typically allowing for more intensive use, e.g. from residential to commercial or from single- to multiple-family use.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
12 City conservatively assumes the realistic capacity of each site listed in the Sites Inventory to be the total acreage of the site multiplied by 75 percent of the maximum density allowed under the applicable zoning or general plan designation. In the event that a site in the Sites Inventory develops under the density assumptions or the affordable housing assumptions set forth in this document, the City will identify other development projects or other sites available to accommodate the City’s RHNA and quantified objectives. The City will maintain an updated inventory of housing sites and implement Program H-9 to maintain an administrative list of additional sites with appropriate zoning that can be added to the City’s Sites Inventory if and when an analysis provided the Annual Progress Report indicates that sufficient sites may not exist to accommodate the City’s remaining RHNA, by income level, for the planning period.
Suitability of BART Owned Sites
The Sites Inventory includes five parcels owned by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) that surround Hayward’s two BART stations. Parcels near the Downtown Hayward BART station include three vacant parcels along A Street (428-0046-053-00, 428-0046-054-00, 428-0046-052-02) and a surface parking along C Street (431-0044-035-04, 078C-0441-001-29). It is anticipated that the parcels along A Street would consolidate into one larger site. One parcel currently used for parking was included near the South Hayward BART station along Dixon Street. The Sites Inventory assumes a mix of lower-, moderate-, and above moderate-income units on each site. Table C-6 shows the BARTowned sites. Existing zoning currently supports densities up to 110 units per acre.
Table C-6 BART-Owned Sites
APN General Plan Zoning
Maximum
Allowable Density
Realistic
Capacity Existing Use
431-0044-035-04 CC-ROC UC 110 145 Surface Parking
078C-0441-001-29 SMU PD 100 439 Surface Parking
428-0046-053-00 CC-ROC UC 110 6 Vacant
428-0046-054-00 CC-ROC UC 110 6 Vacant
428-0046-052-02 CC-ROC UC 110 158 Vacant
According to BART’s Transit-Oriented Development Program Work Plan, redevelopment of the Downtown Hayward Station is prioritized for the near-term (2020-2025) and redevelopment of the South Hayward Station is prioritized in the mid-term (2025-2030).3 The City has experienced significant growth in these areas, including two recent residential projects on parcels formerly used as BART parking lots (Alta Mira and Cadance, see Section 1.3.1). Based on these recent trends, the City believes that there is a strong potential for development of these sites.
The City of Hayward has a strong track record of working with regional agencies in seeing development of publicly owned land. As detailed in Appendix E, Review of past Accomplishments, in 2016, the City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Caltrans to manage the disposition and development of former right of way for the former 238 bypass. During the 5th Cycle, the City entitled five of the parcels for a total of 933 new units, 358 of which are deed restricted for moderate and low income households. The City is committed to fostering partnerships with BART to facilitate the redevelopment of these sites.
3 BART’s Transit-Oriented Development Program Work Plan. 2020. https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20TOD_Workplan_FINAL_Spreads_200814%20Reduced.pdf Housing Resources
13 To facilitate development on these sites, the City will develop and maintain a partnership with BART to support residential development around BART stations and support BART in acquiring sufficient funding and commitment to infrastructure for parking replacement and station access (Program H8). The City will prioritize the development of the Downtown BART site in in the first half of the 6th Cycle and the South Hayward BART site in the second half of the 6th Cycle in accordance with BART’s plans to redevelop these sites in the near-term and mid-term, respectively.
Suitability of Publicly Owned Sites
In addition to the BART sites, nine sites owned by the City of Hayward and two sites are owned by Caltrans have been identified as sites with high redevelopment potential. These sites are currently vacant or used for parking and are considered highly developable and are currently zoned to support high density, mixed-use, and transit-oriented development. To facilitate development of these sites, the City will adhere to the following schedule of actions:
Prioritize releasing Surplus Lands Act-related documents for the City Center (APNs 415-0250- 111-02, 415-0250-112-00 and 415-0250-113-00) by January 2026. Prioritize releasing Surplus Lands Act-related documents for the remaining City-owned sites by January 2028.
For Parcel Groups 6 (445-0180-001-00) and Parcel Group 7 (445-0200-012-04), prioritize getting RFPs, ENAs and/or DDAs and entitlements for these projects prior to 2027 consistent with the City’s agreement with Caltrans or later as amended by agreement with Caltrans.
In the event that these sites do not develop in this time frame, the City will identify alternative sites to accommodate the RHNA (Action 8.9). Through Program H-9, the City will maintain an administrative list of additional sites with appropriate zoning that can be added to the City’s Sites Inventory if and when an analysis provided through the Annual Progress Report indicates that sufficient sites may not exist to accommodate the City’s remaining RHNA, by income level, for the planning period.
The City will follow all requirements of the Surplus Land Act, Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5, including holding a public hearing designating the properties as “surplus properties” under California Law. It is the City’s intent to facilitate the development of 100 percent affordable housing projects on vacant or underutilized City-owned sites. The City will also coordinate with other public entities that own a site (or sites) to ensure that the legally mandated surplus property process is followed.
To facilitate development, the City will subsidize the development of affordable housing through disposition of City-owned land where feasible and provision of development subsidy when available (Program H-4). Additionally, the City will maintain an inventory of City-owned properties and periodically assess these properties for their potential redevelopment or development for residential use. The City will reach out to developers annually and pursue projects that include housing for extremely low income households and those with special needs such as seniors and persons with disabilities. Table C-7 lists the City-owned sites identified for redevelopment. All sites support high density mixed-use development and are currently either vacant or used for parking.
Hayward Housing Element
14 APN
General
Plan Zoning
Maximum
Allowable
Density
Realistic
Capacity Existing Use Owner
445-0180-001-00 SMU SMU 25 55 Vacant Caltrans
428-0066-038-01 CC-ROC DT-MS 40 110 Public Owned Parking City of Hayward 428-0066-037-00 CC-ROC DT-MS 40 110 Public Owned Parking City of Hayward 428-0066-038-02 CC-ROC DT-MS 40 110 Public Owned Parking City of Hayward 415-0250-112-00 CC-ROC UC 40 110 Vacant City of Hayward 428-0056-066-00 CC-ROC DT-MS 40 110 Public Owned Parking City of Hayward 415-0250-111-02 CC-ROC UC 40 110 Vacant City of Hayward 427-0011-020-00 CC-ROC DT-MS 40 110 Public Owned Parking City of Hayward 415-0240-038-00 CC-ROC UN 40 110 Public Owned Parking City of Hayward 415-025-0113-00 CC-ROC UC 40 110 Parking Garage City of Hayward 4450200-012-04 SMU MB-CN 17.4 35 Vacant Caltrans
1.2.2 Hayward Downtown Specific Plan
Adopted by the City in 2019, the Hayward Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) and Development Code develops a vision for a resilient, safe, attractive, and vibrant historic downtown which integrates a multi-modal circulation system and new pedestrian oriented public spaces. The specific plan includes a form-based code that is intended to both provide increased predictability to property owners and developers throughout the development permitting process and achieve a well-defined and active streetscape.
The DSP anticipates significant infill development over the next 20 years within five distinct “placetypes” including mixed-use gateway, downtown core, downtown neighborhood, station plaza, Table C-7 Publicly-Owned Sites
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
City of Hayward
Housing Resources
15 and downtown southern gateway. Each of these placetypes is further defined by the DSP Development Code which intends to facilitate the creation of a walkable neighborhood environment within a short distance of neighborhood serving retail and services. The Development Code classifies each site into the following zones and provides clear standards for building types allowed:
Neighborhood Edge (NE): Small-to medium footprint, lower-intensity housing choices, from detached single-family houses to small multiplex apartment buildings containing up to six units. Neighborhood General (NG): Small-to-medium footprint, moderate-intensity, medium housescale housing choices, from single-family houses and attached townhomes to small-scale apartment buildings and courtyard buildings on medium-sized lots. Urban Neighborhood (UN): Small-to-large footprint, moderate-intensity, large house-scale and block-scale housing choices, from rows of townhomes and large multiplex buildings containing between 6 and 18 units, to medium-scale apartment buildings. Downtown Main Street (DT-MS): A vibrant urban main street serving as the citywide focal point for Hayward with commercial, retail, entertainment, and civic uses, public transportation, and small-to-large footprint, moderate-to-high-intensity housing choices including large multiplex buildings to large-scale apartment buildings.
Urban Center (UC): Medium-to-large footprint, moderate-intensity housing choices, from rows of townhomes and large multiplex buildings to large-scale apartment buildings surrounding an enclosed parking structure.
Vacant and Underutilized Properties in the Downtown Specific Plan Area The DSP Development Code closely regulates building form and character, and it does not directly regulate the density of residential development. Because the DSP Development Code is intended to implement Hayward’s General Plan land use designations, this analysis assumes that for sites within the DSP, the maximum allowable residential density is determined by the densities listed in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The General Plan designates the vast majority of the DSP Area as Central City-Retail and Office Commercial (CC-ROC) and Central City-High Density Residential (CCHDR). Each of these designations allow mixed-use residential development at a density of 40 to 110 dwelling units per acre.
All potential sites identified in the DSP area meet the criteria to count toward the City’s share of the RHNA for lower-income housing based on density and lot size. For the purposes of meeting the City’s RHNA for moderate and above-moderate income units, multiple sites that meet HCD’s requirements for the development of lower income housing have been allocated to moderate and above-moderate income units. Table C-8 summarizes the capacity of vacant and underutilized sites within the DSP area.
Table C-8 Residential Development Potential in the Downtown Specific Plan Area General Plan Land Use Designation Acres
Number
of
Parcels
Maximum
Allowed Density
(dwelling units per acre)
Potential
New
Units
Central City – High-Density Residential (CC-HDR) 0.44 2 110 35 Central City – Retail and Office Commercial (CC-ROC) 19.19 27 110 1,571 Total 19.63 29 – 1,606
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
16 Sites identified within the DSP are well served by transit and other community amenities including grocery stores, medical offices, and entertainment. The vacant former Civic Center site at the northern gateway to downtown is directly adjacent to a shopping and office commercial center and across Foothill Boulevard from the Lincoln Landing mixed-use development. In addition, the Maple and Main mixed-use project has been approved at the intersection of Maple Court and McKeever Avenue in the heart of the DSP area. All sites identified within the DSP are within a one-mile walk of the BART Station and approximately 60 percent of the potential new units are within 0.5-mile walk of the station. Several of the sites identified within the DSP are owned by the City and are currently used for public parking or unoccupied. The City has had success since 2010 in facilitating deedrestricted affordable and market-rate housing projects on City-owned parcels. The City considers the publicly owned parcels in the DSP area as opportunities for high-quality residential infill development.
The Sites Inventory identified 19.63 acres of vacant and underutilized land within the DSP Area (as shown in Figure C-2) which can accommodate 1,606 housing units. This estimate is based on a density factor of 82.5 units per acre (i.e., 75 percent of the maximum density of 110 units per acre allowed by the General Plan).
Housing Resources
17 Figure C-2 Vacant and Underutilized Sites within the Downtown Specific Plan Area Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
18 1.2.3 Mission Boulevard Corridor
In 2020, the City of Hayward adopted Ordinance 20-12 which formally consolidated the South Hayward BART/Mission Boulevard Form Based Code and Mission Boulevard Form Based Code and reclassified the ordinance as the Mission Boulevard Corridor Code. This new code implements smart-growth principles and policies outlined in the General Plan. The intent of the Mission Boulevard Corridor Code is to encourage compact, mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods with a variety of housing types in proximity to high-frequency transit stations. Development of this character will help the City advance its goals of decreasing automobile dependency and reducing both traffic congestion and its subsequent greenhouse gas emissions.
The Mission Boulevard Corridor Code looks to encourage and guide infill development through the application of the following zoning districts:
Corridor Neighborhood (MB-CN): A mixed-use neighborhood environment with moderate intensity, medium-scale residential and non-residential uses compatible with surrounding neighborhoods, along a multi-modal corridor within short walking, biking, or bus distance of neighborhood serving retail and service uses.
Neighborhood Node (MB-NN): A vibrant, urban neighborhood serving node. This district supports mixed-use infill development to provide a range of commercial, retail, entertainment, civic, and moderate intensity residential uses in a more compact urban setting. Corridor Center (MB-CC): A transit-oriented mixed-use, urban center with high-intensity, residential and non-residential uses located within proximity to BART, to facilitate access to BART by biking or walking.
Civic Space (MB-CS): This zone is intended to provide public open space and civic buildings.
When applied to privately owned parcels, existing use may continue until the site is redeveloped or comes under public ownership.
Housing Resources
19 Planned Development (PD): This zoning district is applied to the South Hayward BART Station property. This district is intended to facilitate close collaboration between the property owner (Bay Area Rapid Transit) and the City to foster well designed residential and mixed-use development. PD districts help encourage redevelopment projects which incorporate a variety of housing types or combinations of residential and nonresidential uses which may not be achievable under other zoning districts. This site is also subject to California AB 2923 which establishes baseline zoning standards for BART owned properties within 0.5 miles of BART stations. Current zoning of the South Hayward BART Station property meets or exceeds the requirements of AB 29234
.
The Mission Boulevard Code defines and applies the following overlay zones to better regulate portions of the corridor:
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay: Properties near public transit centers, as identified on the Mission Boulevard Code, including BART, are allowed an increase in residential density and adjusted building height limits.
Commercial Overlay Zone 1: Properties designated with a Commercial Overlay Zone 1 designation may be developed with a mix of uses, but commercial uses must occupy the first or ground floors. 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.
Commercial Overlay Zone 2: Properties designated with a Commercial Overlay Zone 2 designation may be developed with a mix of uses, but commercial uses must occupy the primary street frontage.
Anchored by Downtown to the north and the South Hayward BART Station to the south, development along the corridor is characterized by large-scale commercial and light industrial uses including auto dealerships, auto repair and accessory businesses, single-tenant commercial buildings, and pockets of single-family homes. Since 2010, multiple large-scale residential projects have contributed to a mix of housing types along the corridor including affordable and market-rate townhomes and midrise apartment buildings. These projects have advanced the City’s vision of a series of walkable and compact urban neighborhoods along Mission Boulevard. A high-frequency bus line runs along Mission Boulevard and the South Hayward BART Station provides access to regional transit. Several residential projects along the corridor are approved or under review, and the City expects additional development in the upcoming housing cycle.
Vacant and Underutilized Properties in the Mission Boulevard Corridor Code Area
Like the DSP, the Mission Boulevard Corridor Code regulates a potential development’s form and character. The Corridor Code also specifies minimum and maximum density for a site, as shown in Table C-9. All potential sites identified within the Mission Boulevard Corridor Code area are assumed to be adequate for the development of lower-income housing. Table C-10 summarizes the capacity of vacant and underutilized sites within the Mission Boulevard Corridor Code Area. 4 A Technical Guide to Zoning for AB 2923 Conformance
https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/00_AB2923_TechGuide_Draft_2020Jun_0.pdf Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
20 Table C-9 Mission Boulevard Corridor Code Allowed Densities Zoning District Minimum Density Maximum Density
Maximum with
Site Plan Review
Corridor Neighborhood (MB-CN) 17.5 du/ac 35 du/ac 55 du/ac south of A Street
Neighborhood Node (MB-NN) 17.5 du/ac 35 du/ac 65 du/ac
Corridor Center (MB-CC) 35 du/ac
TOD Overlay 1: 75 du/ac
TOD Overlay 2: 40 du/ac
55 du/ac
TOD Overlay 1: 100 du/ac
TOD Overlay 2: 65 du/ac
75 du/ac
TOD Overlay 2: 100 du/ac
Notes: du/ac = dwelling units per acre
Table C-10 Residential Development Potential in the Mission Boulevard Corridor Code Area
Zoning District Acres
Number of
Parcels
Maximum Allowed
Density Potential New Units
Corridor Neighborhood (MB-CN) 11.7 5 35 – 55 du/ac 428
Corridor Center (MB-CC) 6.3 7 55 – 100 du/ac 466
South Hayward BART Site -
Planned Development (PD)
5.9 1 100* 439
Total 23.9 13 – 1,333
Notes: du/ac = dwelling units per acre
The maximum density allowed on each site is determined by the location of the parcel and any applicable overlay zones as detailed in Table C-9. The estimate of new unit potential is based on a conservative 75 percent factor of the maximum number of units allowed on the site.
*Maximum density on South Hayward BART property is based on the Mission Boulevard Code Transit Oriented Development Overlay 1 which allows development up to 100 dwelling units per acre.
The Sites Inventory identified a series of independent auto dealerships, auto repair shops, surface parking lots, and single-tenant commercial buildings as suitable for further housing development. A total of approximately 24 acres of vacant and underutilized land within the Mission Boulevard Corridor Code Area (as shown in Figure C-3) can accommodate an additional 1,333 housing units.
This estimate is based on the realistic density factor of 75 percent of the maximum densities allowed.
Housing Resources
21 Figure C-3 Vacant and Underutilized Sites within the Mission Boulevard Corridor Code Area
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
22 1.2.4 Former Route 238 Corridor
In the mid-1960s, the State of California purchased 354 acres of vacant, commercial, and residential land in the City of Hayward and unincorporated Alameda County, in preparation for the construction of a Route 238 Bypass. The bypass was never built, and the parcels remain mostly vacant. The area surrounding these parcels has been developed primarily with residential subdivisions, multifamily housing, and institutional uses. In 2007 the City of Hayward received a grant from the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to complete a conceptual land use study of the Route 238 Bypass parcels. This study was conducted in preparation for the transfer of State-owned parcels to new ownership.
On January 12, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 16-004, authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Caltrans to acquire 17 properties along the 238 Bypass Corridor to remediate blight; support transit-oriented, mixed-use development; and ensure redevelopment of the properties under a coherent plan that meets the City’s land use goals and other public purposes. Since the City of Hayward acquired these parcels in 2016, numerous developers have responded to the City’s request for proposals to develop medium and large-scale, affordable mixed-use projects across the nine parcel groups:
Parcel Groups 1 and 10. The SOHAY project developed 400 attached townhomes and 72 apartments on Parcel Groups 1 & 10. The site aggregated 21 parcels to create a 21.6 acres development site surrounded by existing development. The development included 472 housing units, approximately 20,000 square feet of commercial space, 2.4 acres of designated park land and a network of pedestrian and bicycle trails. Of the 472 residential units developed on this site, 72 were multifamily rental and 400 were condominium ownership units. A total of 20 of the multi-family rental units are restricted to low-income households and 28 condominium units are restricted to moderate income households.
Housing Resources
23 Parcel Group 2. The City approved the True Life Company’s application to develop a mixed-use project including 189 townhomes and stacked flats and 10,500 square feet of retail space. Of these units, 20 will be deed restricted to moderate income households. Parcel Groups 3 and 4: The City approved Eden Housing’s application to develop the La Vista Residential project which includes 176 affordable apartment homes and a 384-student school on the site.
Parcel Group 5. In 2019, the City adopted the Parcel Group 5 Master Development Plan and released a request for proposals seeking a developer to build up to 74 single family homes and eighteen affordable accessory dwelling units. The City expects to take the entitlement and Disposition and Development Agreement to the City Council in the second quarter of 2022. Parcel Group 6. In 2019, the City adopted the Parcel Group 6 Master Development Plan released a request for proposals to solicit a conceptual plan for the property. The Parcel Group 6 Master Plan allowed for maximum 55 units per acre while the underlying SMU General Plan designation allows for up to 100 units/acre. While there has been significant interest from the residential development community, the City has yet to reach final approval of any application to develop the site.
Parcel Group 7. The City has approved the development of an automobile dealership on the lower portion of Parcel Group 7 adjacent to Mission Boulevard. The remaining portion of Group 7 remains an opportunity site for housing development and is included in the housing Sites Inventory.
Parcel Group 8. The Parcel Group 8 site is approximately 19.8 acres split between the City of Hayward and unincorporated Alameda County. Approximately half of the site (9.17 acres) will be retained as open space and used as a park. A 96-unit affordable residential project subject to a Senate Bill 35/Density Bonus Application is pending City of Hayward approval on a 1.5-acre portion of the site at the corner of Grove Way and Foothill Boulevard. An existing multi-family cottage development is located at Grove Way and Bridge Court within Alameda County. The remainder of Parcel Group 8 (8.26 acres split between City and County) is intended to be developed with market rate housing.
Parcel Group 9. This is a 4.53-acre vacant site located at the northern City limits and is split between the City of Hayward and unincorporated Alameda County. The City has not identified a development plan or a developer for this site.
Vacant and Underutilized Properties in the Former Route 238 Corridor Sites identified in this inventory along the former Route 238 Corridor are designated Sustainable Mixed Use (SMU) in the General Plan which in this context allows development at densities up to 55 dwelling units per acre. These specific sites are assumed to be adequate to support development of a mix of lower, moderate, and above-moderate income housing.
A significant housing opportunity site exists on the upper portion of Parcel Group 7 adjacent to Carlos Bee Road. While the zoning of this site allows residential development at densities up to 55 dwelling units per acre, the topography of the site may limit its realistic development potential. The inventory estimates the 4.9-acre site to be suitable for 98 moderate-income units at a net density of 20 dwelling units per acre.
Parcel Group 6 (the former site of the Carlos Bee Quarry) represents the largest opportunity to encourage the development of a mixed-income neighborhood within the Route 238 Corridor. Based on previous applications and concept plan studies, the parcel’s current zoning, and a realistic Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
24 density 75 percent of the general plan maximum, the Sites Inventory conservatively estimates that 10 acres of the 29-acre site of the site will yield 412 units. Table C-11 summarizes the capacity of vacant and underutilized sites within the former Route 238 Corridor.
Table C-11 Residential Development Potential along the Former Route 238 Corridor General Plan Land Use Designation Acres
Number of
Parcels
Maximum Allowed
Density (du/ac)
Realistic Potential
New Units
Corridor Neighborhood (MB-CN) 4.9 1 35 98
Sustainable Mixed Use (SMU) 10.0 1 55 412
Total 14.9 2 – 510
Notes: Du/ac = dwelling units per acre
The Sites Inventory identified 14.9 acres of vacant and underutilized land within the former Route 238 Corridor (as shown in Figure C-4) that can accommodate an additional 510 housing units. This estimate is based on a realistic density factor which is 75 percent of the maximum densities allowed by the General Plan Designation for each site as well as the assessed realistic development capacity of the parcel Group 6 and 7 sites given their unique topography and site constraints.
Housing Resources
25 Figure C-4 Underutilized Sites within the former Route 238 Corridor Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
26 1.3 Adequacy of Residential Sites Inventory in Meeting RHNA
The residential Sites Inventory identified vacant and under-utilized sites in Hayward which can accommodate a total of 3,504 residential units based on residential densities per existing land use designations, zoning districts, and specific plans. The sites are in the following General Plan land use designations: Central City - Retail and Office Commercial (CC-ROC), Central City - High Density Residential (CC-HDR), and Sustainable Mixed Use (SMU) and the following zoning districts: DT-MS, MB-CC, MB-CN, MB-NN, PD, SMU, UC, and UN.
The City intends to include three nonvacant sites which were listed in a previous Housing Hlement to accommodate a total of 194 lower income units during the planning period. Housing element law requires the City to include a program in the Housing Element that requires rezoning of these sites to allow residential use by right at specified densities for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households. Program H-11 of the Housing Plan allows by-right approval for projects with 20 percent affordable units proposed at 548 Claire Street (431-0040-029-00), Fletcher Lane (445-0001-004-13), and 28824 Mission Boulevard (078C-0461- 006-04).
Hayward anticipates meeting its RHNA requirements for the January 2023 through January 2031 planning period without the need to rezone areas of the city. The Sites Inventory shows a surplus of 294 lower-income units, giving the city a 31 percent buffer for this income category. The results of the residential Sites Inventory are presented in Table C-12.
Table C-12 Adequacy of Residential Sites Inventory
Lower Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate Income Total
RHNA Allocation 1,692 817 2,117 4,624
Planned and Approved Units 610 82 1,381 2,073
ADUs Anticipated 192 96 32 320
Remaining RHNA 890 639 702 2,231
Downtown Specific Plan Area 643 486 477 1,606
Mission Boulevard Corridor 541 252 540 1,333
Former Route 238 Corridor 0 200 310 510
Total Units on Vacant Sites 433 249 477 1,159
Total Units on Underutilized Sites 751 689 850 2,290
Total Units on Vacant and
Underutilized Sites
1,184 938 1,327 3,449
Total Unit Surplus 294 299 625 1,218
Housing Resources
27 1.3.1 Recycling Trends
Assumptions made on the Sites Inventory were based on local development patterns and trends.
Factors such as previous uses, ILV, FAR, and structure age and important indicators for the suitability of nonvacant sites. Table C-13 shows these factors for each pipeline project referenced in Section 1.1.2 above. As shown on the table, the majority of current development is occurring on vacant sites. However, 14 projects include nonvacant uses including existing residential, commercial buildings, and an auto rental service. Of these projects, 5 have ILV values over 1.0, four have FAR values over 0.5, and one project has an existing use less than 40 years old. The existing conditions of the nonvacant sites identified in the Sites Inventory align with the previous conditions of these projects.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
28 Table C-13 Previous Conditions of Pipeline Projects
Project APN Previous Use Previous ILV Previous FAR Year Built Oak Street 415 017001900, -2000, -2100, -2200, -2300, -2400, -2500, -2902
Vacant N/A N/A N/A
Parcel Group 8 415 018007400, -7500, -7600 Vacant N/A N/A N/A 21659 Mission Boulevard 428 000605801 Vacant N/A N/A N/A 420 Smalley Avenue 431 000802000 Single Family
Residence
2.33 N/A 1939
Maple and Main 428 006106104 Vacant N/A N/A N/A
1200 A Street 415 024002803 Commercial building 0.94 0.5 1971 4th and B 427 003603305, -3306, -8501, -5520, -5521, -5522, -5523, -5524, -5525
Vacant N/A N/A N/A
Pimentel Place 427 001605004 Vacant N/A N/A N/A
Pine Vista Condos 444 002700502, -403, -100, -200, -602 Vacant structure 2.33 0.1 1961 Carlos Bee 445 017003913 Vacant N/A N/A N/A
O’Neil Ave Apartments 444 005700600 Vacant N/A N/A N/A
Berry Avenue Multifamily 444 005703300 Single Family
Residence
0.5 N/A 1960
Parcel Group 5 445 025004101, 445 027005402, 445 026008403, 445 025006001, 445 026010903
Vacant N/A N/A N/A
Cavallo Highlands 085A642800200 Vacant N/A N/A N/A
27177-27283 Mission Boulevard 452 005600700, -800 Auto rental 0.88 0.25 1960 Mission Paradise 078C062600902 Vacant N/A N/A N/A
28049 Mission Boulevard 452 008004200 Vacant N/A N/A N/A Parcel Group 3 - La Vista Residential 078C062600309, -107 Vacant N/A N/A N/A Mission Terraces 078C046100700 Commercial building 3.46 0.8 1983 SoMi (True Life) 078C080600400, 078C046101100, -200 Vacant N/A N/A N/A Mission Seniors 078C045500108 Vacant N/A N/A N/A
Mission Villages 078G265101208 Commercial buildings 1.89 N/A N/A Housing Resources
29 Project APN Previous Use Previous ILV Previous FAR Year Built Huntwood 465 002500503 Vacant N/A N/A N/A
Vagabond 465 006000200 Vacant N/A N/A N/A
Harvey Avenue 464 006000502, -600 Single Family
Residence
0.4 N/A 1953
Hesperian Subdivision 441 001206202 Single Family
Residence
0.12 N/A 1922
La Playa Commons 442 003800100 Commercial building 0.04 0.8 1968 603 A Street 431 000409000 Commercial building 1.33 0.7 N/A 27287 Patrick Avenue 454 006513800 Religious building 1.07 0.8 1958 Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
30 In addition to projects currently in the development pipeline, Hayward had success developing residential projects during the 5th Cycle. Much of this recent development relies on the redevelopment of underutilized properties or underperforming sites such as auto dealers and other low FAR commercial structures, into high density, mixed-use, and affordable residential projects.
The City anticipates that these development trends will continue into the 6th Cycle, including broad use of SB 35 and AB 1763 streamlining. Examples of recent recycling trends include the following:
Lincoln Landing
This project located at 22335 Foothill Boulevard consists of a consolidation of four parcels to develop market rate apartments and 80,500 square feet of commercial space. This mixed-use development replaces a vacant large-footprint office building and approximately 8.75 acres of surface parking. The 11.3-acre site accommodates 476 units for a gross density of 42 dwelling units per acre. The project site is zoned Central City Commercial (CC-C) and designated CC-ROC in the General Plan. Lincoln Landing is located in the city’s Downtown Opportunity Zone which allows investors and local jurisdictions to leverage privately sourced funds for eligible economic development and community reinvestment projects. The project, which broke ground in September 2019, represents one of the largest Opportunity Zone projects in the country. The project received $300 million in opportunity zone fund investment from Bridge Investment Group. This additional funding complemented traditional financing secured from Bank of America and other capital partners.
Housing Resources
31 Mission Crossings
This project located at 25501 Mission Boulevard developed 140 market-rate townhome units on 7.3 acres of a 9.6-acre parcel, with 14 of the townhomes deed restricted for Moderate Income households in compliance with the Affordable Housing Ordinance. The remaining 2.3 acres is entitled to accommodate a 93-room hotel and 7,225 square feet of retail space. The mixed-use development replaces two independent auto-dealerships and their associated service facilities. The net density of the townhome portion of the development is approximately 19 dwelling units per acre. The project site is zoned MB-CN and designated SMU in the General Plan.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
32 Legacy at Hayward
This project is nearing completion as of December 2021 located at 2816 Mission Boulevard. The project includes 97 market rate units near the South Hayward BART Station. The 1.8-acre development replaces a low-FAR auto-accessories store with a 4-story building integrating structured parking and a variety of residential amenities. Gross density of the development is approximately 54 dwelling units per acre. The project site is zoned MB-CC and designated SMU in the General Plan.
Housing Resources
33 SOHAY
The SOHAY project located at 29504 Dixon Street, developed 400 attached townhomes and 72 apartments on a collection of 21 long-vacant parcels totaling approximately 21.6 acres. The development includes 20 rental units restricted to low-income and 28 ownership units restricted to moderate income residents. Approximately 2.8 acres of the site is devoted to a new public park and flood control infrastructure and the entire project is within short walking distance of the South Hayward BART Station. The residential portion of the development achieved a density of approximately 25 units per acre. The project site is zoned Planned Development (PD) and designated SMU in the General Plan. The SOHAY project is the result of a negotiated Deposition and Development Agreement with the City.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
34 Alta Mira
Completed in 2017, the Alta Mira project represents an example of high-quality, affordable Transit Oriented Development (TOD). The project located at 28925 Mission Boulevard includes 152 units affordable to residents with an income which is 30 to 50 percent of Alameda County’s median income. The project is within ¼ mile of the South Hayward BART station and provides a variety of amenities and supportive services to both seniors and families. The 1.9-acre site includes a new public park and achieved a gross density of approximately 80 dwelling units per acre. The project site is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and designated SMU in the General Plan. The City provided permanent financing in the amount of $6.95 Million to facilitate the development of this project. The site was formerly used as a BART parking lot.
Housing Resources
35 Cadence
The Cadence project was developed in conjunction with Alta Mira (Alta Mira was built to satisfy the developer’s affordable housing requirements) and is located 28850 Dixon St. This mixed-use development replaces 2.9 acres of vacant land and surface parking with 206 market-rate units, extensive amenities, and ground floor retail space. The achieved density of the development is 71 dwelling units per acre. The site was formerly used as a BART parking lot.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
36 Abode
The approved Abode project at 2595 Depot Road consists of a four-story building accommodating 125 studio units of permanent supportive housing. The development plan includes 72 parking spaces for residents. The Project takes advantage of California’s SB 35 and AB 1763 which allowed for streamlined permitting and unlimited density bonuses for 100 percent affordable projects within ½ mile of a major transit stop, and received waivers and concessions related to building height and waiver of personal storage space requirements. An existing residential drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility will continue operating on the 3.1-acre site. The City provided permanent financing of approximately $6.1 million and awarded the City’s $18.2 million of Alameda County Measure A1 funds toward the project. The gross density of the development is 40 dwelling units per acre. The project site is zoned Agricultural District and is designated Limited Medium Density Residential (LMDR) in the General Plan.
These recycling activities have taken place since the certification of the 5th Cycle Housing Element and are representative of the conditions within each of the neighborhoods included in the Sites Inventory. The conditions and characteristics of the underutilized commercial sites identified in Appendix C are similar to those that have been redeveloped in recent years.
For example, the Legacy at Hayward project redeveloped a 1.8-acre parcel formerly occupied by an auto-accessories retailer with a large parking lot and service area. The condition of opportunity sites identified along Mission Boulevard mirror the pre-construction conditions of the Legacy at Hayward site.
Similarly, parcel 452-0056-005-00 is a 1.2-acre site which is partially paved and occupied by a single tenant retail store. The two existing structures on the site are in need of repair or refurbishment and the parcel is zoned for a density up to 55 units per acre. Like the Legacy site, this parcel is owned by a single entity and would not require consolidation.
Given current development trends, the City anticipates further interest in the redevelopment of underperforming commercial sites at densities similar to those achieved by the projects listed above. Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that further redevelopment would occur on nonvacant sites throughout the areas discussed in the Sites Inventory.
Housing Resources
37 Recycling activities are also likely to occur on sites zoned for mixed-use. Development trends in the City show that a vast majority of mixed-use zoned projects have a large residential component with a relatively small square footage devoted to commercial use. None of the proposed projects in mixed-use zones are 100 percent devoted to non-residential purposes. Therefore, it can also be reasonably assumed that further residential development would continue to occur in areas zoned mixed-use to accommodate both residential and non-residential uses.
Sites included in the inventory of this Housing Element for the 6th cycle RHNA are very similar to the select projects described above in terms of size, existing conditions and uses. Recycling sites is desirable to help achieve the State Legislature’s goal of alleviating California’s housing crisis.
According to California’s Department of Housing and Community Development, during the last ten years, housing production averaged fewer than 80,000 new homes each year, and ongoing production continues to fall far below the projected need of 180,000 additional homes annually.5 The lack of supply and high rent costs suggests that unit recycling activities is a method to consider when addressing housing needs.
1.4 Availability of Infrastructure and Services
The City’s budget for all operations in Hayward ensures the continued maintenance and improvement of the city’s infrastructure. This includes the design, construction, maintenance of roadways, sidewalks, sewers, and storm drains; construction and maintenance of public buildings; water production, storage, and delivery facilities; the repair of City vehicles and equipment; and the continued operation of transportation services. As such, the City will ensure adequate capacity of all infrastructure and utilities to accommodate the housing growth discussed in this housing element.
All sites listed in the inventory that are appropriate for lower income residential development have available infrastructure. The water and sewer planning documents are aligned with the City’s General Plan land use assumptions and can accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
As part of this Housing Element, the City will Adopt written policies and procedures for the City of Hayward Public Works - Utilities Division (Water and Wastewater) that grants priority to proposed developments that include housing affordable to lower-income households (Program H-4).
1.4.1 Wastewater System
Hayward is served by two major wastewater systems which provide sewage service and wastewater treatment for all residential, commercial, and industrial users in city limits. A small portion of the city’s wastewater at the northern City limits flows to the Oro Loma Sanitary District. The majority of Hayward’s wastewater is handled by the City-owned wastewater collection system and is treated at the award-winning City of Hayward Water Pollution Control Facility. Treated wastewater then flows to the East Bay Dischargers Authority which discharges the water deep into the San Francisco Bay.
The Hayward Water Pollution Control Facility receives approximately 12 million gallons of untreated sewage per day and has a design capacity of 18.5 million gallons per day which will be enough capacity to serve the city through 2040.
The 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (updated in 2021) quantifies the wastewater collection and treatment systems in Hayward. In 2018, the City of Hayward began constructing recycled water 5 California Department of Housing and Community Development. 2020. Addressing a Variety of Housing Challenges. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/housing-challenges.shtml.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
38 facilities and started delivering recycled water to certain users in summer-fall 2021 while simultaneously increasing water conservation standards for households (e.g. requiring installation of rainwater catchment devices and supporting installation of dual plumbing systems to recycle greywater) thereby reducing the amount of water that enters the wastewater system. The wastewater planning documents are aligned with the City’s General Plan land use assumptions and can accommodate the City’s RHNA.
1.4.2 Potable Water System
The City of Hayward owns and operates its own water distribution system which serves approximately 95 percent of the city’s residents. The remaining small portion of users are served by the East Bay Municipal Utilities District. The city’s potable water is supplied by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission which sources its water from the Hetch-Hetchy reservoir in the Sierra Nevada.
In January 2021, the City of Hayward, the water supplier for over 97 percent of the city, adopted the 2020 City of Hayward Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The UWMP is updated every five years by City of Hayward Public Works Utilities staff in conjunction with Planning staff and is based on the City’s General Plan and regional planning documents. The UWMP assumes that the majority of new development in Hayward will occur within identified Priority Development Areas such as downtown hayward, along Mission Boulevard and former Caltrans 238 corridor which are the primary sites identified for development in this Housing Element.
The 2020 UWMP estimates that the city’s current water system has enough supply to meet projected demand through 2040 during a normal precipitation year, but not enough supply to meet projected demand during dry years. During a dry year, Hayward’s supply is likely to meet 63 percent of projected demand in 2040.
To address this issue, the City adopted the 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP). This strategic planning document is intended to prepare for and respond to water shortages and ultimately prevent supply interruptions. The plan identifies clear steps to manage a water supply shortage integrating public messaging, recycling water programs as detailed in Section 1.4.1 above, and enforceable water conservation measures. The potable water planning documents are aligned with the City’s General Plan land use assumptions and can accommodate the City’s RHNA.
1.4.3 Storm Water and Drainage
The major storm drainage facilities within Hayward are owned and maintained by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCWCD). The ACFCWCD manages stormwater flows into several underground storm drain lines and manmade open channels.
Stormwater pipes smaller than 30 inches are generally owned by the City of Hayward, which also operates five pump stations that divert stormwater from Mt. Eden and Old Alameda Creeks to be discharged into the San Francisco Bay. Most major flood control infrastructure in western Alameda County is 50 or 60 years old.
The City is committed to supporting ACFCWCD in the implementation of best management practices and encouraging Low Impact Development to accommodate new housing and protect water quality.
Housing Resources
39 1.4.4 Circulation System
The Mobility Element of the Hayward General Plan outlines the long-term plan for roadways, including numbers of lanes, right-of-way, and general operating conditions. It also provides guidance relating to the transit system, goods movement system, and nonmotorized travel, including bicycle and pedestrian travel and serves as a comprehensive transportation management strategy to ensure adequate transportation infrastructure is in place to meet population growth. In September 2020, the City adopted an updated Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan which details the City’s plan to establish a network of accessible, safe, and integrated bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
According to the Plan, the City will add 153 miles of new bicycle facilities, including 32 miles of multi-use paths for pedestrians and bicyclists. New developments are required to install improvements consistent with this plan or to pay into a fund to construct the improvements and connections.
The city is a major crossroad for key interstate highways (I-238, I-580 and I-880), and State highways (SR 92 and SR 185). In addition, two BART lines (Fremont-Richmond and Fremont-Daly City/Millbrae) serve the city, with a third line (East Dublin/Pleasanton-SFO Airport) operating just north of the city, and Amtrak service connects the city via a station nearby downtown to Sacramento and San Jose.
1.4.5 Dry Utilities
East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) and PG&E supply electricity in the city. EBCE is the default provider for both residential and commercial customers, but PG&E service is available to residents who choose to opt out of EBCE. Natural gas service is provided by PG&E. In March 2020, the Hayward City Council adopted a reach code ordinance to electrify buildings and vehicles in new construction. As a result, no newly constructed housing units will have natural gas connections.
Telephone, internet services, and cable television are serviced by contracted providers including AT&T and Xfinity.
1.5 Environmental Constraints
Pursuant to State law, the City developed and adopted the Hayward Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in 2016. This plan addresses hazard vulnerabilities from natural and human-caused hazards, including flooding, drought, wildfire, landslides, severe weather, terrorism, cyber threats, pandemic, and the impact of climate change on hazards, as well as other hazards.
Approximately 50 percent of Hayward is included in Seismic Hazard Zones for liquefaction as designated by the State Department of Conservation Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation-- Hayward Quadrangle map.6 The City of Hayward implements regulations and programs to minimize the risk of geologic and seismic hazards. These regulations and programs include, among others, the Uniform Building Code and building permit process, the City Grading and Clearing Permit process, the LHMP currently being updated and renamed the Resiliency Plan, the City of Hayward Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, and the Community Emergency Response Team program.7
This Appendix contains figures showing approved and pending pipeline projects (Figure C-1), and the locations of sites included in the City’s Sites Inventory (Table A) in the Downtown area 6 https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hayward%20GPU%20Public%20Release%20Draft%20EIR_1-30-14.pdf 7 https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hayward%20GPU%20Public%20Release%20Draft%20EIR_1-30-14.pdf Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
40 (Figure C-2), along the Mission Blvd Corridor (Figure C-3) and former Caltrans Route 238 parcels (Figure C-4). According to the City’s Geographic Information Systems Maps (hayward-ca.gov):
Portions of three sites identified in the Inventory that could be impacted by landslide (APNs 445-0180-001-00; 445-0200-012-04; and 445-0001-004-13). Eight sites are partially or wholly located within a Seismic Liquefaction Zone (APNs 428-0066- 055-01; 428-0066-037-00 & -01, and – 02; 428-0053-066-00; 428-0056-057-00; 427-0011-020- 00; and 415-0240-038-00).
Six sites are located partially or wholly within the Alquist Priolo Zone (445-0001-004-13; 445- 0200-012-04; 428-0056-066-00; 428-0066-037-00, -01 and -02). One site (APN 445-0001-004-13) falls within a Dam Failure Inundation Zone; and No sites are located within the Airport Safety Zone.
The approved and pending pipeline projects have been reviewed by City staff, undergone review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and either designed or conditioned to ensure that all identified environmental contains are mitigated to a level of less than significant.
None of the sites listed above require rezoning or land use changes to achieve the densities assumed in the Housing Element and the various hazards were disclosed, analyzed and adequately mitigated through the City’s General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which contains specific policies and programs related to avoiding and reducing seismic and other geologic risks. Such policies include but are not limited to requiring geologic investigations for new development projects, requiring a licensed geotechnical engineer investigate sites for active fault traces and provide setback and other recommendations, and compliance with the Uniform Building Code through the building permit application process.
There are no known environmental constraints on the sites identified in the Sites Inventory that would preclude development. Each project will undergo a site-specific environmental clearance process to ensure that it is built safely and in conformance with the appropriate and applicable building codes.
1.6 Financial Resources for Affordable Housing
Affordable housing development programs in Hayward include inclusionary units developed pursuant to the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, development subsidy through the City’s periodic Notice of Funding Availability, public-private partnerships such as those negotiated on the Caltrans 238 properties, critical residential maintenance, and rental rehabilitation programs. The City administers federally funded Community Development Block Grant program and the City’s allocation of the Home Investment Partnership Program under the Alameda County HOME Consortium. These funds are administered consistent with federal guidelines and can be used to leverage other development funds in partnership with affordable housing developers8 . The City also
makes use of the State administered SB 2 and LEAP planning grants which fund and provide technical assistance to jurisdictions in the process of preparing programs which facilitate housing production.
8 City of Hayward. 2021. Preliminary Budget.
Housing Resources
41 1.6.1 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
The CDBG Program is administered by HUD. Through this program, the federal government provides funding to jurisdictions to undertake community development and housing projects.
Projects proposed by the jurisdictions must meet the objectives and eligibility criteria of CDBG legislation. The primary CDBG objective is the development of viable urban communities, including decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunity, principally for persons of low-and moderate income. Each activity must meet one of the three following national objectives:
Benefit to low-and moderate income families;
Aid in the prevention of elimination of slums or blight; or Meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community.
Hayward uses CDBG funds to stabilize neighborhoods and preserve and upgrade the existing housing stock. In 2021, the City was awarded $2.1 million in CARES Act Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) supplemental funding which was used to support programmatic work in response to the COVID-19 crisis. Much of this programmatic work supported the city’s most vulnerable communities, which included Rent Relief Grants and shelter services for residents who are unhoused.
1.6.2 Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
The HOME program provides federal funds for the development and rehabilitation of affordable rental and ownership housing for households with incomes not exceeding 80 percent of area median income. The program gives local governments the flexibility to fund a wide range of affordable housing activities through housing partnerships with private industry and non-profit organizations. HOME funds can be used for activities that promote affordable rental housing and homeownership by low-income households, including:
Building acquisition
New construction and reconstruction
Moderate or substantial rehabilitation
Homebuyer assistance
Rental assistance
Security deposit assistance
The City participates in the Alameda County HOME Consortium. Alameda County receives an annual formula allocation of HOME funds that can be used to promote affordable housing in the County through activities such as homeowner rehabilitation, homebuyer activities, rental housing development, and tenant-based rental assistance.9 Hayward allocated approximately $482,000 in HOME funds in 2021.
10 9 Alameda County Department of Housing and Community Development. 2021. HOME Program. https://www.acgov.org/cda/hcd/rhd/homefunding.htm. 10 City of Hayward. 2022. Adopted Budget. https://hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/FY-2022-Adopted-OperatingBudget.pdf Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
42 1.6.3 Senate Bill 2 Planning Grant
The Senate Bill 2 Planning Grants provide funding and technical assistance to all local governments in California to help cities and counties prepare, adopt, and implement plans and process improvements that streamline housing approvals and accelerate housing production. Funding supports cities and counties in accelerating housing production, streamlining the approval of housing development, facilitate housing affordability, promote development consistent with the State Planning Priorities (Government Code Section 65041.1), and ensure geographic equity in the distribution and expenditure of the funds. The City will be using the funds to complete three projects:
Creating an overlay zoning district with CEQA review to up zone properties currently zoned for single family and create objective design and development standards to maximize unit potential and allow for a variety of housing types.
Develop Objective Design Standards to allow for streamlining for compliant projects. Update the City's density bonus with CEQA clearance to allow for tiering. The City will explore ways to provide additional density bonus beyond state law requirements
1.6.4 Local Early Action Planning Grant
The Local Action Planning Grants (LEAP) provides over-the-counter grants complemented with technical assistance to local governments for the preparation and adoption of planning documents, and process improvements that accelerate housing production facilitate compliance to implement the sixth-cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The City of Hayward is utilizing the LEAP funding for the following actions:
Prepare and adopt General Plan Updates (including the sixth cycle Housing Element update, Environmental Justice Element and Safety Element);
Develop innovative programs and policies that will be embedded within the updated Housing Element to fund housing development, ownership, and rental opportunities for all income levels and to provide housing-related services and programs for all segments of the population. Development an Accessory Dwelling Unit program that analyzes impediments to development of ADUs in Hayward and provide services and strategies to address those impediments.
1.6.5 Local Funding Sources
The City of Hayward implements programs related to housing using a variety of local funding sources. The following funds were included in the Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 202211:
Housing Authority Fund
Affordable Housing Monitoring Funds
Inclusionary Housing Fund
Rental Housing Program Fund
General Fund
11 Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2022, https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/FY-2022-Adopted-Operating-Budget.pdf Housing Resources
43 1.7 Administrative Resources
This section describes administrative resources available to Hayward. These include building, code enforcement, housing programs, and partnerships with nonprofit organizations that help Hayward achieve the goals and objectives laid out in this Housing Element.
1.7.1 City of Hayward Planning Division
The Planning Division of the Development Services Department provides and coordinates development information and services to the public. Specifically, the Planning Division provides staff support to the City Council and Planning Commission in formulating and administering plans, programs, design guidelines and legislation for guiding the city’s development in a manner consistent with the community’s social, economic, and environmental goals.
The Planning Division is tasked with ensuring that land uses and new development in Hayward comply with City codes, the General Plan, City Council and Planning Commission policies, and California law. Approval of projects through the planning process is required before the City issues grading or building permits. Advanced planning programs provided by the division include a comprehensive General Plan update (including periodic update of the Housing Element), preparing and amending specific plans and design guidelines, and conducting special land use studies as directed by the City Council.
1.7.2 County of Alameda
The Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA) operates several programs funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that provide rental housing or rental assistance for low-income families, the elderly, people with disabilities, and others, in much of Alameda County. The programs include12:
Section 8 Housing Voucher Program
The Project-Based Moderate Rehabilitation Programs
Section 8 Helping Veterans Achieve Housing Stability – The Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) Voucher Program
Mainstream Voucher Program
Family Obligations
1.7.3 Affordable Housing Providers
Affordable housing providers are a critical resource for accomplishing the goals and objectives of this Housing Element. This can be accomplished through private/public partnerships. Since 1997, the City of Hayward, the Former Hayward Redevelopment Agency and the Hayward Housing Authority has been successful in supporting the development 18 affordable housing project through private/public partnerships which provide 1278 units of affordable housing to low and very lowincome households. 13 In 2018, the City Issued a Notice of Funding Availability and awarded development subsidy loans to three non-profit affordable housing development projects that will 12 Housing Authority of Alameda County, https://www.haca.net/housing-programs/ 13 Affordable Rental Housing in Alameda County, HCD. 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/about/contact/affordable-housing-rentaldirectory/docs/alameda.pdf Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
44 add an additional 258 units of affordable housing. Table C-14 details active affordable housing providers active and the associated affordable housing developments in Hayward.
Table C-14 Affordable Housing Providers in Hayward
Organization Development Name Address Type
Eden Housing
Management Inc
Altamira 28901 & 28937 Mission Boulevard
Hayward, California 94544
Multifamily
Cypress Glen 25100 Cypress Avenue
Hayward, California 94544
EC Magnolia Court 22880 Watkins Street
Hayward, California 94541
Glen Berry 625 Berry Avenue
Hayward, California 94544
Glen Eden 561 A Street
Hayward, California 94541
Harris Court Apts 742 and 734 - 751 Harris Court,
Hayward, California 94544
Hayward Senior 568 C Street
Hayward California 94541
Senior
Huntwood Commons 27901 Huntwood Avenue,
Hayward, California 94545
Multifamily
Josephine Lum Lodge 2747 Oliver Drive
Hayward, California 94545
Leidig Court 27751 Leidig Court
Hayward, California 94541
Multifamily
Sparks Way Commons 2750 Sparks Wa
Hayward, California 94541
Multifamily
Villa Springs Apartments 22328-22330 South Garden Avenue Hayward, California 94541
Multifamily
Walker Landing 1433 North Lane
Hayward, California 94545
Multifamily
Tennyson Gardens/Faith
Manor
973 West Tennyson Road
Hayward, California 94545
Multifamily
Sara Conner Court 32540 Pulaski Drive
Hayward, California 94545
Multifamily
Volunteers of America
National Services
Lord Tennyson 2181 W. Tennyson Road
Hayward California 94545
Park Manor Apartments 24200 Silva Avenue
Hayward, California 94544
Hayward Pacifica
Associates, LP
The Majestic 959 Torrano Avenue
Hayward, California 94542
FESCO Banyan House 21568 Banyan Street
Hayward, California 94541
Transitional Housing
Les Marquis Emergency
Shelter
22671 3rd Street
Hayward, California 94541
Emergency Shelter
Housing Resources
45 1.7.4 Opportunities for Energy Conservation
In 2020, the City of Hayward adopted a Reach Code to electrify buildings in new construction. In November 2022, the City amended the Reach Code in conjunction with the new Building Code cycle.
The Reach Code requires that all new residential buildings including mixed use building be all electric and that all new buildings and remodels include provision of electric vehicle charging infrastructure above and beyond those required by the California Green Building Standards Code.14 Hayward provides energy conservation information and resources on the City’s official website.
Topics include installing solar panels, replacing appliances, and home insulation. The Home Plus program is available specifically for Bay Area homeowners and offers free technical support with a Home Energy Advisor on energy saving opportunities, and rebates for energy-efficient projects.
In addition to resources available on the City’s website, Hayward’s General Plan Natural Resources Element includes the following residential energy efficiency programs:
NR-4.1 Energy Efficiency Measures. The City shall promote the efficient use of energy in the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of public and private facilities, infrastructure, and equipment.
NR-4.2 Energy Efficiency Collaboration. The City shall collaborate with partner agencies, utility providers, and the business community to support a range of energy efficiency, conservation, and waste reduction measures, including the development of green buildings and infrastructure, weatherization programs, installation of energy-efficient appliances and equipment in homes and offices, promotion of energy efficiency retrofit programs, use of green power options, and heightened awareness of the benefits of energy efficiency and conservation issues.
NR-4.14 Energy Efficiency Retrofits. The City shall collaborate with regional entities and others to promote incentive programs for energy efficiency retrofits such as the Energy Upgrade California program for residential properties.
NR-4.15 Energy Efficiency Programs. The City shall promote the use of the Energy Star Portfolio Manager program and energy benchmarking training programs for nonresidential building owners.
In this Housing Element, Policy H-3.3 states that the City shall promote sustainable housing practices that incorporate a “whole system” approach that considers sustainable siting, design, and construction of housing that is integrated into the building site, consuming less water, improving water quality, reducing energy use and the use of other resources, and minimizing development impacts on the surrounding environment. Additionally, Program H-1 directs the City to provide resources on energy conservation measures to eligible homeowners. Finally, Hayward is currently updating their Climate Action Plan that would also include greenhouse gas emission reduction measures related to energy conservation.
14 https://www.hayward-ca.gov/reach-code
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
46 This page intentionally left blank.
Sites Inventory
Housing Element Sites Inventory
1 Table A Housing Element Sites Inventory
Site Address/
Intersection
5 Digit
ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General
Plan
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Minimum
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Max
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel
Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use/Vacancy Infrastructure
PubliclyOwnedSite
Status
Identified in
Last/Last
Two Planning
Cycle(s)
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Improvement
to Land
Value Ratio
Year
Built
Floor
Area
Ratio
22765 GRAND ST 94541 431-0040-
026-00
CC-ROC UN 40 110 0.23 Commercial
repair garage
YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Used in Prior
Housing
Element -
Non-Vacant
0 0 18 18 0.00 N/A 0.20
507 C ST 94541 431-0040-
017-00
CC-HDR UN 40 110 0.20 Industrial YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Used in Prior
Housing
Element -
Non-Vacant
0 0 16 16 0.34 1945 0.50
548 CLAIRE ST 94541 431-0040-
029-00
CC-ROC UN 40 110 0.62 Industrial Light
Manufacturing
YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Used in Prior
Housing
Element -
Non-Vacant
51 0 0 51 2.39 N/A 0.80
529 C ST 94541 431-0040-
020-02
CC-ROC UN 40 110 0.58 Warehouse YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Used in Prior
Housing
Element -
Non-Vacant
0 0 47 47 0.79 1954 0.40
22756 ALICE ST 94541 431-0040-
031-00
CC-HDR UN 40 110 0.24 Commercial
repair garage
YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Used in Prior
Housing
Element -
Non-Vacant
0 19 0 19 0.79 1955 0.90
548 CLAIRE ST 94541 431-0040-
028-00
CC-ROC UN 40 110 0.42 Warehouse YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Used in Prior
Housing
Element -
Non-Vacant
0 34 0 34 0.12 N/A 0.20
577 C ST 94541 431-0040-
023-00
CC-ROC UN 40 110 0.41 Warehouse YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Used in Prior
Housing
Element -
Non-Vacant
0 33 0 33 0.06 1940 0.90
597 C ST 94541 431-0040-
024-02
CC-ROC UN 40 110 0.33 Veterinarian
Office
YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Used in Prior
Housing
Element -
Non-Vacant
0 27 0 27 2.33 1955 0.90
575 C ST 94541 431-0040-
022-00
CC-ROC UN 40 110 1.07 Automobile
dealership
YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Used in Prior
Housing
Element -
Non-Vacant
0 88 0 88 0.74 N/A 0.30
22765 GRAND ST 94541 431-0040-
027-00
CC-ROC UN 40 110 0.30 Commercial
repair garage
YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Used in Prior
Housing
Element -
Non-Vacant
0 24 0 24 0.52 N/A 0.70
541 C ST 94541 431-0040-
021-01
CC-ROC UN 40 110 0.27 Commercial
towing
company
YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Used in Prior
Housing
Element -
Non-Vacant
0 22 0 22 1.29 N/A 0.70
22740 ALICE ST 94541 431-0040-
032-00
CC-ROC UN 40 110 0.40 Industrial Light
Manufacturing
YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Used in Prior
Housing
Element -
Non-Vacant
0 33 0 33 1.50 1963 0.50
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2 Site Address/
Intersection
5 Digit
ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General
Plan
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Minimum
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Max
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel
Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use/Vacancy Infrastructure
PubliclyOwnedSite
Status
Identified in
Last/Last
Two Planning
Cycle(s)
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Improvement
to Land
Value Ratio
Year
Built
Floor
Area
Ratio
516 CLAIRE ST 94541 431-0040-
030-00
CC-ROC UN 40 110 0.29 Commercial
repair garage
YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Used in Prior
Housing
Element -
Non-Vacant
0 23 0 23 1.06 1947 0.80
22722 ALICE ST 94541 431-0040-
033-00
CC-ROC UN 40 110 0.33 Commercial
repair garage
YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Used in Prior
Housing
Element -
Non-Vacant
0 27 0 27 0.23 1968 0.40
25375 MISSION BLVD 94544 444-0060-
012-02
SMU MB-CN 17.5 35 1.86 Automobile
dealership
YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Used in Prior
Housing
Element -
Non-Vacant
0 48 0 48 0.02 1965 0.20
28824 MISSION BLVD 94544 078C-0461-
006-04
SMU MB-CC 40 100 1.33 Vacant YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Used in Prior
Housing
Element -
Non-Vacant
99 0 0 99 0.00 N/A 0.00
FLETCHER LN 94544 445-0001-
004-13
SMU MB-CN 17.5 35 1.70 Auto-Storage YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Used in Prior
Housing
Element -
Non-Vacant
44 0 0 44 0.02 N/A 0.00
OVERLOOK AVE 94542 445-0180-
001-00
SMU SMU 25 55 10.00 Vacant YES - Current YES -
CityOwned
Available Used in Two
Consecutive
Prior Housing
Elements -
Vacant
0 102 310 412 0.00 N/A 0.00
1026 C ST 94541 428-0066-
038-01
CC-ROC DT-MS 40 110 0.20 Public Owned
Parking
YES - Current YES -
CityOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
0 0 16 16 0.00 N/A 0.00
1026 C ST 94541 428-0066-
037-00
CC-ROC DT-MS 40 110 0.45 Public Owned
Parking
YES - Current YES -
CityOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
0 0 37 37 0.00 N/A 0.00
22696 MAIN ST 94541 428-0066-
038-02
CC-ROC DT-MS 40 110 0.14 Public Owned
Parking
YES - Current YES -
CityOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
0 0 11 11 0.00 N/A 0.00
22300 FOOTHILL BLVD 94541 415-0250-
112-00
CC-ROC UC 40 110 1.40 Vacant YES - Current YES -
CityOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
0 0 115 115 0.00 1968 0.00
MISSION BLVD 94541 428-0056-
066-00
CC-ROC DT-MS 40 110 0.98 Public Owned
Parking
YES - Current YES -
CityOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
0 0 80 80 0.00 N/A 0.00
24874 MISSION BLVD 94544 445-0150-
058-04
SMU MB-CN 17.4 55 1.82 Vacant
commercial
land
YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
0 0 75 75 0.00 N/A 0.00
27143 MISSION BLVD 94544 452-0056-
005-00
SMU MB-CN 17.4 55 1.22 Single-tenant
Retail Store
YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
0 0 50 50 0.88 1961 0.10
28534 MISSION BLVD 94544 078C-0626-
003-12
A SMU MB-CC 40 100 0.47 Automobile
dealership
YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
35 0 0 35 0.20 N/A 0.00
28546 MISSION BLVD 94544 078C-0626-
003-23
A SMU MB-CC 40 100 0.21 Automobile
dealership
YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
0 0 16 16 0.04 N/A 0.00
Housing Element Sites Inventory
3 Site Address/
Intersection
5 Digit
ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General
Plan
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Minimum
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Max
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel
Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use/Vacancy Infrastructure
PubliclyOwnedSite
Status
Identified in
Last/Last
Two Planning
Cycle(s)
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Improvement
to Land
Value Ratio
Year
Built
Floor
Area
Ratio
28564 MISSION BLVD 94544 078C-0626-
003-26
SMU MB-CC 40 100 0.92 Automobile
dealership
YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
69 0 0 69 0.10 1961 0.00
28700 MISSION BLVD 94544 078C-0461-
004-00
SMU MB-CC 40 100 0.89 Single-tenant
Retail Store
YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
0 0 66 66 1.03 1973 0.50
28722 MISSION BLVD 94544 078C-0461-
005-00
SMU MB-CC 40 100 0.87 Single-tenant
Retail Store
YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
0 0 65 65 0.67 1970 0.50
FOOTHILL BLVD 94541 415-0250-
111-02
CC-ROC UC 40 110 2.14 Vacant YES - Current YES -
CityOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
176 0 0 176 0.00 N/A 0.00
24732 MISSION BLVD 94544 445-0150-
059-02
SMU MB-CN 17.4 55 5.12 WarehouseSelf StorageYES - Current NO - PrivatelyOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
0 0 211 211 0.92 1979 0.80
1045 C ST 94541 428-0066-
055-01
CC-ROC DT-MS 40 110 0.51 Single-tenant
Retail Store
YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
0 0 41 41 0.41 1947 0.10
C ST 94541 427-0011-
020-00
CC-ROC DT-MS 40 110 0.89 Public Owned
Parking
YES - Current YES -
CityOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
73 0 0 73 0.00 N/A 0.00
A ST 94541 415-0240-
038-00
CC-ROC UN 40 110 0.95 Public Owned
Parking
YES - Current YES -
CityOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
0 78 0 78 0.00 N/A 0.00
C ST 94541 431-0044-
035-04
CC-ROC UC 40 110 1.76 Surface
Parking
YES - Current YES -
Special
DistrictOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
72 29 44 145 0.00 N/A 0.00
DIXON ST 94544 078C-0441-
001-29
SMU PD 75 100 5.86 Surface
Parking
YES - Current YES -
Special
DistrictOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
219 88 132 439 0.00 N/A 0.10
FOOTHILL BLVD 94541 415-0250-
113-00
CC-ROC UC 40 110 2.28 Public Agency
- Parking
Garage
YES - Current YES -
CityOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
188 0 0 188 0.00 N/A 0.00
966 B ST 94542 428-0056-
057-00
CC-ROC DT-MS 40 110 0.17 Vacant YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
0 14 0 14 0.00 N/A 0.00
685 A ST 94542 428-0046-
053-00
B CC-ROC UC 40 110 0.08 Vacant YES - Current YES -
Special
DistrictOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
2 2 2 6 0.00 N/A 0.00
685 A ST 94543 428-0046-
054-00
B CC-ROC UC 40 110 0.08 Vacant YES - Current YES -
Special
DistrictOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
2 2 2 6 0.00 N/A 0.00
685 A ST 94541 428-0046-
052-02
B CC-ROC UC 40 110 1.92 Vacant YES - Current YES -
Special
DistrictOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
79 31 48 158 0.00 N/A 0.00
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4 Site Address/
Intersection
5 Digit
ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General
Plan
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Minimum
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Max
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel
Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use/Vacancy Infrastructure
PubliclyOwnedSite
Status
Identified in
Last/Last
Two Planning
Cycle(s)
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Improvement
to Land
Value Ratio
Year
Built
Floor
Area
Ratio
25000 MISSION BLVD 94544 428-0046-
052-03
SMU MB-CN 17.4 35 4.92 Vacant YES - Current YES -
CityOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
0 98 0 98 0.00 N/A 0.00
28900 MISSION BLVD 94544 428-0046-
052-04
SMU MB-CC 40 100 1.56 Automobile
dealership
YES - Current NO -
PrivatelyOwned
Available Not Used in
Prior Housing
Element
0 116 0 116 0.29 N/A 0.50
Land Use
Land Use
1 Table C Land Use
Zoning Designation from Table A, Column G
and Table B, Columns L and N (e.g., "R-1") General Land Uses Allowed (e.g., "Low-Density Residential") MB-CN Medium Density Residential/Mixed-Use
MB-CC High Density Residential/Mixed-Use
MB-NN Medium High Density Residential/Mixed-Use
DT-MS High Density Residential/Mixed-Use
PD Planned Development
SMU High Density Residential/Mixed-Use
UN Medium High Density Residential/Mixed-Use
UC Very High Density Residential/Mixed-Use
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2 This page intentionally left blank.
Table A: Housing Element Sites Inventory, Table Starts in Cell A2 For Alameda County jurisdictions, please format the APNs as follows: 999A-9999-999-99 Jurisdiction Name Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code
Assessor Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Minimum
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Maximum
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-Owned Site Status Identified in Last/Last Two Planning Cycle(s) Lower Income Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total Capacity Optional Information1 Optional Information2 Optional Information3 HAYWARD 22765 GRAND ST 94541 431-0040-026-00 CC-ROC UN 40 110 0.23 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 0 0 18 18 0 N/A 0.2 HAYWARD 507 C ST 94541 431-0040-017-00 CC-HDR UN 40 110 0.2 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 0 0 16 16 0.337836243 1945 0.5 HAYWARD 548 CLAIRE ST 94541 431-0040-029-00 CC-ROC UN 40 110 0.62 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 51 0 0 51 2.387268642 N/A 0.8 HAYWARD 529 C ST 94541 431-0040-020-02 CC-ROC UN 40 110 0.58 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 0 0 47 47 0.785712213 1954 0.4 HAYWARD 22756 ALICE ST 94541 431-0040-031-00 CC-HDR UN 40 110 0.24 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 0 19 0 19 0.78616946 1955 0.9 HAYWARD 548 CLAIRE ST 94541 431-0040-028-00 CC-ROC UN 40 110 0.42 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 0 34 0 34 0.11514528 N/A 0.2 HAYWARD 577 C ST 94541 431-0040-023-00 CC-ROC UN 40 110 0.41 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 0 33 0 33 0.060911779 1940 0.9 HAYWARD 597 C ST 94541 431-0040-024-02 CC-ROC UN 40 110 0.33 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 0 27 0 27 2.331182461 1955 0.9 HAYWARD 575 C ST 94541 431-0040-022-00 CC-ROC UN 40 110 1.07 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 0 88 0 88 0.739885925 N/A 0.3 HAYWARD 22765 GRAND ST 94541 431-0040-027-00 CC-ROC UN 40 110 0.3 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 0 24 0 24 0.515152762 N/A 0.7 HAYWARD 541 C ST 94541 431-0040-021-01 CC-ROC UN 40 110 0.27 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 0 22 0 22 1.291664166 N/A 0.7 HAYWARD 22740 ALICE ST 94541 431-0040-032-00 CC-ROC UN 40 110 0.4 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 0 33 0 33 1.5 1963 0.5 HAYWARD 516 CLAIRE ST 94541 431-0040-030-00 CC-ROC UN 40 110 0.29 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 0 23 0 23 1.059496721 1947 0.8 HAYWARD 22722 ALICE ST 94541 431-0040-033-00 CC-ROC UN 40 110 0.33 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 0 27 0 27 0.225489682 1968 0.4 HAYWARD 25375 MISSION BLVD 94544 444-0060-012-02 SMU MB-CN 17.5 35 1.86 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 0 48 0 48 0.015872741 1965 0.2 HAYWARD 28824 MISSION BLVD 94544 078C-0461-006-04 SMU MB-CC 40 100 1.33 Vacant YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 99 0 0 99 0 N/A 0 HAYWARD FLETCHER LN 94544 445-0001-004-13 SMU MB-CN 17.5 35 1.7 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 44 0 0 44 0.022222222 N/A 0 HAYWARD OVERLOOK AVE 94542 445-0180-001-00 SMU SMU 25 55 10 Vacant YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 102 310 412 0 N/A 0 HAYWARD 1026 C ST 94541 428-0066-038-01 CC-ROC DT-MS 40 110 0.2 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 16 16 0 N/A 0 HAYWARD 1026 C ST 94541 428-0066-037-00 CC-ROC DT-MS 40 110 0.45 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 37 37 0 N/A 0 HAYWARD 22696 MAIN ST 94541 428-0066-038-02 CC-ROC DT-MS 40 110 0.14 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 11 11 0 N/A 0 HAYWARD 22300 FOOTHILL BLVD 94541 415-0250-112-00 CC-ROC UC 40 110 1.395580887 Vacant YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 115 115 0 1968 0 HAYWARD MISSION BLVD 94541 428-0056-066-00 CC-ROC DT-MS 40 110 0.979613662 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 80 80 0 N/A 0 HAYWARD 24874 MISSION BLVD 94541 445-0150-058-04 SMU MB-CN 17.4 55 1.823617904 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 75 75 0 N/A 0 HAYWARD 27143 MISSION BLVD 94541 452-0056-005-00 SMU MB-CN 17.4 55 1.2231994 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 50 50 0.881060258 1961 0.1 HAYWARD 28534 MISSION BLVD 94541 078C-0626-003-12 A SMU MB-CC 40 100 0.469027427 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 35 0 0 35 0.204469127 N/A 0 HAYWARD 28546 MISSION BLVD 94541 078C-0626-003-23 A SMU MB-CC 40 100 0.213997317 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 16 16 0.043207913 N/A 0 HAYWARD 28546 MISSION BLVD 94541 078C-0626-003-26 SMU MB-CC 40 100 0.921498852 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 69 0 0 69 0.103771005 1961 0 HAYWARD 28700 MISSION BLVD 94541 078C-0461-004-00 SMU MB-CC 40 100 0.89 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 66 66 1.034838536 1973 0.5 HAYWARD 28722 MISSION BLVD 94541 078C-0461-005-00 SMU MB-CC 40 100 0.868592247 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 65 65 0.666666667 1970 0.5 HAYWARD FOOTHILL BLVD 94541 415-0250-111-02 CC-ROC UC 40 110 2.137201201 Vacant YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 176 0 0 176 0 N/A 0 HAYWARD 24732 MISSION BLVD 94541 445-0150-059-02 SMU MB-CN 17.4 55 5.123050599 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 211 211 0.917703135 1979 0.8 HAYWARD 1045 C ST 94541 428-0066-055-01 CC-ROC DT-MS 40 110 0.508177261 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 41 41 0.406250186 1947 0.1 HAYWARD C ST 94541 427-0011-020-00 CC-ROC DT-MS 40 110 0.88901951 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 73 0 0 73 0 N/A 0 HAYWARD A ST 94541 415-0240-038-00 CC-ROC UN 40 110 0.954378531 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 78 0 78 0 N/A 0 HAYWARD C ST 94541 431-0044-035-04 CC-ROC UC 40 110 1.76 Parking YES - Current YES - Special Distric Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 72 29 44 145 0 N/A 0 HAYWARD DIXON ST 94544 078C-0441-001-29 SMU PD 75 100 5.86 Parking YES - Current YES - Special Distric Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 219 88 132 439 0 N/A 0.1 HAYWARD FOOTHILL BLVD 94541 415-0250-113-00 CC-ROC UC 40 110 2.278948574 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 188 0 0 188 0 N/A 0 HAYWARD 966 B ST 94542 428-0056-057-00 CC-ROC DT-MS 40 110 0.17 Vacant YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 14 0 14 0 N/A 0 HAYWARD 22523 MONTGOMERY ST 94542 428-0046-053-00 B CC-ROC UC 40 110 0.08 Vacant YES - Current YES - Special Distric Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 2 2 2 6 0 N/A 0 HAYWARD 22527 MONTGOMERY ST 94543 428-0046-054-00 B CC-ROC UC 40 110 0.08 Vacant YES - Current YES - Special Distric Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 2 2 2 6 0 N/A 0 HAYWARD 685 A ST 94541 428-0046-052-02 B CC-ROC UC 40 110 1.92 Vacant YES - Current YES - Special Distric Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 79 31 48 158 0 N/A 0 HAYWARD 25000 MISSION BLVD 94544 445-0200-012-04 SMU MB-CN 17.4 35 4.918164158 Vacant YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 98 0 98 0 N/A 0 HAYWARD 28900 MISSION BLVD 94544 078C-0461-009-01 SMU MB-CC 40 100 1.555060596 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 116 0 116 0.289473321 N/A 0.5 HAYWARD 0 Improvement to Land Ratio Year Built Floor Area Ratio HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
ATTACHMENT VIII
Jurisdiction Name Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code
Assessor Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Minimum
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Maximum
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-Owned Site Status Identified in Last/Last Two Planning Cycle(s) Lower Income Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total Capacity Optional Information1 Optional Information2 Optional Information3 HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
Jurisdiction Name Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code
Assessor Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Minimum
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Maximum
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-Owned Site Status Identified in Last/Last Two Planning Cycle(s) Lower Income Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total Capacity Optional Information1 Optional Information2 Optional Information3 HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
Jurisdiction Name Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code
Assessor Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Minimum
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Maximum
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-Owned Site Status Identified in Last/Last Two Planning Cycle(s) Lower Income Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total Capacity Optional Information1 Optional Information2 Optional Information3 HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
HAYWARD 0
January 2023
Oakland, California 94612
449 15th Street
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
prepared with the assistance of
Hayward, California 94541
777 B Street
Planning Division, Department of Development Services
City of Hayward
prepared by
(2023-2031)
Hayward Housing Element
Appendix D – Housing Constraints
ATTACHMENT IX
Table of Contents
i
Table of Contents
1 Housing Constraints........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Summary of Local Housing Constraints ..............................................................................1
1.2 Non-Governmental Constraints..........................................................................................2
1.2.1 Land Cost ............................................................................................................2
1.2.2 Construction Cost ...............................................................................................4
1.2.3 Availability of Financing......................................................................................7
1.2.4 Construction Financing Timing ........................................................................ 12
1.2.5 NIMBYism & Other Challenges to Development............................................. 13
1.3 Governmental Constraints............................................................................................... 13
1.3.1 Land Use Designations..................................................................................... 13
1.3.2 Zoning Ordinance............................................................................................. 16
1.3.3 Building Code................................................................................................... 39
1.3.4 On- and Off-Site Improvements ...................................................................... 41
1.3.5 Historic Preservation ....................................................................................... 42
1.3.6 Development Review & Impact Fees............................................................... 43
1.3.7 Permit Procedures and Processing Timeframes.............................................. 51
1.3.8 Design Guidelines ............................................................................................ 62
1.3.9 Housing for Special Needs Populations........................................................... 63
1.3.10 State Tax Policies and Regulations .................................................................. 65
1.4 Environmental Constraints .............................................................................................. 65
1.4.1 Federal and State Environmental Protection Regulations .............................. 65
1.4.2 Geologic and Seismic Hazards......................................................................... 66
1.4.3 Wildfire ............................................................................................................ 67
1.4.4 Flood, Tsunami, and Sea Level Rise Related Hazards...................................... 67
1.4.5 Excessive Noise................................................................................................ 68
1.4.6 Hazardous Materials........................................................................................ 68
1.5 Infrastructure Constraints................................................................................................ 69
1.5.1 Sewage Collection and Disposal ...................................................................... 69
1.5.2 Water Service................................................................................................... 70
1.5.3 Storm Drains.................................................................................................... 71 Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
ii
Tables
Table D-1 Summary of Residual Land Value Analysis..........................................................................3 Table D-2 Residential Land Sale Comparables (2015-2017), Hayward ...............................................4 Table D-3 Summary of Findings from Traffic Impact Fee Study..........................................................5 Table D-4 Summary of Findings from Park Development Fee Feasibility Study .................................5 Table D-5 Construction Costs for Affordable Development Projects..................................................6 Table D-6 Affordability Gap Calculation..............................................................................................7 Table D-7 Mortgage Approvals by Race/Ethnicity, 2011–2017 ....................................................... 10 Table D-8 2020 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data in Alameda County and Hayward................ 11 Table D-9 Median Home Value Comparisons .................................................................................. 12 Table D-10 Hayward 2040 General Plan Land Use Designations, Uses and Densities....................... 15 Table D-11 Downtown Specific Plan Zoning Designations................................................................. 18 Table D-12 Mission Boulevard Form Based Code Residential Designations...................................... 18 Table D-13 Zoning Use Matrix for Residential and Commercial Districts.......................................... 19 Table D-14 Specific Plan Zoning Use Matrix....................................................................................... 20 Table D-15 Hayward Development Standards................................................................................... 27 Table D-16 Airport Safety Compatibility Zones Residential Development Standards....................... 31 Table D-17 Parking Requirements by Residential Use Type .............................................................. 37 Table D-18 Parking Requirements by Zoning District......................................................................... 38 Table D-19 Development Review Associated Fees ............................................................................ 44 Table D-20 Sewer and Water Fees..................................................................................................... 47 Table D-21 Park Fees.......................................................................................................................... 48 Table D-22 Permit Fees for a Typical Unit.......................................................................................... 50 Table D-23 Planning Review and Processing Times, 2021 ................................................................. 61 Table D-24 Development Review, 2021............................................................................................. 62 Figures
Figure D-1 Mission Boulevard Code (Map 1 of 2).............................................................................. 33 Figure D-2 Mission Boulevard Code (Map 2 of 2).............................................................................. 34 Figure D-3 Development Process and Approval Timelines ............................................................... 60 Housing Constraints
1 1 Housing Constraints
Constraints to the development of adequate and affordable housing include market, governmental, infrastructure, and environmental factors. These constraints may result in housing that is not affordable to low- and moderate-income households and may render residential construction economically infeasible for developers. Constraints to housing production significantly impact households with low and moderate incomes and special needs.
According to Government Code Section 65583, local governments are required to analyze governmental and non-governmental constraints to the production, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons of all income levels and those with special needs and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as part of housing elements update. Where constraints to housing production are related to the City’s regulations or land use controls, the City must identify appropriate programs to mitigate these constraints, particularly ones that impact the production of affordable housing or housing for special needs populations.
The following chapter outlines non-governmental, governmental, environmental and infrastructure constraints and was used in the development of specific policies and actions included in the Housing Plan to remove barriers to housing and to incentivize housing production, specifically targeting housing production at all income levels and housing for persons with special needs.
1.1 Summary of Local Housing Constraints
The cost of developing housing including land costs and construction costs are rising rapidly.
There is a lack of federal, state, and local funding and the funding that is available is increasingly competitive. The time and effort needed to identify, compete for, and layer affordable housing funds is a major constraint to development of affordable housing. Hayward’s housing affordability gap, the difference between the cost to build housing and the communities ability to pay for housing (see Table D-6), ranges from $170,200 for low-income rental housing to $278,200 for extremely low-income rental housing and $172,400 for moderate income ownership housing, indicating a financial constraint to the development of affordable housing units.
Loan denial rates were higher in Hayward compared to Alameda County as a whole.
Approximately nine percent of government-backed loans and nine percent of conventional loans were denied in Hayward. The percentages of loans denied in the broader Alameda County were lower in comparison, where about four percent of government-backed loans and seven percent of conventional loans were denied. The higher denial rate in Hayward indicates a financial constraint to purchasing a home which puts higher pressure on the rental markets. Hayward’s development regulations allow for a variety of densities throughout the City and development standards are sufficiently flexible to not pose a constraint to development.
However, use permit regulations for small group homes in certain zoning districts could pose a constraint to housing for individuals with special needs. Hayward’s development review and impact fees are in line with the region. While any fee poses a constraint to development, fees used to review, approve, and inspect new development projects and impact fees used to construct and upgrade roadways, bicycle, and pedestrian Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2 facilities, to upgrade and install utility infrastructure, and to build, expand, and maintain parks, schools and affordable housing are essential to provide safe, equitable, and livable places. Environmental concerns pose constraints that can be generally mitigated through design or limitations on operations. However, the ongoing draught will likely pose a major constraint to future development due to lack of water supplies for new development.
1.2 Non-Governmental Constraints
The availability of housing is affected by a complex set of interrelated market factors including but limited to: cost of land, cost of construction, and availability of financing. These factors contribute to determining a new home’s sale price or the rents required to make a project feasible. Nongovernmental constraints include factors outside of direct governmental control that directly impact housing price. The cost of construction and the availability of financing contribute to the cost of housing and can hinder the production of affordable housing. The following analysis accounts for these non-governmental constraints. Programs included to address identified market constraints are located in Chapter 6, Housing Plan.
1.2.1 Land Cost
Developable land is expensive throughout the inner Bay Area. In Hayward, land is expensive primarily due to its close proximity to job centers (San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose), highquality access to transit through BART, and a general high demand for housing in a desirable location. Residential projects must fetch high sales prices or rents to justify the high cost of purchasing land in addition to other development costs to maximize the developer’s return on investment. The inner Bay Area also has limited land suitable for development, which when combined with high market demand for housing, can also drive up the cost of land.
Hayward’s 2017 Residential Nexus Analysis Report1 includes a feasibility analysis for new residential projects which estimates whether sales prices or rental income would generate a sufficient profit margin over the development costs. The analysis compared residual land values with land costs in the current market to test whether developers could afford to buy land and develop projects in Hayward from 2015 to 2017. If residual land values were equal to or higher than market land values, then the projects are generally feasible.
Market conditions can change from year to year, and the COVID-19 pandemic introduced many new, untested factors into the market, but the study found that in during 2015 to 2017, residual land values ranged from $1.32 million per acre to $2.17 million per acre (see Table D-1), while relevant land sale comparables generally ranged from $922,000 per acre to 2.07 million per acre (see Table D-2). The analysis concluded that single-family detached, townhome/attached, and apartment prototypes (including projects which paid the in lieu fee to meet the City’s inclusionary requirement) were generally feasible at the time. The stacked flat condominium prototype was the only prototype that did not appear to support a land value in line with market transactions. 1 Summary, Context Materials and Recommendations Affordable Housing Ordinance Update, Keyser Marston Associates. October 21, 2017. Available: https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Final-Report-Residential-Nexus-Analysis.pdf Housing Constraints
3 Table D-1 Summary of Residual Land Value Analysis
Prototype Single Family Detached Townhome/Attached Condominiums Apartments Acreage 2.0 acres 2.0 acres 2.0 acres 2.0 acres
Total Units 20 units 40 units 100 units 120 units
Density 10.0 du/ac 20.0 du/ac 50.0 du/ac 60.0 du/ac
Average Unit Size 2,500 sq.ft. 2,000 sq.ft. 1,000 sq.ft. 900 sq.ft.
Development Costs $/unit $/unit $/unit $/unit
Land Acquisition $0 $0 $0 $0
Directs $462,500 $400,000 $332,500 $296,300
Indirects
A&E $28,000 $20,000 $13,300 $11,800
Affordable Housing Fee $11,600 $7,800 $3,900 $3,300
Other Fees & Permits $52,500 $42,000 $35,000 $31,500
Taxes/Insurance/Legal $37,500 $37,500 $15,000 $6,700
Sales & Marketing $12,500 $10,000 $7,500 $5,000
Administrative/Other $18,500 $16,000 $16,600 $14,800
Financing $33,800 $26,400 $19,900 $12,400
Total Costs Excluding Land $656,900 $559,700 $443,700 $381,800 Residual Land Value $/unit $/unit $/unit $/unit
Sales Price/Monthly Rent $950,000 $800,000 $590,000 $2,800 $/sq.ft. $380 $400 $590 $3.11
Net Supported Investment1 $802,500 $637,400 $470,100 $418,000 (Less) Costs Excluding Land ($656,900) ($559,700) ($443,700) ($381,800) Residual Land Value/Unit $145,600 $77,700 $26,400 $36,200 Land Value/Acre $1,456,000 $1,554,000 $1,320,000 $2,172,000 Land Value/Land SF $33 $36 $30 $50
1 Net Supported Investment after sales commissions and profit margin with for-sale prototypes; after vacancy, operating expenses, and profit margin for apartment prototype
Du/ac = dwelling unit per acre
Sq.ft = square feet
Source: Summary, Context Materials And Recommendations Affordable Housing Ordinance Update, Keyser Marston Associates.
October 21, 2017. Available: https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Final-Report-Residential-Nexus-Analysis.pdf Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4 Table D-2 Residential Land Sale Comparables (2015-2017), Hayward Address
Sale
Date Acres
Proposed
Units
Dwelling
Unit per
Acre Sale Price
$/Acre
(rounded)
$/Unit
(rounded)
22471-22491 Maple Ct Jul-16 0.60 44 73.1 $1,950,000 $3,239,000 $44,300 Mission Seniors Mar-16 5.13 203 39.6 $6,500,000 $1,267,000 $32,000 27794 Mission Blvd Jun-16 0.24 9 38.2 $400,000 $1,699,000 $44,400 21339 Oak St Jul-16 1.66 58 35.0 $2,050,000 $1,238,000 $35,300 25501 Mission Blvd Jun-17 7.64 237* 31.0 $15,800,000 $2,068,000 $66,700 228369 Watkins St Nov-15 0.27 6 22.5 $500,000 $1,878,000 $83,300 24755 O’Neil Ave Nov-15 0.80 16 20.1 $735,000 $922,000 $45,900 396 Grove Way Oct-15 0.44 5 11.4 $500,000 $1,148,000 $101,000 1332 E St Jun-17 0.21 2 9.6 $240,000 $1,148,000 $120,000 *includes 97 “guest rooms”
Due to the age of this Nexus Study and the fluid nature of market conditions and uncertainties resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the market analyzed through this report might not accurately reflect today’s housing market. For example, more recent nexus studies which include the Hayward 2022 Multimodal Intersection Improvement Plan & Nexus Study (2022) and the Parks Development Impact Fee Nexus Study (2019), indicate that mixed use multi-family development showed negative residual land value at the estimated construction costs, lease rates and market prices. Despite the dated information, comparisons between housing types can still inform feasibility.
The land sales in the Residential Nexus Study occurred in 2015 and 2016, thus the values for the comps would be higher today after accounting for land value appreciation. Accordingly, as of May 2022, recent sales of vacant land in Hayward averaged $2.5 million per acre.2 The price of land varies depending on a number of factors, including size, location, environmental constraints, the number of units allowed on the property, and access to utilities. However, general trends demonstrate that the cost of land can be a constraint to housing in Hayward.
Developed residential, commercial, and industrial properties that are zoned for residential uses can also be redeveloped with new housing developments; however, redevelopment costs are higher than the cost to develop vacant land (See 1.2.2 below).
1.2.2 Construction Cost
Direct construction costs are the labor and material costs required to build a project and are a major contributor to the overall cost of construction. In 2021, the Bay Area is one of the most expensive U.S. markets to build in, particularly for affordable housing as discussed in this section. Increasing costs are attributed in large part to continued labor and materials shortages from the COVID-19 pandemic.3
Impact fee feasibility studies analyze the cost of construction and the effect an additional fee would have on construction. This analysis makes use of the City’s 2022 Multimodal Intersection 2 Hayward, CA Real Estate & Homes for Sale, Realtor.com. Accessed May 23, 2022. 3 Turer & Townsend, International construction market survey 2021. Accessed May 24, 2022. https://www.turnerandtownsend.com/en/perspectives/international-construction-market-survey-2021/ Housing Constraints
5 Improvement Plan & Nexus Study (2022) and the Parks Development Impact Fee Nexus Study & Feasibility Analysis (2019). While the park fee materials are older, the analysis is informative with the understanding that costs have only increased further due to the pandemic and associated labor and materials shortages. Both studies analyzed the feasibility of different types of residential development (townhouse and multifamily).
Residual land value (RLV) is a common measure of feasibility. In a pro forma analysis of project feasibility, RLV is the amount of funds available for land acquisition once project costs (construction and permitting and development fees) are subtracted from potential revenues (rent or sales prices).
Higher RLV means more profit for developers. Higher profits for investors can result in a positive spiral that could attract additional investments and additional funds from residential developments can be invested in new housing developments.
As shown on Table D-3, the traffic impact fee study found that both the townhome and multifamily prototypes resulted in negative residual land value, challenging new development. In the model, slight changes in assumed developer returns (higher sales or rent prices) were sufficient to generate positive RLV.
Table D-3 Summary of Findings from Traffic Impact Fee Study Prototype Summary of Findings
Townhome Prototype (30 3-
bedroom for-sale units)
RLV is slightly negative at -$25 to -$50 per square foot.
Slight changes to assumed developer return is sufficient to generate a positive RLV.
Higher sales prices (mid-$500 per square foot) offset high construction and land costs.
Multifamily Prototype (150 1-
and 2-bedroom rental units)
RLV is slightly negative at -$5 to -$80 per square foot. Slight changes to assumed developer return is sufficient to result in positive RLV.
Multifamily housing markets have been affected more than other housing types by the COVID-19 pandemic (vacancy rates and tenant protections keeping rents lower than the market). Multifamily development also faces high land prices and high construction costs.
Generally, the park fee study found that feasibility is far more sensitive to changes in construction costs than other factors (e.g., City permitting costs and fees). A small decrease in construction costs results in a significant increase in RLV. Findings of the Park Development Fee Feasibility study are shown on Table D-4.
Table D-4 Summary of Findings from Park Development Fee Feasibility Study Prototype Summary of Findings
Townhome Prototype (100 3-
and 4-bedroom for-sale units)
Positive RLV achieved with sales prices of around $391 to $476 per square foot (about $762,000 for a three-bedroom unit and $821,000 for a four-bedroom unit) Multifamily Prototype (6
stories, ground floor retail,
upper 5 stories rental units)
Positive RLV when rent for one-bedroom apartment exceeds $2,438 Single-Family Subdivision
Prototype (100 detached, forsale homes)
Positive RLV achieved with sales prices of about $420 (three-bedroom unit) and $415 (four-bedroom unit) per square foot (about $882,000 for a three-bedroom unit and $1,204,000 for a four-bedroom unit).
Current market-supported sales prices for new three- and four-bedroom detached homes in Hayward range from about $385 to $500 per square foot.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
6 The cost of construction also depends on the condition of the site. Non-vacant parcels are more expensive to develop due to potential additional costs to clear a site for redevelopment. Where redevelopment is occurring on sites containing lower-income housing, local, state, and federal policies relating to relocation and replacement housing result in additional costs. Depending on the existing improvements that must be removed to redevelop a site, the total cost to acquire a parcel, relocate occupants, demolish existing structures, and possibly mitigate hazardous materials increase costs associated with development, which pose a significant constraint for redevelopment at prices affordable to most of the community.
Construction Costs for Affordable Units
Trends that increase construction costs for market-rate development impact affordable housing to a higher degree. According to the Terner Center, the average cost per unit of housing constructed using 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits increased from $411,000 to $480,000—a 17 percent increase. Additionally, cost per square foot has risen from $451 per square foot in 2008 to $700 per square foot in 2019—a 55 percent increase.
4 Table D-5 shows the construction costs for three multifamily 100 percent affordable development projects in Hayward that have received City funding.
The average cost per square foot of these projects is $806. Recent articles related to development of affordable housing in the Bay Area shows that some projects are topping $1 million per unit.5 Rising construction costs lead to higher subsidies required to build affordable housing, with housing affordable to the lowest-income households requiring the highest level of subsidy. Subsidies from the 9% tax credits program typically cover 70 percent of a developer’s costs, while 4% tax credits typically cover 40 percent.6
Table D-5 Construction Costs for Affordable Development Projects Project Bedrooms Cost per Unit Cost per Gross Square Foot Project 1 Studio-3 bedroom $603,966 $450
Project 2 (under construction) Micro Units $588,748 $1,050 Project 3 1-2 bedrooms $783,368 $919
*Data from Hayward Housing Division based on pro forma costs related to affordable housing developments under construction or nearing construction, 2022
Hayward’s 2017 Residential Nexus Analysis established an affordability gap based on the total development cost for two affordable housing unit prototypes, the available permanent financing, and estimated the unit value based on restricted rent or sales prices. The affordability gap (Table D-6) ranges from $170,200 to $278,200, indicating a financial constraint to the development of affordable housing units. While the data from this 2017 analysis is old, the analysis above demonstrates that costs have increased since 2017, and therefore the affordability gap has continued to grow since 2017.
4 The Cost of Affordable Housing Production: Insights from California’s 9% Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program. March 2020.
Available: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/LIHTC_Construction_Costs_2020.pdf 5 Los Angeles Times. Affordable housing in California now routinely tops $1 million per apartment to build. June 2022. Available:
https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2022-06-20/california-affordable-housing-cost-1-million-apartment 6 City of Hayward Housing Division, 2022.
Housing Constraints
7 Table D-6 Affordability Gap Calculation7
Unit Value/Affordable Sales Price Development Cost Affordability Gap Affordable Rental Units
Extremely Low (Under 30% AMI) $223,800 $502,000 $272,200 Very Low (30% to 50% AMI) $295,800 $502,000 $206,200
Low (50% to 80% AMI) $331,800 $502,000 $170,200
Affordable Ownership Units
Moderate (80% to 120% AMI) $391,600 $564,000 $172,400
Rising land costs, rising construction costs, and the scarce funding available to help subsidize the cost of affordable housing, are a constraint to the development of affordable and market-rate housing.
1.2.3 Availability of Financing
This section explores the availability of financing options for market rate and affordable housing development which impact the feasibility development as well as financing for homeowners to purchase and renovate housing. It is essential to note that data indicates that there are disparate impacts with regard to access to financing for home loans.
Market-Rate Development Financing
As discussed in Land Costs and Construction Costs, above, market-rate development is generally financed by investors, and the cost to build a project must be recovered by revenue from sales or rents, which drives up the ultimate rent or sales prices of new housing as the component costs increase. A market in which housing supply is limited and demand is high can support higher housing prices, but lower-income segments of the community are priced out. Therefore, it is difficult for the private sector, for-profit developers, and market-rate housing to meet the housing needs of all community members.
Affordable Housing Financing
Affordable housing developments are typically financed with a range of often layered grants and low-cost financing from federal, state, and local sources. The following programs were available to affordable projects in Hayward in 2021:
The HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) is a HUD program that assists cities, counties, and non-profit community housing development organizations (CHDOs) to create and retain affordable housing for lower-income renters or owners. HOME funds are available as loans for housing rehabilitation, new construction, and acquisition and rehabilitation of singleand multi-family projects and as grants for tenant-based rental assistance. The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program awards tax credits to developers of affordable housing projects, which are sold to investors to fund the project development. The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) develops scoring methodology and makes awards through a competitive process.
7 Summary, Context Materials And Recommendations Affordable Housing Ordinance Update, Keyser Marston Associates. October 21, 2017. Available: https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Final-Report-Residential-Nexus-Analysis.pdf Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
8 Housing and Community Development (HCD)’s Multi-Family Housing Program (MHP) makes low-interest, long-term deferred-payment permanent loans for new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional rental housing for lower-income households.8
HCD’s Predevelopment Loan Program (PDLP) makes short-term loans for activities and expenses necessary for the continued preservation, construction, rehabilitation, or conversion of assisted housing primarily for low-income households.9
Project Homekey is an HCD program designed to allow state, regional, tribal, and local public entities to develop a broad range of housing types for people at risk of or currently experiencing homelessness, including but not limited to hotels, motels, hostels, single-family homes and multi-family apartments, adult residential facilities, and manufactured housing, and to convert commercial properties and other existing buildings to permanent or interim housing for individuals at risk of or currently experiencing homelessness.10 HCD’s Infill Infrastructure Grant (IIG) program promotes infill development by providing financial assistance for Capital Improvement Projects that enable development of infill projects or in infill areas, as defined by the program guidelines. 11 No Place Like Home Program (NPLH) funds the development of permanent supportive housing for persons who are in need of mental health services and are experiencing homelessness, chronic homelessness, or at risk of chronic homelessness. The program is administered by HCD.12
The Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Housing Program administered by HCD provides lowinterest loans as gap financing for rental housing developments near transit that include affordable units. In addition, grants are available to local governments and transit agencies for infrastructure improvements necessary for the development of specified housing developments, or to facilitate connections between these developments and the transit station. The Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program is administered by the Strategic Growth Council and implemented by HCD and provides funding to housing development that connects residents with jobs, amenities, and low-carbon transportation. Hayward’s Local Housing Trust Fund Program (LHTF) lends money for construction of affordable housing projects with long-term affordability covenants. The program is funded through payment of the affordable housing in-lieu fees. These funds must be used to increase the supply of housing affordable to moderate-, low-, very low-, or extremely low-income households. The Housing Authority of Alameda County (HACA) Project-Based Program provides up to 30 percent of HACA’s voucher program budget to attach funding to a particular project, rather than an individual household. Project-based vouchers can be awarded to new housing or rehabilitated housing.
8 Multifamily Housing Program (MHP), California Department of Housing & Community Development. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/multifamily-housing 9 Predevelopment Loan Program (PDLP), California Department of Housing & Community Development. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/predevelopment-loan 10 Project Homekey, California Department of Housing & Community Development. https://homekey.hcd.ca.gov/content/background 11 Infill Infrastructure Grant Program, California Department of Housing & Community Development. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/infillinfrastructure-grant 12 No Place Like Home Program, California Department of Housing & Community Development. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/no-place-likehome Housing Constraints
9 While these funding sources can help finance affordable housing development, receipt of funds add additional costs to comply with additional requirements. Many funding sources (e.g., tax credits, bonds, federal funds) trigger other regulations. For example, the Davis-Bacon Wage Act, requires the use of prevailing wage,13 and projects must have increased accessibility and sustainability measures. These requirements raise development costs significantly, resulting in a greater need for project subsidies.
In addition, programs available to finance affordable housing projects are extremely competitive and not all eligible projects receive funding. Some funding sources require local matching funds, which puts a greater strain on limited local funding. A lack of funding statewide and locally is a constraint to developing affordable housing sufficient to meet the needs of the community.
Financing for Homeowners
Due to high housing costs, mortgage financing is required in most cases to purchase and improve a home. Lack of access to mortgage financing is a barrier to achieving housing stability through longterm stable housing costs afforded to homeowners. Alternatively, lack of access to home improvement loans makes it difficult for homeowners to maintain their homes and preserve housing stability. Lack of access to refinancing does not allow all homeowners to take advantage of potentially lower interest rates or to obtain cash from equity. The ability to secure financing is determined by specific mortgage lending standards including creditworthiness, debt-to-income ratio, and value and condition of the property.
Under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), lending institutions are required to disclose information on the disposition of loan applications and the income, gender, and race of loan applicants. Reviewing data collected through HMDA can reveal the role the lending market has had on local home sales. The purpose of this analysis is to determine the extent to which lack of access to home financing is a constraint to meeting the needs of homeowners in Hayward. Appendix F, Assessment of Fair Housing, further examines mortgage applications and decisions by race.
Mortgages
Mortgage denial rates are higher in Hayward than in Alameda County as a whole. In 2020, approximately 2,155 households in Hayward applied for home purchase loans. Of those households, 261 applications for government-backed loans14 and 1,894 applications for conventional loans. 15 Approximately nine percent of government-backed loans and nine percent of conventional loans were denied in Hayward while approximately four percent of government-backed loans and seven percent of conventional loans were denied in Alameda County. The higher denial rate in Hayward indicates a financial constraint to purchasing a home.
13 The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 is a federal law which established the requirement for paying prevailing wages on public works projects. All federal government construction contracts, and most contracts for federally assisted construction over $2,000, must include provisions for paying workers on-site no less than the locally prevailing wages and benefits paid on similar projects 14 Government loans are insured or guaranteed by the government, such as Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Veteran Affairs (VA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 15 Conventional loans include loans either purchased by Fannie Mae (FNMA) or Freddie Mac (FHLMC), or other secondary market mortgage pools, or held directly by financial institutions. The most common conventional loans are “conforming” and “high balance conforming” loans, which follow agency guidelines set forth by FNMA or FHLMC.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
10 Mortgage Loan Denial Rates by Race
As shown in Table D-7, the rate of mortgage approval in Hayward has gone up between 2011 and 2017, but disparities in approval between races have stayed the same with black applicants being denied at the highest rates. In a seven-year period, there were 173,149 mortgage applications in the County, of which approximately 62 percent were approved. Between 2004 to 2010, Asian applicants had the highest rate of approval at approximately 71 percent and white applicants had the second highest at 70 percent. Black applicants continued to have the lowest at approximately 59 percent, and Hispanic applicants had the second lowest at approximately 62 percent. Overall, the rate of mortgage approvals has gone up in the last seven years, but the disparities in the rate of approval across race and ethnicity has stayed relatively the same. Appendix F, Assessment of Fair Housing, further examines mortgage applications and decisions by race.
Table D-7 Mortgage Approvals by Race/Ethnicity, 2011–2017 Total Number
of Applicants Approved (a) Denied (b) Other (c)
American Indian or Alaska Native 434 62.7% 13.8% 23.5%
Asian 60,721 70.7% 11.1% 18.3%
Black or African-American 5,657 59.1% 15.3% 25.7%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 1,419 62.5% 14.2% 23.3% White 48,062 70.0% 7.6% 22.4%
Information Not Provided by Applicant 2,749 69.5% 9.8% 20.7% Hispanic, Any Race 13,368 61.5% 13.5% 25.0%
Information Not Provided by Applicant, Any Race 22,072 64.1% 9.3% 26.6% Not Applicable, Any Race 18,682 8.8% 0.4% 90.8%
Total 173,149 61.8% 9.1% 29.1%
Notes: (a) includes loans originated, applications approved but not accepted, and preapproval requests approved but not accepted; (b) includes application denied by financial institution and preapproval request denied by financial institution; and (c) includes applications withdrawn by applicant, incomplete applications, and loans purchased by institution.
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), 2019
Home Improvement Loans
Home improvement loan denial rates are also slightly higher in Hayward than in the rest of Alameda County (see Table D-8). In 2020, 374 households applied for home improvement loans in Hayward and approximately 37 percent were denied. In Alameda County, approximately 33 percent of applicants were denied home improvement loans. Home improvement loans can be denied based on restrictive lending standards including the applicant’s creditworthiness, debt-to-income ratio, value, and condition of the property. The higher denial rate in Hayward for home loans indicates a financial constraint to improving and maintaining a home in Hayward.
Housing Constraints
D-11
Table D-8 2020 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data in Alameda County and Hayward Census Tract Or County Name and
Disposition Of Application
(County/State/Tract Number)
Loans on 1- to 4-Family and Manufactured Home Dwellings, 2020 Home Purchase Loans
FHA, FSA/RHS & VA Conventional Refinancing Home Improvement Loans Number
Amount
(million) Number
Amount
(million) Number
Amount
(million) Number
Amount
(million)
Hayward
Loans Originated 176 (67.4%) $116 1,348 (71.2%) $766.4 7,418 (64.7%) $3.2 151 (40.4%) $30 Applications Approved but not
Accepted
6 (2.3%) $3.7 57 (3%) $24.5 299 (2.6%) $127.4 19 (5.1%) $3.6 Applications Denied by Financial
Institution
23 (8.8%) $1.5 153 (8.1%) $70 1195 (10.4%) $515.3 138 (36.9%) $20.9 Applications Withdrawn by Applicant 45 (17%) $29.4 253 (13%) $154.7 1,794 (15.6%) $784.9 43 (11.5%) $7.9 File Closed for Incompleteness 11 (4.2%) $6.8 83 (4.4%) $32.4 754 (6.6%) $309.5 23 (6.1%) $3.3 Applications Received 261 $170.8 1894 $1,047.9 11460 $4,937.5 374 $65.5 Alameda County
Loans Originated 2,225 (34.6%) $1,217.5 13,335 (73.2%) $8,660 66,706 (65.6%) $31,605.4 2,107 $451 Applications Approved but not
Accepted
78 (1.2%) $43.2 505 (2.8%) $301.1 2,678 (2.6%) $1,243.6 127 (2.9%) $24.9 Applications Denied by Financial
Institution
285 (4.4%) $149.4 1,285 (7.1%) $693.8 9,593 (9.4%) $4,910.8 1,449 (33.1%) $2,230.4 Applications Withdrawn by Applicant 551 (8.6%) $296.7 2568 (14.1%) $1,695.3 16,668 (16.4%) $8,290.5 452 (10.3%) $98 File Closed for Incompleteness 76 (1.2%) $37.9 451 (2.5%) $216 5,878 (5.8%) $2,588.5 234 (5.3%) $45.2 Applications Received 6,429 $3,488.7 18,211 $11,630.4 101,729 $48,785 4,382 $844.3 Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, MSA/MD Aggregate Reports, 2020, Oakland-Berkeley-Livermore Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
12 Housing Supply
Economic recessions can also have a profound and long-lasting effect. In data going back to 1970, new home sales declined 15 percent nationally, on average, during recessions, with sale prices continuing to drop in the following year.16 However, the COVID-19 pandemic created a global economic recession which impacted the California housing market significantly different than typical recessions in the past. Rather, lower interest rates through the pandemic and a reduction in available housing created a higher demand for housing which has resulted in higher prices for housing across the US.
17 According to Zillow, the median home value in Hayward as of June 2022 was $946,250 (see Table D-9). This reflects a 81 percent increase from 2015 median home values. In Alameda County, the median home value in 2021 was $1,130,000 which reflects around a 60 percent increase from 2015. Hayward’s median home price of $946,250 would require an average qualifying annual household income of about $230,000. A household earning Hayward’s average annual household median income of $86,744 (2015-2019 ACS) could afford to purchase a home costing approximately $350,000. Therefore, housing affordability is a significant constraint on homeownership because the income needed to buy a home in Hayward is nearly three times the median household income.18 Table D-9 Median Home Value Comparisons
Jurisdiction/Region Median Home Value 2015 Median Home Value 2022 Percent Increase of
Median Home Value 2015 -2021
San Leandro $535,000 $1,000,000 87%
Oakland $586,000 $958,500 64%
Hayward $524,000 $946,250 81%
City of Alameda $846,000 $1,275,250 51%
Union City $706,000 $1,365,000 93%
Alameda County $706,000 $1,250,000 77%
Source: Zillow.com 2021
1.2.4 Construction Financing Timing
The timing between project approval and requests for building permits affects project viability.
Project delays may result from developers’ inability to secure financing for construction. In Hayward, the average time between project approval and request for building permit is typically three to nine months, but varies by type of project. Some projects take years to pull building permits and secure financing. Single-family homes usually experience the least delay (three to nine months). Multi-family housing construction tends to be more complex and usually requires more time between entitlement and building permit issuance (six to nine months). 16 Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. Past Recessions Might Offer Lessons on the Impact of COVID-19 on Housing Markets. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/past-recessions-might-offer-lessons-on-the-impact-of-covid-19-on-housing-markets 17 Anenberg, E and Ringo, D. Housing Market Tightness During COVID-19: Increased Demand of Reduced Supply? Board of Governors Federal Reserve. July 8, 2021. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/housing-market-tightness-during-covid-19- increased-demand-or-reduced-supply-20210708.htm 18 Estimated purchase prices and income required to purchase a home assume 5 percent down payment and 5 percent interest rate.
Housing Constraints
13 1.2.5 NIMBYism & Other Challenges to Development
“Not In My Backyard” (NIMBYism) is a social and political movement that opposes housing or commercial development in local communities. NIMBY complaints often target new affordable housing as well as higher density market-rate housing that is adjacent to lower-density established neighborhoods, with reasons including traffic concerns, environmental concerns, preservation of neighborhood character, and, in some cases, thinly-veiled racism and classism.
According to the Alameda County Collaborative Presentation and Developer Roundtable, neighborhood and other organized groups use California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lawsuits and other mechanisms to delay project approvals posing a significant constraint to the development of housing.19 In Hayward, an individual or group wishing to challenge a development project needs to submit an application and $400 fee to appeal a Planning Commission or City Council decision.
Appeals extend the timing of the entitlement process resulting in higher costs for the applicant and/or developer as they continue to pay land carrying costs, insurance, consultant, and attorney fees. Further, these groups could use this delay to extract funding or other benefits from developers in exchange for dropping challenges. The added time and costs related to these delays are a constraint to residential development in Hayward and the region as a whole.
1.3 Governmental Constraints
Actions by the City can have an impact on the price and availability of housing in Hayward. Policies and regulatory actions such as land use controls, site improvement requirements, Reach Code and other building codes, impact and other development fees can impact the price and availability of housing in the City. This analysis examines the effect of the City’s public policies on housing availability, adequacy, and affordability.
1.3.1 Land Use Designations
The City regulates the type, location, density, and scale of residential development through its General Plan, specific plans, and Zoning Ordinance.
General Plan
Hayward adopted its current General Plan in 2014 to guide development in the City through the year 2040. The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan sets forth the vision, goals, and policies for the City’s urban form and land use patterns, including residential development. According to the Vision and Guiding Principles statement included in the Hayward 2040 General Plan, “Hayward will be a distinct and desirable community known for its central Bay Area location, vibrant Downtown, sustainable neighborhoods, excellent schools, robust economy, and its growing reputation as a great college town. With a variety of clean, safe, and green neighborhoods, and an accessible network of parks and natural open space, Hayward will be home to one of the most diverse, inclusive, educated, and healthy populations in the Bay Area. It will be a destination for life-long learning, entertainment, arts and culture, recreation, and commerce. It will be a community that values diversity, social equity, transparent and responsive governance, civic engagement, and volunteerism. Hayward will be a thriving and promising community that individuals, families, students, and businesses proudly call home.”
19 Alameda County Collaborative Presentation and Developer Roundtable, November 29, 2021 Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
14 The General Plan Land Use Element establishes land use categories that define the allowable uses and building densities/intensities throughout the city. The various types of housing units allowed in the City include single-family dwellings, multi-family dwellings, townhomes, condominiums, mobile homes, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Residential densities in Hayward cover a wide spectrum that promote the development of various housing types, as demonstrated by the General Plan land use density ranges shown in Table D-10.
Hayward’s land use designations allow for a range of 1 to 110 dwelling units per acre. The state thresholds for densities that encourage the development of above moderate-, moderate-, and lower-income units all fall within Hayward’s allowable density ranges. There are four designations compatible with the default density for lower-income housing units. The designations are distributed geographically across the City and not concentrated in one particular location. The densities allowed under the current land use designations provide opportunities for a variety of household income levels and are not constraints to developing housing units.
The General Plan also establishes Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for mixed-use development in residential and mixed-use land use designations. FAR refers to the ratio of building floor space compared to the area of a site. FAR is calculated by dividing the square footage of all buildings on the site by the total square footage of the site. Hayward’s General Plan and Zoning Code provides for minimum FAR ranges from 0.4 to 2.75. In the designations that allow for above 30 du/ac, the FAR ranges from 0.8 to 2.75.
The City’s Zoning Ordinance is intended to implement the guiding vision set forth in the General Plan. In general, the City’s zoning and land use regulations are designed to balance the goal of providing affordable housing opportunities for all income groups while protecting the health and safety of residents and preserving the character of existing neighborhoods.
Housing Constraints
15 Table D-10 Hayward 2040 General Plan Land Use Designations, Uses and Densities General Plan Designation and
Percent of Total Area Residential Types
Maximum
du/ac FAR1
Rural Estate Density (1.1%) Single-family homes, second units, and ancillary structures
1 du/ac 0.4
Suburban Density (2.7%) Single-family homes, second units, and ancillary structures
4.3 du/ac 0.4
Low Density (8%) Single-family homes, second units, and ancillary structures
8.7 du/ac 0.4
Mobile Home Park (0.5%) Mobile home parks in the city, typically a manufactured home
12.0 du/ac n/a
Limited Medium Density
Residential (1.3%)
Single-family homes, second units, duplexes,
triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, multi-story
apartment and condominium buildings, and
ancillary structures
12 du/ac 0.5
Medium Density (2.9%) Single-family homes, second units, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, multi-story
apartment and condominium buildings, and
ancillary structures
17.4 du/ac 0.6
High Density (1%) Townhomes, multi-story apartment and
condominium buildings, and ancillary
structures
34.8 du/ac 0.8 (does not
apply to
residential uses)
Retail and Office Commercial
(0.8%)
Commercial buildings, shopping centers, and
office buildings. Live-work units and mixed-use
with multi-family homes on upper floors are
supported uses
17.4 du/ac 0.6
General Commercial (0.2%) Commercial buildings, shopping centers, office buildings, and automobile service and repair
stations. Live-work units and mixed-use with
multi-family homes on upper floors are
supported uses
17.4 du/ac 0.6
Commercial/High-Density
Residential (0.2%)
Townhomes, live-work units, multi-story
apartment and condominium buildings,
commercial buildings, shopping centers, and
mixed-use buildings that contain commercial
uses on the ground floor and residential units
or office space on upper floors
34.8 du/ac 0.8
Sustainable Mixed Use (0.8%) Townhomes, live-work units, multi-story apartment and condominium buildings,
commercial buildings, shopping centers, and
mixed-use buildings that contain commercial
uses on the ground floor and residential units
or office space on upper floors
100 du/ac 2.0 or 2.75 in
transit overlay
zone
Central City-Retail and Office
Commercial (0.3%)
Outside of the retail core of the Downtown
appropriate uses include townhomes,
apartment and condominium buildings, and
live-work units
110 du/ac 1.5
Central City-High Density
Residential (0.1%)
Townhomes, live-work units, apartment and
condominium buildings, and multi-story
mixed-use buildings that contain commercial
uses on the ground floor and residential units
or office space on upper floors.
110 du/ac 1.5
1 The Zoning Ordinance does not apply FAR to residential development, only commercial and mixed-use development. Residential development is subject to density, lot coverage, setbacks, and other development standards.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
16 1.3.2 Zoning Ordinance
The City regulates the type, location, density, and scale of residential development primarily through the Zoning Ordinance, as well as specific plan development codes. A zoning district is assigned to every parcel in the city and the Zoning Ordinance identifies compatible uses. In general, the City’s zoning regulations are designed to balance the goal of providing a mix of residential and commercial land use types while protecting the health and safety of residents and preserving the character of existing neighborhoods. Additionally, development standards such as setbacks, height limits, lot coverage, open space requirements, and parking identified for each zoning district. Some zoning districts may allow similar uses but have different development standards. Development standards may be considered a constraint to the development of housing units if they are too restrictive or reduce the development potential on a specific parcel.
The City’s Zoning Ordinance allows residential uses in the following districts:
Single-Family Residential (RS). The RS District is intended to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life. It is to be used primarily for single-family homes and the community services related to this use.
Residential Natural Preserve (RNP). The purpose of the RNP District is to allow for the development in areas where topographic configuration is a major consideration in determining the most suitable physical development for the land. This district allows development only where it is subservient to and compatible with the preservation of major natural features, such as the tree line.
Medium Density Residential (RM). The RM District is intended to promote a compatible mingling of single-family and multi-family dwellings.
High Density Residential (RH). The RH District is intended to promote and encourage a suitable high-density residential environment through the development of multi-family dwellings. Residential Office (RO). The purpose of the RO District is to protect residential character while allowing a mix of residential and office use.
Sustainable Mixed-Use District (SMU). The SMU District encourages mixed-use development (consisting of either residential with retail, residential with commercial or office, or educational or cultural facilities with public open space), along major transit corridors, near transit stations, or in close proximity to public higher education facilities or large employment centers, in order to provide sustainable transit-oriented development.
Mobile Home Park (MH). The MH District is intended to promote and encourage a suitable living environment for the occupants of mobile homes.
Neighborhood Commercial District (CN). The CN District is intended to establish mixed-use areas throughout the city that are carefully located in relationship to other commercial districts and to residential districts. The CN District allows residential units above first-floor commercial uses only.
Neighborhood Commercial-Residential (CN-R). The CN-R District includes a mixture of neighborhood-serving businesses and residences along portions of certain arterials in order to provide housing with ready access to shops and transit. The CN-R District encourages joint development of lots along arterials in order to minimize curb cuts and maximize architectural continuity. The CN-R District adjusts parking and open space requirements to reflect the characteristics of mixed-use development along arterials.
Housing Constraints
17 General Commercial District (CG). The CG District is intended to provide services for supporting primary business activities in the CB or CC Districts. The CG District allows multi-family residential units above first-floor commercial uses only. Commercial Office District (CO). The CO District provides for and protects administrative, professional, business, and financial organizations which may have unusual requirements for space, light, and air, and which are clean and quiet and are not detrimental to adjacent residential properties. The CO District allows multi-family dwellings and small group homes associated with single-family dwellings.
Central City-Residential (CC-R). The purpose of the CC-R Subdistrict is to establish a concentration of multi-family and complementary uses in order to provide a quality Central City living environment and to provide market support for Central City businesses. Central City Commercial Subdistrict (CC-C). The CC-C District is intended to establish a mix of business and other activities which will enhance the economic vitality of the downtown area.
Permitted activities include, but are not limited to, retail, office, service, lodging, entertainment, education, and multi-family residential uses. The CC-C District allows residential units above first-floor commercial uses only.
Central City Plaza Subdistrict (CC-P). The CC-P District is intended to establish a unique environment of retail and other complementary uses contributing to the pedestrian nature and quality image of such streets. The CC-P District allows artist’s lofts above the first floor of their place of business and standalone multi-family units.
Specific Plans
A specific plan is a planning document that implements the goals and policies of the general plan for an area in the city with unique land use needs. These plans contain more detailed development standards and implementation measures to which future projects located within a specified geographic area must adhere. Hayward has two specific plans—the Downtown Specific Plan and the Mission Boulevard Code.
The Land Use Element of the Hayward General Plan describes how the City is composed of certain neighborhood planning areas, including the Mission/Foothills and North Hayward neighborhoods.
The General Plan further designates certain significant focus areas for the implementation of “smart growth” principles. The intent of the Code is to implement such principles in Downtown Hayward and along designated portions of the Hayward Mission Boulevard Corridor.
Downtown Specific Plan
The City adopted the Downtown Specific Plan and Code in 2019 which provides a strategy to achieve the community’s vision of a resilient, safe, attractive, and vibrant historic Downtown. The Plan calls for significant infill development in Downtown over the next 20 or more years with an estimate of accommodating up to 3,430 new housing units and 1.9 million square feet of non-residential space such as retail, hospitality, office, and education uses. Table D-11 below indicates the typical residential uses in the four Downtown zoning districts. The Downtown Specific Plan Development Code identifies the development standards related to each zoning district and is discussed in Table D-15.
The Downtown Specific Plan requires high-density housing development, and the residential densities in the Plan (generally ranging from 40 to 110 dwelling units per acre) meet the default Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
18 density for all income levels designated by Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3). Therefore, the Downtown Specific Plan is not considered a constraint to the development of housing.
Table D-11 Downtown Specific Plan Zoning Designations
Specific Plan Designation Residential Types
Neighborhood Edge (NE) Small-to-medium footprint, lower-intensity housing choices, from Houses to Small Multiplex Buildings and Cottage Courts
Neighborhood General (NG) Small-to-medium footprint, moderate-intensity, medium house scale housing choices, from Houses and Rowhouses to Small Multiplex and Courtyard Buildings Urban Neighborhood (UN) Small-to-large footprint, moderate-intensity, large house-scale and block-scale housing choices, from Rowhouse and Large Multiplex Buildings to Stacked Flats Downtown Main Street (DT-MS) Small-to-large footprint, moderate-to-high-intensity housing choices, from Main Street Buildings to Lined Buildings
Urban Center (UC) Medium-to-large footprint, moderate-intensity housing choices, from Rowhouses and Multiplex Large Buildings to Stacked Flats and Lined Buildings, Mission Boulevard Corridor Form Based Code
The City adopted an update to the Mission Boulevard Form Based Code and related Specific Plan in 2020, which combined Hayward Municipal Code Chapter 24 (formerly South Hayward BART/Mission Boulevard Form Based Code) and 25 (formerly Mission Boulevard Form Based Code) into Article 24 reclassified as Mission Boulevard Code.
A form-based code is a method of regulating development to achieve a specific urban form primarily by controlling the physical form rather than the land use. The Mission Boulevard Form Based Code has high maximum density ranges, particularly in the Transit Oriented Development Overlay zones.
Additionally, there is no requirement for a minimum number of off-street automobile parking spaces. Because of this, the regulations in the Mission Boulevard Code are not considered a constraint.
Table D-12 Mission Boulevard Form Based Code Residential Designations Zoning District Allowable Residential Uses Typical Height Density (du/ac) Mission Boulevard - Corridor
Neighborhood (MB-CN)
Moderate-intensity, medium-scale
residential
3 – 5 stories 17.5 – 35
(up to 55 du/ac
allowed south of A
Street)
Mission Boulevard -
Neighborhood Node (MB-NN)
Mixed-use infill development 4 – 5 stories 17 – 65
Mission Boulevard - Corridor
Center (MB-CC)
High-intensity residential 5 – 6 stories 35 – 75
(Up to 100 du/ac in
TOD Overlays)
Providing for a Variety of Housing Types
Housing Element law specifies that jurisdictions must identify adequate sites that are zoned to encourage the development of a variety of housing types available to all economic segments of the population. Persons and households of different ages, types, incomes, and lifestyles have a variety of housing needs and preferences that evolve over time and in response to changing life circumstances. This includes single-family homes, multi-family housing, accessory dwelling units, Housing Constraints
19 mobile homes, agricultural employee housing, homeless shelters, and transitional housing, among others. Table D-13 summarizes the various housing types permitted within the City’s zoning districts Table D-14 summarizes the various housing types permitted within the Mission Boulevard Code and the Downtown Specific Plan Code. The housing types allowed within the City’s zoning districts are described below.
Table D-13 Zoning Use Matrix for Residential and Commercial Districts Housing Type Permitted Zoning Districts Conditionally Permitted Zoning Districts ADU All Zoning Districts that allow residential
development
Artist Loft CC-R, CC-P
Boarding Home1 CG, CO, CC-R RM, RH
Dormitory RM, RH, CO
Fraternity or Sorority CO
Small Group Home2 RS, RNP, RM, RH, RO, CO, CC-R, A
Large Group Home3 RS, RNP, RM, RH, RO, CO, CC-R, A
Transitional & Supportive
Housing
All Zoning Districts that allow residential
development
4 Emergency Homeless Shelter5 Industrial Districts; MB-CN and MB-NN CG Mobile Homes6 MH
Multi-Family Dwelling RM, RH, RO, SMU, CO, CC-R CN-R, CB, CC-C Residential Dwelling Unit Above
First Floor Commercial Uses
CN, CN-R, CG, CL, CB, CC-C
Single-Family Dwelling7 RS, RNP, RM, RO, CC-C3, CC-R, CC-P, A RH, CO Second Single-Family Dwelling8 RS, RM, RO, A RH
1 Boarding Home and Group Home are considered interchangeable in Hayward Municipal Code. 2 Six or fewer residents (excluding staff)
3 Seven or more residents (excluding staff)
4 Per Hayward Municipal Code Section 10-3510, Transitional and Supportive housing are more permanent housing options providing a more stable living situation for individuals and families that might otherwise be homeless with stay lengths that are typically six months or longer. Transitional and supportive housing uses are permitted as a residential use and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. 5 Includes Housing Navigation Centers and Emergency Shelters (per Health and Safety Code 50801). In Industrial Districts, permitted on City-owned sites. Permitted on MB-CN and MB-NN in same manner as multi-family residential uses. 6 Manufactured housing is permitted on any residential lot subject to minimum standards set forth in HMC Section 10-1.2735(g). 7 If existing as of May 4, 1993
8 Where one single-family dwelling already exists on a lot, one additional single-family dwelling may be constructed provided the minimum development standards (lot size, setbacks, height, etc.) can be met for each dwelling.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
20 Table D-14 Specific Plan Zoning Use Matrix
Housing Type Permitted Zoning Districts
Conditionally Permitted Zoning
Districts
ADU All Zoning Districts
Emergency Homeless Shelter MB-CN1
, MB-NN MB-CN, MB-NN
Small Group Home NE, NG, UN, UN-L, DT-MS, UC
Large Group Home NG, UN, UN-L, UC
Live-Work MB-CN, MB-NN, NG, UN, UN-L, DT-MS, UC MB-CN, MB-NN Multi-Family Dwelling MB-CN, MB-NN, MB-CC MB-CN, MB-NN, MB-CC Residential2 NE, NG, UN, UN-L, DT-MS, UC
Senior Housing3 NE, NG, UN, UN-L, DT-MS, UC
Single-Family Dwelling MB-CN4 5
, MB-NN
Townhouse Dwelling MB-CN, MB-NN, MB-CC
1 Hayward Municipal Code, Division 10-24.2.3, Table 2.3.010.A (https://library.municode.com/ca/hayward/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=HAYWARD_MUNICIPAL_CODE_CH10PLZOSU_ART24MIBO CO_SUBARTICLE_10-24.2SPZO_DIV10-24.2.3USTA_10-24.2.3.010ALLAUSPERE) 2 Includes a variety of housing types (single-family and multifamily housing, duplexes, triplexes). Residential uses are allowed in all districts in the Mission Boulevard Code, but are listed as specific types of development. 3 Senior housing is allowed in the Mission Boulevard Code, but listed as specific types of development. 4 For properties located within Commercial Overlay Zone 2, as shown in the Regulating Plan, residential units are only allowed along the primary street frontage with a conditional use permit. 5 If the lot/parcel has an existing, permitted single-family dwelling that was constructed prior to July 14, 2020. No new detached singlefamily dwellings allowed.
Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units Under state law (Government Code Section 65852.2), an ADU is a dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It must be located on the same parcel on which a single-family dwelling or multifamily development is located or will be built and may be attached to or converted from a portion of the primary dwelling unit or separate from the primary structure (detached). An ADU includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. ADUs must be permitted ministerially in all zoning districts that allow residential uses. In Hayward, ADUs are permitted in any zoning district where an existing, nonconforming residential use has previously been established.
A junior ADU (JADU) is a dwelling unit limited to 500 square feet and converted from a portion of a single-family home. A JADU must contain a kitchen but bathroom facilities may be shared with the primary dwelling unit. Owner occupancy of the primary dwelling unit is required and no parking may be required for the JADU. JADUs must be ministerially permitted in zoning districts that allow singlefamily residences. Government Code Section 65852.22 establishes minimum standards for JADUs.
State law governing ADUs and JADUs has changed rapidly during the previous housing element planning period. State law supersedes local ordinances and while some jurisdictions adopt local ordinances making provisions for ADUs and JADUs, rapid changes mean that local ordinances quickly become out of date. The City’s existing Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance is not consistent with new state law due to low staffing and changing regulations. Therefore, the City defers to state law in permitting ADUs and JADUs. To ensure consistency with State Law and transparency for applicants, Hayward created a Frequently Asked Questions about ADU/JADUs in English and Spanish as well as Housing Constraints
21 a simple ADU Checklist to accompany building permit applications for ADUs20. The information is posted to the City’s website and provided upon request at the Permit Center or via email. Program H-21 contains a number of provisions to monitor ADU production and promote the building of ADUs and JADUs throughout the City. The City will continue to monitor new legislation pertaining to ADUs and JADUs and will update the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance, as necessary.
Artists Loft/Live and Work
Live and Work units must be located in an area where residential uses are allowed. At least one individual employed in the business conducted within the live/work unit must reside in the unit.
Artists’ lofts are a live and work situation where a resident artisan lives and displays and sells their work on a non-first floor level.
Condominiums/Townhomes
A condominium is any building, group of buildings, or portion thereof which includes two or more dwelling units, and for which there is a final map or parcel map. Condominium dwelling projects are usually governed by a Homeowners Association (HOA) with Covenants, Codes and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and may include private recreational facilities. Within a condominium, ownership consists of the airspace within a unit and the building(s) and all land within the development are under common ownership.
A townhome is any building, group of buildings, or portion thereof which includes two or more attached dwelling units. Townhouse dwelling projects may be ownership or rental housing. If each unit is sold separately, they are usually governed by an HOA with CC&Rs, and may include private recreational facilities. Townhouse ownership includes the building, the land beneath the building, and typically a patio or small yard adjacent to the structure. The remaining land within the development is under common ownership.
Dormitory, Fraternity, Sorority
A dormitory is a residence hall providing sleeping rooms, bathrooms, study and recreation rooms, and a common kitchen for students. In Hayward, this type of housing is permitted as Boarding Homes, Group Homes, or Multifamily, depending on the proposal. These uses are allowed in in all zoning districts where Boarding Homes, Group Homes, and multi-family uses are permitted.
Group Homes
A group home is any single-family residence or other housing type where residents pay a fee or other consideration to the group home operator in return for residential accommodations. A group home includes a boarding home, a rooming house, as well as a group residence for the elderly, mentally or physically disabled or handicapped persons, or other persons in need of care and supervision. Boarding homes and rooming houses do not specify and are not limited to a type of purpose so it could consist of a group of employees, foster youth, individuals recovering from substance abuse, or any collection of no more than six individuals. A residence serving six or fewer individuals is considered small, while a residence serving seven or more individuals is considered large. The term group home includes both licensed and unlicensed group homes. 20 Hayward ADU information: https://www.hayward-ca.gov/content/accessory-dwelling-unit-information-and-permit-process Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
22 A licensed Group Home is any residential facility subject to state licensing requirements pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code (HSC) that has an up-to-date facility license. Group Homes subject to State licensing requirements include the following:
Residential care facilities licensed or supervised by a federal, state, or local health/welfare agency provide 24-hour non-medical care of unrelated persons who have a disability and need personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection of the individual in a family-like environment. Health Facilities including congregate living health facilities, developmentally disabled nursing facilities, and intermediate care facilities. 21
An unlicensed Group Home is the use of a dwelling unit by an owner or operator as a dormitory, boarding house, rooming house, or similar use, where such residential facility is not subject to State licensing requirements or whose state license has expired or has been suspended or revoked.
In Hayward, small group homes (six or fewer residents excluding staff) are permitted by right, per State law, in any district that allows residential uses. Large group homes (seven or more residents excluding staff) are permitted with administrative or conditional use permits in residential districts.
In the A (Agricultural) District, the City specifies a spacing limitation that a large group home cannot be located within 500 feet of the boundaries of a parcel containing another group home, unless a conditional use permit is issued on the basis that waiver of such separation requirement would not be materially detrimental or injurious to the property, improvements, or uses in the immediate vicinity. The Zoning Ordinance complies with Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5 (The Employee Housing Act) because group homes of six or fewer residents are treated as a single-family structure and permitted in the same manner as other dwellings of the same type in the A, RS, RNP, RM, RH, RO, GC, CC-R, and AT-R zones.
According to the State Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division, four licensed group homes with 24 beds and 58 licensed adult residential facilities are located in Hayward. The requirements for administrative and conditional use permits and, in the A district, minimum separation of facility locations, could be a constraint to the development of affordable housing for people with disabilities. The City added Programs and Actions to facilitate such housing.
Specifically, Program H-13, Action 13.1 to promote alternative housing types; and Action 13.4 to evaluate the permit process for group homes of seven or more persons, to adopt a set of objective standards to provide certainty to applicants and to consider allowing large group homes through Administrative Use Permit process or as a by-right use subject to specific objective standards.
Single-Family Dwelling
A single-family dwelling is defined as a detached building containing only one dwelling unit. In Hayward, single-family dwellings are permitted in numerous zones (see Table D-13 and Table D-14).
Single-family dwellings require an administrative use permit in RH and CO zones.
Multi-Family Dwelling
A multi-family dwelling is any building, group of buildings, or portion thereof which includes two or more dwelling units. Multi-family dwellings may be intended as ownership or rental units. Multifamily dwellings are permitted by right in numerous zones (see Table D-13 and Table D-14). Projects 21 Health and Safety Code section 1250
Housing Constraints
23 in the CB and CC-C zones that consist entirely of multi-family dwellings require a conditional use permit whereas those with ground floor commercial uses are permitted by right.
Manufactured Homes and Mobile Homes
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 18007 to 18008, a mobile home or manufactured home is defined as a structure which is transportable in one or more sections, is eight feet or more in body width, or 40 feet or more in body length, in the traveling mode, or, when erected onsite, is 320 or more square feet. Mobile homes are defined as being constructed prior to June 15, 1976, while a manufactured home is constructed on or after the same date. Manufactured housing and mobile homes can be an affordable housing option for low- and moderate-income households.
Manufactured homes are defined in the City’s Zoning Code as synonymous with “single-family dwelling,” and therefore allowed wherever single-family homes are allowed, as long as they meet the building code requirements for a single-family structure, including being secured to a permanent foundation. Mobile home parks are permitted in the MH zone, and manufactured housing is permitted in all residential districts subject to minimum standards set forth in HMC Section 10-1.2735(g).
Single-Room Occupancy Facilities/Boarding Homes
Single-Room Occupancy facilities (SROs) are usually 200 to 350 square feet and consist of one habitable room in a structure of other SRO units. An SRO facility is also known as a residential hotel.
Residents typically share bathrooms and/or kitchens while some SRO units include private kitchenettes, bathrooms, or half-bathrooms. Because they use shared facilities and can be built more cheaply than individual units, or converted from existing types of buildings, SROs and boarding homes may be more affordable for developers to build. SROs are not specifically defined in the City’s Zoning Code but are allowed with a conditional use permit in the MB-CC zoning district.
As described in the discussions on Group Homes and Farmworker Housing, a Boarding Home is equivalent to an Unlicensed Group Home. Generally, a Boarding House is a building where lodging or meals are provided (for compensation) for residents not functioning as a common household or family. Boarding homes are permitted in the RO zoning district. Boarding homes require an administrative use permit in CC-R and CO zones and a conditional use permit in RM and RH zones.
The City’s current zoning regulations allow for this type of housing, and the City has approved projects meeting this need. In 2020, the City approved a 125-unit 100 percent affordable micro-unit development with supportive services provided on site. Because of the continued importance of these housing types to meet the needs of special needs populations and extremely low-income households, the City will implement Program H-24 which contains multiple actions designed to further facilitate the provision of SROs, group homes, and boarding homes, include an action to continually monitor the City’s policies, standards, and regulations to ensure they do not unduly constrain housing for special needs populations.
Emergency Shelter and Low Barrier Navigation Shelter
An emergency shelter or “homeless shelter” is defined by state law as housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less. 22 AB
139, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, mandates that emergency shelters may only be subject to those standards which apply to residential and commercial development within the same 22 Health and Safety Code Section 50801
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
24 zone, except that a city can apply standards regulating the number of beds, parking for staff provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone, length of stay, and other minor standards.
Emergency Shelters/Homeless Shelters and Low Barrier Navigation Centers are defined as the same use in the Hayward Municipal Code and are permitted by-right on City-owned property in the IL, IP, IG districts, on parcels abutting Mission Boulevard in the MB-CN and MB-NN, and allowed by Conditional Use Permit in CG districts. There are 929 parcels totaling 522.18 acres in the MB-CN and MB-NN that allow “by right” approval of emergency shelters. This quantity and size of parcels provides ample opportunity to accommodate the current need for beds and shelter for 372 unsheltered individuals in 10 facilities (approximately 40 beds per facility) along the Mission Boulevard and other commercial corridors which provide access to transit, retail and social services uses.
State law23 requires jurisdictions to allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers as a permitted use in mixed-use zones and other nonresidential zones permitting multi-family residential development. A low barrier navigation center is defined as, “a Housing First, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing.” When compared to traditional emergency shelters, Low Barrier Navigation Centers may provide more services and additional flexibility to clients, such as allowing pets or permitting partners to share living space. Local jurisdictions to act on a complete application for a Low Barrier Navigation Center within 60 days.
One Low Barrier Navigation Center has been approved in Hayward and opened in 2019. It provides short-term housing for 45 people at a time, outreach and case management services, and placement services for residents of encampments. In 2020, the City also authorized the leasing of up to 35 hotel rooms to provide additional transitional housing and support services for people experiencing homelessness (Navigation Center Annex).
Because of the continued importance of Low Barrier Navigation Centers to meet the needs of homeless populations, the City will implement Program H-13 which contains multiple actions designed to further facilitate the provision of a variety of housing types including group homes, supportive housing, individuals experiencing homelessness. Specifically, Actions 13.5 through 13.7 call for Municipal Code amendments to reduce parking requirements for shelters; to allow low barrier navigation centers as a by right use per Government Code section 65661; and to allow tiny homes and emergency shelters on church and publicly owned properties.
Supportive and Transitional Housing
Transitional and supportive housing are more permanent housing options providing a stable living situation for individuals and families that might otherwise be homeless.
Transitional housing is defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50801 as housing with supportive services for up to 24 months that is exclusively designated and targeted for recently homeless persons. Services must be provided, with the ultimate goal of moving recently homeless persons to permanent housing as quickly as possible. Rents and services fees must be affordable to low-income persons.
23 Government Code Section 65660 et seq
Housing Constraints
25 Supportive housing has no limit on length of stay, as set forth in Government Code Sections 65582 and 65650, occupied by low-income individuals who will receive, as part of their residency, supportive services designed to assist the individual in retaining housing, improving health, or enhancing other life functions. The target population includes homeless families, homeless youth, and persons with disabilities.
In Hayward, transitional and supportive housing uses are permitted as a residential use and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. The zoning code defines transitional and supportive housing as “more permanent housing options providing a more stable living situation for individuals and families that might otherwise be homeless with stay lengths that are typically six months or longer, and specifies that the uses are permitted as a residential use and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone, in accordance with state law.
In 2018, AB 2162 required cities to change their zoning to provide a “by right” process and to expedite review for supportive housing projects of 50 units or fewer. This law applies to sites in zones where multi-family and mixed uses are permitted, including in nonresidential zones permitting multi-family use. Additionally, state law prohibits local governments from imposing any minimum parking requirements for units occupied by supportive housing residents if the development is located within 0.5 mile of a public transit stop. Twenty-five percent of the units (or a minimum of 12 units, whichever is greater) must be approved by right with no minimum parking. If the development consists of fewer than 12 units, then 100 percent of the units, excluding managers’ units, in the development shall be restricted to residents in supportive housing.
The City defers to Government Code sections 65582, 65583, and 65650 in approving supportive housing projects, and therefore its practices are consistent with state law. Because of the continued importance of these housing types to meet the needs of special needs populations, the City will implement Program H-24 which contains multiple actions designed to further facilitate the provision of housing for homeless individuals, include an action to continually monitor the City’s policies, standards, and regulations to ensure they do not unduly constrain housing for special needs populations. Specifically, Action 13.3 requires the City to assess and amend the Municipal Code to allow Supportive Housing as a by-right use where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65651.
Farmworker Housing
While the City has an agricultural zoning district (A), there are few people employed in agriculture in Hayward. As discussed in Appendix B, Housing Needs Assessment, the total number of residents employed in farming, fishing, and forestry was less than one percent of the City’s population.
However, people employed in these industries (typically located in rural areas) may seek housing opportunities in urban areas, and an analysis of Hayward’s ability to house this population is still warranted.
Although the Zoning Ordinance does not expressly address housing for agricultural workers, farmworker housing could be considered equivalent to a Group Home because the Zoning Ordinance definition of a Group Home includes boarding homes and rooming houses. In this case, farmworker housing could be considered an Unlicensed Group Home where residents pay a fee or other consideration to the Group Home Operator in return for residential accommodations.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
26 As described in the previous section on Group Homes, Small Group Homes are permitted in all Zoning Districts where residential uses as permitted. Large Group Homes require an administrative use permit in UN and UN-L zones and a conditional use permit in RS, RNP, RM, RH, RO, CG, A, NG, and UC zones. The Zoning Ordinance complies with Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5 (The Employee Housing Act) because group homes of six or fewer residents are treated as a single-family structure and permitted in the same manner as other dwellings of the same type in the A, RS, RNP, RM, RH, RO, GC, CC-R, and AT-R zones. However, the Zoning Ordinance does not comply with Health and Safety Code Section 17021.6 because Group Homes of seven or more residents require conditional use permits in the Agricultural zoning district. Health and Safety Code Section 17021.6 generally requires that employee housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in group quarters (or 12 units or less) designed for use by a single family or household to be treated as an agricultural use; and no conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required if the same is not required for other agricultural activities in the same zone.
Development Standards
Table D-15 summarizes residential use development standards in the City’s Zoning Ordinance and specific plans. Hayward’s residential and mixed-use district zoning requirements establishes various development standards such as minimum and maximum density, minimum lot size, maximum lot coverage, maximum height, minimum setbacks, minimum open space, minimum and/or maximum parking standards.
The Mission Boulevard Code and the Downtown Specific Plan Code allow for higher densities, lot coverage, Floor Area Ratio and building stories/heights to accommodate higher density and higher intensity development than the other zoning districts.
Housing Constraints
27 Table D-15 Hayward Development Standards
Zone District Min. Lot Area (sq. ft.) Max Height (ft.) Min Lot Width Minimum Yard Setback (ft.) Max Lot
Front Side Rear Side Street Coverage (%) du/ac
RS Interior Lot: 5,000
Corner Lot: 5,914
30 Interior Lot: 50 feet
Corner Lot: 60 feet
20 5-10 20* 10 40 n/a
RNP 20,000 30 100 20 30 20 10 30 n/a
RM Interior Lot: 5,000
Corner Lot: 5,914
Townhouse Lot(s):
Consistent with
building footprint and
printed project areas.
40 Interior Lot: 60 feet,
excluding radius for
street return
Corner Lot: 60 feet
20 5-10 20 10 40 8.7-17.4 du/ac1
RH 7,500 40 60 20 5-10 20 10 65 17-34 du/ac
RO Interior Lot: 5,000
Corner Lot: 5,914
40 Interior Lot: 50 feet
Corner Lot: 60 feet
10 5 20 10 50 Consistent with
RM and RH
MH 304,920 40 200 200 10 10 20 40 0.7-12 du/ac
SMU 20,000 55 100 4 6 6 4 90 25-55 du/ac
CN 6,000 40 60 10 n/a n/a 10 90 Consistent with
RM and RH
CN-R 10,000 40 100 10 n/a 20 10 n/a 17-25 du/ac
CG n/a n/a n/a 10 n/a n/a n/a 90 Consistent with
RM and RH
CO Interior Lot: 5,000
Corner Lot: 5,760
40 Interior Lot: 50 feet.
Corner Lot: 60 feet.
10 5-10 20 10 50 Consistent with
RM and RH
CL 10,000 40 100 20 10 20 10 40 Consistent with
RM and RH
CB n/a n/a n/a 10 5-10 n/a 10 90 Consistent with
RM and RH
CC-C n/a 55-104 feet n/a 0-4 feet n/a Between 40-110
du/ac
CC-R n/a 55-104 feet n/a 0-4 feet 5-10 15 10 n/a Up to 34.8 du/ac CC-P n/a 55-104 feet n/a 0-4 feet n/a 15 n/a n/a 17-65 du/ac A 43,560 40 200 20 30 total 35 10 40
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
28 Zone District Min. Lot Area (sq. ft.) Max Height (ft.) Min Lot Width Minimum Yard Setback (ft.) Max Lot
Front Side Rear Side Street Coverage (%) du/ac
Mission Boulevard Form Based Code
MB-CN n/a North of A
Street: 3 stories
max
South of A
Street: 4 stories
max., 5 max.
with Major Site
Plan Review
18 6 6 3 0 80 35 du/ac by
right, 55 du/ac
South of A
Street with
Major Site Plan
Review
MB-NN n/a 4 stories max., 5
max. with Major
Site Plan Review
18 0 0 3 6 80 35 du/ac by
right, 65 du/ac
with Major Site
Plan Review
MB-CC n/a 5 stories max., 6
max. with Major
Site Plan Review
18 0 0 3 2 90 55 du/ac by
right, 75 du/ac
with Major Site
Plan Review
TOD Overlay 1 n/a 5 stories max., 6
max. with Major
Site Plan Review
18 0 0 3 2 90 100 du/ac
TOD Overlay 2 n/a 5 stories max., 6
max. with Major
Site Plan Review
18 0 0 3 2 90 65 du/ac by
right, 100 du/ac
with Major Site
Plan Review
Downtown Specific Plan
NE n/a 35 35-75, depending on
building type
10 5 15 7 60 40-110 du/ac
NG n/a 45 35-100, depending
on use type
5 5 0 5 70 40-110 du/ac
UN n/a 70 18-320 depending on
the use type
5 5 0 5 75 40-110 du/ac
UN-L n/a 70 18-320 depending on
the use type
5 5 0 5 75 34.8 du/ac
Housing Constraints
29 Zone District Min. Lot Area (sq. ft.) Max Height (ft.) Min Lot Width Minimum Yard Setback (ft.) Max Lot
Front Side Rear Side Street Coverage (%) du/ac
DT-MS n/a 85 200-400 depending
on the building type
0 0 0 0 95 40-110 du/ac
UC n/a 124 250-450 depending
on the building type
0 0 0 0 95 40-110 du/ac
1 Based on the ratio of lot frontage to lot depth.
SR: Single -Family Residential
RNP: Residential Natura Preserve
MR: Medium Density Residential
RH: High Density Residential
RO: Residential Office
SMU: Sustainable Mixed Use
MH” Mobile Home Park
CN: Neighborhood Commercia District
CN-R: Neighborhood Commercial-Residential
CG: General Commercial District
CL: Limited Access Commercial District
CB: Central Business District
CO: Commercial Office District
* Reduced to 10 feet for single story additions to existing residential development.
CC-R: Central City-Residential Subdistrict
CC-C: Central City Commercial Subdistrict
CC-P: Central City Plaza Subdistrict
A: Agriculture
MB-CN: Mission Boulevard Corridor Neighborhood
MB-NN: Mission Boulevard Neighborhood Node
MB-CC: Mission Boulevard Corridor Center
PD: Planned Development District
NE: Neighborhood Edge
NG: Neighborhood General
UN: Urban Neighborhood
DT-MS: Downtown Main Street
UC: Urban Center
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
30 Overlay Zones
In addition to the above zoning districts, the Zoning Ordinance also establishes a combining district and overlay districts to apply additional regulations and standards to certain properties.
Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ)
Hayward adopted the Airport Overlay Zone Ordinance in July 2017. The purpose and intent of the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) Ordinance is to comply with state law, ensure that land uses and development within the AOZ are compatible with existing and future airport operations, and avoid or minimize exposure of persons to potential hazards. Portions of the City are located within the influence area zones of both the Hayward Executive Airport and Oakland International Airport (OAK). These zones identify areas of potential hazard from aircraft takeoff and landings and cover a wide portion of southwestern Hayward. The basic strategy for minimizing risks to people on the ground near airports is to limit the number of people who might gather in areas most susceptible to potential aircraft accidents by prohibiting/limiting certain non-compatible land uses. This generally includes limiting: buildings that serve people with limited mobility (e.g., children’s schools, hospitals, nursing homes); sensitive industrial uses; residential uses; public uses; and uses that process/store hazardous or flammable materials (e.g., oil refineries, chemical plants).24 Table D-16 identifies the residential development standards within the six Airport Safety Compatibility Zones.25 Zones 1 and 5 do not allow the development of single- and multi-family housing units. Currently, the General Plan designations in zones 1 and 5 would not allow for residential development, therefore the AOZ in these zones is not considered a constraint to the development of housing. New residential development within the 60 dB CNEL contour shall demonstrate consistency with the maximum exterior noise levels set forth in Table HAZ-1 of the General Plan and the maximum interior noise levels should not exceed 45dB CNEL. Pursuant to State Law, all General Plan amendments, Zoning Ordinance amendments, and projects proposed within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) must be reviewed by the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission. The Airport Land Use Commission has 60 days for the review. However, the City Council has the authority to override the review with a four-fifths vote if it can make certain findings. Since this requirement is applicable to all jurisdictions located near airports and airfields and ensures all land uses within the AOZ are consistent with State Aeronautics Act, California Public Utilities Code Section 21670, et seq., federal law, Federal Aviation Administration regulations, and handbook guidance, this requirement is not unique to Hayward and does not constitute a constraint to housing development.
24 City of Hayward 2040 General Plan Update, Environmental Impact Report. 2013. Available: https://www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hayward%20GPU%20Public%20Release%20Draft%20EIR_1-30-14.pdf 25 Hayward Executive Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Available at:
https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/documents/HWD_ALUCP_082012_FULL.pdf Housing Constraints
31 Table D-16 Airport Safety Compatibility Zones Residential Development Standards Land Uses
1 Runway
Protection Zone
2 Inner Approach/
Departure Zone 3 Inner Turning Zone
4 Outer Approach/
Departure Zone 5 Sideline Zones 6 Traffic Patter Zone
Maximum Site-wide Average
Residential Density (Dwelling
Units/Gross Acre)
(Per Figures 4B-4G in the California
Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook)
0 0 Allow infill at up to the
average of the
surrounding
residential area.
Allow infill at up to the
average density of
comparable
surrounding uses
Allow infill at up
to the average of
the surrounding
residential area.
No Limit (Noise and
overflight should be
considered).
Short-term lodging Facilities (≤ 30
nights): hotels, motels, etc.
(approx. 200 sq. ft./person)
X X C C C P
Long-term lodging facilities (> 30
days): extended-stay hotels,
dormitories, etc.
X X X C X P
Single-family residential: detached
dwellings, duplexes, townhomes,
mobile homes
X C Zones 3 and 4:
Incompatible at
density > 9.0 units/ac
X P
Multi-family residential: low-tohigh density apartments, condominiums
X X Zones 3 and 4:
Incompatible at
density > 12.0 units/ac
X P
X - INCOMPATIBLE: Uses should not be permitted under any circumstances as they may expose persons to airport-related safety hazards.
C - CONDITIONAL: Uses or activities that may be compatible with airport operations depending on their location, size, bulk, height, density, and intensity of use. See notes below for conditional criteria on specific land uses.
P - PERMITTED: Uses or activities are compatible with airport operations; however, these activities should be reviewed to ensure that they will not create height hazard obstructions, smoke, glare, electronic, wildlife attractants, or other airspace hazards. Noise, airspace protection, and/or overflight policies may still apply.
Secondary units, as defined by state law, shall be excluded from density calculations, and may be constructed on existing, non-conforming residential parcel Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
32 Transit Oriented Development Overlays
Development requirements for properties within close proximity to public transit centers, including BART, as identified on the Mission Boulevard Code, were modified to allow for an increase in residential density and adjusted height regulations. This overlay requires minimum densities and allows for higher density housing development than the base district, and therefore is not considered a constraint to the development of housing.
TOD Overlay 1, maximum 100 du/ac.
TOD Overlay 2, maximum 65 du/ac, 100 du/ac with a Major Site Plan Review.
Commercial Overlays
Two Commercial Overlays are implemented in the Mission Boulevard Code region. Figure D-1 and Figure D-2 show the commercial overlays in relation to the Mission Boulevard Code area. The commercial overlays are described as follows:
Commercial Overlay #1. Properties designated with a Commercial Overlay Zone 1 designation shall not be developed with residential units on the first or 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. Commercial Overlay #2. Properties designated with a Commercial Overlay Zone 2 designation shall not be developed with residential units along the primary street frontage unless permitted with a conditional use permit.
Housing Constraints
33 Figure D-1 Mission Boulevard Code (Map 1 of 2)
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
34 Figure D-2 Mission Boulevard Code (Map 2 of 2)
Housing Constraints
35 Special Design Overlay Districts
The Special Design Districts are implemented in areas within the City of historic, architectural, or unique character in order to provide for conservation and compatible development. “B" Street Special Design Streetcar District. This district has some of the oldest housing in Hayward. It consists of the five blocks of B Street from Grand Avenue, west of City Hall, to Meekland Avenue. Architecture and materials used in this district must be sympathetic to original Victorian, Colonial Revival, or Craftsman styles. Untrimmed openings, garish colors, and plywood siding are generally not acceptable.
The Cottage Special Design District. This district is the smallest special design district, one block in length, along Montgomery Street. This overlay district allows a historic pattern of small lot, single-family cottage development near town and transit which would otherwise be precluded by contemporary lot size, front setback, and parking requirements. The Cottage District development pattern was established before cars, and suits households with one or no motor vehicles. New cottage development would need to continue the architectural themes of horizontal wood siding, hip or gable rooflines of medium pitch, and a front entry porch that is expansive relative to the size of the cottage. A cottage cannot exceed 1,200 square feet of living space.
The Cannery Special Design District. This district contains older industrial uses that are surrounded by residential areas. The purpose of the Cannery Area Special Design District is to implement policies embodied in the Cannery Area Design Plan. The Design Plan envisions conversion of the industrial uses to commercial uses, residential uses, or mixed uses, as appropriate.
Mission-Garin Area Special Design District. This district ensures the orderly development of the Mission-Garin Area. The clustering of residential development is encouraged in this area, with development located as to avoid geologic hazards, minimize grading, and preserve significant natural site features, such as rock outcroppings, nature trees, natural drainage courses and scenic views. Preferred hillside development includes clustering of dwelling units, whether single family or multi-family, separated by interconnected natural open space or greenbelt corridors.
Hayward Foothills Trail. This district ensures the orderly development of a continuous trail as properties involved in the 238 Bypass Land Use Study are developed. The district establishes the general location for the trail as well as the standards and guidelines for establishing the trail.
The Trail is envisioned as a 16-foot-wide trail within a 20-foot wide area to accommodate multiple users. Where the trail crosses individual properties, it is envisioned to be developed in a location which will maximize the future development potential of the property. Residential development adjacent to the trail must maintain at least a 10-foot setback from the edge of the trail, where feasible.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
36 Development Standards Analysis
Density
Hayward’s Zoning Districts provide for a range of residential densities. The RS, RNP, RM, RO, CC-C, CC-R, CC-P, A, MB-CN, and MB-NN districts allow single-family development (Table D-13 and Table D-14), and, with the implementation of SB 9, allow two units per lot and allows a lot split if lots have a minimum of 1,200 square feet. Because two units are allowed on each lot, a lot split can occur and the original lot would permit four units. One ADU would also be permitted on each of the two lots.
The RM, RH, RO, SMU, CO, CC-R, MB-CN, MB-NN, MB-CC districts allow multi-family development by right with densities ranging from 8.7 to 75 units per acre. The CN-R, CB, CC-C, MB-CN, MB-NN, and MB-CC districts allow multifamily development with conditional use permits. Density ranges in the city do not constrain residential housing development.
Lot Standards
Lot standards for each zoning district are shown in Table D-15. Lot standards vary between district and are intended to allow a range of development types and intensities. The smallest lot standard allowed is 5,000 square feet in the RS district, which allows potentially up to four units, as described above. Many of the higher-density districts do not have minimum lot areas, and allow no or minimal setbacks. Lot standards do not pose a potential constraint to development of housing in terms of the number of units permitted, cost of development, feasibility, or ability to achieve maximum densities.
Height Limits
Height limits are generally intended to maintain consistency within an area and compatibility between adjacent buildings. The maximum height in lower-density zoning districts (RS and RNP) is 30 feet. Higher-density districts have maximum building heights of at least 55 feet, but many allow heights up to 104 feet. Height limits in the Mission Boulevard Form Based Code are up to six stories, and in the Downtown Specific Plan, height limits increase with increased density up to 124 feet.
Height requirements do not pose a constraint to development.
Open Space Requirements
Multi-family and mixed-use developments in the RM and RH Districts and in the Downtown Specific Plan and Mission Boulevard Codes shall provide minimum open space comprised of common open space and/or private open space on a per-unit basis. Open space requirements in these zoning districts typically range from 100 to 350 square feet per unit depending on the type of development.
Common open space can be provided as playgrounds, pools, or other on-site recreational amenities and private open space can be provided on balconies or patios.
Parking Standards
According to the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, parking can cost $25,000 to $75,000 per space to construct. However, given the age of data and the increased cost of land and construction costs discussed above, the costs per parking space are likely much higher. 26 Parking
provided in underground or structured parking facilities, or if required to be covered or enclosed, 26 Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, 2016. Available at: http://ternercenter2.berkeley.edu/proforma/ Housing Constraints
37 can significantly increase the cost of housing and could affect the feasibility of various housing projects in the city. In addition, requirements for parking space locations and maximum distances from dwelling units may also increase the cost of housing and affect the feasibility of housing projects. Requiring less parking not only reduces the project budget but can allow for more space to build additional housing units. Parking requirements for residential uses and Zoning Districts in Hayward are summarized in Table D-17 and Table D-18.
The City offers many opportunities for reducing parking for affordable and market-rate units in areas which can support a pedestrian-oriented style of development (see Reductions in Parking Standards, below). Hayward’s parking requirements do not present a constraint to the development of housing, but to ensure parking standards don’t present a constraint to adaptive reuse, through implementation of Action 12.1 and 19.2 in the Housing Plan, the City will evaluate its current parking standards for adaptive reuse and special needs populations.
Table D-17 Parking Requirements by Residential Use Type Use Off-Street Parking Spaces Required
Single Family Dwellings (RS)
Standard single family dwelling unit 2.0 covered 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.
2.0 covered per dwelling unit plus 2.0 open 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
1.0 covered per dwelling unit
Multiple-Family Dwellings (RM)
Studio 1.0 covered and 0.50 open per dwelling unit
One-bedroom 1.0 covered and 0.70 open per dwelling unit Two-bedroom 1.0 covered and 1.1 open per dwelling unit
Mobile Home 2.0 per mobile home space, plus 1.0 guest parking space per three mobile home spaces within a mobile home park
Accessory Dwelling Unit Parking requirements for Accessory Dwelling Units are established in Government Code Section 65852.2.
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit No parking may be required for Junior Accessory Dwelling Units pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.22.
Boarding, rooming and transient homes, sleeping
accommodations of clubs and lodges, and dormitories,
including those of clubs, lodges, fraternities, and
sororities
1.2 for each occupant based on capacity as designed
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
38 Table D-18 Parking Requirements by Zoning District
Zoning
District
Location (Distance from ROW/Lot Line) (ft.)
Front Street Side Side Rear
Curb Cut or Parking
Driveway Width (ft.)
Off-Street Parking Spaces
Required for Residential Uses
Downtown Specific Plan Development Code
NE 40 10 5 5 14 1 per unit, or 1/500 sf,
whichever is less. No off-street
parking required for accessory
structure(s).
NG 40 5 0 5 ≤ 40 spaces 14' max.
> 40 spaces 18' max.
1 per unit, or 1/500 sf,
whichever is less. No off-street
parking required for accessory
structure(s).
UN 40 5 0 5 ≤ 40 spaces 14' max. >
40 spaces 18' max.
1 per unit, or 1/500 sf,
whichever is less. No off-street
parking required for uses in
accessory structure(s).
DT-MS 40 5 0 0 ≤ 40 Spaces 14' max. >
40 Spaces 18' max
1 per unit, or 1/500 sf,
whichever is less. No off-street
parking required for uses in
accessory structure(s).
UC 40 5 0 5 ≤ 40 spaces 14' max. >
40 spaces 18' max.
1 per unit, or 1/500 sf,
whichever is less
Mission Boulevard Code
MC-CN 30 5 5 5 n/a There is no requirement for a
minimum number of off-street
automobile parking spaces.
MB-NN 40 5 5 5 n/a There is no requirement for a
minimum number of off-street
automobile parking spaces.
MB-CC 40 5 5 5 n/a There is no requirement for a
minimum number of off-street
automobile parking spaces.
MB-CN: Mission Boulevard Corridor Neighborhood
MB-NN: Mission Boulevard Neighborhood Node
MB-CC: Mission Boulevard Corridor Center
NE: Neighborhood Edge
NG: Neighborhood General
UN: Urban Neighborhood
DT-MS: Downtown Main Street
UC: Urban Center
Reductions in Parking Standards
There are several provisions for specific areas in which the parking requirements for residential uses can be reduced. Section 10-2.402 of the Zoning Ordinance allows for administrative approval of an off-site parking plan. Section 10-2.404 allows for a 15 percent reduction in parking requirements for multifamily uses, when public rail transportation is located within 1,000 feet of the project site.
In the Central Parking District, parking for residential uses must be provided on-site but limited per Section 10-2.412 to one covered space and 0.50 open space per dwelling unit, and 0.5 space per Housing Constraints
39 dwelling unit for multifamily dwellings for the elderly. An in-lieu fee may be paid for projects in the Central Parking District as an alternative to providing on-site parking.
In the Downtown Core Area Specific Plan, the residential parking requirement may be reduced to a minimum of 1.0 space per dwelling unit, if the aggregate parking supply for all residential units is 1.5 spaces per dwelling. Parking may be provided off site.
In the Cottage District, only one space is required per cottage, and alternative means of meeting that requirement are available. Double-car garages are prohibited.
State Density Bonus Law allows for significant reductions in parking requirements for affordable housing projects meeting the requirements of the Density Bonus Law. No parking requirements may be imposed for 100 percent affordable housing projects near major transit stops. Other projects containing a percentage of affordable units near transit are subject to no more than one-half space per unit. For all projects meeting the minimum Density Bonus Law standards, no more than 1.5 spaces per two- and three-bedroom units.
Affordable Housing Incentives and Opportunities
Density Bonus
California Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915) requires jurisdictions to provide density bonuses and development incentives to developers who propose to construct housing units that are affordable to lower- and moderate-income households. During community outreach sessions, local developers have reported that the Density Bonus Ordinance is utilized to develop better projects with more units due to decreased parking requirements, increased height, or no private storage requirement. Therefore, this ordinance is not considered a constraint to the development of housing units.
The City adopted a Density Bonus Ordinance in 2005. The ordinance (Section 10-19) is not consistent with current state law, and an update to the ordinance is currently in process (Program H-8). Until it is complete, the City defaults to State Density Bonus Law.
1.3.3 Building Code
In addition to land use controls, the enforcement of local building codes also affects the cost of housing. Hayward adopted the following codes which are mandatory throughout California:
2019 California Building Code (Volumes 1 and 2)
2019 California Residential Code
2019 California Electrical Code
2019 California Plumbing Code
2019 California Mechanical Code
2019 California Energy Code
2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) (no CalGreen tiers are adopted locally)
The City complies with the 2019 Edition of the California Building Code (CBC) as adopted (and amended) by reference in the Zoning Ordinance. The Building Code is updated every three years.
Local amendments to the Building Code that are contained in the Zoning Ordinance are related to Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
40 increasing structural stability and strength in case of a seismic episode, including quality control for concrete footings and wall bracing materials and fire safety and automatic sprinkler systems. While the incorporation of these measures may raise the cost of construction, these standards are necessary to prevent much more costly damage related to a potential seismic or fire episode. No restrictions or amendments were adopted that are a constraint to the development of housing.
Enforcement of the CBC is required by California law and does not constrain the production or improvement of housing in Hayward.
Reach Code
The Hayward Reach Code is a local Green Building Ordinance adopted in early 2020 that prohibits natural gas use in newly constructed low-rise (three or fewer stories) homes. This gas ban also applies to detached ADUs that are over 400 square feet. For high-rise residential, and commercial projects, there is a mixed-fuel option that allows gas if other efficiency measures are met. The Reach Code also expands the requirements in CalGreen for EV charging infrastructure.
In accordance with Section 10-106 of California’s 2019 Energy Code, to adopt a reach code, a local government agency needs to make findings on the cost effectiveness of the proposed local energy standards. To be cost effective, the money saved from the reduced energy costs needs to be enough to cover the initial cost within a reasonable period of time.27 Affordable housing developers have requested exemptions from certain requirements in Hayward’s Reach Code. The additional cost associated with meeting the Reach Code requirements is a constraint to the development of affordable housing. Updates to the Reach Code will be adopted in 2023 in conjunction with the Building Code Update and may adjust requirements for affordable housing.
Code Enforcement
The City’s Code Enforcement Division is responsible for investigation and enforcement of all Zoning and Building Code violations related to property maintenance, public nuisances, zoning/land use violations, substandard rental housing, commercial signage, graffiti, etc. The division also monitors the graffiti abatement and shopping cart removal contracts. The Zoning Code sets the standards for enforcement, and the Code Enforcement Division uses education, administrative citations, and the filing of criminal complaints to ensure that these standards are maintained. Code enforcement practices are not considered a constraint to the development of housing.
In July 2020, the Council enacted the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance (TRAO). Under the TRAO, landlords may owe relocation assistance to tenants displaced due to health and safety concerns or substantial repairs. The TRAO also enables the City to make relocation assistance payments to tenants when the landlord fails to pay required assistance. The City can then recover the costs from the landlord. The City’s Housing Division works closely with the Code Enforcement Division, Fire Department, and Building Division to identify cases and determine eligibility for relocation assistance. Since July 2020, the City has worked on approximately 20 cases with a Code Enforcement violation. Additionally, Council authorized the use of $250,000 in American Rescue Plan funds for an Emergency Relocation Assistance Program to provide financial assistance grants to low-income households displaced through natural disaster, such as a fire. Since implementing the program in March 2022, 14 eligible households have received a total of $107,262 in assistance through this program.
27 Cost Effectiveness Explorer. Available: https://explorer.localenergycodes.com/jurisdiction/hayward-city/study-results/3- PGE?exclude_study_ids=25,22,19,1,2
Housing Constraints
41 1.3.4 On- and Off-Site Improvements
Pursuant to the Municipal Code, all new development shall install frontage improvements, utilities and other on- and off-site improvements to ensure safe, clean development that is connected to the City’s utility and street infrastructure. As conditions of approval, Hayward requires housing developers to construct various on- and off-site improvements related to roadways, utilities, and stormwater control as described below.
Infrastructure Improvements
All new development shall construct on and off-site infrastructure improvements to be constructed by the builder in accordance with City standards. Improvements include:
The construction of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lighting, and street paving to meet the existing street pavement;
Construction of or contribution to Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures and bicycle/pedestrian improvements consistent with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and Complete Streets Policy;
Undergrounding existing overhead wires;
The dedication of land, payment of an in-lieu fee, or a combination of both for park and recreational purposes; and
The construction of water, sewer, storm drainage, and utility systems.
Completed on-site improvements are typically dedicated to the City or privately maintained by a Homeowners Association. The City has not adopted any requirements above and beyond those authorized by the state Subdivision Map Act. Site improvement requirements on small infill sites, where interior streets are not required, are usually minimal. Such projects typically include curb and gutter replacements, street tree planting, sidewalk repair, TDM and bicycle and pedestrian improvements to connect to the City’s network and sometimes utility undergrounding. The City’s site improvement requirements do not pose a development constraint, since the conditions required by Hayward are no greater than conditions implemented throughout Alameda County.
Stormwater Control and Landscaping/Tree Preservation Ordinance All new development that will create or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface must comply with Hayward Municipal Code Section 11.5-38 and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (San Francisco MS4 Permit). These regulations require new development to set aside land on site to retain and treat stormwater on site to reduce impacts related to off-site erosion and drainage of pollutants to the Bay. This is a region-wide requirement and applicable throughout Alameda and surrounding counties with drainage to the Bay.
All new development must also comply with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Hayward Municipal Code Chapter 10, Article 7), which requires preparation of an Arborist Report to document all trees on site to determine if they are “protected.” If deemed protected, the applicant shall retain Tree Removal Permits and replace the protected trees with trees that are of equal or greater value. To the greatest extent possible, replacement trees shall be located on site but the City has allowed off-site mitigation in certain circumstances. All Zoning Districts also include Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
42 minimum landscaping standards which require installation of street trees along frontages, parking lot trees for multi-family or mixed use development and landscaping along required yards.
While provision of on-site stormwater control areas, tree, landscaping and open space and recreational amenities may be considered a constraint, they also encourage shade cover, healthy and active lifestyles, and a more livable environment for residents. Applicants can use the Density Bonus process to apply for concessions or waivers from required landscaping or recreational improvements, but the benefits outweigh the costs of this constraint.
1.3.5 Historic Preservation
The protection, enhancement, perpetuation, and use of structures and districts of historical and architectural significance located within Hayward are of cultural and aesthetic benefit to the community. The economic, cultural, and aesthetic standing of the city will also be enhanced by respecting the heritage of the city. The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, updated in 2009, is intended to:
Designate, preserve, protect, enhance, and perpetuate those historic structures, districts, and neighborhoods which contribute to the cultural and aesthetic heritage of Hayward; Foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past; Stabilize and improve the economic value of certain historic structures, districts, and neighborhoods;
Develop and maintain appropriate settings for such structures; and Enhance the visual and aesthetic character, diversity, and interest of the city.
All development permit applications affecting a historical structure or site, those over 50 years old or located within a historic district, are to be reviewed by the Planning Director. Additions and/or alterations will be approved and issued either a Minor (valuation less than $10,000) or Major (valuation of $10,000 or more) Historical Alteration Permit as long as they do not adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics or the historical or aesthetic value of the historical structure or site, and as long as they comply with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The Planning Director will review all development permit applications for proposed new construction and alterations that may substantially affect the style, scale, or bulk of a historic district or site.
The City prepared the Historical Resources Survey and Inventory Report in 2010 to identify historical properties in Hayward and completed an updated resources survey in 2013 as part of a General Plan Update. Hayward includes 20 historic buildings identified by the City and one building listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The City also has four historic districts: the Marks Historic Rehabilitation District, the Upper B Street Historic District, the B Street Historic Streetcar District, and the Prospect Hill Historic District. Due to the limited number of parcels from the sites inventory located within a historical resources area, historic preservation requirements are not considered a constraint to the development of housing.
Housing Constraints
43 1.3.6 Development Review & Impact Fees
All housing projects are subject to a variety of fees and exactions to process permits and provide necessary services and facilities allowed by State law. These costs can be a constraint to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing because the additional costs borne by developers contribute to overall increased housing unit cost. However, development review fees are necessary to maintain adequate staffing services and other public services and facilities in the city.
Impact fees are required to offset the cost of provision of public services and include sewer and water connection fees and park, affordable housing, traffic, and school impact fees.
Entitlement Fees – Development Review
Planning and development review fees are necessary to fund staff review of development applications for consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other local, state, and environmental laws. All Planning, Building and Engineering related development review fees are in the City’s adopted Master Fee Schedule and are updated on an annual basis.28 The first step in the development review process is obtaining an “entitlement” and related environmental review. For Planning entitlements, applicants provide an initial deposit depending on the entitlement type (Site Plan Review, Zone Change, Tentative/Parcel Map, use permit or other application) and then are charged on a time and material basis. Hayward outsources all environmental review to environmental consultants who prepare environmental studies and other CEQA-related documents. A typical Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration with related environmental studies cost between $80,000 and $150,000 to prepare depending on the number of studies (Transportation, Air Quality, Noise, Health Risk Assessment, among others). The Planning Division does not add an administrative or other charge to CEQA consultant fees. Planning approvals are considered “entitlements.”
Following Planning approvals, applicants submit Improvements Plans and Grading Permits and Utility Plans. The City will also accept concurrent Building Permit applications which consist of detailed construction-level plans. Engineering and Building Division fees are necessary to fund staff review of building permit applications with Building Code, Reach Code, Municipal Code, Fire Code, and other laws.
Development review adds to the cost of a development and contributes to overall increased housing unit cost. However, these fees are necessary to provide for the timely and thorough review of development applications and to maintain adequate planning services. Table D-22 shows associated fees for development review.
28 City of Hayward. Adopted Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2023. Available: https://haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Adopted-FY-2023-Master-Fee-Schedule.pdf Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
44 Table D-19 Development Review Associated Fees
Action/Activity Fees
Administrative Use Permit Processed Administratively Direct Cost $2,000 deposit Involving Public Hearing Direct Cost $6,000 deposit
Appeal
By Non-Applicant $400
By Applicant Direct Cost $6,000 deposit
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)/Variance
CUP Direct Cost $6,000 deposit
Variance/Warrants/Exceptions Direct Cost $6,000 deposit Administrative Variance/Warrants Direct Cost $2,000 deposit Environmental Review
Environmental/Technical Analysis Direct Cost $5,000 deposit Initial Study/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Direct Cost, based on scope Planned Development)/Development Agreement
Rezone to Planned Development Direct Cost $12,000 deposit Planned Development Modification/Precise Plan Direct Cost $6,000 deposit Development Agreement Direct Cost $12,000 deposit
Development Agreement Amendment Direct Cost $6,000 deposit Development Agreement Annual Review Direct Cost $1,000 deposit Conceptual Development Review/Pre-Application
First Meeting Free/ Subsequent Meetings $328/hour
SB 330/SB 35 Housing Project $Direct Cost $1,000 deposit Modification of Approved Plan
Processed Administratively Direct Cost $2,000 deposit
Involving Public Hearing Direct Cost $6,000 deposit
Site Plan Review
Processed Administratively Direct Cost $2,000 deposit
Involving Public Hearing Direct Cost $6,000 deposit
Tentative Map/Subdivision/Condominium/Annexation
Processed Administratively Direct Cost $4,000
Involving Public Hearing Direct Cost $6,000 deposit
Lot Line Adjustment/Certificate of Merger Direct Cost $4,000 deposit Annexation Direct Cost $15,000 deposit
Zone Change/General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan
Zone Change/Code Amendment Direct Cost $12,000 deposit
General Plan Amendment Direct Cost $12,000 deposit
Specific Plan/Amendment Direct Cost $12,000 deposit
Housing Constraints
45 Action/Activity Fees
Plan Check for Building Permit*
R-1 Residential, hotels Construction Type 1A $213.57/square foot R-2 Residential, multi-family Construction Type 1A $179.08/square foot R-3 Residential, one and two family Construction Type 1A $166.95/square foot R-4 Residential, care Construction Type 1A $211.79/square foot Planning Review Fee 35% of Building Inspection Fee
Fire Review Fee 35% of Building Inspection Fee
Hazardous Materials Review Fee $165 per hour
Solid Waste Review Fee $80 flat rate
Building Plot Plan Review Fee (applies to production
homes)
$294 flat rate per plot
Planning Plot Plan Review Fee (applies to production
homes)
$491 flat rate per plot
Fire Plot Plan Review Fee (applies to production homes) $110 flat rate per plot Building Inspection Fees
$1 to $500 $29.77
$501 to $2000 $29.77 for the first $500 plus $3.87 for each additional $100 or fraction thereof, to and including $2000
$2,001 to $25,000 $87.82 for the first $2000 plus $17.74 for each additional $1000 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000
$25,001 to $50,000 $495.68 for the first $25,000 plus $12.80 for each additional $1000 or fraction thereof, to and including
$50,000
$50,001 to $100,000 $815.70 for the first $50,000 plus $8.87 for each additional $1000 or fraction thereof, to and including
$100,000
$100,001 to $500,000 $1259.15 for the first $100,000 plus $7.09 for each additional $1000 or fraction thereof, to and including
$500,000
$500,001 to $1,000,000 $4097.18 for the first $500,000 plus $6.02 for each additional $1000 or fraction thereof, to and including
$1,000,000
$1,000,001 and up $7109.14 for the first $1,000,000 plus $4.00 for each additional $1000 or fraction thereof
Fire Inspection Fee $221
Hazardous Materials Inspection Fee $330/inspection
Planning & Landscape Inspection Fee $212
Technology Fee (applies to all building permits) 9% of Building Inspection Fee Policy Planning Fee (applies to all building permits) 16% of Building Inspection Fee *Building Permit Plan Check fees are calculated by valuation, defined as the fair market value or materials and labor for the work as shown in the ICC Valuation data table with regional construction cost modifier for the San Francisco Bay Area of 16%. Valuation for tenant improvements, residential remodels, and other projects that do not involve new square footage shall be a minimum of 60% of the cost per square foot in the tables by construction type. Source: –City of Hayward Adopted FY2023 Master Fee Schedule.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
46 The permit processing fees depend upon the specific zoning approval required and the type of project or construction. Planning fees are based on a fixed fee or direct cost, such as staff time plus overhead. City Planners are available to identify the approvals that may be required for a project.
When a Planning permit is required for a project, approval of the Planning permit is required before a building permit can be issued.
Development/Impact Fees
Development fees are assessed after a project entitlement is completed, and when building permit applications are submitted. Development (or “impact”) fees are required to offset the cost of provision of public services and include sewer and water connection fees and park, affordable housing, traffic, and school impact fees.
Utility Fees
Developers must pay for new or upgraded sewer and water connection fees to ensure that new development is safely connected to the City’s or service provider’s systems. Utility fees are assessed on each new residential development according to unit counts and number of connections as detailed in Table D-20. Per State law, allowances in design (i.e. master water meter rather than individual water meters), which lead to fee reductions are permitted for affordable housing and for ADUs within existing homes and those under 750 square feet in size.
Housing Constraints
47 Table D-20 Sewer and Water Fees
Sewer System Connection Charge
Single Family, duplex, triplex, and fourplex residential, townhouses and planned developments
$7,700/connection
ADUs (new construction >150 sq. ft.), high density residential, mobile homes
$6,853/connection
Single Family, duplex, triplex, and fourplex residential, townhouses and planned developments
$7,700/connection
ADUs (new construction >150 sq. ft.), high density residential, mobile homes
$6,853/connection
Water Services*
Meter Installation Fees
ADU (conversion or construction >150 sq. ft.) $200
5/8” to 1” (includes new ADU) $3,500
1”x1½” $4,140
1½”x1½” $4,580
1½”x2” $4,580
2”x2” $4,870
Larger than 2”x2” Actual cost of labor, materials & equipment Meter Facilities Fees
ADU (conversion or construction >150 sq. ft.) $3,246
5/8” meter (includes new ADU) $6,484
3/4” meter $9,730
1” meter $16,210
2” meter $51,870
3” meter $103,740
4” meter $162,100
6” meter $324,200
8” meter $518,720
10” meter $745,660
Fire Service, per service regardless of size $6,484
*For multi-family complexes, the facilities fee will be based on the water meter size required to meet the indoor demand for each dwelling unit, as determined by the City regardless of the arrangement of water meters or meter sizes at the premises.
Park Impact Fees
Park Impact fees are assessed for market rate development based on bedroom count as detailed in Table D-21 below. The City waives the park impact fee for projects for seniors or disabled persons owned by or leased to a public agency for at least 20 years, for rental projects owned by non-profit corporations for households with incomes at or below 120 percent of the area median income, for ownership projects developed by a public agency or non-profit developer for households with incomes at or below 120 percent of the area median income, subject to certain affordability agreements, and for convalescent hospitals, nursing homes, and rest homes. In addition, park impact fees are reduced by half for rental housing projects owned by for profit corporations for households with incomes at or below 120 percent of the area median income, ownership housing developed by a private developer which is affordable in perpetuity to homebuyers with incomes at Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
48 or below 120 percent of the area median income, and for on-site affordable units, as defined and required by the Affordable Housing Ordinance.
Table D-21 Park Fees
Park Impact Fees
ADU >750 square feet $3,453
Studio/0 Bedroom Unit $3,453
1 Bedroom Unit $5,407
2 Bedroom Unit $9,753
3 Bedroom Unit $17,034
4 Bedroom Unit $23,694
Affordable Housing Ordinance and Fees
The City adopted an Affordable Housing Ordinance in 2003. The Ordinance and accompanying fees were updated in 2017 and the City is embarking on another update in 2022.
The City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance requires that all future residential development projects consisting of two or more dwelling units contribute to the production of residences that are affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. The Ordinance, which supports housing objectives in state law, requires that developments set aside a certain percentage of housing on site for lower income households or to pay an in lieu fee that is tied to the square footage of the development. Residential development project applicants shall satisfy one of the following options:
Pay an affordable housing in-lieu fee (deposited into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund). Include on-site for-sale or rental affordable units.
Construct affordable units not physically contiguous to the development (off-site) if approved by the appropriate Decision-Making Body.
Propose additional alternatives not listed in the Affordable Housing Ordinance if approved by the Decision-Making Body.
In an Ownership Residential Project, provide rental affordable units.
The in-lieu fees generated by compliance with the Ordinance provides for an Affordable Housing Trust Fund which must be used to increase the supply of housing affordable to moderate-, low-, very low-, or extremely low-income households in the City. According to the 2022 Master Fee Schedule, the Affordable Housing Fees are $16.35 per square foot of habitable space for high density condominiums (35 units per acre or more), and $19.82 per square foot of habitable space for all other dwelling unit types.
29 For Park Impact fees, please see Attachment 1, page 22.
Traffic Impact Fees
The City recently adopted Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) to help mitigate the cumulative transportation impacts of growth. Improvements funded through the TIF will fund roadway and intersection improvements, pedestrian, bicycle, and complete streets improvements to support muti-modal transportation. Based on a feasibility analysis (referenced earlier in this document), the TIF will be 29 City of Hayward. Adopted Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2023. Available: https://haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Adopted-FY-2023-Master-Fee-Schedule.pdf Housing Constraints
49 assessed on single family and townhome developments but will not be assessed on multi-family development. The adopted fee for single family development is $3,475 per unit which is approximately 70% less than the maximum allowable for that development type. For townhomes, the fee is $3,492 per unit which is approximately 55% less than the maximum allowable for that development type. Further, deed restricted affordable units are not subject to the TIF.
School Impact Fees
Hayward Unified School District charges impact fees for all new development. The fees are used for school improvements and operations and are intended to offset the impacts of increased enrollment. Developer Fees, which are assessed on a per square foot basis, are available on the website at https://haywardusd-ca.schoolloop.com/DeveloperFees. There are no reductions for affordable housing development; however, small projects (i.e. ADUs) under 750 square feet are exempt from School Impact Fees.
Overall, the City’s current development impact fees have minimal impacts on overall development costs, given the high price of land in Hayward and the region.
Permit Fees for a Typical Project
The permit processing fees depend upon the specific zoning approval required and the type of project or construction. Planning fees are based on a fixed fee or direct cost, such as staff time plus overhead. City Planners are available to identify the approvals that may be required for a project.
When a Planning permit is required for a project, approval of the Planning permit is required before a building permit can be issued. Table D-22 provides permit fees for a typical ownership and rental project prototypes. As shown on the table, ownership prototypes such as single-family residences ($36,160 per unit), townhomes ($28,118 per units), and condos ($25,042) accrue higher fees than rental prototypes such as small multiplexes ($19,147 per unit), stacked flats ($24,966), 5-story wraps ($19,882), and 5-story podium projects ($20,465). As part of the Housing Element, the City will complete a new feasibility study to determine the appropriate on-site affordable housing requirements and fees for rent and ownership of residential units that appropriately reflect market conditions (Program H-6). Additionally, the City will create a “Package of Incentives” that identifies the benefits of providing on-site affordable housing which will include fee deferrals, waivers, and fee transparency (Program H-14).
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
50 Table D-22 Permit Fees for a Typical Unit
Ownership Prototypes Rental Prototypes
Single Family
Development Townhomes Condos
Small
Multiplex Stacked Flats
5-Story
Wrap
5-Story
Podium (TOD)
Number of Units 44 106 74 20 74 300 159
Address Assignment $9,702 $23,373 $5,659 $1,690 $5,659 $22,270 $11,907 Construction Improvement Tax $33,000 $79,500 $33,300 $9,000 $33,300 $135,000 $71,550 Administrative Fee Building Permit $6,468 $15,582 $147 $147 $147 $147 $147 Supplemental Building Cons $52,800 $127,200 $88,800 $19,200 $71,040 $288,000 $152,640 Building Permit Fee – – $44,721 $14,285 $50,721 $168,285 $112,225 Fire Inspection Fee $9,724 $23,426 $221 $221 $221 $221 $221 Fire Plan Check 35% – – $15,652 $5,000 $17,752 $58,900 $39,279 General Plan Update Fee (Policy fee) $20,744 $36,025 $7,155 $2,286 $8,115 $26,926 $17,956 Planning/Landscape Inspection Fee $9,328 $22,472 $212 $212 $212 $212 $212 Land Scape Multifamily – – $319 $319 $319 $319 $319
Planning Review Fee – – $15,652 $5,000 $17,752 $58,900 $39,279 SMIP Residential $1,929 $3,052 $2,913 $363 $3,333 $11,562 $7,638 State Building Standards Fee $616 $954 $417 $112 $477 $1,652 $1,092 Solid Waste Fee – – $80 $80 $80 $80 $80
Technology Fee $11,668 $20,264 $4,025 $1,286 $4,565 $15,146 $10,100 Plot Inspection Fee $129,649 $225,158 – – – – –
Building plot plan fee $12,936 $31,164 – – – – –
Fire Plot Plan Review Fee $4,840 $11,660 – – – – –
Planning Plot Plan Review Fee $21,604 $52,046 – – – – – Hazmat Fee – – – – – – –
Water System Facilities Fee $713,240 $1,031,380 $720,020 $129,680 $720,020 $2,919,000 $1,547,070 Water System Installation Fee $154,000 $371,000 $259,000 $7,000 $259,000 $105,000 $55,650 Sewer connection fee $338,800 $816,200 $569,800 $137,060 $569,800 $2,055,900 $1,089,627 Irrigation Water Meter $20,000 $30,000 $25,000 $10,000 $25,000 $37,000 $37,000 Fire Service $20,000 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Fire hydrant $20,000 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Total $1,591,048 $2,980,457 $1,853,094 $382,940 $1,847,514 $5,964,519 $3,253,992 Fees Per Unit $36,160 $28,118 $25,042 $19,147 $24,966 $19,882 $20,465 Housing Constraints
51 1.3.7 Permit Procedures and Processing Timeframes
The processing time needed to obtain development permits and required approvals is commonly cited by the development community as a constraint. Lengthy processing times, unclear permitting procedures, layered reviews, multiple discretionary review requirements, and costly conditions of approval can contribute to the high cost of housing.30 In Hayward, the time between application submittal to project approval depends on the magnitude and complexity of the development proposal. Factors that can affect the length of development review on a proposed project include rezoning or general plan amendment requirements, the requirement to hold a public hearing, whether a project requires environmental review. (See Section 3.4 for more information on environmental constraints.)
The Permit Streamlining Act governs the processing time for planning applications, although the applicant can waive these time limits. The length of processing time also depends upon the knowledge, expertise, and expertise of the applicant’s development team and their ability to prepare plans in accordance with City requirements, make timely submissions (and resubmissions), and revise plans based on feedback received.
Because the City does not require a public hearing for many types of residential development projects, there is a fair amount of certainty in the City’s development review processes and outcome. A typical new single-family development that complies with zoning requires a Building Permit or Site Plan Review, reviewed by planning staff or the Planning Director. A typical new multifamily development that complies with zoning requires a Site Plan Review, reviewed by planning staff or the Planning Director.
Most residential projects are approved either administratively or through the Board of Zoning Adjustments and do not require a subsequent public hearing before the City Council unless appealed. For these reasons, projects are unlikely to be delayed or more costly to develop due to the design review process. Permit processing times in Hayward are comparable to neighboring cities such as San Leandro and are not considered a constraint to development. The City’s current site plan review process is not considered a constraint to housing development. Through Program H-16, the City will continue to explore efforts to reduce constraints to development and streamline development review.
Permit Types
Planning Entitlement – Development Application
A development application is required for any of the following: administrative use permits, conditional use permits, general plan amendments, lot line adjustments, lot mergers, parcel/final maps, site plan reviews, tentative maps, variances, and zone changes. Approval of these development applications are referred to as Planning Entitlements and, once approved, allow the applicant to submit for improvement plans and building permits.
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
The City offers a free Conceptual Development Review as a courtesy before an applicant submits a formal application. The developer and professional consultants submit a preliminary set of plans 30 California Department of Housing and Community Development. 2021. Available: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/building-blocks/constraints/processing-permitting-procedures.shtml. Accessed October 28, 2021 Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
52 and the applicant, architects, and engineers receive feedback from planning, building, fire, traffic, engineering, utilities, and any other City staff who may be likely to work on the project. This process gives developers the opportunity to meet those likely to work on the project and learn about requirements and potentially significant issues in the preliminary plans. This also gives staff the opportunity to learn about and gain familiarity with proposed projects in the pipeline, which can reduce the amount of time it takes to review plans once they are submitted. Through this process, the Development Review Team, which is composed of representatives from each department, discuss the codes and other regulations that pertain to the proposed project and make suggestions that, if accepted by the developer, can reduce application processing time and may, subsequently, reduce development costs. Feedback from developers has been very favorable about the utility of Permit Center informal feedback, Conceptual Development Review application and meetings, and subsequent Code Assistance meetings (more detailed follow up with Fire, Hazardous Materials, and Building) and related improvements in processing time and activities. These processes are intended to remove potential constraints associated with the processing of permits for housing development.
Time Frame: 30 days
Hearings: None
Findings: None
Cost: First meeting is free; subsequent meetings are $328 per hour.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE
Projects that are not consistent with the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance may require approval of a General Plan Amendment or a Zone Change. Approval of these types of proposals is discretionary, subject to CEQA, and require public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council.
Time Frame: 12-18 months
Hearings: Required two public hearings – one with Planning Commission and one with City Council Findings: Findings for General Plan, Zoning Map and Text Amendments are set forth in Hayward Municipal Code Section 10-1.3425(b):
Substantial proof exists that the proposed change will promote the public health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the residents of Hayward; The proposed change is in conformance with the purposes of this Ordinance and all applicable, officially adopted policies and plans;
Streets and public facilities existing or proposed are adequate to serve all uses permitted when property is reclassified; and
All uses permitted when property is reclassified will be compatible with present and potential future uses, and, further, a beneficial effect will be achieved which is not obtainable under existing regulations.
Cost: Direct Cost with $12,000 deposit, Environmental Analysis based on scope of services Housing Constraints
53 CERTIFICATE OF MERGER
A certificate of merger is a ministerial process that is required where two or more adjacent parcels are merged to create one parcel. Parcels must be under common ownership. All parcels must be under common ownership and title must be held in a similar manner for each parcel. The Planning Director may approve a Certificate of Merger or refer it to the Planning Commission. Approval of a complete application is generally complete within four to six weeks.
Time Frame: 4-6 weeks
Hearings: No public hearings; processed administratively Findings: None
Cost: Direct Cost with $4,000 deposit
VARIANCES/ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES AND MINOR MODIFICATIONS An applicant must request a variance when seeking an exception to specific requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Parking Regulations, and Sign Regulations, if those requirements would result in a hardship due to physical conditions of a property. The Planning Director or the Planning Commission acts on variance requests. Administrative action on a variance request takes place two to four weeks after the application is deemed complete; additional time is necessary if Planning Commission review is required.
Minor deviations from the Code (reduced setbacks, minimum lot size, reduced open space and other standards) are considered Minor Modifications and may be processed administratively per Hayward Municipal Code Section 10-1.2830 (City-wide); Section 10-24.4.040 (within the Mission Boulevard Code area), and Section 10-28.5.2 (within the Downtown Specific Plan area).
Time Frame: 6-12 months for Variance; 4-7 months for Administrative Variance/Minor Modification Hearings: One public hearing with Planning Commission; no public hearings required for Administrative Modifications
Findings: Findings for Variances are set forth in Hayward Municipal Code Section 10-1.3325:
There are special circumstances applicable to the property including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, or other physical constraints. Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity under the same zoning classification. The variance does not constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated.
Cost:
Direct Cost with $6,000 deposit for Variance;
Direct Cost with $2,000 deposit for Administrative Variance & Minor Modification Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
54 SUBDIVISION MAP APPLICATION
A subdivision map application is required in order to subdivide a property into multiple parcels, to create condominiums, to convert existing rental units into condominium units, or to convert a dwelling to a stock cooperative. Tentative tract maps are required for all subdivisions that result in creating five or more parcels or condominiums. Subdivisions resulting in four or fewer parcels require a tentative parcel map.
Tentative tract maps are acted upon by the Planning Commission. Tentative parcel maps may be approved administratively by the Planning Director. The process takes approximately three to four months after an application is deemed complete.
Time Frame: 9-15 months for Tentative Tract Map; 6-9 months for Tentative Parcel Map Hearings: Two public hearings for Tentative Tract Map with five or more parcels with Planning Commission for Tentative Map approval and City Council for Final Map approval. Tentative and Final Parcel Map for four or fewer parcels can be processed administratively.
Findings: Findings for Maps are set forth in Hayward Municipal Code Section 10-1.3150:
The proposed subdivision is not in conflict with the General Plan and applicable specific plans and neighborhood plans;
The proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance; No approval of variances or other exceptions are required for the approval of the subdivision.
Cost:
Direct Cost with $6,000 deposit for Tentative Tract Map and Direct Cost with $4,000 deposit for Tentative Parcel Map
Direct Cost with $15,000 for Final Tract Map and Direct Cost with $5,000 for Final Parcel Map.
SITE PLAN REVIEW & MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
Site Plan Review is required for new development or substantial alterations to existing development in most residential districts. Typically, the Planning Director may waive Site Plan Review for alterations to existing development if it is fully consistent with the applicable Zoning standards and is consistent with surrounding development. However, most new developments undergo Site Plan Review to ensure compliance with on-site and surrounding structures and uses, physical and environmental constraints, and environmental considerations. Site Plan Review is processed administratively, meaning that it is approved at the level of the Planning Director unless the project is appealed to the Planning Commission or City Council, or unless the Planning Director refers the project to a higher reviewing authority. Site Plan Review processing typically takes three months to over a year to process depending on the complexity of the project and whether it requires compliance with CEQA.
Time Frame: 6-9 months for Site Plan Review
Hearings: None
Findings: Findings for Site Plan Review are set forth in Hayward Municipal Code Section 10-1.3025:
The development is compatible with on-site and surrounding structures and uses and is an attractive addition to the City;
The development takes into consideration physical and environmental constraints; Housing Constraints
55 The development complies with the intent of City development policies and regulations; The development will be operated in a manner determined to be acceptable and compatible with surrounding development
Cost: Direct Cost with $2,000 deposit
Major Site Plan Review (MSPR) is required for certain projects that would like to exceed density, height or other development standard in the Downtown Specific Plan and in the Mission Boulevard Code areas. In the Downtown Specific Plan area, projects on sites over three acres, involving an addition over 30 percent of existing floor area or 5,000 square feet or other unusual circumstances must undergo Major Site Plan Review (HMC Section 10-28.5.3.030). In the Mission Boulevard Code, sites over two acres or more than 600 feet of lineal frontage must undergo Major Site Plan Review (HMC Section 10-24.4.2.020). Major Site Plan Review requires Planning Commission approval, and typically takes six months to over a year depending on the complexity of the project and whether it requires compliance with CEQA. The City has only received one MSRP application since 2019 for a development in the Mission Boulevard Code area because most sites being developed in Downtown Hayward and along Mission Boulevard Code area are smaller than the minimum acreages subject to MSRP. The MSRP process is for larger sites or those that would like to have increased density or deviate from height or other development standards, which can also be achieved through the Density Bonus process. See Section 3.3.8: Design Guidelines, below for information about the design standards for site plans.
Time Frame: 6-12 months for Major Site Plan Review
Hearings: One public hearing with the Planning Commission.
Findings: Findings for Major Site Plan Review are set forth in Hayward Municipal Code Section 10-1.3081:
The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Design Guidelines, and any other applicable plan or program; and The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent, and standards of the applicable zoning district and General Plan or Specific Plan designation and applicable design guidelines; and
The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the land use and development being proposed; and
The proposed development will be compatible with the planned land use character of the surrounding area and make a positive impact to the site and surrounding area; and The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding development and land uses.
Cost: Direct Cost with $6,000 deposit
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
56 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Applicants typically submit Zone Changes to Planned Development (PD) District for projects that do not meet the underlying development standards. The most common Zone Change to PD District application involves requesting smaller lots, reduced setbacks, and reduced parking standards from the underlying Zoning District standards. However, density must be compliant with the General Plan land use designation. If the density is not compliant, then the applicant must also submit an application for a General Plan Amendment. A PD also requires approval of a Precise Development Plan, an administrative review process to review detailed plans or modifications not included in the initial PD review.
Typically, PDs are processed for small lot single family developments, townhomes and condominiums and therefore require approval of a Tentative Map. Zone Changes require a public hearing and recommendation by the Planning Commission and are ultimately approved or denied by the City Council. The PD and related approvals process typically takes one to two years, depending on the complexity of the entitlement. Since PD Districts involve a Zone Change, they are always accompanied by an Initial Study Checklist since CEQA Exemptions do not apply to projects that are inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance. If the Zone Change to PD District is approved, an applicant is required to submit a Precise Development Plan, which includes more detailed architectural plans, landscape plans, and draft improvement plans. The Precise Development Plan is reviewed and approved by City staff and takes less than one month to process. The Precise Development Plan may be submitted concurrently with Final Map, Improvement Plan and Building Permit applications.
Prior to 2020, the City would receive several applications for Zone Change to PD District per year Since 2020, the City has received and processed three applications for a Zone Change to Planned Development District. The City is receiving fewer PD District applications because developers are opting to submit Density Bonus applications to take advantage of concessions and waivers which allow for deviation from the Code. The City anticipates that there will be even fewer applications for Zone Change to PD District with the adoption of the Objective Design and Development Standards to allow for small lot single family development, missing middle housing types and other flexible standards provided that the project meets objective criteria (Program H-16, Action 16.5).
Time Frame: 12 to 18 months for PD Rezone process & one month for Precise Plan approval Hearings: Two public hearings – one with Planning Commission and one with City Council Findings: Findings for Planned Development District are set forth in Hayward Municipal Code Section 10-1.2535:
The development is in substantial harmony with the surrounding area and conforms to the General Plan and applicable City policies.
Streets and utilities, existing or proposed, are adequate to serve the development. In the case of a residential development, that the development creates a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, that sites proposed for public facilities, such as playgrounds and parks, are adequate to serve the anticipated population and are acceptable to the public authorities having jurisdiction thereon, and the development will have no substantial adverse effect upon surrounding development. In the case of nonresidential uses, that such development will be in conformity with applicable performance standards, will be appropriate in size, location, and overall planning for the purpose intended, will create an environment of sustained desirability and stability through the Housing Constraints
57 design and development standards, and will have no substantial adverse effect upon surrounding development.
In the case of a development in increments, each increment provides a sufficient proportion of total planned common open space, facilities, and services so that it may be self-contained in the event of default or failure to complete the total development according to schedule. Any latitude or exception(s) to development regulations or policies is adequately offset or compensated for by providing functional facilities or amenities not otherwise required or exceeding other required development standards.
Cost: Direct Cost with $12,000 deposit for PD Rezone and Direct Cost with $2,000 deposit for Precise Plan
USE PERMIT - ADMINISTRATIVE/CONDITIONAL
Administrative Use Permits (AUPs) and Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) are required for the use of land or land development when required by the Zoning Ordinance, typically for projects that have potential for nuisance or impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. An AUP is processed administratively and conditionally approved by the Planning Director unless appealed or referred to a higher approving authority. An AUP typically takes three to six months to process depending on complexity and level of environmental review. A CUP is considered by the Planning Commission after a public hearing and may be appealed to the City Council. A CUP typically takes five to six months to process, depending on complexity and level of environmental review.
Time Frame: Three to six months for an AUP, and five to six months for a CUP Hearings: AUPs are processed administratively, and CUPs require one public hearing with the Planning Commission.
Findings: Findings for AUPs and CUPs are the same and are set forth in Hayward Municipal Code Sections 10-1.3125 and 10-1.3225, respectively:
The proposed use is desirable for the public convenience or welfare; The proposed use will not impair the character and integrity of the zoning district and surrounding area;
The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare; and The proposed use is in harmony with applicable City policies and the intent and purpose of the zoning district involved.
Cost: Direct Cost with $2,000 deposit for AUPs and Direct Cost with $6,000 deposit for CUPs.
Ministerial Review
Ministerial projects are exempt from the requirements of CEQA. The determination of what is “ministerial” can most appropriately be made by the particular public agency involved based upon its analysis of its own laws, and each public agency should make such determination either as a part of its implementing regulations or on a case-by-case basis. In the absence of any discretionary provision contained in the local ordinance or other law establishing the requirements for the permit, license, or other entitlement for use, the following actions shall be presumed to be ministerial:
Issuance of building permits
Issuance of business licenses
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
58 Approval of SB 35 applications
Approval of SB 9 applications
Approval of individual utility service connections and disconnections31
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS The ADU and JADU review process is a one-step review process in that the applicant submits an application form, ADU/JADU Checklist to demonstrate conformance with state law and architectural and structural plans. The City developed a Frequently Asked Questions and Checklist for ADUs and JADUs for single family and multi-family properties, which are posted on the City’s website. Planning and Building review in one application and process. In 2020, it took an average of four and one half months to process J/ADUs from building permit submittal to permit issuance.
CALIFORNIA HOME (HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AND MORE EFFICIENCY) ACT (SB 9) On September 16, 2021, the State of California adopted Senate Bill 9 which aims to streamline housing permitting and increase density to create more inclusive and vibrant neighborhoods across the State. On January 1, 2022, all local agencies must ministerially approve two residential units on a parcel within a single-unit residential zone if the development meets specific objective criteria. The bill also requires ministerial review for subdividing one lot into two lots within a single-unit residential zone and permitting up to two units on each parcel (four total dwelling units on what was formerly a single-unit lot) if the development complies with specific objective criteria. The City developed a Frequently Asked Questions and Checklist for SB 9 applications which are posted on the City’s website. To date, the City has received three SB 9 applications and expects to approve one in December 2022.
SENATE BILL 330
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) aims to expedite and increase certainty in the development process with changes to the Housing Accountability Act and Permit Streamlining Act. Hayward makes streamlined permit processing available to all new housing development projects which require discretionary or ministerial review. The expedited process is intended to encourage development of housing projects by vesting codes, policies, and fees for the project at the time a completed application is submitted to the City. Projects are subject to a maximum of five public hearings when a project is consistent with objective standards in place at the time an application is deemed complete. The City has created an SB 330 application checklist and procedures to assist applicants.
SB 35 (2017), STREAMLINED APPROVAL PROCESS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.4, jurisdictions that have not met their allocated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers are required to streamline certain proposed developments that include affordable units. As of June of 2019, Hayward had insufficient progress towards its Above Moderate Income RHNA and therefore, under SB 35, is required to approve proposed developments with at least 10 percent affordable units with a ministerial permit.32 The City created an SB 35 application checklist and procedures to make the process clear to potential applicants. City staff works with applicants to identify good candidate projects that can be 31 Government Code § 15268. Ministerial Projects 32 SB 35 Statewide Determination Summary, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/docs/sb35_statewidedeterminationsummary.pdf Housing Constraints
59 processed as an SB 35 and has directed applicants to convert standard planning applications to SB 35 applications if possible. To date, the City if Hayward has processed or is in the middle of processing six SB 35 projects:
Mission Terraces (with Density Bonus). Approved in 2019. 110 unit multi-family development affordable to very low- and low-income senior households. 2595 Depot Road (with Density Bonus): Approved in 2020. 125 unit multi-family development affordable to extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households and includes wraparound supportive services.
Pimental Place: Approved in 2021. 57 unit muti-family development affordable to very low- and low-income households.
603 A Street (with Density Bonus): Approved in June 2022. Approved in 2022.80 unit multifamily development affordable to extremely low-, very low-, and low-income senior households. Parcel Group 8 (with Density Bonus): Approved in June 2022. Approved in 2022. 96 unit mixeduse development for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Tiny Home Village at South Hayward Parish (with Density Bonus): Currently processing. 10 unit supportive housing development with wraparound services for extremely low-income households.
Building Permit Applications
Take-in permit applications are for projects that require drawings (also referred to as plans, blueprints, or construction documents). Since these projects are of a more complex nature and require review of various code items such a structural, energy code, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical work, Building Division staff need to review the drawings to determine compliance. After the initial review of the plans, the Plan Reviewer will send a formal correction list to the applicant.
The applicant must respond and make the required corrections and resubmit the drawings to the City. Once the Plan Review is approved and applicable fees are paid, the applicant can then pick up their issued permit and begin construction. During the construction process, inspections are required to ensure compliance with applicable codes and the approved building permit plans. The approved set of drawings must be made available on the construction site as a reference for the inspector.
This process typically takes approximately six months depending on the quality of the plans and the size of the project. Examples of common Take-in Permits include home additions, commercial tenant improvements, new buildings, and structural modifications to existing buildings. Total processing times vary by project, but the general timeframes by type of permit are shown on Figure D-3.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
60 Figure D-3 Development Process and Approval Timelines Housing Constraints
61 Processing Timeframes
Certainty and consistency in permit processing procedures and reasonable processing times is important to ensure that the development review/approval process does not discourage developers of housing or add excessive costs (including carrying costs on property) that would make the project economically infeasible. The City is committed to maintaining comparatively short processing times.
Entitlements for the Planning permit types listed above are granted for three-year terms during which the developer must submit a grading permit, improvement plans or building permit to exercise the entitlement. If the developer cannot submit one of those subsequent permits, all entitlements are permitted administrative “extensions” which grant an additional one to three years to the entitlement. In order to request an “extension,” the developer must submit a written request and a $2,000 deposit a minimum of two months before the entitlement is set to expire.
Occasionally, the State will allow for automatic extensions for various approvals. For example, during the 2008 recession, tentative map approvals were extended several years through the Subdivision Map Act; and, during the Covid-19 crisis, 18-month automatic extensions were granted for all “housing entitlements” in effect before March 4, 2020 and set to expire before December 31, 2021 (pursuant to Assembly Bill 1561).
Hayward has a “one stop” permit processing center where an applicant can obtain information and feedback on plans from planners, plan checkers, fire prevention staff, and engineers at a Permit Center which is open to the public Monday through Thursday from 9 am to 1 pm and by appointment Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. Handouts that describe requirements, time sequence, and checklists for all phases and types of development are available at the Permit Center and on the City’s website.
Table D-23 summarizes the processes and procedures for various permits and provides a detailed summary of the planning review processing procedures and timelines of various types of projects in the city. Table D-24 summarizes the development review processing time.
Table D-23 Planning Review and Processing Times, 2021
Project Type
Permits
Required Reviewing Body
Public Hearing
Required Appeal Body
Estimated Total
Processing Time
(months) *
Single Family Building Permit
or Site Plan
Review for new
development
Staff or Planning
Director
Not Required Planning Director
or Planning
Commission
3-5
Single Family
(Hillside)
Site Plan Review Planning Director Not Required Planning Commission
4-6
Multi-family Site Plan Review Planning Director Not Required Planning Commission
4-6
Multi-family
(with
Subdivision)
Site Plan
Review/Tentative
Tract Map
Planning
Commission
Required City Council 6-9
Mixed Use Site Plan Review Planning Director Not required Planning Commission
4-6
* If a project is determined to be subject to CEQA, an additional six to nine months should be added to the process depending on the level of CEQA review required.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
62 Table D-24 Development Review, 2021
Application/Action Timeframe (working days)
Building Permit Application submittal to first punch list provided to developer 15 Re-submittal of application for corrections to items on first punch list 10 Plans for model homes in subdivision 10
Transparency in the Development Review Process
To increase transparency in the development process, the City’s website publishes resources that help developers and homeowners navigate the residential development and home improvement processes. Specifically, the Planning and Development Department webpage (https://www.hayward-ca.gov/your-government/departments/planning-division) provides an overview of the development review process via links to permits and services. The Municipal Code, plan review procedures, forms and handouts, Frequently Asked Questions, Checklists, and other documents are available online. The City also provides contact information for scheduling review appointments with Planning Division staff. As described in the beginning of this section, the City also offers Conceptual Development Review meetings and a preliminary application process that help increase transparency in the development review process. The City provides a GIS website interface for users to obtain parcel-specific information such as lot size, maximum lot coverage, development setbacks, zoning, Comprehensive Plan land use designation, and flood zone, among other data.
Therefore, the City’s Planning Division website complies with the new transparency requirements in AB 1483/California Government Code Section 65940.1(a)(1).
1.3.8 Design Guidelines
The Hayward Design Guidelines seek to identify elements of good design which will enhance the appearance of the city and make it more livable. The Design Guidelines are flexible in order to respond to the unique set of circumstances of each site and type of development and to balance the many elements which go into a design. However, a project or a request for a building permit may be disapproved for failure to meet the City's land use policies. As described in the discussion of Affordable Housing Incentives in this document, the City offers technical and financial assistance to residential development project applicants. This assistance includes providing information regarding design guidelines, which helps to remove or reduce constraints to the development of affordable housing. The City’s Design Guidelines provide guidance for single-family detached, medium density attached and infill multi-family development. The subjective nature of the guidelines is considered a constraint to the development of housing.
Design Guidelines Update
In 2019, Hayward was awarded a SB 2 Planning Grant by HCD for various housing related activities.
A portion of these grant funds are earmarked for the development of detailed objective residential standards. The grant funds for this project will also cover zoning amendments to ensure General Plan and Zoning Ordinance consistency for parcels that are zoned for single family uses but have underlying General Plan designations that allow higher densities. This project will address concerns previously expressed by the Council, Planning Commission, and the community regarding a desire for more detailed standards related to architectural design and neighborhood context. This project will give the community, developers, staff, and decision makers more certainty about what future development will look like in conjunction with State mandated streamlined processes. Ultimately, Housing Constraints
63 this project will align Hayward’s goals and expectations for future development with the State’s goal to address the housing crisis. The project formally kicked off in February 2022 and is expected to be completed by summer 2023 (see Action 20.7, in Section 6, Housing Plan).
1.3.9 Housing for Special Needs Populations
Definition of Family
Local jurisdictions may restrict access to housing for households that do not meet the jurisdiction’s definition for “family.” A restrictive definition of “family” that limits the number of individuals living together may illegally limit the development and siting of group homes for persons with disabilities, but not for housing families that are similarly sized or situated. The City of Hayward’s Zoning Code defines family as “one or more persons living together as a single housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a group living in a boarding house, hotel, motel, or group or institutional living quarters such as a group home, day care home, or convalescent home.” This definition is not overly restrictive and is not considered a constraint to housing.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Assembly Bill (AB) 686 requires that all housing elements due on or after January 1, 2021, must contain an Assessment of Fair Housing consistent with the federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Final Rule of July 16, 2015. Under state law, AFFH means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” A detailed analysis of the fair housing issues related to special needs populations is included in Appendix C, and Section 6, Housing Plan, contains programs to facilitate housing for special needs populations.
Reasonable Accommodation Procedures
The federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act require that cities and counties provide reasonable accommodation where such accommodation may be necessary to afford individuals with disabilities equal housing opportunities. Cities and counties must also consider requests for accommodations related to housing for people with disabilities and provide the accommodation when it is determined to be “reasonable” based on fair housing laws and the case law interpreting the statutes.
Reasonable accommodation is one of the tools intended to further housing opportunities for people with disabilities. These accommodations require that local jurisdictions make modifications or exceptions in their zoning laws and other land-use regulations when accommodations are necessary to afford individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. For example, it may be a reasonable accommodation to waive a setback requirement so that a paved path of travel can be provided to residents with mobility impairments.
Reasonable accommodation enables developers and providers of housing for people with disabilities a means of requesting from the local government flexibility in the application of land use and zoning regulations or, in some instances, even a waiver of certain restrictions or requirements because it is necessary to achieve equal access to housing.
HMC Section 10-1.145 outlines Reasonable Accommodations Procedures A request for a reasonable accommodation shall be reviewed by the Director of Development Services or his/her designee and Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
64 they shall make a written determination (to either grant, grant with modifications, or deny the request) within 45 days of the application being deemed complete. A request for a reasonable accommodation submitted for concurrent review with another discretionary land use application shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the written determination shall be made by the Planning Commission in compliance with the applicable review procedure for the discretionary review. The written decision to grant or deny a request shall be based on the following findings:
Whether the housing in the request will be used by a person with a disability under the Acts; Whether the request for reasonable accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to a person with a disability under the Acts; Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would impose an undue financial administrative or enforcement burden on the City;
Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program or law, including but not limited to, land use and zoning; Potential impact on surrounding uses;
Physical attributes of the property and structures; and, Other reasonable accommodations that may provide an equivalent level of benefit.
The Director or Planning Commission may impose any conditions of approval deemed reasonable and necessary to ensure that the reasonable accommodation would comply with the findings. The applicant may appeal (for a fee) the Director’s decision to the Planning Commission within 15 days after written notice of the decision, or the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council within 10 days. A public hearing is held after an appeal is filed and the decision body may make any order it deems just and equitable. To ensure consistency and clarity in the Reasonable Accommodation review process, the City added Program H-19, Action 19.14 requiring that the City the Reasonable Accommodations Ordinance and revise findings to be based on objective standards rather than impacts on surrounding uses by January 2025.
California Building Code
The Building Division actively enforces the California Building Code provisions that regulate the access and adaptability of buildings to accommodate persons with disabilities. Government Code Section 12955.1 requires that 10 percent of the total dwelling units in multi-family buildings without elevators and that consist of three or more rental units or four or more condominium units be subject to the following building standards:
The primary entry to the dwelling unit shall be on an accessible route unless exempted by site impracticality tests;
A least one bathroom shall be located on the primary entry level served by an accessible route; All rooms or spaces located on the primary entry level shall be served by an accessible route; Rooms and spaces located on the primary entry level and subject to this chapter may include but are not limited to kitchens, bathrooms, living rooms, bedrooms, or hallways; Common use areas shall be accessible; and,
If common tenant parking is provided, accessible parking spaces are required.
No unique restrictions are in place that would constrain the development of housing for persons with disabilities. Compliance with provisions of the Code of Regulations, including the California Housing Constraints
65 Building Standards Code, is reviewed and enforced by the Building Division of the Community Development Department as a part of the building permit submittal.
1.3.10 State Tax Policies and Regulations
Proposition 13
Proposition 13 was a 1978 voter initiative that limits increases in property taxes except when there is a transfer of ownership. It has constrained local governments’ primary source of funding for infrastructure improvement and maintenance and other local government operations. 33 Development fees now make up the difference, which, as described above, increases the overall cost of developing housing.
Article 34
Article 34 of the state constitution requires that low-rent housing projects developed, constructed, or acquired in any manner by a public agency must first be approved by a majority of the voters.
Requiring such approval can act as a barrier to the development of affordable housing due to the uncertainty and delay caused by the process. Alameda County has Article 34 authority for projects funded by Measure A1, the County’s 2016 housing bond.
1.4 Environmental Constraints
The San Francisco Bay (Bay), Hayward Regional Shoreline, Eden Landing Ecological Reserve, and Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge are located western portion of the city. The East Bay hills, specifically the Garin Regional Park, is located adjacent and to the east. Other urbanized cities surround Hayward to the north and south.
A community’s environmental setting affects the feasibility and cost of developing housing.
Environmental issues range from the availability of water to the suitability of land for development due to potential exposure to seismic, flooding, wildfire, and other hazards. If not properly recognized and accommodated in residential design, these environmental features could potentially endanger lives and property.
As noted in the Resources section, there are no known environmental constraints on the sites identified in the Sites Inventory that would preclude development. Each project will undergo a sitespecific environmental clearance process to ensure that it is built safely and in conformance with the appropriate and applicable building codes.
1.4.1 Federal and State Environmental Protection Regulations Federal and state regulations require an environmental review of proposed discretionary projects that do not fall within specified exemptions outlined in CEQA Statute and Guidelines (e.g., subdivision maps, development of large sites, use permits, etc.). Costs result from fees charged by local government agencies and private consultants to complete the environmental analysis add to the cost of building new housing which is passed on to the consumer. However, these regulations help preserve the environment and ensure environmental quality for Hayward residents. 33 Residential Impact Fees in California, UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation. August 7, 2019. Accessed May 23, 2022. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/blog/residential-impact-fees/ Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
66 Regional plans and programs related to public safety included the State Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, CEQA Statute and Guidelines, California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Program. Pursuant to CEQA, nearly all residential development that requires a discretionary action also requires environmental review concurrent with the approval process. The preparation, review, and certification of CEQA documents add time to the development process.
Pursuant to State law, the City developed and adopted the Hayward Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in 2016. This plan addresses hazard vulnerabilities from natural and human-caused hazards, including flooding, drought, wildfire, landslides, severe weather, terrorism, cyber threats, pandemic, and the impact of climate change on hazards, as well as other hazards. While mitigation measures identified in the LHMP are necessary in to reduce the level of injury, property damage, and community disruption that might otherwise result from such events, requirements may be a constraint to housing development. For example, building safety requirements or increased buffers in fire or landslide zones may increase costs of development and limit available land.
1.4.2 Geologic and Seismic Hazards
Earthquake
Hayward is exposed to ground shaking, liquefaction, surface rupture, and landslides from seismic activity along the Hayward Fault, San Andreas Fault, San Gregorio Fault, and other Bay Area faults.
The hills are susceptible to earthquake-induced landslides, while the flatlands are at risk of liquefaction. Tsunami and fire following an earthquake also threaten the city. A major earthquake along the Hayward Fault, predicted to have a greater than 70 percent probability of occurrence in the next 30 years, would be particularly catastrophic.34 Approximately 50 percent of Hayward is included in Seismic Hazard Zones for liquefaction as designated by the State Department of Conservation Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation-- Hayward Quadrangle map.35 Hayward implements regulations and programs to minimize the risk of geologic and seismic hazards. These regulations and programs include, among others, the City Building Code and building permit process, the City Grading and Clearing Permit process, the MultiJurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan with City of Hayward Annex document, Hayward’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, and the Community Emergency Response Team program.36 The minimum setback for construction near the Hayward fault is 50 feet. The cost to prepare geologic studies and investigations increases the cost of housing development.
Five of the vacant or underutilized sites identified as appropriate for above moderate-income development are located in the Alquist Priolo Fault Zone. Additional inventory sites are located in the Seismic Liquefaction zone and in close proximity to the Dam Inundation Failure zones. This may add extra costs to the development of housing in these areas. However, other communities in the Bay Area and California have similar constraints and requirements. Therefore, geologic and seismic hazards are not a significant constraint to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.
34 City of Hayward Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2016. Available: https://www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/2016%20City%20of%20Hayward%20Local%20Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan.pdf 35City of Hayward 2040 General Plan Update, Environmental Impact Report. 2013. Available: https://www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hayward%20GPU%20Public%20Release%20Draft%20EIR_1-30-14.pdf 36City of Hayward 2040 General Plan Update, Environmental Impact Report. 2013. Available: https://www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hayward%20GPU%20Public%20Release%20Draft%20EIR_1-30-14.pdf Housing Constraints
67 Landslides and Erosion
Rain-induced and earthquake-induced landslides may occur on Hayward’s hillsides. Extreme wet-dry cycles expected as a result of climate change may exacerbate the risk of these landslides.37 The hilly, eastern portion of Hayward contains approximately 15 percent officially designated Landslide Zones, in the State Department of Conservation Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation-- Hayward Quadrangle map.38
1.4.3 Wildfire
While there are no fire hazard severity zones (FHSZs) in city limits, the eastern edges of Hayward are adjacent to Very High and High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. 39 Dry grassland adjacent to residential
properties and the seasonal Diablo winds can result in large, rapidly spreading fires that cause widespread damage to hillside properties.40 Compliance with the City’s Urban Wildland Fire Interface Design Guidelines41 minimize fire risk in hillside areas adjacent to FHSZs.
1.4.4 Flood, Tsunami, and Sea Level Rise Related Hazards Hayward’s shoreline, while protected by extensive wetlands, is at risk of inundation from tsunamis, rare floods, and rising sea levels. Infrastructure along the shoreline will be more frequently, and eventually permanently, inundated as the sea level rises. According to the Shoreline Adaptation Master Plan, industrial areas at the northern part of the City may be episodically or fully inundated under certain scenarios which will impact infrastructure. 42 Hayward is subject to flooding during major storm events and periods of high tide. Flood zones are generally located along the coastal baylands and along major creeks and drainages that cross Hayward. While some residential properties near the baylands and creeks are subject to flooding, the majority of Hayward’s residential land is not currently (December 2012) located within a flood zone. If located in a flood plain, appropriate mitigation measures must be implemented so that the site meets applicable FEMA standards before the development can be constructed. Zone X applies to 500-year flood areas, 100-year flood areas with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile, and 100-year areas protected by levees. Zone A applies to 100-year flood areas that have no base flood elevations determined. The base flood elevation is the water-surface elevation of the one percent annual chance flood. However, no development standards are associated with these flood zones.43 Local standards for review of building in flood37City of Hayward Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2016. Available: https://www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/2016%20City%20of%20Hayward%20Local%20Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan.pdf 38 City of Hayward 2040 General Plan Update, Environmental Impact Report. 2013. Available: https://www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hayward%20GPU%20Public%20Release%20Draft%20EIR_1-30-14.pdf 39 CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/wildlandhazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/ CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazardseverity-zones-maps/ 40 City of Hayward Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2016. Available: https://www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/2016%20City%20of%20Hayward%20Local%20Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan.pdf 41 City of Hayward Hillside Design and Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines, City of Hayward, 1993.https://www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/COH%20Hillside%20Design%20Urban-Wildland%20Interface%20Guidelines.pdf 42 Shoreline Adaptation Master Plan, City of Hayward, 2022. https://www.hayward-ca.gov/shoreline-master-planhttps://www.haywardca.gov/shoreline-master-plan 43 City of Hayward Housing Element. 2014. Available: https://www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/Housing%20Element%20FINAL%20Adopted.pdfhttps://www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/Housing%20Element%20FINAL%20Adopted.pdf Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
68 prone areas include Article 2, Building Along Watercourses, and Article 4 of the Hayward Municipal Code, Flood Plain Management.
1.4.5 Excessive Noise
Residential uses are considered sensitive land uses and new development must be constructed such that it meet interior noise standards in the City’s General Plan. The City’s Noise Regulations can be found in Article 1 of the Hayward Municipal Code, Public Nuisances.
Roadway traffic is the most significant source of noise affecting sensitive land uses in Hayward.
Freeways and major arterial roadways are the most significant sources of traffic noise. In addition to traffic noise on local roadways, freight and passenger trains operating along three north-south rail lines contribute to community noise levels.44
Construction related noise is regulated in Hayward through various General Plan policies as well as Section 4-1.03.4 of the Municipal Code (Construction and Alteration of Structures; Landscaping Activities).
Policy HAZ-8.20 establishes that a site-specific noise study may be required by the City for discretionary projects requiring land use entitlements, which may have the effect of delaying development and increasing cost. In addition, Policy HAZ-8.21 establishes limits on construction noise generating activities to the less sensitive times of the day, when people are less likely to be disturbed.
Municipal Code Section 4-1.03.4 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 from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM, “unless otherwise provided pursuant to a duly-issued permit or a condition of approval.” While these requirements may delay housing development, they are not considered a significant constraint to housing development.
1.4.6 Hazardous Materials
Hayward has approximately 3,200 acres along the western edges of the City devoted to industrial uses. This manufacturing, warehousing, and research and development sector provides a significant number of regional jobs and it is a source of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials have the potential to become a crucial complicating factor in emergency situations. The effects of flooding, earthquakes, and fires can all cause or be exacerbated by hazardous materials release.45 The Hayward Fire Department established the Hazardous Materials Office in 1984. The Fire Department is a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA and administers the City’s Unified Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management Program (CUPA Program).46 The Hazardous Materials Coordinator in the Fire Prevention Office oversees hazardous materials compliance and maintains information regarding the hazardous materials sites throughout 44 Hayward 2040 General Plan Background Report, City of Hayward, 2014. https://www.hayward-ca.gov/yourgovernment/documents/planning-documentshttps://www.hayward-ca.gov/your-government/documents/planning-documents 45 City of Hayward Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2016. Available: https://www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/2016%20City%20of%20Hayward%20Local%20Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan.pdfhttps://www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/2016%20City%20of%20Hayward%20Local%20Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan.pdf 46 Draft Environmental Impact Report, City of Hayward 2040 General Plan, City of Hayward. https://www.hayward-ca.gov/yourgovernment/documents/planning-documentshttps://www.hayward-ca.gov/your-government/documents/planning-documents Housing Constraints
69 Hayward. The Hazardous Materials Area Plan lays out strategies for preparing for and responding to hazardous materials incidents.
The Office inspects and regulates all hazardous materials/waste use and storage facilities within the City. In addition, that Office enforces the Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance for the City and is the designated Certified Unified Program Agency for the Hayward area. This Office also identifies contaminated sites and works with various agencies including the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, California Regional Water Quality Board and the state Department of Toxic Substance Control to investigate, cleanup, and close these sites.47 The presence of hazardous materials in the soil and/or groundwater is another potential development constraint. Hazardous materials investigations are required prior to site development and remediation measures must be implemented where necessary. This will increase the cost of development and, more importantly, the length of time from acquisition to project completion.
There are a number of ways to remediate hazardous materials but they are either expensive or take time. Since time is a critical component of development, the presence of hazardous materials on a site is a constraint to development.
Hayward is also exposed to hazardous materials releases in neighboring cities and the bay, as well as spills that may occur on Interstate 880 or Mission Boulevard. The location, dispersion, amount, and rate of a substance spilled, and the chemical characteristics of the substance determine the effects of a hazardous materials release. Generally, releases can have public health impacts ranging from no effect or mild chemical irritation to fatality, threaten life and property generally, and can have long long-lasting negative effects on the environment.
Mining Sites
The US Geological Survey has identified eleven past, present, or prospective mining sites within the Planning Area, including sites owned or operated by the American Salt Company, the Oliver Salt Company, East Bay Excavation Company, Ideal Cement Company, and the La Vista Quarry and Mill.
The State requires local jurisdictions to protect areas with economically significant mineral resources from incompatible development.
In an effort to maintain availability of sand, gravel, and crushed rock for long-term construction needs, the California Division of Mines and Geology (under the authority of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975) has classified aggregate mineral zones throughout the state. Hayward has no designated mineral resource of regional significance.
1.5 Infrastructure Constraints
1.5.1 Sewage Collection and Disposal
Hayward owns and operates the wastewater collection and treatment system that serves almost all of the residential, commercial, and industrial users within the incorporated City limits, and limited portions of the adjacent unincorporated areas of Alameda County by contract. The City’s wastewater collection system is comprised of about 350 miles of sewer mains, nine sewage lift 47 City of Hayward Housing Element. 2014. Available: https://www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/Housing%20Element%20FINAL%20Adopted.pdfhttps://www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/Housing%20Element%20FINAL%20Adopted.pdf Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
70 stations, and 2.5 miles of force mains. The City has separate sewage and stormwater collection systems.48
The East Bay Dischargers Authority disposes of the treated wastewater. The Oro Loma Sanitary District (OLSD) provides services to a small area in the northern portion of the City, as well as the community of Fairview, which is part of the Hayward Planning Area.
The 2020 Urban Water Management Plan notes that the demand for wastewater collection and treatment demand in 2020 was 3,922 million gallons (MG), and the amount is assumed to increase by 2.2 percent per year.
49 As noted in the Resources section, wastewater planning documents are aligned with the City’s General Plan land use assumptions and can accommodate the City’s RHNA.
The City will provide a copy of the final Housing Element to the Oro Loma Sanitary District, within 30 days of adoption. The City will also continue to coordinate with this district to ensure priority service provision to affordable housing developments.
1.5.2 Water Service
Hayward provides water for residential, commercial, industrial, governmental, and fire suppression uses. The City owns and operates its own water distribution system and purchases all of its water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). The water supplied to Hayward is predominantly from the Sierra Nevada, delivered through the Hetch Hetchy aqueducts, but also includes treated water produced by the SFPUC from its local watershed and facilities in Alameda County.
The Hayward water system serves about 147,000 residents in all areas within the City limits and a select number of properties outside the City limits through special approvals or utility service agreements. A very small portion of north Hayward, containing less than three percent of the City, is served by East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), which also serves the community of Fairview in the Planning Area.
The 2020 Urban Water Management Plan estimates that the annual water demand in 2025 will be 6,490 MG (million gallons). In 2035, the amount is expected to increase to 7,247 MG. Single-family customers are anticipated to require the greatest quantity of water (2,149 MG, or 33 percent of total demand in 2025); multi-family residential water demand is projected to remain steady (1,104 MG, or 17 percent).
The water system has enough supply to meet projected demand during a normal precipitation year, but not enough supply to meet projected demand during dry years. During a dry year, Hayward is expected to meet 64 percent of demand in 2025 and 2035. California is currently experiencing a historic drought which is defined as multiple consecutive dry years. 50 According to the State’s
drought monitoring site, reservoirs are currently at about 62% of average levels and snowpack levels are at historic lows with January, February and March 2022 listed as the driest in 100 years. The lack of water in reserve combined with ongoing drought conditions are a significant constraint on development. As noted in the Resources section, the potable water planning documents are aligned with the City’s General Plan land use assumptions and can accommodate the City’s RHNA. 48 City of Hayward 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, adopted July 20, 2021. Accessed May 23, 2022. https://www.haywardca.gov/documents/urban-water-management-plan 49 Ibid.
50 State of California Drought Action. Available: https://drought.ca.gov/ Housing Constraints
71 The City will comply with SB 1087 as described in the discussion on wastewater. Therefore, the City will provide a copy of the final Housing Element to the EBMUD, within 30 days of adoption.
1.5.3 Storm Drains
Stormwater management for Hayward was once regulated according to the Alameda Countywide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit. This County-based permit has been replaced with a new NPDES permit for the entire San Francisco Bay Area. The San Francisco Bay Region NPDES Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit was adopted in October 2009 and revised in November 2011.
Hayward has five pump stations that pump stormwater into stormwater collection systems and/or dry creeks immediately downstream, flowing into Mt. Eden and Old Alameda Creeks en route to San Francisco Bay.51
On-site drainage improvements, in addition to any minor modifications to the municipal storm drain system triggered by the projected future development, would be the responsibility of each individual housing developer. The developers are also responsible for incorporating stormwater source control and treatment measures into their project designs, as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater discharge permit issued to Bay Area municipalities by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 51 City of Hayward 2040 General Plan Update, Environmental Impact Report. 2013. Available: https://www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hayward%20GPU%20Public%20Release%20Draft%20EIR_1-30-14.pdf Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
72 This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix E – Review of Past
Accomplishments
January 2023
Oakland, California 94612
449 15th Street
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
prepared with the assistance of
Hayward, California 94541
777 B Street
Planning Division, Department of Development Services
City of Hayward
prepared by
(2023-2031)
Hayward Housing Element
ATTACHMENT X
Table of Contents
i
Table of Contents
1 Review of Past Accomplishments...................................................................................................1
1.1 Effectiveness in Addressing Special Needs.........................................................................1
1.2 Quantified Objectives .........................................................................................................2
1.3 Review of Past Accomplishments.......................................................................................2 Tables
Table E-1 Quantified Housing Objective And Achieved Accomplishments........................................2 Table E-2 Review of Past Accomplishments ......................................................................................3 Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
Review of Past Accomplishments
1 1 Review of Past Accomplishments
To develop appropriate programs to address the housing issues identified in the 2023-2031 Housing Element (6th Cycle), the City of Hayward has reviewed the housing programs adopted in the 2015- 2022 Housing Element (5th Cycle) and evaluated the effectiveness of these programs in delivering housing services and assistance. Table E-1 summarizes the City’s progress toward the previous Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and Table E-2 provides a detailed program level assessment of housing accomplishments over the 5th Cycle planning period. Programs that are routine staff functions with no specific actions and no direct City involvement are not continued as housing programs in the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
1.1 Effectiveness in Addressing Special Needs
The City was successful in facilitating the development of housing for special needs groups during the 5th Cycle Housing Element. Under Program H-6 — Affordable Housing Development (Program H8 in the 5th cycle Housing Element) the City partnered with housing developers to identify affordable housing opportunities with emphasis on promoting housing choices that serve the needs of special needs populations including seniors, homeless, female-headed households, large families, lowincome households, and/or persons with disabilities. Additionally, the City participates in the EveryOne Home Continuum of Care which provides funding, feedback, data, and insights into homelessness and the affordable housing landscape in Hayward. The Alameda County 2018 EveryOne Home Strategic Plan seeks to address the housing-related needs of persons with serious mental illness, those living with HIV/AIDS, and individuals experiencing homelessness. Additionally, EveryOne Home released the 2020 Centering Racial Equity in Homeless System Design report.
According to the report, Black and Indigenous people are homeless at a rate four times higher than Alameda County’s general population, and more than double the rate among people in poverty. The report findings transformed the homeless response system design in Alameda County. The report includes program and system process recommendations, which describe the optimal structures, staffing ratios, and practices that will contribute to a more equitable homeless housing crisis response.
According to the City of Hayward’s 2020 to 2021 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, the City has used Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to assist individuals with special needs. Under Goal 3A: Provide Supportive Services for Special Needs, 1,375 individuals with special needs have been assisted through supportive services including recreational education, and health programs. The City far exceeded its program year targets by 250 percent. This is because of the increase in funding and corresponding service provision for emergency CDBG CARES Act (CDBG-CV) activities, which were created in Program Year 2019 but remained open and providing services throughout much of Program Year 2020. Conversely, the City was far from meeting its target for the goal of improving facility and infrastructure access and capacity, as COVID-19 restrictions continued to create construction delays.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2 1.2 Quantified Objectives
Table E-1 summarizes the City’s progress toward meeting the previous 5th Cycle Housing Element RHNA, as well as objectives to rehabilitate and conserve/preserve existing housing stock. The City of Hayward did not reach its 5th cycle RHNA goals in the Extremely Low, Very Low-, Low-, and Moderate-Income categories.
Table E-1 Quantified Housing Objective And Achieved Accomplishments New Construction Rehabilitation Preservation (At-Risk Units) RHNA
(2015-2022) Actual Objectives Actual Objectives1 Actual Extremely Low-Income 339 48 50 0 0 0
Very Low-Income 339 120 50 0 0 0
Low-Income 480 174 100 67 0 0
Moderate-Income 608 128 – 0 0 0
Above Moderate-Income 0 2,824 0 0 0 0
Total 1,766 3,294 200 67 0 0
1 There were no units identified in the 5th Cycle Housing Element that were at high risk of conversion to market rate units.
1.3 Review of Past Accomplishments
Table E-2 provides a detailed program-level assessment of housing accomplishments during the 5th Cycle Housing Element planning period.
Review of Past Accomplishments
3 Table E-2 Review of Past Accomplishments
Program Program Objectives Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program 1 —
Housing
Rehabilitation Loan
Program (HRLP)
The objective of this program is to preserve affordable single-family homes.
The City provided below market-rate rehabilitation loans to qualified lower-income homeowners to make repairs (costing more than $5,000) to correct major health and safety deficiencies and make needed accessibility modifications.
The City no longer issues new loans under this program, but many existing loans are still in effect.
Continued Appropriateness: Program 1 will be carried into the 6th Cycle Housing Element. The City will continue monitoring the loans and program income from loan payoffs will be used to fund additional CDBG-eligible activities.
Program 2 — Minor
Home Repair Grant
(MHRP)
The objective of this program is to assist lower-income elderly and/or disabled homeowners to make minor home repairs to address health and safety issues, correct code violations, and address systems failures.
The City shall continue to provide rehabilitation grants up to $10,000 to qualified lower-income elderly and/or disabled homeowners to make minor home repairs to address health and safety problems, correct code deficiencies, and improve the outward appearance of homes.
Priority will be given to work that corrects health and safety issues and to accessibility modifications for people who have disabilities. The City shall disseminate information to homeowners who participate in the Program regarding rehabilitation standards, preventative maintenance, and energy conservation measures.
During the reporting period, the City continued its partnerships with nonprofit housing rehabilitation agency Rebuilding Together Oakland/East Bay ($150,000) and Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley to provide property rehabilitation assistance to targeted Hayward homeowners. In total, 52 homes were rehabilitated through 2020. Due to City staffing turnover and delays with environmental review, Habitat for Humanity only completed four projects in 2020. Rebuilding Together's minor home repair grant program provides for safety assessments and modifications to singlefamily and mobile homeowners.
Continued Appropriateness: Based on the progress of this program, Program 2 will be carried into the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Program 3 —
Residential Rental
Inspection Program
The objective of this program is to safeguard the stock of safe, sanitary rental units within the City and protect local residents through systematic inspection of rental housing throughout the City.
The City shall continue to systematically inspect rental units throughout the city through the Residential Rental Inspection Program to safeguard the stock of safe, sanitary rental units within the city and protect persons entering or residing in rental units. The City shall focus attention on rental housing in higher density areas with the goal of inspecting these units every three to four years. The City shall inspect properties outside the focus area less frequently, unless they are the subject of a complaint. All rental units shall be subject to inspection. To fund the program, the City shall continue to charge an annual, per-unit fee in addition to fees charged for every unit in which a violation is found. The City shall assess penalties for lack of timely correction of violations. The City shall disseminate information to residents about the mandatory rental inspections, as well as up to-date information on the City’s building, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, and housing codes.
During the 2015-2020 reporting period, the City inspected the following number of active properties and units:
2015: 217 single-family homes and 1,492 apartments and 224 multifamily rental properties
2016: 102 single-family homes and 954 apartments in 132 multifamily rental properties
2017: 235 new rental cases for 714 units
2018: 171 rental cases for 657 units
2019: 65 new rental cases for 78 units
2020: 65 new rental cases for 78 units
2021: 109 new cases
Continued Appropriateness: Based on the progress of this program, as well as the requirements of AB 838 (2021), Program 3 will be carried into the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4 Program Program Objectives Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program 4 —
Preservation of AtRisk Housing
The objective of this program is to avoid the loss of assisted housing units and the resulting displacement of low-income residents.
The City shall continue to monitor all units considered at risk of conversion to market rate and assist property owners in maintaining the affordability of these units. The City shall support and assist property owners in applying for State and Federal funding to preserve at-risk housing, and as funding permits, shall provide financial assistance to nonprofit housing developers in the acquisition and rehabilitation of atrisk housing projects. The City shall ensure that property owners comply with State noticing requirements to notify tenants one year ahead of their intent to terminate subsidy contract or affordability covenants. As necessary, the City shall also provide technical assistance to tenants to access other affordable housing resources.
Since 2015, the City has facilitated the acquisition, recapitalization and/or rehabilitation of 300 affordable units and the conversion of 130 marketrate naturally occurring affordable units to rent restricted affordable units.
The City continues to monitor all units considered at risk of conversion to market rate and assist property owners in maintaining affordability of these units. The City supports and assists property owners in applying for state and federal funding to preserve at-risk housing, and a as funding permits, shall provide financial assistance to nonprofit housing developers in the acquisition and rehabilitation of at-risk housing projects.
Continued Appropriateness: Based on the continued importance of this program, Program 4 will be carried into the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Program 5 —
Foreclosure
Prevention and
Counseling
The objective of this program is to preserve homeownership and promote neighborhood stability.
The City shall continue to support foreclosure prevention by partnering with non-profit organizations that provide foreclosure prevention services. The City shall continue to provide information about foreclosure prevention resources in the housing programs section of the City’s website, including information about the programs available for refinancing at-risk loans, and contact information for legal services agencies and HUD-approved counseling organizations in the area. The City shall mail foreclosure prevention materials to local residents who receive notices of default and notices of trustee sale, and shall organize foreclosure-prevention seminars for Hayward residents at risk of losing their homes.
The City has partnered with non-profit Housing and Economic Rights Advocates (HERA) to provide mortgage delinquency and default resolution negotiation and legal advocacy services through the City’s Foreclosure Prevention Program (the “Program”). The Program provides services to low-income City of Hayward homeowners who are struggling to make their mortgage payments and at risk of losing their home due to financial impacts related to COVID-19. Marketing has started for the Program and the first two, free educational workshops on Foreclosure Prevention have been scheduled for end of February and early March 2022. Additionally, homeowners who meet certain Program criteria may also be eligible for financial assistance through the Program in the form of loans up to $15,000. The Program is funded by CARES Act Community Development Grant (CDBG-CV) funds and American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) funds which were approved by City Council in 2020 and 2021 respectively.
Additionally, the City partnered with A1 Community Housing to provide free foreclosure prevention workshops as well as free one-on-one counseling for households at risk of foreclosure. The program was funded through the City’s annual CDBG entitlement grant and served 72 Hayward households.
Continued Appropriateness: Based on the progress of this program, Program 5 will be carried into the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Review of Past Accomplishments
5 Program Program Objectives Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program 6 —
Mortgage Credit
Certificate Program
The objective of this program is to assist tenants to become homeowners to reach a 60 percent ownership occupancy rate, within the parameters of federal and state housing laws.
The City shall continue to participate in the Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) program, administered by Alameda County, to assist eligible buyers qualify for a mortgage loan. The City shall assist the County in promoting the program to eligible buyers through the City website and written materials.
Since 2015, a total of 20 Hayward homebuyers obtained an MCC allocation:
2014: Four Hayward homebuyers obtained an MCC allocation and nine homeowners had their allocations reissued
2015: Four Hayward homebuyers obtained an MCC allocation and one homeowner had his allocation reissued
2016: No data
2017: Two Hayward homebuyers obtained an MCC allocation and two homeowners had their allocation reissued
2018: Three Hayward homebuyers obtained an MCC allocation 2019: Seven Hayward homebuyers obtained an MCC allocation The California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC) did not provide MCC funds to counties statewide in 2020 or 2021. The City continues to engage with the County for any future applications for CDLAC for MMC funds.
Continued Appropriateness: Due to lack of funding, Program 6 will not be carried into the 6th Cycle Housing Element. If CDLAC offers MCC funds again, the City will work with the County to reapply for the program.
Program 7 —
Tenant-Based
Rental Assistance
for Emancipated
Youth
The objective of this program is to promote housing, along with supportive services, for household with special needs, including seniors, persons with disabilities, single-parents, and the homeless.
The City shall continue to provide financial support to Project Independence, a program implemented by ABODE Services to provide a continuum of supportive services, including tenant-based rental assistance, to emancipated youth in Alameda County (youth from 18 to 24 who have aged out of the foster care system).
Since 2015, 183 Hayward at-risk youth were housed through this program (this number may include duplicates for potential youth participating in the program for multiple years).
In 2020, over $216,123 were provided to Project Independence, a program implemented by a non-profit organization that provides tenant-based rental assistance to emancipated youth. Previous years reported funds from $125,000 to $218,000.
In 2021, the City continued to utilize HOME funding for tenant-based rental assistance to emancipated youth through Abode Services’ Project Independence. Last year, 18 transition age youth were provided a housing subsidy. As some program participants have minor children, a total of 24 individuals were housed.
Continued Appropriateness: Based on the progress of this program, Program 7 will be carried into the 6th Cycle Housing Element. This program has been incorporated into Program H-19: Housing for Special needs Populations.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
6 Program Program Objectives Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program 8 —
Affordable Housing
Development
The objective of this program is to assist in the provision of housing that meet the needs of all socioeconomic segments of the community.
The City shall work with developers to facilitate affordable housing development. Specifically, the City shall review available funding programs annually and shall provide technical support in the application for State, Federal, and other public affordable funding sources, and, as funding permits, shall provide gap financing for affordable housing. Gap financing shall focus on rental housing units affordable to lower-income households and households with special needs (e.g., seniors, Extremely Low-Income households, and persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities), especially projects that promote the City’s goals relating to transit oriented development and jobs/housing balance.
The City continues to partner with housing developers to identify affordable housing development opportunities with emphasis on promoting housing choices that serve the needs of special needs populations, including seniors, homeless, female-headed households, large families, low-income, and/or persons with disabilities. In addition, the City continues to support developers with their applications for state and other local development incentives and funding programs that provide financial assistance to develop affordable housing for special needs populations. The City promotes Senate Bill (SB) 330 and SB 35 as a development incentive to affordable housing developers and anticipates processing eligible affordable housing developments to ensure that Hayward has a diverse housing stock serving all socioeconomic segments of the community.
Furthermore, in 2020, the City approved a workplan to incentivize housing production in Hayward and address the state’s housing shortage and high housing costs. The objective of the workplan is to incentivize the production of both market rate and affordable housing, implement measures to meet the RHNA goals, establish “pro-housing" policies to ensure Hayward remains competitive for state housing funds and improve housing affordability for Hayward residents. Topics to incentivize housing production include policies related to zoning and housing approvals, accessory dwelling units, impact fees and fee transparency, funding sources, public land disposition, and streamlining the approval process.
Below is a summary of annual progress:
2015: Lease of a new 22-unit transit-oriented affordable development senior housing development located at B & Grand Streets 2016: Construction of a new 60-unit transit-oriented affordable development for seniors located on A Street (at Main) started construction during the reporting period. Also, the construction of the 151-unit Alta Mira affordable complex which includes eight and 64 affordable homes for families and seniors, respectively, was completed. 2017: The City participated in discussions with Alameda County regarding the development of implementation policies for Alameda County A1 Bond funds to fund Development of Affordable Housing. The County approved its guidelines in November 2017 and Hayward received direction from City Council in December 2018 to issue a Notice of Funding Availability to fund affordable housing projects. 2018: Three projects were awarded funds totaling $28.6 million to create 259 units of affordable housing. Two of the projects were Review of Past Accomplishments
7 Program Program Objectives Progress and Continued Appropriateness provided matching funds to apply for Alameda County A1 Bond funds and were awarded almost $10 million from the County. As a result of the NOFA, two market rate projects (Matsya Villas entitled in 2017 and Mission Paradise entitled in 2018), were converted to 100 percent affordable projects. These projects will provide housing to households earning between 20 percent of the Area Median Income and 80 percent of the Area Median Income serving seniors, families, individuals, veterans, and people experiencing homelessness. A fourth project was not awarded funds but secured funding and started construction to develop 140 units of affordable housing.
2019: The City granted its first approval of eligibility for a streamlined approval process through SB 35 for Terraces at Mission which would provide 110 affordable housing units for low-income seniors. 2020: The City approved a second SB 35 application at 2595 Depot Road that included an unlimited density bonus pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 1763 because it was located within one-half mile of a high frequency transit stop. Allied/Abode Services is currently constructing a 125 micro unit development. Half of the units will be set aside for extremely lowincome households and the remaining units will be set aside for very low- and low-income households.
2021: The City allocated $4.9 million to affordable housing projects to help close the financing gaps on three affordable housing projects which will provide approximately 190 units of affordable housing which includes two projects reference above plus an additional 96 unit affordable housing development located on Parcel Group 8. Lastly, the City plans issuing a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) to establish an affordable housing development pipeline. Eligible projects would be awarded as funding becomes available. Through the NOFA, the City is able to prioritize the City's housing goals and target at-risk and underserved populations. Additionally, the City entered into a Development Disposition Agreement for the development of 176 units of Affordable Housing located on Parcel Group 3.
Continued Appropriateness: Based on the progress of this program, Program 8 will be carried into the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Due to legislative updates, this program has been expanded to comply with the most recent state law.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
8 Program Program Objectives Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program 9 —
Density Bonus
The objective of this program is to promote the use of density bonuses and other incentives to facilitate the development of new housing for extremely low, very low, and low-income households.
The City shall develop a brochure describing the Density Bonus Ordinance and distribute to potential developers in order to promote affordable housing development.
The City has a good track record of approving Density bonus applications throughout the 5th Cycle Housing Element:
2017: The City approved Maple and Main mixed-use development which consisted of 235 multi-family rental units and approximately 49,000 square foot commercial development. The project included a 23 percent density bonus. In exchange for the density bonus, the development will include 48 units deed restricted for very low-income households
2019: Processed three applications for density bonuses. The Meta Housing development includes a total of 140 multi-family rental units.
The project will be 100 percent affordable for Low-Income households and included a 15 percent density bonus (19 units). The Pine Vista development project includes a total of 40 for-sale condominium units.
Of the 40 condo units, 15 percent or 20 percent were deed restricted for moderate-income households. The Mission Terraces development includes a total of 110 multi-family rental units that would be available for seniors. The project would be 100 percent affordable to low-income households and included a 20 percent density bonus (10 units). 2020: Processed three applications for density bonuses. A mixed apartment/condo development composed of 45 residential units at 21659 Mission Blvd included one rental units for very low-income households and three for-sale units for moderate income households. A nine-unit rental complex at 24997 O'Neil Avenue included one rental unit for very low-income households. The development at 2595 Depot Road was approved with an unlimited density bonus pursuant to AB 1793 in that the project was 100 percent affordable and located within
0.5 miles of a high-frequency transit stop. That project will include 48 units for extremely low-income households; 55 units for very lowincome households and 21 units for low-income households. 2021. Processed two density bonus applications. A 176-unit, multifamily residential development with two Very Low-Income units, 136 Low Income units and 36 Moderate Income units for Parcel Group 3.
Concessions included height increase, open space, rear yard setback and deviation from Reach Code requirement. And a 55-unit market rate development which used the Density Bonus application process to seek concessions from open space and minimum setback requirements. 2022. As of May 2022, application deemed complete for an SB35 application with Density Bonus for Parcel Group 8, a 96-unit, mixed use Review of Past Accomplishments
9 Program Program Objectives Progress and Continued Appropriateness development for Low- and Moderate-Income households. Project will receive a 56% increase in density with concessions and waivers related to Floor Area Ratio, height, setbacks, and open space.
In 2019, Hayward received Senate Bill 2 grant funding to complete an update to the Density Bonus Ordinance to bring it in alignment with state law. The Planning Division is in the process of updating the Density Bonus Ordinance and expects to complete this project in late 2022/early 2023.
Continued Appropriateness: Based on the progress of this program, Program 9 will be carried into the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Due to legislative updates to Density Bonus law, this program will be expanded to reflect current State law related to outreach materials.
Program 10 –
Provision of
Adequate Sites
The objective of this program is to make available an inventory adequate sites that are affordable and available to a mix of income categories.
The City shall maintain a residential sites inventory that can accommodate the City’s RHNA. The City shall update the inventory annually to monitor the consumption of residential and mixed-use properties and continued ability to fulfill the RHNA. The City shall make the updated inventory of sites available on the City website.
No report listed from 2017-2020. Reports from 2015 and 2016 indicated that City staff were in the process of creating a spreadsheet to monitor housing production on the Housing Element-identified housing or mixeduse sites vis-vis its current RHNA allocation. The City maintains a residential pipeline list that monitors all residential development that is under review, recently entitled, and under construction and reports that information annually to the State Department of Housing and Community Development and the Office of Planning and Research.
Continued Appropriateness: This program will be carried into the 6th Cycle Housing Element and expanded to reflect legislative updates.
Program 11 —
Affordable Housing
Development on
Large Sites
The objective of this program is to allow for a range of residential densities and housing types, prices, ownership, and size, including low-density single-family uses, moderate-density townhomes, and higher-density apartments, transit-oriented developments, etc.
The City shall facilitate the development of housing for lower-income households on large sites identified in the Sites Inventory by encouraging land divisions and specific plans resulting in parcels sizes that facilitate multifamily developments that include units affordable to lower income households in light of State, Federal and local financing programs. The City shall provide incentives for the development of affordable housing, including but not limited to:
Priority to processing subdivision maps that include affordable housing units;
Expedited review for the subdivision of larger sites into buildable lots where the development application can be found consistent Affordable housing on large sites is encouraged through early discussions with residential developers who are referred to the City's inventory of vacant and underutilized residential and mixed-use sites that can accommodate the City's RHNA. In 2016, the City of Hayward entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to manage the disposition and development of former right of way for the now defunct Route 238 Bypass. This land is divided into 10 parcel groups and must be disposed of by 2027.
In 2020, the City received an application from Eden Housing to develop Parcel Group 3 with a 100 percent affordable housing development composed of 180 multi-family residential units and a K-5 Charter School on a seven acre portion of a 28.5-acre site. In 2020, the City also received a development application for Parcel Group 5 to subdivide and develop 72 large lot single family homes with 18 Accessory Dwelling Units that would be deed restricted for Very Low Income Households on an approximately Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
10 Program Program Objectives Progress and Continued Appropriateness with the General Plan, applicable Specific Plan and master environmental impact report;
Financial assistance (based on availability of Federal, State, local foundations, and private housing funds); and
Modification of development requirements, such as reduced parking standards for seniors, assisted care, and special needs housing on a case by-case basis.
37 acre site. Both projects were approved in 2021. In 2021, the City received an SB 35 and Density Bonus application to construct 96 rental units affordable to low-income households on a 1.56-acre portion of Parcel Group 8, which is an approximately 19.79-acre site. The Parcel Group 8 application is currently under review. No information about progress was reported in previous years.
Continued Appropriateness: Based on the progress of this program, Program 11 will be carried into the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
This program will be incorporated into Program H-14: Development Incentives.
Policy H-3.10 — No
Net Loss Zoning
The objective of this program is to consider the impacts of rezoning and General Plan Amendments of residential sites on the City's ability to meet its share of the regional housing need, location, price, and tenure.
The City shall maintain a residential sites inventory that can accommodate the City’s RHNA. The City shall update the inventory annually to monitor the consumption of residential and mixed-use properties and continued ability to fulfill the RHNA. The City shall make the updated inventory of sites available on the City website.
City Planning staff evaluates all development projects that include a rezoning component to determine if there will be a net loss related to rezoning property, and specifically any sites that were identified in the Housing Element. From 2015 to 2019, the City did not adopt any General Plan amendments to the Land Use Element that would have resulted in a reduction in the amount of land that could be developed for residential purposes. In fact, in 2019 and 2020, the City adopted the Downtown Specific Plan (covering 320 acres) and amendments to the Mission Boulevard Specific Plan (covering 469 acres) that increased density significantly within the subject areas. This policy will continue to be implemented on an ongoing basis.
Continued Appropriateness: The No Net Loss Zoning policy will become a program in the 6th Cycle Housing Element in accordance with State law.
Review of Past Accomplishments
11 Program Program Objectives Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program 12 —
Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance
The objective of this program is to meet the needs of all socioeconomic segments of the community.
The City shall continue to implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, but shall modify the ordinance, if necessary, based on the findings of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Review and Affordable Unit In-lieu Fee/Nexus Study.
Informed by the results of a Residential Nexus and Feasibility Study, in January 2015, the City Council adopted an Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO). The AHO was updated in 2017 and now applies to all residential development proposals of two units or more and provides more flexibility to the developers with respect to the means of compliance with those requirements. Since adoption of the new ordinance, 11 projects have been entitled that include on-site affordable housing which will include 65 moderate income units, 21 low income units and 10 very low income units.
As indicated in the Incentivizing Housing Production Workplan and the City’s Strategic Roadmap, the City expects to begin the process of evaluating and possibly updating its existing AHO with the intent to expand the program to comply with the most recent State laws related to affordable housing development and update provisions to further support the City’s housing goals.
Continued Appropriateness: Based on the progress of this program, Program will be carried into the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Program 13 —
Funding for
Emergency Shelters
and Transitional
Housing
The objective of this program is to provide housing choices that serve the needs of special needs populations, including seniors, homeless, female headed households, large families, and persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities.
The City shall use CDBG funds and other funds, as available, to support emergency shelters, and transitional and supportive housing programs for the homeless and those who are at risk of becoming homeless.
Community Services Division funds agencies that provide such services. In January 2019, the City Council approved a Navigation Center to increase shelter beds for homeless Hayward adults (age 18 and older). The Navigation Center opened in November 2019, and in the first year of operations, placed 45 people into permanent housing. The Navigation Center is funded through CDBG, HEAP, Proposition 47, PLHA, and general fund monies. In December 2020, the City Council approved opening a second temporary (6 month) Navigation Center, housed out of a Hayward hotel, to provide isolation shelter and housing navigation services to homeless individuals vulnerable to contracting COVID-19. The Navigation Center Hotel Annex Project is funded out of PLHA and general fund monies.
In July 2021, the City Council authorized $7.5M in American Rescue Plan (ARPA) funds for the following programs: $3M to extend the Navigation Center Hotel Annex Program, $2M to expand Hayward Winter Shelter to a nightly and year-round shelter (for 12 months), and $1M to the Hayward Navigation Center.
Continued Appropriateness: Based on the progress of this program, Program will be carried into the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Due to legislative updates, this program will be expanded to comply with current state law. This program will be incorporated into Program H-19:
Housing for Special Needs Populations.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
12 Program Program Objectives Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program 14 — Child
Care Services and
Facilities
The objective of this program is to encourage the development of childcare facilities.
The City shall consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to address childcare needs associated with new residential development.
Specifically, the City shall consider the following:
For residential projects over 100 units, estimate the expected number of children and consult with child care intermediaries, such as the Child Care Coordinating Council of Alameda County on corresponding area supply and need for child care.
Encourage the inclusion of child care space, particularly in affordable housing developments. City staff shall consult with child care intermediaries such as the Child Care Coordinating Council of Alameda County when initiating new proposals for publicly funded projects to develop added incentives for projects that review need for child care.
Support the provision of child care centers in residential neighborhoods and in new residential projects through policies, planning, and coordinated staff support.
To the extent feasible, encourage applicants for publicly financed projects to consider need for child care and pursue supportive corresponding strategies if warranted, by working with child care intermediaries such as the Resource and Referral agencies.
Consider offering incentives for child care inclusion in other projects such as: parking reductions and density bonuses and consider creative mechanisms for supporting the financing of new housing linked child care such as development agreements for child care, public funding of the child care component, and/or other strategies.
Properties within the Downtown Specific Plan and Mission Boulevard Form Based Code Districts allow ground-floor childcare facilities as a permitted use within new residential or mixed-use development while residential zoning districts require approval of an Administrative Use Permit for childcare facilities.
Staff works with individual developers to add childcare facilities within mixed-use developments. In 2019, two large-scale mixed-use developments included childcare facilities on the ground floor. The Meta development is composed of 140 units affordable to low-income households and the True Life development is composed of 189 condominiums and townhomes with 19 units set aside for moderateincome households.
Continued Appropriateness: Based on the continued importance of addressing childcare, this program will be carried into the 6th Cycle Housing Element. This program will be incorporated into Program H-19: Housing for Special Needs Populations.
Review of Past Accomplishments
13 Program Program Objectives Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program 15 — Fair
Housing Services
The objective of this program is to support service and programs that eliminate housing discrimination.
The City shall continue to contract with ECHO to provide fair housing and tenant/landlord services, including fair housing counseling and education and tenant/landlord counseling and mediation. The City shall also work with Bay East Association of Realtors to ensure that residential real estate agents and brokers adhere to fair housing laws and regulations, and work with tenants, tenant advocates, and rental housing owners and managers to eradicate housing discrimination and to ensure that Hayward's supply of rental housing is decent, safe and sanitary. The City shall promote training for property owners and managers to ensure that they are knowledgeable of the requirements of Federal, State and local real estate, housing discrimination, tenant protection, housing inspection and community preservation laws; and promote training of tenants in the requirements of Federal, State, and local laws so that they are aware of their rights and obligations. Finally, the City shall disseminate information to homeowners about predatory lending practices.
During the reporting period, the City partnered with local non-profit organization Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) (between $25,000 and $50,000 annually) to conduct fair housing activities including annual audits, tests, investigation of complaints and fair housing workshops. This organization also provided landlord-tenant mediation services, know-your-rights workshops and other educational services to both tenants and landlords. In FY20-21, ECHO conducted 32 fair housing investigations and 10 fair housing tests, along with 14 public presentations to educate tenants and landlords about their rights and responsibilities related to fair housing.
Continued Appropriateness: Based on the progress of this program, Program will be carried into the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Program 16 —
Universal Design
Principles
The objective of this program is to provide housing choices that serve the needs of special needs populations, including seniors, homeless, female headed households, large families, and persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities.
The City shall develop an ordinance that promotes the use of Universal Design Principles in new construction and/or rehabilitation of housing.
The City has not drafted an Ordinance that promotes the use of Universal Design Principles in new construction and rehabilitation of housing.
However, the City's Building Division follows the 2016 California Building Code Part 2, Volume 1, Chapters 11A, Housing Accessibility, and 11B, Accessibility to Public Buildings, Commercial Buildings and Public Housing when evaluating all proposed developments. These chapters apply to all new multi-family residential development and require that a certain percentage of units within a multi-family residential development be adaptable and accessible. The application of these chapters is a good step in addressing the intent of this program as Chapter 11A and B address disabled access design criteria in the California Building Codes and the requirements for residential and commercial occupancies/uses. These codes model the ADA guidelines. This policy will continue to be implemented on a case-by-case basis.
Continued Appropriateness: Based on the progress of this program, Program 16 will be carried into the 6th Cycle Housing Element. This program will be incorporated into Program H-19: Housing for Special Needs Populations.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
14 Program Program Objectives Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program 17 —
Small Lot
Consolidation
The objective of this program is to allow for a range of residential densities and housing types, prices, ownership, and size, including lowdensity single-family uses, moderate-density townhomes, and higherdensity apartments, and transit-oriented developments.
The City shall assist in land consolidation by providing sites information to interested developers and provide gap financing assistance, as available, to nonprofit housing developers. The City will provide information about the lot consolidation procedure on the City website by 2015. The City shall process lot consolidation requests ministerially when the lots are within the same zoning district.
The City Planning Division provides site information to all interested developers and gap financing assistance, as available, to nonprofit housing developers.
In 2016, the City entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Caltrans to manage the disposition and development of former right of way for the now defunct Route 238 Bypass. This land is divided into large 10 parcel groups comprised of dozens of aggregated small and large lots to make contiguous parcel groups. One of these parcel groups (Parcel Groups 1 and 10) In 2018, the City approved the Sohay development on an approximately 25-acre site that was composed of 21 separate small parcels that were purchased and consolidated to create a large-scale, mixed use and mixed income development. The project consists of 472 residential units (72 multi-family homes and 400 townhomes) with 48 units available to lowand moderate-income households, and 20,000 square feet of ground floor retail along Mission Boulevard within one-half mile of the South Hayward BART Station. The City Planning Division provides site information to all interested developers and gap financing assistance, as available, to nonprofit housing developers. Lot consolidation is accomplished on a caseby-case basis depending on the development project. Lot consolidation is accomplished on a case-by-case basis depending on the development project.
Continued Appropriateness: Based on the progress of this program, Program 17 will be carried into the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Review of Past Accomplishments
15 Program Program Objectives Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program 18 —
Boomerang Funds
The objective of this program is to assist in the provision of housing that meet the needs of all socioeconomic segments of the community.
The City shall consider options for allocating a portion of unrestricted City General Funds received as part of a one-time distribution of liquidated Low-Moderate Income Housing Trust Funds of the former Redevelopment Agency (aka “Boomerang funds”) for the development of affordable housing and shall adopt a resolution regarding the use of these funds.
The City continues to explore different funding mechanisms to finance affordable housing, including the use of Boomerang funds. However, the adoption of those mechanisms has been limited by the full recovery of the local economy. However, the City awarded $33.5million in local housing funds to incentivize the development of affordable housing. The City utilized Hayward Housing Authority Funds, Inclusionary Housing Funds, HOME funds, and Hayward's allocation of Alameda County's Measure A1 bond funds to support the development of affordable housing. Moving forward, the City plans issuing a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) to establish an affordable housing development pipeline. Eligible projects would be awarded as funding becomes available. Through the NOFA, the City is able to prioritize the City's housing goals and target at-risk and underserved populations.
Continued Appropriateness: Because this program was designed to be a single action, and has been completed, this program will not be carried over into the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Program 19 —
Exemptions of
Transit Priority
Projects from
Environmental
Review
The objective of this program is to mitigate any potential constraints to housing production and affordability.
The City shall implement the provisions of SB 375 streamlining the CEQA process for Transit Priority Projects and projects that conform to the Sustainable Communities Strategy and meet specific criteria set forth in SB 375.
Consistent with SB 375 streamlining provisions, the City adopted the Downtown Specific Plan, completed an update to the Mission Boulevard Code and adopted new VMT CEQA thresholds, which help streamline development review of projects located within 0.5 mile of the City's two BART stations. Additional legislation (SB 330 and SB 35) further promote project streamlining in that SB 35 projects, even if accompanied by a Density Bonus application, are exempt from CEQA. To date, four development projects have benefited from these streamlined provisions in the City of Hayward.
Continued Appropriateness: Based on the progress of this program, Program 19 will be carried into the 6th Cycle Housing Element.