Hayward City Council
February 7, 2023

Due to legislative updates, for example AB 1147 – Regional Transportation Plan: Active Transportation Program, this program will be evaluated for compliance with state law.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
16 Program Program Objectives Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program 20 —
Housing Choice
Vouchers
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 continue to participate in the Housing Choice Voucher Program, administered by Alameda County, with a goal of providing rental assistance to lower-income residents. The City shall work with Alameda County to maintain, or if possible increase, the current number of vouchers for Hayward residents.

The City continues to participate in the Housing Choice Voucher Program, which is administered by the Alameda County Housing Authority. To date, nearly 2,000 households in Hayward have benefited from these vouchers annually.

Continued Appropriateness: Based on the progress of this program, Program 20 will be carried into the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

Program 21 —
Outreach to
Developmentally
Disabled
The objective of this program is to provide housing choices that serve the needs of special needs populations persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities.

The City shall work with the East Bay Regional Center to implement an outreach program informing residents of the housing and services available for persons with developmental disabilities. The City shall make information available on the City website.

The City awarded Measure B/BB transportation funds to local non-profits serving seniors and individuals with disabilities. Service partners included:
(1) Eden I&R: Same-day transportation through LYFT and UBER; volunteer driver program for those with door-through-door needs; (2) Community Resources for Independent Living: Travel Training; (3) Services Opportunities for Seniors: in home meal delivery for homebound seniors; (4) Alzheimer’s Services of the East Bay (ASEB): Specially trained drivers operate lift-equipped vehicles to provide transportation to its adult day program.

Continued Appropriateness: Based on the progress of this program, Program 21 will be carried into the 6th Cycle Housing Element. This program will be incorporated into Program H-20: Community Outreach and education.

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 F – Assessment of Fair Housing

ATTACHMENT XI
Table of Contents
i
Table of Contents
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ............................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction and Overview.................................................................................................1

1.2 Approach to Analysis ..........................................................................................................1 Fair Housing Methodology .............................................................................................................5 Analysis of Impediments Findings ............................................................................................... 11

3.1 Regional Trends................................................................................................................ 11

3.2 Local Trends..................................................................................................................... 12 Fair Housing Resources................................................................................................................ 15

4.1 Ability to Address Complaints.......................................................................................... 15

4.2 Enforcement and Outreach Capacity............................................................................... 17 Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends ...................................................................... 21

5.1 Race and Ethnicity............................................................................................................ 21

5.2 Persons with Disabilities.................................................................................................. 32

5.3 Familial Status.................................................................................................................. 37

5.4 Household Income ........................................................................................................... 43 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty............................................................... 49

6.1 Poverty and Segregation.................................................................................................. 49

6.2 Concentrated Areas of Affluence..................................................................................... 53 Disparities in Access to Opportunities......................................................................................... 57

7.1 Transit Access and Walkability......................................................................................... 57

7.2 Access to Education ......................................................................................................... 60

7.3 Economic Outcomes ........................................................................................................ 65

7.4 Healthy Environment....................................................................................................... 74 Disproportionate Housing Needs ................................................................................................ 79

8.1 Housing Problems............................................................................................................ 79

8.2 Housing Cost Burden........................................................................................................ 83

8.3 Overcrowding................................................................................................................... 87

8.4 Homelessness................................................................................................................... 93

8.5 Displacement ................................................................................................................... 97 Contributing Factors.................................................................................................................. 103 Other Relevant Factors.............................................................................................................. 105

10.1 Historic Patterns of Segregation .................................................................................... 105

10.2 Stakeholder Input........................................................................................................... 111

10.3 Other Factors ................................................................................................................. 111

10.4 Access to Homeownership............................................................................................. 113 Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
ii
Sites Inventory ........................................................................................................................... 115

11.1 Opportunity Areas.......................................................................................................... 115

11.2 Improved Conditions...................................................................................................... 121

11.3 Exacerbated Conditions................................................................................................. 121

11.4 Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence ................................ 122

11.5 Access to Opportunity.................................................................................................... 122

11.6 Disproportionate Housing Needs................................................................................... 122

11.7 Subsidized Housing ........................................................................................................ 123

11.8 Sites Analysis Summary Data ......................................................................................... 123 Fair Housing Goals and Priorities............................................................................................... 127 Tables
Table F-1 Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps....................................................6 Table F-2 Housing Discrimination Cases per 1,000 Residents...................................................... 17 Table F-3 Fair Housing Organizations Active in Alameda County ................................................ 18 Table F-4 Fair Housing Organizations Active in Hayward............................................................. 19 Table F-5 Population Living in Low, Moderate or High Resource Area by Race (Hayward)......... 24 Table F-6 Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation (Hayward)............................................. 27 Table F-7 Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (Hayward) .................................................. 29 Table F-8 Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (HOME Consortium Cities)......................... 31 Table F-9 Employment Status by Disability Status (Alameda County)......................................... 32 Table F-10 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (Alameda County) ................... 37 Table F-11 Mean Salary by Occupation (Alameda County)............................................................ 67 Table F-12 Major Employers in Hayward ....................................................................................... 68 Table F-13 Employment Status by Disability Status (Hayward) ..................................................... 72 Table F-14 Assistance Needs of Lower-Income Households (2014-2018) ..................................... 86 Table F-15 Housing Cost Burden by Race (2013-2017) .................................................................. 87 Table F-16 Household Overcrowding ............................................................................................. 91 Table F-17 Homelessness in Hayward and Surrounding Cities (2022)........................................... 94 Table F-18 Mortgage Applications by Acceptance and Race (Hayward)...................................... 113 Table F-19 Planned, Approved, and Pending Projects ................................................................. 119 Table F-2 Sites Inventory by Census Tract Characteristics......................................................... 125 Table F-3 Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Key Programs ................................... 128 Table of Contents
iii
Figures
Figure F-1 Hayward Census Tracts....................................................................................................3 Figure F-2 Outcome of Cases, 2015-2019 (Alameda County)........................................................ 16 Figure F-3 Location of Alleged Discrimination, 2015-2019 (Alameda County) ............................. 16 Figure F-4 Percent of Total Non-White Population (Alameda County)......................................... 23 Figure F-5 Predominant Populations (Hayward) ........................................................................... 25 Figure F-6 Percent of Total Non-White Population (Hayward) ..................................................... 26 Figure F-7 Percent of Population with a Disability (Alameda County) .......................................... 33 Figure F-8 Disability Type (Hayward)............................................................................................. 35 Figure F-9 Percentage of Population with One or More Disabilities (Hayward) ........................... 36 Figure F-10 Female Headed Households With Children, No Spouse/Partner (Alameda County)... 39 Figure F-11 Children in Married-Couple Households (Alameda County) ........................................ 40 Figure F-12 Female Headed Households With Children, No Spouse/Partner Present (Hayward).. 41 Figure F-13 Children in Married-Couple Households (Hayward)..................................................... 42 Figure F-14 Median Household Income (Alameda County) ............................................................ 44 Figure F-15 Low and Moderate Income Population (Alameda County).......................................... 45 Figure F-16 Median Household Income (Hayward)......................................................................... 46 Figure F-17 Low to Moderate Income Population (Hayward)......................................................... 47 Figure F-18 Areas of High Segregation and Poverty (Alameda County).......................................... 51 Figure F-19 Poverty Status (Hayward)............................................................................................. 52 Figure F-20 Neighborhood Segregation........................................................................................... 54 Figure F-21 Predominant White Population (Alameda County)...................................................... 55 Figure F-22 Access to Transit within a Quarter Mile(Hayward)...................................................... 59 Figure F-23 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education(Alameda).......................................................... 61 Figure F-24 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education(Hayward).......................................................... 62 Figure F-25 Hayward Promise Neighborhoods and Network partners........................................... 64 Figure F-26 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (Alameda County) ............................................. 66 Figure F-27 Equity Priority Communities (Hayward)....................................................................... 70 Figure F-28 CAC Opportunity Areas – Education (Hayward)........................................................... 71 Figure F-29 Job Proximity Index (Hayward)..................................................................................... 73 Figure F-30 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Alameda County) ........................................... 75 Figure F-31 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Hayward)........................................................ 77 Figure F-32 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environmental (Hayward).................................................. 78 Figure F-33 Housing Stock Age (2015 – 2019)................................................................................. 80 Figure F-34 Rental Housing Violations in Hayward (2018-2022)..................................................... 82 Figure F-35 Chronology of Reisdential Development in Hayward................................................... 84 Figure F-36 Housing Cost Burden By Renters (Alameda County).................................................... 85 Figure F-37 Overpayment By Renters (Hayward)............................................................................ 89 Figure F-38 Overcrowded Households (Alameda County) .............................................................. 90 Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
iv
Figure F-39 Overcrowded Households (Hayward)........................................................................... 92 Figure F-40 Overcrowding by Race.................................................................................................. 93 Figure F-41 Sensitive Communities (Alameda County) ................................................................. 100 Figure F-42 Sensitive Communities (Hayward).............................................................................. 101 Figure F-43 Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure (Hayward)......................................... 102 Figure F-44 1937 Oakland and Berkeley “Residential Security Map”............................................ 109 Figure F-45 Home Owners Loan Corporation Redlining Grade (Alameda County)....................... 110 Figure F-46 Housing Choice Vouchers........................................................................................... 112 Figure F-47 Planning Sub-areas in Relation to TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas.............................. 117 Figure F-48 Location of Housing Sites in Relation to TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas.................... 118 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
1 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

1.1 Introduction and Overview
California Government Code Section 8899.50 requires local agencies to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). Under California 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.” Government Code Section 8899.50 stipulates that an assessment of fair housing (AFH) includes the following components:
 A summary of fair housing issues in the jurisdiction and an assessment of the jurisdiction’s fair housing enforcement and fair housing outreach capacity
 An analysis of available federal, state, and local data and knowledge to identify integration and segregation patterns and trends, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs within the jurisdiction, including displacement risk
 An assessment of the contributing factors for the fair housing issues identified under Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii)
 An identification of the jurisdiction’s fair housing priorities and goals, giving highest priority to those factors identified in Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(iii) that limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance, and identifying the metrics and milestones for determining what fair housing results will be achieved
 Strategies and actions to implement those priorities and goals, which may include, but are not limited to, enhancing mobility strategies, and encouraging development of new affordable housing in areas of opportunity, as well as place-based strategies to encourage community revitalization, including preservation of existing affordable housing, and protecting existing residents from displacement

1.2 Approach to Analysis
This AFH has been prepared consistent with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements (AFFH Guidance Memo) which provides guidance on the preparation of housing elements and ensure statutory requirements are satisfied, pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(c)(10).

This AFH evaluates fair housing issues on the following topics:
 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
 Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty  Disparities in Access to Opportunity
 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2  Other Relevant Factors, including historical disinvestment, lack of infrastructure improvements, and presence of older affordable housing units that may be at risk of conversion to market-rate housing
This AFFH addresses impediments through AFFH-specific goals, and actions based on the contributing factors for each identified fair housing issue. To identify specific areas within Hayward, references to census tracts and neighborhoods will be used throughout the document. An overview of census tracts is provided in Figure F-1.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
3 Figure F-1 Hayward Census Tracts
Source: U.S Census 2022.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4 This page intentionally left blank.

Fair Housing Methodology
5 Fair Housing Methodology
Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires cities and counties to analyze areas of segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk.

To conduct this analysis, the City utilized data from a variety of sources, including:
 The Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer  Urban Displacement Project (UDP)
 U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
 CalEnviroScreen
 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)
 The 2020 Alameda County Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI)  The Comprehensive House Affordability Strategy (CHAS)  US Census American Community Survey (ACS)
Additionally, the analysis includes a discussion of historic land use and segregation patterns and input from sources of local knowledge, including advocates for people with special needs, advocacy organizations, housing and social services providers, and Hayward residents. Additional sources include the Hayward Displacement Study completed by HRA Advisors (2021) and City Council staff report and accompanying Resolution No. 21-223 apologizing to Black, Indigenous, Californio, Mexicano, Latino, Latinx and other community members of color on behalf of the City of Hayward for its implicit and explicit role in perpetuating institutional racism.

HCD AFFH Viewer
The AFFH Data Viewer is a tool developed by HCD that features census block group and tract-level data from an expansive collection of sources including ACS, HUD, TCAC, UDP, and CHAS. The Data Viewer tool serves as a resource for local and regional governments and provides the ability to explore spatial data patterns concerning fair housing enforcement, segregation, and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, and disparities in access to opportunities and housing. The Data Viewer is intended to assist in the creation of policies that alleviate disparities, combat discrimination, and increase access to safe and affordable homes.

Urban Displacement Project
The Urban Displacement Project (UDP) was developed to track neighborhood change and identify areas that are vulnerable to gentrification and displacement in California. Indicators of gentrification and displacement are measured at the census tract level based on data from the 2015 ACS. UDP indicators examine census tracts to identify areas that qualify as disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Additionally, census tracts identified as disadvantaged neighborhoods by UDP’s criteria are further analyzed to explore changes in the percentage of college educated residents, non-Hispanic white population, median household income, and median gross rents over time to determine levels of gentrification and displacement risk.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
6 CalEnviroScreen
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed a screening methodology to identify communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution.

This tool, called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen), utilizes existing environmental, health, and socioeconomic data to rank census tracts based on 20 distinct indicators. In general, if a community has a high score for that indicator, it is more impacted by pollution burdens and population vulnerabilities compared to other communities. Designated disadvantaged communities are those with CalEnviroScreen percentile scores of 75 or higher, meaning that they scored within the highest 25 percent of census tracts across California. Hayward continues to explore programs and policies to address community pollution, environmental health access to open space and government decision making through creation of an Environmental Justice Element of the General Plan.

California Tax Credit Allocation Committee
To assist fair housing analysis, HCD and TCAC created the California Fair Housing Task Force to provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies and departments to further the state’s fair housing goals.1 The California Fair Housing Task Force created Opportunity Maps to identify resources levels across the state to accompany new policies aimed at increasing access to high-opportunity areas for families with children.2 Opportunity Maps are made from composite scores of three different domains made up from a set of indicators data shown in Table F-1. The Opportunity Maps include filters to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. To identify these areas, census tracts were first filtered by poverty and then by a measure of racial segregation. The criteria for these filters were:
 Poverty Status: census tracts with at least 30 percent of population that earned an income that was below the federal poverty level
 Racial Segregation: census tracts with a location quotient that is higher than 1.25 for Black, Hispanic, Asian, or all non-white populations in comparison to the county Table F-1 Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, median home value Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution indicators and values Education Math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, student poverty rates Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2020 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps 2020. 2021-2025 5-Year Housing and Community Development Strategic Plan for Hayward (Consolidated Plan)
Hayward’s 2021-2025 Consolidated Plan identifies affordable housing and community development needs through a housing market analysis; articulating priorities, goals, and strategies to address identified needs; and describing the actions that need to be taken to implement strategies for affordable housing. The City of Hayward is required to submit a federally mandated Consolidated Plan every five years and submit an Annual Action Plan in order to receive annual Community 1 Office of The State Treasurer (STO). 2021. https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity/2020-tcaF-hcd-methodology.pdf Fair Housing Methodology
7 Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership (HOME) funding. Hayward’s Consolidated Plan is comprised of four priority needs: Expand and improve public infrastructure and facilities, preserve, protect, and produce housing stock, improve public services and economic development. The Consolidated Plan is important in conducting this AFFH analysis, as it identifies existing housing disparities, and describes how funding will be utilized to address barriers to such disparities.

AllTransit
AllTransit is an online database that details transit opportunity for communities. The website explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. The AllTransit performance score explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, such as connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service.
2020 Alameda County Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
As part of the CDBG program certification process, participating jurisdictions prepare an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice every five years. The 2020 Alameda County Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) provides an assessment of the regional laws, ordinances, statutes, and administrative policies, as well as local conditions that affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing. It also analyzes the conditions in the private market and public sector that may limit the range of housing choices or impede a person’s access to housing and provides solutions and measures to mitigate or remove identified impediments.

Community Engagement and Outreach
The following section details the various methods of community engagement the City used as part of the Housing Element Update. For more information, please see Chapter 1, Introduction, and Appendix A.

Contact Lists
City staff developed email and mailing lists of community & advocacy groups, non-profits, faithbased organizations, school-based organizations, mobile home park associations, homeowners’ associations, and neighborhood groups to provide outreach and regular updates on the project. In addition, the City is maintaining an “interested parties” list for those who have requested regular updates about the Housing Element, Climate Action Plan, Environmental Justice and Safety Element Updates.

Advertising
The City developed flyers in English and Spanish advertising the project. A total of 48,500 flyers were mailed out to homeowners, multi-family housing complexes and individuals living in mobile home parks. In addition, City staff handed out flyers different locations throughout Hayward including BART, the Farmers Market, supermarkets, and laundromats. The City also created a project website with links to upcoming and past event materials and links to articles and videos on the topics of Housing, Climate Change, Environmental Justice among other resources. The videos on housing Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
8 included such as the legacy of redlining, the History of Russell City in Hayward and explainers on zoning among other topics (https://haywardhousingandclimateupdate.com/learn-more/).

Surveys
The City prepared and distributed an online housing survey from January 10, 2022 to March 10, 2022. The survey questioned housing conditions, access to resources, and experiences with discrimination to all individuals in Hayward. The surveys were translated into Spanish and Mandarin.

To encourage participation, the City advertised a drawing for five $50 Hayward business gift cards for individuals who completed the survey. The full results of this survey are located in Appendix A.

Bilingual informational Gallery
The City prepared a mobile gallery with posters in English and Spanish on the topics of history of Hayward, the Housing Element, the Climate Action Plan, Environmental Justice and Hazards in order to provide people with the opportunity to learn about the project on their own time. The galleries were placed at the Downtown Hayward Library, City Hall and were used at events at the Farmers Market, BART, the NAACP Offices and Chabot College.

Chabot Interviews
The City contracted with Chabot College to have students from two English classes interview Hayward residents around the issues of housing including housing conditions and concern about eviction or not being able to pay mortgages; experiences with neighbors; experiences with discrimination; perceptions of concentrations of poverty within Hayward; perceptions of homelessness; experiences of environmental pollution; rankings of importance for schools, transit, jobs, retail, libraries and other community assets; and hopes and dreams for the future. The students interviewed over 390 Hayward residents and documented their responses which are included as quotes throughout this Housing Element and summarized in Appendix A.

On April 25, 2022, City staff attended an event at Chabot College where professors and approximately 30 students discussed topics related to housing, gentrification and displacement, pollution and dumping, and other findings from the interviews. Both interviews and some interviewees attended the meeting to listen to student presenters. City staff present at the event was able to provide translation services as needed.

Balancing Act: Housing Sites Simulation
The City ran a Balancing Act simulation providing the community with the opportunity to weigh in on where they would like to see additional development or higher density development in Hayward to accommodate the Regional Housing Need. Links were provided to all of the groups on the email and mailing lists described above, the City’s email lists, interested parties and was advertised on social media. Hayward’s Balancing Act received 963 page views and 19 submissions from the public.

A detailed summary of the simulation is descripted in Section 1.7.5, Balancing Act: Housing Sites Simulation, of the Housing Element.

Housing Element 101 Informational Meetings with Committees, Planning Commission & City Council
In the Fall of 2021, the City held Housing Element 101 informational meetings for the Housing and Homeless Task Force, the Planning Commission and City Council to notify the public and decisionmakers about the Housing Element Update.

Fair Housing Methodology
9 Individual Meetings and Focus Groups
Over the past six months, City staff has met with representatives from various advocacy and interest groups including Community Resources for Independent Living, Hayward Promise Neighborhood, Hayward Collective and NAACP to notify and partner with the groups to get the word out about the Housing Element Update. City staff attended NAACP Events on April 30, 2022 and May 21; a Hayward Promise Neighborhood event at Tyrrell Elementary School on May 12; a Community Family Fair in Downtown Hayward on June 17; and a Juneteenth Festival on June 18 to advertise the Housing Element process and take comments about housing concerns and community needs.

Community Meetings
In July, the City will hold a community meeting and work sessions with the Planning Commission and City Council to discuss the Draft Housing Element and prior to submittal to HCD for formal review of the Draft Element.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
10 This page intentionally left blank.

Analysis of Impediments Findings
11 Analysis of Impediments Findings
The Analysis of Impediments (AI) provides a demographic profile of Alameda County, assesses the extent of housing needs among specific income groups, and evaluates the availability of a range of housing choices for residents. The AI addresses disparities in housing needs, existing patterns of segregation and racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) and contributing factors to fair housing impediments.

3.1 Regional Trends
The AI identifies the following impediments to fair housing within Alameda County:
 Non-Hispanic white residents are most of the County’s homeowners despite comprising only one-third of the County’s population
 Residential segregation between white residents and non-white residents has increased in the last decade
 The County’s Black resident population has decreased by nearly 7 percent since 1990. Black residents primarily reside in the cities of Oakland and Berkeley  Non-white residents are being displaced from areas that have traditionally large non-white populations
 Areas with higher percentages of non-white residents generally had less access to proficient schools, jobs, and cleaner air and water
 Median rental prices rose an average of $1,000 (unadjusted for inflation) since 2010, an increase of 55 percent in a 9-year period
 The average home sales price increased from approximately $300,000 to nearly $900,000 in less than 20 years (unadjusted for inflation)
 The number of unhoused people increased 42 percent in four years  Non-white households, especially Black and Hispanic households, have the highest rate of disproportionate housing needs, such as incomplete kitchen and/or plumbing facilities, overcrowding (housing more than one person per room), and experience higher rates housing cost burden (spending at least 30 percent of income on housing costs)  Overall, the rate of mortgage approvals has gone up in the last 7 years, but racial and ethnic disparities in mortgage approval rates remained unchanged. While white applicants have an average mortgage approval rate of 70 percent, Black applicants have an average approval rate of 59 percent and Hispanic applicants have an average approval rate of 62 percent  Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders and those with disabilities often find it difficult to find an appropriate housing unit based on located a unit of appropriate size and/or cost  Disability, race, and familial status are the most common bases of housing discrimination complaints forwarded to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
12 3.2 Local Trends
The Alameda County AI also identified impediments specific to Hayward. Contributing factors identified as impediments to fair housing in Hayward are discussed in detail below and include descriptions of how each impediment is addressed in this Housing Element.

Concentrations of Lower- and Moderate-Income Populations HUD defines a Lower and Moderate Income (LMI) area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population earn an income that is considered lower or moderate relative to the area median income. Residents with low and moderate household incomes were concentrated in the northern (Burbank, Jackson Triangle and Mission-Foothill neighborhoods) and central (HarderTennyson and Mission-Garin neighborhoods) areas of the city. According to TCAC, Hayward contains one high resource area (tract 45601), six moderate resource areas (tracts 438000, 435103, 435102, 436402, 436401 and 437000), and the remaining census tracts are considered low resource. Areas of high and moderate resource, primarily located throughout the eastern segments of the city. In contrast, low resource areas (with the exception of tract 437000 which is moderate resource) are concentrated throughout the western and central segments of city.

Language Barriers
A language barrier can be an impediment to accessing housing. Those who do not speak English may face discrimination, communication challenges in obtaining housing and accessing services and information. According to the AI, in 2017 approximately 18 percent of the population 5 years and older in Alameda County are considered having limited English proficiency, compared to 24 percent of residents in Hayward.

Lending by Race/Ethnicity
The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination when obtaining a mortgage. However, in some communities the lending pool is not representative of the demographics of a community and lending practices can be seen as an impediment to fair housing. This is the case in Hayward where white populations were overrepresented in lending practices while non-white populations were severely underrepresented.

Overcrowded Conditions
Large households are those defined with five or more individuals and can sometimes include multiple families living together to save on housing costs. According to the AI, in Hayward, 12.6 percent of renter households were overcrowded, and 5.4 percent were extremely overcrowded, reflecting the third-highest percent of overcrowding in Alameda County.

Local Land Use Policies
The Fair Housing Act prohibits jurisdictions from making land use decisions or implementing land use policies that exclude or can otherwise be seen as discriminatory. Historically, redlining, racial steerage and exclusionary zoning laws have been used as tools to marginalize and segregate communities of color (Section 10.1, Historic Patterns of Segregation) and are a contributing factor of disproportionate housing needs in the region and Hayward.

Analysis of Impediments Findings
13 Community Outreach and Fair Housing
As part of the Housing Element Update, the City implemented a community engagement program, soliciting input from the general public, housing stakeholders, and City decision makers. Results and feedback obtained during the community engagement program have been incorporated into the Housing Element, including this section on affirmatively furthering fair housing practices.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
14 This page intentionally left blank.

Fair Housing Resources
15 Fair Housing Resources

4.1 Ability to Address Complaints
Initiated by the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division in 1991, fair housing testing is a technique used to uncover evidence of discrimination in rental housing. Fair housing testing involves one or more individuals who pose as prospective renters for the purpose of determining whether a landlord is complying with local, State, and federal fair housing laws. Enforcement actions may be taken when investigations yield evidence of a pattern or practice of illegal housing discrimination.

Testing may be initiated following the filing of a specific housing discrimination complaint or, as is the case when testing for disability discrimination, as part of an overall effort to determine whether the design or architectural features of a specific rental facility comply with state and federal accessibility requirements. In Alameda County, fair housing testing is used to identify unlawful housing discrimination practices based on the real or perceived race, ethnicity, color, religion, gender identity or expression, national origin, disability, familial status, marital status, age, ancestry, sexual orientation, and source of income of prospective renters. The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) maintains a record of housing discrimination complaints filed in local jurisdictions. From 2015 to 2019, 256 fair housing complaints in Alameda County were filed with DFEH. Overall, disability-related discrimination comprised the largest proportion of cases (56 percent). The next highest basis for discrimination were race and familial status, comprising nearly 8 percent each.

Figure F-2 shows the outcome of fair housing cases that were resolved in Alameda County between 2015 and 2019. Most cases were resolved with counseling services, conciliation, or landlord education, and 25 percent of cases were found to have insufficient evidence. According to the AI, less than 10 percent of alleged fair housing discrimination cases in Alameda County between 2015- 2019 occurred in Hayward. Hayward reported the 4th highest count of alleged fair housing violations when compared to other jurisdictions in the County, as shown on Figure F-3. Table F-2 shows housing discrimination cases per 1,000 residents in each jurisdiction in Alameda County.

Emeryville (0.83) had the most cases per population, while Union City (0.12), Newark (0.08), Albany (0.16), Livermore (0.15), and Piedmont (0.00) had the fewest number of cases per population.

Though Oakland had approximately 60 percent of the county’s total discrimination cases, Oakland (0.36) was proportionally comparable to Alameda (0.32) Hayward (0.30), San Leandro (0.34), and Dublin (0.35) (Table F-2).
“Yes, I have felt discriminated against. I think that they made it more difficult to find housing than other people. They ask you for a lot more things and they ask for it in very unpleasant ways. It can be very frustrating. It is not blatant discrimination, but it feels that they make it difficult to dissuade you from getting a house.” (Janet, Schafer Rd & Manon Ave, 36-45).

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
16 Figure F-2 Outcome of Cases, 2015-2019 (Alameda County) Source: County of Alameda AI 2021.

Figure F-3 Location of Alleged Discrimination, 2015-2019 (Alameda County) Source: County of Alameda AI 2021.

Fair Housing Resources
17 Table F-2 Housing Discrimination Cases per 1,000 Residents Jurisdiction Population Number of Discrimination Cases Cases per 1,000 Residents Alameda 78,863 25 0.32
Albany 19,053 3 0.16
Berkley 121,874 61 0.48
Dublin 63,241 22 0.35
Emeryville 11,994 10 0.83
Hayward 162,030 49 0.30
Livermore 79,201 14 0.15
Newark 47,467 4 0.08
Oakland 428,827 156 0.36
Piedmont 11,318 0 0.00
Pleasanton 79,201 16 0.20
San Leandro 87,598 30 0.34
Unincorporated County 235,439 30 0.13
Union City 72,991 9 0.12
Source: HCD AFFH Viewer, 2022. County of Alameda AI 2021.

4.2 Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity relates to the ability of a local jurisdiction and fair housing entities to disseminate information related to fair housing and provide outreach and education to assure community members are informed of fair housing laws and tenants’ rights. In addition, enforcement and outreach capacity includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing testing.

Regional Resources
According to HUD records, a total of 564 fair housing violations were filed in with the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) for Alameda County between 2010 and 2020. Over half (60 percent) of the cases reported to the FHEO were on the basis of disability-status discrimination, violations on the basis of race discrimination comprised 19 percent, 15 percent were filed on the basis of retaliation, another 14 percent were filed on the basis of familial status discrimination, 9 percent on the basis of sex and 3 percent of total cases had a religious discrimination basis.

Table F-3 shows organizations in Alameda County conduct fair housing assistance outreach. These organizations collaborate with Hayward and other local governments to address housing and community needs and provide the following services:
 Fair housing testing and complaints
 Fair housing counseling and education
 Tenant/landlord counseling and mediation
 Homeless prevention program
 Rental assistance program
 Rent/deposit grant program
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
18  Home seeking services
 Shared housing counseling placement
 Homebuyers’ education learning program
Table F-3 Fair Housing Organizations Active in Alameda County Organization URL Phone Number
East Bay Community Law Center (EBCLC) https://ebclc.org/need-services/housing-services/ (510) 548-4040 Centro Legal de la Raza https://www.centrolegal.org/ (510) 437-1554 Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) https://www.echofairhousing.org/ (855) 275-3246 Alameda County Housing and Community
Development
https://www.acgov.org/cda/hcd/ (510)-670-5333
Project Sentinel https://www.housing.org/ (408) 720-9888 Bay Area Community Services (BACS) https://www.bayareacs.org/ (510) 247-8235 Source: County of Alameda AI 2021.

ECHO Housing conducts fair housing audits of rental properties to assess how well rental properties conform to fair housing laws. In rental properties where the evidence of deferential treatment is found, the owners and managers of such properties are encouraged to participate in fair housing workshops intended to provide education and training in ending illegal discrimination in housing.

Between 2017 – 2021, a total of 647 rental properties in jurisdictions throughout the San Francisco Bay Area were tested through audits. An overview of the criteria and results of these fair housing audits is summarized below:
 Between 2017 and 2018: a total of 134 properties were tested in 14 jurisdictions. Email responses from 21 tests (16 percent) revealed differential treatment toward the tester with a Black-identified name. In 113 tests (84 percent), no differential treatment was identified.  Between 2018 and 2019: a total of 129 properties were tested in 13 jurisdictions. In 5 tests (4 percent), only the white tester received a response. In the remaining 124 tests (96 percent), no differential treatment was identified.
 Between 2019 and 2020: a total of 183 properties were tested in 17 jurisdictions. In 18 tests (10 percent), only the white tester received a response. In 165 tests (90 percent) no differential treatment was identified.
 Between 2020 and 2021: a total of 207 properties were tested in 17 jurisdictions. In 17 tests (8 percent), housing was denied because the tester had a Section 8 voucher. In 190 (92 percent) tests, the tester was informed that Section 8 was accepted.

Local Resources
It is essential to note that the City does not provide housing. However, for all units that the City Regulates, the owner/developer is required to sign an agreement that include language that the developer/owner must comply with Fair Housing laws. The City has the right to disapprove a management agent based on substantiated fair housing complaints. Additionally, the City reviews marketing plans from City assisted projects to verify that the marketing with affirmatively further fair housing are review against discriminatory practices. While the City can enforce its agreements with the property owner based on substantiated fair housing violations, Fair Housing laws are under the jurisdiction of the State and Federal government.

Fair Housing Resources
19 In an effort to reduce housing discrimination, Hayward contracts with the non-profit organization Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) to assist residents with fair housing counseling services, connections to rental assistance and homelessness prevention programs, and to conduct fair housing testing. The City allocates CDBG general administration funds to ECHO Housing's fair housing services. Through ECHO, the City assists residents and landlords by providing mediation, investigation, and referral services. According to ECHO, a total of 124 fair housing complaints related to possible housing discrimination were filed in Hayward between 2016 and 2021. Disabilityrelated discrimination comprised 45 percent of all cases filed, followed by 19 percent that were filed based on racial discrimination. Additionally, complaints concerning possible discrimination were filed based on familial status (12 percent) and sexual orientation (two percent). An overview of fair housing organizations active in Hayward is provided in Table F-4.

In addition to the fair housing services provided by active organizations in Hayward, Alameda County administers the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program for Hayward and other jurisdictions in the county. Funded by HUD, the HCV program provides rental assistance aimed at helping lowincome families, persons with disabilities, and the elderly secure afford housing. As of 2011, the City does not have any past fair housing lawsuits, consent decrees or other related matters.

Table F-4 Fair Housing Organizations Active in Hayward
Organization URL Phone Number
Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) https://www.echofairhousing.org/ (855) 275-3246 Habitat for Humanity https://www.hab.org/ (510) 251-6304 Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA) https://www.haca.net/ (510) 538-8876 Source: City of Hayward; County of Alameda AI 2021.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
20 This page intentionally left blank.

Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
21 Segregation and Integration Patterns and
Trends
To inform priorities, policies, and actions, the housing element must include an analysis of integration and segregation, including patterns and trends. Integration generally means a condition in which there is not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability in a specific geographic area. Segregation generally means the opposite condition, where concentrations of the characteristics described above are high in a specific geographic area. To adequately assess the patterns of integration and segregation, this section identifies trends at the regional scale (Alameda County) and at the local scale (Hayward). To identify socio-economic and demographic spatial trends across these jurisdictions, this analysis utilizes HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer, which provides an expansive collection of data from sources including the 2015 – 2019 ACS, HCD, HUD, UDP, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other regional and federal agencies. In its AFFH guidance document published in April 2021, HCD describes the importance of segregation and integration analysis in relation to fair housing:

Residential segregation and exclusion, whether by race, ethnicity, disability, or income, is a result of numerous housing policies, practices, and procedures—both public and private—that have had 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. Past and present discriminatory policies and practices, including long-term disinvestment, have resulted in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty and poor housing stock, limited access to opportunity, unsafe environmental conditions, underfunded schools, dilapidated infrastructure, and other disproportionately experienced problems. In addition, governmental policies have subsidized the development of segregated, highresourced suburbs in metropolitan areas by constructing new highway systems—often through lower income communities of color— to ensure access to job opportunities in urban centers. This physical and policy infrastructure supports patterns of discrimination and high levels of segregation that continue to persist in California and across the country. All of these conditions persist despite the over 50-year-old obligation to prohibit discrimination and affirmatively further fair housing.2

5.1 Race and Ethnicity
Examining the demographic, ethnic, and racial composition of a region is vital to understanding fair housing concerns including access to economic opportunity and safe and affordable housing.

Historic exclusionary governmental policies, biased mortgage lending practices, and other tactics have caused racial and ethnic segregation and spatial inequities. This section provides an overview of racial/ethnic composition and segregation patterns within Alameda County and Hayward. 2 California Department of Housing and Community Development. 2021. AFFH Guidance Memo. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
22 Regional Trends
Regionally, the western urbanized area
of Alameda County contains
populations with at least 40 percent
non-white residents, as shown on
Figure F-4. Comparatively, the
relatively less urbanized and less
densely populated eastern portion of
Alameda County in close proximity to
regional wilderness parks and recreation areas contain a higher percentage of white residents. HUD utilizes the racial/ethnic dissimilarity index to measure segregation levels across a defined geographic boundary. The racial/ethnic dissimilarity index ranges from zero to 100, where zero represents perfect integration between racial groups and 100 represents perfect segregation.

Racial/ethnic segregation in Alameda County slightly increased between 2010 and 2017. According to the AI, the cities of Berkeley and Oakland had a racial/ethnic dissimilarity score of 53 and 55 in 2017, respectively, signaling moderate to high levels of African American/non-Hispanic white segregation.

In March 2022, ABAG and the University of California (UC), Merced, published a segregation report to compare integration and segregation patterns between jurisdictions within the San Francisco Bay Area. The report found the cities of Alameda and Berkeley had fewer residents of color compared to the San Francisco Bay Area as a whole, whereas the percent of residents of colors was higher in the Hayward, San Leandro, Oakland, and Union City.

Local Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, areas west of Hesperian Boulevard (Mt. Eden and Glen Eden neighborhoods) and south of Industrial Parkway Southwest had a predominant Asian majority, compared to the central region of the city where Hispanic residents are the predominant population. Table F-5 shows the racial composition of the city by TCAC resource area. Most neighborhoods in the central area of Hayward are categorized as low resource, while neighborhoods in the eastern areas of the city are categorized as moderate resource. Approximately 86 percent of Hayward residents lived in areas of low resource or high segregation and poverty and 14 percent residents lived in moderate-resource areas. Figure F-5 shows the predominance of white, Hispanic/Latino, and Asian-American residents in each census tract in the city. Predominately white majority tracks are located in northeastern area of Hayward. Figure F-6 highlights the percent of total non-white population residing in Hayward. Geographically, non-Hispanic white and Asian populations were concentrated in Hayward’s eastern neighborhoods, while the city’s central and western neighborhoods had predominantly Hispanic/Latino and Asian populations, respectively. As referenced in the AI, racial/ethnic dissimilarity scores in Hayward were higher than most jurisdictions in the county, yet lower than the county as a whole. In Hayward, Hispanic/Latino and non-Hispanic white residents had the highest racial/ethnic dissimilarity index score (33) “I have noticed that they are building higher priced
condos and apartments near low-income apartments
where the residents of both are ethnically
different.”(Alexander, C St & 3rd St, 26-35)
Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
23 Figure F-4 Percent of Total Non-White Population (Alameda County) Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
24 Table F-5 Population Living in Low, Moderate or High Resource Area by Race (Hayward) Resource Category
American
Indian or
Alaskan Native
Asian
American/API
Black/ African
American
Non-Hispanic
White Hispanic/Latino
Other Race or
Multiple Race Total
Low Resource or High
Segregation and Poverty Area
500 (90%) 38,825 (85%) 11,720 (82%) 20,373 (79%) 57,628 (90%) 6,036 (82%) 135,082 (86%) Moderate Resource Area 55 (10%) 6,458 (14%) 2,544 (17%) 5,305 (20%) 6,284 (10%) 1,309 (18%) 21,955 (13%) High/Highest Resource Area N/A 2 (<1%) N/A 2 (<1%) N/A N/A 4 (<1%) Total 555
(<1%)
45,285
(27%)
14,264
(9%)
25,680
(16%)
63,912
(40%)
7,345
(<1%)
157,041
(100%)
Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/California Housing and Community Development (HCD), Opportunity Maps (2020); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002
“I don't know if segregation is the word. Hayward is becoming gentrified. So like all the areas that are possibly poor or more low income people are coming in and building around in those neighborhoods. So it's happening like in the middle of a neighborhood where you look what I one side and it's like this beautiful building, and then you look across the street and it's like a decrepit home or like a home that's falling apart. You know, so I don't I don't know. I don't know how to describe it. You won't see poverty in the hills.” (Josue, D St & Valley St, 46-55).

Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
25 Figure F-5 Predominant Populations (Hayward)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
26 Figure F-6 Percent of Total Non-White Population (Hayward) Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.

Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
27 Segregation can also be measured by the isolation index. The Isolation index Indicates the potential for contact between different racial/ethnic groups and compares the composition neighborhood composition to the jurisdiction’s demographics as a whole. This index ranges between 0 and 1 with higher values indicating that a particular racial/ethnic group is more isolated than other racial/ethnic groups. According to ABAG and UC Merced, Hispanic/Latino residents were the most isolated group in Hayward, meaning that the average Hispanic/Latino resident lives in a neighborhood that is 45 percent Hispanic/Latino. In contrast, other racial groups in Hayward were less isolated and more likely to encounter other racial/ethnic groups in their neighborhoods. Since 2010, non-Hispanic white residents have become less segregated overtime, compared to other racial groups in Hayward. An overview of racial isolation index values by race/ethnicity is provided in Table F-6.

Table F-6 Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation (Hayward) Race/Ethnicity 2000 2010 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.243 0.289 0.365
Black/ African American 0.119 0.130 0.103
Hispanic/Latino 0.399 0.461 0.459
Non-Hispanic white 0.338 0.231 0.159
Source: UC Merced and Association of Bay Area Governments 2022.

HUD’s Opportunity Indices were created to inform communities about racial/ethnic segregation and disparities in access to opportunity.3 Table F-7 provides opportunity indicator index scores (ranging from zero to 100) for Hayward for each race/ethnicity. Generally, higher index scores are indicative of greater access to opportunity. A brief overview of each index and its interpretation is provided below:
 Low Poverty. The rate of poverty by census tract. The higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood.
 School Proficiency. The percentage of fourth-grade students testing proficient in reading and math within three miles of a census block group. The higher the score, the higher the quality of the school system in a neighborhood.
 Jobs Proximity. The distance to all job locations from a given block group. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.  Labor Market. The level of intensity of labor market engagement based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment by census tract. The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood.  Low Transportation Cost. Estimates of transportation costs of a family of three with an income at 50 percent of the median income for renters by census tract. The higher the value, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
 Transit. Estimates of transit trips taken by a family of three with an income at 50 percent of the median income for renters by census tract. The higher the value, the more likely residents in that neighborhood use public transit.
3 HUD 2021. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-AFFHT0006-July-2020.pdf Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
28  Environmental Health. The potential exposure to harmful toxins by census tract based upon US Environmental Protection Agency estimates. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health.

Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
29 Table F-7 Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (Hayward) Total Population
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency Index
Labor
Market Index Transit Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity Index
Environmental
Health Index
White, Non-Hispanic 55.96 15.39 43.63 85.96 80.62 42.30 35.10 Black, Non-Hispanic 49.98 14.54 39.98 87.73 83.33 45.45 33.47 Hispanic 48.78 14.04 34.03 88.74 83.45 37.68 31.10
Asian or Pacific
Islander, NonHispanic

60.01 15.84 44.91 87.11 80.27 43.49 34.65
Native American,
Non-Hispanic

53.42 14.52 36.88 87.86 82.96 45.18 30.77
Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White, Non-Hispanic 45.98 12.60 36.58 86.92 83.08 43.95 34.87 Black, Non-Hispanic 36.70 11.24 27.43 89.92 85.72 35.29 30.34 Hispanic 38.32 13.25 29.25 90.24 85.80 33.08 31.03
Asian or Pacific
Islander, NonHispanic

53.85 12.16 41.70 88.46 82.12 37.17 37.06
Native American,
Non-Hispanic

25.87 7.73 27.58 89.81 86.95 24.51 33.30
Source: County of Alameda AI 2021.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
30 In Hayward, the non-Hispanic white and Asian or Pacific Islander populations had the highest environmental health, low poverty, and labor market index scores, compared to Hispanic, nonHispanic Black and Native American populations residing in the city. Conversely, Black/ African American, and Hispanic/Latino populations had higher transit, low-transportation cost, and jobs proximity index scores.

Further, most opportunity index scores were lower for residents living below the federal poverty line compared to the total population. Residents living under the federal poverty line had higher transit, low transportation costs and jobs proximity index scores and higher environmental health, labor market, school proficiency, and low poverty index scores compared to the overall population.

An overview of opportunity indicators for Consortium Cities is provided in Table F-8.

According to the AI, Consortium Cities refers to Entitlement Cities (Alameda, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Leandro, and Union City) and Urban County communities (Albany, Dublin, Emeryville, Newark, Piedmont, and Unincorporated Alameda County) in Alameda County.

The AI defines Consortium Cities and Urban County Communities to compare demographic and socioeconomic patterns across incorporated and unincorporated communities of Alameda County.

Compared to other HOME Consortium jurisdictions, Hayward scored slightly higher for low transportation cost, and transit, and scored lower for Jobs proximity, low poverty, school proficiency, labor market and environmental health index indicators. Across racial groups, opportunity indicator trends in Hayward were generally lower when compared to HOME consortium cities. Across Home Consortium Cities, residents earning an income below the poverty level scored slightly lower for environmental health, labor market, school proficiency, low poverty opportunity scores, compared to the total population. Further discussion of race/ethnic composition in Hayward is provided in Appendix B, Housing Needs Assessment.

Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
31 Table F-8 Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (HOME Consortium Cities) Total Population Low Poverty Index
School
Proficiency Index
Labor
Market Index Transit Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity Index
Environmental
Health Index
White, NonHispanic

74.10 63.31 69.18 84.18 78.19 44.75 43.41
Black, NonHispanic

58.99 40.26 50.63 86.80 83.10 48.23 32.95
Hispanic 60.13 39.58 50.39 86.92 81.95 42.57 33.93
Asian or Pacific
Islander, NonHispanic

73.39 60.03 68.09 85.67 79.17 43.95 38.37
Native American,
Non-Hispanic

64.76 50.18 56.54 85.94 81.39 45.45 37.11
Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White, NonHispanic

65.76 55.16 62.13 86.65 80.71 43.00 38.06
Black, NonHispanic

48.63 35.79 46.06 89.08 85.77 45.80 29.24
Hispanic 47.30 32.12 43.07 88.78 84.39 40.84 32.46
Asian or Pacific
Islander, NonHispanic

63.27 51.04 61.69 87.98 83.51 46.55 31.52
Native American,
Non-Hispanic

41.65 34.75 39.50 88.59 84.96 40.19 29.07
Note: HOME Consortium cities include: the City of Alameda, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Leandro, Union City and the Urban County communities of Albany, Dublin, Emeryville, Newark, Piedmont, and Unincorporated Alameda County
Source: County of Alameda AI, 2021.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
32 5.2 Persons with Disabilities
For persons with disabilities, fair housing choice and access to opportunity includes access to housing in the most integrated setting appropriate to an individual’s special needs and disabilityrelated services as required under federal civil rights law. For example, persons with disabilities who are unable to use stairs or need a zero-step shower may not have actual housing choice without the presence of housing units with these accessibility features.4

High spatial segregation of persons with disabilities may indicate fair housing issues related to not only physical needs, but also economic disparities. According to the 2020 Annual Report on People with Disabilities in America, more than 25 percent of persons with disabilities (including physical, intellectual, and developmental; sensory; and other disability categories) live below the Census Bureau-designated poverty line, which is 14.5 percentage points higher than people without a disability.5 Persons with disabilities may be more reliant than persons without disabilities on fixed incomes or access to public transit.

Regional Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, approximately 151,362 Alameda County residents had one or more disabilities. Table F-9 shows employment status by disability status estimates for Alameda County. Approximately 3 percent of the total employed population in the county has one or more disability, reflecting no change from 2014, while the percent of total unemployed increased slightly during this time. Additional discussion regarding persons with disabilities in Alameda County is included in Appendix B, Housing Needs Assessment.

Table F-9 Employment Status by Disability Status (Alameda County) Disability Status
Employed
2010-2014
(Percent of Total
Employed)
Unemployed
2010 -2014
(Percent of Total
Unemployed)
Employed
2015-2019
(Percent of Total
Employed)
Unemployed
2015-2019
(Percent of Total
Unemployed)
No Disability 692,695
(97%)
69,499
(93%)
787,286
(97%)
35,569
(91%)
With a Disability 23,385
(3%)
5,570
(7%)
27,804
(3%)
3,665
(9%)
Total 716,080
(100%)
75,069
(100%)
815,090
(100%)
39,234
(100%)
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2010- 2014, 2015-2019 Estimates.

Figure F-7 shows the spatial distribution of residents living with one or more disabilities across the County. Communities located throughout the northwestern region of the county were estimated to have a larger share of residents with disabilities compared to communities located in the south and eastern regions of the county. Further discussion regarding the population with one or more disabilities is included in Appendix B, Housing Needs Assessment. 4 HCD 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 5 The Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport
Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
33 Figure F-7 Percent of Population with a Disability (Alameda County) Source: AFFH Viewer 2021.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
34 Local Trends
As referenced in Appendix B, Housing Needs Assessment, 14,022 residents (approximately nine percent) of Hayward’s population live with one or more disability. Figure F-8, ambulatory difficulty (defined as having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs) was the most common disability reported by Hayward residents.

Figure F-9 shows the percentage of the population living with one or more disabilities in the city by census tract, using 2015-2019 ACS data. Generally, areas in the northern part of the city (Downtown, Burbank and North Hayward neighborhoods) and in the southern part of the city (Harder-Tennyson, Tennyson-Alquire and Glen Eden neighborhoods) had between 10 to 20 percent of residents reported living with one or more disability. Census tracts 4354.00 and 4382.04 were predominately Hispanic/Latino and Asian neighborhoods and had the largest percentage of residents with one or more disabilities (13 percent). Additionally, 15 percent of the population in census tract 4354.00 had an income that was below the poverty level, according to the ACS 2015- 2019 estimates.

Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
35 Figure F-8 Disability Type (Hayward)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107.

5.00%

4.25%

3.10%

2.61%

1.88%

1.49%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%
With an ambulatory
difficulty
With an independent
living difficulty
With a cognitive difficulty With a self-care difficulty With a hearing difficulty With a vision difficulty Proportion of Adult Population Reporting Disability Type Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
36 Figure F-9 Percentage of Population with One or More Disabilities (Hayward) Source: AFFH Viewer 2021.

Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
37 5.3 Familial Status
According to the Fair Housing Act, familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18 in a household with a legal guardian or designee of such guardian.6 HUD provides examples of familial discrimination as (a) refusing to rent to families with children; (b) evicting families once a child joins the family through, e.g., birth, adoption, custody; (c) requiring families with children to live on specific floors or in specific buildings or areas; (d) imposing overly restrictive rules about children’s use of the common areas (e.g., pools, hallways, open spaces); and I advertising that prohibits children.7 Single-parent households are protected by Government Code Section 65583(a)(7). Because of their relatively lower incomes and higher living expenses, single-parent households can have limited options for affordable, decent, and safe housing. As a result, single parents among the groups most at risk of experiencing poverty.

In addition to barriers to fair housing for single-parent households, large families (defined as families with 5 or more persons) can also experience housing discrimination as property owners impose occupancy limitations that can preclude large families with children. HUD data shows that familial status discrimination ranks third in discrimination of protected classes, behind discrimination due to disability and race.8

Regional Trends
As referenced in Appendix B, Housing Needs Assessment, Alameda County had a total household count of approximately 577,177 in 2019. According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, households with children present comprised 30 percent (174,344) of the total households in Alameda County. Tenure by household type and presence of children is shown in Table F-10. Married couple families with children comprise the largest share of owner- and renter-occupied households with children.

According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, single-parent, female-headed households comprised eight percent of renter-occupied households, but only two percent of owner-occupied households.

Table F-10 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (Alameda County) Household Type
OwnerOccupiedPercent of Total
Owner-Occupied
RenterOccupiedPercent of Total
Renter-Occupied
Married couple family, with Children Present 82,499 25.7% 52,436 19.5% Single-Parent, Male householder, no spouse
present
4,143 1.3% 6,503 2.4%
Single Parent, Female householder, no spouse
present
6,871 2.2% 21,892 8.1%
Total Households with Children Present 93,513 30.2% 80,831 30.1% Total Households 308,891 100.0% 268,286 100.0%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table B25115 Tenure By Household Type (Including Living Alone) and Age of Householder, 2015-2019 Estimates.
6 42 U.S. Code sections 3601, et seq., the Fair Housing Act. 7 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/discrimination_against_families_children#_Who_Is_Protected? 8 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Annual Report on Fair Housing FY 2017.” Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
38 According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, jurisdictions located in the western regions of the county, such as the cities of Berkeley, Oakland, San Leandro, and Hayward, had relatively higher proportions of children who reside in female-headed, single-parent households. In contrast, the southern and eastern regions of the county, including the cities of Union City, Fremont, Pleasanton, and Dublin, had less than 20 percent of children residing in this type of household.

As shown in Figure F-10, the percentage of single female headed households with children is generally consistent through the urban areas of Alameda County (20 – 40 percent) with higher percentages occurring in Oakland (60- 80 percent). Figure F-11 shows the percentage of children under the age of 18 who reside in married-couple households. Spatially, the eastern portion of the county contains a greater proportion of children that reside in households with married couples.

Additionally, jurisdictions located in the western region of the county including Oakland, San Leandro, and Hayward, had a relatively lower proportion of children that are residing in marriedcouple household. Areas with a larger percentage of non-white population generally overlap with areas exhibiting lower rates of children residing with married-couple households.

Local Trends
As shown in Figure F-12, census tracts located in the central region of Hayward contain a larger percentage of children residing in single-parent, female-headed households. Comparatively, most areas located in the western and eastern regions of Hayward exhibit less than 20 percent of children residing in single-parent, female-headed households. The highest share of children in single-parent, female-headed households was recorded in the Southgate neighborhood (census tract 4373.00), located in the central region of the city. According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, 40 percent of children in this area were living in single-parent, female-headed households. As referenced in Section 5.1, Race and Ethnicity, census tract 4373.00 has a sizable Hispanic/Latino population.

Figure F-13 highlights the percent of children residing within married-couple households within Hayward. A larger share of children residing in married-couple households are present within neighborhoods located toward the western segment of Hayward, compared to neighborhoods located within and surrounding downtown Hayward. Additional analysis regarding household characteristics for Hayward is included in Appendix B, Housing Needs Assessment.

Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
39 Figure F-10 Female Headed Households With Children, No Spouse/Partner (Alameda County) Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
40 Figure F-11 Children in Married-Couple Households (Alameda County) Source: AFFH Viewer 2021.

Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
41 Figure F-12 Female Headed Households With Children, No Spouse/Partner Present (Hayward) Source: AFFH Viewer 2021.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
42 Figure F-13 Children in Married-Couple Households (Hayward) Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.

Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
43 5.4 Household Income
Identifying low or moderate income (LMI) geographies and individuals is important to overcome patterns of segregation. HUD defines a LMI area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80 percent of the area median income or AMI). Household income is directly connected to the ability to afford housing.

Higher-incomes households are more likely to own rather than rent housing. As household income decreases, households tend to pay a disproportionate amount of their income for housing, and they are more likely to occupy unsound and overcrowded housing.

Regional Trends
Household median income is lower in communities located in the northwest region of Alameda County. According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, Alameda County had a median household income of $99,406. Figure F-14 provides median household income data by block group for Alameda County.

Areas highlighted in blue reflect regions of Alameda County where the median income is below the state median income of $87,100. Furthermore, block groups exhibiting the lowest median incomes are highly concentrated within the City of Oakland and scattered throughout segments of Berkeley, San Leandro, Hayward, and the unincorporated community of San Lorenzo. Figure F-15 highlights census tracts within the cities of Hayward, San Leandro, Oakland, and Berkeley that contain highest LMI populations in Alameda County. Spatially, LMI populations are located in communities that have a relatively greater percentage of children living in single-parent, female-headed households.

Local Trends
As discussed in Appendix B, Housing Needs Assessment, Hayward had an estimated median household income of $86,744 in 2019. As shown on Figure F-16, median household income varies across Hayward. Geographically, census block groups with the lowest median income levels were concentrated in the city center, compared to block groups in the eastern and western areas of the city which had the highest median income levels in Hayward. Neighborhoods with the lowest median income located throughout the city center had a sizeable Hispanic/Latino population. In comparison, areas with higher median income levels had sizable Asian-American and non-Hispanic white populations.

Figure F-17 shows large concentrations of LMI populations located in census tracts throughout the north central region of Hayward along Mission Boulevard. Generally, between 50-75 percent of the population residing in these areas are considered LMI. Approximately 80 percent of residents living in census tract 4377.02, located in the Hader-Tennyson neighborhood, are LMI. Furthermore, as referenced in Section 5.1, Race and Ethnicity, this census tract has a predominant Hispanic/Latino population. Neighborhoods that had the lowest share of LMI residents overlapped with areas the with sizable Asian-American and non-Hispanic white populations.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
44 Figure F-14 Median Household Income (Alameda County) Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.

Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
45 Figure F-15 Low and Moderate Income Population (Alameda County) Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
46 Figure F-16 Median Household Income (Hayward)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.

Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
47 Figure F-17 Low to Moderate Income Population (Hayward) Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
48 This page intentionally left blank.

Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
49 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated
Areas of Poverty
To assist communities in identifying racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAP), HUD developed a definition that relies on a racial and ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty test. For an area to be identified as having a racial and ethnic concentration, it must have a nonwhite population of 50 percent or more, within metropolitan or micropolitan areas. In locations outside these areas, where the non-white populations are likely to be much smaller than 50 percent, the threshold is set at 20 percent. The poverty test defines areas of “extreme poverty” as those where 40 percent or more of the population lives at or below the federal poverty line, or areas where the poverty rate is three times the average poverty rate in the metropolitan area, whichever is less. An area that meets either the racial or ethnic concentration and also meets the poverty test would be considered a R/ECAP.

6.1 Poverty and Segregation
Regional Trends
As shown in Figure F-18 R/ECAP area in Alameda County primarily occur in Oakland. R/ECAPs throughout the southern and central areas of Oakland had a higher degree of neighborhood segregation compared to R/ECAPs in northern Oakland. According to 2019 UDP estimates, R/ECAP areas in southern Oakland had a Black-Latino neighborhood concentration, compared to R/ECAPs in the central area which had a Black-Asian-Latino neighborhood concentration, and the northern area of the city, which had a four-group neighborhood concentration of Black-Asian-Latino-white populations.

No other R/ECAP areas are identified throughout Alameda County.

Local Trends
While there are no R/ECAPs as
defined by HUD in Hayward,
there are segments of the city
with higher levels of poverty.

Figure F-19 shows the
percentage of the population
with an earned income below
the poverty level. According to
2015-2019 ACS estimates,
several neighborhoods located
in the central region of Hayward
had a greater share of residents
earning an income below the
poverty level compared to the
rest of the city. Approximately
20 percent of the population residing in the Mission-Foothill neighborhood (census tract 4365.00), earned an income that was below the poverty level. Since 2014, poverty rates have generally decreased within the central region of the city. According to 2010-2014 ACS estimates, “I would...I don't want to say that this section that I know of is living in higher poverty but I think that this section around Mount Eden, the houses there could use some work on mainly because it looks really old and worn down, like the houses there. It doesn't have to do with the people living in poverty there, it's just my view on the outside of the house and how it looks. There are other places in Hayward where it's like...the Hayward Hills, it's all nice, it's all beautiful, it's all clean. But then the areas around Mount Eden, it seems old to me. So, I would say that they're living in more poverty than the people in the Hayward Hills.” (Lilibeth, Harder Rd & Whitman St, 25 d d )
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
50 approximately 31 percent of the population residing in census tracts 4375.00 and 4377.02, located in the Harder-Tennyson neighborhood, had the highest rates of poverty in Hayward. However, 2015-2019 estimates show that poverty levels in those census tracts had decreased by nearly half.

This decrease in poverty levels is primarily due to displacement trends that indicate a 30 percent loss of low-income households and a 72 percent increase in high-income households in Hayward over the last decade.9 Generally, neighborhoods with higher rates of poverty also had a sizeable Hispanic/Latino population, as referenced in Section 5.1, Race and Ethnicity. 9 City of Hayward, 2021 City of Hayward Displacement Study. “If you look at like for like, how's the East Bay is or like towards the Hayward hills you kind of notice like a lot of the houses at that higher elevation. They're a lot more nicer, you know? Yeah, they they overlook they overlook a word in general. And it's kind of like if you look at like, who lives there, man, like, you'll see it's mostly like, like, like white people, you know? That are able to afford that type of housing. And if you look at like, South Hayward has a lot of minorities living there. And if you look at like the cleanliness of South Hayward compared to the hills, South Hayward from my experience is pretty, pretty dirty.” (Kristi, Harder Rd & Westview Way, 25 and under).

Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
51 Figure F-18 Areas of High Segregation and Poverty (Alameda County) Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
52 Figure F-19 Poverty Status (Hayward)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.

Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
53 Analysis identifying neighborhood segregation is provided in Figure F-20. According to UDP data, two areas (census tract 4377.02 and 4382.01) located in the Harder-Tennyson and Tennyson-Alquire neighborhoods had the highest levels of segregation in the city. UDP estimates show that census tract 4377.02 had a neighborhood concentration of mostly Hispanic/Latino, whereas census tract 4382.01 had an Asian-Latino neighborhood concentration. In comparison, most of the city had a group mix of three or four ethnic/racial groups reflecting higher levels of integration.

Neighborhoods with higher rates of segregation also had higher rates of LMI populations, as 79 percent of the residents in census tract 4377.02 and 49 percent of residents in census tract 4382.01 were considered LMI populations.

6.2 Concentrated Areas of Affluence
While racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed to ensure housing is integrated and promote equitable access to opportunity, a key to fair housing choice. HCD defines an RCAA as a census tract in which 80 percent or more of the population is white and has a median income of at least $125,000.10
Regional Trends
Figure F-21 highlights the predominantly white census tracts in Alameda County, which are concentrated in the northern and eastern areas of Berkeley, the eastern portion of Oakland, and non-urbanized areas. Areas within Alameda County with median income levels above $125,000 were concentrated in the northeast, eastern, and southwestern areas of Alameda County. While there are no RCAAs as defined by HCD in Alameda County, a large concentration of high-income areas within the non-urbanized northeast and eastern regions of Alameda County, also had a predominately non-Hispanic white population. Jurisdictions in this region, including the cities of Alameda ($127,877), Berkeley ($142,910), Pleasanton ($177,247) and Livermore ($145,565) had the highest median incomes in the County, according to 2015-2019 ACS estimate Local Trends
Similar to Alameda County, there are no
RCAAs within Hayward, but areas with
higher median incomes within the city also
have higher proportions of white residents
compared to areas with lower median
incomes. In Hayward, census tracts that
were identified as having a sizeable or
predominant white population were located
in the eastern area of the city (census tracts
4351.02, 4364.01, and 4364.02). According
to ACS 2015-2019 data, most areas in the
city with a sizeable or predominant nonHispanic white population also had higher median incomes. 10 HCD. April 2021. AFFH Guidance for all Public Entities and for Housing Elements. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf “I would say the only the only ‘segregation’ I
see in Hayward would have to be in the
Hayward Hills. It is a huge difference going up
there compared to going down, a lot of
things like there parks, schools, and houses
seem 10 times nicer then the ones coming
down the hill.” (Jacqueline, Harder Rd & Jane
Ave, 26-35).

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
54 Figure F-20 Neighborhood Segregation
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
55 Figure F-21 Predominant White Population (Alameda County) Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
56 This page intentionally left blank.

Disparities in Access to Opportunities
57 Disparities in Access to Opportunities
This section examines place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes to evaluate disparities in access to opportunity. Access to opportunity includes access to education, employment, economic development, safe and decent housing, low rates of violent crime, transportation, recreation, food, and a healthy environment (air, water, safe neighborhood, safety from environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions). Additional analysis regarding access to economic opportunity, transportation, and environmental healthy neighborhoods is provided in Hayward’s Environmental Justice Element. The primary objectives of this analysis and resulting policies and programs are twofold: to support mobility and access to high-resource neighborhoods and to improve the quality of life for the residents of low-resource communities.11

7.1 Transit Access and Walkability
Reliable public transit access and active transportation options (walking and biking) are imperative for low-income residents and/or persons with disabilities to connect to employment opportunities.

Access to employment via public transit and active transportation can reduce income burden and increase housing mobility, which enables residents to locate housing in more areas. 12 Lack of
transportation options can impede fair housing choice and continue to reinforce barriers for lowincome residents in accessing opportunities.

Regional Trends
Alameda County generally has widespread access to public transit. Alameda County (AC) Transit, Amtrak, and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) all serve Alameda County. AC Transit provides a variety of local bus services as well as the East Bay Bus Rapid Transit (EBBRT) along an approximately 18- mile arterial corridor through the cities of Berkeley, Oakland, and San Leandro. Amtrack rail service has stations in Fremont, Hayward, Oakland, and Berkeley on the Capital Corridor line that extends north and south along I-880. Paratransit services are provided by East Bay Paratransit, a public transit service for residents who are unable to use bus or train due to disability or disabling health conditions. East Bay Paratransit is the primary paratransit service for Alameda County residents.

Transit use is higher in parts of the region where the greatest investment in transit service has been made. Almost all major employment centers in Alameda County are served by some form of public transit. However, having regional access to jobs by means of public transit does not necessarily translate into stable employment. Some residents with unique needs, such as households with children, have unique travel patterns that may prevent them from working far from home due to childcare needs, access to schools, and other considerations.

Alameda County received an average AllTransit performance score of 7.1 which equates to a very high combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible by transit. 13 11 California Fair Housing Task Force. 2020. Methodology for the 2020 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map. June 2020. https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity/2020-tcaF-hcd-methodology.pdf 12 Ong, Paul and Evelyn Blumenberg, 1998. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6d897664#author 13 AllTransit.org. 2021. County: Alameda, AllTransit Metrics. https://alltransit.cnt.org/metrics/?addr=alameda+county Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
58 Local Trends
Hayward is widely accessible by local transit. According to AllTransit, 96.7 percent of workers in Hayward live within one-half mile of transit. The city has an AllTransit Performance Score of 7.4, which is slightly higher than Alameda County.14
Figure F-22 illustrates transit access within a quarter mile of transit stops for both bus routes and BART. Most of the city is within a quarter-mile access of a transit stop except for a few areas within the Santa Clara, Harder-Tennyson and Tennyson-Alquire neighborhoods. Bus service in Hayward is provided by the AC Transit Local, Transbay, and the All Nighter lines.15 There are two BART stations within Hayward which provide public transit lines connecting residents to other jurisdictions. The Cal State University East Bay shuttle also provides transportation services to residents of Hayward.

In an effort to increase access to public transit, the Hayward Operated Paratransit (HOP) program and East Bay Paratransit offer transportation services to seniors and persons with disabilities. HOP is Hayward’s paratransit program that offers paratransit service to seniors (70+) and persons with disabilities who live in Hayward, the unincorporated areas of San Leandro, Castro Valley, San Lorenzo, Ashland, and Cherryland. HOP is designed to complement and supplement the East Bay Paratransit service when it is unable to provide service or meet the needs of HOP participants. As a City program, HOP extends flexible and unique solutions to meet the specific needs of its riders including offering free AC Transit Easy Passes and subsidized fare programs for riders who demonstrate financial need.

The City has partnered with local senior housing facilities, senior centers, and community-based organizations to implement the Safe Routes for Seniors program (SR4S). Funded by the Alameda County Measure BB ½ Cent Sales Tax, the SR4S initiative will target accessibility and walkability improvements in Downtown Hayward. The targeted intersection identified for improvement include:
 B Street and Montgomery Avenue
 Hazel Avenue/City Center Drive and Foothill Boulevard  D Street and Watkins Avenue
 A Street and Montgomery Avenue
14 All Transit.org. 2021. City: Hayward AllTransit Metrics. https://alltransit.cnt.org/metrics/?addr=hayward 15 City of Hayward Transit & Transportation, 2021. https://www.hayward-ca.gov/residents/streets-transportation Disparities in Access to Opportunities
59 Figure F-22 Access to Transit within a Quarter Mile (Hayward) Source: Alameda County 2022.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
60 7.2 Access to Education
Educational attainment is directly linked to housing opportunities. TCAC education domain scores measure educational outcomes using math and reading proficiency (the percentage of 4th graders who met or exceed math proficiency standards), high school graduation rates (the percentage of high school cohorts that graduate on time) and student poverty indicators (the percent of students not receiving free or reduced-priced lunch). The TCAC education domain scores are derived from 2018-2019 Department of Education data. This analysis incorporates demographic and socioeconomic measures to spatially evaluate access to educational opportunities at the census tract level.

Regional Trends
An overview of education outcomes across Alameda County is illustrated in Figure F-23. Educational outcomes vary across the County, as jurisdictions in the western portion, including Oakland, San Leandro, and Hayward, generally had less positive education outcomes compared with the cities in the eastern portion such as Dublin, Pleasanton, and parts of western Livermore. According to kidsdata.org, a data compilation program of the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children’s Health, Alameda County had a total public-school enrollment estimate of 227,331 students in 2020.16 Hispanic/Latino (34 percent) and Asian American (26 percent) comprised the two largest racial/ethnic groups of the total public school enrollment in Alameda County in 2020, whereas nonHispanic white students (17 percent) and African American (9 percent) comprised a significantly smaller share. Furthermore, high school graduation rates are highest among non-Hispanic whites (91 percent) and Asian American students (95 percent), while African American (80 percent) and Hispanic/Latino (81 percent) had slightly lower graduation rates.

Local Trends
Hayward is served by the Hayward Unified School District (Hayward USD), the New Haven Unified School District (New Haven USD), and San Lorenzo Unified School District (San Lorenzo USD).

Hayward USD is the largest school district in Hayward and operates 20 elementary schools, five middle schools, and four high schools within Hayward. New Haven USD schools mainly operate in Union City, but one middle school and one high school serves students living in Hayward.17 San Lorenzo USD operates one elementary and one high school in Hayward. Figure F-24 provides Hayward’s TCAC scores for education outcomes at the census tract level. Communities located in the northern and central areas of the city including the Cherryland, Mission-foothill, Jackson Triangle, Harder Tennyson, and Tennyson Alquire neighborhoods had less positive education outcomes compared to Mt. Eden, Glen Eden, Southgate, and surrounding neighborhoods located west of the I-880.
16 Kidsdata.org 2021. https://www.kidsdata.org/region/127/alameda-county/results#cat=18 17 New Haven Unified School District, 2021 https://www.mynhusd.org Disparities in Access to Opportunities
61 Figure F-23 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education (Alameda) Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
62 Figure F-24 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education (Hayward) Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.

Disparities in Access to Opportunities
63 In 2010, Hayward became one of the first five cities in the nation to receive the five-year, $25 million Promise Neighborhood grant from the US Department of Education. The Hayward Promise Neighborhood (HPN) is a partnership of local educators, government agencies, businesses, and nonprofits collaborating to support residents within certain neighborhoods within Hayward.

The first HPN covered the Jackson Triangle communities of Hayward and students that attend partner schools within the Hayward Unified School District, to provide comprehensive, high-quality educational and social support to ensure the long-term health, safety and economic well-being of the entire community by strengthening early learning systems, community leadership initiatives, and increasing access to postsecondary education through programs like the Early Learning Network, the Cradle to Career Education Reform Network and Neighborhood Health and Empowerment Network. In 2017, Hayward received a second HPN grant to establish the South Hayward Promise Neighborhood which covers three census tracts in the Harder-Tennyson neighborhood and/or attend HPN partner schools in the area. HPN network partners include 4Cs of Alameda County, Cal State East Bay, Chabot College, Eden Area Regional Occupational Program, City of Hayward and Hayward Unified School District among other community-based organizations and non-profits. Figure F-25 shows the Jackson Triangle and South Hayward HPNs along with local network partners. Hayward USD had a total student enrollment estimate of 22,329 students in 2020. According to kidsdata.org, Hispanic/Latino students (65 percent) comprised the largest racial/ethnic group at Hayward USD in 2020. In comparison, Asian-American (8 percent), African American (8 percent) and non-Hispanic white (5 percent) comprised a smaller share of the total student enrollment at Hayward USD. Approximately 4 percent of the student body was multiracial.18 Approximately 84 percent of high school students in Hayward USD graduated in 2020, which is lower than Alameda County (87 percent).
18 Kidsdata.org 2021. https://www.kidsdata.org/region/136/hayward/results#ind=&say=&cat=18 Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
64 Figure F-25 Hayward Promise Neighborhoods and Network partners Source: Hayward Promise Neighborhoods Programs Guide.

Disparities in Access to Opportunities
65 7.3 Economic Outcomes
Housing opportunities are directly related to economic outcomes. Access to high-quality employment close to desired and affordable housing results in more housing opportunities and shorter commute times. The analysis for economic opportunities uses TCAC economic indicators, employment participation data from the ACS, Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Equity Priority Communities (EPC), and the HUD Jobs Proximity Index.

TCAC economic opportunities are measured by census tract and consider poverty (the percent of the population with an income above 200 percent of the federal poverty line), adult education (the percent of adults with a bachelor’s degree or above), employment (the percent of adults between age 20-64 who are employed in the civilian labor force or armed forces), job proximity (the number of jobs filled with less than a bachelor’s degree that fall within a determined radius), and median home values (the value of owner-occupied units). A higher economic index score reflects more positive economic outcomes. The MTC EPC identifies concentrations of underserved populations in order to direct funding for housing and transportation equity. 19 The HUD Jobs Proximity Index measures the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level.

Regional Trends
Figure F-26 shows a variety of economic outcomes across Alameda County. Areas with more positive economic outcome scores were identified in the northern, central, and southern portions of the county near Berkeley, Dublin, Pleasanton, Fremont, and smaller areas around the cities of Alameda and Livermore. Conversely, the cities of Oakland, San Leandro, and Hayward had large concentrations of census tracts reflecting less positive economic outcomes.

According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, Alameda County had a labor force participation rate of 64 percent of person 16 years and over, which is approximately 2 percent lower than the county’s 2014 labor force participation rate. Estimates from the California Employment Development Department show that the average salary in Alameda County in 2021 was $76,328. An overview of mean salary by occupation is provided in Table F-11.
19 MTC 2021. https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/equity-priority-communities Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
66 Figure F-26 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (Alameda County) Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.

Disparities in Access to Opportunities
67 Table F-11 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
Source: California Employment Development Department, Occupational Wage data, 2021 Local Trends
According to the 2015-2019 ACS, there were approximately 86,679 residents in the labor force in Hayward, representing a labor force participation rate of 67 percent of persons 16 years and over.

As referenced in Appendix B, Housing Needs Assessment, approximately one-third of working residents of Hayward are employed in either education, health and social services, or professional services industries. An overview of major employers in Hayward is provided in Table F-12.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
68 Table F-12 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
As shown in Figure F-27, many areas of Hayward were recognized as EPCs. According to MTC, EPCs are areas that have historically faced economic disadvantage and underinvestment.20 To identify EPCs, census tracts were evaluated to determine if they contain concentrations of the following demographic factors21:
 People of color
 Low-income households (less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level)  Limited English proficiency
 Zero-vehicle households
 Seniors aged 75 and over
 Single-parent families
 Severely rent-burdened households
In Hayward, households in EPC designated areas overlapped with communities that were predominately Hispanic/Latino.

HUD’S Job Proximity index utilizes Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamic estimates to examine the distance from a given neighborhood to all job locations within the San Francisco Bay Area and measures the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level. Because the size of employment centers and the supply of labor differ across the region, the distance from any single 20 MTC 2021. https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/equity-priority-communities 21 Bay Area Metro 2021. https://bayareametro.github.io/Spatial-Analysis-Mapping-Projects/Project-Documentation/Equity-PriorityCommunities/#methodology Disparities in Access to Opportunities
69 job location is positively weighted by the size of employment (job opportunities) at that location and inversely weighted by the labor supply (competition) to that location.22 According to TCAC estimates shown in Figure F-28, neighborhoods located in the central and southern region of Hayward, including Jackson Triangle, Harder-Tennyson, and Fairway Park had the lowest economic outcome scores in the city. Comparatively, areas in the west and northern region of Hayward had slightly higher economic outcome scores and neighborhoods in the eastern region of Hayward (Hayward Highland) had the highest economic outcome scores. 22HUD. AFFH-T Data Documentation Data Version AFFHT0006 (2020).

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
70 Figure F-27 Equity Priority Communities (Hayward)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.

Disparities in Access to Opportunities
71 Figure F-28 CAC Opportunity Areas – Education (Hayward) Source: AFFH Viewer 2021
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
72 Employment status by disability status estimates is provided in Table F-13. About 3 percent of the total employed, and 7 percent of total unemployed population had a disability, according to 2010- 2014 ACS estimates. ACS estimates for 2015-2019 show a 17 percent of total employed since 2010- 2014 ACS estimates. Despite this increase, the percent of employed residents with a disability remained at 3 percent, while unemployed residents with a disability increased by 1 percent overall.

Comparatively, the percent of employed and unemployed residents with a disability is about the same when compared to the county.

Table F-13 Employment Status by Disability Status (Hayward) Disability Status
Employed
2010-2014 (Percent of
Total Employed)
Unemployed
2010 -2014 (Percent
of Total Unemployed)
Employed
2015-2019 (Percent of
Total Employed)
Unemployed
2015-2019 (Percent of
Total Unemployed)
No Disability 65,320
(97%)
9,157
(93%)
77,153
(97%)
3,286
(92%)
With a Disability 2,333
(3%)
673
(7%)
2,262
(3%)
287
(8%)
Total 67,653
(100%)
9,830
(100%)
79,415
(100%)
3,573
(100%)
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2010- 2014, 2015-2019 Estimates.

As shown on Figure F-29, access to employment opportunities differs across Hayward.

Neighborhoods with the highest job proximity are generally located in the western region of Hayward. In contrast, neighborhoods located in the north and northeast area of the city, such as the Burbank, North Hayward, Upper B Street, Jackson Triangle, Harder-Tennyson, Whitman-Mocine, Mission-Foothill and Hayward Highland neighborhoods, had the lowest job proximity index score according to HUD estimates. Most neighborhoods in the central region of Hayward with the lowest job proximity were identified as having a sizable Hispanic/Latino population.

Disparities in Access to Opportunities
73 Figure F-29 Job Proximity Index (Hayward)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
74 7.4 Healthy Environment
This analysis addresses disparities in environment health indicators by neighborhood and by population. These indicators are air quality, water quality, safe neighborhood, environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions. California Senate Bill 535 (2012), Assembly Bill 1550 (2016) and Senate Bill 1000 (2016) recognizes the importance of environmental justice as a fair housing issue.
23 Likewise, federal HUD regulations define environmental justice as ensuring that the environment and human health are protected fairly for all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income. Federal regulations require consideration of how federally assisted projects may have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.24
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed CalEnviroScreen, a methodology to identify communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution.

Residents in Census tracts with high CalEnviroScreen scores (shown as percentages) are more burdened by pollution and are more vulnerable to related effects.

Regional Trends
The CalEnviroScreen map for Alameda County identifies the degree to which communities are considered burdened by pollution. Figure F-30 below shows that, generally, the more urbanized, western portion of the county has less positive environmental outcomes, most notably near the Oakland International Airport northwest of San Leandro and south of Oakland.

TCAC’s environmental scores for Alameda County correspond to the CalEnviroScreen analysis and highlight less positive environmental outcomes among communities located in the western area of the County, while communities throughout the northern and central areas of the county generally had positive environmental outcome scores.
23 State of California Department of Justice, 2022. https://oag.ca.gov/environment/sb1000 24 HUD, 2021. https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental-review/environmental-justice/ “We live close to the freeway. And the freeway now that people are back to work, it's a lot of pollution are up and down. Yeah, we're near the freeway and I guess. We have double pane windows. But the windows need to be changed now after all these years. So it's just to be, I think when it's backed up traffic and cars are doing we're getting pollution from the cars. So I don't know how to change it other than changing the windows. " (John, Industrial Pkwy & Ruus Rd, 56 and older)
Disparities in Access to Opportunities
75 Figure F-30 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Alameda County) Source: AFFH Viewer 2021.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
76 Local Trends
Figure F-31 shows a variety of pollution levels across the city. Neighborhoods in the eastern and central areas of the city had more positive environmental outcomes (lower CalEnviroScreen scores) compared to neighborhoods in the western area of Hayward. Census tracts with lower environmental outcomes (high CalEnviroScreen scores) were also areas with either a predominant Hispanic/Latino or Asian population. Further analysis regarding environmental outcomes will be provided and discussed in Hayward’s Environmental Justice Element.

TCAC environmental outcome scores also vary across Hayward. As shown in Figure F-32, areas that had lower environmental outcomes (low TCAC scores) were concentrated in the northern and western areas of the city. Conversely, census tracts concentrated in the central and eastern areas of the city had more positive environmental outcome scores, which is consistent with the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 findings. Furthermore, areas with less positive environmental scores in the northern, southern, and western parts of the city were neighborhoods with predominately Hispanic/Latino or Asian residents.

Access to parks, schools and open space can also impact health and the quality of life for residents of a community. As referenced in Hayward’s draft Environmental Justice Element, there is a disparity in the distribution of parks throughout the city, as parks and/or preserved areas tend to be clustered in the far eastern and western segments of Hayward. In contrast, census tracts located throughout the city-center, which were identified as predominately Hispanic/Latino and/or Asian neighborhoods, have significantly less access to parks and open space.

Another key determinant of positive health outcomes and adequate quality of life is access to healthy food. Historically, low-income communities and communities of color face greater barriers in accessing local affordable and nutritious food. According to the USDA, “food deserts” are areas where residents have limited access to a variety of healthy and affordable food. The USDA defines the food desert classification as any low-income census tract with a substantial number or share of residents with low levels of access to retail outlets selling health and affordable foods. For the purposes of the Food Access Research Atlas, low-income and low-access census tracts are defined below:
 Low-income: A census tract with a poverty rate of 20 percent or greater, or median family income at or below 80 percent of the statewide or metropolitan area median family income.  Low Access: A census tract with at least 500 people or 33 percent of the tract’s population living more than 1 mile (urban areas) or more than 10 miles (rural areas) from the nearest supermarket or grocery store.

While there are no identified food deserts within the City of Hayward, there are neighborhoods located in the city-center and along the southern boundary of the city that were classified as Lowincome and Low-access at an impaired access distance of more than 0.5 mile from the nearest supermarket or grocery store.

Disparities in Access to Opportunities
77 Figure F-31 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Hayward) Source: AFFH Viewer 2021.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
78 Figure F-32 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environmental (Hayward) Source: AFFH Viewer 2021.

Disproportionate Housing Needs
79 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Disproportionate housing needs refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing some type of housing need. To analyze the extent of disproportionate housing needs in Hayward, this section reviews data on types of housing needs: housing cost burden and severe housing cost burden overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions.

8.1 Housing Problems
Many federal and state programs use the age of housing as a factor to determine a community’s housing rehabilitation needs. Housing age can be an important indicator of housing condition in a community. Like any other tangible asset, housing is subject to gradual physical or technological deterioration over time. If not properly and regularly maintained, housing can deteriorate and discourage reinvestment, depress neighboring property values, and eventually impact the quality of life in a neighborhood. Typically, housing over 30 years old is more likely to have rehabilitation needs that may include new plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work, and other repairs. Some older housing units may have health risks such as lead paint and asbestos. According to HUD, has a housing problem if they have one or more of the following problems: lack of complete kitchen facilities, lack of complete plumbing facilities, overcrowding, and cost burden. 25 Housing issues such
as mold may elevate health conditions such as asthma. Residents who rent are at greater risk of exposure to deteriorating housing conditions due to the desire to keep their rents from rising or fear of losing their housing.26
Regional Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, Alameda County has approximately 7,450 substandard housing units which comprise approximately 3 percent of the total occupied units in the county. A housing unit is considered substandard if it lacks complete plumbing or kitchen facilities. Of the 7,450 substandard units, approximately 34 percent lack complete plumbing facilities and 66 percent lack complete kitchen facilities.

As referenced in Appendix B, Housing Needs Assessment, 68 percent of Alameda County’s housing stock is over 40 years old. These units are potentially in need of repair and modernization improvements. The northwestern area of Alameda County, specifically San Lorenzo and Albany, has the highest share of housing constructed prior to 1950, according to the Alameda County Health Department. Cases of lead poisoning are an indicator of older housing in poor conditions. A study conducted from 2007-2011 found that the area of the county with the most cases of lead poisoning among children was the western part of Oakland.27
According to the AI, approximately 42 percent of total households in the county experienced housing problems, while another 22 percent of total households experienced severe housing problems. Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino households generally experience housing problems at higher rates compared to non-Hispanic white residents. As identified in the AI, 25 HUD 2021. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp/CHAS/bg_chas.html 26 Alameda County Health Department. 2018. https://www.acgov.org/cda/lead/documents/news/health,housinginoakland.pdf 27 Alameda County Health Department. 2018. https://www.acgov.org/cda/lead/documents/news/health,housinginoakland.pdf Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
80 Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino households experienced housing problems at a rate of 55 and 58 percent, respectively. In comparison, 42 percent of Asian-American and 34 percent of non-Hispanic white households experienced housing problems. Housing problems were also reported to be higher among larger households, as approximately 60 percent large households (five or more persons per household) experienced housing problems compared to 37 percent of households comprising of fewer than five persons. An overview of housing stock age is provided in Figure F-33.

Figure F-33 Housing Stock Age (2015 – 2019)
Source: American Community Survey 2015-2019.

According 2015-2019 ACS estimates, about 68 percent of the total housing stock in Alameda County was constructed before 1980, with most of these houses being built between 1950 and 1990. In comparison, approximately 10 percent of the housing stock was constructed after 2000. The older age of housing stock in Alameda County suggests that a significant share of housing units may require repairs or rehabilitation.

Local Trends
According to CHAS 2014-2018 estimates, approximately 48 percent of total households in Hayward experienced at least one housing problem (units having incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than one person per room, and households with a cost burden greater than 30 percent), which is lower when compared to the rate of housing problems in Alameda County. Additionally, renter-occupied households comprised 60 percent of the total number of households with problems, compared to 35 percent of owner-occupied households. Housing problems in Hayward disproportionately affect households of color, as Hispanic/Latino (63 percent), Native American (62 percent), African American (59 percent), and Asian/Pacific Islander (52 percent) experienced the highest rates of housing problems in the city, compared to 38 percent of nonHispanic white households. 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
Disproportionate Housing Needs
81 Between 2018 and 2022, the City’s Code Enforcement Division received 738 complaints for rental housing-related issues throughout the City (see Figure F-34) There are clusters of cases in areas where there is more rental housing such as central Hayward and along the norther City boundary.

About 350 of those cases were centered on large multi-family complexes consisting of five or more units. According to Phillip Nichols, Code Enforcement Manager, the majority of cases are the result of severe neglect and deferred maintenance. Complaints range from leaks, non-functional electrical outlets, presence of mold and mildew, vector problems, non-operable smoke and monoxide detectors, and illegal construction. The majority of cases are owner abated after the first couple of notices and inspections while a few cases require up to four or five notices, inspections, and fines. In 2020, the City adopted a Tenant Relocation Ordinance that requires that a landlord offer temporary relocation assistance if a tenant is temporarily displaced for significant repairs related to code compliance, major remodel or damage due to natural events.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
82 Figure F-34 Rental Housing Violations in Hayward (2018-2022) Disproportionate Housing Needs
83 As referenced in Appendix B, Housing Needs Assessment, 80 percent of all housing units in Hayward were constructed prior to 1990, with the highest share of homes being built between 1950 and 1980. About 4 percent of the city’s current housing stock was constructed after 2010, which suggests that most housing may require repairs and modernization improvements. Figure F-35 shows the age of the City’s housing stock throughout the city. Most of the city’s housing stock was built between 1951 and 1980. Older residential structures built before 1950 are predominately located within the Downtown Specific Plan area and along the Mission Boulevard corridor.

8.2 Housing Cost Burden
Housing cost burden is defined as the proportion of a household’s total gross income spent on housing costs. Households that spend at least 30 percent of their total gross income on housing costs (rent, mortgage, utilities, and other housing-related costs) are considered cost burdened, and households spending over 50 percent on housing costs are considered severely cost burdened. The higher the housing cost burden, the more likely residents are to live in overcrowded and substandard conditions and are less likely to afford to relocate.

Regional Trends
Figure F-36 shows areas of Alameda County where renter households are cost burdened. As shown, overpayment by renters is a widespread issue across most of Alameda County, especially in the western portion of the county closest the I-880 corridor and in the southeastern portion of the county near Pleasanton. According to 2013-2017 CHAS estimates, Alameda County had a total of 569,070 households in Alameda County. Of this total, approximately 22 percent of renter-occupied households experienced housing cost burden compared to 14 percent of owner-occupied households. Jurisdictions located in the western region of Alameda County including San Leandro, Oakland, Berkeley, had higher concentration of renters burdened by housing costs, compared to less populated areas in the eastern region of Alameda County. In the last decade, cost burden has affected vulnerable populations across Alameda County. According to Hayward’s Displacement Study, renter cost burden for seniors and families with children has increased by 51 percent and 47 percent, respectively, since 2010.28
28 City of Hayward, 2021. The City of Hayward Displacement Study “Tennyson and parts of A Street are the ones that are a bit more ugly and lacking resources with potholes and a lot of different issues. It feels like those areas are not taken care of and it is usually a lot more Latinos living in those areas." (Norma, Schafer Rd & Manon Ave, 46-55) Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
84 Figure F-35 Chronology of Reisdential Development in Hayward Disproportionate Housing Needs
85 Figure F-36 Housing Cost Burden By Renters (Alameda County) Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
86 Local Trends
According to 2018 CHAS estimates, approximately 40 percent of total households in Hayward were cost burdened while another 17 percent were severely cost burdened, as shown in Table F-14.

Additionally, renter-occupied households were disproportionately cost burdened, especially among extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households. Approximately 80 percent of extremely lowincome households (earning less than 30 percent of AMI) and 79 percent of very low-income households (earning between 31 and 50 percent of AMI) experienced at least one housing problem.

Table F-14 Assistance Needs of Lower-Income Households (2014-2018) Household by Tenure, Income, and
Housing Problem
Renters Owners Total Households
Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent
Extremely low-income(0-30% AMI) 4,270 2,025 6,295
With any housing problem 83.5% 71.9% 79.7%
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 any housing problem 91.3% 60.1% 79.0%
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 any housing problem 81.1% 58.0% 71.3%
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 any housing problem 33.7% 22.7% 27.5%
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 any housing problem 14,015 8,775 22,790
% With housing problem 60.9% 35.4% 47.7%
With cost burden >30% 50.0% 30.2% 39.8%
With cost burden >50% 23.1% 11.3% 16.9%
Note: Housing Problems: There are four housing problems in the CHAS data: 1) housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2) housing unit lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3) household is overcrowded; and 4) household is cost burdened. A household is said to have a housing problem if they have any 1 or more of these 4 problems.

Cost burden: Monthly housing costs (including utilities) exceeding 30% of monthly income.

Severe cost burden: Monthly housing costs (including utilities) exceeding 50% of monthly income.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2014-2018 release
An overview on housing cost burden by race is provided in Table F-15. According to 2013-2017 CHAS estimates, Black/ African American (28 percent), Hispanic/Latino (28 percent) and American Indian or Alaskan Native (25 percent) households were disproportionately burdened by housing costs (spent between 30 and 50 percent of income on housing costs), compared to Asian American/API Disproportionate Housing Needs
87 (21 percent) and non-Hispanic white (17 percent). Additionally, Black/ African American (25 percent) and Hispanic/Latino (20 percent) households also had the highest rates of severe housing cost burden (spent 50 percent or more of income on housing costs) compared to American Indian and Alaskan Native (10 percent), Asian American/API (12 percent) and non-Hispanic white (15 percent).

Table F-15 Housing Cost Burden by Race (2013-2017)
Housing Cost Burden
American
Indian or
Alaskan Native
Asian
American/A
PI
Black/
African
American
Hispanic/
Latino
Other Race
or Multiple
Race
NonHispanic
White
0%-30% of Income Used for
Housing
145 (75%) 8,055 (66%) 2,725 (46%) 8,080 (52%) 960 (60%) 7,860 (67%) 30%-50% of Income Used for
Housing
30 (25%) 2,570 (21%) 1,630 (28%) 4,275 (28%) 315 (20%) 2,015 (17%) 50%+ of Income Used for
Housing
19 (10%) 1,410 (12%) 1,480 (25%) 3,095 (20%) 315 (20%) 1,730 (15%) Cost Burden Not computed N/A 119 (<1%) 60 (<1%) 64 (<1%) 20 (<1%) 75 (<1%) Total 194 12,154 5,895 15,514 1,610 11,680
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Figure F-37 shows the percentage of renters that
paid over 30 percent of their income on housing
costs across census tracts in Hayward. Generally,
neighborhoods located near Downtown Hayward
and the city center had the highest rates of cost
burden by renters. Between 60 and 80 percent of
renters in three areas in Glen Eden, TennysonAlquire, and Fairway Park (census tracts 4384.00, 4382.04 and 4381.00) were cost burdened, reflecting the highest rate of cost burdened households in the city. Approximately 40 percent of senior households in Hayward experienced housing cost burden and 41 percent of large families (defined as families with 5 or more persons) throughout the city experienced housing cost burden, according to 2013-2017 CHAS estimates. Areas that had the highest rates of overpayment by renters (see Figure F-37) were identified as having a predominant Hispanic/Latino population (see Section 5.1, Race and Ethnicity).

8.3 Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as a condition in which a housing unit is occupied by more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen). Severe overcrowding refers to more than 1.5 persons per room. Overcrowding is reflective of various living situations: a housing unit is inadequately sized to meet a household’s needs; the necessity or desire to have extended family members reside in an existing household; or unrelated individuals or families share a single housing unit.

Large families generally have special housing needs due to lower per-capita household income, and the need for larger units with three or more bedrooms, which can be limited in supply and/or inaccessible due to high housing costs, resulting in families renting smaller units and living in overcrowded conditions. Large lower-income households may not be able to pay more for larger housing and instead accept smaller housing or reside with other individuals or families in the same “I have considered moving out-ofstate. It is hard to start a family here when rent is so expensive.” (Om,
Calaroga Ave & Tennyson Rd, 26-35)
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
88 home. Potential fair housing issues emerge if non-traditional households are discouraged or denied housing due to a perception of overcrowding.

According to local fair housing service providers and property managers, addressing the issue of overcrowding is complex as there are no set of guidelines for determining the maximum capacity for a unit. Fair housing issues may arise from policies aimed to limit overcrowding that have a disparate impact on specific racial or ethnic groups and families with higher proportion of overcrowding.

Regional Trends
According to the AI, most people facing housing problems are minority residents or residents who live in large households (defined as five or more persons per household). As discussed in Appendix B, Housing Needs Assessment, Alameda County had approximately 62,587 large households, about 11 percent of total households. Owner-occupied households comprised of a larger share of the total number of large households in the county. Overcrowding remains low overall in the county, but there is a disproportionate impact of overcrowding on minority households.

As shown in Figure F-38, overcrowded housing is most prominent in the western region of Alameda County, mainly in urban centers such as the cities of Oakland, San Leandro, Hayward, and portions of Fremont and Livermore.

Disproportionate Housing Needs
89 Figure F-37 Overpayment By Renters (Hayward)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
90 Figure F-38 Overcrowded Households (Alameda County)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.

Disproportionate Housing Needs
91 Local Trends
According to ACS 2015-2019 estimates, approximately 14 percent of households in Hayward were overcrowded, compared to 8 percent in Alameda County. As referenced in Appendix B, Housing Needs Assessment, Hayward had an average household size 3.27 in 2019, a slight increase from 2010, when the city had an average household size of 3.12. As shown in Figure F-39, a higher degree of household overcrowding was present throughout the city center and near Downtown Hayward.

Areas such the Harder-Tennyson, Glen Eden, and Mission Garlin neighborhoods (census tracts 4377.01, 43377.02, 4375.00, 4376.00 and 4379.00) had the highest rates of overcrowded households in the city. Areas with the highest rates of overcrowded households are predominately single-family residential in the west, compared to the eastern segment of this area which includes a range of multi-family residential types. A significant share of census tracts that had the highest percentage of overcrowded households also had slightly predominant Hispanic/Latino population.

Table F-16 summarizes rates of overcrowding in Hayward. Household overcrowding decreased by nearly 10 percent when comparing 2000 to 2010 overcrowding estimates. However, by 2019 household overcrowding had increased by 4 percent, to about 14 percent.

Table F-16 Household Overcrowding
Owner-Occupied
Households
Renter-Occupied
Households Total Households
Overcrowding Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Year (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%
Year (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%
Year (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, Table B25014.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
92 Figure F-39 Overcrowded Households (Hayward)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2021.

Disproportionate Housing Needs
93 According to the 2015-2019 ACS estimates shown in Figure F-40, overcrowding was a more common housing issue for residents of Hayward who identified as Hispanic/Latino, and other/multiple races than for people who identified as white, Black/African American, or American Indian/Alaska Native.

Overcrowding is also linked with household income. According to the 2013-2017 CHAS data for Hayward, very low-income households (those earning 31-50 percent AMI) reported the highest percentage of overcrowded conditions of all income groups (15 percent), followed by low-income households (51-80 percent AMI) at approximately 11 percent.

Figure F-40 Overcrowding by Race
Notes: The Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latino. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latino may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latino, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here.

The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units. *Hispanic and non-Hispanic
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25014

8.4 Homelessness
California Government Code Section 65583(1)(6) requires municipalities to address the special needs of persons experiencing homelessness within their boundaries. “Homelessness,” as defined by HUD, describes an individual, who is not imprisoned or otherwise detained, who:
 Lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; or  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);

16.6%

12.3%

6.0%

25.1%

27.4%

9.9%

3.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
More than 1.0 Occupants per Room
Percent of Households
American
Indian/
Alaskan
Native*
Asian/
API*
Black/
African
American*
Hispanic/
Latino
Other/ Multiple
Races*
White* non-Hispanic white
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
94  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.

Regional Trends
According to the Alameda County’s February 2022 point-in-time count, approximately 9,747 persons experiencing homelessness reside in the county, an increase from the previous count.

Point-in-time estimates are generally accepted as an undercount of the total unhoused population in Alameda County.29 Figure F-13 provides an overview of homeless populations in Alameda County.

Factors contributing to the rise in homelessness include a lack of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households, increases in the number of persons whose incomes fall below the poverty level, reductions in public subsidies, and lack of support for persons with extreme developmental, physical, and mental disabilities.

The County’s point-in-time count found that 63 percent of the homeless population had been experiencing homelessness for over one year, and that nearly one in five people included in the count became homeless after an eviction, foreclosure, or rent increase. Additionally, 42 percent of the homeless population had at least one disabling condition. Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, those of multiple races or another race, and those who identify as LGBTQ+ were disproportionately homeless compared to their relative general populations.30 An overview of homelessness in Hayward and surrounding cities is provided in Table F-17.

Table F-17 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. 29 https://everyonehome.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019-Hayward-Final-Report.pdf 30 Applied Survey Research. 2019. https://everyonehome.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ExecutiveSummary_Alameda2019-1.pdf “I definitely have noticed. I think an increase in homelessness in Hayward I mean, I feel like it's always been visible in kind of the downtown areas and like areas by transit hubs. I don't have any direct experience but it's something I notice." (Carlos, Mission Blvd & Fairway St, 26-35).

Disproportionate Housing Needs
95 Local Trends
In July 2021, the City adopted a Homelessness Reduction Strategic Plan titled “Let’s House Hayward,” which utilized a racial equity analysis, aligned with the EveryOne Home Strategic Updated and addressed the challenges of a mid-size City addressing a complex regional crisis.

Outreach included focus groups and stakeholder interviews with service providers, outreach workers and individuals with lives experiences of homelessness contained the following Vision Statement: “Our vision is for the City of Hayward to be a leader in ensuring an end to homelessness by empowering individuals through accessible, dignified treatment and services.” The resulting document contains a needs assessment and details the scope of homelessness in Hayward by age, familial status, disability, race and ethnicity, provides an outline of housing and homelessness resources available in Hayward, details other services available and needed, and concludes with goals and strategies to increase availability and access to resources.

The majority (88 percent) of people experiencing homelessness in Hayward are single adults, which includes 427 people in 352 households31; the remaining 12 percent are families, including 59 people in 18 households. Of the 487 individuals counted during the 2019 PIT Count, 41 percent (202 individuals) are chronically homeless, which is defined as people who have been homeless for at least a year (or repeatedly) while struggling with a disabling condition such as serious mental illness, substance use disorder, or physical disability. 5 percent (24) are veterans, and 6 percent (30 individuals) are unaccompanied youth or young adults. Further, 39 percent (190 individuals) were experiencing their first episode of homelessness; of those, 40 percent (76 individuals) were experiencing homelessness for one year or more. Moreover, 56 percent (273 individuals) of those identified in the 2019 PIT count reported having a disabling condition.

Race is a strong correlate of poverty in the community, while poverty is a predictor of homelessness.

Given that people experiencing poverty are at greater risk of homelessness due to increased housing cost burden, looking at racial inequities in poverty rates in Hayward is also an indicator of disparities in risk of homelessness. African Americans are the race most likely to experience poverty in Hayward (18 percent), followed by Hispanic or Latino populations (16 percent), and then White populations (14 percent). However, African Americans represent only 9.5 percent of the population in Hayward, while Hispanic individuals represent almost 41 percent, and White individuals make up 33 percent of Hayward’s population.African Americans thus have disproportionately high rates of poverty in Hayward, putting them at a disproportionately higher risk of homelessness. 31 All population data is derived from the EveryOne Counts! City of Hayward Homeless Count & Survey Comprehensive Report 2019 unless otherwise specified. The report is available at: https://everyonehome.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019-Hayward-Final-Report.pdf Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
96 The racial inequities present in Hayward are reflected across the County of Alameda: African Americans are 11 percent of the population of Alameda County, yet they represent 47 percent of the people experiencing homelessness. Further, the American Indian and Native Alaskan population makes up 4 percent of the homeless population in Alameda County, but just 1 percent of the general population. Alternatively, 31 percent of Alameda County’s homeless population identifies as white, yet they represent 43 percent of its general population.

Transition age youth (TAY) of color also disproportionately experience homelessness: almost 50 percent of unaccompanied TAY in Alameda County were African American. According to a report prepared by Supporting Partnerships for Anti-Racist Communities (SPARC), a national sample of African American youth had an 83 percent higher risk of homelessness compared to youth of other races. TAY are also more likely to have a history of foster care (40 percent); 18 percent of youth under age 25 reported that aging out of the foster care system was the primary cause of their current homelessness.

According to the Let’s House Hayward Plan, there are currently 166 permanent supportive housing units in Hayward (with 15 units set aside for disabled Transition Age Youth); flexible fund programs such as Project Independence which offers rental subsidies for 25-30 transition age youth which serves as a rapid rehousing program; two emergency shelters which provide shelter to approximately 115 persons; and two navigation centers that provide temporary shelter and care coordination services for 138 individuals. In addition to temporary shelters and long term supportive housing, other resources identified in the plan and prioritized for funding include behavioral health and substance abuse services, showers and laundry services, job training and employment services, safety precautions, educational and transportation services.

Specific actions outlined in the Plan and reflected in City policy include expanding shelter access, reducing barriers to homeless crisis response by allowing the construction of tiny homes on church owned and publicly owned properties and supportive hotel conversions.

Disproportionate Housing Needs
97 There were no encampments of significant size (more than a few individuals) in Hayward identified during the last Point in Time count. Encampments in Hayward have tended to be small, transitory in nature, and established in liminal areas such as along railroad tracks, creek areas, stormwater culverts, in abandoned buildings and along the shoreline. Services for individuals experiencing homelessness are provided in South Hayward, in the City’s Industrial areas and in Downtown Hayward. As referenced in Appendix B, Housing Needs Assessment, homeless shelters are an allowable use in all General Commercial (CG), Mission Boulevard (MB-CN/NN), and Industrial (I) zones provided the development meets the standards defined in the Zoning Ordinance. As part of Program H-7, the City will amend the municipal code to update parking regulations for Homeless and Emergency Centers and to allow Low Barrier Navigation centers by-right in areas zoned for mixed-use and nonresidential use permitting multifamily uses.

8.5 Displacement
Displacement, as defined by HCD, is used to describe any involuntary household move caused by landlord action or market changes. Shifts in neighborhood composition are often framed and perpetuated by established patterns of racial inequity and segregation. Movement of people, public policies, and investments, such as capital improvements and planned transit stops, and flows of private capital can lead to displacement. Displacement is fueled by a combination of rising housing costs, rising income inequality, stagnant wages, and insufficient market-rate housing production.

Decades of disinvestment in low-income communities, coupled with investor speculation, can result in a rent gap or a disparity between current rental income of the land, and potentially achievable rental income if the property is converted to its most profitable use. These processes can disproportionally impact people of color, as well as lower-income households, persons with disabilities, large households, and persons at-risk of or experiencing homelessness.32 To analyze displacement risk, the UDP has established categories that reflect varying levels of displacement vulnerability. Areas categorized as susceptible to displacement are predominately low-income or mixed-income neighborhoods that may have experienced displacement but exhibit characteristics of neighborhood stability and affordability and have the potential to develop an increasing risk of displacement in the future. Areas categorized as at-risk of or experiencing gentrification refer to neighborhoods that demonstrate characteristics of increasing housing costs, changes in housing supply, and are located near communities that have also experienced increasing housing costs and an increasing risk of displacement in the future. The stable moderate/mixed income category refers to neighborhoods that have moderate- to high-income residents that are not at-risk of becoming neighborhoods that exclude all but wealthy households. The stable/advanced exclusive category refers to neighborhoods that have exhibited characteristics of exclusion for long periods of time.

In April 2021, a Displacement Study was prepared to provide a framework for policymakers, policy stakeholders and residents to understand displacement that has occurred in Hayward as a result of 32 HCD 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf “It's difficult. They [homeless] have lives, goals, hobbies and dreams. They're all human beings.” (Corina, Mayfair Rd & Chelsea Way, 26-35).

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
98 unprecedented housing pressures occurring throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. The report highlights existing displacement trends and their disparate impacts on vulnerable communities and explores the benefit of affordable live/work units and their effect on existing hosing challenges. To identify displacement pressures in Hayward, the report examines five indicators including the change in property values and rents, investment trends occurring within Hayward and throughout the Bay Area, changes in housing tenure and demographics, critical population changes such as changes in the homeless population, and coping strategies which includes overcrowding of existing housing units and/or workers commuting longer distances to their jobs.33 Regional Trends
As shown in Figure F-41 below, residents in the cities in the western portion of Alameda County (Oakland, San Leandro, Hayward, Berkeley, and some parts of Fremont, Dublin, and Livermore) live in what are called “sensitive communities,” which means they are vulnerable to displacement. 34 Communities are designated sensitive if the share of very low income residents is greater than 20 percent and have any of the two following characteristics: the share of renters is above 40 percent, the share of people of color is above 50 percent, the share of very low-income households that are severely rent burdened is above the county median, the percent change in rent is above the county median for rent increases. In contrast to sensitive communities, residents living within the jurisdictions and unincorporated communities located in the northeast, eastern, and southwest areas of Alameda County were less vulnerable to displacement due to rising housing costs and market-based pressures within the community, according to the UDP (see Section 2, Fair Housing Methodology).

Local Trends
As shown on Figure F-42, most neighborhoods located in the northern and central area of Hayward are considered vulnerable to displacement. A large concentration of neighborhoods vulnerable to displacement were concentrated in the northern and central areas of Hayward (North Hayward, Burbank, Upper B Street, Jackson Triangle, and Mission Foothill neighborhoods). Sensitive communities in the southern area of the city were predominately single-family residential, compared to sensitive communities in the northern area of Hayward, which had a range of singleand multi-family residential, commercial, and office uses. Additionally, areas vulnerable to displacement had higher poverty rates, overcrowded households, and were more likely to have a predominant Hispanic/Latino or Asian American resident.

According to 2015-2019 ACS and UDP estimates shown on Figure F-43, renter-occupied households in Hayward were more likely to be experience displacement and gentrification compared to owneroccupied households. Additionally, owner-occupied households were more likely to be stable moderate/mixed income households and located in exclusionary neighborhoods (defined as neighborhoods that are experiencing increasing housing costs and therefore affordable only to high or mixed-high income households), compared to renter-occupied households. In the last decade, increasing property values, lack of affordable and market-rate housing, and changes in tenure, income and demographics across Hayward and the Bay Area have exacerbated displacement pressures for Hayward residents.35 According to Hayward’s displacement study, on-going displacement pressures have disproportionately affected vulnerable populations including 33 City of Hayward, 2021 City of Hayward Displacement Study 34 Urban Displacement Project, 2021. https://www.urbandisplacement.org/maps/sf-bay-area-gentrification-and-displacement/ 35 City of Hayward, 2021 City of Hayward Displacement Study Disproportionate Housing Needs
99 immigrant households, families with children, seniors, and students. Since 2010, cost burden has significantly increased by 172 percent for immigrant households, 153 percent for families with children, 71 percent for seniors and 74 percent for students. Increasing displacement pressures have also resulted in changes in housing tenure and demographics in Hayward, as the percent of total households earning less than $50,000 decreased by 29 percent, while the percent of households earning above $100,000 increased by 72 percent between 2010 and 2019. “So it's an issue, and I've seen more and more people on the streets with no place to go. And it's.

You know, it's, it's, it's sad to watch people be displaced and then on the other time it is, it does jeopardize a little bit of your feeling of safety. Yeah. I no longer am comfortable walking around in the in the dark. If it's nighttime, I won't. I won't really walk around. That's the first time in twenty eight years that I have not felt safe walking around downtown. Wow.” (Brandon, City Center Dr & Foothill Blvd, 36-45).

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
100
Figure F-41 Sensitive Communities (Alameda County)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2021.

Disproportionate Housing Needs
101
Figure F-42 Sensitive Communities (Hayward)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2021.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
102
Figure F-43 Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure (Hayward) Notes: Displacement data is available at the census tract level. Staff aggregated tracts up to jurisdiction level using census 2010 population weights, assigning a tract to jurisdiction in proportion to block level population weights. Total household count may differ slightly from counts in other tables sourced from jurisdiction level sources.

Source: Urban Displacement Project for classification, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 for tenure. 4,596
872
13,462
5,045
1,126
6,931
2,589
8,750
3,172
448
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Susceptible to or
Experiencing
Displacement
At risk of or
Experiencing
Gentrification
Stable
Moderate/Mixed
Income
At risk of or
Experiencing
Exclusion
Other
Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Contributing Factors
103
Contributing Factors
According to the AI, contributing factors are those that create, perpetuate, or increase the severity of one or more fair housing issues in Hayward. To inform the goals, policies, and actions in this Housing Element, the contributing factors are prioritized based on their impact on access to fair housing choice and access to opportunity in Hayward.

Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
Contributing factors to segregation and integration patterns in Hayward include:
 Displacement of residents due to economic pressures resulting from displacement and gentrification
 The location and type of affordable housing
 Historic discrimination against people of color
 Limited supply of affordable housing in areas most vulnerable to displacement Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
While no R/ECAPs meeting HCD criteria were identified in Hayward, the AI recognizes multiple contributing factors to segregation patterns in Hayward including:
 Displacement of residents due to economic pressures related to rising housing costs  Limited supply of affordable housing
 Location and type of affordable housing available
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Contributing factors to disproportionate housing needs are:
 The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes, particularly rental units to accommodate large families
 Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
 Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods  Historic practices of redlining, racial steerage, and exclusionary zoning  Lending discrimination
 High cost of developing affordable housing
 Limited supply of affordable housing within neighborhoods Disparities in Access to Opportunities
The following contributing factors to disparities in access to opportunities were identified:
 Access to financial services
 Lack of private investment in specific neighborhoods
 Location of employers
 Location of proficient schools
 Location and type of affordable housing
 Limited supply of affordable housing in areas with access to opportunity Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
104
This page intentionally left blank.

Other Relevant Factors
105
Other Relevant Factors

10.1 Historic Patterns of Segregation
Regional
Patterns of racial segregation are the byproduct of local and federal policies, private housing discrimination, and community prejudice. To understand present challenges to fair housing, it is necessary to review the history of actions that have led regional patterns of segregation.

The earliest forms of racial exclusion in the Bay Area were from Spanish, Mexican, and early U.S. settlers’ colonization of Native Americans’ land.36 The Ohlone were and are the predominant Indigenous group of the Bay Area, including the Chochenyo and the Karkin in East Bay, the Ramaytush in San Francisco, the Yokuts in South Bay and Central Valley, and the Muwekma tribe throughout the region. Other Indigenous groups include the Graton Rancheria community (Coast Miwok and Southern Pomo), Kashaya, Patwin, and Mishewal Wappo in the North Bay, and the Bay Miwok in the East Bay.
37 With the support of local, state and federal governments, indigenous communities were often forced from their land which was then sold or given away to colonial settlers.38 In the 1850s, 119 California tribes signed treaties with the U.S. Special Commissioners which required them to formally surrender their land in exchange for 19 designated reservations, which lacked game, suitable agricultural lands, and water. 39 From the start of colonization through
the 1880s, the Ohlone population in the Bay Area dropped by almost 90 percent due to violence, displacement, and widespread disease brought by colonizers.40 In more recent history starting in the 1880s, a series of laws targeted Asian populations through federal restrictions on immigration (Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882) and by barring Asian immigrants from owning land (California Alien Land Law of 1913 and 1920).41 In 1942, Japanese Americans in the Bay Area were forced to sell or abandon their homes and were sent to internment camps.42 Local ordinances at the time also led to exclusion of Asian Americans, through unfair and racist enforcement of building regulations.43
In the early 1920s, cities in the Bay Area began adopting zoning ordinances which led to the establishment of exclusive single-family home zones. By establishing specific areas of cities which did not allow more affordable housing types, cities began to be more segregated based on class and race/ethnicity. Exclusionary zoning created areas of concentrated poverty and concentrated wealth.

High-poverty areas typically have limited employment and educational opportunities, creating an environment difficult to achieve income and housing mobility. By preventing households from 36 Roots and Race, UC Berkeley Belonging Institute, Haas Institute, 2019 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/haasinstitute_rootsraceplace_oct2019_publish.pdf 37 Bay Area Equity Atlas, Indigenous Populations in the Bay Area, https://bayareaequityatlas.org/about/indigenous-populations-in-thebay-area 38 Roots and Race, UC Berkeley Belonging Institute, Haas Institute, 2019 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/haasinstitute_rootsraceplace_oct2019_publish.pdf 39 State of California Native American Heritage Commission, http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/california-indian-history/ 40 Roots and Race, UC Berkeley Belonging Institute, Haas Institute, 2019 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/haasinstitute_rootsraceplace_oct2019_publish.pdf 41 History of Racial Injustice, California Law Prohibits Asian Immigrants from Owning Land. https://calendar.eji.org/racial-injustice/may/3 42 Japanese-American Internment During World War II. U.S. National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/japaneserelocation 43 The Anti-Chinese Cubic Air Ordinance, Am J Public Health, Joshua S. Yang, PhD. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2661442/
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
106
moving into areas of higher-resource,
exclusionary zoning perpetuated the cycle of
poverty.44 Historic evidence shows that these
zoning regulations intentionally segregated
communities and were racially motivated.45
Starting in the 1930s, Bay Area communities
were impacted by redlining, which is the
practice of discriminating against loan borrowers based on the racial or socioeconomic status of the neighborhood in which a property is located. Redlining, a government-sponsored system of denying mortgage loans and services to finance the purchase of homes in specific areas, served as a tool to limit homeownership opportunities, as federally insured and long-term mortgages were routinely denied to persons seen as “undesirable,” often non-white persons. Redlining directed both public and private capital to white households and away from Black/African American, non-white, immigrant, and Jewish households. As homeownership is one of the most significant means of intergenerational wealth building in the United States, these redlining practices had long-term effects in creating wealth inequalities.46
Between 1935 and 1940, the Homeowners Loan Corporation (HOLC), a government-sponsored corporation, developed “Residential Security” maps of many major cities in the United States. The maps identified “Hazardous” neighborhoods that were considered a higher mortgage lending risk.

Neighborhoods with high percentages of people of color or immigrants were generally identified as “hazardous,” with the maps using racist language such as citing the “infiltration of Negroes and Orientals” as a detrimental influence to lending in that neighborhood. Other neighborhoods were assigned “Definitely Declining,” “Still Desirable,” and “Best”. A map was developed for the Oakland, Berkeley, and Alameda region. Generally, the neighborhoods rated “Hazardous” were located adjacent to the San Francisco Bay, where industrial uses were concentrated. The maps cite factors such as “odors from industries which are nearby” and “smoke and grime from railroad shop.” Over eighty years later, 74 percent of neighborhoods rated “Hazardous” are low to moderate income today and nearly 64 percent are minority neighborhoods now.47 Figure F-44 Shows the “Residential Security” map developed by the HOLC and Figure F-45 shows a more legible version of the same map. In the 1950s, cities were impacted by the development of freeways and highways that bisected cities and displaced typically low-income residents of color. The Interstate 880 Freeway (Nimitz Freeway) runs from Oakland to San Jose and bisects Hayward. There is residential neighborhoods on both sides of the freeway with a majority of residential development on the east side of the freeway.

Between 2000 and 2015, mainly due to quickly rising housing prices caused in part by the massive boom in the technological industry, Alameda County experienced significant and uneven shifts in racial, ethnic, and class-based neighborhood divisions. Low-income Black/African American, Asian American, and Hispanic/Latino populations grew significantly in southern Alameda County cities such as San Leandro, Hayward, and the unincorporated communities of Ashland and Cherryland.

Some of these shifts were involuntary moves that result from eviction, foreclosure, large rent 44 The Century Foundation. https://tcf.org/content/facts/understanding-exclusionary-zoning-impact-concentratedpoverty/?agreed=1&agreed=1 45 Roots and Race, UC Berkeley Belonging Institute, Haas Institute, 2019 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/haasinstitute_rootsraceplace_oct2019_publish.pdf 46 Mapping Inequality: Redlining in New Deal America. https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=16/37.725/- 122.162&city=oakland-ca&area=D19 47 HOLC “Redlining Maps,” The persistent Structure of Segregation and Economic Inequality, NCRC, Bruce Mitchell, PhD. Accessed: January 5, 2022, https://ncrc.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2018/02/NCRF-Research-HOLF-10.pdf “I believe there are certain areas in Hayward
that choose to keep their neighborhoods
specifically white.” (Shawam, Orchard Ave &
Joyce St, 46-55).

Other Relevant Factors
107
increases, uninhabitable housing conditions or other reasons that are beyond a household’s control, otherwise known as “displacement.”48 Increases in housing prices in Alameda County contributed to new concentrations of poverty and racial segregation in the county and perpetuated disparities in access to high-resource neighborhoods.49
Local
According to the Hayward Area Historical Society, Hayward had a total population count of 504 residents in 1870, and while most individuals were considered “white,” many residents spoke Portuguese, German, Danish and some Spanish, in addition to the Cantonese and other Chinese dialects.50 Hayward was primarily an agricultural town until the early 1920s, when the subdivision of the Meek Estate property and Valley farms and Orchard occurred, and the city began its transition to a suburban community.51 By 1950, Hayward’s population reached 14,272, over double the population size recorded in 1940. According to Bay Area Census estimates, about 90 percent of Hayward’s population in 1950 was “White” whereas Black/ African American, Indians, Japanese, and Chinese residents each comprised less than 1 percent of the population.52 Since 1950, Hayward’s population had become increasingly diverse with each decade, however, a significant change in demographics occurred between 1990 and 2010, as Hayward’s white population decreased from 51 percent to 19 percent of the total population, while the Hispanic/Latino population increased from 23 percent to 40, percent during this time.53 Similarly, Hayward’s Asian population, significantly grew and comprised 22 percent of the total population by 2010.

Like many cities during the early to mid-20th century, racial/ethnic minorities were actively excluded from owning property and/or living in predominately white neighborhoods, due to exclusionary housing policies and practices including redlining and racial steering. Furthermore, while redlining effectively reduced homeownership opportunities for persons of color, racial steering tactics, such as restrictive covenants prohibited the sale of property to people from non-white racial groups. In Hayward, these practices effectively “steered” racial/ethnic minorities into nearby neighborhoods such as Russell City and unincorporated community of Fairview.

Prior to 1950, Russel City became a predominately Mexican and African American neighborhood due to racial covenants and other exclusionary tactics used in surrounding cities that had prevented the same of homes to people who were not white.54 As exclusionary policies worked to segregate racial/ethnic minorities across the region and create neighborhoods like Russell City, federally funded urban renewal programs of the mid-20th century lead to the destruction of major centers of black culture and community and the displacement of thousands.55 Reinforced by the federally sponsored program of urban renewal, Hayward and regional leaders had considered Russell City a blight to the surrounding area and sought to rebuild the area as an industrial park, which led to the 48 Rising Housing Costs and Re-Segregation in Alameda County, Urban Displacement Project, UC Berkeley https://www.urbandisplacement.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/alameda_final.pdf 49 Rising Housing Costs and Re-Segregation in Alameda County, Urban Displacement Project, UC Berkeley https://www.urbandisplacement.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/alameda_final.pdf 50 Hayward Area Historical Society 2021. https://www.haywardareahistory.org/immigration 51 Hayward Area Historical Society 2021. https://www.haywardareahistory.org/agricultural-history 52 Bay Area Census 2021. http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/Hayward50.htm 53 Hayward Area Historical Society 2021. https://www.haywardareahistory.org/immigration 54 City of Hayward 2021. https://www.hayward-ca.gov/discover/news/feb17/russell-city-and-blues 55 Roots and Race, UC Berkeley Belonging Institute, Haas Institute, 2019 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/haasinstitute_rootsraceplace_oct2019_publish.pdf Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
108
forced displacement of its predominately African American and Hispanic/Latino residents and the bulldozing of their homes in the mid-1960s.56
Caltrans 238 Parcels
In the mid-1960s, Caltrans purchased over 400 parcels of property for the construction of the thenplanned 238 Bypass Freeway project. In 1971, the community filed a lawsuit to stop the planned 238 Bypass Freeway: La Raza Unida of Southern Alameda County, et al v. California Department of Transportation and the City of Hayward (Alameda County Court Case No. RG 09476468.) As a result, Caltrans declared the project dead and abandoned. Some of the Caltrans 238 parcels were sold to individual renters, some were auctioned to the highest bidder. In 2007, the City of Hayward entered into negotiations with Caltrans, the CTC, Local Alternative Transportation Improvement Program (LATIP) partners, the Alameda County Transportation Commission, tenants’ rights advocates, housing advocates, and interested legislators to resolve outstanding legal and other issues in an effort to divest Caltrans of the parcels they owned within the City of Hayward boundaries, to return these properties to the property tax rolls, and to start a productive development process for all undeveloped properties. To date, the City has facilitated the sale of seven of the ten parcel groups resulting in development and entitlement of 1,428 new residential units, and 388 of those units are affordable to low income households. The City’s Sites Inventory contains two Caltrans 238 parcels which are intended to be disposed of by 2027 per agreement with Caltrans.

Since 2019, the City of Hayward has participated in the Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE) and has incorporated a racial equity lens into decision-making. In 2021, Hayward recognized that the discriminatory housing practices on the 20th century have intentionally segregated neighborhoods and resulted in the inequal distribution of resources and opportunities across racial/ethnic groups, as people of color were historically denied the ability to secure and purchase housing, thus, limiting the opportunity to build generational wealth through property ownership.

The City Council adopted Resolution No. 21-223, directing staff to review the City’s work plan and recommend changes to address the City’s historical wrongdoings and complicity in institutional racism as part of the City’s annual Strategic Roadmap review.57 The City of Hayward is committed to understanding the history of government’s role in creating and reinforcing racial inequities and of exploring opportunities to incorporate racial equity analysis into governmental decision making and incorporates this lens in all legislative actions.58
56 City of Hayward 2021. https://hayward.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=9957852&GUID=B5709B92-34CB-4807-BC70-49503D4BFD36 57 City of Hayward, 2021. https://hayward.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=9957852&GUID=B5709B92-34CB-4807-BC70-49503D4BFD36 58 https://www.hayward-ca.gov/residents/equity-inclusion Other Relevant Factors
109
Figure F-44 1937 Oakland and Berkeley “Residential Security Map” Source: University of Maryland’s T-RACES project
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
110
Figure F-45 Home Owners Loan Corporation Redlining Grade (Alameda County) Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.

Other Relevant Factors
111

10.2 Stakeholder Input
Housing Survey
As previously mentioned, the City prepared and distributed a housing survey inquiring about housing, access to resources and experiences with discrimination. The survey took place between January 10, 2022 and March 10, 2022 and was translated into Spanish and Mandarin. There was a total of 64 survey participants (60 surveys completed in English, 3 surveys completed in Spanish and 1 survey completed in Chinese). The survey responses included the following major themes:
 Difficulty finding affordable housing, paying the deposit for rental housing, and monthly rental housing costs were identified as housing challenges personally experienced by survey participants.
 Affordability, homeownership, and availability of housing were identified the most urgent housing issues in Hayward.
 Entry level or starter homes, co-living housing, apartments, and condominiums were identified as housing types needed in Hayward.
 Mixed support of diversifying housing types and increasing housing overall in Hayward.

10.3 Other Factors
Other factors that have not been previously discussed relating to fair housing include the availability and access to housing choice vouchers in Hayward and the presence of older affordable housing units that may be at risk of conversion to market-rate housing. As referenced in Appendix B, Housing Needs Assessment, five publicly assisted rental housing developments, which provide a total of 295 affordable units to lower- and moderate-income households, are at risk of converting to market-rate housing during the 2023 to 2031 planning period.

The City of Hayward cooperates with the Housing Authority of the County of Alameda, to provide HCVs to city residents and will continue to seek opportunities to increase rental assistance and reduce overpayment.

In addition to providing rental assistance and reducing housing costs, the City has allocated CDBG funds to meet the following goals:
 Improve public facility and infrastructure access and capacity  Preserve existing homeownership housing
 Develop new affordable housing
 Provide supportive services for individuals with special needs, as defined by HUD  Provide vital services for LMI households
 Provide for economic development and small business assistance HUD estimates show that approximately 1,844 households received HCVs in Hayward. Figure F-46 shows HCV as a percent of renter-occupied units by census tract. Most (97 percent) of HCV recipients are in low-resource areas, compared to 3 percent in moderate-resource areas. Census tracts 4363.00, a low-resource area within the Burbank neighborhood, contained the largest share of HCV recipients (8 percent) in the city.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
112
Figure F-46 Housing Choice Vouchers
Source: AFFH Viewer 2021.

Other Relevant Factors
113

10.4 Access to Homeownership
The following analysis reviews mortgage application filing and acceptance by race using the latest available data. Between 2018 and 2019, there were 3,452 mortgage applications filed in Hayward (see Table F-18). Of the known racial/ethnic categorization of mortgage applications, most were filed by Asian-American/Asian Pacific Islander residents and non-Hispanic white residents. In comparison, Hispanic/Latino comprised 13 percent, Black/African American applicants comprised six percent, and American Indian or Alaskan Native comprised less than one percent of total mortgage loan applications. Asian-American residents were slightly overrepresented for mortgage applications relative to proportion of population (39 percent of applications, 27 percent of population).

Applications from non-Hispanic white residents were proportional to population (both 16 percent of population). However, Black/ African American residents were underrepresented for mortgage applications (five percent of applications, nine percent of population), as were American Indian/Alaska Native (less than one percent of applications, one percent of population).

Hispanic/Latino residents were significantly underrepresented (18 percent of applications, 40 percent of population). Furthermore, mortgage application denial rates were higher among American Indian or Alaskan Native (34 percent), Hispanic/Latino (26 percent) Black/ African American (24 percent), compared to Asian American/API (19 percent) and non-Hispanic White (19 percent).

Table F-18 Mortgage Applications by Acceptance and Race (Hayward) Racial/
Ethnic Group
Application
Approved but
Not Accepted
Application
Denied
Application
Withdrawn
by Applicant
File Closed for
Incompleteness
Loan
Originated
Total
Application
(percent)
American Indian or
Alaska Native, NonHispanic
1 12 6 4 12 35
(0.5%)
Asian American/API,
Non-Hispanic
78 506 348 132 1,644 2,708
(39%)
Black/ African American,
Non-Hispanic
8 80 54 14 178 334
(5%)
Non-Hispanic White 47 207 166 62 630 1,112
(16%)
Hispanic/Latino 39 318 160 91 617 1,225
(18%)
Unknown 47 262 227 95 808 1,439
(21%)
Total 220 1,385 961 398 3,889 3,452
(100%)
Source: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council’s (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act loan/application register (LAR) files 2021
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
114
This page intentionally left blank.

Sites Inventory
115
Sites Inventory
The housing element must demonstrate that there are adequate sites zoned to accommodate the number of new housing units needed at each income level as identified in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). In the context of AFFH, the process of sites identification involves an analysis of site capacity to accommodate the RHNA, but also whether the identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas ofopportunity.

11.1 Opportunity Areas
HCD/TCAC opportunity maps identify areas throughout the state that support positive economic (low poverty, high employment, high median household income), educational (reading and math proficiency, high school graduation rates, low student poverty rates), and environmental outcomes (low exposure to pollution) for low-income families. The HCD/TCAC opportunity areas map rank census tracts from Highest Resource to Low Resource based on these characteristics. A census tract with a designation of High Resource indicates that the census tract has strong educational and economic opportunities for current and future residents. In depth analysis and discussion of pollution burden and environmental justice can be found in the draft Environmental Justice Element.

Most census tracts in Hayward are considered Low Resource while five census tracts in the eastern areas of the city (tracts 438000, 435103, 435102, 436402, and 436401) and one census tract in the central area of the city (tract 437000) is considered Moderate Resource. A small portion of Hayward’s city limits extends into a high resource census tract (450601) to the east of the city. The areas within this tract which are also within city limits are undeveloped open space and ranch land and are therefore excluded from this analysis. Figure F-47 shows resource level in relation to planning sub areas and Figure F-48 shows resource level in relation to identified opportunity sites and current pipeline projects. The five moderate-resource tracts tend to be in the hills to the east of Downtown Hayward. These areas are characterized by suburban development with more limited access to transit, retail, and healthcare services. Across most of the city, residents have limited access to positive economic, educational, and environmental outcomes, and where those outcomes are slightly improved, there is reduced access to the urban amenities that would support higherdensity affordable housing.

Residential and mixed-use projects in the development pipeline which are planned or approved accommodate approximately half of Hayward’s 6th cycle RHNA. These 32 projects will develop a total of 1,381 above-moderate income units, 82 moderate income units, 275 low-income units, 250 very low-income units, and 85 extremely-low income units. Of these, 140 above-moderate income, 27 moderate, 53 low income, and 24 very low-income units are located in moderate resource census tracts. The remaining projects are located in low resource census tracts.

Given this distribution of low- and moderate-opportunity areas, the locations of RHNA sites for each income category were chosen to facilitate the development of mixed-income neighborhoods and to increase the availability of affordable housing in proximity to transit, retail, and other services.

Reliable public transit access and the option to walk or bike are imperative for low-income residents and/or persons with disabilities to connect to employment opportunities. It is important to note Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
116
that Senate Bill (SB) 9, signed into law on September 16, 2021, allows property owners within singlefamily residential zones to build two units and/ or to subdivide a lot into two parcels, adding a total of four units. The passage of this new law along with the relaxed regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on all single and multi-family properties will allow infill development throughout the city including moderate and the high resource census tracts that primarily include existing singlefamily neighborhoods.

Excluding the three parcels which comprise the former Civic Center site at 22300 Foothill Boulevard, all sites listed in Appendix C are located in low-resource census tracts. These sites accommodate 866 above moderate-, 938 moderate-, and 1,157 lower-income housing units. An additional 364 lowerincome and 115 above-moderate housing units are projected at the former Civic Center site which is within a moderate resource census tract.

Sites Inventory
117
Figure F-47 Planning Sub-areas in Relation to TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
118
Figure F-48 Location of Housing Sites in Relation to TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas Sites Inventory
119
Table F-19 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
1 Oak Street – – – 4 36 40 56 71% Approved
2 Parcel Group 8 – 24 51 20 1 96 54 178% Approved
3 21659 Mission Boulevard – 1 – 3 41 45 63 72% Approved 4 420 Smalley Avenue – – – 1 7 8 8 100% Approved
5 Maple and Main 16 3 – – 295 314 343 92% Approved
6 1200 A Street – – – – 155 155 149 104% Approved
7 4th and B – – – – 41 41 78 53% Approved
8 Pimentel Place 15 20 11 10 1 57 57 100% Approved
9 Pine Vista Condos – – – 7 33 40 32 125% Approved
10 Carlos Bee – – – 6 9 15 14 107% Approved
11 O’Neil Ave Apartments – 1 – – 8 9 13 71% Approved
12 Berry Avenue Multifamily – 1 – 1 16 18 29 63% Approved 13 Parcel Group 5 – 18 – – 74 92 122 75% Approved
14 Cavallo Highlands – – – – 20 20 38 52% Approved
15 27177-27283 Mission Blvd – – – 6 49 55 86 64% Approved 16 Mission Paradise 15 20 40 – – 76 104 73% Approved
17 28049 Mission Boulevard – – – – 25 25 37 68% Approved 18 Parcel Group 3 - La Vista
Residential
– 36 138 – 2 176 194 91% Approved
19 Mission Terraces – 76 33 – 1 110 91 121% Approved
20 SoMi (True Life) – – – 20 169 189 174 109% Approved
21 Mission Seniors – – – – 203 203 228 89% Approved
22 Mission Villages – – – – 72 72 188 38% Approved
23 Huntwood – – – 1 13 14 21 65% Under
Review
24 Vagabond – – – – 8 8 8 100% Approved
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
120
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
25 Harvey Avenue – – – – 17 17 14 121% Approved
26 Hesperian Subdivision – – – – 19 19 16 122% Approved 27 La Playa Commons – – 2 3 42 47 47 100% Approved
28 603 A Street 29 50 – – 1 80 56 142% Approved
29 27287 Patrick Ave 10 – – – – 10 6 166% Approved
30 25107 Belmont Ave – – – – 6 6 7 95% Under
Review
31 1434 Grove Way – – – – 5 5 13 38% Under
Review
32 24656-24764 Mohr Drive – – – – 12 12 18 66% Approved 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 Sites Inventory
121

11.2 Improved Conditions
As shown in Figure F-5 and Figure F-17, census tracts with low- and moderate-income households, predominantly Hispanic/Latino populations, and higher rates of housing problems are located throughout the central area and southern areas of the city. All sites identified in Appendix B are located in Downtown Hayward, the Mission Boulevard Corridor, and the former Route 238 Corridor.

While all sites are zoned at densities adequate to accommodate lower-income units, the sites that are currently allocated to the development of lower-income units are distributed throughout the three neighborhoods and not concentrated in any one location. In an effort to facilitate mixedincome neighborhoods:
 643 lower-income, 486 moderate-income, and 477 above moderate-income units are located in Downtown Hayward;
 541 lower-income, 252 moderate-income, and 540 above moderate-income units are located within the Mission Boulevard Corridor; and
 200 moderate-income units and 310 above moderate-income units are located along the former Route 289 Corridor.

These areas are generally considered Low Resource by TCAC, but they have seen extensive marketrate multi-family development in recent years including but not limited to the Lincoln Landing Development (476 residential units and 80,000 square feet of commercial development), Sohay (472 apartment units and condominiums and townhomes and development of a new park) and, Mission Crossings (140 townhomes, retail space, and a hotel), all of which are under construction or occupied. These projects are discussed in greater detail in Appendix C. Further development of moderate- and above moderate-income units in these areas would potentially improve conditions by encouraging a mixture of household income levels. The City will continue to implement residential rehabilitation programs, affordable housing development incentives, the Affordable Housing Ordinance, anti-displacement actions, and utilize annual CDBG and HOME funds to improve conditions within low-resource and displacement-vulnerable census tracts shown on Figure F-42.

11.3 Exacerbated Conditions
As mentioned previously, most neighborhoods in Hayward are considered low resource. Analysis has shown that areas of low resource in Hayward are more likely to have a predominant AsianAmerican or Hispanic/Latino population, a greater share of overcrowded households, and higher rates of poverty compared to neighborhoods in moderate-resource areas. The census tract that has the highest rate of households with incomes below the poverty level (20.9 percent of households) is tract 436500 in central Hayward along Mission Boulevard between Harder Road and Jackson Street.

Vacant and underutilized sites that could accommodate 75 lower-income, 248 moderate-income and 521 above moderate-income units are located in this census tract. An additional four pipeline projects (Parcel Group 5, Carlos Bee, Berry Avenue Multifamily, and O’Neil Avenue Apartments) are located in this tract accounting for a total of 20 lower-income, 7 moderate-income, and 107 abovemoderate income units. According to California Housing Partnership data, all federal and state subsidized housing within Hayward is in low-resource areas. By encouraging a mix of lower-, moderate-, and above moderate-income housing units, the Sites Inventory does not exacerbate conditions in vulnerable areas of the city.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
122

11.4 Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
and Affluence
While there are no racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty or affluence (R/ECAP) per HUD’s definition in Hayward, some tracts with predominantly Hispanic/Latino residents and elevated rates of poverty were found in the central and southern part of the city. In contrast, neighborhoods located in the northeastern area of Hayward had a predominately non-Hispanic white population and generally higher median incomes. Sites feasible to accommodate 568 lowerincome, 620 moderate-income, and 1,131 above-moderate income housing units identified in the sites inventory are located in census tracts where the population is predominantly Hispanic/Latino by a slim to sizeable gap (tracts 435400, 436500, 437900, and 435104), but these tracts do not represent concentrated areas of poverty. Furthermore, sites allocated to the development 44 units of lower-income housing are located in a census tract with both a median income higher than California’s median income and a predominantly non-Hispanic white population (tract 436401).

11.5 Access to Opportunity
The majority of census tracts in Hayward were categorized as low resource while three tracts in the northeast and central areas of the city were moderate resource. Housing units in the sites inventory are not disproportionately concentrated in different resource areas, and the sites identified in low resource areas are distributed on vacant and underutilized parcels and facilitate the development of lower-, moderate-, and above moderate-income units in close proximity to commercial services and transit. The City’s goals, policies, and programs implemented as part of this housing element will mitigate impediments to opportunity and promote investment in specific neighborhoods and expand affordable housing supply (see Chapter 6, Housing Plan).

11.6 Disproportionate Housing Needs
As depicted in Figure F-37, the highest concentrations of cost-burdened households are located in the western and central portions of the city along Mission Boulevard. Similarly, as shown in Figure F-39, an elevated percentage of overcrowded household exists within Downtown Hayward and along Mission Boulevard. As previously discussed, 541 lower-income and 452 moderate-income units are projected to be built in the Mission Boulevard corridor and the former Route 238 corridor which is directly adjacent to Mission Boulevard. An additional 643 lower-income and 486 moderateincome units are proposed in Downtown Hayward. Providing more affordable housing opportunities in this area may lower levels of cost burden in this neighborhood.

The fair housing assessment found a need for affordable housing for people with disabilities and adequate housing for large families. The City uses inclusionary housing trust funds to incentivize the development of extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing. and the Notice of Funding Availability for those funds give priority points for developments that include three or more bedrooms to incentivize development of larger units. These funds assist private developers with the cost of development of units affordable to low- and moderate-income households (Program H-7:

Affordable Housing Development Assistance).

Sites Inventory
123

11.7 Subsidized Housing
As discussed in Appendix B, Hayward has a range of publicly assisted rental housing affordable to lower and moderate-income households. Overall, 23 projects, 11 of which rely on HUD assistance (Section 8 project-based vouchers or Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly), provide a total of 1,456 assisted rental housing units in the city. Of the 23 subsidized housing projects in Hayward, nine are located in either Downtown Hayward or the Mission Boulevard corridor in the vicinity of vacant or underutilized sites identified for lower-income units.

Overall, there is generally little concentration of HCV recipients or subsidized housing projects in Hayward. The proportion of HCV recipients in a given census tract in the city ranges from 0 to 14.8 percent. Sites identified as adequate for lower-income housing are located in census tracts where HCV recipients represent between 1.9 and 8.2 percent of renter-occupied housing units. The development of lower-income housing units on the sites identified in Appendix C do not create an unusually high concentration of lower-income units near existing projects or in neighborhoods with high concentrations of housing choice voucher recipients.

11.8 Sites Analysis Summary Data
Table F-2 summarizes fair housing considerations of the sites inventory by census tract. As shown on the table, the majority of anticipated units are located in the downtown and Mission Boulevard Code areas. Units were identified in these areas as a result of a sites inventory analysis and supporting development trends that concluded that these two areas have the highest likelihood of residential development for all income categories, specifically lower-income units. Fair housing characteristics by census tract are generally consistent throughout the city. The locations of RHNA sites for each income category were chosen to facilitate the development of mixed-income neighborhoods and to increase the availability of affordable housing in proximity to transit, retail, and other services.

According to ACS data, there are 3,879 existing households in the Downtown area and 7,426 existing households in the Mission Boulevard Code area. With the addition of the units accommodated through the Sites Inventory and RHNA credits, an additional 2,202 total units would be added Downtown, and 2,400 units would be added in the Mission Boulevard Code area. Of these units, a total of 1,819 would be affordable to lower-income households. Other areas of the city, specifically the Former Route 238 Corridor and census tracts in the western portion of the city, lack development trends on the same scale as Downtown and Mission Boulevard and do not have the applicable zoning to accommodate lower-income units in accordance with State law. The City will facilitate the development of affordable housing in these areas through the following programs:
 Program H-4: Affordable Housing Development Assistance  Program H-5: Density Bonus
 Program H-6: Inclusionary Housing
Although these two areas have high redevelopment potential, the downtown and Mission Boulevard code areas face a number of fair housing issues. Both areas are predominately Low Resource, low income, primarily non-White population, and have high vulnerability to displacement.

Additionally, Census Tract 431200, a Moderate Resource area, has a CalEnviroScreen Pollution Percentile of 80, significantly higher than other census tracts in the city. Nearly all of the city, Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
124
excluding the hills and Census Tract 4357 (Southland Mall area), is considered Low Resource. As a result, the City was unable to concentrate lower-income units in higher resource areas. In response, the City will implement programs to improve place-based strategies to encourage community conservation and revitalization. Programs committed to this include the following:
 Program H-1: Minor Home Repair Program
 Program H-2: Residential Rental Inspection Program
 Program H-3: Preservation of At-Risk Affordable Housing  Program H-10: Replacement Housing
 Program H-19: Housing for Special Needs Populations
 Program H-22: Fair Housing Services
Nearly all lower-income units are located in areas vulnerable to displacement. To avoid displacement in these areas, the City did not identify any units on parcels with existing residential uses. Additionally, the City may choose not to support projects that pose a high risk of displacement of existing tenants on a case-by-case basis (see Program H-3). The City will also seek out and participate in opportunities to improve eviction and displacement prevention resources to mitigate displacement in high risk areas (see Program 23.3). Additional meaningful actions to fair housing issues have been incorporated into Chapter 6, Housing Plan. Table F-3 identifies contributing factors to fair housing and programs to address each factor.

Sites Inventory
125
Table F-2 Sites Inventory by Census Tract Characteristics Development
Area
Census
Tract
Number
Number of
Existing
Households
Sites Inventory Capacity + RHNA
Credit Projects (Units) AFFH Indicators
LowerIncomeModerate
-Income
Above
Moderate
- Income
Percent
Nonwhite
TCAC
Opportunity
Area
Percent
Overpayment
by Renters
Percent
Overcrowded
Households
Displacement
Sensitivity
CalEnviro
-Screen
Pollution
Burden
Percentile
Downtown
431200 1,325 439 24 152 61-80% Moderate
Resource
40-60% <8.2% Vulnerable 80
435400 505 325 114 533 61-80% Low Resource 40-60% <8.2% Vulnerable 55 436300 2,049 196 331 88 81-100% Low Resource 40-60% 12-15% Vulnerable 45 Mission Boulevard Code Area
435104 2,038 645 288 750 61-80% Low Resource 40-60% <8.2% Vulnerable 53 437900 660 75 6 124 81-100% Low Resource 40-60% >20% Vulnerable 20 436401 3,013 44 0 0 61-80% Low Resource 40-60% <8.2% Vulnerable 25 436500 1,715 95 55 318 81-100% Low Resource 40-60% <8.2% Vulnerable 44 Former Route 238 Corridor
436500 1,715 0 200 310 81-100% Low Resource 40-60% <8.2% Vulnerable 44 Other Census Tracts with Planned and Approved Units
438100 2,041 0 0 72 61-80% Low Resource 40-60% 8.3 – 12% Other 54 438204 1,852 0 1 21 61-80% Low Resource 60-80% <8.2% Vulnerable 20 437200 2,067 0 0 19 61-80% Low Resource 40-60% <8.2% Other 61 435300 1,591 0 0 41 61-80% Moderate
Resource
40-60% <8.2% Vulnerable 11
437101 1,696 0 0 9 81-100% Low Resource 20-40% <8.2% Other 80 436601 1,854 0 7 33 81-100% Low Resource 40-60% 8.3 – 12% Vulnerable 33 435103 2,034 0 0 20 61-80% Moderate
Resource
<20% <8.2% Other 12
438203 1,235 0 0 17 81-100% Low Resource 40-60% <8.2% Vulnerable 24 Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
126
Development
Area
Census
Tract
Number
Number of
Existing
Households
Sites Inventory Capacity + RHNA
Credit Projects (Units) AFFH Indicators
LowerIncomeModerate
-Income
Above
Moderate
- Income
Percent
Nonwhite
TCAC
Opportunity
Area
Percent
Overpayment
by Renters
Percent
Overcrowded
Households
Displacement
Sensitivity
CalEnviro
-Screen
Pollution
Burden
Percentile
435500 1,310 1 3 41 61-80% Low Resource 40-60% 8.3 – 12% Vulnerable 45 437000 1,103 2 3 42 61-80% Moderate
Resource
40-60% <8.2% Vulnerable 41
Total 2,102 880 2,362
Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/California Housing and Community Development (HCD), Opportunity Maps (2020); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data (2015-2019).

Fair Housing Goals and Priorities
127
Fair Housing Goals and Priorities
Based on the analysis conducted in this AFFH document, Table F-3 highlights the prominent fair housing issues and contributing factors that hinder access to safe, affordable, and vibrant housing for Hayward residents. Furthermore, the findings of this analysis were used to develop meaningful actions, metrics and milestones that promote inclusive communities, increase housing opportunities, and address racial/ethnic and economic disparities in the city. The contributing factors were prioritized to better formulate policies and programs and carry out meaningful actions to further fair housing. Meaningful actions to address fair housing issues are included in the housing programs located in Chapter 6, Housing Plan.

Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
128
Table F-3 Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Key Programs AFH Identified Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors in Order of Priority Key Programs Protecting existing residents from
displacement

1. High rates of housing cost burden among renter-occupied households

2. Shortage of subsidized housing units

3. Increasing housing costs and early/on-going gentrification

4. High rates of overcrowded households

5. Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods  Program H-7: Housing Choice Vouchers
 Program H-20: Community Outreach and Education
 Program H-21: Foreclosure Prevention and Counseling
 Program H-22: Fair Housing Services
 Program H-23: Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protections  Program H-24: Tenant Relocation Assistance
Improving place-based strategies
to encourage community
conservation and revitalization,
including preservation of existing
affordable housing

1. Cost of repairs or rehabilitation

2. Dominance of single-family housing, which is typically more expensive than multi-family housing

3. Lack of public (local, state, or federal) funds invested in the development of affordable housing and social services

4. Limiting local land use policies
 Program H-1: Minor Home Repair Program
 Program H-2: Residential Rental Inspection Program
 Program H-3: Preservation of At-Risk Affordable Housing  Program H-10: Replacement Housing
 Program H-19: Housing for Special Needs Populations
 Program H-22: Fair Housing Services
Encouraging development of new
affordable housing in Areas of
High Opportunity

1. Dominance of single-family housing, which is typically more expensive than multi-family housing

2. Location and type of existing affordable housing

3. Lack of affordable housing in moderate-resource areas

4. Limited supply of affordable housing in areas with access to opportunity
 Program H-4: Affordable Housing Development Assistance  Program H-5: Density Bonus
 Program H-6: Inclusionary Housing
 Program H-8: Ensure Adequate Sites to Accommodate Regional Fair Share of Housing Growth
 Program H-11: By-Right Approval for Projects with 10 percent Affordable Units
 Program H-12: Adaptive Reuse
 Program H-13: Variety of Housing Types
 Program H-14: Development Incentives
 Program H-16: Expedited Project Review
 Program H-17: Accessory Dwelling Unit Program
 Program H-18: Duplexes and Lot-Splits
Fair Housing Goals and Priorities
129
AFH Identified Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors in Order of Priority Key Programs Enhancing fair housing outreach
and housing mobility strategies

1. Insufficient and inaccessible outreach and enforcement

2. Lack of public input and feedback on issues and strategies

3. Lack of marketing community meetings

4. Insufficient local public fair
housing enforcement and
testing
 Program H-19: Housing for Special Needs Populations
 Program H-20: Community Outreach and Education
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
130
This page intentionally left blank.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
November 28, 2022
Leigha Schmidt, Principal Planner
Development Services Department
City of Hayward
777 B Street, 1st Floor
Hayward, CA 94541
Dear Leigha Schmidt,
RE: City of Hayward’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Hayward (City) draft housing element update received for review on August 30, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. HCD considered comments from YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance, East Bay for Everyone, TransForm and Campaign for Fair Housing Elements and YIMBY Law, pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).

The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).

The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.

Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.

For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), then any rezoning to make prior identified sites available or accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA), including for lower-income households, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory

ATTACHMENT XII
Leigha Schmidt, Principal Planner

deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i). Please be aware, if the City fails to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline, the element cannot be found in substantial compliance until rezones pursuant to Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A) or Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c) are completed.

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.

We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Claire Sullivan-Halpern, of our staff, at Claire.Sullivan[email protected].

Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Enclosure
City of Hayward’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 1 November 28, 2022

APPENDIX

CITY OF HAYWARD
The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/hcd-memos. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/building-blocks and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.

A. Housing Needs Resources and Constraints

1. Include an analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected needs for all income levels, including extremely low-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(1).)
Extremely Low-Income Households (ELI): The element includes some basic information regarding ELI households such as the number of households. However, given the unique and disproportionate needs of ELI households, the element must include analysis to better formulate policies and programs. For example, the element should analyze tenure, cost burden and other household characteristics, compare those characteristics to other income and special needs groups then examine the availability of resources to determine gaps in housing needs. Finally, the element should examine the success of past efforts and formulate an appropriate programmatic response given the magnitude of the need. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/housingneeds/extremely-low-income-housing-needs.shtml.

2. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Fair Housing Enforcement and Capacity: The element should discuss how the City complies with existing fair housing laws and regulations, any past fair housing lawsuits, consent decrees or other related legal matters.

Disproportionate Housing Needs: The element includes some general information on persons experiencing homelessness and housing conditions but should also evaluate those needs, impacts and patterns within the City, such as areas of higher need. For homelessness, the element should examine disproportionate impacts on protected characteristics (e.g., race, disability) and patterns of need, including access to transportation and services. For housing conditions, the element should discuss any areas of potentially higher needs of rehabilitation and replacement. The element may City of Hayward’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 2 November 28, 2022
utilize local data and knowledge such as service providers and code enforcement officials to assist this analysis.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) and Sites Inventory: The element includes some data regarding the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) by income group and areas of the City. However, the element should analyze that data, including relationships with other components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., segregation and integration, disproportionate housing needs) to support conclusions and guide an appropriate programmatic response. Specifically, utilizing Table F-2, the element should analyze how the RHNA by income group impacts the number of existing households and socio-economic characteristics. For example, the element could examine the absence of the lower-income RHNA in some areas of the City and concentration in other areas such as the Mission Boulevard Area relative to higher concentrations of lower-income households. Then, the element could formulate appropriate response such as place-based strategies toward community revitalization and improvement of housing mobility.

Other Relevant Factors: The element must include other relevant factors that contribute to fair housing issues in the jurisdiction. For instance, the element can analyze historical land use and investment practices or other information and demographic trends. Other relevant factors should complement the state and federal data and complete an analysis.

Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues: Based on the outcomes of a complete analysis, the element must list and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues.

Contributing factors should result in strategic approaches to inform and connect analysis, goals and actions to address and mitigate fair housing issues. For more information, please see HCD’s Guidance Memo at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planningand-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing.

3. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Progress in Meeting the RHNA: The City’s RHNA may be reduced by the number of new units built, approved, or pending since June 30, 2022; however, the element must demonstrate their availability in the planning period. Availability should address the status, anticipated completion, any barriers to development and other relevant factors such as build out horizons, phasing, and dropout rates to demonstrate the availability or likelihood of development in the planning period.

Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element must include a description of identified sites and their existing uses and include an analysis demonstrating the potential for additional development on nonvacant sites. The element should analyze the extent that existing uses may impede additional residential development. The element explains that various factors were utilized to identify sites with potential for redevelopment such as improvement to land value ratio and also discusses some recent trends. However, the City of Hayward’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 3 November 28, 2022
element should relate recent trends to the various factors to better support their validity.

For example, the element could list the prior improvement to land value and other factors for pending and approved projects. In addition, the element mentions the factors but does not explain the threshold or reflect the value of the factor on identified sites.

For example, the element mentions the improvement to land value, but not which ratio was utilized and does not list the value for each of the sites.

Publicly-Owned Sites: The element must include additional discussion on each of the publicly-owned sites identified to accommodate the RHNA, including the BART sites.

Specifically, the analysis should address general plan designations, allowable densities, support for residential capacity assumptions, existing uses, any known conditions that preclude or could promote development in the planning period, status, and potential schedule for development. Based on this analysis, the element should add or modify programs. Programs should include a schedule of actions to facilitate development in the planning period in stride with assumptions in the inventory such as numerical objectives, compliance with the Surplus Land Act, outreach with developers or property owners, removing barriers to development, issuing requests for proposals, incentives, fee waivers, priority processing and financial assistance.

Small and Large Sites: Sites smaller than a half-acre and larger than ten acres in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income housing unless it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size and affordability were successfully developed during the prior planning period or unless the housing element describes other evidence to HCD that the site is adequate to accommodate lower-income housing. If the City is utilizing small or large sites, the element must include analysis and programs as appropriate to demonstrate the suitability of these sites.

Infrastructure: The element should clarify that the City has sufficient existing and planned total water and sewer capacity to accommodate the RHNA.

In addition, water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lowerincome households. While the element explains the City will deliver the element to water and sewer providers, it should also describe whether the City has specific procedures to grant priority or add or modify programs to establish a written procedure by a date early in the planning period.

Environmental Constraints: While the element mentions various environmental conditions, it should also discuss whether those conditions impact or preclude development on identified sites. This discussion should address any other known conditions and impacts on identified sites (e.g., shape, easements, conditions, airport and other compatibility).

Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing-element/index.shtml#element for a copy of the form and instructions.

The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance.

City of Hayward’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 4 November 28, 2022
Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
• Emergency Shelters: The element should clarify if by right is without discretionary action, discuss acreage such as typical parcel sizes, potential for a shelter including reuse, proximity to transportation and services and areas/sites are not in areas unfit for human habitation (discuss other allowed uses). Also, the element should list and analyze development standards and analyze whether parking requirements comply with AB139/Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(4)(A) or include a program to comply with this requirement. • Low Barrier Navigation Centers: The element should clarify that by right or permitted uses are permitted without discretionary action and which zones allow the uses in compliance with Government Code section 65661 or add or modify programs.
• Employee Housing Act: The element must demonstrate zoning is consistent with the Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code, § 17000 et seq.), specifically, sections 17021.5 which requires employee housing for six or fewer employees to be treated as a single-family structure and permitted in the same manner as other dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Based on the outcomes of this analysis, the element should add or modify programs. • Permanent Supportive Housing: Supportive housing shall be a use by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65651.

The element must demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include programs as appropriate.

4. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).).

Land Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land use controls impacts independently and cumulatively for impacts on housing supply (number of units), costs, feasibility and ability to achieve maximum densities. For example, the analysis should address heights, setbacks, floor area ratios, lot coverages and parking and add specific commitment to address constraints.

Fees and Exaction: While the element includes some general discussion of fees, it should list and analyze all planning fees (e.g., general plan amendments, subdivisions, rezones, planned developments, variances, and conditional use permits (CUPs). In addition, the element should list and analyze all impact fees for cumulative impacts (e.g., fees per unit) on typical single family, multifamily and other housing development as appropriate.

Processing and Permit Procedures: The element should describe and analyze the total permit and entitlement process for a typical single-family unit and multifamily City of Hayward’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 5 November 28, 2022
development. The analysis should address typical processes for a development that complies with zoning, time to complete entitlements, decision-making body, number of hearing and approval findings. The analysis should address impacts on cost, timing, feasibility and approval certainty. The analysis should also specifically address the site plan review and major site plan review and list and evaluate approval findings for impacts on housing costs, supply and approval certainty.

In addition, the Planned Development process should be evaluated as a potential constraint, including whether the process is required, presence or lack of fixed development standards and any other relevant factors for impacts on housing cost, timing, feasibility and approval certainty.

Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element describes the City currently has a procedure for requesting and granting a reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities; however, the element should also describe and evaluate approval findings and the process for providing reasonable accommodations. The analysis should specifically address findings that resemble CUP findings (e.g., impacts on surrounding uses). The element should also include an evaluate the definition of family used in zoning and land use. In addition, the City should clarify where and how group homes of seven or more persons are permitted and, based on this analysis, add or modify programs with specific commitment to revise zoning and procedures to permit with objective standards to facilitate approval certainty similar to other residential uses.

5. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including… …requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583.2, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).)
Identified Densities and Approval Times: The element must address requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the sites inventory and the length of time between receiving approval for housing development and submittal of application for building permits. The analysis must address any hinderances on housing development and programs should be added as appropriate.

6. An analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).)
The element must include a description of opportunities for energy conservation, including past efforts to better formulate appropriate policies and programs. Cities and counties are encouraged to include weatherization and energy efficiency improvements as part of publicly subsidized housing rehabilitation projects. This may include energy efficiency measures that encompass the building envelope, its heating and cooling systems, and its electrical system. For more information, see the Building Blocks.

City of Hayward’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 6 November 28, 2022
B. Housing Programs

1. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
As noted in Finding A3, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised, as follows:

Publicly-Owned Sites: The element identifies City-Owned and BART owned sites to accommodate the RHNA and includes minimal commitment to market and coordinate on sites. However, the element should commit to a specific schedule of actions with discrete timing to facilitate development on these public lands. Examples of actions include coordination with property owners, disposing of land or leasing land, removing barriers, assisting in site preparation, facilitating entitlements, assisting with funding, issuing permits and alternative actions if lands do not move forward with development by a specified date. HCD will send sample language under separate cover.

Program 11.1 (By-right for Prior Housing Sites): The program should commit to permit residential uses by right pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (i) at appropriate densities (e.g., at least up to 30 units per acre or consistent with assumptions in the inventory).

Program 24 (Tenant Relocation): As noted in the element (pp. D24 to D26), this program or another program should commit to promote various housing types, namely, group homes, single room occupancy and by right permanent supportive housing.

2. The Housing Element shall contain programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderateincome households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).) Programs 4.1 and 4.4 (Local, State and Federal Funds): The program should commit to how often (e.g., at least annually) funds will be used or applied for and should also commit to identify development opportunities on at least an annual basis.

4. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) As noted in Findings A4 and A5, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or City of Hayward’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 7 November 28, 2022
mitigate any identified constraints.

5. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
As noted in Finding A2, the element must include a complete assessment of fair housing. Based on the outcomes of that analysis, the element must add or modify programs. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, metrics, milestones, and geographic targeting, and, as appropriate, must address housing mobility enhancement (more choices and affordability across geographies), new housing choices and affordability in higher opportunity and income areas (e.g., missing middle housing types), place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection.

C. Quantified Objectives
Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (b)(1 & 2).)
While the element includes quantified objectives for new construction, rehabilitation, and conservation (p. H-33), it could consider increasing objectives for all income groups given the severity of existing and projected housing needs.

D. Public Participation
The local government shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort. (Government Code 65583(c)(7)) While the element includes a summary of the public participation process, it should describe how comments were considered and incorporated into the element. For example, the element generally lists and responds to comments (Appendix A) but not how those comments were incorporated into the element.
# Comment HCD Response Section Location
A.1.1
Extremely Low-Income Households (ELI): The element includes some basic information regarding ELI households such as the number of households. However, given the unique and disproportionate needs of ELI households, the element must include analysis to better formulate policies and programs. For example, the element should analyze tenure, cost burden and other household characteristics, compare those characteristics to other income and special needs groups then examine the availability of resources to determine gaps in housing needs. Finally, the element should examine the success of past efforts and formulate an appropriate programmatic response given the magnitude of the need.

Added a discussion on Extremely Low-Income households in Hayward, including specifics pertaining to familial status, seniors, and different racial/ethnic groups.

Appendix B - Housing Needs
Assessment Section 1.6.5
A.2.1
Fair Housing Enforcement and Capacity: The element should discuss how the City complies with existing fair housing laws and regulations, any past fair housing lawsuits, consent decrees or other related legal matters.

Added a discussion on compliance with fair housing laws. As of 2011, the City does not have any past fair housing lawsuits, consent decrees or other related matters.

Appendix F - Fair Housing
Assessment
Section 4.2 &
Section 10.1
A.2.2
Disproportionate Housing Needs: The element includes some general information on persons experiencing homelessness and housing conditions but should also evaluate those needs, impacts and patterns within the City, such as areas of higher need. For homelessness, the element should examine disproportionate impacts on protected characteristics (e.g., race, disability) and patterns of need, including access to transportation and services. For housing conditions, the element should discuss any areas of potentially higher needs of rehabilitation and replacement. The element may utilize local data and knowledge such as service providers and code enforcement officials to assist this analysis.

Added a discussion on local trends of individuals experiencing homeless, including disproportionate need on protected characteristics. Added a discussion of local knowledge pertaining to housing conditions.

Appendix F - Fair Housing
Assessment
Section 8.4
(homelessness),
Section 8.1
(housing
conditions)
A.2.3
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) and Sites Inventory: The element includes some data regarding the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) by income group and areas of the City. However, the element should analyze that data, including relationships with other components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., segregation and integration, disproportionate housing needs) to support conclusions and guide an appropriate programmatic response. Specifically, utilizing Table F-2, the element should analyze how the RHNA by income group impacts the number of existing households and socio-economic characteristics. For example, the element could examine the absence of the lower-income RHNA in some areas of the City and concentration in other areas such as the Mission Boulevard Area relative to higher concentrations of lower-income households. Then, the element could formulate appropriate response such as place-based strategies toward community revitalization and improvement of housing mobility.

Added a discussion breaking down existing households, sites, and AFFH indicators by census tract and discussed impacts to fair housing.

Appendix F - Fair Housing
Assessment Section 11.8
A.2.4
Other Relevant Factors: The element must include other relevant factors that contribute to fair housing issues in the jurisdiction. For instance, the element can analyze historical land use and investment practices or other information and demographic trends. Other relevant factors should complement the state and federal data and complete an analysis.

Historic investment practices discussed in section 10.1. Added further discussion on the history of Clatrans 238 parcels, Hayward's involvement with the Government Alliance on Race and Equity and the inclusion of racial equity lens in all City-related work, including housing policies and programs.

Appendix F - Fair Housing
Assessment Section 10.1
A.2.5
Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues: Based on the outcomes of a complete analysis, the element must list and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues.

Contributing factors should result in strategic approaches to inform and connect analysis, goals and actions to address and mitigate fair housing issues. Contributing factors placed in order of priority on Table F-3.

Appendix F - Fair Housing
Assessment Section 12
A.3.1
Progress in Meeting the RHNA: The City’s RHNA may be reduced by the number of new units built, approved, or pending since June 30, 2022; however, the element must demonstrate their availability in the planning period. Availability should address the status, anticipated completion, any barriers to development and other relevant factors such as build out horizons, phasing, and dropout rates to demonstrate the availability or likelihood of development in the planning period.

Added discussion stating that all units in the Pipeline are anticipated to develop during the planning period. Added estimated completion dates to Table C-3. Discussed City's development history of low drop out rates and potential barriers. Appendix C - Housing Resources Section 1.1.2 A.3.2
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element must include a description of identified sites and their existing uses and include an analysis demonstrating the potential for additional development on nonvacant sites. The element should analyze the extent that existing uses may impede additional residential development. The element explains that various factors were utilized to identify sites with potential for redevelopment such as improvement to land value ratio and also discusses some recent trends. However, the element should relate recent trends to the various factors to better support their validity. For example, the element could list the prior improvement to land value and other factors for pending and approved projects. In addition, the element mentions the factors but does not explain the threshold or reflect the value of the factor on identified sites. For example, the element mentions the improvement to land value, but not which ratio was utilized and does not list the value for each of the sites.

Specified thresholds for each site selection indicator (ILV, existing uses, FAR, ownership patterns). Added Table C-13 which shows characteristics of pipeline projects and compared to sites. Revised unit totals to reflect updates to pipeline projects and removal of one site. Added FAR values to sites inventory. Appendix C - Housing Resources
Section 1.2.1 and

1.3.1 A.3.3
Publicly-Owned Sites: The element must include additional discussion on each of the publicly-owned sites identified to accommodate the RHNA, including the BART sites.

Specifically, the analysis should address general plan designations, allowable densities, support for residential capacity assumptions, existing uses, any known conditions that preclude or could promote development in the planning period, status, and potential schedule for development. Based on this analysis, the element should add or modify programs. Programs should include a schedule of actions to facilitate development in the planning period in stride with assumptions in the inventory such as numerical objectives, compliance with the Surplus Land Act, outreach with developers or property owners, removing barriers to development, issuing requests for proposals, incentives, fee waivers, priority processing and financial assistance.

Added discussion of publicly owned sites including a schedule of actions to facilitate affordable development.

Appendix C - Housing Resources &
Housing Plan
Section 1.2.1
(Appendix C) &
Program H-8
(Housing Plan)
A.3.4
Small and Large Sites: Sites smaller than a half-acre and larger than ten acres in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income housing unless it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size and affordability were successfully developed during the prior planning period or unless the housing element describes other evidence to HCD that the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing. If the City is utilizing small or large sites, the element must include analysis and programs as appropriate to demonstrate the suitability of these sites.

No sites larger than 10 acres were used for lower-income units. Clarified that there are two instances of assumed lot consolidation on parcels with common ownership that would yield over 50 units. Appendix C - Housing Resources Section 1.2.1 A.3.5
Infrastructure: The element should clarify that the City has sufficient existing and planned total water and sewer capacity to accommodate the RHNA. In addition, water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower income households. While the element explains the City will deliver the element to water and sewer providers, it should also describe whether the City has specific procedures to grant priority or add or modify programs to establish a written procedure by a date early in the planning period.

Updated the Resources Section to clarify that the 2020 UWMP which is updated every five years is based on General Plan land use assumptions which are the same assumptions used in the Housing Element. City of Hayward is the water and wastewater provider for 97% of the City and shows capacity except in dry years. Per State Law, the City also has a Water Shortage Contingency Plan and a robust recycled water program and water conservation plan as described in Appendix C. Added action 4.6 to prioritize lower-income developments.

Appendix C - Housing Resources &
Housing Plan
Section 1.4
(Appendix C) &
Program H-4,
Action 4.6 (Housing
Plan)

ATTACHMENT XIII
A.3.6
Environmental Constraints: While the element mentions various environmental conditions, it should also discuss whether those conditions impact or preclude development on identified sites. This discussion should address any other known conditions and impacts on identified sites (e.g., shape, easements, conditions, airport and other compatibility).

Updated Section 1.5 to identify which sites have environmental constraints and how those constraints are addressed through current City regulations. Appendix C - Housing Resources Section 1.5 A.3.7
Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD. The City will comply with this.

A.3.8
Emergency Shelters: The element should clarify if by right is without discretionary action, discuss acreage such as typical parcel sizes, potential for a shelter including reuse, proximity to transportation and services and areas/sites are not in areas unfit for human habitation (discuss other allowed uses). Also, the element should list and analyze development standards and analyze whether parking requirements comply with AB139/Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(4)(A) or include a program to comply with this requirement.

Updated Table D-13 to show that Emergency Shelters are permitted by right in Industrial Districts on publicly owned land and in the MB-CN and MB-NN District and with a use permit in the CG districts. Pg. 25-26 includes text clarifying that Emergency Shelter and Homeless Shelter are permitted "by right" in certain zones and provides acreage and number of parcels available for shelter use. Added Action 24.6 to modify Zoning Ordinance modifications to parking regulations.

Appendix D - Housing Constraints,
Chapter 7 - Housing Plan

(Appendix D).

Program H-13
(Housing Plan)
A.3.9
Low Barrier Navigation Centers: The element should clarify that by right or permitted uses are permitted without discretionary action and which zones allow the uses in compliance with Government Code section 65661 or add or modify programs.

Added clarifying language that Low Barrier Navigation Center is synonymous with homeless and emergency shelter in the Hayward Municipal Code and that the uses are permitted by right in certain districts. Added actions to Program H-13 to include amending the Zoning Ordinance to be compliant with Assembly Bill 101 which allows such uses as a by right use in areas zoned for mixed use and non-residential zones that allow multi-family uses under specific circumstances. https://abag.ca.gov/technical-assistance/low-barrier-navigation-centerresources Appendix D - Housing Constraints,
Chapter 7 - Housing Plan

D), Program H-13
(Housing Plan)
A.3.10
Employee Housing Act: The element must demonstrate zoning is consistent with the Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code, § 17000 et seq.), specifically, sections 17021.5 which requires employee housing for six or fewer employees to be treated as a single-family structure and permitted in the same manner as other dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Based on the outcomes of this analysis, the element should add or modify programs.

Added action to Program H-13 to evaluate the permit process for group homes of 7 or more persons and amend the HMC to set objective standards. Chapter 7 - Housing Plan Program H-13
A.3.11
Permanent Supportive Housing: Supportive housing shall be a use by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65651. The element must demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include programs as appropriate.

Added action to Program H-13 to amend HMC 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. Chapter 7 - Housing Plan Program H-13 A.4.1
Land Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land use controls impacts independently and cumulatively for impacts on housing supply (number of units), costs, feasibility and ability to achieve maximum densities. For example, the analysis should address heights, setbacks, floor area ratios, lot coverages and parking and add specific commitment to address constraints.

Added an analysis of development standards including density, lot standards, height limits, and open space requirements. Appendix D - Housing Constraints Page 37 A.4.2
Fees and Exaction: While the element includes some general discussion of fees, it should list and analyze all planning fees (e.g., general plan amendments, subdivisions, rezones, planned developments, variances, and conditional use permits (CUPs). In addition, the element should list and analyze all impact fees for cumulative impacts (e.g., fees per unit) on typical single family, multifamily and other housing development as appropriate.

Added details for all fees, including fees per unit for different housing development prototypes. Appendix D - Housing Constraints 1.3.6 A.4.3
Processing and Permit Procedures: The element should describe and analyze the total permit and entitlement process for a typical single-family unit and multifamily development. The analysis should address typical processes for a development that complies with zoning, time to complete entitlements, decision-making body, number of hearing and approval findings. The analysis should address impacts on cost, timing, feasibility and approval certainty. The analysis should also specifically address the site plan review and major site plan review and list and evaluate approval findings for impacts on housing costs, supply and approval certainty. In addition, the Planned Development process should be evaluated as a potential constraint, including whether the process is required, presence or lack of fixed development standards and any other relevant factors for impacts on housing cost, timing, feasibility and approval certainty.

Added procedures for each permit including time frame, required hearings, findings, and cost. Appendix D - Housing Constraints Section 1.3.7 A.4.4
Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element describes the City currently has a procedure for requesting and granting a reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities; however, the element should also describe and evaluate approval findings and the process for providing reasonable accommodations. The analysis should specifically address findings that resemble CUP findings (e.g., impacts on surrounding uses). The element should also include an evaluate the definition of family used in zoning and land use. In addition, the City should clarify where and how group homes of seven or more persons are permitted and, based on this analysis, add or modify programs with specific commitment to revise zoning and procedures to permit with objective standards to facilitate approval certainty similar to other residential uses.

Added definition of family as defined by the City. Added to Program H-13 to evaluate and, if necessary, modify, permit process for 7+ group homes.

Appendix D - Housing Constraints,
Chapter 7 - Housing Plan

1.3.9 (Appendix D),
Program H-13
(Housing Plan)
A.5.1
Identified Densities and Approval Times: The element must address requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the sites inventory and the length of time between receiving approval for housing development and submittal of application for building permits. The analysis must address any hinderances on housing development and programs should be added as appropriate.

Discussion of housing development at densities below those anticipated in Housing Element; and, added discussion relating to processing timelines.

Densities addressed in Appendix C;
and submittal of building permits
addressed in Appendix D - Housing
Constraints
Section A.5.1
(Appendix C) and

D)
A.6.1
Energy Conservation: The element must include a description of opportunities for energy conservation, including past efforts to better formulate appropriate policies and programs.

Cities and counties are encouraged to include weatherization and energy efficiency improvements as part of publicly subsidized housing rehabilitation projects. This may include energy efficiency measures that encompass the building envelope, its heating and cooling systems, and its electrical system.

Added discussion of energy conservation resources available on the City's website. Also discussed the City's Reach Code and CAP policies. Appendix C - Housing Resources Section 1.7.4 B.1.1
Publicly-Owned Sites: The element identifies City-Owned and BART owned sites to accommodate the RHNA and includes minimal commitment to market and coordinate on sites. However, the element should commit to a specific schedule of actions with discrete timing to facilitate development on these public lands. Examples of actions include coordination with property owners, disposing of land or leasing land, removing barriers, assisting in site preparation, facilitating entitlements, assisting with funding, issuing permits and alternative actions if lands do not move forward with development by a specified date.

HCD will send sample language under separate cover. Added specific commitments for publicly-owned sites to Program H-8. Chapter 7 - Housing Plan Program H-8 B.1.2
Program 11.1 (By-right for Prior Housing Sites): The program should commit to permit residential uses by right pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (i) at appropriate densities (e.g., at least up to 30 units per acre or consistent with assumptions in the inventory). Revised Program H-11 accordingly. Chapter 7 - Housing Plan program H-11 B.1.3
Program 24 (Tenant Relocation): As noted in the element (pp. D24 to D26), this program or another program should commit to promote various housing types, namely, group homes, single room occupancy and by right permanent supportive housing.

Revised accordingly. Changes made to Program H-13. No change made to program H-24. Chapter 7 - Housing Plan Program H-13
B.2.1
Programs 4.1 and 4.4 (Local, State and Federal Funds): The program should commit to how often (e.g., at least annually) funds will be used or applied for and should also commit to identify development opportunities on at least an annual basis. Revised Program H-4 accordingly. Chapter 7 - Housing Plan Program H-4 B.4.1
As noted in Findings A4 and A5, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. Programs have been revised accordingly.

B.5.1
As noted in Finding A2, the element must include a complete assessment of fair housing.

Based on the outcomes of that analysis, the element must add or modify programs. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, metrics, milestones, and geographic targeting, and, as appropriate, must address housing mobility enhancement (more choices and affordability across geographies), new housing choices and affordability in higher opportunity and income areas (e.g., missing middle housing types), place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection. Programs have been revised accordingly.

C.1
Quantified Objectives: While the element includes quantified objectives for new construction, rehabilitation, and conservation (p. H-33), it could consider increasing objectives for all income groups given the severity of existing and projected housing needs. Quantified objectives were increased. Chapter 7 - Housing Plan Page 24 D.1
Public Participation: While the element includes a summary of the public participation process, it should describe how comments were considered and incorporated into the element. For example, the element generally lists and responds to comments (Appendix A) but not how those comments were incorporated into the element.

Chapter 1 provides detailed outreach summaries, including how outreach was considered and incorporated into the element. In response to public comment, the City revised assumed unit yields on BART sites, added a policy on Fair Chance Housing, and removed a site. Changes were made to Appendix A accordingly.

Chapter 1 - Introduction, Appendix
A - Public Outreach
Chapter 1 - Section

1.7. Appendix A -
Comment
Response Matrix
1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

VIRTUAL (ZOOM) PARTICIPATION
Thursday, January 26, 2023, 7:00 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING

1. Adoption of the 2023-2031 Housing Element for the City of Hayward.

Principal Planner Schmidt provided a synopsis of the staff report and introduced Mr. Jason Montague with Rincon Consultants who helped the City with its Housing Element update.

Commissioner Garg complimented the amount of outreach that staff had done, shared that she participated in several discussions and presentations related to the housing element, acknowledged that there was a tension in the City between housing affordability and lack of housing stock as the population has gone up, that individuals with high incomes were also having difficulty affording housing in the City, the costs of creating housing had increased, and ensuring that new construction remains attractive to developers and that it provides housing options that a variety of people can afford. With regards to labor groups, she raised the argument by labor unions that was ensuring that those working on constructions sites are paid fairly to provide higher income to pay for housing and asked whether labor standards in Hayward are stricter than surrounding areas. She requested that staff speak to these concerns.

Principal Planner Schmidt stated while the points raised were valid, such as the need to pay fair wages, she stated that the Housing Element was not the mechanism to implement this policy discussion. She underscored the role of the Housing Element was to remove constraints on the construction of housing and recommended against adding those constraints to the Housing Element so that the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) would certify the document. Staff recommended the inclusion of softer language indicating that the City supported and was willing to meet with labor groups, and that policies addressing labor standards be addressed separately.

Commissioner Garg stated that based on her experience in serving on the Community Services Commission and what groups had to do to qualify for Community Development Block Grant funding, she stated there was tension on placing constraints on certain unit types and sizes to ensure units be affordable and attracting contractors who supported those standards. Principal Planner Schmidt concurred the City did not have enough large rental units within the city and that was the reason for more crowding in rental units than ownership units. Staff discussed adding points to the Notice of Funding Availability for developments that included larger units for families and identified special needs populations. Ms. Schmidt noted the Housing Element did not include requirements that projects must include a specific percentage of large units. She clarified that the Housing Element included an incentive approach rather than a more onerous regulatory approach.

ATTACHMENT XIV
2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

VIRTUAL (ZOOM) PARTICIPATION
Thursday, January 26, 2023, 7:00 p.m.

Commissioner Patterson thanked staff for answering the question on Senate Bill (SB) 9 which she had posed before the meeting. She requested that staff elaborate on what was included in underutilized sites in the housing inventory as it seemed this made up a majority of the unit surplus and whether there could be an opportunity to convert to a multifamily housing unit. She also wanted to understand how this related to rehabilitation and repair projects.

Principal Planner Schmidt clarified that no properties with existing residential uses were identified as underutilized sites adding that the underutilized sites were either commercial uses or vacant buildings.

Mr. Jason Montague stated that the sites explored were both vacant and non-vacant sites, which were also known as underutilized sites. Since vacant sites don’t have constraints to development they are explored first for housing opportunities; and underscored that cities typically did not have adequate vacant land to build on to satisfy Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). For these reasons, staff has to evaluate non-vacant sites that have high redevelopment potential. Existing uses at these non-vacant sites are reviewed to see if they align with development trends. A majority of the underutilized sites are parking, sites with low floor area ratio and low improvement land-value ratio where the land is worth more than the improvements on them. They analyzed structure age, with most of the structures being at least thirty-five years old; location of the sites which have to align with appropriate zoning and development trends in Hayward; and then through a fair housing lens. Mr. Montague shared that if a site identified in the inventory is developed with a use other than for housing or for lower density than assumed in the inventory, then the City needs to replace the site per the State Law. He noted that the findings were that Hayward did have enough sites to satisfy RHNA, and a backup list was developed with additional sites in the event that a site doesn’t develop in accordance with assumptions in the Housing Element.

Commissioner Stevens requested further details about the Senate Bill (SB) 9 process. He understood if he owned a single-family home, he could tear the existing structure down, subdivide the lot, and build four new units. Principal Planner Schmidt confirmed that was correct. She noted if a renter lived on the lot, the renter could not be displaced for the owner to subdivide, and the property would have to sit vacant for a number of years after the tenant moved in order to allow for this. Ms. Schmidt added that individuals could not buy contiguous pieces of land and then subdivide the lots; and underscored the true intention of the legislation was to enable a property owner to turn a single-family unit into a duplex and protect against largescale investors and developers.

Commissioner Stevens understood that per the legislation, an existing established neighborhood would begin to see lots being subdivided, changing the form of the 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

VIRTUAL (ZOOM) PARTICIPATION
Thursday, January 26, 2023, 7:00 p.m.
neighborhood. He expressed concern about historical character homes and essentially there being no control about what is being constructed apart from no more than two units per lot. Principal Planner Schmidt remarked the parcels have to be single-family residentially zoned, and that having an older or established neighborhood did not preclude that neighborhood from following State Law unless the homes or neighborhood are a designated historic structure or district.

Commissioner Stevens asked how the City planned to expedite the SB 9 process. Principal Planner Schmidt explained staff had an objective checklist that SB 9 projects must follow.

Staff also developed a frequently asked questions document, made available in English and Spanish, and posted this on the City website. Staff had received three SB three applications so far. Planning Manager Lochirco mentioned the Planning Division was currently working on the development of Residential Design Standards and once adopted, a SB 9 project would be required to follow those standards.

Commissioner Stevens commented if the Objective Standards were rigorous then the City would regain local control over how neighborhoods were shaped. Planning Manager Lochirco confirmed the City could design a clear set of principles that could be contextsensitive for specific neighborhoods. He shared that staff would be bringing forward Objective Standards for the Commission to consider in the coming months.

Commissioner Stevens asked what outcomes were being envisioned with having discussions with the labor unions. Principal Planner Schmidt found setting aside a formal time to establish a good working relationship with partners was a good practice. She envisioned best practices could be identified from these discussions, also being informed of what other jurisdictions were doing in this area.

Commissioner Stevens suggested the City explore funding schools to teach youth about construction jobs and supplying them with training to be able to enter the construction field. He stated if the City was interested in creating a labor pool, it should be investing in the youth. Principal Planner Schmidt emphasized that the goal of the Housing Element was to get as much good development for as many income levels as possible, without further constraining developments, and noted that funding apprenticeship programs and schools was a great idea but should not be a part of the Housing Element.

Commissioner Goodbody inquired if the labor union discussions would be on a per-project basis. Principal Planner Schmidt answered it would be on an annual basis unless they specifically request a discussion about a project.

Commissioner Bonilla Jr. asked what incentives for housing development were not included in the Housing Element and what constraints were considered that were not 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

VIRTUAL (ZOOM) PARTICIPATION
Thursday, January 26, 2023, 7:00 p.m.
removed. Principal Planner Schmidt stated that the cost of development was one of the largest constraints and the City’s Impact Fees were a part of this constraint. Staff explored Impact Fees and compared the City’s fees to surrounding jurisdictions. The findings were that the City’s fees were not relatively high and she emphasized that the fees make the city a livable place for residents. The other constraint was the City’s entitlement process, noting that the city was working towards streamlining the processes and there was no proposal to remove or eliminate the entitlement process. She indicated that in comparison to other jurisdictions, the City’s entitlement process was not overly burdensome.

Commissioner Bonilla Jr. mentioned the City often provided a white glove service to help developments navigate the process and wondered if something similar could be done for the Housing Element. He inquired how the Housing Element accommodated and addressed an aging population. Principal Planner Schmidt noted the Housing Element did include incentives to expedite development by connecting with developers early in the process and helping them through the process for commercial and residential projects. With respect to an aging population, Ms. Schmidt restated that developments that accommodated groups identified as special needs would receive special incentives or points enabling them to receive additional funding. She added that universal design guidelines were being developed and the reasonable accommodations ordinance will be updated to remove constraints of a burdensome planning process that may inhibit the addition of structures like ramps.

Commissioner Bonilla Jr. acknowledged that many residents were cost-burdened by high rents and he asked how was the City going to retain affordability of rental units. Principal Planner Schmidt confirmed the only plan in the Housing Element was related to continuing implementation of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance and was not aware if any updates were planned for this Ordinance in the coming years.

Vice Chair Lowe opened the public hearing at 9:27 p.m.

Mr. Nazario (Zoom participant) asked if the Housing Element included planning for dog parks or children’s parks that go along with high density housing. Principal Planner Schmidt answered that per the Zoning Ordinance new development was required to have a certain amount of common and private open space, programming of the space was a the discretion of the developer, with staff input.

Vice Chair Lowe closed the public hearing at 9:29 p.m.

Commissioner Stevens appreciated staff’s work but stated he had two areas of concern. The first was that the State of California had taken away the City’s ability to form the built environment. He found it troubling that the City would be expediting SB 9 applications 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

VIRTUAL (ZOOM) PARTICIPATION
Thursday, January 26, 2023, 7:00 p.m.
because those applications had the potential to change the form of a residential neighborhood. He feared that the public was not aware of those changes and will become aware as housing is torn down and new structures constructed. Mr. Stevens appreciated the Objective Standards that the City will work towards, but did not have high hopes that the City will be able to create a protocol that will be consistent with State Law, resulting in the loss of local control of development. His second concern was that he was unclear why the City felt it must meet with labor unions, especially the carpenters union. In his experience, most residential wood frame construction was built by non-union labor, adding that the marketplace was competitive, and that workers were paid very well for labor due to the limited supply for this type of workforce. He questioned that if the City was to meet with the carpenter’s union, it should meet with local framing contractors as well as they may have valuable input to provide. He was gravely concerned about SB 9 as the impact of this legislation will become evident towards the end Housing Element’s 8-year period.

Commissioner Goodbody thanked staff for their hard work and appreciated staff’s thorough answers to the Commission’s questions.

Commissioner Bonilla Jr. found the Housing Element to be very comprehensive, appreciated its evolution over the past several years, he found the document to be responsive to the needs identified in the community and found the community outreach to be very robust. He encouraged staff to continue that type of outreach in the future. He expressed his excitement to see the section on fair housing and the City’s will to center housing through the lens of race and equity. Mr. Bonilla Jr. supported the City having discussions with labor unions and appreciated Commissioner Stevens’ comments. He indicated that discussions should be open between labor groups and the community, encouraged staff to open discussions to other trade groups should they request to meet like the carpenter’s union have done so, and believed the discussions would create a balance between both parties and foster creative solutions. He requested that staff provide an update to the Commission after those discussions take place if they impact the Housing Element.

A motion was made by Commissioner Bonilla Jr., seconded by Commissioner Patterson, to approve the staff recommendation with a revision to include contractors and other groups that employ construction laborers.

Commissioner Stevens supported the language as long as the City was agnostic to union versus non-union trades. He requested that staff clarify what is meant by expediting SB 9 projects. Principal Planner Schmidt explained that SB 9 project applications were a ministerial permit which bypassed discretionary review by staff. She elaborated that the expedited portion meant that still provide outreach and education about the law, and will assist individuals with the application process. Planning Manager Lochirco added that the 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

VIRTUAL (ZOOM) PARTICIPATION
Thursday, January 26, 2023, 7:00 p.m.

State created SB 9 legislation and also determined that local discretion needed to be ministerial if projects met specific criteria and clarified that the expediting of SB 9 was that if an applicant had interest in pursuing SB 9, that staff provides materials necessary for the applicant to comply with state and local regulations.

The motion passed with the following roll call votes:

AYES: Commissioners Bonilla Jr., Garg, Goodbody, Patterson, Stevens Chair Ali-Sullivan, Vice Chair Lowe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CITY OF HAYWARD Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: LB 23-006
DATE: February 7, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Human Resources

SUBJECT
Salary Plan Amendment: Adopt a Resolution Approving an Amendment to the City of Hayward Salary Plan for the Fiscal Year 2023

RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopts a Resolution (Attachment II) approving an amendment to the City of Hayward Salary Plan for Fiscal Year 2023 (FY 2023), which designates all classifications and the corresponding salary range for employment in the City of Hayward as of February 13, 2023, superseding Resolution No. 23- 019 and all amendments thereto.

SUMMARY
As required by the Municipal Code, the FY 2023 Salary Plan has been updated to reflect salary adjustments to nine (9) classifications in the City’s unclassified service based on market study results.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Revised Salary Plan for FY 2023
CITY OF HAYWARD Page 1 of 1 Printed on 2/3/2023
powered by Legistar™

DATE: February 7, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Human Resources
SUBJECT: Salary Plan Amendment: Adopt a Resolution Approving an Amendment to the City of Hayward Salary Plan for the Fiscal Year 2023

RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopts a Resolution (Attachment II) approving an amendment to the City of Hayward Salary Plan for Fiscal Year 2023 (FY 2023), which designates all classifications and the corresponding salary range for employment in the City of Hayward as of February 13, 2023, superseding Resolution No. 23-019 and all amendments thereto.

SUMMARY
As required by the Municipal Code, the FY 2023 Salary Plan has been updated to reflect salary adjustments to nine (9) classifications in the City’s unclassified service based on market study results.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Unrepresented Executive Equity Adjustments:

In August 2022, Human Resources staff completed total compensation market studies for unrepresented executive employees. Table 1 below shows the methodology used to determine equity increases. Using the methodology below it was determined that eight (8) unrepresented executive employees would receive equity adjustments effective the pay period including January 1, 2023.

Table 1 – Equity Increase Methodology
% ABOVE LABOR

MARKET AVERAGE

EQUITY INCREASE

PERCENTAGE
>15% 10.00%
10-15% 5.00%
≥5% 3.00%

Table 2 below will be applied to the classifications listed below effective the pay period including January 1, 2023.

Table 2 – FY 2023 Equity Adjustments for Eight (8) Unrepresented Executive Classifications

CLASSIFICATION PERCENTAGE INCREASE
Assistant City Manager 3.00%
Chief of Police 3.00%
Deputy City Manager 3.00%
Director of Development Services 5.00%
Director of Finance 3.00%
Director of Library Services 5.00%
Director of Maintenance Services 5.00%
Director of Public Works 3.00%
Equity Adjustment:

ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER (U320): In December 2022, Human Resources staff completed a total compensation market study for the Assistant to the City Manager, which indicated the position was 19.30% below the market median. Based on the findings of the market study, the Assistant to the City Manager classification shall receive a salary adjustment of nineteen percent (19%); ten percent (10%) of which will be effective November 7, 2022, and the remaining nine percent (9%) effective the pay period that includes July 1, 2023. The salary range for the Assistant to the City Manager is $61.79 at Step A and $75.09 at Step E.

FISCAL IMPACT
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: The additional fiscal impact for the Assistant City Manager is as follows; approximately $8,249 to the General Fund, $13 to the Measure B Fund, $13 to the Community Development Block Grant Fund, and $2 to the RDA Successor Agency Fund, for a total fiscal impact of $8,276. Budget adjustments will be included in the FY 2023 mid-year budget process.

CHIEF OF POLICE: The additional fiscal impact for the Chief of Police is an increase of approximately $6,807 to the General Fund. Budget adjustments will be included in the FY 2023 mid-year budget process.

DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: The additional fiscal impact for the Deputy City Manager is an increase of approximately $4,623 to the General Fund. The Deputy City Manager is not a budgeted position in the FY 2023 budget resulting in no impact to the FY 2023 budget.

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: The additional fiscal impact for the Director of Development Services is an increase of approximately $7,418 to the General Fund. The Director of Development Services is not a budgeted position in the FY 2023 budget resulting in no impact to the FY 2023 budget.

DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: The additional fiscal impact for the Director of Finance is an increase of approximately $4,451 to the General Fund. Budget adjustments will be included in the FY 2023 mid-year budget process.

DIRECTOR OF LIBRARY SERVICES: The additional fiscal impact for the Director of Library Services is an increase of approximately $7,418 to the General Fund. Budget adjustments will be included in the FY 2023 mid-year budget process.

DIRECTOR OF MAINTENANCE SERVICES: The additional fiscal impact for the Director of Maintenance Services is as follows: approximately $2,967 to the General Fund; $742 to the Water Fund; $740 to the Stormwater Fund; $1,484 to the Facilities Management Fund; and $1,484 to the Fleet Management Fund, for a total fiscal impact of $7,418. Budget adjustments will be included in the FY 2023 mid-year budget process.

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS: The additional fiscal impact for the Director of Public Works is as follows: $462 to the Measure D Recycling Fund; $1,849 to the Water Fund; $1,849 to the Sewer Fund; and $462 to the Stormwater Fund, for a total fiscal impact of $4,622. Budget adjustments will be included in the FY 2023 mid-year budget process.

ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER: The additional fiscal impact for the Assistant to the City Manager is $13,645.53 to the General Fund. Budget adjustments will be included in the FY 2023 mid-year budget process.

STRATEGIC ROADMAP
This agenda item is a routine operational item and does not relate to one of the City Council’s Strategic Roadmap initiatives.

NEXT STEPS
If approved, salary adjustments will be implemented by the Human Resources and Finance departments and will be reflected in the employee’ paychecks dated February 17, 2023.

Appropriate retroactive payments based on the dates in this report will be reflected in the employees’ paychecks dated March 17, 2023.

Prepared by: Valeria Cazares, Acting Human Resources Analyst I Recommended by: Brittney Frye, Director of Human Resources Regina Youngblood, Assistant City Manager
Approved by:
___________________________________________________
Kelly McAdoo, City Manager

ATTACHMENT II

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 23-_____
Introduced by Council Member ________
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED FISCAL YEAR 2023 SALARY PLAN

DESIGNATING POSITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE CITY OF HAYWARD AND SALARY RANGE; AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 23-019 AND ALL

AMENDMENTS THERETO
WHEREAS, the Salary Plan has been revised to reflect salary adjustments to various unclassified classifications as a result of market study results; and WHEREAS, the current pay rate for these classifications must be adjusted to ensure the salary range is reflective of these changes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hayward, as follows:

Section 1. That a revised Positions and Salaries Schedule relating to the positions of employment in the City of Hayward, and the hourly rates of pay for those positions, is hereby set forth in Attachment "III," attached hereto and made a part hereof. The positions enumerated under the columns headed "Classification Title" are hereby designated as the positions of employment in the City of Hayward, and the hourly, bi-weekly, monthly, and annual rates of pay shown in the adjacent rows under the headings "Step A” through “Step E” are the salary rates or the minimum and maximum rates of pay for such positions.

Section 2. Salaries paid to occupants of said positions shall be administered in accordance with the Personnel Rules and Memoranda of Understanding and Side Letter Agreements approved by the City Council and currently in effect.

Section 3. All class titles used herein refer to the specifications of the position classification plan as reviewed by the Personnel Commission of the City of Hayward, or as set forth in the City Charter.

Section 4. The City Manager may approve in advance of an established effective date, payment to certain classifications in the Management Unit of all or a portion of a general salary increase previously approved by the City Council. Such advance payments shall be made only for those management classifications where the salary range is less than ten percent above an immediately subordinate classification. The amount of advance payment approved by the City Manager shall not exceed the amount required to establish a ten percent salary differential between the affected classifications. The City Manager shall advise the City Council and each bargaining unit in advance of any payments made pursuant to the provisions of this section.

ATTACHMENT II

Section 5. The salary ranges set forth in Attachment "III" shall be revised to reflect salary changes provided in any Memorandum of Understanding, Side Letters of Agreement, or resolution setting forth the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment for a bargaining unit or group of unrepresented employees of the City. Any revisions made pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be incorporated into a document prepared by the Human Resources Director and distributed to affected employees or their representatives that reflects the date of the revision and cites both the authority provided by this section and the provision of the memorandum or resolution being effectuated by the revision.

Section 6. This resolution supersedes Resolution No. 23-019 and all amendments thereto.

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA _______________________, 2023 ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

MAYOR:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: ______________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Hayward
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________________
City Attorney of the City of Hayward

SALARY PLAN FOR ALL CLASSIFICATIONS
(PER MUNI CODE SEC.2-4.30)
FY 2023

ATTACHMENT III
Approved by Council
February 7, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS/APPOINTED OFFICERS/EXECUTIVES
Hourly
Bi-Weekly
Monthly
Annual 39,960.00
Hourly
Bi-Weekly
Monthly
Annual 24,975.00
Hourly 152.76
Bi-Weekly 12,220.80
Monthly 26,478.40
Annual 317,740.80
Hourly 132.36
Bi-Weekly 10,588.80
Monthly 22,942.40
Annual 275,308.80
Hourly 80.11
Bi-Weekly 6,408.80
Monthly 13,885.73
Annual 166,628.80
Hourly 104.68 109.92 115.41 121.18 127.24
Bi-Weekly 8,374.40 8,793.60 9,232.80 9,694.40 10,179.20 Monthly 18,144.53 19,052.80 20,004.40 21,004.53 22,054.93 Annual 217,734.40 228,633.60 240,052.80 252,054.40 264,659.20 Hourly 105.93 111.21 116.78 122.62 128.74
Bi-Weekly 8,474.40 8,896.80 9,342.40 9,809.60 10,299.20 Monthly 18,361.20 19,276.40 20,241.87 21,254.13 22,314.93 Annual 220,334.40 231,316.80 242,902.40 255,049.60 267,779.20 Hourly 73.99 77.70 81.56 85.66 89.95
Bi-Weekly 5,919.20 6,216.00 6,524.80 6,852.80 7,196.00
Monthly 12,824.93 13,468.00 14,137.07 14,847.73 15,591.33 Annual 153,899.20 161,616.00 169,644.80 178,172.80 187,096.00 Hourly 95.51 100.28 105.30 110.58 116.09
Bi-Weekly 7,640.80 8,022.40 8,424.00 8,846.40 9,287.20
Monthly 16,555.07 17,381.87 18,252.00 19,167.20 20,122.27 Annual 198,660.80 208,582.40 219,024.00 230,006.40 241,467.20 Hourly 93.41 98.07 102.99 108.14 113.54
Bi-Weekly 7,472.80 7,845.60 8,239.20 8,651.20 9,083.20
Monthly 16,191.07 16,998.80 17,851.60 18,744.27 19,680.27 Annual 194,292.80 203,985.60 214,219.20 224,931.20 236,163.20 Hourly 91.63 96.20 101.03 106.08 111.37
Bi-Weekly 7,330.40 7,696.00 8,082.40 8,486.40 8,909.60
Monthly 15,882.53 16,674.67 17,511.87 18,387.20 19,304.13 Annual 190,590.40 200,096.00 210,142.40 220,646.40 231,649.60 Hourly 95.51 100.27 105.29 110.55 116.07
Bi-Weekly 7,640.80 8,021.60 8,423.20 8,844.00 9,285.60
Monthly 16,555.07 17,380.13 18,250.27 19,162.00 20,118.80 Annual 198,660.80 208,561.60 219,003.20 229,944.00 241,425.60 Hourly 94.31 98.99 103.96 109.17 114.62
Bi-Weekly 7,544.80 7,919.20 8,316.80 8,733.60 9,169.60
Monthly 16,347.07 17,158.27 18,019.73 18,922.80 19,867.47 Annual 196,164.80 205,899.20 216,236.80 227,073.60 238,409.60 Hourly 93.41 98.07 102.99 108.14 113.54
Bi-Weekly 7,472.80 7,845.60 8,239.20 8,651.20 9,083.20
Monthly 16,191.07 16,998.80 17,851.60 18,744.27 19,680.27 Annual 194,292.80 203,985.60 214,219.20 224,931.20 236,163.20 Hourly 93.41 98.07 102.99 108.14 113.54
Bi-Weekly 7,472.80 7,845.60 8,239.20 8,651.20 9,083.20
Monthly 16,191.07 16,998.80 17,851.60 18,744.27 19,680.27 Annual 194,292.80 203,985.60 214,219.20 224,931.20 236,163.20 Hourly 95.16 99.94 104.93 110.20 115.68
Bi-Weekly 7,612.80 7,995.20 8,394.40 8,816.00 9,254.40
Monthly 16,494.40 17,322.93 18,187.87 19,101.33 20,051.20 Annual 197,932.80 207,875.20 218,254.40 229,216.00 240,614.40 Hourly 115.80 121.57 127.66 134.05 140.75
Bi-Weekly 9,264.00 9,725.60 10,212.80 10,724.00 11,260.00 Monthly 20,072.00 21,072.13 22,127.73 23,235.33 24,396.67 Annual 240,864.00 252,865.60 265,532.80 278,824.00 292,760.00

COMMUNICATIONS AND MARKETING OFFICER / PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER (PIO)

DEPUTY CITY MANAGER

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

DIRECTOR OF FINANCE

DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES

DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY / CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER (CIO) MAYOR

CITY COUNCIL

CITY MANAGER

CITY ATTORNEY

CITY CLERK

ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

CHIEF OF POLICE

DIRECTOR OF LIBRARY SERVICES

DIRECTOR OF MAINTENANCE SERVICES

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

FIRE CHIEF
U710 Unclassified
U720 Unclassified
U705 Unclassified
F800 Unclassified
U730 Unclassified
U715 Unclassified
E110 Unclassified
E100 Unclassified
A110 Unclassified
A100 Unclassified
A120 Unclassified
U311 Unclassified
P500 Unclassified
U735 Unclassified
U725 Unclassified
U700 Unclassified
U505 Unclassified
Salaries Effective February 13, 2023 1

SALARY PLAN FOR ALL CLASSIFICATIONS
(PER MUNI CODE SEC.2-4.30)
FY 2023

ATTACHMENT III
Approved by Council
February 7, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

CITY WIDE ADMINISTRATIVE/ANALYTICAL SUPPORT
Hourly 55.59 58.34 61.26 64.32 67.53
Bi-Weekly 4,447.20 4,667.20 4,900.80 5,145.60 5,402.40
Monthly 9,635.60 10,112.27 10,618.40 11,148.80 11,705.20 Annual 115,627.20 121,347.20 127,420.80 133,785.60 140,462.40 Hourly 50.54 53.07 55.72 58.50 61.41
Bi-Weekly 4,043.20 4,245.60 4,457.60 4,680.00 4,912.80
Monthly 8,760.27 9,198.80 9,658.13 10,140.00 10,644.40
Annual 105,123.20 110,385.60 115,897.60 121,680.00 127,732.80 Hourly 45.95 48.26 50.66 53.18 55.84
Bi-Weekly 3,676.00 3,860.80 4,052.80 4,254.40 4,467.20
Monthly 7,964.67 8,365.07 8,781.07 9,217.87 9,678.93
Annual 95,576.00 100,380.80 105,372.80 110,614.40 116,147.20 Hourly 44.85 46.91 49.03 51.13 53.38
Bi-Weekly 3,588.00 3,752.80 3,922.40 4,090.40 4,270.40
Monthly 7,774.00 8,131.07 8,498.53 8,862.53 9,252.53
Annual 93,288.00 97,572.80 101,982.40 106,350.40 111,030.40 Hourly 44.42 46.62 48.96 51.38 53.96
Bi-Weekly 3,553.60 3,729.60 3,916.80 4,110.40 4,316.80
Monthly 7,699.47 8,080.80 8,486.40 8,905.87 9,353.07
Annual 92,393.60 96,969.60 101,836.80 106,870.40 112,236.80 Hourly 41.57 43.28 44.98 46.68 48.53
Bi-Weekly 3,325.60 3,462.40 3,598.40 3,734.40 3,882.40
Monthly 7,205.47 7,501.87 7,796.53 8,091.20 8,411.87
Annual 86,465.60 90,022.40 93,558.40 97,094.40 100,942.40 Hourly 38.00 39.48 41.09 42.60 44.24
Bi-Weekly 3,040.00 3,158.40 3,287.20 3,408.00 3,539.20
Monthly 6,586.67 6,843.20 7,122.27 7,384.00 7,668.27
Annual 79,040.00 82,118.40 85,467.20 88,608.00 92,019.20 Hourly 33.44 34.97 36.74 38.44 40.26
Bi-Weekly 2,675.20 2,797.60 2,939.20 3,075.20 3,220.80
Monthly 5,796.27 6,061.47 6,368.27 6,662.93 6,978.40
Annual 69,555.20 72,737.60 76,419.20 79,955.20 83,740.80 Hourly 29.32 30.53 31.77 33.19 34.82
Bi-Weekly 2,345.60 2,442.40 2,541.60 2,655.20 2,785.60
Monthly 5,082.13 5,291.87 5,506.80 5,752.93 6,035.47
Annual 60,985.60 63,502.40 66,081.60 69,035.20 72,425.60 Hourly 25.81 27.19 28.56 30.09 31.66
Bi-Weekly 2,064.80 2,175.20 2,284.80 2,407.20 2,532.80
Monthly 4,473.73 4,712.93 4,950.40 5,215.60 5,487.73
Annual 53,684.80 56,555.20 59,404.80 62,587.20 65,852.80 Hourly 15.82 20.00
Bi-Weekly 1,265.60 1,600.00
Monthly 2,742.13 3,466.67
Annual 32,905.60 41,600.00
Hourly 17.73 18.59 19.53
Bi-Weekly 1,418.40 1,487.20 1,562.40
Monthly 3,073.20 3,222.27 3,385.20
Annual 36,878.40 38,667.20 40,622.40

MANAGEMENT ANALYST I

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISOR

ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY

SENIOR SECRETARY

SECRETARY

SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST

MANAGEMENT ANALYST II

ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK II

ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK I

ADMINISTRATIVE INTERN

MAIL CLERK
C105 Classified
C110 Classified
C115 Classified
C410 Classified
Z120 Classified
C100 Classified
H105 Classified
H110 Classified
H115 Classified
C120 Classified
H120 Classified
U315 Unclassified
Salaries Effective February 13, 2023 2

SALARY PLAN FOR ALL CLASSIFICATIONS
(PER MUNI CODE SEC.2-4.30)
FY 2023

ATTACHMENT III
Approved by Council
February 7, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

CITY WIDE MAINTENANCE
Hourly 48.62 50.55 52.54 54.78 57.04
Bi-Weekly 3,889.60 4,044.00 4,203.20 4,382.40 4,563.20
Monthly 8,427.47 8,762.00 9,106.93 9,495.20 9,886.93
Annual 101,129.60 105,144.00 109,283.20 113,942.40 118,643.20 Hourly 44.21 46.03 47.85 49.85 51.89
Bi-Weekly 3,536.80 3,682.40 3,828.00 3,988.00 4,151.20
Monthly 7,663.07 7,978.53 8,294.00 8,640.67 8,994.27
Annual 91,956.80 95,742.40 99,528.00 103,688.00 107,931.20 Hourly 37.78 39.28 40.88 42.32 43.96
Bi-Weekly 3,022.40 3,142.40 3,270.40 3,385.60 3,516.80
Monthly 6,548.53 6,808.53 7,085.87 7,335.47 7,619.73
Annual 78,582.40 81,702.40 85,030.40 88,025.60 91,436.80 Hourly 28.73 29.79 30.97 32.24 33.39
Bi-Weekly 2,298.40 2,383.20 2,477.60 2,579.20 2,671.20
Monthly 4,979.87 5,163.60 5,368.13 5,588.27 5,787.60
Annual 59,758.40 61,963.20 64,417.60 67,059.20 69,451.20

CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT
Hourly 84.27 88.52 92.94 97.59 102.47
Bi-Weekly 6,741.60 7,081.60 7,435.20 7,807.20 8,197.60
Monthly 14,606.80 15,343.47 16,109.60 16,915.60 17,761.47 Annual 175,281.60 184,121.60 193,315.20 202,987.20 213,137.60 Hourly 76.62 80.45 84.50 88.71 93.14
Bi-Weekly 6,129.60 6,436.00 6,760.00 7,096.80 7,451.20
Monthly 13,280.80 13,944.67 14,646.67 15,376.40 16,144.27 Annual 159,369.60 167,336.00 175,760.00 184,516.80 193,731.20 Hourly 63.35 66.49 69.81 73.29 76.99
Bi-Weekly 5,068.00 5,319.20 5,584.80 5,863.20 6,159.20
Monthly 10,980.67 11,524.93 12,100.40 12,703.60 13,344.93 Annual 131,768.00 138,299.20 145,204.80 152,443.20 160,139.20 Hourly 57.57 60.45 63.47 66.65 69.98
Bi-Weekly 4,605.60 4,836.00 5,077.60 5,332.00 5,598.40
Monthly 9,978.80 10,478.00 11,001.47 11,552.67 12,129.87 Annual 119,745.60 125,736.00 132,017.60 138,632.00 145,558.40 Hourly 43.88 46.09 48.38 50.79 53.33
Bi-Weekly 3,510.40 3,687.20 3,870.40 4,063.20 4,266.40
Monthly 7,605.87 7,988.93 8,385.87 8,803.60 9,243.87
Annual 91,270.40 95,867.20 100,630.40 105,643.20 110,926.40 Hourly 39.88 41.88 43.98 46.16 48.48
Bi-Weekly 3,190.40 3,350.40 3,518.40 3,692.80 3,878.40
Monthly 6,912.53 7,259.20 7,623.20 8,001.07 8,403.20
Annual 82,950.40 87,110.40 91,478.40 96,012.80 100,838.40 Hourly 36.09 38.19 41.06 41.92 44.07
Bi-Weekly 2,887.20 3,055.20 3,284.80 3,353.60 3,525.60
Monthly 6,255.60 6,619.60 7,117.07 7,266.13 7,638.80
Annual 75,067.20 79,435.20 85,404.80 87,193.60 91,665.60 Hourly 32.50 34.21 36.02 37.96 39.96
Bi-Weekly 2,600.00 2,736.80 2,881.60 3,036.80 3,196.80
Monthly 5,633.33 5,929.73 6,243.47 6,579.73 6,926.40
Annual 67,600.00 71,156.80 74,921.60 78,956.80 83,116.80

CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT
Hourly 50.54 53.08 55.71 58.50 61.42
Bi-Weekly 4,043.20 4,246.40 4,456.80 4,680.00 4,913.60
Monthly 8,760.27 9,200.53 9,656.40 10,140.00 10,646.13
Annual 105,123.20 110,406.40 115,876.80 121,680.00 127,753.60

MAINTENANCE WORKER

LABORER

SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY

ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY

DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY II

DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY I

ELECTRICIAN II

ELECTRICIAN I

SENIOR PARALEGAL

PARALEGAL

LEGAL SECRETARY II

LEGAL SECRETARY I

DEPUTY CITY CLERK
U196
U195
Classified
Classified
U205 Classified
U200 Classified
H500 Classified
C930 Classified
C935 Classified
M305 Classified
M405 Classified
M410 Classified
U215 Classified
U210 Classified
M200
M300
M830
M905
Classified
Salaries Effective February 13, 2023 3

SALARY PLAN FOR ALL CLASSIFICATIONS
(PER MUNI CODE SEC.2-4.30)
FY 2023

ATTACHMENT III
Approved by Council
February 7, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT

OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Hourly 56.17 58.98 61.92 65.02 68.26
Bi-Weekly 4,493.60 4,718.40 4,953.60 5,201.60 5,460.80
Monthly 9,736.13 10,223.20 10,732.80 11,270.13 11,831.73 Annual 116,833.60 122,678.40 128,793.60 135,241.60 141,980.80 Hourly 61.79 64.88 68.11 71.52 75.09
Bi-Weekly 4,943.20 5,190.40 5,448.80 5,721.60 6,007.20
Monthly 10,710.27 11,245.87 11,805.73 12,396.80 13,015.60 Annual 128,523.20 134,950.40 141,668.80 148,761.60 156,187.20 Hourly 36.49 38.27 40.31 42.31 44.36
Bi-Weekly 2,919.20 3,061.60 3,224.80 3,384.80 3,548.80
Monthly 6,324.93 6,633.47 6,987.07 7,333.73 7,689.07
Annual 75,899.20 79,601.60 83,844.80 88,004.80 92,268.80 Hourly 51.80 54.37 57.09 59.94 62.95
Bi-Weekly 4,144.00 4,349.60 4,567.20 4,795.20 5,036.00
Monthly 8,978.67 9,424.13 9,895.60 10,389.60 10,911.33
Annual 107,744.00 113,089.60 118,747.20 124,675.20 130,936.00 Hourly 39.76
Bi-Weekly 3,180.80
Monthly 6,891.73
Annual 82,700.80

COMMUNITY SERVICES
Hourly 69.72 73.21 76.88 80.74 84.75
Bi-Weekly 5,577.60 5,856.80 6,150.40 6,459.20 6,780.00
Monthly 12,084.80 12,689.73 13,325.87 13,994.93 14,690.00 Annual 145,017.60 152,276.80 159,910.40 167,939.20 176,280.00 Hourly 45.50 47.87 50.30 52.77 55.35
Bi-Weekly 3,640.00 3,829.60 4,024.00 4,221.60 4,428.00
Monthly 7,886.67 8,297.47 8,718.67 9,146.80 9,594.00
Annual 94,640.00 99,569.60 104,624.00 109,761.60 115,128.00 Hourly 50.03 52.63 55.30 58.04 60.87
Bi-Weekly 4,002.40 4,210.40 4,424.00 4,643.20 4,869.60
Monthly 8,671.87 9,122.53 9,585.33 10,060.27 10,550.80
Annual 104,062.40 109,470.40 115,024.00 120,723.20 126,609.60 Hourly 45.50 47.87 50.30 52.77 55.35
Bi-Weekly 3,640.00 3,829.60 4,024.00 4,221.60 4,428.00
Monthly 7,886.67 8,297.47 8,718.67 9,146.80 9,594.00
Annual 94,640.00 99,569.60 104,624.00 109,761.60 115,128.00 Hourly 43.38 45.54 47.74 50.17 52.62
Bi-Weekly 3,470.40 3,643.20 3,819.20 4,013.60 4,209.60
Monthly 7,519.20 7,893.60 8,274.93 8,696.13 9,120.80
Annual 90,230.40 94,723.20 99,299.20 104,353.60 109,449.60

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Hourly 76.69 80.53 84.57 88.81 93.23
Bi-Weekly 6,135.20 6,442.40 6,765.60 7,104.80 7,458.40
Monthly 13,292.93 13,958.53 14,658.80 15,393.73 16,159.87 Annual 159,515.20 167,502.40 175,905.60 184,724.80 193,918.40 Hourly 69.72 73.21 76.88 80.74 84.75
Bi-Weekly 5,577.60 5,856.80 6,150.40 6,459.20 6,780.00
Monthly 12,084.80 12,689.73 13,325.87 13,994.93 14,690.00 Annual 145,017.60 152,276.80 159,910.40 167,939.20 176,280.00 Hourly 49.38 51.86 54.39 57.16 59.95
Bi-Weekly 3,950.40 4,148.80 4,351.20 4,572.80 4,796.00
Monthly 8,559.20 8,989.07 9,427.60 9,907.73 10,391.33
Annual 102,710.40 107,868.80 113,131.20 118,892.80 124,696.00

NEIGHBORHOOD PARTNERSHIP SERVICES
Hourly 68.85 72.26 75.87 79.66 83.65
Bi-Weekly 5,508.00 5,780.80 6,069.60 6,372.80 6,692.00
Monthly 11,934.00 12,525.07 13,150.80 13,807.73 14,499.33 Annual 143,208.00 150,300.80 157,809.60 165,692.80 173,992.00 Hourly 61.90 65.00 68.23 71.66 75.24
Bi-Weekly 4,952.00 5,200.00 5,458.40 5,732.80 6,019.20
Monthly 10,729.33 11,266.67 11,826.53 12,421.07 13,041.60 Annual 128,752.00 135,200.00 141,918.40 149,052.80 156,499.20

GRAPHICS AND MEDIA RELATIONS TECHNICIAN

DIGITAL APPLICATIONS DEVELOPER

MANAGEMENT FELLOW

COMMUNITY SERVICES MANAGER

COMMUNITY PROGRAMS SPECIALIST

SENIOR PROPERTY REHABILITATION SPECIALIST

ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER

EQUITY AND INCLUSION OFFICER

PROPERTY REHABILITATION SPECIALIST

PARATRANSIT COORDINATOR

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANAGER

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST

NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT MANAGER

NEIGHBORHOOD PARTNERSHIP MANAGER

CHIEF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
T715 Classified
T725 Classified
T730 Classified
H735 Classified
H730 Classified
H710 Classified
T745 Classified
U330 Classified
T470 Classified
T300 Classified
U320 Unclassified
Classified
Classified
H745
T705
U300 Classified
U340 Classified
Salaries Effective February 13, 2023 4

SALARY PLAN FOR ALL CLASSIFICATIONS
(PER MUNI CODE SEC.2-4.30)
FY 2023

ATTACHMENT III
Approved by Council
February 7, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

HOUSING AUTHORITY
Hourly 69.72 73.21 76.88 80.74 84.75
Bi-Weekly 5,577.60 5,856.80 6,150.40 6,459.20 6,780.00
Monthly 12,084.80 12,689.73 13,325.87 13,994.93 14,690.00 Annual 145,017.60 152,276.80 159,910.40 167,939.20 176,280.00 Hourly 49.38 51.86 54.39 57.16 59.95
Bi-Weekly 3,950.40 4,148.80 4,351.20 4,572.80 4,796.00
Monthly 8,559.20 8,989.07 9,427.60 9,907.73 10,391.33
Annual 102,710.40 107,868.80 113,131.20 118,892.80 124,696.00 Hourly 43.38 45.54 47.74 50.17 52.62
Bi-Weekly 3,470.40 3,643.20 3,819.20 4,013.60 4,209.60
Monthly 7,519.20 7,893.60 8,274.93 8,696.13 9,120.80
Annual 90,230.40 94,723.20 99,299.20 104,353.60 109,449.60

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

DEVELOPMENT SERVICE ADMINISTRATION
Hourly 81.07 85.15 89.41 93.87 98.58
Bi-Weekly 6,485.60 6,812.00 7,152.80 7,509.60 7,886.40
Monthly 14,052.13 14,759.33 15,497.73 16,270.80 17,087.20 Annual 168,625.60 177,112.00 185,972.80 195,249.60 205,046.40

BUILDING DIVISION
Hourly 71.57 75.16 78.90 82.88 87.00
Bi-Weekly 5,725.60 6,012.80 6,312.00 6,630.40 6,960.00
Monthly 12,405.47 13,027.73 13,676.00 14,365.87 15,080.00 Annual 148,865.60 156,332.80 164,112.00 172,390.40 180,960.00 Hourly 61.08 64.13 67.34 70.71 74.25
Bi-Weekly 4,886.40 5,130.40 5,387.20 5,656.80 5,940.00
Monthly 10,587.20 11,115.87 11,672.27 12,256.40 12,870.00 Annual 127,046.40 133,390.40 140,067.20 147,076.80 154,440.00 Hourly 53.77 56.64 59.50 62.30 65.41
Bi-Weekly 4,301.60 4,531.20 4,760.00 4,984.00 5,232.80
Monthly 9,320.13 9,817.60 10,313.33 10,798.67 11,337.73 Annual 111,841.60 117,811.20 123,760.00 129,584.00 136,052.80 Hourly 53.77 56.64 59.50 62.30 65.41
Bi-Weekly 4,301.60 4,531.20 4,760.00 4,984.00 5,232.80
Monthly 9,320.13 9,817.60 10,313.33 10,798.67 11,337.73 Annual 111,841.60 117,811.20 123,760.00 129,584.00 136,052.80 Hourly 53.77 56.64 59.50 62.30 65.41
Bi-Weekly 4,301.60 4,531.20 4,760.00 4,984.00 5,232.80
Monthly 9,320.13 9,817.60 10,313.33 10,798.67 11,337.73 Annual 111,841.60 117,811.20 123,760.00 129,584.00 136,052.80 Hourly 46.42 48.61 51.08 53.68 57.19
Bi-Weekly 3,713.60 3,888.80 4,086.40 4,294.40 4,575.20
Monthly 8,046.13 8,425.73 8,853.87 9,304.53 9,912.93
Annual 96,553.60 101,108.80 106,246.40 111,654.40 118,955.20 Hourly 57.03 59.78 62.80 66.08 69.43
Bi-Weekly 4,562.40 4,782.40 5,024.00 5,286.40 5,554.40
Monthly 9,885.20 10,361.87 10,885.33 11,453.87 12,034.53 Annual 118,622.40 124,342.40 130,624.00 137,446.40 144,414.40 Hourly 64.82 68.05 71.47 75.05 78.81
Bi-Weekly 5,185.60 5,444.00 5,717.60 6,004.00 6,304.80
Monthly 11,235.47 11,795.33 12,388.13 13,008.67 13,660.40 Annual 134,825.60 141,544.00 148,657.60 156,104.00 163,924.80 Hourly 53.77 56.64 59.50 62.30 65.41
Bi-Weekly 4,301.60 4,531.20 4,760.00 4,984.00 5,232.80
Monthly 9,320.13 9,817.60 10,313.33 10,798.67 11,337.73 Annual 111,841.60 117,811.20 123,760.00 129,584.00 136,052.80 Hourly 48.90 51.46 54.09 56.66 59.49
Bi-Weekly 3,912.00 4,116.80 4,327.20 4,532.80 4,759.20
Monthly 8,476.00 8,919.73 9,375.60 9,821.07 10,311.60
Annual 101,712.00 107,036.80 112,507.20 117,852.80 123,739.20

HOUSING MANAGER

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST

HOMEOWNERSHIP COORDINATOR

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL

SUPERVISING BUILDING INSPECTOR

SENIOR PLAN CHECKER

PLAN CHECKER

SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR/STRUCTURAL

SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR/PLUMBING-MECHANICAL

SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR/ELECTRICAL

BUILDING INSPECTOR

PLAN CHECKING ENGINEER

SUPERVISING PLAN CHECKER AND EXPEDITOR
T360 Classified
T355
T350
T335 Classified
Classified
Classified
T325 Classified
T330
H325 Classified
Classified
U515 Classified
T710 Classified
H715 Classified
T750 Classified
T365 Classified
H335 Classified
H330 Classified
Salaries Effective February 13, 2023 5

SALARY PLAN FOR ALL CLASSIFICATIONS
(PER MUNI CODE SEC.2-4.30)
FY 2023

ATTACHMENT III
Approved by Council
February 7, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Hourly 43.60 45.78 48.06 50.47 52.99
Bi-Weekly 3,488.00 3,662.40 3,844.80 4,037.60 4,239.20
Monthly 7,557.33 7,935.20 8,330.40 8,748.13 9,184.93
Annual 90,688.00 95,222.40 99,964.80 104,977.60 110,219.20 Hourly 40.20 41.86 43.48 45.36 47.67
Bi-Weekly 3,216.00 3,348.80 3,478.40 3,628.80 3,813.60
Monthly 6,968.00 7,255.73 7,536.53 7,862.40 8,262.80
Annual 83,616.00 87,068.80 90,438.40 94,348.80 99,153.60 Hourly 36.25 37.68 39.21 40.91 42.97
Bi-Weekly 2,900.00 3,014.40 3,136.80 3,272.80 3,437.60
Monthly 6,283.33 6,531.20 6,796.40 7,091.07 7,448.13
Annual 75,400.00 78,374.40 81,556.80 85,092.80 89,377.60 Hourly 32.95 34.25 35.64 37.16 39.06
Bi-Weekly 2,636.00 2,740.00 2,851.20 2,972.80 3,124.80
Monthly 5,711.33 5,936.67 6,177.60 6,441.07 6,770.40
Annual 68,536.00 71,240.00 74,131.20 77,292.80 81,244.80

PLANNING DIVISION
Hourly 71.90 75.48 79.25 83.20 87.39
Bi-Weekly 5,752.00 6,038.40 6,340.00 6,656.00 6,991.20
Monthly 12,462.67 13,083.20 13,736.67 14,421.33 15,147.60 Annual 149,552.00 156,998.40 164,840.00 173,056.00 181,771.20 Hourly 61.90 65.00 68.23 71.66 75.24
Bi-Weekly 4,952.00 5,200.00 5,458.40 5,732.80 6,019.20
Monthly 10,729.33 11,266.67 11,826.53 12,421.07 13,041.60 Annual 128,752.00 135,200.00 141,918.40 149,052.80 156,499.20 Hourly 55.47 58.22 61.14 64.19 67.40
Bi-Weekly 4,437.60 4,657.60 4,891.20 5,135.20 5,392.00
Monthly 9,614.80 10,091.47 10,597.60 11,126.27 11,682.67 Annual 115,377.60 121,097.60 127,171.20 133,515.20 140,192.00 Hourly 49.51 51.94 54.53 57.33 60.08
Bi-Weekly 3,960.80 4,155.20 4,362.40 4,586.40 4,806.40
Monthly 8,581.73 9,002.93 9,451.87 9,937.20 10,413.87
Annual 102,980.80 108,035.20 113,422.40 119,246.40 124,966.40 Hourly 40.64 42.62 44.91 47.11 49.51
Bi-Weekly 3,251.20 3,409.60 3,592.80 3,768.80 3,960.80
Monthly 7,044.27 7,387.47 7,784.40 8,165.73 8,581.73
Annual 84,531.20 88,649.60 93,412.80 97,988.80 102,980.80 Hourly 36.03 37.92 39.70 41.70 43.73
Bi-Weekly 2,882.40 3,033.60 3,176.00 3,336.00 3,498.40
Monthly 6,245.20 6,572.80 6,881.33 7,228.00 7,579.87
Annual 74,942.40 78,873.60 82,576.00 86,736.00 90,958.40 Hourly 45.46 47.65 50.27 52.73 55.41
Bi-Weekly 3,636.80 3,812.00 4,021.60 4,218.40 4,432.80
Monthly 7,879.73 8,259.33 8,713.47 9,139.87 9,604.40
Annual 94,556.80 99,112.00 104,561.60 109,678.40 115,252.80 Hourly 65.36 68.62 72.06 75.66 79.46
Bi-Weekly 5,228.80 5,489.60 5,764.80 6,052.80 6,356.80
Monthly 11,329.07 11,894.13 12,490.40 13,114.40 13,773.07 Annual 135,948.80 142,729.60 149,884.80 157,372.80 165,276.80 Hourly 49.51 51.94 54.53 57.33 60.08
Bi-Weekly 3,960.80 4,155.20 4,362.40 4,586.40 4,806.40
Monthly 8,581.73 9,002.93 9,451.87 9,937.20 10,413.87
Annual 102,980.80 108,035.20 113,422.40 119,246.40 124,966.40

CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION
Hourly 56.57 59.40 62.35 65.47 68.73
Bi-Weekly 4,525.60 4,752.00 4,988.00 5,237.60 5,498.40
Monthly 9,805.47 10,296.00 10,807.33 11,348.13 11,913.20 Annual 117,665.60 123,552.00 129,688.00 136,177.60 142,958.40 Hourly 49.17 51.64 54.23 56.92 59.78
Bi-Weekly 3,933.60 4,131.20 4,338.40 4,553.60 4,782.40
Monthly 8,522.80 8,950.93 9,399.87 9,866.13 10,361.87
Annual 102,273.60 107,411.20 112,798.40 118,393.60 124,342.40 Hourly 48.56 50.99 53.53 56.21 59.02
Bi-Weekly 3,884.80 4,079.20 4,282.40 4,496.80 4,721.60
Monthly 8,417.07 8,838.27 9,278.53 9,743.07 10,230.13
Annual 101,004.80 106,059.20 111,342.40 116,916.80 122,761.60 Hourly 44.14 46.33 48.64 51.09 53.63
Bi-Weekly 3,531.20 3,706.40 3,891.20 4,087.20 4,290.40
Monthly 7,650.93 8,030.53 8,430.93 8,855.60 9,295.87
Annual 91,811.20 96,366.40 101,171.20 106,267.20 111,550.40 Hourly 40.12 42.12 44.21 46.43 48.77
Bi-Weekly 3,209.60 3,369.60 3,536.80 3,714.40 3,901.60
Monthly 6,954.13 7,300.80 7,663.07 8,047.87 8,453.47
Annual 83,449.60 87,609.60 91,956.80 96,574.40 101,441.60

SUPERVISING PERMIT TECHNICIAN

SENIOR PERMIT TECHNICIAN

PERMIT TECHNICIAN II

PERMIT TECHNICIAN I

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SPECIALIST

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

ASSOCIATE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER

CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR

SENIOR CODE ENFORCEMENT INSPECTOR

PLANNING MANAGER

PRINCIPAL PLANNER

SENIOR PLANNER

ASSOCIATE PLANNER

ASSISTANT PLANNER

JUNIOR PLANNER

CODE ENFORCEMENT INSPECTOR II

CODE ENFORCEMENT INSPECTOR I
T320 Classified
T310
T305
Classified
Classified
T605 Classified
T600 Classified
T370
H300 Classified
Classified
H703 Classified
H700 Classified
T610 Classified
C199 Classified
C200 Classified
C205 Classified
T315 Classified
H310 Classified
H320 Classified
H315 Classified
H340 Classified
Salaries Effective February 13, 2023 6

SALARY PLAN FOR ALL CLASSIFICATIONS
(PER MUNI CODE SEC.2-4.30)
FY 2023

ATTACHMENT III
Approved by Council
February 7, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

FINANCE DEPARTMENT

ADMINISTRATION DIVISION
Hourly 74.08 77.78 81.67 85.76 90.03
Bi-Weekly 5,926.40 6,222.40 6,533.60 6,860.80 7,202.40
Monthly 12,840.53 13,481.87 14,156.13 14,865.07 15,605.20 Annual 154,086.40 161,782.40 169,873.60 178,380.80 187,262.40 Hourly 58.21 61.14 64.18 67.39 70.74
Bi-Weekly 4,656.80 4,891.20 5,134.40 5,391.20 5,659.20
Monthly 10,089.73 10,597.60 11,124.53 11,680.93 12,261.60 Annual 121,076.80 127,171.20 133,494.40 140,171.20 147,139.20 Hourly 50.75 53.28 55.92 58.72 61.67
Bi-Weekly 4,060.00 4,262.40 4,473.60 4,697.60 4,933.60
Monthly 8,796.67 9,235.20 9,692.80 10,178.13 10,689.47
Annual 105,560.00 110,822.40 116,313.60 122,137.60 128,273.60 Hourly 38.77 40.70 42.73 44.87 47.13
Bi-Weekly 3,101.60 3,256.00 3,418.40 3,589.60 3,770.40
Monthly 6,720.13 7,054.67 7,406.53 7,777.47 8,169.20
Annual 80,641.60 84,656.00 88,878.40 93,329.60 98,030.40

ACCOUNTING DIVISION
Hourly 67.34 70.69 74.22 77.93 81.84
Bi-Weekly 5,387.20 5,655.20 5,937.60 6,234.40 6,547.20
Monthly 11,672.27 12,252.93 12,864.80 13,507.87 14,185.60 Annual 140,067.20 147,035.20 154,377.60 162,094.40 170,227.20 Hourly 51.05 53.58 56.25 59.06 62.00
Bi-Weekly 4,084.00 4,286.40 4,500.00 4,724.80 4,960.00
Monthly 8,848.67 9,287.20 9,750.00 10,237.07 10,746.67
Annual 106,184.00 111,446.40 117,000.00 122,844.80 128,960.00 Hourly 46.38 48.69 51.13 53.67 56.37
Bi-Weekly 3,710.40 3,895.20 4,090.40 4,293.60 4,509.60
Monthly 8,039.20 8,439.60 8,862.53 9,302.80 9,770.80
Annual 96,470.40 101,275.20 106,350.40 111,633.60 117,249.60 Hourly 33.57 35.20 36.73 38.49 40.29
Bi-Weekly 2,685.60 2,816.00 2,938.40 3,079.20 3,223.20
Monthly 5,818.80 6,101.33 6,366.53 6,671.60 6,983.60
Annual 69,825.60 73,216.00 76,398.40 80,059.20 83,803.20 Hourly 30.58 31.95 33.45 34.98 36.75
Bi-Weekly 2,446.40 2,556.00 2,676.00 2,798.40 2,940.00
Monthly 5,300.53 5,538.00 5,798.00 6,063.20 6,370.00
Annual 63,606.40 66,456.00 69,576.00 72,758.40 76,440.00

REVENUE DIVISION
Hourly 67.34 70.69 74.22 77.93 81.84
Bi-Weekly 5,387.20 5,655.20 5,937.60 6,234.40 6,547.20
Monthly 11,672.27 12,252.93 12,864.80 13,507.87 14,185.60 Annual 140,067.20 147,035.20 154,377.60 162,094.40 170,227.20 Hourly 50.75 53.28 55.92 58.72 61.67
Bi-Weekly 4,060.00 4,262.40 4,473.60 4,697.60 4,933.60
Monthly 8,796.67 9,235.20 9,692.80 10,178.13 10,689.47
Annual 105,560.00 110,822.40 116,313.60 122,137.60 128,273.60 Hourly 36.45 38.29 40.17 42.19 44.31
Bi-Weekly 2,916.00 3,063.20 3,213.60 3,375.20 3,544.80
Monthly 6,318.00 6,636.93 6,962.80 7,312.93 7,680.40
Annual 75,816.00 79,643.20 83,553.60 87,755.20 92,164.80 Hourly 33.57 35.20 36.73 38.49 40.29
Bi-Weekly 2,685.60 2,816.00 2,938.40 3,079.20 3,223.20
Monthly 5,818.80 6,101.33 6,366.53 6,671.60 6,983.60
Annual 69,825.60 73,216.00 76,398.40 80,059.20 83,803.20 Hourly 30.58 31.95 33.45 34.98 36.75
Bi-Weekly 2,446.40 2,556.00 2,676.00 2,798.40 2,940.00
Monthly 5,300.53 5,538.00 5,798.00 6,063.20 6,370.00
Annual 63,606.40 66,456.00 69,576.00 72,758.40 76,440.00 Hourly 25.81 27.19 28.56 30.09 31.66
Bi-Weekly 2,064.80 2,175.20 2,284.80 2,407.20 2,532.80
Monthly 4,473.73 4,712.93 4,950.40 5,215.60 5,487.73
Annual 53,684.80 56,555.20 59,404.80 62,587.20 65,852.80

PURCHASING DIVISION
Hourly 58.20 61.11 64.16 67.36 70.71
Bi-Weekly 4,656.00 4,888.80 5,132.80 5,388.80 5,656.80
Monthly 10,088.00 10,592.40 11,121.07 11,675.73 12,256.40 Annual 121,056.00 127,108.80 133,452.80 140,108.80 147,076.80 Hourly 38.77 40.70 42.73 44.87 47.13
Bi-Weekly 3,101.60 3,256.00 3,418.40 3,589.60 3,770.40
Monthly 6,720.13 7,054.67 7,406.53 7,777.47 8,169.20
Annual 80,641.60 84,656.00 88,878.40 93,329.60 98,030.40 Hourly 27.84 29.24 30.60 32.20 33.77
Bi-Weekly 2,227.20 2,339.20 2,448.00 2,576.00 2,701.60
Monthly 4,825.60 5,068.27 5,304.00 5,581.33 5,853.47
Annual 57,907.20 60,819.20 63,648.00 66,976.00 70,241.60

ACCOUNTING MANAGER

SENIOR ACCOUNTANT

ACCOUNTANT

SENIOR ACCOUNT CLERK

ACCOUNT CLERK

REVENUE MANAGER

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE

BUDGET OFFICER

FINANCIAL ANALYST

FINANCE TECHNICIAN

PURCHASING TECHNICIAN

MAIL AND PURCHASING CLERK

FINANCE SUPERVISOR

SUPERVISING CUSTOMER ACCOUNT CLERK

SENIOR CUSTOMER ACCOUNT CLERK

CUSTOMER ACCOUNT CLERK

MAIL AND REVENUE CLERK

PURCHASING AND SERVICES MANAGER
C330
C325
C322
Classified
Classified
Classified
Classified
H180 Classified
C345 Classified
C335 Classified
H160
H155
Classified
Classified
C305 Classified
C300 Classified
C332
H165 Classified
C320 Classified
U500
H170
Classified
Classified
H140
H145 Classified
Classified
H150 Classified
Salaries Effective February 13, 2023 7

SALARY PLAN FOR ALL CLASSIFICATIONS
(PER MUNI CODE SEC.2-4.30)
FY 2023

ATTACHMENT III
Approved by Council
February 7, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

FIRE DEPARTMENT
SWORN
Hourly 105.21 110.47 116.00 121.80 127.88
Bi-Weekly 8,416.80 8,837.60 9,280.00 9,744.00 10,230.40 Monthly 18,236.40 19,148.13 20,106.67 21,112.00 22,165.87 Annual 218,836.80 229,777.60 241,280.00 253,344.00 265,990.40 Hourly 84.70 88.94 93.39 98.06 102.95
Bi-Weekly 6,776.00 7,115.20 7,471.20 7,844.80 8,236.00
Monthly 14,681.33 15,416.27 16,187.60 16,997.07 17,844.67 Annual 176,176.00 184,995.20 194,251.20 203,964.80 214,136.00 Hourly 91.49 96.06 100.86 105.90 111.20
Bi-Weekly 7,319.20 7,684.80 8,068.80 8,472.00 8,896.00
Monthly 15,858.27 16,650.40 17,482.40 18,356.00 19,274.67 Annual 190,299.20 199,804.80 209,788.80 220,272.00 231,296.00 Hourly 91.49 96.06 100.86 105.90 111.20
Bi-Weekly 7,319.20 7,684.80 8,068.80 8,472.00 8,896.00
Monthly 15,858.27 16,650.40 17,482.40 18,356.00 19,274.67 Annual 190,299.20 199,804.80 209,788.80 220,272.00 231,296.00 Hourly 59.40 62.37 65.49 68.77 72.21
Bi-Weekly 6,652.80 6,985.44 7,334.88 7,702.24 8,087.52
Monthly 14,414.40 15,135.12 15,892.24 16,688.19 17,522.96 Annual 172,972.80 181,621.44 190,706.88 200,258.24 210,275.52 Hourly 83.16 87.31 91.70 96.28 101.08
Bi-Weekly 6,652.80 6,984.80 7,336.00 7,702.40 8,086.40
Monthly 14,414.40 15,133.73 15,894.67 16,688.53 17,520.53 Annual 172,972.80 181,604.80 190,736.00 200,262.40 210,246.40 Hourly 80.08 84.08 88.29
Bi-Weekly 6,406.40 6,726.40 7,063.20
Monthly 13,880.53 14,573.87 15,303.60
Annual 166,566.40 174,886.40 183,643.20
Hourly 74.14 77.85 81.74
Bi-Weekly 5,931.20 6,228.00 6,539.20
Monthly 12,850.93 13,494.00 14,168.27
Annual 154,211.20 161,928.00 170,019.20
Hourly 51.98 54.58 57.33
Bi-Weekly 5,821.76 6,112.96 6,420.96
Monthly 12,613.81 13,244.75 13,912.08
Annual 151,365.76 158,936.96 166,944.96
Hourly 72.80 76.43 80.24
Bi-Weekly 5,824.00 6,114.40 6,419.20
Monthly 12,618.67 13,247.87 13,908.27
Annual 151,424.00 158,974.40 166,899.20
Hourly 44.06 46.24 48.54 50.98 53.52
Bi-Weekly 4,934.72 5,178.88 5,436.48 5,709.76 5,994.24
Monthly 10,691.89 11,220.91 11,779.04 12,371.15 12,987.52 Annual 128,302.72 134,650.88 141,348.48 148,453.76 155,850.24 Hourly 57.06 59.92 62.92 66.07 69.37
Bi-Weekly 4,564.80 4,793.60 5,033.60 5,285.60 5,549.60
Monthly 9,890.40 10,386.13 10,906.13 11,452.13 12,024.13 Annual 118,684.80 124,633.60 130,873.60 137,425.60 144,289.60 Hourly 61.62 64.72 67.95 71.35 74.90
Bi-Weekly 4,929.60 5,177.60 5,436.00 5,708.00 5,992.00
Monthly 10,680.80 11,218.13 11,778.00 12,367.33 12,982.67 Annual 128,169.60 134,617.60 141,336.00 148,408.00 155,792.00 Hourly 41.70 43.79 45.98 48.28 50.69
Bi-Weekly 4,670.40 4,904.48 5,149.76 5,407.36 5,677.28
Monthly 10,119.20 10,626.37 11,157.81 11,715.95 12,300.77 Annual 121,430.40 127,516.48 133,893.76 140,591.36 147,609.28 Hourly 38.63 40.54 42.58 44.70 46.94
Bi-Weekly 4,326.56 4,540.48 4,768.96 5,006.40 5,257.28
Monthly 9,374.21 9,837.71 10,332.75 10,847.20 11,390.77 Annual 112,490.56 118,052.48 123,992.96 130,166.40 136,689.28 Hourly 58.33 61.25 64.31 67.52 70.91
Bi-Weekly 4,666.40 4,900.00 5,144.80 5,401.60 5,672.80
Monthly 10,110.53 10,616.67 11,147.07 11,703.47 12,291.07 Annual 121,326.40 127,400.00 133,764.80 140,441.60 147,492.80 Hourly 39.30 41.27 43.33 45.51 47.79
Bi-Weekly 4,401.60 4,622.24 4,852.96 5,097.12 5,352.48
Monthly 9,536.80 10,014.85 10,514.75 11,043.76 11,597.04 Annual 114,441.60 120,178.24 126,176.96 132,525.12 139,164.48 Hourly 55.04 57.78 60.66 63.70 66.89
Bi-Weekly 4,403.20 4,622.40 4,852.80 5,096.00 5,351.20
Monthly 9,540.27 10,015.20 10,514.40 11,041.33 11,594.27 Annual 114,483.20 120,182.40 126,172.80 132,496.00 139,131.20 Hourly 47.38 49.74
Bi-Weekly 3,790.40 3,979.20
Monthly 8,212.53 8,621.60
Annual 98,550.40 103,459.20
DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF (40 HR)
FIRE MARSHAL - EMT (40 HR)
FIRE MARSHAL (40 HR)
FIRE TRAINING OFFICER (40 HR)
FIRE PREVENTION INSPECTOR (56 HR)
FIRE PREVENTION INSPECTOR - EMT (40 HR)
FIRE PREVENTION INSPECTOR (40 HR)
APPARATUS OPERATOR (56 HR)
APPARATUS OPERATOR - EMT (56 HR)
APPARATUS OPERATOR (40 HR)
BATTALION CHIEF (56 HR)
BATTALION CHIEF (40 HR)
STAFF FIRE CAPTAIN (40 HR)
STAFF FIRE CAPTAIN - EMT (40 HR)
FIRE CAPTAIN (56 HR)
FIRE CAPTAIN (40 HR)
FIREFIGHTER (56 HR)
FIREFIGHTER (40 HR)
FIREFIGHTER TRAINEE (40 HR) F100 Classified
F205 Classified
F221 Classified
F220 Classified
F210 Classified
F200 Classified
F211 Classified
F215 Classified
F415 Classified
F400 Classified
F420 Classified
F410 Classified
F225 Classified
F250 Classified
Classified
Classified
F245 Classified
F241
F240
Classified
F401 Classified
F600
Salaries Effective February 13, 2023 8

SALARY PLAN FOR ALL CLASSIFICATIONS
(PER MUNI CODE SEC.2-4.30)
FY 2023

ATTACHMENT III
Approved by Council
February 7, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

PROFESSIONAL STAFF
Hourly 63.13 66.28 69.59 73.08 76.72
Bi-Weekly 5,050.40 5,302.40 5,567.20 5,846.40 6,137.60
Monthly 10,942.53 11,488.53 12,062.27 12,667.20 13,298.13 Annual 131,310.40 137,862.40 144,747.20 152,006.40 159,577.60 Hourly 57.03 59.78 62.80 66.08 69.43
Bi-Weekly 4,562.40 4,782.40 5,024.00 5,286.40 5,554.40
Monthly 9,885.20 10,361.87 10,885.33 11,453.87 12,034.53 Annual 118,622.40 124,342.40 130,624.00 137,446.40 144,414.40 Hourly 55.55 58.33 61.22 64.28 67.51
Bi-Weekly 4,444.00 4,666.40 4,897.60 5,142.40 5,400.80
Monthly 9,628.67 10,110.53 10,611.47 11,141.87 11,701.73 Annual 115,544.00 121,326.40 127,337.60 133,702.40 140,420.80 Hourly 55.61 58.38 61.30 64.38 67.60
Bi-Weekly 4,448.80 4,670.40 4,904.00 5,150.40 5,408.00
Monthly 9,639.07 10,119.20 10,625.33 11,159.20 11,717.33 Annual 115,668.80 121,430.40 127,504.00 133,910.40 140,608.00 Hourly 52.98 55.62 58.41 61.33 64.38
Bi-Weekly 4,238.40 4,449.60 4,672.80 4,906.40 5,150.40
Monthly 9,183.20 9,640.80 10,124.40 10,630.53 11,159.20 Annual 110,198.40 115,689.60 121,492.80 127,566.40 133,910.40 Hourly 55.59 58.38 61.27 64.33 67.56
Bi-Weekly 4,447.20 4,670.40 4,901.60 5,146.40 5,404.80
Monthly 9,635.60 10,119.20 10,620.13 11,150.53 11,710.40 Annual 115,627.20 121,430.40 127,441.60 133,806.40 140,524.80 Hourly 40.20 41.86 43.48 45.36 47.67
Bi-Weekly 3,216.00 3,348.80 3,478.40 3,628.80 3,813.60
Monthly 6,968.00 7,255.73 7,536.53 7,862.40 8,262.80
Annual 83,616.00 87,068.80 90,438.40 94,348.80 99,153.60 Hourly 35.36 37.12 38.98 40.94 42.97
Bi-Weekly 2,828.80 2,969.60 3,118.40 3,275.20 3,437.60
Monthly 6,129.07 6,434.13 6,756.53 7,096.27 7,448.13
Annual 73,548.80 77,209.60 81,078.40 85,155.20 89,377.60 Hourly 32.12 33.72 35.41 37.18 39.05
Bi-Weekly 2,569.60 2,697.60 2,832.80 2,974.40 3,124.00
Monthly 5,567.47 5,844.80 6,137.73 6,444.53 6,768.67
Annual 66,809.60 70,137.60 73,652.80 77,334.40 81,224.00

HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
Hourly 79.83 83.81 88.00 92.41 97.02
Bi-Weekly 6,386.40 6,704.80 7,040.00 7,392.80 7,761.60
Monthly 13,837.20 14,527.07 15,253.33 16,017.73 16,816.80 Annual 166,046.40 174,324.80 183,040.00 192,212.80 201,801.60 Hourly 72.55 76.18 79.99 83.99 88.19
Bi-Weekly 5,804.00 6,094.40 6,399.20 6,719.20 7,055.20
Monthly 12,575.33 13,204.53 13,864.93 14,558.27 15,286.27 Annual 150,904.00 158,454.40 166,379.20 174,699.20 183,435.20 Hourly 55.60 58.35 61.27 64.33 67.55
Bi-Weekly 4,448.00 4,668.00 4,901.60 5,146.40 5,404.00
Monthly 9,637.33 10,114.00 10,620.13 11,150.53 11,708.67 Annual 115,648.00 121,368.00 127,441.60 133,806.40 140,504.00 Hourly 50.55 53.08 55.73 58.50 61.43
Bi-Weekly 4,044.00 4,246.40 4,458.40 4,680.00 4,914.40
Monthly 8,762.00 9,200.53 9,659.87 10,140.00 10,647.87
Annual 105,144.00 110,406.40 115,918.40 121,680.00 127,774.40 Hourly 45.95 48.27 50.67 53.18 55.85
Bi-Weekly 3,676.00 3,861.60 4,053.60 4,254.40 4,468.00
Monthly 7,964.67 8,366.80 8,782.80 9,217.87 9,680.67
Annual 95,576.00 100,401.60 105,393.60 110,614.40 116,168.00 Hourly 41.79 43.89 46.09 48.37 50.77
Bi-Weekly 3,343.20 3,511.20 3,687.20 3,869.60 4,061.60
Monthly 7,243.60 7,607.60 7,988.93 8,384.13 8,800.13
Annual 86,923.20 91,291.20 95,867.20 100,609.60 105,601.60 Hourly 43.66 45.45 47.24 49.02 50.96
Bi-Weekly 3,492.80 3,636.00 3,779.20 3,921.60 4,076.80
Monthly 7,567.73 7,878.00 8,188.27 8,496.80 8,833.07
Annual 90,812.80 94,536.00 98,259.20 101,961.60 105,996.80

ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INSPECTOR

FIRE SERVICES SUPERVISOR

SENIOR FIRE TECHNICIAN

FIRE TECHNICIAN II

FIRE TECHNICIAN I

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAM COORDINATOR

FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES COORDINATOR

HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES

HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER

SENIOR HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST

HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST II

HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST I

HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN
Classified
Classified
U115 Classified
U120
U135
U105 Classified
U100 Classified
U110 Classified
C260 Classified
H580 Classified
T500 Classified
U520 Classified
C250 Classified
C255 Classified
H590 Classified
T505 Classified
H585 Classified
T510 Classified
Salaries Effective February 13, 2023 9

SALARY PLAN FOR ALL CLASSIFICATIONS
(PER MUNI CODE SEC.2-4.30)
FY 2023

ATTACHMENT III
Approved by Council
February 7, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

LIBRARY SERVICES DEPARTMENT

LIBRARY SERVICES DIVISION
Hourly 48.16 50.56 53.09 55.73 58.52
Bi-Weekly 3,852.80 4,044.80 4,247.20 4,458.40 4,681.60
Monthly 8,347.73 8,763.73 9,202.27 9,659.87 10,143.47
Annual 100,172.80 105,164.80 110,427.20 115,918.40 121,721.60 Hourly 48.16 50.56 53.09 55.73 58.52
Bi-Weekly 3,852.80 4,044.80 4,247.20 4,458.40 4,681.60
Monthly 8,347.73 8,763.73 9,202.27 9,659.87 10,143.47
Annual 100,172.80 105,164.80 110,427.20 115,918.40 121,721.60 Hourly 38.15 40.07 41.99 44.13 46.21
Bi-Weekly 3,052.00 3,205.60 3,359.20 3,530.40 3,696.80
Monthly 6,612.67 6,945.47 7,278.27 7,649.20 8,009.73
Annual 79,352.00 83,345.60 87,339.20 91,790.40 96,116.80 Hourly 34.60 36.33 38.15 39.96 42.00
Bi-Weekly 2,768.00 2,906.40 3,052.00 3,196.80 3,360.00
Monthly 5,997.33 6,297.20 6,612.67 6,926.40 7,280.00
Annual 71,968.00 75,566.40 79,352.00 83,116.80 87,360.00 Hourly 33.66 35.36 37.05 38.86 40.91
Bi-Weekly 2,692.80 2,828.80 2,964.00 3,108.80 3,272.80
Monthly 5,834.40 6,129.07 6,422.00 6,735.73 7,091.07
Annual 70,012.80 73,548.80 77,064.00 80,828.80 85,092.80 Hourly 31.08 32.46 33.94 35.43 37.14
Bi-Weekly 2,486.40 2,596.80 2,715.20 2,834.40 2,971.20
Monthly 5,387.20 5,626.40 5,882.93 6,141.20 6,437.60
Annual 64,646.40 67,516.80 70,595.20 73,694.40 77,251.20 Hourly 28.16 29.47 30.80 32.21 33.72
Bi-Weekly 2,252.80 2,357.60 2,464.00 2,576.80 2,697.60
Monthly 4,881.07 5,108.13 5,338.67 5,583.07 5,844.80
Annual 58,572.80 61,297.60 64,064.00 66,996.80 70,137.60 Hourly 22.65
Bi-Weekly 1,087.20
Monthly 2,355.60
Annual 28,267.20
Hourly 20.58
Bi-Weekly 493.92
Monthly 1,070.16
Annual 12,841.92
Hourly 48.16 50.56 53.09 55.73 58.52
Bi-Weekly 3,852.80 4,044.80 4,247.20 4,458.40 4,681.60
Monthly 8,347.73 8,763.73 9,202.27 9,659.87 10,143.47
Annual 100,172.80 105,164.80 110,427.20 115,918.40 121,721.60 Hourly 33.81 35.51 37.30 39.15 41.12
Bi-Weekly 2,704.80 2,840.80 2,984.00 3,132.00 3,289.60
Monthly 5,860.40 6,155.07 6,465.33 6,786.00 7,127.47
Annual 70,324.80 73,860.80 77,584.00 81,432.00 85,529.60 Hourly 33.85 35.57 37.33 39.11 41.12
Bi-Weekly 2,708.00 2,845.60 2,986.40 3,128.80 3,289.60
Monthly 5,867.33 6,165.47 6,470.53 6,779.07 7,127.47
Annual 70,408.00 73,985.60 77,646.40 81,348.80 85,529.60 Hourly 33.66 35.36 37.05 38.86 40.91
Bi-Weekly 2,692.80 2,828.80 2,964.00 3,108.80 3,272.80
Monthly 5,834.40 6,129.07 6,422.00 6,735.73 7,091.07
Annual 70,012.80 73,548.80 77,064.00 80,828.80 85,092.80 Hourly 28.16 29.47 30.80 32.21 33.72
Bi-Weekly 2,252.80 2,357.60 2,464.00 2,576.80 2,697.60
Monthly 4,881.07 5,108.13 5,338.67 5,583.07 5,844.80
Annual 58,572.80 61,297.60 64,064.00 66,996.80 70,137.60

LIBRARY OPERATIONS MANAGER

SUPERVISING LIBRARIAN I

LIBRARIAN II

LIBRARIAN I

LEAD LIBRARY ASSISTANT

LITERACY PROGRAM COORDINATOR

LEAD PROGRAM ASSISTANT

PROGRAM ASSISTANT

SENIOR LIBRARY ASSISTANT

LIBRARY ASSISTANT
SENIOR LIBRARY PAGE (.6 FTE)
LIBRARY PAGE (.3 FTE)

EDUCATION SERVICES MANAGER

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES COORDINATOR
H760 Classified
Classified
Classified
C505
C500
C506 Classified
C508 Classified
Classified
T785 Classified
T780
T795 Classified
H750 Classified
H755 Classified
C515
C510 Classified
Classified
T790 Classified
C520 Classified
Salaries Effective February 13, 2023 10

SALARY PLAN FOR ALL CLASSIFICATIONS
(PER MUNI CODE SEC.2-4.30)
FY 2023

ATTACHMENT III
Approved by Council
February 7, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

MAINTENANCE SERVICES DEPARTMENT

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
Hourly 64.28 67.47 70.85 74.40 78.12
Bi-Weekly 5,142.40 5,397.60 5,668.00 5,952.00 6,249.60
Monthly 11,141.87 11,694.80 12,280.67 12,896.00 13,540.80 Annual 133,702.40 140,337.60 147,368.00 154,752.00 162,489.60 Hourly 60.44 62.85 65.28 67.97 70.86
Bi-Weekly 4,835.20 5,028.00 5,222.40 5,437.60 5,668.80
Monthly 10,476.27 10,894.00 11,315.20 11,781.47 12,282.40 Annual 125,715.20 130,728.00 135,782.40 141,377.60 147,388.80 Hourly 48.62 50.55 52.54 54.78 57.04
Bi-Weekly 3,889.60 4,044.00 4,203.20 4,382.40 4,563.20
Monthly 8,427.47 8,762.00 9,106.93 9,495.20 9,886.93
Annual 101,129.60 105,144.00 109,283.20 113,942.40 118,643.20 Hourly 42.65 44.39 46.12 48.03 50.04
Bi-Weekly 3,412.00 3,551.20 3,689.60 3,842.40 4,003.20
Monthly 7,392.67 7,694.27 7,994.13 8,325.20 8,673.60
Annual 88,712.00 92,331.20 95,929.60 99,902.40 104,083.20 Hourly 38.80 40.39 42.00 43.75 45.50
Bi-Weekly 3,104.00 3,231.20 3,360.00 3,500.00 3,640.00
Monthly 6,725.33 7,000.93 7,280.00 7,583.33 7,886.67
Annual 80,704.00 84,011.20 87,360.00 91,000.00 94,640.00 Hourly 42.36 44.04 45.87 47.77 49.76
Bi-Weekly 3,388.80 3,523.20 3,669.60 3,821.60 3,980.80
Monthly 7,342.40 7,633.60 7,950.80 8,280.13 8,625.07
Annual 88,108.80 91,603.20 95,409.60 99,361.60 103,500.80 Hourly 38.53 40.12 41.77 43.46 45.28
Bi-Weekly 3,082.40 3,209.60 3,341.60 3,476.80 3,622.40
Monthly 6,678.53 6,954.13 7,240.13 7,533.07 7,848.53
Annual 80,142.40 83,449.60 86,881.60 90,396.80 94,182.40 Hourly 34.34 35.70 37.16 38.47 39.96
Bi-Weekly 2,747.20 2,856.00 2,972.80 3,077.60 3,196.80
Monthly 5,952.27 6,188.00 6,441.07 6,668.13 6,926.40
Annual 71,427.20 74,256.00 77,292.80 80,017.60 83,116.80 Hourly 31.22 32.47 33.77 34.98 36.32
Bi-Weekly 2,497.60 2,597.60 2,701.60 2,798.40 2,905.60
Monthly 5,411.47 5,628.13 5,853.47 6,063.20 6,295.47
Annual 64,937.60 67,537.60 70,241.60 72,758.40 75,545.60

FLEET MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Hourly 64.28 67.47 70.85 74.40 78.12
Bi-Weekly 5,142.40 5,397.60 5,668.00 5,952.00 6,249.60
Monthly 11,141.87 11,694.80 12,280.67 12,896.00 13,540.80 Annual 133,702.40 140,337.60 147,368.00 154,752.00 162,489.60 Hourly 43.47 45.50 47.80 50.29 52.77
Bi-Weekly 3,477.60 3,640.00 3,824.00 4,023.20 4,221.60
Monthly 7,534.80 7,886.67 8,285.33 8,716.93 9,146.80
Annual 90,417.60 94,640.00 99,424.00 104,603.20 109,761.60 Hourly 37.45 39.20 41.19 43.34 45.48
Bi-Weekly 2,996.00 3,136.00 3,295.20 3,467.20 3,638.40
Monthly 6,491.33 6,794.67 7,139.60 7,512.27 7,883.20
Annual 77,896.00 81,536.00 85,675.20 90,147.20 94,598.40 Hourly 34.09 35.80 37.64 39.49 41.44
Bi-Weekly 2,727.20 2,864.00 3,011.20 3,159.20 3,315.20
Monthly 5,908.93 6,205.33 6,524.27 6,844.93 7,182.93
Annual 70,907.20 74,464.00 78,291.20 82,139.20 86,195.20 Hourly 31.75 33.46 35.06 36.84 38.71
Bi-Weekly 2,540.00 2,676.80 2,804.80 2,947.20 3,096.80
Monthly 5,503.33 5,799.73 6,077.07 6,385.60 6,709.73
Annual 66,040.00 69,596.80 72,924.80 76,627.20 80,516.80 Hourly 29.31 30.46 31.72 32.80 34.07
Bi-Weekly 2,344.80 2,436.80 2,537.60 2,624.00 2,725.60
Monthly 5,080.40 5,279.73 5,498.13 5,685.33 5,905.47
Annual 60,964.80 63,356.80 65,977.60 68,224.00 70,865.60

FACILITIES AND BUILDING MANAGER

FACILITIES LEADWORKER

HVAC MECHANIC

FLEET MAINTENANCE MANAGER

SENIOR EQUIPMENT MECHANIC

EQUIPMENT MECHANIC II

EQUIPMENT MECHANIC I

EQUIPMENT PARTS STOREKEEPER

EQUIPMENT SERVICE ATTENDANT

FACILITIES PAINTER II

FACILITIES PAINTER I

FACILITIES CARPENTER II

FACILITIES CARPENTER I

FACILITIES SERVICEWORKER II

FACILITIES SERVICEWORKER I
Classified
M600 Classified
M605
M615
M610 Classified
Classified
M120 Classified
M115 Classified
M620 Classified
H635 Classified
M110 Classified
M105 Classified
M130 Classified
M140 Classified
H605 Classified
M135 Classified
M125 Classified
Salaries Effective February 13, 2023 11

SALARY PLAN FOR ALL CLASSIFICATIONS
(PER MUNI CODE SEC.2-4.30)
FY 2023

ATTACHMENT III
Approved by Council
February 7, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DIVISION
Hourly 64.28 67.47 70.85 74.40 78.12
Bi-Weekly 5,142.40 5,397.60 5,668.00 5,952.00 6,249.60
Monthly 11,141.87 11,694.80 12,280.67 12,896.00 13,540.80 Annual 133,702.40 140,337.60 147,368.00 154,752.00 162,489.60 Hourly 50.74 52.77 54.90 56.88 59.05
Bi-Weekly 4,059.20 4,221.60 4,392.00 4,550.40 4,724.00
Monthly 8,794.93 9,146.80 9,516.00 9,859.20 10,235.33
Annual 105,539.20 109,761.60 114,192.00 118,310.40 122,824.00 Hourly 45.62 47.43 49.35 51.12 53.09
Bi-Weekly 3,649.60 3,794.40 3,948.00 4,089.60 4,247.20
Monthly 7,907.47 8,221.20 8,554.00 8,860.80 9,202.27
Annual 94,889.60 98,654.40 102,648.00 106,329.60 110,427.20 Hourly 39.67 41.26 42.92 44.44 46.15
Bi-Weekly 3,173.60 3,300.80 3,433.60 3,555.20 3,692.00
Monthly 6,876.13 7,151.73 7,439.47 7,702.93 7,999.33
Annual 82,513.60 85,820.80 89,273.60 92,435.20 95,992.00 Hourly 36.03 37.46 39.04 40.40 41.96
Bi-Weekly 2,882.40 2,996.80 3,123.20 3,232.00 3,356.80
Monthly 6,245.20 6,493.07 6,766.93 7,002.67 7,273.07
Annual 74,942.40 77,916.80 81,203.20 84,032.00 87,276.80 Hourly 39.67 41.26 42.92 44.44 46.15
Bi-Weekly 3,173.60 3,300.80 3,433.60 3,555.20 3,692.00
Monthly 6,876.13 7,151.73 7,439.47 7,702.93 7,999.33
Annual 82,513.60 85,820.80 89,273.60 92,435.20 95,992.00

STREET MAINTENANCE DIVISION
Hourly 64.28 67.47 70.85 74.40 78.12
Bi-Weekly 5,142.40 5,397.60 5,668.00 5,952.00 6,249.60
Monthly 11,141.87 11,694.80 12,280.67 12,896.00 13,540.80 Annual 133,702.40 140,337.60 147,368.00 154,752.00 162,489.60 Hourly 56.28 58.44 60.86 63.02 65.43
Bi-Weekly 4,502.40 4,675.20 4,868.80 5,041.60 5,234.40
Monthly 9,755.20 10,129.60 10,549.07 10,923.47 11,341.20 Annual 117,062.40 121,555.20 126,588.80 131,081.60 136,094.40 Hourly 47.82 49.67 51.73 53.56 55.61
Bi-Weekly 3,825.60 3,973.60 4,138.40 4,284.80 4,448.80
Monthly 8,288.80 8,609.47 8,966.53 9,283.73 9,639.07
Annual 99,465.60 103,313.60 107,598.40 111,404.80 115,668.80 Hourly 41.58 43.20 44.99 46.57 48.35
Bi-Weekly 3,326.40 3,456.00 3,599.20 3,725.60 3,868.00
Monthly 7,207.20 7,488.00 7,798.27 8,072.13 8,380.67
Annual 86,486.40 89,856.00 93,579.20 96,865.60 100,568.00 Hourly 40.87 42.24 43.95 45.82 47.64
Bi-Weekly 3,269.60 3,379.20 3,516.00 3,665.60 3,811.20
Monthly 7,084.13 7,321.60 7,618.00 7,942.13 8,257.60
Annual 85,009.60 87,859.20 91,416.00 95,305.60 99,091.20 Hourly 37.16 38.40 39.95 41.66 43.31
Bi-Weekly 2,972.80 3,072.00 3,196.00 3,332.80 3,464.80
Monthly 6,441.07 6,656.00 6,924.67 7,221.07 7,507.07
Annual 77,292.80 79,872.00 83,096.00 86,652.80 90,084.80

POLICE DEPARTMENT
SWORN
Hourly 93.49 98.15 103.08 108.22 113.62
Bi-Weekly 7,479.20 7,852.00 8,246.40 8,657.60 9,089.60
Monthly 16,204.93 17,012.67 17,867.20 18,758.13 19,694.13 Annual 194,459.20 204,152.00 214,406.40 225,097.60 236,329.60 Hourly 83.57 87.64
Bi-Weekly 6,685.60 7,011.20
Monthly 14,485.47 15,190.93
Annual 173,825.60 182,291.20
Hourly 71.60 75.05 78.90
Bi-Weekly 5,728.00 6,004.00 6,312.00
Monthly 12,410.67 13,008.67 13,676.00
Annual 148,928.00 156,104.00 164,112.00
Hourly 52.58 55.10 57.78 60.57 63.45
Bi-Weekly 4,206.40 4,408.00 4,622.40 4,845.60 5,076.00
Monthly 9,113.87 9,550.67 10,015.20 10,498.80 10,998.00 Annual 109,366.40 114,608.00 120,182.40 125,985.60 131,976.00 Hourly 38.47 40.37
Bi-Weekly 3,077.60 3,229.60
Monthly 6,668.13 6,997.47
Annual 80,017.60 83,969.60

STREETS MAINTENANCE MANAGER

STREETS MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR

SENIOR MAINTENANCE LEADER

MAINTENANCE LEADER

LEAD SWEEPER EQUIPMENT OPERATOR

SWEEPER EQUIPMENT OPERATOR

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE MANAGER

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR

GROUNDSKEEPER III

GROUNDSKEEPER II

GROUNDSKEEPER I

TREE TRIMMER

POLICE CAPTAIN

POLICE LIEUTENANT

POLICE SERGEANT

POLICE OFFICER

POLICE OFFICER TRAINEE
P300
P215 Classified
Classified
P210 Classified
P200 Classified
P100 Classified
M702 Classified
M700 Classified
H625 Classified
M220 Classified
M205 Classified
M310 Classified
M315 Classified
H620 Classified
M210 Classified
H615 Classified
H610 Classified
M215 Classified
Salaries Effective February 13, 2023 12

SALARY PLAN FOR ALL CLASSIFICATIONS
(PER MUNI CODE SEC.2-4.30)
FY 2023

ATTACHMENT III
Approved by Council
February 7, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

PROFESSIONAL STAFF
Hourly 71.40 74.97 78.74 82.66 86.79
Bi-Weekly 5,712.00 5,997.60 6,299.20 6,612.80 6,943.20
Monthly 12,376.00 12,994.80 13,648.27 14,327.73 15,043.60 Annual 148,512.00 155,937.60 163,779.20 171,932.80 180,523.20 Hourly 45.74 47.60 49.47 51.33 53.38
Bi-Weekly 3,659.20 3,808.00 3,957.60 4,106.40 4,270.40
Monthly 7,928.27 8,250.67 8,574.80 8,897.20 9,252.53
Annual 95,139.20 99,008.00 102,897.60 106,766.40 111,030.40 Hourly 55.59 58.34 61.26 64.32 67.53
Bi-Weekly 4,447.20 4,667.20 4,900.80 5,145.60 5,402.40
Monthly 9,635.60 10,112.27 10,618.40 11,148.80 11,705.20 Annual 115,627.20 121,347.20 127,420.80 133,785.60 140,462.40 Hourly 50.54 53.07 55.72 58.50 61.41
Bi-Weekly 4,043.20 4,245.60 4,457.60 4,680.00 4,912.80
Monthly 8,760.27 9,198.80 9,658.13 10,140.00 10,644.40
Annual 105,123.20 110,385.60 115,897.60 121,680.00 127,732.80 Hourly 50.54 53.07 55.72 58.50 61.41
Bi-Weekly 4,043.20 4,245.60 4,457.60 4,680.00 4,912.80
Monthly 8,760.27 9,198.80 9,658.13 10,140.00 10,644.40
Annual 105,123.20 110,385.60 115,897.60 121,680.00 127,732.80

SPECIAL OPERATIONS DIVISION
Hourly 38.95 40.89 42.94 45.10 47.35
Bi-Weekly 3,116.00 3,271.20 3,435.20 3,608.00 3,788.00
Monthly 6,751.33 7,087.60 7,442.93 7,817.33 8,207.33
Annual 81,016.00 85,051.20 89,315.20 93,808.00 98,488.00 Hourly 35.40 37.16 39.03 40.99 43.03
Bi-Weekly 2,832.00 2,972.80 3,122.40 3,279.20 3,442.40
Monthly 6,136.00 6,441.07 6,765.20 7,104.93 7,458.53
Annual 73,632.00 77,292.80 81,182.40 85,259.20 89,502.40 Hourly 64.95 68.20 71.61 75.07 78.90
Bi-Weekly 5,196.00 5,456.00 5,728.80 6,005.60 6,312.00
Monthly 11,258.00 11,821.33 12,412.40 13,012.13 13,676.00 Annual 135,096.00 141,856.00 148,948.80 156,145.60 164,112.00

INVESTIGATION DIVISION
Hourly 71.40 74.97 78.74 82.66 86.79
Bi-Weekly 5,712.00 5,997.60 6,299.20 6,612.80 6,943.20
Monthly 12,376.00 12,994.80 13,648.27 14,327.73 15,043.60 Annual 148,512.00 155,937.60 163,779.20 171,932.80 180,523.20 Hourly 52.44 55.07 57.81 60.69 63.74
Bi-Weekly 4,195.20 4,405.60 4,624.80 4,855.20 5,099.20
Monthly 9,089.60 9,545.47 10,020.40 10,519.60 11,048.27 Annual 109,075.20 114,545.60 120,244.80 126,235.20 132,579.20 Hourly 42.39 44.49 46.73 48.87 51.42
Bi-Weekly 3,391.20 3,559.20 3,738.40 3,909.60 4,113.60
Monthly 7,347.60 7,711.60 8,099.87 8,470.80 8,912.80
Annual 88,171.20 92,539.20 97,198.40 101,649.60 106,953.60 Hourly 55.61 58.38 61.30 64.38 67.60
Bi-Weekly 4,448.80 4,670.40 4,904.00 5,150.40 5,408.00
Monthly 9,639.07 10,119.20 10,625.33 11,159.20 11,717.33 Annual 115,668.80 121,430.40 127,504.00 133,910.40 140,608.00

SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION
Hourly 80.15 84.15 89.22 93.68 98.34
Bi-Weekly 6,412.00 6,732.00 7,137.60 7,494.40 7,867.20
Monthly 13,892.67 14,586.00 15,464.80 16,237.87 17,045.60 Annual 166,712.00 175,032.00 185,577.60 194,854.40 204,547.20 Hourly 55.59 58.35 61.26 64.33 67.55
Bi-Weekly 4,447.20 4,668.00 4,900.80 5,146.40 5,404.00
Monthly 9,635.60 10,114.00 10,618.40 11,150.53 11,708.67 Annual 115,627.20 121,368.00 127,420.80 133,806.40 140,504.00 Hourly 41.03 43.08 45.23 47.48 49.84
Bi-Weekly 3,282.40 3,446.40 3,618.40 3,798.40 3,987.20
Monthly 7,111.87 7,467.20 7,839.87 8,229.87 8,638.93
Annual 85,342.40 89,606.40 94,078.40 98,758.40 103,667.20 Hourly 37.37 39.24 41.21 43.29 45.32
Bi-Weekly 2,989.60 3,139.20 3,296.80 3,463.20 3,625.60
Monthly 6,477.47 6,801.60 7,143.07 7,503.60 7,855.47
Annual 77,729.60 81,619.20 85,716.80 90,043.20 94,265.60 Hourly 41.45 43.32 45.31 47.33 49.58
Bi-Weekly 3,316.00 3,465.60 3,624.80 3,786.40 3,966.40
Monthly 7,184.67 7,508.80 7,853.73 8,203.87 8,593.87
Annual 86,216.00 90,105.60 94,244.80 98,446.40 103,126.40 Hourly 37.68 39.38 41.18 43.03 45.07
Bi-Weekly 3,014.40 3,150.40 3,294.40 3,442.40 3,605.60
Monthly 6,531.20 6,825.87 7,137.87 7,458.53 7,812.13
Annual 78,374.40 81,910.40 85,654.40 89,502.40 93,745.60 Hourly 34.09 35.57 37.29 38.99 40.84
Bi-Weekly 2,727.20 2,845.60 2,983.20 3,119.20 3,267.20
Monthly 5,908.93 6,165.47 6,463.60 6,758.27 7,078.93
Annual 70,907.20 73,985.60 77,563.20 81,099.20 84,947.20

PERSONNEL OPERATIONS SPECIALIST

SENIOR CRIME AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST

CRIME AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST

POLICE PROGRAMS ANALYST
CRIME PREVENTION SPECIALIST II C671
H406

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATOR
YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR H445 Classified COUNSELING SUPERVISOR H440 Classified
Classified
CRIME PREVENTION SPECIALIST I C670 Classified
RESERVE OFFICER COORDINATOR H455 Classified
OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER U400 Classified
PROPERTY/EVIDENCE AND CRIME SCENE ADMINISTRATOR H415 Classified FAMILY COUNSELOR T550 Classified
CERTIFIED LATENT PRINT EXAMINER T560 Classified
CRIME SCENE SPECIALIST C687 Classified
CRIME SCENE TECHNICIAN C685 Classified
PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE SUPERVISOR H410 Classified
POLICE ID SPECIALIST T555 Classified
PROPERTY & EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN C665 Classified
H400 Classified
H405 Classified
Classified
Classified
Classified
H450
H460
Salaries Effective February 13, 2023 13

SALARY PLAN FOR ALL CLASSIFICATIONS
(PER MUNI CODE SEC.2-4.30)
FY 2023

ATTACHMENT III
Approved by Council
February 7, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Hourly 55.59 58.35 61.26 64.33 67.55
Bi-Weekly 4,447.20 4,668.00 4,900.80 5,146.40 5,404.00
Monthly 9,635.60 10,114.00 10,618.40 11,150.53 11,708.67 Annual 115,627.20 121,368.00 127,420.80 133,806.40 140,504.00 Hourly 37.56 39.23 41.06 42.94 44.98
Bi-Weekly 3,004.80 3,138.40 3,284.80 3,435.20 3,598.40
Monthly 6,510.40 6,799.87 7,117.07 7,442.93 7,796.53
Annual 78,124.80 81,598.40 85,404.80 89,315.20 93,558.40 Hourly 32.29 33.95 35.49 37.16 38.92
Bi-Weekly 2,583.20 2,716.00 2,839.20 2,972.80 3,113.60
Monthly 5,596.93 5,884.67 6,151.60 6,441.07 6,746.13
Annual 67,163.20 70,616.00 73,819.20 77,292.80 80,953.60 Hourly 26.86 28.01 29.12 30.40 31.91
Bi-Weekly 2,148.80 2,240.80 2,329.60 2,432.00 2,552.80
Monthly 4,655.73 4,855.07 5,047.47 5,269.33 5,531.07
Annual 55,868.80 58,260.80 60,569.60 63,232.00 66,372.80 Hourly 26.86 28.01 29.12 30.40 31.91
Bi-Weekly 2,148.80 2,240.80 2,329.60 2,432.00 2,552.80
Monthly 4,655.73 4,855.07 5,047.47 5,269.33 5,531.07
Annual 55,868.80 58,260.80 60,569.60 63,232.00 66,372.80 Hourly 55.59 58.35 61.26 64.33 67.55
Bi-Weekly 4,447.20 4,668.00 4,900.80 5,146.40 5,404.00
Monthly 9,635.60 10,114.00 10,618.40 11,150.53 11,708.67 Annual 115,627.20 121,368.00 127,420.80 133,806.40 140,504.00 Hourly 46.51 48.84 51.29 53.85 56.57
Bi-Weekly 3,720.80 3,907.20 4,103.20 4,308.00 4,525.60
Monthly 8,061.73 8,465.60 8,890.27 9,334.00 9,805.47
Annual 96,740.80 101,587.20 106,683.20 112,008.00 117,665.60 Hourly 40.36 42.42 44.49 46.77 49.12
Bi-Weekly 3,228.80 3,393.60 3,559.20 3,741.60 3,929.60
Monthly 6,995.73 7,352.80 7,711.60 8,106.80 8,514.13
Annual 83,948.80 88,233.60 92,539.20 97,281.60 102,169.60 Hourly 33.59 35.23 37.01 38.86 40.81
Bi-Weekly 2,687.20 2,818.40 2,960.80 3,108.80 3,264.80
Monthly 5,822.27 6,106.53 6,415.07 6,735.73 7,073.73
Annual 69,867.20 73,278.40 76,980.80 80,828.80 84,884.80 Hourly 55.59 58.35 61.26 64.33 67.55
Bi-Weekly 4,447.20 4,668.00 4,900.80 5,146.40 5,404.00
Monthly 9,635.60 10,114.00 10,618.40 11,150.53 11,708.67 Annual 115,627.20 121,368.00 127,420.80 133,806.40 140,504.00 Hourly 40.37 42.39 44.50 46.73 49.07
Bi-Weekly 3,229.60 3,391.20 3,560.00 3,738.40 3,925.60
Monthly 6,997.47 7,347.60 7,713.33 8,099.87 8,505.47
Annual 83,969.60 88,171.20 92,560.00 97,198.40 102,065.60 Hourly 31.39 32.64 33.95 35.43 37.17
Bi-Weekly 2,511.20 2,611.20 2,716.00 2,834.40 2,973.60
Monthly 5,440.93 5,657.60 5,884.67 6,141.20 6,442.80
Annual 65,291.20 67,891.20 70,616.00 73,694.40 77,313.60 Hourly 27.59 29.03 30.57 32.07 33.80
Bi-Weekly 2,207.20 2,322.40 2,445.60 2,565.60 2,704.00
Monthly 4,782.27 5,031.87 5,298.80 5,558.80 5,858.67
Annual 57,387.20 60,382.40 63,585.60 66,705.60 70,304.00 Hourly 55.59 58.35 61.26 64.33 67.55
Bi-Weekly 4,447.20 4,668.00 4,900.80 5,146.40 5,404.00
Monthly 9,635.60 10,114.00 10,618.40 11,150.53 11,708.67 Annual 115,627.20 121,368.00 127,420.80 133,806.40 140,504.00 Hourly 42.72 44.51 46.66 48.83 51.17
Bi-Weekly 3,417.60 3,560.80 3,732.80 3,906.40 4,093.60
Monthly 7,404.80 7,715.07 8,087.73 8,463.87 8,869.47
Annual 88,857.60 92,580.80 97,052.80 101,566.40 106,433.60 Hourly 37.32 38.94 40.81 42.69 44.72
Bi-Weekly 2,985.60 3,115.20 3,264.80 3,415.20 3,577.60
Monthly 6,468.80 6,749.60 7,073.73 7,399.60 7,751.47
Annual 77,625.60 80,995.20 84,884.80 88,795.20 93,017.60 SHELTER OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR C621 Classified
ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER C610 Classified
ANIMAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR H430 Classified
COMMUNICATIONS ADMINISTRATOR H435 Classified
COMMUNICATIONS SUPERVISOR C645 Classified
ANIMAL CARE ATTENDANT C600 Classified
SHELTER VOLUNTEER COORDINATOR C607 Classified
RECORDS ADMINISTRATOR H425 Classified
RECORDS SUPERVISOR C705 Classified
COMMUNICATIONS OPERATOR C635 Classified
CALL TAKER C633 Classified
JAIL ADMINISTRATOR H420 Classified
JAIL SUPERVISOR C660 Classified
POLICE RECORDS CLERK II C695 Classified
POLICE RECORDS CLERK I C690 Classified
COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER C650 Classified
Salaries Effective February 13, 2023 14

SALARY PLAN FOR ALL CLASSIFICATIONS
(PER MUNI CODE SEC.2-4.30)
FY 2023

ATTACHMENT III
Approved by Council
February 7, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES DEPARTMENT

ADMINISTRATION
Hourly 85.93 90.24 94.75 99.49 104.47
Bi-Weekly 6,874.40 7,219.20 7,580.00 7,959.20 8,357.60
Monthly 14,894.53 15,641.60 16,423.33 17,244.93 18,108.13 Annual 178,734.40 187,699.20 197,080.00 206,939.20 217,297.60 Hourly 78.13 82.03 86.15 90.45 94.98
Bi-Weekly 6,250.40 6,562.40 6,892.00 7,236.00 7,598.40
Monthly 13,542.53 14,218.53 14,932.67 15,678.00 16,463.20 Annual 162,510.40 170,622.40 179,192.00 188,136.00 197,558.40 Hourly 78.10 82.01 86.13 90.44 94.95
Bi-Weekly 6,248.00 6,560.80 6,890.40 7,235.20 7,596.00
Monthly 13,537.33 14,215.07 14,929.20 15,676.27 16,458.00 Annual 162,448.00 170,580.80 179,150.40 188,115.20 197,496.00 Hourly 78.10 82.01 86.13 90.44 94.95
Bi-Weekly 6,248.00 6,560.80 6,890.40 7,235.20 7,596.00
Monthly 13,537.33 14,215.07 14,929.20 15,676.27 16,458.00 Annual 162,448.00 170,580.80 179,150.40 188,115.20 197,496.00 Hourly 44.94 47.14 49.41 51.95 54.49
Bi-Weekly 3,595.20 3,771.20 3,952.80 4,156.00 4,359.20
Monthly 7,789.60 8,170.93 8,564.40 9,004.67 9,444.93
Annual 93,475.20 98,051.20 102,772.80 108,056.00 113,339.20 Hourly 33.17 34.55 35.83 37.19 38.61
Bi-Weekly 2,653.60 2,764.00 2,866.40 2,975.20 3,088.80
Monthly 5,749.47 5,988.67 6,210.53 6,446.27 6,692.40
Annual 68,993.60 71,864.00 74,526.40 77,355.20 80,308.80

AIRPORT DIVISION SUMMARY
Hourly 68.85 72.26 75.87 79.66 83.65
Bi-Weekly 5,508.00 5,780.80 6,069.60 6,372.80 6,692.00
Monthly 11,934.00 12,525.07 13,150.80 13,807.73 14,499.33 Annual 143,208.00 150,300.80 157,809.60 165,692.80 173,992.00 Hourly 57.38 60.22 63.24 66.41 69.72
Bi-Weekly 4,590.40 4,817.60 5,059.20 5,312.80 5,577.60
Monthly 9,945.87 10,438.13 10,961.60 11,511.07 12,084.80 Annual 119,350.40 125,257.60 131,539.20 138,132.80 145,017.60 Hourly 55.59 58.34 61.26 64.32 67.53
Bi-Weekly 4,447.20 4,667.20 4,900.80 5,145.60 5,402.40
Monthly 9,635.60 10,112.27 10,618.40 11,148.80 11,705.20 Annual 115,627.20 121,347.20 127,420.80 133,785.60 140,462.40 Hourly 35.54 37.35 39.19 41.06 43.17
Bi-Weekly 2,843.20 2,988.00 3,135.20 3,284.80 3,453.60
Monthly 6,160.27 6,474.00 6,792.93 7,117.07 7,482.80
Annual 73,923.20 77,688.00 81,515.20 85,404.80 89,793.60 Hourly 43.50 45.10 46.90 48.82 50.78
Bi-Weekly 3,480.00 3,608.00 3,752.00 3,905.60 4,062.40
Monthly 7,540.00 7,817.33 8,129.33 8,462.13 8,801.87
Annual 90,480.00 93,808.00 97,552.00 101,545.60 105,622.40 Hourly 39.67 41.26 42.91 44.44 46.15
Bi-Weekly 3,173.60 3,300.80 3,432.80 3,555.20 3,692.00
Monthly 6,876.13 7,151.73 7,437.73 7,702.93 7,999.33
Annual 82,513.60 85,820.80 89,252.80 92,435.20 95,992.00 Hourly 31.22 32.47 33.77 34.98 36.32
Bi-Weekly 2,497.60 2,597.60 2,701.60 2,798.40 2,905.60
Monthly 5,411.47 5,628.13 5,853.47 6,063.20 6,295.47
Annual 64,937.60 67,537.60 70,241.60 72,758.40 75,545.60

ENGINEERING/TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
Hourly 50.49 53.03 55.67 58.47 61.38
Bi-Weekly 4,039.20 4,242.40 4,453.60 4,677.60 4,910.40
Monthly 8,751.60 9,191.87 9,649.47 10,134.80 10,639.20
Annual 105,019.20 110,302.40 115,793.60 121,617.60 127,670.40 Hourly 44.82 47.18 49.53 51.94 54.51
Bi-Weekly 3,585.60 3,774.40 3,962.40 4,155.20 4,360.80
Monthly 7,768.80 8,177.87 8,585.20 9,002.93 9,448.40
Annual 93,225.60 98,134.40 103,022.40 108,035.20 113,380.80 Hourly 38.21 40.12 42.02 44.13 46.34
Bi-Weekly 3,056.80 3,209.60 3,361.60 3,530.40 3,707.20
Monthly 6,623.07 6,954.13 7,283.47 7,649.20 8,032.27
Annual 79,476.80 83,449.60 87,401.60 91,790.40 96,387.20 Hourly 66.40 69.71 73.22 76.86 80.70
Bi-Weekly 5,312.00 5,576.80 5,857.60 6,148.80 6,456.00
Monthly 11,509.33 12,083.07 12,691.47 13,322.40 13,988.00 Annual 138,112.00 144,996.80 152,297.60 159,868.80 167,856.00 Hourly 58.69 61.66 64.65 67.93 71.24
Bi-Weekly 4,695.20 4,932.80 5,172.00 5,434.40 5,699.20
Monthly 10,172.93 10,687.73 11,206.00 11,774.53 12,348.27 Annual 122,075.20 128,252.80 134,472.00 141,294.40 148,179.20 Hourly 50.55 53.18 55.90 58.58 61.53
Bi-Weekly 4,044.00 4,254.40 4,472.00 4,686.40 4,922.40
Monthly 8,762.00 9,217.87 9,689.33 10,153.87 10,665.20
Annual 105,144.00 110,614.40 116,272.00 121,846.40 127,982.40 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS U510 Classified
WATER RESOURCES MANAGER H875 Classified
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS-UTILITIES U525 Classified STOREKEEPER - EXPEDITER M100 Classified
AIRPORT MANAGER H205 Classified
UTILITIES ENGINEERING MANAGER H880 Classified
SENIOR UTILITY SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE M820 Classified
AIRPORT OPERATIONS SPECIALIST T270 Classified
SENIOR AIRPORT MAINTENANCE WORKER M510 Classified
AIRPORT OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR H200 Classified
AIRPORT BUSINESS SUPERVISOR H198 Classified
REAL PROPERTY MANAGER H225 Classified
REAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATE T260 Classified
AIRPORT MAINTENANCE WORKER M505 Classified
AIRPORT ATTENDANT M500 Classified
ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEER T215 Classified
ASSISTANT CIVIL ENGINEER T210 Classified
REAL PROPERTY ASSISTANT T255 Classified
SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER H240 Classified
Salaries Effective February 13, 2023 15

SALARY PLAN FOR ALL CLASSIFICATIONS
(PER MUNI CODE SEC.2-4.30)
FY 2023

ATTACHMENT III
Approved by Council
February 7, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Hourly 38.25 40.11 42.14 44.23 46.35
Bi-Weekly 3,060.00 3,208.80 3,371.20 3,538.40 3,708.00
Monthly 6,630.00 6,952.40 7,304.27 7,666.53 8,034.00
Annual 79,560.00 83,428.80 87,651.20 91,998.40 96,408.00 Hourly 59.09 62.06 65.17 68.42 71.82
Bi-Weekly 4,727.20 4,964.80 5,213.60 5,473.60 5,745.60
Monthly 10,242.27 10,757.07 11,296.13 11,859.47 12,448.80 Annual 122,907.20 129,084.80 135,553.60 142,313.60 149,385.60 Hourly 47.79 50.15 52.63 55.25 58.03
Bi-Weekly 3,823.20 4,012.00 4,210.40 4,420.00 4,642.40
Monthly 8,283.60 8,692.67 9,122.53 9,576.67 10,058.53
Annual 99,403.20 104,312.00 109,470.40 114,920.00 120,702.40 Hourly 66.39 69.71 73.20 76.86 80.69
Bi-Weekly 5,311.20 5,576.80 5,856.00 6,148.80 6,455.20
Monthly 11,507.60 12,083.07 12,688.00 13,322.40 13,986.27 Annual 138,091.20 144,996.80 152,256.00 159,868.80 167,835.20 Hourly 58.69 61.66 64.65 67.93 71.24
Bi-Weekly 4,695.20 4,932.80 5,172.00 5,434.40 5,699.20
Monthly 10,172.93 10,687.73 11,206.00 11,774.53 12,348.27 Annual 122,075.20 128,252.80 134,472.00 141,294.40 148,179.20 Hourly 50.55 53.18 55.90 58.58 61.53
Bi-Weekly 4,044.00 4,254.40 4,472.00 4,686.40 4,922.40
Monthly 8,762.00 9,217.87 9,689.33 10,153.87 10,665.20
Annual 105,144.00 110,614.40 116,272.00 121,846.40 127,982.40 Hourly 55.47 58.22 61.14 64.19 67.40
Bi-Weekly 4,437.60 4,657.60 4,891.20 5,135.20 5,392.00
Monthly 9,614.80 10,091.47 10,597.60 11,126.27 11,682.67 Annual 115,377.60 121,097.60 127,171.20 133,515.20 140,192.00 Hourly 49.51 51.94 54.53 57.33 60.08
Bi-Weekly 3,960.80 4,155.20 4,362.40 4,586.40 4,806.40
Monthly 8,581.73 9,002.93 9,451.87 9,937.20 10,413.87
Annual 102,980.80 108,035.20 113,422.40 119,246.40 124,966.40 Hourly 40.17 42.11 44.25 46.44 48.66
Bi-Weekly 3,213.60 3,368.80 3,540.00 3,715.20 3,892.80
Monthly 6,962.80 7,299.07 7,670.00 8,049.60 8,434.40
Annual 83,553.60 87,588.80 92,040.00 96,595.20 101,212.80 Hourly 61.08 64.13 67.34 70.71 74.25
Bi-Weekly 4,886.40 5,130.40 5,387.20 5,656.80 5,940.00
Monthly 10,587.20 11,115.87 11,672.27 12,256.40 12,870.00 Annual 127,046.40 133,390.40 140,067.20 147,076.80 154,440.00 Hourly 53.77 56.64 59.50 62.30 65.41
Bi-Weekly 4,301.60 4,531.20 4,760.00 4,984.00 5,232.80
Monthly 9,320.13 9,817.60 10,313.33 10,798.67 11,337.73 Annual 111,841.60 117,811.20 123,760.00 129,584.00 136,052.80 Hourly 45.05 47.36 49.57 52.09 54.73
Bi-Weekly 3,604.00 3,788.80 3,965.60 4,167.20 4,378.40
Monthly 7,808.67 8,209.07 8,592.13 9,028.93 9,486.53
Annual 93,704.00 98,508.80 103,105.60 108,347.20 113,838.40 SURVEYOR T265 Classified
SENIOR TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER H215 Classified
ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN T200 Classified
SURVEY ENGINEER H230 Classified
SENIOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNER H210 Classified
ASSOCIATE TRANSPORTATION PLANNER T225 Classified
ASSOCIATE TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER T240 Classified
ASSISTANT TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER T235 Classified
SENIOR CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR T250 Classified
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR T245 Classified
TRAFFIC SIGNAL TECHNICIAN T220 Classified
SUPERVISING CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR H235 Classified
Salaries Effective February 13, 2023 16

SALARY PLAN FOR ALL CLASSIFICATIONS
(PER MUNI CODE SEC.2-4.30)
FY 2023

ATTACHMENT III
Approved by Council
February 7, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

RECYCLING-SOLID WASTE
Hourly 55.59 58.34 61.26 64.32 67.53
Bi-Weekly 4,447.20 4,667.20 4,900.80 5,145.60 5,402.40
Monthly 9,635.60 10,112.27 10,618.40 11,148.80 11,705.20 Annual 115,627.20 121,347.20 127,420.80 133,785.60 140,462.40 Hourly 38.54 40.46 42.42 44.58 46.80
Bi-Weekly 3,083.20 3,236.80 3,393.60 3,566.40 3,744.00
Monthly 6,680.27 7,013.07 7,352.80 7,727.20 8,112.00
Annual 80,163.20 84,156.80 88,233.60 92,726.40 97,344.00 Hourly 44.14 46.33 48.65 51.08 53.64
Bi-Weekly 3,531.20 3,706.40 3,892.00 4,086.40 4,291.20
Monthly 7,650.93 8,030.53 8,432.67 8,853.87 9,297.60
Annual 91,811.20 96,366.40 101,192.00 106,246.40 111,571.20 Hourly 40.13 42.12 44.22 46.42 48.75
Bi-Weekly 3,210.40 3,369.60 3,537.60 3,713.60 3,900.00
Monthly 6,955.87 7,300.80 7,664.80 8,046.13 8,450.00
Annual 83,470.40 87,609.60 91,977.60 96,553.60 101,400.00

WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY (WPCF)
Hourly 78.10 82.01 86.13 90.44 94.95
Bi-Weekly 6,248.00 6,560.80 6,890.40 7,235.20 7,596.00
Monthly 13,537.33 14,215.07 14,929.20 15,676.27 16,458.00 Annual 162,448.00 170,580.80 179,150.40 188,115.20 197,496.00 Hourly 63.71 66.89 70.25 73.77 77.46
Bi-Weekly 5,096.80 5,351.20 5,620.00 5,901.60 6,196.80
Monthly 11,043.07 11,594.27 12,176.67 12,786.80 13,426.40 Annual 132,516.80 139,131.20 146,120.00 153,441.60 161,116.80 Hourly 57.95 60.83 63.88 67.08 70.43
Bi-Weekly 4,636.00 4,866.40 5,110.40 5,366.40 5,634.40
Monthly 10,044.67 10,543.87 11,072.53 11,627.20 12,207.87 Annual 120,536.00 126,526.40 132,870.40 139,526.40 146,494.40 Hourly 57.95 60.83 63.88 67.08 70.43
Bi-Weekly 4,636.00 4,866.40 5,110.40 5,366.40 5,634.40
Monthly 10,044.67 10,543.87 11,072.53 11,627.20 12,207.87 Annual 120,536.00 126,526.40 132,870.40 139,526.40 146,494.40 Hourly 53.41 55.53 57.75 60.01 62.45
Bi-Weekly 4,272.80 4,442.40 4,620.00 4,800.80 4,996.00
Monthly 9,257.73 9,625.20 10,010.00 10,401.73 10,824.67 Annual 111,092.80 115,502.40 120,120.00 124,820.80 129,896.00 Hourly 48.54 50.48 52.49 54.55 56.76
Bi-Weekly 3,883.20 4,038.40 4,199.20 4,364.00 4,540.80
Monthly 8,413.60 8,749.87 9,098.27 9,455.33 9,838.40
Annual 100,963.20 104,998.40 109,179.20 113,464.00 118,060.80 Hourly 42.42 44.08 45.92 47.50 49.36
Bi-Weekly 3,393.60 3,526.40 3,673.60 3,800.00 3,948.80
Monthly 7,352.80 7,640.53 7,959.47 8,233.33 8,555.73
Annual 88,233.60 91,686.40 95,513.60 98,800.00 102,668.80 SUSTAINABILITY SPECIALIST T803 Classified
SUSTAINABILITY TECHNICIAN T802 Classified
SOLID WASTE PROGRAM MANAGER H800 Classified
RECYCLING SPECIALIST T800 Classified
WPCF MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR H860 Classified
WPCF OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR H855 Classified
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY MANAGER H870 Classified WPCF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANAGER H865 Classified OPERATOR-IN-TRAINING M925 Classified
WPCF LEAD OPERATOR M935 Classified
WPCF OPERATOR M930 Classified
Salaries Effective February 13, 2023 17

SALARY PLAN FOR ALL CLASSIFICATIONS
(PER MUNI CODE SEC.2-4.30)
FY 2023

ATTACHMENT III
Approved by Council
February 7, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Hourly 57.95 60.83 63.88 67.08 70.43
Bi-Weekly 4,636.00 4,866.40 5,110.40 5,366.40 5,634.40
Monthly 10,044.67 10,543.87 11,072.53 11,627.20 12,207.87 Annual 120,536.00 126,526.40 132,870.40 139,526.40 146,494.40 Hourly 45.51 47.79 50.18 52.68 55.30
Bi-Weekly 3,640.80 3,823.20 4,014.40 4,214.40 4,424.00
Monthly 7,888.40 8,283.60 8,697.87 9,131.20 9,585.33
Annual 94,660.80 99,403.20 104,374.40 109,574.40 115,024.00 Hourly 39.58 41.06 42.65 44.40 46.06
Bi-Weekly 3,166.40 3,284.80 3,412.00 3,552.00 3,684.80
Monthly 6,860.53 7,117.07 7,392.67 7,696.00 7,983.73
Annual 82,326.40 85,404.80 88,712.00 92,352.00 95,804.80

WATER POLLUTION SOURCE CONTROL
Hourly 67.38 70.74 74.30 78.01 81.91
Bi-Weekly 5,390.40 5,659.20 5,944.00 6,240.80 6,552.80
Monthly 11,679.20 12,261.60 12,878.67 13,521.73 14,197.73 Annual 140,150.40 147,139.20 154,544.00 162,260.80 170,372.80 Hourly 58.56 61.51 64.56 67.82 71.21
Bi-Weekly 4,684.80 4,920.80 5,164.80 5,425.60 5,696.80
Monthly 10,150.40 10,661.73 11,190.40 11,755.47 12,343.07 Annual 121,804.80 127,940.80 134,284.80 141,065.60 148,116.80 Hourly 49.41 51.97 54.58 57.17 60.10
Bi-Weekly 3,952.80 4,157.60 4,366.40 4,573.60 4,808.00
Monthly 8,564.40 9,008.13 9,460.53 9,909.47 10,417.33
Annual 102,772.80 108,097.60 113,526.40 118,913.60 125,008.00 Hourly 44.90 47.25 49.40 51.94 54.53
Bi-Weekly 3,592.00 3,780.00 3,952.00 4,155.20 4,362.40
Monthly 7,782.67 8,190.00 8,562.67 9,002.93 9,451.87
Annual 93,392.00 98,280.00 102,752.00 108,035.20 113,422.40 Hourly 40.41 42.52 44.46 46.75 49.07
Bi-Weekly 3,232.80 3,401.60 3,556.80 3,740.00 3,925.60
Monthly 7,004.40 7,370.13 7,706.40 8,103.33 8,505.47
Annual 84,052.80 88,441.60 92,476.80 97,240.00 102,065.60 Hourly 15.82
Bi-Weekly 1,265.60
Monthly 2,742.13
Annual 32,905.60
Hourly 65.10 68.35 71.77 75.36 79.11
Bi-Weekly 5,208.00 5,468.00 5,741.60 6,028.80 6,328.80
Monthly 11,284.00 11,847.33 12,440.13 13,062.40 13,712.40 Annual 135,408.00 142,168.00 149,281.60 156,748.80 164,548.80 Hourly 66.40 69.71 73.22 76.86 80.70
Bi-Weekly 5,312.00 5,576.80 5,857.60 6,148.80 6,456.00
Monthly 11,509.33 12,083.07 12,691.47 13,322.40 13,988.00 Annual 138,112.00 144,996.80 152,297.60 159,868.80 167,856.00

SEWER COLLECTIONS & WATER DISTRIBUTION
Hourly 71.91 75.48 79.25 83.21 87.38
Bi-Weekly 5,752.80 6,038.40 6,340.00 6,656.80 6,990.40
Monthly 12,464.40 13,083.20 13,736.67 14,423.07 15,145.87 Annual 149,572.80 156,998.40 164,840.00 173,076.80 181,750.40 Hourly 59.92 62.89 66.06 69.35 72.82
Bi-Weekly 4,793.60 5,031.20 5,284.80 5,548.00 5,825.60
Monthly 10,386.13 10,900.93 11,450.40 12,020.67 12,622.13 Annual 124,633.60 130,811.20 137,404.80 144,248.00 151,465.60 Hourly 59.92 62.89 66.06 69.35 72.82
Bi-Weekly 4,793.60 5,031.20 5,284.80 5,548.00 5,825.60
Monthly 10,386.13 10,900.93 11,450.40 12,020.67 12,622.13 Annual 124,633.60 130,811.20 137,404.80 144,248.00 151,465.60 Hourly 57.95 60.83 63.88 67.08 70.43
Bi-Weekly 4,636.00 4,866.40 5,110.40 5,366.40 5,634.40
Monthly 10,044.67 10,543.87 11,072.53 11,627.20 12,207.87 Annual 120,536.00 126,526.40 132,870.40 139,526.40 146,494.40 Hourly 47.23 49.61 52.07 54.69 57.42
Bi-Weekly 3,778.40 3,968.80 4,165.60 4,375.20 4,593.60
Monthly 8,186.53 8,599.07 9,025.47 9,479.60 9,952.80
Annual 98,238.40 103,188.80 108,305.60 113,755.20 119,433.60 LAB SUPERVISOR H850 Classified
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MANAGER H805 Classified
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATOR H845 Classified
CHEMIST T807 Classified
LABORATORY TECHNICIAN T805 Classified
WATER POLLUTION SOURCE CONTROL INSPECTOR I T809 Classified TECHNICAL INTERN Z125 Classified
SENIOR WATER POLLUTION SOURCE CONTROL INSPECTOR T815 Classified WATER POLLUTION SOURCE CONTROL INSPECTOR II T810 Classified UTILITIES OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANAGER H835 Classified UTILITIES OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR H830 Classified SENIOR WATER RESOURCES ENGINEER H813 Classified
SENIOR UTILITIES ENGINEER H810 Classified
WATER INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR H815 Classified UTILITIES FIELD SERVICES SUPERVISOR H825 Classified
WASTEWATER COLLECTIONS SYSTEM SUPERVISOR H823 Classified Salaries Effective February 13, 2023 18

SALARY PLAN FOR ALL CLASSIFICATIONS
(PER MUNI CODE SEC.2-4.30)
FY 2023

ATTACHMENT III
Approved by Council
February 7, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Hourly 48.57 50.50 52.56 54.43 56.54
Bi-Weekly 3,885.60 4,040.00 4,204.80 4,354.40 4,523.20
Monthly 8,418.80 8,753.33 9,110.40 9,434.53 9,800.27
Annual 101,025.60 105,040.00 109,324.80 113,214.40 117,603.20 Hourly 47.31 48.93 50.86 52.97 55.13
Bi-Weekly 3,784.80 3,914.40 4,068.80 4,237.60 4,410.40
Monthly 8,200.40 8,481.20 8,815.73 9,181.47 9,555.87
Annual 98,404.80 101,774.40 105,788.80 110,177.60 114,670.40 Hourly 41.12 42.55 44.23 46.08 47.93
Bi-Weekly 3,289.60 3,404.00 3,538.40 3,686.40 3,834.40
Monthly 7,127.47 7,375.33 7,666.53 7,987.20 8,307.87
Annual 85,529.60 88,504.00 91,998.40 95,846.40 99,694.40 Hourly 39.97 41.51 43.22 45.00 46.79
Bi-Weekly 3,197.60 3,320.80 3,457.60 3,600.00 3,743.20
Monthly 6,928.13 7,195.07 7,491.47 7,800.00 8,110.27
Annual 83,137.60 86,340.80 89,897.60 93,600.00 97,323.20 Hourly 35.72 37.15 38.65 40.07 41.67
Bi-Weekly 2,857.60 2,972.00 3,092.00 3,205.60 3,333.60
Monthly 6,191.47 6,439.33 6,699.33 6,945.47 7,222.80
Annual 74,297.60 77,272.00 80,392.00 83,345.60 86,673.60 Hourly 34.57 36.21 37.89 39.74 41.67
Bi-Weekly 2,765.60 2,896.80 3,031.20 3,179.20 3,333.60
Monthly 5,992.13 6,276.40 6,567.60 6,888.27 7,222.80
Annual 71,905.60 75,316.80 78,811.20 82,659.20 86,673.60 Hourly 54.31 57.01 59.87 62.88 66.02
Bi-Weekly 4,344.80 4,560.80 4,789.60 5,030.40 5,281.60
Monthly 9,413.73 9,881.73 10,377.47 10,899.20 11,443.47 Annual 112,964.80 118,580.80 124,529.60 130,790.40 137,321.60 Hourly 39.41 40.97 42.68 44.16 45.89
Bi-Weekly 3,152.80 3,277.60 3,414.40 3,532.80 3,671.20
Monthly 6,831.07 7,101.47 7,397.87 7,654.40 7,954.27
Annual 81,972.80 85,217.60 88,774.40 91,852.80 95,451.20

GENERAL MAINTENANCE
Hourly 40.02 41.60 43.35 44.84 46.59
Bi-Weekly 3,201.60 3,328.00 3,468.00 3,587.20 3,727.20
Monthly 6,936.80 7,210.67 7,514.00 7,772.27 8,075.60
Annual 83,241.60 86,528.00 90,168.00 93,267.20 96,907.20 Hourly 49.85 51.84 54.00 55.87 58.05
Bi-Weekly 3,988.00 4,147.20 4,320.00 4,469.60 4,644.00
Monthly 8,640.67 8,985.60 9,360.00 9,684.13 10,062.00
Annual 103,688.00 107,827.20 112,320.00 116,209.60 120,744.00 Hourly 43.36 45.07 46.95 48.61 50.47
Bi-Weekly 3,468.80 3,605.60 3,756.00 3,888.80 4,037.60
Monthly 7,515.73 7,812.13 8,138.00 8,425.73 8,748.13
Annual 90,188.80 93,745.60 97,656.00 101,108.80 104,977.60 Hourly 39.41 40.97 42.68 44.16 45.89
Bi-Weekly 3,152.80 3,277.60 3,414.40 3,532.80 3,671.20
Monthly 6,831.07 7,101.47 7,397.87 7,654.40 7,954.27
Annual 81,972.80 85,217.60 88,774.40 91,852.80 95,451.20 Hourly 48.57 50.50 52.56 54.43 56.54
Bi-Weekly 3,885.60 4,040.00 4,204.80 4,354.40 4,523.20
Monthly 8,418.80 8,753.33 9,110.40 9,434.53 9,800.27
Annual 101,025.60 105,040.00 109,324.80 113,214.40 117,603.20 Hourly 42.24 43.92 45.71 47.31 49.15
Bi-Weekly 3,379.20 3,513.60 3,656.80 3,784.80 3,932.00
Monthly 7,321.60 7,612.80 7,923.07 8,200.40 8,519.33
Annual 87,859.20 91,353.60 95,076.80 98,404.80 102,232.00 Hourly 38.39 39.93 41.57 43.01 44.69
Bi-Weekly 3,071.20 3,194.40 3,325.60 3,440.80 3,575.20
Monthly 6,654.27 6,921.20 7,205.47 7,455.07 7,746.27
Annual 79,851.20 83,054.40 86,465.60 89,460.80 92,955.20 Hourly 48.54 50.48 52.49 54.55 56.76
Bi-Weekly 3,883.20 4,038.40 4,199.20 4,364.00 4,540.80
Monthly 8,413.60 8,749.87 9,098.27 9,455.33 9,838.40
Annual 100,963.20 104,998.40 109,179.20 113,464.00 118,060.80 SENIOR UTILITY FIELD SERVICES LEADER M827 Classified
WATER METER MECHANIC M810 Classified
CUSTOMER FIELD TECHNICIAN M807 Classified
SENIOR UTILITY CUSTOMER SERVICE LEADER M825 Classified
CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL SPECIALIST M815 Classified
UTILITIES SERVICE WORKER M900 Classified
EQUIPMENT OPERATOR M400 Classified
BACKFLOW/CROSS CONNECTION TESTER M800 Classified
UTILITIES MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR H820 Classified
Classified
Classified
Classified

SENIOR UTILITY LEADER - SEWER

UTILITY LEADER - SEWER
UTILITY WORKER - SEWER M910 Classified
M915 Classified

SENIOR UTILITY LEADER

UTILITY LEADER
UTILITY WORKER M835
M840
M845
M920 Classified
UTILITIES MAINTENANCE MECHANIC M415 Classified
Salaries Effective February 13, 2023 19

SALARY PLAN FOR ALL CLASSIFICATIONS
(PER MUNI CODE SEC.2-4.30)
FY 2023

ATTACHMENT III
Approved by Council
February 7, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
Hourly 74.08 77.78 81.67 85.76 90.03
Bi-Weekly 5,926.40 6,222.40 6,533.60 6,860.80 7,202.40
Monthly 12,840.53 13,481.87 14,156.13 14,865.07 15,605.20 Annual 154,086.40 161,782.40 169,873.60 178,380.80 187,262.40 Hourly 61.61 64.68 67.91 71.32 74.88
Bi-Weekly 4,928.80 5,174.40 5,432.80 5,705.60 5,990.40
Monthly 10,679.07 11,211.20 11,771.07 12,362.13 12,979.20 Annual 128,148.80 134,534.40 141,252.80 148,345.60 155,750.40 Hourly 68.45 71.87 75.48 79.26 83.23
Bi-Weekly 5,476.00 5,749.60 6,038.40 6,340.80 6,658.40
Monthly 11,864.67 12,457.47 13,083.20 13,738.40 14,426.53 Annual 142,376.00 149,489.60 156,998.40 164,860.80 173,118.40 Hourly 55.42 58.20 61.12 64.17 67.37
Bi-Weekly 4,433.60 4,656.00 4,889.60 5,133.60 5,389.60
Monthly 9,606.13 10,088.00 10,594.13 11,122.80 11,677.47 Annual 115,273.60 121,056.00 127,129.60 133,473.60 140,129.60 Hourly 54.79 57.54 60.43 63.43 66.61
Bi-Weekly 4,383.20 4,603.20 4,834.40 5,074.40 5,328.80
Monthly 9,496.93 9,973.60 10,474.53 10,994.53 11,545.73 Annual 113,963.20 119,683.20 125,694.40 131,934.40 138,548.80 Hourly 59.53 62.50 65.47 68.77 73.33
Bi-Weekly 4,762.40 5,000.00 5,237.60 5,501.60 5,866.40
Monthly 10,318.53 10,833.33 11,348.13 11,920.13 12,710.53 Annual 123,822.40 130,000.00 136,177.60 143,041.60 152,526.40 Hourly 56.06 58.80 61.84 64.90 68.10
Bi-Weekly 4,484.80 4,704.00 4,947.20 5,192.00 5,448.00
Monthly 9,717.07 10,192.00 10,718.93 11,249.33 11,804.00 Annual 116,604.80 122,304.00 128,627.20 134,992.00 141,648.00 Hourly 50.96 53.45 56.22 59.00 61.91
Bi-Weekly 4,076.80 4,276.00 4,497.60 4,720.00 4,952.80
Monthly 8,833.07 9,264.67 9,744.80 10,226.67 10,731.07
Annual 105,996.80 111,176.00 116,937.60 122,720.00 128,772.80 Hourly 46.31 48.64 51.07 53.60 56.29
Bi-Weekly 3,704.80 3,891.20 4,085.60 4,288.00 4,503.20
Monthly 8,027.07 8,430.93 8,852.13 9,290.67 9,756.93
Annual 96,324.80 101,171.20 106,225.60 111,488.00 117,083.20 Hourly 51.80 54.37 57.09 59.94 62.95
Bi-Weekly 4,144.00 4,349.60 4,567.20 4,795.20 5,036.00
Monthly 8,978.67 9,424.13 9,895.60 10,389.60 10,911.33
Annual 107,744.00 113,089.60 118,747.20 124,675.20 130,936.00 Hourly 47.07 49.43 51.91 54.52 57.21
Bi-Weekly 3,765.60 3,954.40 4,152.80 4,361.60 4,576.80
Monthly 8,158.80 8,567.87 8,997.73 9,450.13 9,916.40
Annual 97,905.60 102,814.40 107,972.80 113,401.60 118,996.80 Hourly 51.80 54.37 57.09 59.94 62.95
Bi-Weekly 4,144.00 4,349.60 4,567.20 4,795.20 5,036.00
Monthly 8,978.67 9,424.13 9,895.60 10,389.60 10,911.33
Annual 107,744.00 113,089.60 118,747.20 124,675.20 130,936.00 Hourly 47.07 49.43 51.91 54.52 57.21
Bi-Weekly 3,765.60 3,954.40 4,152.80 4,361.60 4,576.80
Monthly 8,158.80 8,567.87 8,997.73 9,450.13 9,916.40
Annual 97,905.60 102,814.40 107,972.80 113,401.60 118,996.80 Hourly 42.66 44.79 47.01 49.37 51.87
Bi-Weekly 3,412.80 3,583.20 3,760.80 3,949.60 4,149.60
Monthly 7,394.40 7,763.60 8,148.40 8,557.47 8,990.80
Annual 88,732.80 93,163.20 97,780.80 102,689.60 107,889.60 Hourly 38.80 40.72 42.77 44.91 47.16
Bi-Weekly 3,104.00 3,257.60 3,421.60 3,592.80 3,772.80
Monthly 6,725.33 7,058.13 7,413.47 7,784.40 8,174.40
Annual 80,704.00 84,697.60 88,961.60 93,412.80 98,092.80 Hourly 42.66 44.79 47.01 49.37 51.87
Bi-Weekly 3,412.80 3,583.20 3,760.80 3,949.60 4,149.60
Monthly 7,394.40 7,763.60 8,148.40 8,557.47 8,990.80
Annual 88,732.80 93,163.20 97,780.80 102,689.60 107,889.60 Hourly 38.80 40.72 42.77 44.91 47.16
Bi-Weekly 3,104.00 3,257.60 3,421.60 3,592.80 3,772.80
Monthly 6,725.33 7,058.13 7,413.47 7,784.40 8,174.40
Annual 80,704.00 84,697.60 88,961.60 93,412.80 98,092.80 Hourly 34.95 36.68 38.56 40.48 42.42
Bi-Weekly 2,796.00 2,934.40 3,084.80 3,238.40 3,393.60
Monthly 6,058.00 6,357.87 6,683.73 7,016.53 7,352.80
Annual 72,696.00 76,294.40 80,204.80 84,198.40 88,233.60 Hourly 31.86 33.28 34.95 36.61 38.32
Bi-Weekly 2,548.80 2,662.40 2,796.00 2,928.80 3,065.60
Monthly 5,522.40 5,768.53 6,058.00 6,345.73 6,642.13
Annual 66,268.80 69,222.40 72,696.00 76,148.80 79,705.60 Hourly 33.29 34.92 36.71 38.52 40.35
Bi-Weekly 2,663.20 2,793.60 2,936.80 3,081.60 3,228.00
Monthly 5,770.27 6,052.80 6,363.07 6,676.80 6,994.00
Annual 69,243.20 72,633.60 76,356.80 80,121.60 83,928.00 Hourly 18.28
Bi-Weekly 1,462.40
Monthly 3,168.53
Annual 38,022.40
Hourly 15.82 20.00
Bi-Weekly 1,265.60 1,600.00
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY U530 Classified INFORMATION SYSTEMS MANAGER H565 Classified
NETWORK SYSTEMS SPECIALIST H555 Classified
GEOGRAPHIC INFO SYSTEMS COORDINATOR T460 Classified
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGER H566 Classified
DATA AND SYSTEMS COORDINATOR H560 Classified

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ANALYST II

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ANALYST I
T435
T430
Classified
Classified
SYSTEMS ANALYST II T455 Classified
WEB SPECIALIST T450 Classified
SYSTEMS ANALYST I T454 Classified

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TECHNICIAN I
GEOGRAPHIC INFO SYSTEM TECHNICIAN II T465 Classified
GEOGRAPHIC INFO SYSTEM TECHNICIAN I T464 Classified
TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS ANALYST II T445 Classified
TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS ANALYST I T440 Classified
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INTERN Z121 Classified
AUDIO VIDEO SPECIALIST T410 Classified
VIDEO ASSISTANT T400 Classified
INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT TECHNICIAN T415 Classified
DATA SYSTEMS OPERATOR C450 Classified
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TECHNICIAN II T425 Classified
T424 Classified
Salaries Effective February 13, 2023 20

SALARY PLAN FOR ALL CLASSIFICATIONS
(PER MUNI CODE SEC.2-4.30)
FY 2023

ATTACHMENT III
Approved by Council
February 7, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Monthly 2,742.13 3,466.67
Annual 32,905.60 41,600.00
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INTERN Z121 Classified
Salaries Effective February 13, 2023 21