If conditions have changed since the last assessment in 2019/2020, the timeframe for TOD development in station areas can be updated in BART’s TOD Work Plan. Key considerations by BART for prioritizing development projects are 1) availability of local funding and resources to support development, including staff support and funding for community outreach, affordable housing, and infrastructure, and 2) seamless coordination with local jurisdiction staff.
Jurisdictions with station areas that are currently listed in BART’s TOD Work Plan timeframes of Mid- term or Long-term need to meet the following conditions to be considered for prioritization:
1. Local Support for TOD:
a. Local Support and Funding : First and foremost, BART views TOD projects on its land as BART and local jurisdiction partnerships. BART TOD projects are civic destinations, transformative to the community, and often includes off -site improvements. The City must be committed to working closely with BART to find funds and resources to facilitate community outreach, discussions, and decisions on TOD development and area-wide parking. It takes several years of pre- development work prior to issuance of a Request for Proposal for developers, therefore, any development of BART land within the planning period of 2023- 2031 requires sufficient dedicated BART and County staff time to advance a TOD project within a reasonable timeframe.
b. Prohousing Designation: BART will prioritize projects in jur isdictions that are pursuing a Prohousing Designation
by California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Prohousing Designation is emblematic of local support for housing and provides jurisdictions with an advantage such as priority processing or funding points for certain funding programs. This is a designation that has emerged from HCD since BART originally completed its work plan.
c. Environmental Studies: Locally supportive zoning is a minimum standard for gauging local support. For BART’s purposes, BART will determine that local zoning is supportive of TOD if the density allowed is 75 units per acre or greater, and such a density is assumed in environmental documents.
2. Infrastructure Needs:
a. Station Access and Parking Strategies: BART has evaluated its development priorities based on the anticipated cost of new infrastructure, including parking replacement. As such, until BART is able to secure external sour ces of funding to support construction of necessary infrastructure, BART cannot pursue development. In areas requiring substantial amounts of parking (e.g. auto dependent and auto reliant stations, partner jurisdictions will need to support BART in securin g funding for parking replacement or other station access improvements.
Further, to address potential community opposition to replacing surface parking with housing, the City should plan for and implement a locally led parking resource assessment and management plan for at least ¼ -mile radius around the station area. It should identify parking opportunities for BART riders that would minimize the number of spaces to be included the TOD project and address spillover parking concerns by neighbors. BART staff will work with the jurisdiction to provide support and guidance as needed but implementation of a parking management plan will be a local requirement.
3. BART Policies and Standards : Any development on BART’s land is subject to BART’s review procedures and approvals and shall follow relevant guidelines, policies, and regulations. The August 3, 2022
jurisdiction should commit to support and meet BART ’s policies and standards. Most of these policies and are summarized on our TOD Guidelines and Procedures webpage.
We look forward to building our partnerships with the City of Hayward to realize our shared goal of increasing the amount of housing near transit. Please contact us to further our conversation on advancing TOD projects on BART’s land.
Sincerely,
________________________________________
Tim Chan
Group Manager – Station Area Planning
Campaign for Fair Housing Elementsfairhousingelements.org The City of Hayward
Via email:
[email protected]
Cc:
[email protected]
August 14, 2022
Re:
Hayward’s Draft Housing Element
To the City of Hayward:
The Campaign for Fair Housing Elements and YIMBY Law believe that the City’s draft housing element
is a good start. We appreciate the
City’s attention to protecting
tenants against displacement (Draft, pp.85-86), as well as its commitment to rezone for affordable development as required by State law (
Id.
at p.74; see Gov. Code §
65583.2, subds. (c), (h)). We simply advise the City to approve more homes, much faster. First, the City should
better substantiate
its assumptions about future
development
. Second, the City should
augment its capacity
buffer,
by allowing
more density everywhere. And third, the City should
abolish its
Design Guidelines
and reorient development review toward safety and infrastructure.
First, substantiate assumptions about future development. As you know, State law requires the City to discount its home production estimates by “realistic development capacity.” (Gov. Code § 65583.2(c)(2).) The City “assumes” its realistic capacity to be “75 percent,” but does not say how it arrived at that estimate. (See Draft, p.42.) It only lists some factors that are acknowledged to “impact” development. ( Ibid.
) The City should
provide data to justify its assumption. We repeat this comment for the City’s ADU production estimate, for which the City claims but fails to show its data. (See id.
p.40.)
Second, augment the site capacity buffer. California has a housing shortage because it’s currently illegal to build the missing housing. Hayward can lead Bay Area cities by
simply legalizing the missing housing. Rather than pick and choose “approximately 1,558” single-family parcels for upzoning (
id.
p.78)–which
is a good start–the City
should preempt all questions about its capacity by allowing multifamily construction throughout its territory.
Finally, the City must do more to “remove” its own constraints on development. ( Id.
p.75; Gov. Code § 65583(c)(3).) The City recognizes as a constraint, but gives no concrete plan to remove, its “permit and approval processes.” (Draft, p.52.) The Draft concedes the City’s inability to clearly say when its own “development review process …
may include
” any of a half-dozen different land-use
procedures, and further admits
that “the time for entitlement review
may vary considerably
in cost and time to
process.” (
Ibid.
, italics added.) This should not
be difficult to explain, and we submit
that the difficulty has much to do with a planning emphasis on design rather than infrastructure. (See Alain Bertaud, Order Without Design (2018) pp.288-92 [showing how Indonesian cities accommodate lower-income housing need by focusing on infrastructure rather than design].) Please, abolish your design guidelines now, reorient toward safety and infrastructure, and leave architecture to the architects.
We look forward to the City’s next draft. Please contact me if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Keith Diggs
Housing Elements Advocacy Manager, YIMBY Law
[email protected]
Campaign for Fair Housing Elementsfairhousingelements.org 2 August 5, 2022
Jeremy Lochirco - By Email Only - [email protected] ManagerCity of Hayward RE: Draft Housing Element
Mr. Lochirco,
East Bay for Everyone is a membership organization advocating for housing, transit, tenant rights,and long-term planning in the East Bay. We write to provide comments on the City of Hayward’s6th Cycle Housing Element Public Review Draft (“Draft”).
Summary- We think it's unlikely Hayward will be able to meet its RHNA target without rezoning- The Draft document does not analyze the impact of land use constraints, for exampleparking, setbacks, FAR have on housing production in Hayward.
Constraints Analysis○ Hayward should conduct a governmental constraints analysis that examines itszoning and development standards relative to peer cities in the East Bay. Forexample:■ The 20’ front setback for RM and RH zones is excessive relative to similarmixed residential and high density residential zones in peer cities.■ The density maximum for Hayward’s RH zone three story buildings on lots120’ wide or greater is 1,250 square feet (“sqf”) of land per unit. Bycomparison neighboring San Leandro’s densest residential zone requires875 sqf of land per unit (RM-875). The density requirements for Hayward’sRH zone pose a barrier to development.■ Parking requirements, especially around transit, represent an additionalcost of $40k per space or higher if underground. Hayward requires twoparking spaces per 2-bedroom unit. Consider reducing or zeroing out theseparking minimums around transit. 1 Programs and Policies
● Goal H-5 - Density Bonus○ Action 5.3 - Consider increasing density bonus beyond State Density Bonus Law■ We highly encourage Hayward to pursue this action. Given the uncertaintyaround construction costs and interest rates, it will be important to baseany local density bonus program off of an economic feasibility analysis.● Goal H-3 - Suitable Sites○ Policy H-3.2 - Transit Oriented Development■ This promotion of TOD is important but Hayward does not offer concrete,actionable steps to achieve this goal. There are no actions associated withthis policy.■ Consider re-zoning areas around Hayward and South Hayward BARTstations as well as the Line 10 and Line 99 AC Transit routes to allow forhigher densities and height.● Goal H-4 - Mitigate Constraints to Development○ Program H-14 - Development Incentives■ The potential incentives include “disposition of public land.” This should beclarified to articulate a policy of long-term ground leases, which is the bestpractice employed by San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland in thedevelopment of land for mixed-income and affordable housing. Haywardshould retain title to the land in order to realize the long-term upside ofdevelopment and rising land values.● Goal H-1 - Maintain Existing Housing Opportunities○ To Add - Codify SB330/SB8 Tenant Demolition Protections and Right to Return■ SB330/SB8 create demolition protections for protected units(deed-restricted, rent-controlled and those occupied by low-incomerenters) when demolition is proposed. Development applicants mustreplace the protected units 1 to 1 and provide a right to return atdeed-restricted or rent-control levels for displaced tenants.■ Hayward should codify these protections into its municipal code.■ Hayward should update its development application to inform potentialapplicants about SB330/SB8 tenant demolition protections and right toreturn. In addition, the development application should require a sectionrequesting information about the existence of SB330/SB8 protected units 2 that may be demolished as part of a project, plans for replacement and rightto return of displaced tenants. Oakland and Los Angeles already do this fortheir development applications.
Site Inventory
● Hayward claims that it will meet its RHNA goals through existing zoned capacity.○ Hayward relies on its Downtown Specific Plan to provide 1,606 units within the 6thCycle.○ Please confirm that all sites that have been re-used within the past two cycles willbe re-zoned to allow for by-right development per AB1397.○ What is the basis for the column labeled “Site Available” in the site inventory TableA? Is it written documentation of interest from the landowner? If so, will Haywardmake this documentation available to the public?○ Many of the sites identified are owned by Hayward. Does Hayward have anarticulated program for planning and development of city-owned land? We requestHayward consider use of long-term ground leases to develop mixed-income andaffordable housing as a tool to retain long-term ownership and benefits ofdevelopment.● Within the Downtown Specific Plan, two zones are slated to provide housing to meet this1,606 figure: Central City High Density Residential (CC-HDR) and Central City Retail andOffice Commercial (CC-ROC).○ The Draft says that 35 units will be delivered within the CC-HDR zones within the6th Cycle.■ 507 C Street is a non-vacant parcel that has been re-used from priorplanning periods. There is no analysis of why this time will be different.Please confirm that this parcel will be re-zoned to allow by-right approvalper AB1397.■ 22756 Alice Street is a non-vacant parcel that has been re-used from priorplanning periods. There is no analysis of why this time will be different.Please confirm that this parcel will be re-zoned to allow by-right approvalper AB1397. ○ The Draft states that 1,571 units can be delivered within the CC-RCO zones of theDowntown Specific Plan within the 6th Cycle. 3 ■ The block bounded by C Street, Grand Street, Alice Street and Claire Streetincludes a number of non-vacant sites zoned CC-RCO. All of these siteshave been in prior housing elements. There is no analysis of why theseexisting industrial uses are likely to be redeveloped within the 6th Cycle. Inaddition, there is no analysis of any additional costs associated withpotential remediation from the mid-century automotive and industrial useson the sites. Please confirm that this parcel will be re-zoned to allowby-right approval per AB1397.● The Draft relies on the Mission Boulevard Code to provide 1,388 units within the 6thCycle.○ 25376 Mission Boulevard is a good site, but the amount of zoned capacity provided(48 units on 1.86 acres) is insufficient to outbid an existing auto sales use. Increasethe allowable density on this site. Please confirm that this parcel will be re-zoned toallow by-right approval per AB1397.○ 29459 Mission Boulevard is a parking lot used by LiUNA Laborers Local 304. HasLiUNA indicated it intends to redevelop this lot during the planning period? Dothey intend to move their local office? It has previously been used in prior cycles.Please confirm that this parcel will be re-zoned to allow by-right approval perAB1397.
We look forward to continuing to engage with the City of Hayward in this process.
John MinotCo-ExecutiveEast Bay for Everyone
4 August 8, 2022
Hayward Planning Division and City Council777 B Street, First FloorHayward, CA 94541 Re: Hayward needs transformative parking measures to eliminate development constraints Dear City of Hayward Planning Division and Hayward City Council, TransForm is a regional non-profit focused on creating connected and healthy communities thatcan meet climate goals, reduce traffic, and include housing affordable to everyone. We applaudHayward’s work to date on the Draft Housing Element. However, to meet housing,transportation, and climate goals, Hayward needs to expand on its successful programs andinitiate some new ones.
In particular, there will need to be an effective mix of:● Planning for growth in walkable areas near transit● Reducing the amount of parking mandated for housing and providing incentives andprograms to drive less (Transportation Demand Management or TDM)● Developing sufficient programs to meet affordable home targets of RHNA We were disappointed to see only passing reference to parking as a constraint to development,in Hayward’s draft Housing Element. The city code currently requires at least 1.5 parking spacesper unit for multi-family developments, and at least 2 spaces for 2+ bedrooms. Haywardeliminated parking minimums in the Mission Boulevard Corridor, but as the publicrecommended, these standards should also apply to the Downtown Area.
The need to eliminate or greatly reduce parking minimums is more important than ever.Eachnew parking space costs $30,000-$80,000. 1 With inflationdriving up construction costs sincethese estimates, two spaces may now cost up to $200,000. Beyond construction costs, parkingtakes up essential space that could provide more homes, services, or community amenities.This raises the cost of housing development and makes it hard to meet production goals. 1 https://www.shoupdogg.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/05/Cutting-the-Cost-of-Parking-Requirements.pdf 560 14TH STREET, SUITE 400, OAKLAND, CA 94612 | T: 510.740.3150 | WWW.TRANSFORMCA.ORG 1 TransForm recommends that Hayward consider the following policies in the Housing Element:1. Funding a dedicated study of parking reforms, particularly how smart parking policiescould positively impact housing, transportation and other goals.2. Requiring unbundled parking for certain transit oriented developments. This is easier forbuilding managers to implement now with new parking tech tools likeParkade.3. Expanding the Transportation Demand Management program by requiring provision oftransit passes to each resident.
To show the tremendous transportation and climate benefits of these policies, as well as someof the financial savings for residents and reduced costs for development, we have used ourGreenTRIP Connect tool tocreate scenariosfor a potential future development site at 22765Grand Street. This parcel is identified in Hayward’s draft Housing Element Site Inventory as apotential development site in the UN zone of the Downtown Area. This also means thisdevelopment would be allowed to provide slightly fewer parking spaces based on its proximity totransit. TheCalifornia Office of Planning and Researchrecommends GreenTRIP Connect as atool to use while developing General Plans and is especially useful during the development ofHousing Elements (the tool is free to use and supports better planning at the site and city-widelevel).
By implementing the strategies above at 22765 Grand Street, GreenTRIP Connect predicts:
1. With unbundling and providing transit passes at this site, we saw a 37% decrease inparking and resident transportation savings of $1,020 per year.2. With right-sized parking, incorporating the benefits of good location, unbundled parkingand free transit passes, the development would cost $2,002,000 less to build relative tocurrent parking standards.3. When combined with 100% affordable housing these strategies resulted in an incredible61% reduction in driving and greenhouse gas emissions for the site, compared to the cityaverage.4. If an affordable development with smart parking strategies were built on this site eachhousehold would drive 7,132 less miles per year creating a greener and safercommunity.
By reducing the number of community members that face extreme housing cost burdens,getting priced out of their community, and/or becoming unsheltered. Residents, new and oldalike, will greatly benefit from the reduction in vehicle traffic and associated air pollution (seescenarioshere).
In addition to parking and transportation strategies, we applaud some of the proposed strategiesto support more affordable homes, since these would have such tremendous benefits as notedin the GreenTRIP scenario. Two of the most important are Actions 4.4 and 4.5 which will 2560 14TH STREET, SUITE 400, OAKLAND, CA 94612 | T: 510.740.3150 | WWW.TRANSFORMCA.ORG reimburse the cost of land for BMR developments and subsidize the development of affordableunits on City-owned land, respectively. These programs are a cost-effective complement tostrategies focused on housing production.
The GreenTRIP scenarios and the chart on the final page of our Scenario document also showthe imperative of programs to accelerate development of affordable homes, like Actions 4.4 and4.5. Not only do lower-income households use transit more and drive much less than average,but success in this area can help provide homes for unsheltered individuals and families. Acommitment to these programs will show that Hayward is committed to planning for all levels ofthe 2,509 RHNA BMR units anticipated in this cycle.
Please let me know if you have any questions. TransForm hopes this information explains whyHayward should make parking reform a priority in the Housing Element update.
Sincerely,Kendra MaHousing Policy [email protected] 3560 14TH STREET, SUITE 400, OAKLAND, CA 94612 | T: 510.740.3150 | WWW.TRANSFORMCA.ORG
From: Glenn Kirby
To: List-Mayor-Council
Cc: Planning Division; Leigha Schmidt; Christina Morales; Sara Buizer; Jennifer Ott Subject: Comments on Housing Plan Revision
Date: Saturday, August 13, 2022 9:58:21 PM
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.
Comments on Housing Plan Revision
Submitted by Ro Aguilar
August 13, 2022
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
I have been following the revision of the Housing Plan over the last couple of years with specific interest in “Goal H-2: Assist in the provision of housing that meets the needs of all socioeconomic segments of the community.” Two of the six policies in support of Goal H-2 are as follows:
H-2.3 Inclusionary Housing: The city shall enforce the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to ensure that a certain percentage of new residential units will be made affordable to lower- and moderate-income households or to ensure the payment of affordable housing in-lieu fees to subsidize the development of affordable housing.
H-2.4: Integration of Affordable Housing: The City shall encourage a mix of affordability levels in residential projects and encourage the dispersal of such units to achieve greater integration of affordable housing throughout the community.
Inclusionary housing is a key policy in creating upward mobility for lower income families according a recent Harvard Study. One of the findings reveals that the more cross class interaction people (particularly children) have, the better their chances to move into the middle class. All affordable housing is not equal in achieving this outcome – location within a higher income neighborhood is a critical factor!
While H-2.3 speaks to enforcing the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the language as stated gives the developer the power to opt out of building on-site affordable housing and instead pay an in-lieu fee. Given this choice, very few developers have chosen to build affordable housing units within market-rate residential developments and thus, the City has very few market rate projects (rental and owner-occupied) that include affordable housing units. As stated in Policy H-2.4: the City is empowered only to encourage
integration of affordable housing and we
know from reviewing residential projects over the last decade, that this current policy is not working for a number of reasons.
So why adopt the proposed Housing Plan when it is basically maintaining the status quo regarding inclusionary affordable housing? The City Council is choosing to leave responsibility for building affordable housing to the developer and thus the City can expect very little progress in addressing the affordable inclusionary housing deficit, especially in the category of owner-occupied housing. While there are incentives for developers to build inclusionary affordable housing and higher densities, these incentives have not worked because of the political delays of neighborhood opposition and an unpredictable City Council vote.
I urge the City Council a make an effective, equity based revision to the Housing Plan and require every residential development
in the City to include a percentage of moderate/low-
income housing, fulfilling its responsibility to create housing opportunities for all its residents.
This change would provide financial certainty to the developer because inclusionary affordable housing would be a requirement of the ordinance and a commitment by the City Council.
While the staff proposes a year-long study before possibly making this change in 2024, I propose the City Council make the change now
in this Housing Plan and study the results
compared to what has been built in the last 8 years. Current zoning laws tend to segregate residents according to income and class, substituting socioeconomic status as a proxy for race.
Since we are currently faced with a housing crisis and a widening gap between the haves and have nots, the Housing Plan must require developers
to build on-site inclusionary housing
units, increasing opportunities for low-income residents and repairing discriminatory housing policies.
( Submitted via email only )
Cc:
Planning Commission Members
Jennifer Ott
Sara Buizer
Christina Morales
Leigha Schmidt
From: Mary Ann Higgs
To: HousingElementUpdate
Subject: Comments on Plans
Date: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 4:42:53 PM
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.
Hello Team,
I have a general concern about housing development over the next 8 years. While I understand the importance of having a plan and looking for opportunities to create affordable housing options for a variety of people, my concern is whether or not building on a large scale is a smart thing to do right now. While many people will cite concerns about whether or not our infrastructure, particularly our roads, can handle an increase in housing, my concern is more basic.
In California, we have lived through several years of drought. And with each new residential unit, whether it's an apartment, townhouse, single family home, or ADU, it requires water.
People need water. And water is something that has been in short supply in the last several years and things are not getting better. I am concerned that adding housing of any type puts an undue burden on this limited resource.
So, my suggestion is that while it makes sense to have a plan, I think there should be some kind of caveat that the plans can only be executed if there is adequate water to support the individuals who will be residing in these residential units. Maybe the caveat is there must be 3 consecutive years of average or above average rainfall/snowpack before 'x' number of housing units can be built. I'm sure someone has data on how much water a family of 4 needs on a weekly, monthly, and yearly basis. Low flow toilets, low flow faucets, and drought resistant landscaping can only take us so far. Until we have the water across the state to meet the need of the people, the agriculture industry, and our environment (fish hatcheries, lakes, rivers, etc.), I think it makes sense to limit new building.
Please add this comment to the overall input from residents that is part of the overall process.
Thanks,
Mary Ann Higgs
Westview Way
Hayward, CA
[email protected]
From: Roland L McCready
To: HousingElementUpdate
Subject: Draft Housing Plan
Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 10:00:25 AM
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.
Hello,
I read through this plan. I am a senior citizen home owner who lives in the Jackson Triangle. How will this effect me?
Thank you
From: Sandy Stark
To: HousingElementUpdate
Subject: 50 stories up!
Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 4:27:56 PM
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.
My only comment and complaint is, why aren’t you building Tower cities, 50 stories, or at least 20, because they are needed terribly!
Make sure each Tower has all things so some or all can get rid of their personal vehicles, and just rent one whenever needed! Include: groceries, gyms, car rentals, hospitals/clinics, vets, indoor terrariums and parks, and indoor vertical food gardens, are necessities.
If you don’t you’ll just have worse traffic congestion, and worse air to breathe.
From: [email protected]
To: HousingElementUpdate
Subject: Live work units
Date: Friday, July 22, 2022 7:41:30 PM
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.
To whom it may concern, Hello, I didn’t see a mention of live/work housing? I am a muralist and teaching artist for MOCHA. I need to be in Hayward to care for my Mom, and would love to live with my granddaughter who is about to turn 18. (So no senior housing.) We are both artists and to have a separate studio isn’t the best option, financially or creatively.
I appreciate the direction Hayward seems to be going. Thank you for your mindfulness and planning.
Sincerely,
Tammy Artis
Hayward resident
Sent from my iPhone
From: Marla Lyons
To: HousingElementUpdate
Subject: Include this feature please
Date: Monday, July 18, 2022 5:19:28 PM
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.
Good day
Please when constructing these housing communities that they are Better “soundproofed” so All your movements can be private.
Thank You
Sent from my iPhone
From: Zachariah Oquenda
To: HousingElementUpdate
Subject: Housing Element Comment
Date: Thursday, July 14, 2022 11:06:09 AM
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.
Dear Leigha and Housing Team,
I wanted to send my appreciation for your hard work on this draft housing element and housing plan. It is really strong. I also just find the draft useful in providing all the contextual information to get a grip on the scope of different housing issues and solutions in Hayward.
I have one comment/question. Can we include something in the policies explicitly supporting people in reentry to have a fair chance to access housing opportunities? H-6.1 Fair Housing Services policy generally refers to fair housing which is a policy prohibiting discrimination based on a protected classification, such as race or disability. I reviewed Appendix F, and it mirrors that understanding in affirmatively furthering fair housing.
Somewhat separate but aligned with fair housing goals is fair chance housing which relates to discrimination against people based on their criminal record. There is a nexus between discrimination based on race and disability as these are two protected classes that are disproportionately impacted by the criminal legal system. The Alameda County Justice Reinvestment Coalition finds that 1 of 4 people in Alameda County have a criminal record and that South Hayward is one area where there is an above average concentration of people with records that would tend to lead to disproportionate discrimination in South Hayward neighborhoods.
I wanted to encourage staff to raise this issue before city council and ask the council to consider including the mention of supporting programs and services to prevent discrimination against formerly incarcerated people in housing.
Is there any chance of staff raising this concern/issue before the city council? If we really support "Equal Housing Opportunities for All Persons" as our draft Housing Element states, then I think we should not shy away from being willing to identify the population of justice-impacted individuals and families needing and deserving of support. If there is any way I can be helpful in offering my expertise or experience to this discussion, I'd be more than willing to do so.
I appreciate your time and consideration.
Thank you,
Zachariah
Zachariah Oquenda, Esq., M.P.P.
he/him/his
California Policy Attorney
, SBN 336420
Root & Rebound | www.rootandrebound.org
Planning Commissioner,
Hayward Planning Commission
Community Advisor,
Hayward Community Advisory Panel to the Chief of Police [email protected]
909-450-9214
Schedule a Meeting
From: Dr. Commish
To: HousingElementUpdate
Subject: Housing comments
Date: Monday, July 18, 2022 12:44:47 PM
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.
Hi:
Looking at the renderings that are part of the plans there seem to be a number of multi-story housing units suggested. My suggestion would be to incorporate single-story houses for those with ambulatory concerns, ie. bad knees/backs with will preclude one from negotiating stairs.
Just a thought!
D. Yates, Ph.D. Professor Emerita
2014-2016 and 2019-2020 CSUEB Faculty Marshal
National Gang Crime Research Center, Professional Level 2 Specialist Program; 24 hours of Specialized Training in Female Gangs/Female Gang Members & Management & Supervision Skills for Gang Specialist
Certified, Mental Health First Aid (2011-2017),
G.R.E.A.T. Certified (Gang Resistance Education and Training) P=PRACTICE
L=LAUGHING
A=AT
Y=YOURSELF!
LIFE IS ABOUT HOW YOU HANDLE PLAN B! LET'S MAKE AMERICA SANE AGAIN!
"With confidence, you have won before you have started." Marcus Garvey
Don't sweat the small stuff, cause it's all small stuff in the grander scheme of things! October is Domestic Violence Month
Every 15 seconds in this country a woman is physically abused by her partner! Violence is preventable and can be prevented.
Support the victims!
From: Rafael V
To: HousingElementUpdate
Subject: Hayward Draft Housing Element Comments
Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 12:05:41 PM
CAUTION:This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.
Hi,
Thank you for the very detailed Draft Housing Element and for the opportunity to provide feedback. There are some great proposals that I hope will serve our community well.
My name is Rafael Velazquez Cardenas and I am a proud educator for our public schools here in Hayward. I also grew up here in Hayward and am happy to be serving my community. The draft element has lots of great information that I am also hoping to include in my curriculum in the future, especially since the housing crisis has really created lots of issues and questions about what is happening in our communities.
The following questions and points are the feedback that I would like to share:
1) Under Appendix E, the review of our city’s past accomplishments, why were we severely under the RNHA goal for our severely low through moderate income homes in our past efforts? What policies or city ordinances can be put in place to make sure we are not neglecting our lower income residents while clearly exceeding the needs for the above moderate-income residents? How can we prevent this in upcoming building of housing?
2) Under the Inclusionary housing section, new buildings need to provide Affordable rental units at 6% of the built units? Why such a low percentage when the median income of our city is close to 56k per year and when the need is much higher in Hayward? Can this percentage be increased through city policies or incentives in order to build more affordable housing?
3) Under the Inclusionary housing section, affordable ownership units must be 10% of units built for moderate income households, but a fee can be paid in lieu if developers do not meet the quota. What is this fee and is it substantial enough to dissuade developers from avoiding affordable ownership units? I also wonder if this fee would end up costing our city and residents in the long run if developers do not build enough housing to meet the community's needs. Are there any city ordinances/policies that can make this loophole harder for developers to exploit?
4) Under Action 13.2, why don’t we amend the zoning to also permit building of multi-family housing/apartments in these low-density neighborhoods? Why does the proposal only create middle housing types of new units (condos, duplex, etc)?
5) Are there any policies or ordinances we can add to also protect and meet the housing need for our large undocumented population in Hayward? Immigrant families cannot access Section 8 housing and may not seek help due to the fear of family separation. Possibly stronger rent stabilization, education, and anti-harassment policies can be very helpful. Our Hayward 2019 Rent Stabilization ordinance is a good start; however, it is definitely not enough. The 5% cap on rental increases annually is far above what our average workers earn and increases on rent can have drastic impacts on family health and stability. Our immigrant workers, who tend to have very low wage work and do not see the wage increases of other workers, are especially vulnerable. Are there ways our housing element can make the rent stabilization even stronger than the 5% cap annually on certain units?
6) Do we have any city-owned public rent controlled spaces? How can we build these up and use them to serve our vulnerable populations?
I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback.
regards,
Rafael Velazquez Cardenas
Open Questions for Staff:
● Do we have a vacancy registry or atlas where residents can learn: average vacancy rate, how many units are empty, how long they’ve been empty, who the landlord is for a given property, rent costs, evictions rates, % of security deposits withheld at a certain property, and more?
● How can we prioritize lowering rental barriers? Application fees, fair chance housing, etc?
● Can Hayward provide hotel vouchers or incentives for hotel/motel businesses to help with transitional housing supply?
Chapter 1. Introduction
Pg 24 - Ground leasing public land vs. selling
Comment: HUGE SUPPORT, our land is our most valuable asset, we should not give up our public resources.
Pg. 25 - City partnerships with Chabot & CSUEB for housing.
Question: Can we explore housing options for employees of other Hayward anchor institutions (defined as employing 1%+ of the workforce)? St. Rose, City of Hayward, HUSD (especially since education/healthcare/services sector is increasing - noted on pg. 28) Chapter 2. Housing Needs Summary
Pg. 29 - only 20% of rental units are 3 bedrooms or more.
Comment: Appendix A describes significant overcrowding, how is the housing element specifically addressing/prioritizing affordable 3+ br rentals?
Chapter 3. Projected Housing Need
Pg. 36 - references a “graphic below” at the end of the first paragraph, but I’m not seeing one.
Pg. 36 - 6th Cycle of RHNA is an 18% increase over the last one Question: How much did we build relative to our allocation?
Chapter 4. Housing Resources
Pg. 40 - ADU’s
Comment/Question: Will only contribute 7% towards RHNA goals (if estimated 40 units/year is achieved). How can we streamline this process to avoid spending staff time on a relatively small stock of housing?
Pg. 43 - Summary of Adequate Sites
Question: What would it take to change zoning districts to accommodate more lower income units beyond the current 1607?
Pg. 45 - Home Investment Partnership Program
Comment/Question: 482k doesn’t seem like a lot, how are HOME funds currently being divided among the services listed? What adjustments can we make to allocations to provide more value?
Pg. 45 - SB2 Grants
Question: How much are we collecting from these grants? What are we spending it on?
Pg. 46 - LEAP Grants
How much of the $119M is Hayward receiving? How is it being allocated currently?
Pg. 47 - Code Enforcement
What does this process currently look like? Any notes on streamlining this process? Chapter 5. Housing Constraints
Pg. 52 - Permit, Processing, Procedures
Where can I find a schedule of these fees? Do we have data on how often they’re waived (or in lieu of fees are paid), and the impact these fees have on increasing project times?
Pg. 54 - Market Activity
What resources does the city have available to combat loan denial rates in communities of color?
Chapter 6. Fair Housing
Pg. 59 - Fair Housing Goals & Priorities (6.3)
Can we be proactive about sending tenants resources? I know Berkeley sends a packet with resources to all new renters.
Chapter 7. Housing Plan
Pg 63 - Program H-2, Action 2.2
What enforcement mechanisms will tenants have to ensure this is being done in a timely manner?
Pg 64 - Program H-3, Action 3.4
Can we implement a tenant opportunity to purchase program here as well?
Pg 66 - Program H-2.5
What flexibility do we have to increase in-lieu of fees to discourage developers from avoiding building affordable units? What is the current in-lieu of fee?
Pg 66 - Program H-2.6
Is this specific to rental units or just homeownership?
Pg 66 - Program H-4
How can we prioritize 3+ BR development to address overcrowding?
Pg 68 - Action 6.4
What is the justification for spending 4 years assessing?
Pg 69 - Action 7.6
Does the city have any mechanisms to force acceptance of Housing Choice Vouchers?
Pg 75 - Program H-13
Can the city explore opportunities to provide incentives or benefits for local residents and Hayward employees?
Pg 75 - Policy H-4.1
How much is the current process contributing to construction costs? On average, how much would streamlining these processes reduce overall costs?
Pg 75 - Policy H-4.2
Similar to the previous question - how much will these incentives and bonuses reduce overall costs? Is there an average percentage of dollars saved per project?
Pg 76 - Program H-14
Comment: I hope public land disposition means leasing only. Hayward should not sell its land off!
Pg 76 - Program H-14 Action 14.3
Will this reduce the likelihood of higher density units being built?
Pg 77 - Action 16.3
Could this be amended to include greenspace, mixed-use, and other development amenities that make for more livable, walkable neighborhoods?
Pg 77 - Action 16.4
Where can I learn more about the current process for project review?
Pg 78 - Action 17.2
How much staff time will be allocated to this given the relatively small amount of units it provides?
Pg 80 - H-5.7 Family Housing
I love this! Are there specific percentages the city is aiming for? Can the city development Community Benefit Agreements that include this as part of project approval?
Pg 81 - Action 19.4
Comment: I appreciate this effort but wonder if there are more systemic approaches we can take beyond supporting just 10 people/year
Pg 81 - Action 19.5
Where will this data be published?
Pg 81 - Action 19.9
How much would the city budget towards this?
Pg 81 - Action 19.11
Comment: I LOVE THIS
Pg 82 - Action 20.3
Comment: Add Eden Community Land Trust, Hayward Area Planners Association, and HayCoCoa to this list please!
Pg 82 - Action 20.4
Comment: Would like to explore ways to disseminate this info more widely/regularly
Pg 82 - Action 20.5
Comment: Great!!
Pg 83 - Policy H-6.2
Can we push for fair chance housing to remove discrimination based on criminal record and add sexual orientation to this list?
Pg 85 - Program H-22
Can we develop a streamlined process for tenants to report potential violations (maybe through Access Hayward or the city website?)
Pg 86 - Program H-24
What can the city do when Landlords fail to pay for required relocation assistance?
Pg 86 - Action 24.2
Can we be more proactive about this information, maybe send something to newly registered tenants with their first utility bill? (Also this table might be duplicated in the draft element on Pg 87)
Response to Public Comments
Response
to
Public
C
omments
1 Response to
Public
Comments
Commenter
Comment
Number
Public
Comment
City Response
BART
A1
BART has limited staff resources and funding opportunities for infrastructure, especially parking development, which is often required for BART’s developable land. With
current resources, it is
challenging for BART to support the development of all the plans proposed in partner jurisdictions within the 2023
-
2031 Housing
Element.
On March 7, 2022, the City received a letter from BART providing information related to their
position about using BART properties in
upcoming Housing Elements. That letter organized properties into near term, mid
-
term and
long
-
term
timeframes for initiating
development. The Downtown Hayward station was placed in the near
-
term
category and South Hayward station was placed in the
midterm category. For station areas characterized as near -
term,
BART supported including the station in the Housing Element. For stations in the mid
-
term category, BART indicated uncertainty about
developing timing and noted
that further discussions would be
necessary to understand what would be needed to develop the site.
Following a conversation with BART, the City did include the South Hayward Station in the inventory based on the fact that there was significant growth in
South Hayward in the areas near the BART
Station in the last cycle. Based on those recent trends, the City believes that there is a strong potential for development of the site.
A2
BART
-
owned properties in Hayward and South Hayward Stations
showed that all units are in the Lower Income Capacity Category.
The amount of affordable housing on BART property is dependent on the amount of affordable housing funding available including local subsidies. Given current funding availability, the size of
BART
properties included in the site inventory and the cost of developing the land with access and parking improvements, achieving 100% affordability may not be feasible.
Following a conversation with BART, the City decided to include the South Hayward Station in the
inventory
based on the fact that there
was
significant
growth in South Hayward in the areas near th
e
BART
Station in the 5th cycle. Based on those recent trends, the City believes that there is a strong potential for development of the site.
H
owever,
the City does understand that it is more realistic to
assume a mix of affordability on the site. BART
-
owned properties
were revised to assume a mix of lower
-
, moderate
-
, and above
moderate
-
income units instead of assuming 100
percent
affordability.
A3
Developing TODs on BART land is more involved and requires strong partnerships between BART and local jurisdictions. BART’s TOD Work Plan prioritizes stations that have market readiness, local support, and infrastructure needs. Key considerations by BART for prioritizing development projects are 1) availability of local funding and resources to support development, including staff support and funding for community outreach, affordable housing, and infrastructure, and 2) seamless coordination with local jurisdiction staff.
The City acknowledges and understands BART's position that development will require a strong partnership with jurisdictions among other factors outlined in the comment. The City of Hayward has a strong track record of working with regional agencies in seei ng
development of publicly owned land. As detailed in Appendix E, Review of
P
ast Accomplishments, in 2016, the City entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding
with Caltrans
to manage the
disposition and development of former right of way for the former 238
bypass. During the last cycle, the City was able to entitle five of the parcels for a total of 933 new units, 358 of which are deed restricted for moderate and low income households. The City is Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2 Commenter
Comment
Number Public Comment City Response
Current listings in BART’s TOD Work Plan timeframes of Midterm or Long-term need to meet the following conditions to be considered for prioritization:
Local Support for TOD
Local Support and Funding
Proposing Designation
Environmental Studies
Infrastructure Needs
Station Access and Parking Strategies
BART Policies and Standards
committed to and has shown the ability to make these partnerships work. The Housing Plan includes policies and programs intended to foster a strong partnership with BART and meet the conditions facilitate development on these sites.
Campaign for Fair
Housing Elements
and YIMBY Law
B1 The City should better substantiate its assumptions about future development. The City “assumes” its realistic capacity to be “75 percent,” but does not say how it arrived at that estimate. (See Draft, p.42.) The City should provide data to justify its assumption.
This comment is also valid for the City’s ASU production estimate, for which the City claims but fails to show its data. (See id. p.40.) The City is obligated to identify sites suitable for development to meet the RHNA. The sites inventory buffer accounts for the possibility of units not being developed from pipeline projects or on inventory sites. The 75 percent development capacity estimate is considered conservative for the region and based on Hayward’s pipeline list. Specifically, projects currently in Hayward’s pipeline are averaging buildout densities of 88 percent of the maximum allowable density. Additional justification of this assumption was added to Appendix C, Housing Resources.
B2 The City should augment its capacity buffer, by allowing more density everywhere. Rather than pick and choose “approximately 1,558” single-family parcels for upzoning (id. p.78)–which is a good start–the City should preempt all questions about its capacity by allowing multifamily construction throughout its territory through legalizing the missing housing.
In 2019, the City received a Senate Bill 2 grant to comprehensively upzone approximately 1,558 parcels to match a higher density General Plan designation. This comprehensive upzoning project outlined above will be accompanied by an update to the City's Objective Standards to further streamline development. The project is currently underway, and the City expects it to be completed by 2023. Further, through the implementation of Senate Bill 9, any single-family parcel can be subdivided into two parcels and a duplex may be built on each parcel which allows for development of multi- family housing in the Single Family Residential District.
B3 The City should abolish its Design Guidelines and reorient development review toward safety and infrastructure. The City recognizes the Design Guidelines as a constraint, but gives no concrete plan to remove, its “permit and approval processes.” (Draft, p.52.) Please, abolish your design guidelines now, reorient toward safety and infrastructure, and leave architecture to the architects.
Please see comment B2 above regarding the City's Objective Design Guidelines update currently underway.
3 Commenter
Comment
Number
Public
Comment
City Response
East Bay for
Everyone
C1
Hayward should conduct a governmental constraints analysis that examines its zoning and development standards relative to peer cities in the East Bay. For example:
The 20’ front setback for RM and RH zones is excessive relative to similar mixed residential and high density residential zones in peer cities.
The density maximum for Hayward’s RH zone three story
buildings on lots 120’ wide or greater is 1,250 square fee t (“sqf”)
of land per unit. By comparison neighboring San Leandro’s densest residential zone requires 875 sqf of land per unit (RM -
875). The density requirements for Hayward’s RH zone pose a barrier to development.
Parking requirements, especially around t
ransit, represent an
additional cost of $40k per space or higher if underground.
Hayward requires two parking spaces per 2
-
bedroom unit.
Consider reducing or zeroing out these parking minimums around transit.
The City is currently preparing a set of Object
ive Design Guidelines.
Updates to setbacks among other development standards will be included in the update. With regard to parking requirements, the Mission Boulevard Form Based Code (MBFBC) and Downtown
Specific Plan (DTSP) do not require two parking spa
ces per unit as
suggested by the commenter. Specifically, the MB
-
FBC has no
parking minimums and the DTSP requires one parking space per unit. As part of the Objective Design Guidelines, the City is considering requiring one parking space per unit in the M B-
FBC
similar to the DTSP,
depending on parking demand and feasibility
analysis being prepared at this time.
C2
Goal H
-5 -
Density Bonus
Action 5.3
-
Consider increasing density bonus beyond State Density
Bonus Law
We highly encourage Hayward to pursue this action. Given the uncertainty around construction costs and interest rates, it will be important to base any local density bonus program off of an economic feasibility analysis.
In 2022, the City initiated an update to the Density Bonus Ordinan
ce. As detailed in Dra
f
t Housing Element Program H
-
5, the
City plans to update the Density Bonus Ordinance by June 2023.
C3
Goal H
-3 -
Suitable Sites
Policy H
-3.2 -
Transit Oriented Development
This promotion of TOD is important but Hayward does not off er
concrete, actionable steps to achieve this goal. There are no actions associated with this policy.
Consider re
-
zoning areas around Hayward and South Hayward
BART stations as well as the Line 10 and Line 99 AC Transit routes to allow for higher densities
and height.
Goal H
-
3 contains a number of policies to support a diversity of housing type, size, location, price and tenure. In 2019, the City
adopted the Downtown Specific Plan (Hayward Municipal Code Chapter 10, Article 28) and in 2020, the City adopted the Mission Boulevard Form Based Code (Hayward Municipal Code Chapter 10, Article 24). Both of those plans contain concrete actionable steps a
nd related development standards and densities to support transit -
oriented development. No additional action items are needed in Housing Plan.
C4
Goal H
-4 -
Mitigate Constraints to Development
Program H
-14 -
Development Incentives
Thank you for this suggestion. Disposition of public land could involve sale of land or
long
-
term
ground leases as suggested
. It is
not within the purview of this Housing Element to make specific decisions related to the disposition of land without any details Response
to
Public
C
omments
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4 Commenter
Comment
Number Public Comment City Response
The potential incentives include “disposition of public land.” This should be clarified to articulate a policy of long-term ground leases, which is the best
practice employed by San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland in the development of land for mixed-income and affordable housing. Hayward should retain title to the land in order to realize the long-term upside of development and rising land values.
regarding the location and type of development being proposed.
The City Council will review and make these decisions on a case-by- case basis.
C5 Goal H-1 - Maintain Existing Housing Opportunities to Add:
Codify SB330/SB8 Tenant Demolition Protections and Right to Return
SB330/SB8 create demolition protections for protected units (deed-restricted, rent-controlled and those occupied by low- income renters) when demolition is proposed. Development applicants must replace the protected units 1 to 1 and provide a right to return at deed-restricted or rent-control levels for displaced tenants.
Hayward should codify these protections into its municipal code.
Hayward should update its development application to inform potential applicants about SB330/SB8 tenant demolition
protections and right to return. In addition, the development application should require a section requesting information about the existence of SB330/SB8 protected units that may be demolished as part of a project, plans for replacement and right to return of displaced tenants. Oakland and Los Angeles already do this for their development applications.
These provisions are included in the Draft Housing Element as Program H-10, Replacement Housing.
C6 Hayward claims that it will meet its RHNA goals through existing zoned capacity. Please confirm that all sites that have been re-used within the past two cycles will be re-zoned to allow for by-right development per AB1397.
By-right requirement under AB 1397 applies to sites that were identified in previous housing element updates as sites that could accommodate lower-income units. Parcels will be rezoned for by- right development if the parcel was used for lower income housing in the 5th cycle and again in the 6th cycle in accordance State law.
C7 Hayward claims that it will meet its RHNA goals through existing zoned capacity.
What is the basis for the column labeled “Site Available” in the site inventory Table A? Is it written documentation of interest from the "Site Available" means that there is not currently a development application for the site.
5 Commenter
Comment
Number
Public
Comment
City Response
landowner? If so, will Hayward make this documentation available to the public?
C8
Hayward claims that it will meet its RHNA goals through existing zoned capacity.
Many of the sites identified are owned by Hayward. Does Hayward have an articulated program for planning and developmen t of city
-
owned land? We request Hayward consider use of long
-
term
ground leases to develop mixed
-
income and affordable housing as a
tool to retain long
-
term ownership and benefits of development.
Please see response to comments C4 and C11.
C9
The Draft
says that 35 units will be delivered within the CC
-
HDR
zones within the 6th Cycle.
507 C Street is a non
-
vacant parcel that has been re
-
used from prior
planning periods. There is no analysis of why this time will be different. Please confirm that this
parcel will be re
-
zoned to allow
by
-
right approval per AB1397.
This site will not be rezoned because lower
-
income units are not
assumed on the site and is therefore not subject to AB 1397 by -
right
approval. This site continues to have high potential of red
evelopment based on the site selection analysis included in Appendix C. The City will work to facilitate the redevelopment of this site.
C10
The Draft says that 35 units will be delivered within the CC -
HDR
zones within the 6th Cycle.
22756 Alice
Street is a non
-
vacant parcel that has been re
-
used from
prior planning periods. There is no analysis of why this time will be different. Please confirm that this parcel will be re
-
zoned to allow
by
-
right approval per AB1397.
See response to comment C9.
C11
The Draft states that 1,571 units can be delivered within the CC -
RCO
zones of the Downtown Specific Plan within the 6th Cycle.
The block bounded by C Street, Grand Street, Alice Street and Claire Street includes a number of non
-
vacant sites zoned CC
-R
CO. All of
these sites have been in prior housing elements. There is no analysis of why these existing industrial uses are likely to be redeveloped within the 6th Cycle. In addition, there is no analysis of any additional costs associated with potential remediation from the mid
-
century automotive and industrial uses on the sites. Please confirm that this parcel will be re
-
zoned to allow by
-
right approval
per AB1397.
This site will
be rezoned because lower
-
income units are assumed
on the site and is
therefore
subject to AB 1397 by right approval.
This site continues to have high potential of redevelopment based on the site selection analysis included in Appendix C. The City will work to facilitate the redevelopment of this site.
C12
The Draft relie
s on the Mission Boulevard Code to provide 1,388
units within the 6th Cycle.
25376 Mission Boulevard is a good site, but the amount of zoned capacity provided (48 units on 1.86 acres) is insufficient to outbid an existing auto sales use. Increase the allow
able density on this site.
The Sites Inventory follows HCD's site selection criteria and realistic capacity based on local development trends. It's possible that a proj
ect with larger capacity than assumed will occur. This site will not be rezoned because lower
-
income units are not assumed on the
site and is therefore not subject to AB 1397 by right approval. This Response
to
Public
C
omments
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
6 Commenter
Comment
Number Public Comment City Response
Please confirm that this parcel will be re-zoned to allow by-right approval per AB1397.
site continues to have high potential of redevelopment based on the site selection analysis included in Appendix C. The City will work to facilitate the redevelopment of this site.
C13 The Draft relies on the Mission Boulevard Code to provide 1,388 units within the 6th Cycle.
29459 Mission Boulevard is a parking lot used by LiUNA Laborers Local 304. Has LiUNA indicated it intends to redevelop this lot during the planning period? Do they intend to move their local office? It has previously been used in prior cycles. Please confirm that this parcel will be re-zoned to allow by-right approval per AB1397.
Thank you for your comment. After further analysis, the City has determined that this site does not meet it’s criteria for inclusion on the Sites Inventory. This site has been removed from consideration.
Transform CA D1 To meet housing, transportation, and climate goals, Hayward needs to expand on its successful programs and initiate some new ones.
In particular, there will need to be an effective mix of:
Planning for growth in walkable areas near transit
Reducing the amount of parking mandated for housing and providing incentives and programs to drive less (Transportation Demand Management or TDM)
Developing sufficient programs to meet affordable home targets of RHNA
The City has implemented these goals and programs particularly in the Downtown Specific Plan (Hayward Municipal Code Chapter 10, Article 28) which was adopted in 2019, and in the Mission Boulevard Form Based Code (Hayward Municipal Code Chapter 10, Article 24) which was adopted in 2020. Those areas have reduced parking requirements and are subject to reduced parking analysis based on VMT screens for affordable housing near transit
(https://www.hayward-ca.gov/discover/maps/726). Both of those plans contain concrete actionable steps and related development standards and densities to support transit-oriented development.
D2 TransForm recommends that Hayward consider the following policies in the Housing Element:
Funding a dedicated study of parking reforms, particularly how smart parking policies could positively impact housing, transportation, and other goals.
Requiring unbundled parking for certain transit-oriented developments. This is easier for building managers to
implement now with new parking tech tools like Parkade. Expanding the Transportation Demand Management program by requiring provision of transit passes to each resident.
Parking requirements are low where redevelopment is expected to occur, specifically in the Downtown Specific Plan and Mission Boulevard Corridor. The City will continue to monitor its parking standards and revise if these standards are identified as a constraint to housing development.
D3 We have used our GreenTRIP Connect tool to create scenarios for a potential future development site at 22765 Grand Street. This parcel is identified in Hayward’s draft Housing Element Site Inventory as a potential development site in the UN zone of the Downtown Area, meaning it would provide slightly few parking spaces based on proximity to transit. The California Office of Planning and Research That you for the comment. The City will take this information into consideration.
7 Commenter
Comment
Number
Public
Comment
City Response
recommends GreenTRIP Connect as a tool to use while developing General Plans and is especially useful during the development of Housing Ele
ments.
By implementing these strategies at 22765 Grand Street, GreenTRIP Connect predicts:
With unbundling and providing transit passes at this site, we saw a 37% decrease in parking and resident transportation savings of $1,020 per year.
With right
-
sized
parking, incorporating the benefits of good
location, unbundled parking and free transit passes, the development would cost $2,002,000 less to build relative to current parking standards.
When combined with 100% affordable housing these strategies resulted
in an incredible 61% reduction in driving and
greenhouse gas emissions for the site, compared to the city average.
If an affordable development with smart parking strategies were built on this site each household would drive 7,132 less miles per year crea
ting a greener and safer community.
D4
Actions 4.4 and 4.5 are two of the most important actions in the Housing Element because they are a cost
-
effective complement to
strategies focused on housing production. The GreenTRIP scenarios and the chart on the final page of our Scenario document also
show
the imperative of programs to accelerate development of affordable homes, like Actions 4.4 and 4.5. Not only do lower
-
income
households use transit more and drive much less than average, but success in this area can help provide homes for unsheltered
individuals and families. A commitment to these programs will show that Hayward is committed to planning for all levels of the 2,509 RHNA BMR units anticipated in this cycle.
That you for the comment. The City will take this information into consideration
.
Response
to
Public
C
omments
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
8 Commenter
Comment
Number Public Comment City Response
Carpenters Local
713
E1 The Draft City of Hayward Housing Element notes in its housing constraints analysis that “there are a variety of factors outside of the City’s control that could influence whether or not that housing is build such as…availability of labor.” However, there are policies the City can adopt that would nurture the workforce necessary to realize the City’s housing construction needs.
To support the policy goals of the Housing Element, Local 713 is requesting that the City add local hire and apprenticeship requirements to the final Housing Element for all residential construction projects larger than 10 units.
This suggestion is not within the purview of the Housing Element, which is intended to identify and remove constraints associated with development of housing. Introducing such a policy or Ordinance would increase the cost of housing production which is an identified constraint to housing production.
E2 The Carpenters propose the following additions to the Municipal Code of the City of Hayward for any residential projects larger than 10 units.
Permitting requirements: A person, firm, corporation, or other entity applying for a building permit under the relevant section of the Municipal Code of the City of Hayward, California shall be required to comply with the apprenticeship, healthcare, and local hire requirements of the Housing Element of the General Plan.
Failure to comply with the requirements set forth in this section shall be deemed a violation of this article.
See response to comment E1.
E3 Apprenticeship: For every apprenticeable craft, each general contractor and each subcontractors (at every tier for the project) will sigh a certified statement under penalty of perjury that it participated in a Joint Apprenticeship Program Approved by the State if California, Division of Apprenticeship Standards OR in an apprenticeship program approved by the State of California Division of Apprenticeship Standards that has a graduation rate of 50% of higher and has graduated at least thirty (#) apprentices each consecutive year for the five (45) years immediately preceding submission of the prequalification documents. The contractor or subcontractor will also maintain at least the ratio of apprentices required by California Labor Code section 1777.5.
See response to comment E1.
E4 Local Hire Policy: Contractor will be required to provide documentation that the contractor will hire a minimum of twenty- five percent (25%) of staff for any job classification with more than four (4) employees employed whose primary residence, which is not a pose office box, is , and has been, within Alameda county within See response to comment E1.
9 Commenter
Comment
Number
Public
Comment
City Response
180 days of the expected date of issuance of the Notice to Proceed for the project.
Glenn Kirby
P1
As Currently stated, Goal H
-
2.3 Inclusionary Housing gives the
developer the power to opt out of building on
-
site affordable
housing and instead pay an in
-
lieu fee. Given this choice, very few
developers have chosen to build affordable housing units within
market
-
rate residential developments and thus, the City has very few market rate projects (rental and owner
-
occupied) that include
affordable housing units.
Thank you for these comments which are related the Affordable Housing Ordinance (Hayward Municipal
Code Chapter 10, Article
17). The Ordinance allows developers to choose how they would like to satisfy their affordable housing obligation. Two of the options are to provide affordable housing within the development or to pay an
in
-
lieu
fee. In lieu fees
are placed in an affordable housing trust
fund and used to create new affordable housing units. The commenter is requesting that the City Council consider
amendments to the Ordinance to require that developers provide on
-
site affordable units rather than a
llowing the developer to
choose to pay in lieu fees. Draft Housing Element Goal H -
2 lists a
host of programs that can be used to
incentivize the development
of affordable housing. Inclusionary Housing (Policy H
-
2.3) is only one
program listed within that goal and further detailed in Program H -6.
Pursuant to that Program, the City of Hayward Housing Division has initiated the process to update the Affordable Housing Ordinance and expects to modify the Ordinance, based on updated feasibility analysis, by January 2024. The recommendations for how to update the Ordinance will be based on the findings and recommendations set forth in the feasibility analysis.
P2
In Policy H
-
2.4, the City is empowered only to encourage integration of affordable housing and we k
now from reviewing residential
projects over the last decade, that this current policy is not working for a number of reasons.
See response to comment P1.
P3
I urge the City Council a make an effective, equity
-
based revision to
the Housing Plan and require every residential development in the City to include a percentage of moderate/low
-
income housing,
fulfilling its responsibility to create housing opportunities for all its residents. This change would provide financial certainty to the developer be
cause inclusionary affordable housing would be a
requirement of the ordinance and a commitment by the City Council.
See response to comment P1.
Response
to
Public
C
omments
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
10 Commenter
Comment
Number Public Comment City Response
Mary Ann Higgs P4 My concern is whether building on a large scale is a smart thing to do right now. My main concern is water supply since we are in a drought and things are not getting better. I am concerned that adding housing of any type puts an undue burden on this limited resource. I think there should be a caveat that the plans can only be executed if there is adequate water to support individuals that will be residing in these units. Maybe the caveat is there must be ‘X’ consecutive years of average or above average rainfall/snowpack before ‘X’ number of housing is built.
Thank you for the comment. Water supply capacity and other services will be considered on a project-by-project basis.
Roland L.
McCready
P5 I read through this plan. I am a senior citizen homeowner who lives in the Jackson Triangle. How will this affect me?
Thank you for your comment. The Housing Element is a planning document that allows the City to plan for a variety of housing at all income levels for the next 8 years. The Housing Plan also contains educational opportunities, outreach and resources for senior citizens on fixed incomes among others.
Sandy Stark P6 My only comment and complaint is, why aren’t you building Tower cities, 50 stories, or at least 20, because they are needed terribly! Make sure each Tower has all things so some or all can get rid of their personal vehicles, and just rent one whenever needed! Include: groceries, gyms, car rentals, hospitals/clinics, vets, indoor terrariums and parks, and indoor vertical food gardens, are necessities. If you don’t you’ll just have worse traffic congestion, and worse air to breathe.
Thank you for your comment. Your response has been noted.
Tammy Artis P7 I didn’t see a mention of live/work housing? Live/Work housing is a type of use and housing form (Shopfront) that is permitted in the Downtown Specific Plan and in the Mission Boulevard Form Based Code areas.
Marla Lyons P8 Please when constructing these housing communities that they are Better “soundproofed” so all your movements can be private.
Thank you for your comment. Your response has been noted.
Zachariah
Oquenda
P9 Can we include something in the policies explicitly supporting people in reentry to have a fair chance to access housing opportunities? There is a nexus between discrimination based on race and disability as these are two protected classes that are disproportionately impacted by the criminal legal system. South Hayward is one area where there is an above average concentration of people with records that would tend to lead to disproportionate discrimination in South Hayward neighborhoods.
Thank you for this comment. The City will add a new policy related to "Fair Chance Housing" to explore opportunities to assist individuals with poor credit history, poor landlord
referral/references, formerly incarcerated or otherwise require mitigating circumstances in their evaluation prior to denial.
11 Commenter
Comment
Number
Public
Comment
City Response
D. Yates, Ph.D.
Professor Emerita
P10
Looking at the renderings that are part of
the plans there seem to
be a number of multi
-
story housing units suggested. My suggestion
would be to incorporate single
-
story houses for those with
ambulatory concerns, i.e.. bad knees/backs with will preclude one from negotiating stairs.
Thank you for your comment. Your response has been noted.
Rafael Velazquez
Cardenas
P11
Under Appendix E, the review of our city’s past accomplishments, why were we severely under the RNHA goal for our severely low through moderate income homes in our past efforts? Wh
at policies
or city ordinances can be put in place to make sure we are not neglecting our lower income residents while clearly exceeding the needs for the above moderate
-
income residents? How can we
prevent this in upcoming building of housing?
Thank you for this comment and questions. The City of Hayward, like most other jurisdictions throughout the state, had difficulty meeting the Regional Housing Need Allocation for
low
-
and
moderate
-
income
households. It is important to note that the City
does not build housing. Development of affordable housing is reliant on numerous factors including financing, land availability, cost of construction and labor that are outside of the City's control.
The Draft Housing Element contains Goals, Policies and Programs speci
fically focused on development of housing at a variety of income levels. Please see Goal H
-
2 to assist in the development of
affordable housing and related programs; Goal H
-
3, to provide
suitable sites for a variety of housing types; and Goal H -
4 to mitiga
te
potential constraints to housing production, and related Policies and Programs.
P12
Under the Inclusionary housing section, new buildings need to provide affordable rental units at 6% of the built units? Why such a low percentage when the median income of our city is close to 56k per year and when the need is much higher in Hayward? Can t his
percentage be increased through city policies or incentives in order to build more affordable housing?
Draft Housing Element Goal H
-
2 lists a host of programs that can be
used to
incentivize the development of affordable housing.
Inclusionary Housing (
Policy H
-
2.3) is only one program listed within
that goal and further detailed in Program H
-
6. Pursuant to that
Program, the City of Hayward Housing Division has initiated the process to update the Affordable Housing Ordinance and expects to modify the Ordinance, based on updated feasibility analysis, by January 2024. The recommendations for how to update the Ordinance will be based on the findings and recommendations set forth in the feasibility analysis.
P13
Under the Inclusionary housing section, affordable ownership units must be 10% of units built for moderate income households, but a fee can be paid in lieu if developers do not meet the quota. What is this fee and is it substantial enough to dissuade developers from avoiding affordable ownership units? I also wonder if this fee would end up costing our city and residents in the long run if developers do not build enough housing to meet the community's needs. Are there any city ordinances/policies that can make this loophole harder for de
velopers to exploit?
The Affordable Housing In
-
Lieu fee is available on the City's Master
Fee Schedule available at this link: https://www.hayward -
ca.gov/your
-
government/documents/master
-
fee
-
schedule. See
page 21 of the PDF. Please also see response to com
ment above
about the Affordable Housing Ordinance update.
Response
to
Public
C
omments
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
12 Commenter
Comment
Number Public Comment City Response
P14 Under Action 13.2, why don’t we amend the zoning to also permit building of multi-family housing/apartments in these low-density neighborhoods? Why does the proposal only create middle housing types of new units (condos, duplex, etc.)?
The Draft Housing Element demonstrates that the City has adequate sites and zoning to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation therefore rezoning is not necessary at this time. The City does assume that some lower density areas will become more dense through construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and new State Laws including Senate Bill 9 (SB9) which allows any single family lot to be split into two lots and for duplexes to be built on each lot. The City does have Program H-18 to monitor these ADU and SB9 projects and to ensure equitable distribution of such projects throughout the City in the next Housing Element cycle.
P15 Are there any policies or ordinances we can add to also protect and meet the housing need for our large undocumented population in Hayward? Immigrant families cannot access Section8 housing and may not seek help due to the fear of family separation. Possibly stronger rent stabilization, education, and anti-harassment policies can be very helpful. Our Hayward 2019 Rent Stabilization ordinance is a good start; however, it is definitely not enough. The 5% cap on rental increases annually is far above what our average workers earn and increases on rent can have drastic impacts on family health and stability. Our immigrant workers, who tend to have very low wage work and do not see the wage increases of other workers, are especially vulnerable. Are there ways our housing element can make the rent stabilization even stronger than the 5% cap annually on certain units?
The City of Hayward is a Sanctuary City and provides services to all residents regardless of immigration status https://www.hayward- ca.gov/residents/undocumented-residents/city-policies-and-faq.
Therefore, all of the services and resources available to special needs populations, including low-income households would be available to the undocumented population where not in conflict with Federal Law. In 2020, the City Council considered decreasing the rent cap in the Rent Stabilization Ordinance and ultimately did not adopt changes to the Ordinance. The City Council may opt to update the Ordinance in the future.
P16 Do we have any city-owned public rent controlled spaces? How can we build these up and use them to serve our vulnerable
populations?
There are City and other public agency owned properties that are identified on the Housing Sites Inventory included in Appendix C and there is a specific Program related to development of a variety of housing types on publicly owned properties in the Draft Housing Element (Program H-13).
13 Commenter
Comment
Number
Public
Comment
City Response
George Syrop
F1
Do we have a vacancy registry or atlas where residents can learn:
average vacancy rate, how many units are empty, how long they’ve been empty, who the landlord is for a given
property, rent costs,
evictions rates, % of security deposits withheld at a certain property, and more?
Thank you for this question. As described in the Draft Housing Element, the City's Code Enforcement Division maintains a list of rental properties and periodically conducts rental inspections however the information retained as part of that program does not include rent costs, security deposits or other information of that nature.
F2
How can we prioritize lowering rental barriers? Application fees, fai r
chance housing, etc.?
The Draft Housing Element contains Goals, Policies and Programs to incentivize the development of affordable housing and to reduce barriers to access to housing.
F3
Can Hayward provide hotel vouchers or incentives for
hotel/motel
businesses to help with transitional housing supply?
As part of the Let’s House Hayward! homelessness reduction plan, the City will continue leveraging partnerships between non -
profit
housing developers, Alameda County, and regional jurisdictio ns to
support the creation of hotel conversion projects by community -
based entities. Additionally, The City provides a limited amount of short
-
term hotel stays for individuals experiencing homelessness.
Individuals may be referred by City staff or partner
nonprofit
agencies.
F4
Pg 24
-
Ground leasing public land vs. selling
.
Comment: HUGE SUPPORT, our land is our most valuable asset, we should not give up our public resources.
This comment has been noted.
F5
Pg. 25
-
City partnerships with Chabot & CSUEB for housing.
Question: Can we explore housing options for employees of other Hayward anchor institutions (defined as employing 1%+ of the workforce)? St. Rose, City of Hayward, HUSD (especially since education/healthcare/services sector is increasing
-
noted on pg. 28)
The City will work with large employers to house their workforces.
Those employers can approach the City at any time to discuss options to develop housing throughout Hayward. However, the City will prioritize the groups described in the
Housing Element for City
resources and funds.
F6
Pg. 29
-
only 20% of rental units are 3 bedrooms or more. Comment:
Appendix A describes significant overcrowding, how is the housing element specifically addressing/prioritizing affordable 3+ bedroom r
entals?
The City prioritize
s
development of larger units in applications for
Notices of Funding Availability (NOFA) for public funds
in that
additional “points” are awarded to projects that contain a larger proportion of large units
. See Draft Housing Elem
ent Program H
-
4,
Affordable Housing Development Assistance, and Policy H -5.7,
Family Housing.
F7
Pg. 36
-
references a “graphic below” at the end of the first
paragraph, but I’m not seeing one.
Reference to a "graphic below" has been removed on page
36. F8
Pg. 36
-
6th Cycle of RHNA is an 18% increase over the last one
.
Question: How much did we build relative to our allocation?
Please see Table E
-
1, Quantified Housing Objective and Achieved
Accomplishments in Appendix E, Review of Past Accomplishm ents
Response
to
Public
C
omments
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
14 Commenter
Comment
Number Public Comment City Response
to see how many building permits were issued during the 5th Cycle Housing Element.
F9 Pg. 40 - ADU’s Comment/Question: Will only contribute 7% towards RHNA goals (if estimated 40 units/year is achieved). How can we streamline this process to avoid spending staff time on a relatively small stock of housing?
The ADU review and approval process was streamlined during the last Housing Element cycle. The Planning Division created a simple checklist that applicants submit with a building permit for a Junior/Accessory Dwelling Unit. This process eliminated the need for a separate Planning approval process.
F10 Pg. 43 - Summary of Adequate Sites. Question: What would it take to change zoning districts to accommodate more lower income units beyond the current 1607?
The City has complied with State Law and provided an inventory that demonstrates that the City has adequate zoned land to accommodate the Regional Housing Need Allocation. Wholesale rezoning efforts would require initiation of the project by the City Council and allocation of appropriate funding and staff resources to conduct outreach, analysis, preparation of maps and plans and environmental analysis.
F11 Pg. 45 - Home Investment Partnership Program.
Comment/Question: 482k doesn’t seem like a lot, how are HOME funds currently being divided among the services listed? What adjustments can we make to allocations to provide more value? Half of HOME funds are used for tenant based rental based assistance for former foster care youth while the remainder of HOME funds are combined with other financial resources to fund affordable housing projects.
F12 Pg. 45 - SB2 Grants Question: How much are we collecting from these grants? What are we spending it on?
The City received $310,000 in SB2 Grants and $495,000 in LEAP grant funding. The City is currently using the funds to prepare the Draft Housing Element and related General Plan Amendments, to update the Density Bonus, to prepare Objective Standards and related zoning update and to develop an ADU program.
F13 Pg. 46 - LEAP Grants How much of the $119M is Hayward receiving? How is it being allocated currently?
Please see response to comment F12.
F14 Pg. 47 - Code Enforcement What does this process currently look like? Any notes on streamlining this process?
Please see Draft Housing Element Program H-2, Residential Rental Inspection Program, for information and metrics related to this program.
F15 Pg. 52 - Permit, Processing, Procedures. Where can I find a schedule of these fees? Do we have data on how often they’re waived (or in lieu of fees are paid), and the impact these fees have on increasing project times?
The City's Fee Schedule is available at this link:
https://www.hayward-
ca.gov/sites/default/files/Adopted%20FY%202023%20Master%20Fe e%20Schedule_1.pdf. All projects must pay a variety of impact fees which may be reduced depending on the development but are not generally waived.
F16 Pg. 54 - Market Activity. What resources does the city have available to combat loan denial rates in communities of color?
Residential lending practices are regulated by the federal government. The City funds homeownership counseling agencies to
15 Commenter
Comment
Number
Public
Comment
City Response
educate homeowners on purchasing processes. The City also funds d
efault counseling to avoid foreclosure.
F17
Pg. 59
-
Fair Housing Goals & Priorities (6.3)
.
Can we be proactive
about sending tenants resources? I know Berkeley sends a packet with resources to all new renters.
Draft Housing Element Program H
-
20, describes various actions that
the City will take during the next Housing Element cycle to broaden outreach.
F18
Pg 63
-
Program H
-
2, Action 2.2
.
What enforcement mechanisms
will tenants have to ensure this is being done in a timely manner?
The City's Code Enforcement Division will take the lead on ensuring compliance with these provisions.
F19
Pg 64
-
Program H
-
3, Action 3.4
.
Can we implement a tenant
opportunity to purchase program here as well?
The City explored the opportunity to transition rental to ownership units in 2020 and found that this conversion would require significant financial subsidies to cover retrofitting the units to meet ownership/condominium standards, attorney fees to develop legal do
cuments and additional staffing resources to cover the processing of conversion from rental to ownership. However, this process could be accomplished by a private or nonprofit entity.
F20
Pg 66
-
Program H
-2.5
.
What flexibility do we have to increase in
-
lieu of fees to discourage developers from avoiding building affordable units? What is the current in
-
lieu of fee?
The Affordable Housing In Lieu fee is available on the City's Master Fee Schedule available at this link: https://www.hayward -
ca.gov/your
-
go
vernment/documents/master
-
fee
-
schedule. Please
see responses to comments on the Affordable Housing Update above.
F21
Pg 66
-
Program H
-2.6
.
Is this specific to rental units or just
homeownership?
This program is applicable to both rental and ownership units.
F22
Pg 66
-
Program H
-4
.
How can we prioritize 3+ BR development to
address overcrowding?
As noted above, the City prioritize
s
development of larger units in
applications for Notices of Funding Availability (NOFA) for public funds. See Draft Housing Element Program H
-
4, Affordable Housing
Development Assistance, and Policy H
-
5.7, Family Housing.
F23
Pg 68
-
Action 6.4
.
What is
the justification for spending 4 years
assessing?
There is no Action 6.4 listed on page 68.
F24
Pg 69
-
Action 7.6
.
Does the city have any mechanisms to force
acceptance of Housing Choice Vouchers?
The City's Rent Stabilization Ordinance prohibits landlords from discriminating against tenants on the basis of income, including the use of Housing Choice Vouchers. However, the City cannot force landlords to accept Vouchers.
F25
Pg 75
-
Program H
-13.
Can the city explore opportunities to provide
incentives or benefits for local residents and Hayward employees?
The City will provide resources to all individuals who demonstrate need and are qualified for housing.
Response
to
Public
C
omments
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
16 Commenter
Comment
Number Public Comment City Response
F26 Pg 75 - Policy H-4.1. How much is the current process contributing to construction costs? On average, how much would streamlining these processes reduce overall costs?
As noted in Appendix D, Housing Constraints, and in conversations with developers, length of time processing permits increases the cost of a development project. Staff does not have data on the quantitative results of such streamlining.
F27 Pg 75 – Policy H-4.2. Similar to the previous question – how much will these incentives and bonuses reduce overall costs? Is there an average percentage of dollars saved per project?
As noted above, this information is anecdotal and accepted as common knowledge across the industry. Streamlining the
development review process will save time which in turn will save money in the development process.
F28 Pg 76 – Program H-14. Comment: I hope public land disposition means leasing only. Hayward should not sell its land off! Thank you for your comment. Your response has been noted.
F29 Pg 76 – Program H-14 Action 14.3. Will this reduce the likelihood of higher density units being built?
Density is related to the applicable zoning regulations. Action 14.3 would not reduce density permitted on specific parcels.
F30 Pg 77 – Action 16.3. Could this be amended to include greenspace, mixed-use, and other development amenities that make for more livable, walkable neighborhoods?
This Action is applicable to all types of development and City goals outlined in the General Plan and applicable Specific Plans support the development of greenspace and livable, walkable
neighborhoods.
F31 Pg 77 – Action 16.4. Where can I learn more about the current process for project review?
Please refer to Appendix D, Housing Constraints, for a general overview of the project review process.
F32 Pg 78 – Action 17.2. How much staff time will be allocated to this given the relatively small amount of units it provides? As noted above, the ADU process was streamlined to eliminate a planning permit and to just require approval of a building permit.
F33 Pg 80 - H-5.7 Family Housing. I love this! Are there specific percentages the city is aiming for? Can the city development Community Benefit Agreements that include this as part of project approval?
The City has not identified specific percentages in the housing unit mix but does encourage provision of larger units through the planning process. Further, projects that provide higher number or proportion of large units are allocated more points for the City's affordable housing funding. Introducing a Community Benefits Agreement for all residential development projects would introduce a new constraint and added costs to development.
F34 Pg 81 - Action 19.4. Comment: I appreciate this effort but wonder if there are more systemic approaches we can take beyond supporting just 10 people/year
These Actions represent a realistic goal considering other programs, policies, and actions in addition to staffing and resource limitations.
There is not limit to the number of people the City can help if resources are identified to provide toward this action item.
F35 Pg 81 - Action 19.5. Where will this data be published? The City reports data on homelessness to the City Council every other year following release of the Point in Time (PIT) count.
F36 Pg 81 - Action 19.9. How much would the city budget towards this? The City is allocating $1.5 million in ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) funds.
17 Commenter
Comment
Number
Public
Comment
City Response
F37
Pg 82
-
Action 20.3
.
Comment: Add Eden Community Land Trust,
Hayward Area Planners Association, and HayCoCoa to this list please!
Thank you for the comment. These organizations have been added to action 20.3.
F38
Pg 82
-
Action 20.4
.
Comment: Would like to explore ways to
disseminate this info more widely/regularly
As noted above, these Actions represent a realistic goal but would not preclude the City from conducting additional outreach.
F39
Pg 83
-
Policy H
-6.2
.
Can we push for fair chance housing to remove
discrimination based on criminal record and add sexual orientation to this list?
Thank you for this comment. The City will add a new policy related to "Fair Chance Housing" to explore opportunities to assist indiv
iduals with poor credit history, poor landlord
referral/references, formerly incarcerated or otherwise require mitigating circumstances in their evaluation prior to denial.
F40
Pg 85
-
Program H
-22
.
Can we develop a streamlined process for
tenants to report potential violations (maybe through Access Hayward or the city website?)
The City contracts with Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) to provide fair housing assistance and tenant landlord mediation. Inquiring and comments are pro
vided to the City
through email, walk
-
in and occasionally Access Hayward, and those
inquiries are referred to ECHO.
F41
Pg 86
-
Program H
-24
.
What can the city do when Landlords fail to
pay for required relocation assistance?
Please see Hayward Municipal
Code Chapter 12, Article 2 Tenant
Relocation Assistance. The Ordinance outlined the applicability, obligations and remedies for tenants. If a landlord fails to provide relocation assistance, the tenant may pursue legal recourse in small claims court.
F4
2 Pg 86
-
Action 24.2
.
Can we be more proactive about this
information, maybe send something to newly registered tenants with their first utility bill? (Also this table might be duplicated in the draft element on Pg 87)
Thank you for this suggestion. The City is continually exploring opportunities to expand outreach.
Response
to
Public
C
omments
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
18 T
his page intentionally left blank.