Council Packet — Hayward City Council, February 21, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

City Council

CITY OF HAYWARD
Agenda
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
Council Chamber and Virtual
Platform (Zoom)
7:00 PMTuesday, February 21, 2023

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOTICE: The City Council will hold a hybrid meeting in Council Chambers and virtually via Zoom.

How to observe the Meeting:

1. Comcast TV Channel 15

2. Live stream https://hayward.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx

3. YouTube Live stream: https://www.youtube.com/user/cityofhayward How to submit written Public Comment:
1 . U s e e C o m m e n t o n t h e C i t y ' s M e e t i n g & A g e n d a C e n t e r w e b p a g e a t :
https://hayward.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx. eComments are directly sent to the iLegislate application used by City Council and City staff. Comments received before 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting will be exported into a report, distributed to the City Council and staff, and published on the City's Meeting & Agenda Center under Documents Received After Published Agenda.

2. Send an email to List [email protected] by 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting. Please identify the Agenda Item Number in the subject line of your email. Emails will be compiled into one file, distributed to the City Council and staff, and published on the City's Meeting & Agenda Center under Documents Received After Published Agenda. Documents received after 3:00 p.m. through the adjournment of the meeting will be included as part of the meeting record and published the following day.

How to provide live Public Comment during the City Council Meeting:

Participate in the Council Chambers or click link below to join the meeting:
https://hayward.zoom.us/j/81518963688?pwd=YTJrT2xET3U2N2pPcEk4cW1WY3pwZz09 Meeting ID: 815 1896 3688
Password: CC2/21@7pm
or
Dial: +1 669 900 6833
Meeting ID: 815 1896 3688
Password: 4927023480
A Guide to attend virtual meetings is provided at this link: https://bit.ly/3jmaUxa

Page 1 ends

February 21, 2023City Council Agenda
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Salinas
Pledge of Allegiance: Council Member Andrews

ROLL CALL

CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT

PRESENTATION
Black History Month Proclamation

PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Public Comment section provides an opportunity to address the City Council on items not listed on the agenda or Information Items. The Council welcomes comments and requests that speakers present their remarks in a respectful manner, within established time limits, and focus on issues which directly affect the City or are within the jurisdiction of the City. As the Council is prohibited by State law from discussing items not listed on the agenda, items will be taken under consideration and may be referred to staff.

CITY MANAGER’S COMMENTS
An oral report from the City Manager on upcoming activities, events, or other items of general interest to Council and the Public.

ACTION ITEMS
The Council will permit comment as each item is called for the Consent Calendar, Public Hearings, and Legislative Business. In the case of the Consent Calendar, a specific item will need to be pulled by a Council Member in order for the Council to discuss the item or to permit public comment on the item. Please notify the City Clerk any time before the Consent Calendar is voted on by Council if you wish to speak on a Consent Item.

CONSENT
Approve the City Council Minutes of the City Council Meeting on February 7, 2023
MIN 23-0201.

Attachments: Attachment I Draft Minutes of 2/7/2023
Adopt a Resolution Accepting the Resignation of Ms. Katlin Turner from the Keep Hayward Clean and Green Task Force, Effective Immediately
CONS 23-0802.

Attachments: Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution

Page 2 ends

February 21, 2023City Council Agenda
Adopt a Resolution Accepting the Resignation of Mr. Pekon Gupta from the Keep Hayward Clean and Green Task Force, Effective Immediately
CONS 23-0923.

Attachments: Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Resignation Letter
Adopt a Resolution Approving Final Map of Tract 8556, a 10 Lot Subdivision for Condominium Purposes at 27177 and
27283 Mission Boulevard (Assessor Parcel Nos. 452-0056-007 and 452-0056-008), Hayward to Allow the Construction of Nine (9) Live/Work Lofts Fronting Mission Boulevard and 46 Townhome Units Totaling 55 Condominium Units, Open Space Areas, and Related Site Improvements; Applicant/Owner:

Moreau JV Owner, LLC., Application No. 202202272; and
Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Related Documents CONS 23-0874.

Attachments: Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Final Map Tract 8556
Attachment IV Approved Tentative Map
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Accept and Appropriate $35,984.70 in Grant Funding From the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office for the Fiscal Year 2020 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant For Hayward Police Department Operations CONS 23-0835.

Attachments: Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Accept and Appropriate $40,217.40 in Grant Funding From the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office for the Fiscal Year 2021 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant For Hayward Police Department Operations CONS 23-0846.

Attachments: Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution

Page 3 ends

February 21, 2023City Council Agenda
Adopt a Resolution 1) Appropriating $15,000 from the Rent Stabilization Fund Balance and 2) Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Professional Services
Agreement with Project Sentinel for Administration of the Rent Increase Dispute Resolution Process in the Amount of $45,000 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Contract Amount of $120,000
CONS 23-0887.

Attachments: Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Hayward’s Participation in East Bay Community Energy’s Community Solar Program
CONS 23-0898.

Attachments: Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Map of Disadvantaged Communities
Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution 22-225 to Award up to $627,554 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds to Bay Area Community Services (BACS) for the St. Regis Multi-Service Campus Project
CONS 23-0969.

Attachments: Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Resolution 22-225
Adopt a Resolution Approving an Amendment to the City of Hayward Salary Plan for Fiscal Year 2023
CONS 23-09710.

Attachments: Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III FY 2023 Salary Plan
Adopt a Resolution Ending the Local Emergency Due to the Spread of a Severe Acute Respiratory Illness Caused by Novel (New) Coronavirus (COVID-19)
CONS 23-10511.

Attachments: Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Proclamation of a Local Emergency
Attachment IV AB 2449 Notifications and Considerations
Attachment V Food Delivery Ordinance

Page 4 ends

February 21, 2023City Council Agenda

WORK SESSION
Work Session items are non -action items. Although the Council may discuss or direct staff to follow up on these items, no formal action will be taken. Any formal action will be placed on the agenda at a subsequent meeting in the action sections of the agenda.

Affordable Housing Ordinance: Discuss Findings from
Affordable Housing Ordinance Feasibility Study and Proposed Modifications of the Affordable Housing Ordinance (Report from Assistant City Manager Claussen)
WS 23-00412.

Attachments: Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Feasibility Study
Attachment III Administrative Changes to AHO
Police Department Annual Report: Receive and Review the Hayward Police Department’s Annual Report for Calendar Year 2022 (Report from Acting Chief of Police Matthews)
WS 23-00713.

Attachments: Attachment I Staff Report

COUNCIL REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Members can provide oral reports on attendance at intergovernmental agency meetings, conferences, seminars, or other Council events to comply with AB 1234 requirements (reimbursable expenses for official activities).

COUNCIL REFERRALS
Council Members may bring forward a Council Referral Memorandum (Memo) on any topic to be considered by the entire Council. The intent of this Council Referrals section of the agenda is to provide an orderly means through which an individual Council Member can raise an issue for discussion and possible direction by the Council to the appropriate Council Appointed Officers for action by the applicable City staff.

ADJOURNMENT
NEXT MEETING, February 28, 2023, 7:00 PM

Page 5 ends

February 21, 2023City Council Agenda

PUBLIC COMMENT RULES
Any member of the public desiring to address the Council shall limit their address to three (3) minutes unless less or further time has been granted by the Presiding Officer or in accordance with the section under Public Hearings. The Presiding Officer has the discretion to shorten or lengthen the maximum time members may speak. Speakers will be asked for their name before speaking and are expected to honor the allotted time.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
That if you file a lawsuit challenging any final decision on any public hearing or legislative business item listed in this agenda, the issues in the lawsuit may be limited to the issues that were raised at the City's public hearing or presented in writing to the City Clerk at or before the public hearing.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE
That the City Council adopted Resolution No. 87-181 C.S., which imposes the 90-day deadline set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 for filing of any lawsuit challenging final action on an agenda item which is subject to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. ***Materials related to an item on the agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk ’s Office, City Hall, 777 B Street, 4th Floor, Hayward, during normal business hours. An online version of this agenda and staff reports are available on the City ’s website. Written comments submitted to the Council in connection with agenda items will be posted on the City ’s website. All Council Meetings are broadcast simultaneously on the City website, Cable Channel 15 - KHRT, and YouTube. ***
Assistance will be provided to those requiring accommodations for disabilities in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Interested persons must request the accommodation at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting by contacting the City Clerk at (510) 583-4400 or [email protected].

Assistance will be provided to those requiring language assistance. To ensure that interpreters are available at the meeting, interested persons must request the accommodation at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting by contacting the City Clerk at (510) 583-4400.

Page 6 ends

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: MIN 23-020
DATE: February 21, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Clerk

SUBJECT
Approve the City Council Minutes of the City Council Meeting on February 7, 2023

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council approves the City Council meeting minutes of February 7, 2023.

SUMMARY
The City Council held a meeting on February 7, 2023.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Draft Minutes of February 7, 2023
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/17/2023Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541
Virtual Platform (Zoom)
https://hayward.zoom.us/j/85625573419?pwd=a1psTXhmSEFmd2Q3bm9GY0ZJN1VLZz09 Tuesday, February 7, 2023, 7:00 p.m.

The City Council meeting was called to order by Mayor Salinas at 7:00 p.m. The City Council held a virtual meeting via the Zoom platform.

Pledge of Allegiance: Council Member Zermeño

Present: COUNCIL MEMBERS Andrews, Goldstein, Márquez, Roche, Syrop, Zermeño MAYOR Salinas

Absent: None

CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT

The City Council convened in closed session on January 31, 2023, at 5: 30 p.m., with all members present and no public comment, regarding conference with legal counsel pursuant to Government Co de section 54956.9(d)(2) and 54956.9(d)(3) concerning anticipated litigation involving multiple potential claims. City Attorney Lawson indi cated that Council took no reportable action. The closed session adjourned at 7:00 p.m.

The City Council convened in closed session on February 7, 2023, at 5:30 p.m., with all members present and no public comment , regarding the annual performance evaluation of the City Clerk. City Attorney Lawson noted the Council took no reportable action. The closed session adjourned at 6:29 p.m.

PRESENTATIONS

Keep Hayward Clean a nd Green Task Force (KHCG TF) Chair Haman provided a b rief overview of KHCG TF and shared background of the Keep Hayward Clean and Green Beautiful Yard Contest. Mayor Salinas congratulated all winners for maintaining yards that are clean and free of debris, reduce water usage and have native plants and landscaping; and presented certificates of recognition to Eunice Wlcek and David Bogart for winning third place, Iris and Edward dela Calzada for second place, and Sergey and Natalie Melnikov for first place. Council Member Andrews presented gift cards to all winners.

Mayor Salinas read a certificate proclaiming the month of January 2023 as Human Trafficking Awareness Month and celebrating th e focus of resid ents to parti cipate in efforts to ra ise awareness of and end all forms of human trafficking. Mayor Salinas presented the certificate to Vanessa Russell, Love Never Fails Executive Director.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Ms. Bonnie Moss, Faircliff Street resident, commended City staff and the City Council for the excellent customer service response and community meeting regarding the mud and debris flow of the hillside which occurred between Dec. 27, 2022, through Jan. 18, 2023. 2 | F e b r u a r y 7 , 2 0 2 3
The following individuals spoke on behalf of C hristina whose 16-year-old son was assaulted by members of the Hayward Police Department (HPD) on Jan. 20, 2023 during a traffic stop on Watkins S treet; not ed HPD refused to release reports and video ca mera footage of the incident; urged the City Council to help Christina get the information sought per SB 1421 and AB 748; asked the City Manager to make the matter her top priority ; and make sure the investigation involves the voices of Christina and her son and action related to the matter goes beyond filing a complaint against police misconduct.

Mr. Alex Moreno, The Hayward Community Coalition member.

Ms. Cynthia Nunes, The Hayward Community Coalition member.

Mr. Collin Thormoto, The Hayward Community Coalition member, read a letter into the record.

Mr. Jesse Gunn, The Hayward Community Coalition member and Hayward teacher.

Ms. Rebecca, Bay Area resident.

CITY MANAGER’S COMMENTS

City Manager McAdoo indicated she had sent an email to Christina and offered to meet with the Acting Police Chief; announced the launching of a Makerspace Open House on February 11, 2023, at the Downtown Library and the launching of Americ an Sign Langua ge/Spoken English Family Storytime on the fourth Saturday of every month at the Downtown Library.

CONSENT

Consent items 2, 6 and 7 wer e r emoved f rom th e Consent Cal endar for discussion and separate vote.

1. Approve the City Council Minutes of the City Council Meeti ng on January 17, 2023 MIN 23-015
It was moved b y Council Member Zermeño, seconded by Co uncil Member Márquez, and carried unanimously, to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting on January 17, 2023.

2. Approve the City Council Minutes of the City Co uncil Meeting on January 24, 2023 MIN 23-018
It was moved by Council Member Syrop, seconded by Council Member Goldstein, and carried unanimously, to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting on January 24, 2023, with a small correction to page 4 as noted by Council Member Syrop . Following the City Council meeting, staff confirmed the draft minutes did not need to be am ended as it contained the correct information.

3. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Ex tension of the Council Homelessness-Housing Task Force for an Additional One-Year Period Through March 2024 CONS 23-034

Staff report submitted by Housing Manager Morale s and
Assistant City Manager Claussen, dated February 7, 202 3, wa s filed.

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541
Virtual Platform (Zoom)
https://hayward.zoom.us/j/85625573419?pwd=a1psTXhmSEFmd2Q3bm9GY0ZJN1VLZz09 Tuesday, February 7, 2023, 7:00 p.m.

It was moved by Cou ncil Member Zermeño, seconded by Council Member Márquez, and carried by the following roll call vote, to adopt the resolution.

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS Andrews, Goldstein, Márquez, Roche, Syrop, Zermeño
MAYOR Salinas
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

Resolution 23-027, “Resolution Authorizing the Extension of the Council Homelessness-Housing Task Force for an Additional One-Year Period thr ough March 2024 and Appointment of
Council Members”

4. Adopt a Resolution to Temporarily Suspend Applicable Local Planning and Zoning Requirements for Homeless Shelters Located on Specified Private Property, and Determining that the Common Sense CEQA Exemption Applies CONS 23-063

Staff report submitted by Community Services Manager
Lobedan, Acting Development Servi ces Director Buizer, and Senior Assistant City Attorney Vigilia, dated February 7, 202 3, was filed.

It was moved by Cou ncil Member Zermeño, seconded by Council Member Márquez, and carried by the following roll call vote, to adopt the resolution.

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS Andrews, Goldstein, Márquez, Roche, Syrop, Zermeño
MAYOR Salinas
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

Resolution 23-028, “ Resolution to Temporarily Suspend
Applicable Local Planning and Zoning Requirements for Existing Homeless Shelters Located on Specified Private Property”

4 | F e b r u a r y 7 , 2 0 2 3

5. Adopt Resolutions (1) Authorizing the City Manager to Exe cute the Amendment to the Project Funding Agreement with Alameda County Transportation Commission and Accept and Appropriate an Additional $1,662, 000 and (2) Approving Plans and Specifications and Call for Bids for the Re -Bid of the Mission Boulevard Corridor Improvements Phase 3 Project, No. 05287 CONS 23-069

Staff report submitted by Public W orks Director Ameri, dated February 7, 2023, was filed.

It was moved by Cou ncil Member Zermeño, seconded by Council Member Márquez, and carried by the following roll call vote, to adopt the resolutions.

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS Andrews, Goldstein, Márquez, Roche, Syrop, Zermeño
MAYOR Salinas
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

Resolution 23-029, “ Resolution of the City of Hayward
Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a n Amendment to the Project Funding Agreement with Alamed a County
Transportation Commission and to Accept and Appropriate $1,662,000 in Grant Funds for Mission Boulevard Corridor Improvement Project Phase 3, Project No. 05287”

Resolution 23-030, “ Resolution Approvi ng Plans and
Specifications for the Rebid of Mission Boulevard Corridor Improvements Phase 3 Project, Project N o. 05287 and Call for Bids”

6. Adopt a Resolution Approving Garbage and Recycling Rates for 2023-2024 CONS 23- 072

Staff report submitted by Public Works Director Ameri, dated February 7, 2023, was filed.

Council Mem ber Roche requ ested consideration, particularly for multifa mily and multigenerational housing, for not charging the contamination fee and overage fee during the soft launch of the new program and instead include further education explaining the program.

City st aff indicated the soft launch will include warnings and staff co uld contact Waste Management, particularly around multifamily properties and being more thought ful about outreach and education.

It was moved by Council Member Roche, seconded by Council Member Andrews, and carried by the following roll call vote, to adopt the resolution.

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541
Virtual Platform (Zoom)
https://hayward.zoom.us/j/85625573419?pwd=a1psTXhmSEFmd2Q3bm9GY0ZJN1VLZz09 Tuesday, February 7, 2023, 7:00 p.m.

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS Andrews, Goldstein, Márquez, Roche, Syrop , Zermeño
MAYOR Salinas
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

Resolution 23-031, “Resolution Approving the Garbage &
Recycling Rate Adjustment for 2023-2024”

7. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Coordination, Resiliency, and Action Agreem ent with Russel l City Energy Company, LLC and Accepting and Appropriating Donations for a Fire Department Hazardous Materials Response Vehicle and for the Russell City Reparative Justice Project (RCRJP) Following the Explosion that Occurred at the Russell City Energy Center on May 27, 2021 CONS 23-085

Staff report submitted by Assistant City Man ager Youngblood and Fire Chief Contreras, dated February 7, 2023, was filed.

In response to Council Member Andrews’ inquiry about the appropriation of $20,000 for the Russell City Reparative Justice Project (RCRJP), City staff indicated it will be used for a cultural project approved by the RCRJP’s Steering Committee, and the committee had been informed.

It was moved by Council Member Andrews, seconded by Council Member Syrop, and carried by the following roll call vote, to adopt the resolution.

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS Andrews, Goldstein, Márquez, Roche, Syrop, Zermeño
MAYOR Salinas
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

Resolution 23-032, “Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Coordination, Resiliency, and Action Agreement with Russell City Energy Company, LLC and t o Accept and
Appropriate $150,000 to Support the Purchase of a Fire
Department Hazardous Mater ials Vehicle and $20,0 00 for the Russell City Reparative Justice Project (RCRJP)”

6 | F e b r u a r y 7 , 2 0 2 3

PUBLIC HEARING

8. Housing Element: Adopt a Resolution Amending the General Plan to Include the 2023 - 2031 Housing Element PH 23-008

Staff report submitted by Acting Development Services Director Buizer, dated February 7, 2023, was filed.

Acting Development Services Director Buizer announced the item and introduced Principal Planner Schmidt who provided a synopsis of the staff report.

Discussion ensued am ong members of the City Counci l, City staff and Mr. Jason Montague with Rincon Consultants regarding: Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) allocations for cities in Alameda County underscoring Hayward’s increase, from 2015 (3,920) to 2023 (4,624), relative to other jurisdictions was not significant; the city is committed to reducing governmental constraints and environmental and market constrai nts were not within the City’s purview; the State adopted recent laws that allow for minimum densities and heights; nonvacant s ites are underutilized sit es based on criteria such as land value ratio , older structures, low floor area ra tio and a compari son to development trends in the downto wn and Mis sion Bo ulevard areas ; 200 affordable units were crossed off and 952 units were added as a new construction because this was the number of units that were built above moderate income level in the last Housing Element cycle; the City was committing to developing 547 ex tremely low income hou sing, 528 very lo w income ho using, 612 low income hou sing and 817 moderate income level housing units and the city was not precluded fr om exceeding these numbers ; the online permitting software will he lp streamline development processes and staff could help individuals load their applications into the software at one of the compu ter stations in the Pe rmit Center; concern that there may be surrounding jurisdictions that have not con tributed their share to const ructing housing to meet RHNA numbers; to meet the January 31, 2023 deadline, the city submitted a version of the Housing El ement on Jan uary 4, 2023 and a ny amendments could still be submitted to HCD; as part of the Affordable Housing O rdinance, developer s ha ve requirements to priorit ize individuals w ho either live or work in the city and have to submit an aff ordable housi ng plan, sign an affordable housing agreement, and also set a marketing plan reviewed by staff to ensure that a preference policy is implemented into the marketing strategy; through the Home Repair Program, there would be tie-in programs for retrofits for ener gy e fficiency; the Affordable Housing Ordinance allows developers to comply by provi ding on-site inclusionary housing units or paying in-lieu fees and the city needs to collect the fee and have the on -site inclusionary units to provide diverse housing opportunities; BART placed the Downtown Hayward BART site under the near -term development category and the South Hayward BART s ite in th e midterm category and Council could prioritize development sites for the next thre e to four yea rs; opportunity sites on Mission Boulevard have adequate access; residents take advantage of the Home Repair Program which has existing funds; the Environ mental Justice Element is in dr aft form and is planned to be prese nted to the Council Sustainability Com mittee with community engagement and Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE) could review it once ready; and there was concern about cost-burdened individuals who were placed in

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541
Virtual Platform (Zoom)
https://hayward.zoom.us/j/85625573419?pwd=a1psTXhmSEFmd2Q3bm9GY0ZJN1VLZz09 Tuesday, February 7, 2023, 7:00 p.m.
housing and are at risk of losing their housing and staff noted there were city and county housing resources to provide as many housing opportunities as possible to keep people housed.

Mayor Salinas opened the public hearing at 8:49 p.m.

Ms. Ro Aguilar read her comment into the record which summarized her ongoing advocacy for requiring developers to build inclusionary housing, particularly owner-occupied units.

Mayor Salinas closed the public hearing at 8:52 p.m.

Members of the City Council thanked staff for the work done on th e Housing Element and commended the robust community outreach and engagement efforts.

Council Member Andrews noted that while it was important to get developers on board with inclusionary housing, it seemed difficult to get a higher percentage beyond the 20% for affordable housing based on a variety of factors mentioned in the Housing Element; noted she looked forward to reviewing updates to the Safety Eleme nt and considering the Environmental Justice Element and how it would be applied from a social justice perspective; was glad th at senior s were identified in the special housing needs group ; and favored engaging BART to prioritize development of BART sites to mitigate crime and spur economic development through more retail or pop-up opportunities.

Council Member Roche was proud of the C ity for working earnestly to meet RHNA goal s; looked forward to hearing more about electric retrofitting for appliances in future discussions about the Climate Action Plan; and noted that she will comment on the policy for developers to bu ild inclusionary units when the Affordable Housing Ordinance re turns to Council for discussion.

Mayor Salinas requested that a press release be issued informing the community about the adoption of the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Mayor Salinas made a motion to move the staff’s recommendation.

Council Member Zermeño seconded the motion.

Council Member Zermeño expressed support for the proposed Housing Element, concurred that the public be made aware of the adoption of the Housing Element, agreed to prioritize development of th e Downto wn Hayward BART site, and encouraged all t o contac t BART Director McPartland.

8 | F e b r u a r y 7 , 2 0 2 3

Council Member Syrop noted that Ms. Ro Aguilar sent an email to the city requesting to have her husband’s name replaced with her name in the Housing Element under the response to Public Comments sectio n; stated th at there wa s a desire expressed by the Planning Commission to revisit an d strengthen the City’s Rental Stabilization Ordinance; asked to consider rezoning larger portions of th e city to accommodate new dev elopment during the Housing Element implementation; echoed prioritizing development of BART sites, contacting BART directors and off ered to be a resource to staf f; supported continuing to soli cit community input through posts on the City ca lendar and social media channels; supported having discussion about inclusionary housing; requested that a new action be added to Program H-2 (Residential Rental Inspection Program) on page 65 of the Housing Plan with the hope to develop a rental registry with a timeline and objective date of implementation by January 2025; and added that the registry could be used by residents and Code Enforcement staff to provide a frequently updated database of the City’s rental housing stock, could assist in streamlining mediations between tenants and landlords, and could improve compliance with rental laws.

In response to City Manager McAdoo’s in quiry about a n e xisting rental registry, Housing Manager Morales indicated the City had a n inventory of rental unit s but n ot a registry that tracks rents. City Manager McAdoo responded that if a majority of the Council supported having a rental registry, the req uest would still require staff research, outreach, and an implementation plan.

Mayor Salinas noted that since the registry was a suggestion that emerged fr om the Homelessness-Housing Task Force (HHTF), Council Member Syrop’s recommendation could be placed on the next HHTF meeting agenda for discussion and brough back to the Council for further discussion.

Council Member S yrop underscored he would lik e the rental regi stry to be a long-term priority for the City, emphasized the importance of se tting this as a vision and placing a timeline on it as a part of the housing strategy and incorporating it into the General Plan, and preferred an amendment to the motion.

Mayor Salinas restated the amendment to the motion which was to include an enforceable rental registry as an action under Program H-2.

City M anager McAd oo noted the program recommendation could be a prioritization discussion as a part of the upcoming Strategic Roadmap retreat in March, if Council agreed.

Council Member Zermeño supported Council Member Syrop’s recommendation but did not think it was the ri ght time; and agreed with Mayor Salinas’ suggestion to have the HHTF review it first, get community input, and then send potential recommendations made by HHTF to the Council.

Council Member Goldstein stated the rental registry was a worthy program to pursue; and although it sounded like a simple and logical request, it could have a ripple effect on other

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541
Virtual Platform (Zoom)
https://hayward.zoom.us/j/85625573419?pwd=a1psTXhmSEFmd2Q3bm9GY0ZJN1VLZz09 Tuesday, February 7, 2023, 7:00 p.m.
priorities; therefore, he supported the p rogram be considered by the HHTF first and then brought back to the Council.

Council Member Márquez appreciated the deliberation and supported the rental registry and encouraged that Council Member Syrop bring up the program during the Strategic Roadmap retreat.

Council Member Syrop stated that his request was for the issue to be addressed in the next eight years, was not asking for an immediate adoption of a policy, and was providing more of an overall direction. Council Member Syrop restated his friendly amendment to the motion which included that in the next eight years an enforceable rental registry be developed under Program H-2.

Mayor Salinas did not accept the friendly amendment. Council Member Zermeño added that he would rather wait for further discussion and did not accept the friendly amendment.

The friendly amendment died for lack of support.

It was moved by Mayor Salinas, seconded by Council Member Zermeño, and carried by the following roll call vote, to adopt the resolution.

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS Andrews, Goldstein, Márquez, Roche, Syrop, Zermeño
MAYOR Salinas
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

Resolution 23-033 “Resolution Adopting a General Plan
Amendment to Update the Housing Element of the General Plan for the Period of 2023-2031”

LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS

9. Salary Plan A mendment: Adopt a Resolution Approving an Amendment t o the City of Hayward Salary Plan for the Fiscal Year 2023 LB 23-006

Staff report submitted by Human Resources Director Frye, dated February 7, 2023, was filed.

Human Resources Director Frye provided a synopsis of the staff report.

10 | F e b r u a r y 7 , 2 0 2 3
There being no public comments, Mayor Salinas opened and closed the public hearing at 9:23 p.m.

It was moved by Council Member Goldstein, seconded by Council Member Roche, and carried by the following roll call vote, to approve the resolution.

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS Andrews, Goldstein, Márquez, Roche, Syrop, Zermeño
MAYOR Salinas
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

Resolution 23-034 “Resolution Approving the Amended Fiscal Year 2023 Salary Plan Desig nating Positions of Employment in the City of Hayward and Salary Range; and Superseding
Resolution No. 23-019 and all Amendments Thereto”

COUNCIL REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were none.

COUNCIL REFERRALS

There were none.

ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Salinas adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:25 p.m.

APPROVED

__________________________________________________________ Mark Salinas
Mayor, City of Hayward

ATTEST:

__________________________________________________________ Miriam Lens
City Clerk, City of Hayward

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: CONS 23-080
DATE: February 21, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Clerk

SUBJECT
Adopt a Resolution Accepting the Resignation of Ms. Katlin Turner from the Keep Hayward Clean and Green Task Force, Effective Immediately

RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) accepting the resignation of Ms. Katlin Turner from the Keep Hayward Clean and Green Task Force, effective immediately.

SUMMARY
Ms. Katlin Turner was appointed to the Keep Hayward Clean and Green Task Force on September 20, 2022. Ms. Turner’s resignation becomes effective immediately per her verbal resignation.

Ms. Turner’s vacated position will be filled as part of the annual appointment process for the City’s appointed officials to Commissions and Keep Hayward Clean and Green Task Force.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/17/2023Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™

Page 1 of 1 ends

DATE: February 21, 2023

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: City Clerk

SUBJECT Adopt a Resolution Accepting the Resignation of Ms. Katlin Turner from the Keep Hayward Clean and Green Task Force, Effective Immediately

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) accepting the resignation of Ms. Katlin Turner from the Keep Hayward Clean and Green Task Force, effective immediately.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

Ms. Katlin Turner was appointed to the Keep Hayward Clean and Green Task Force on September 20, 2022. Ms. Turner’s resignation becomes effective immediately per her verbal resignation. Ms. Turner’s vacated position will be filled as part of the annual appointment process for the City’s appointed officials to Commissions and Keep Hayward Clean and Green Task Force.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

STRATEGIC ROADMAP

This agenda item is a routine operational item and does not relate to any of the projects outlined in the Council’s Strategic Roadmap.

Prepared and Recommended by: Miriam Lens, City Clerk

Approved by:

Kelly McAdoo, City Manager

ATTACHMENT II

Page 1 of 1 ends

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION No. 23-_______

Introduced by Council Member ________________

RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE RESIGNATION OF MS. KATLIN TURNER

FROM THE KEEP HAYWARD CLEAN AND GREEN TASK FORCE

WHEREAS, Ms. Katlin Turner was appointed to the Keep Hayward Clean and Green Task Force on September 20, 2022; and

WHEREAS, Ms. Katlin Turner expressed she had to resign from the Keep Hayward Clean and Green Task Force.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hayward that the Council hereby accepts the resignation of Ms. Katlin Turner.

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA, ________________________, 2023.

ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

MAYOR:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: ______________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Hayward

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

__________________________________________
City Attorney of the City of Hayward

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: CONS 23-092
DATE: February 21, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Clerk

SUBJECT
Adopt a Resolution Accepting the Resignation of Mr. Pekon Gupta from the Keep Hayward Clean and Green Task Force, Effective Immediately

RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) accepting the resignation of Mr. Pekon Gupta from the Keep Hayward Clean and Green Task Force, effective immediately.

SUMMARY
Mr. Pekon Gupta was appointed to the Keep Hayward Clean and Green Task Force on September 20, 2022.

Mr. Gupta’sresignation becomes effective immediately per his resignation letter dated February 3, 2023 (Attachment III).

Mr. Gupta’s vacated position will be filled as part of the annual appointment process for the City’s appointed officials to Commissions and Keep Hayward Clean and Green Task Force.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/17/2023Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™

Page 1 of 1 ends

DATE: February 21, 2023

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: City Clerk

SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Accepting the Resignation of Mr. Pekon Gupta from the Keep Hayward Clean and Green Task Force, Effective Immediately

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) accepting the resignation of Mr. Pekon Gupta from the Keep Hayward Clean and Green Task Force, effective immediately.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

Mr. Pek on Gupta was appointed to the Keep Hayward Clean and Green Task Force on September 20, 20 22. Mr. Gupta’s r esignation becomes effective immediately per his resignation letter dated February 3, 2023 (Attachment III).

Mr. Gupta’s vacated position will be filled as part of the annual appointment process for the City’s appointed officials to Commissions and Keep Hayward Clean and Green Task Force.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

Prepared and Recommended by: Miriam Lens, City Clerk

Approved by:

Kelly McAdoo, City Manager

ATTACHMENT II

Page 1 of 1 ends

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION No. 23-_______

Introduced by Council Member ________________

RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE RESIGNATION OF MR. PEKIN GUPTA FROM

THE KEEP HAYWARD CLEAN AND GREEN TASK FORCE

WHEREAS, Mr. Pekin Gupta was appointed to the Keep Hayward Cl ean and Green Task Force on September 20, 2022; and

WHEREAS, Mr. Pekin Gupta submitted a resignation letter on February 3, 2023.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hayward that the Council hereby accepts the resignation of Mr. Pekin Gupta; and commends him for his civic service to the City.

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA, ________________________, 2023.

ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

MAYOR:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: ______________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Hayward

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

__________________________________________
City Attorney of the City of Hayward

ATTACHMENT III
February 3, 2023

Dear Hayward City Council, KHCGTF members,

Due to recent changes in my job, I may not be able to actively contribute to volunteering activities or discussions of 'Keep Hayward Clean and Green Task Force'. I would like to make this seat available to other residents who can contribute to Task force discussions and make best use of this opportunity. So I would like to offer my resignation from the KHCGTF with immediate effect.

I do plan to participate in the volunteering activities organized by the city of Hayward, as time permits.

Regards,
Pekon

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: CONS 23-087
DATE: February 21, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Acting Director of Development Services

SUBJECT
Adopt a Resolution Approving Final Map of Tract 8556, a 10 Lot Subdivision for Condominium Purposes at 27177 and 27283 Mission Boulevard (Assessor Parcel Nos. 452-0056-007 and 452-0056-008), Hayward to Allow the Construction of Nine (9) Live/Work Lofts Fronting Mission Boulevard and 46 Townhome Units Totaling 55 Condominium Units, Open Space Areas, and Related Site Improvements; Applicant/Owner: Moreau JV Owner, LLC., Application No. 202202272; and Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Related Documents

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) approving the Final Map for Tract 8556 (Attachment III), finding it in substantial conformance with the approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Attachment IV) and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Subdivision Agreement, related other documents and taking appropriate administrative actions to effectuate the improvements required by the Conditions of Approval.

SUMMARY
The Final Map for Tract 8556 subdivides two parcels with a combined area of 2.47 acres on Mission Boulevard into 10 lots for condominium purposes allowing the construction of nine (9) live/work lofts fronting Mission Boulevard and 46 townhome units totaling 55 units, open space areas, and related site improvements. The Council is also requested to authorize the City Manager to execute a Subdivision Improvement Agreement to compete all required improvements.

The Final Map and Improvement Plans are based on the Vesting Tentative Map approved by the Planning Commission on September 2, 2021. The City Engineer, in coordination with other potentially affected departments, has reviewed the proposed development phasing, the Final Map, and Improvement Plans and have determined these documents to be in substantial compliance with the City approved Vesting Tentative map, applicable City Standards, and addressing the City’s conditions of map approval.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/17/2023Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:CONS 23-087
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Final Map Tract 8556
Attachment IV Approved Tentative Map Tract 8556
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/17/2023Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™

Page 1 of 4 ends

DATE: February 21, 2023

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Acting Director of Development Services

SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Approving Final Map of Tract 8556, a 10 Lot Subdivision for Condominium Purposes at 27177 and 27283 Mission Boulevard (Assessor Parcel Nos. 452-0056-007 and 452-0056-008), Hayward to Allow the Construction of Nine (9) Live/Work Lofts Fronting Mission Boulevard and 46 Townhome Units Totaling 55 Condominium Units, Open Space Areas, and Related Site Improvements; Applicant/Owner: Moreau JV Owner, LLC., Application No. 202202272; and Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Related Documents

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) approving the Final Map for Tract 8556 (Attachment III), finding it in substantial conformance with the approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Attachment IV) and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Subdivision Agreement, related other documents and taking appropriate administrative actions to effectuate the improvements required by the Conditions of Approval.

SUMMARY

The Final Map for Tract 8556 subdivides two parcels with a combined area of 2.47 acres on Mission Boulevard into 10 lots for condominium purposes allowing the construction of nine (9) live/work lofts fronting Mission Boulevard and 46 townhome units totaling 55 units, open space areas, and related site improvements. The Council is also requested to authorize the City Manager to execute a Subdivision Improvement Agreement to compete all required improvements.

Page 2 of 4 ends

BACKGROUND

Tentative Map - Per State law, Tentative and Final tract maps are required for subdivision of real property into five or more parcels. A Vesting Tentative Map Application (No. 202005195) showing the proposed subdivision into 10 lots for condominium purposes allowing the construction of nine (9) live/work lofts fronting Mission Boulevard and 46 townhome units totaling 55 units, open space areas, related site improvements, along with preliminary plans and documents describing the proposed development was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on September 2, 2021 subject to certain Conditions of Approval.

The Planning Commission approved the Vesting Tentative Map for Tract 8556 in a public meeting after considering comments from the public and public agencies. The Planning Commission also considered compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, Planned Development guidelines, the City Subdivision Ordinance, Zoning Code, Building Regulations, the Hayward General Plan, Specific & Neighborhood Plans, and the site-specific requirements of the Planning, Public Works, Fire, and Police Departments. The 55 condominium units and live/work units proposed in the subdivision will fulfill several goals and objectives of the City’s General Plan by providing in-fill development, increasing housing diversity, and including compete streets elements.

DISCUSSION

Final Map and Improvements Plans - After Vesting Tentative Map approval, the subdivider has submitted the Final Map and Improvement Plans. The City Engineer has reviewed and determined these documents to be in substantial compliance with the City approved Vesting Tentative map, applicable City Standards, and that they address the City’s conditions of the map approval. There are no substantial changes between the tentative and final maps.

Improvement Agreement and Securities – The subdivider has requested the City’s approval of the Final Map before all required improvements are completed as provided for in the State Subdivision Map Act Section 66462. The subdivider has agreed to execute an agreement with the City to complete the improvements required for the subdivision in a timely manner as per the improvement plans approved by the City Engineer and as stipulated in Hayward Municipal Code Section 10-3.330 (a). Securities for the required improvements have been posted as per Hayward Municipal Code Section 10-3.332(a).

New improvements will include: extension of the City’s sewer and water service to each new unit and fire hydrants; new private roadways within the development; site lighting and stormwater treatment basins to be maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA); and all utilities within the subdivision will be underground.

The City Council’s approval of the Final Map shall not become effective until and unless the developer enters into a Subdivision Agreement with the City for the construction of improvements and other obligations required per conditions of approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map.

Page 3 of 4 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The environmental review was completed when the Vesting Tentative Map was approved in 2021. There is no substantial change proposed in the Project or in its environmental setting, nor is there any new information that would require additional environmental review.

ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACT

The Final Map, by itself, will not have a fiscal or economic impact. The development created by approval of the final map will improve commerce, provide needed housing, and employ construction workers. Property tax revenues received by the City and several other local agencies will increase once the homes are constructed and occupied. The Final Map approval is consistent with the initial approved project.

STRATEGIC ROADMAP

Approval of the Final Map supports the Preserve, Protect, & Produce Housing priority in the City’s Strategic Roadmap, providing a mix of housing stock for all Hayward residents and community members, including the expansion of affordable housing opportunities and resources.

SUSTAINABILITY FEATURES

The project will be required to be designed to meet all applicable California Building Codes, the City’s REACH Code, and CALGreen Standards, which require a minimal level of energy efficiency, conservation, material recycling, and air quality, for new construction. In addition, the landscaping areas and irrigation system will be compliant with the Bay-Friendly Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, which requires the use of drought tolerant planting with water-efficient irrigation systems. In addition, the project will include Level 2 EV-ready charging stations in the parking garages. Furthermore, the applicant will comply with ordinances related to construction debris and recycling to divert waste from landfills.

NEXT STEPS

If the Council approves the Final Map, the applicant will have the Final Map recorded after executing the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Occupancy permits for the new units will be issued only after the required improvements are completed as per the plans approved by the City and a HOA is incorporated for the maintenance and repair of the new common use improvements within the subdivision.

Prepared by: Scott Wikstrom, Development Services Engineer

Recommended by: Sara Buizer, Acting Director of Development Services

Page 4 of 4 ends

Approved by:

Kelly McAdoo, City Manager

ATTACHMENT II

Page 2 of 2 ends

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION NO. 23-_______

Introduced by Council Member _______________

RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL MAP OF TRACT 8556, ACCEPTING

THE EASEMENTS DEDICATED THEREON FOR PUBLIC USE AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE THE

SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELATED OTHER

DOCUMENTS

WHEREAS, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 8556 for Mission Village, was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Hayward on September 2, 2021; and

WHEREAS, the Final Map for Tract 8556 has been presented to the City Council of the City of Hayward for development of 10 lots consisting of 55 condominium units, including 9 live/work units and 46 townhome units, open space, and related site improvements located on two existing parcel s (Assessor Parcel Nos. 452 -0056-007 and 452-0056-008) at 27177 and 27283 Mission Blvd; and

WHEREAS, the City Engineer has determined the map substantially complying with its Vesting Tentative Map and the City Surveyor has determined the map technically correct; and

WHEREAS, the City Engineer has also determined the Tract 8556 Improvement Plans acceptable a nd conforming to the City’s Conditions of Approval of the Vesting Tentative Map for Tract 8556; and

WHEREAS, Subdivider has requested the Council approval of Tract Map 8556 before its required improvements are completed and has agreed to complete the same within the time limits specified in an agreement with the city and post securities required therefor; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Hayward does hereby find that the Final Map for Tract 8556 is in substantial compliance with its approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map and does hereby approve the said Final Map and accepts on behalf of the public all easements dedicated for public use thereon , subject to the subdivider entering into a subdiv ision agreement for the completion of improvements and other obligations, as required by the conditions of approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map for Tract 8556, and that the approval of the Final Map for Tract 8556 shall not be effective until and unless and such agreement is entered into.

ATTACHMENT II

Page 2 of 2 ends

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to negotiate and execute, for and on behalf of the City of Hayward , a subdivision agreement, and related documents, in a form approved by the City Attorney.

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA _______________________, 2023

ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

MAYOR:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: ______________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Hayward

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________________________
City Attorney of the City of Hayward
1 OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGMENTOWNER'S STATEMENT

COUNTY RECORDER'S STATEMENT
JOB NO. 3016-000SHEET OF 4
TRACT 8556CONSISTING OF 4 SHEETSFOR 55 CONDOMINIUM UNITSBEING A SUBDIVISION OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN THECERTAIN GRANT DEEDS DOC. NO. 2022047586 AND 2022047588,BOTH OF ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDSCITY OF HAYWARD, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIADECEMBER 2022CIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSPLANNERSSAN RAMONWWW.CBANDG.COMROSEVILLE(925) 866-0322(916)788-4456

OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGMENTSOIL / GEOTECHNICAL REPORT NOTESIGNATURE OMISSIONSSURVEYOR'S STATEMENT 2JOB NO. 3016-000SHEET OF 4
TRACT 8556CONSISTING OF 4 SHEETSFOR 55 CONDOMINIUM UNITSBEING A SUBDIVISION OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN THECERTAIN GRANT DEEDS DOC. NO. 2022047586 AND 2022047588,BOTH OF ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDSCITY OF HAYWARD, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIADECEMBER 2022CIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSPLANNERSSAN RAMONWWW.CBANDG.COMROSEVILLE(925) 866-0322(916)788-4456

CITY CLERK'S STATEMENTCITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT

CITY SURVEYOR'S STATEMENTTRUSTEE'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT

TRUSTEE'S STATEMENT

CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORSSTATEMENT

MISSION BOULEVARD
E 12thSTREETE 11thSTREETE 10thSTREETJEFFERSON STREET3
50'TRACT 8556SCALE: 1" =CONSISTING OF 4 SHEETSFOR 55 CONDOMINIUM UNITSBEING A SUBDIVISION OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN THECERTAIN GRANT DEEDS DOC. NO. 2022047586 AND 2022047588,BOTH OF ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDSCITY OF HAYWARD, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIADECEMBER 2022CIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSPLANNERSSAN RAMONWWW.CBANDG.COMROSEVILLE(925) 866-0322(916)788-4456 JOB NO. 3016-000SHEET OF 4
GRAPHIC SCALE200'0'100'50'25'50'0' LEGEND
NOTES:REFERENCES:

BASIS OF BEARINGS:DETAIL

MISSION BOULEVARDPARCEL DPARCEL CPARCEL B
PARCEL FPARCEL E789
3456
10 2PARCEL A654321
10987
4 30'GRAPHIC SCALE120'0'60'30'15'30'0'
TRACT 8556SCALE: 1" =CONSISTING OF 4 SHEETSFOR 55 CONDOMINIUM UNITSBEING A SUBDIVISION OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN THECERTAIN GRANT DEEDS DOC. NO. 2022047586 AND 2022047588,BOTH OF ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDSCITY OF HAYWARD, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIADECEMBER 2022CIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSPLANNERSSAN RAMONWWW.CBANDG.COMROSEVILLE(925) 866-0322(916)788-4456 LEGEND
NOTES:REFERENCES:

JOB NO. 3016-000SHEET OF 4
BASIS OF BEARINGS:

Attachment IV
Attachment IV
Attachment IV
Attachment IV
Attachment IV
Attachment IV
Attachment IV
Attachment IV
Attachment IV
Steering Angle
Waste Management Truck
Track
Lock to Lock Time
Width

5.90 6.0
: 36.9
:

10.00 7.32
:
:

16.50 feet

33.00 Attachment IV
Attachment IV

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: CONS 23-083
DATE: February 21, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Accept and Appropriate $35,984.70 in Grant Funding From the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office for the Fiscal Year 2020 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant For Hayward Police Department Operations

RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) authorizing the City Manager to accept and appropriate $35,984.70 in grant funding from Alameda County Sheriff’s Office for the 2020 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG).

SUMMARY
The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office applied and qualified for the 2020 Byrne JAG funding for Consortium members. The Hayward Police Department is a Consortium member and is eligible for an allocation of grant funds. The total allocation for Alameda County consortium members is $589,316.00, of which the HPD will receive $35,984.70. These funds require no local match and will be used to support criminal justice-related activities such as training, equipment, supplies, prevention and education programs, mental health programs, and other related law enforcement and corrections programs.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/17/2023Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™

Page 1 of 3 ends

DATE: February 21, 2023

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Chief of Police

SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Accept and Appropriate $35,984.70 in Grant Funding From the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office for the Fiscal Year 2020 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant For Hayward Police Department Operations

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) authorizing the City Manager to accept and appropriate $35,984.70 in grant funding from Alameda County Sheriff’s Office for the 2020 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG).

SUMMARY

The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office applied and qualified for the 2020 Byrne JAG funding for Consortium members. The Hayward Police Department is a Consortium member and is eligible for an allocation of grant funds. The total allocation for Alameda County consortium members is $589,316.00, of which the HPD will receive $35,984.70. These funds require no local match and will be used to support criminal justice-related activities such as training, equipment, supplies, prevention and education programs, mental health programs, and other related law enforcement and corrections programs.

BACKGROUND

The Hayward Police Department (HPD) has participated in the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) (Byrne Grant) program since 2005. In 2017, issues arose surrounding the federal government’s new citizenship and immigration certification requirements related to the Byrne Grant, which certain cities and local governments found to be unlawful. More specifically, on August 7, 2017, the Hayward Police Department was notified by the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office Planning and Research Unit that federal certification requirements must be acknowledged and signed by each city’s “Chief Legal Officer”/City Attorney, certifying compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Section 1373 addresses several issues related to citizenship and immigration status.

In August of 2017, California Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, challenged the federal government’s imposition of the unlawful immigration enforcement conditions that were added to federal grants made available to local law enforcement agencies.

Page 2 of 3 ends

On October 5, 2018, in response to the lawsuit filed by Attorney General Becerra, the U.S.

District Court for the Northern District of California ordered the U.S. DOJ to issue $28.3 million in FY 2017 JAG funding and prohibited the U.S. DOJ from enforcing the immigration enforcement requirements the U.S. DOJ had attempted to attach to the FY 2017 JAG funding.

As a result, the City received and appropriated the FY 2017 Byrne JAG funding.

The U.S. DOJ, again, attempted to include immigration enforcement requirements in the FY 2018 Byrne Grant program, despite the ruling on the previous lawsuit brought by Attorney General Becerra. On March 26, 2019, in response to a second lawsuit filed by Attorney General Becerra, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Attorney General Becerra’s request prohibiting the immigration enforcement requirements that U.S. DOJ attempted to add to FY 2018 JAG funding program. As a result, $28.9 million in FY 2018 JAG funding to city and county agencies may be accepted, without requiring the city to agree to immigration enforcement requirements. After receiving this confirmation, the City received and appropriated the FY 2018 Byrne JAG funding.

On March 30, 2022, the Hayward Police Department was notified by the Alameda County Sheriff's Office that the Department of Justice removed all the award conditions related to the FY 2019 Byrne Grant award and may now obligate and expend the award funds. Additionally, in December 2022, the Hayward Police Department was informed that the FY 2020 and FY 2021 Byrne Grant awards were cleared of all special conditions and that the City could move forward with obtaining Council approval for appropriation.

DISCUSSION

The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office applied for the FY 2020 Byrne JAG funding on behalf of the remaining Consortium members. Alameda County qualified for a total allocation of $589,316.00 in FY 2020 Byrne JAG Local funds, of which the Hayward Police Department will receive $35,984.70. These funds require no local match and allow a wide range of uses by participating Police Departments.

HPD intends to use the funds to support criminal justice-related activities such as training, equipment, supplies, prevention and education programs, mental health programs, and other related law enforcement programs. Additionally, the FY 2020 Byrne JAG Grant requires 3% of the award ($1,199.49) to be set aside for NIBRS (National Incident Based Reporting System)-related expenses. This set aside will be used for NIBRS-related training and overtime.

STRATEGIC ROADMAP

This agenda item is a routine operational item and does not relate to any of the priorities outlined in the Council’s Strategic Roadmap.

FISCAL IMPACT

Page 3 of 3 ends

This agreement will result in the continuation of the Police Department’s Byrne Grant funding, which will allow for the continued support of programs related to criminal justice, prevention and education, mental health services, and other related law enforcement and correction programs. The agreement requires no matching funds, and there is no impact to the General Fund.

NEXT STEPS

With Council approval, the City Manager will execute the Byrne Grant agreement with the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office and the Finance Department will appropriate the $35,984.70 Byrne Grant funds to the Hayward Police Department.

Prepared by: Laura Gomez, Acting Senior Management Analyst

Recommended by: Bryan Matthews, Acting Chief of Police

Approved by:

_________________________________
Kelly McAdoo, City Manager

ATTACHMENT II

Page 1 of 2 ends

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 23-__________
Introduced by Council Member _

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT AND
APPROPRIATE $ 35,984.70 IN GRANT FUNDING FR OM THE ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFF ICE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2020 BYRNE JUSTICE

ASSISTANCE GRANT FOR HAYWARD POLICE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS

WHEREAS, the Hayward Police Department has a long history of receiving Byrne Justice Assistance Grant funds to support police department operations; and,

WHEREAS, execution of a sub-recipient agreement is necessary to receive these funds;

WHEREAS, these funds require no local match and will be used to support criminal justice and community policing -related activities such as training, equipment, supplies, prevention and education programs, mental health programs, and other related law enforcement and corrections programs;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hayward that the City Manager, City Attorney , and Chief of Police are hereby authorized and directed to negotiate and execute MOUs, sub-recipient agreements, and any supporting documents, with the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, for the F iscal Year (FY) 2020 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant.

FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Hayward that the City Manager is authorized to accept and appropriate the FY 2020 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant to the Byrne Grant Fund (Fund 820) in the amount of $35,984.70.

ATTACHMENT II

Page 2 of 2 ends

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

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

MAYOR:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ATTEST:

City Clerk of the City of Hayward

City Attorney of the City of Hayward

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: CONS 23-084
DATE: February 21, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Accept and Appropriate $40,217.40 in Grant Funding From the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office for the Fiscal Year 2021 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant For Hayward Police Department Operations

RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) authorizing the City Manager to accept and appropriate $40,217.40 in grant funding from Alameda County Sheriff’s Office for the 2021 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG).

SUMMARY
The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office applied and qualified for the 2021 Byrne JAG funding for Consortium members. The Hayward Police Department is a Consortium member and is eligible for an allocation of grant funds. The total allocation for Alameda County consortium members is $685,351.00, of which the HPD will receive $40,217.40. These funds require no local match and will be used to support criminal justice-related activities such as training, equipment, supplies, prevention and education programs, mental health programs, and other related law enforcement and corrections programs.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/17/2023Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™

Page 1 of 3 ends

DATE: February 21, 2023

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Chief of Police

SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Accept and Appropriate $40,217.40 in Grant Funding From the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office for the Fiscal Year 2021 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant For Hayward Police Department Operations

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) authorizing the City Manager to accept and appropriate $40,217.40 in grant funding from Alameda County Sheriff’s Office for the 2021 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG).

SUMMARY

The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office applied and qualified for the 2021 Byrne JAG funding for Consortium members. The Hayward Police Department is a Consortium member and is eligible for an allocation of grant funds. The total allocation for Alameda County consortium members is $685,351.00, of which the HPD will receive $40,217.40. These funds require no local match and will be used to support criminal justice-related activities such as training, equipment, supplies, prevention and education programs, mental health programs, and other related law enforcement and corrections programs.

BACKGROUND

Page 2 of 3 ends

On October 5, 2018, in response to the lawsuit filed by Attorney General Becerra, the U.S.

As a result, the City received and appropriated the FY 2017 Byrne JAG funding.

On March 30, 2022, the Hayward Police Department was notified by the Alameda County Sheriff's Office that the Department of Justice removed all the award conditions related to the FY 2019 Byrne Grant award and may now obligate and expend the award funds. Additionally, in December 2022, the Hayward Police Department was informed that the FY 2020 and FY 2021 Byrne Grant awards were cleared of all special conditions and could move forward with acquiring council approval for appropriation.

DISCUSSION

The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office applied for the FY 2021 Byrne JAG funding on behalf of the remaining Consortium members. Alameda County qualified for a total allocation of $685,351.00 in FY 2021 Byrne JAG Local funds, of which the Hayward Police Department will receive $40,217.40. These funds require no local match and allow a wide range of uses by participating Police Departments.

STRATEGIC ROADMAP

This agenda item is a routine operational item and does not relate to any of the priorities outlined in the Council’s Strategic Roadmap.

FISCAL IMPACT

Page 3 of 3 ends

NEXT STEPS

With Council approval, the City Manager will execute the Byrne Grant agreement with the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office and the Finance Department will appropriate the $40,217.40 Byrne Grant funds to the Hayward Police Department.

Prepared by: Laura Gomez, Acting Senior Management Analyst

Recommended by: Bryan Matthews, Acting Chief of Police

Approved by:

_________________________________
Kelly McAdoo, City Manager

ATTACHMENT II

Page 1 of 2 ends

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 23-________
Introduced by Council Member

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT AND
APPROPRIATE $40,217.40 IN GRANT FUNDING FROM THE ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFF ICE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2021 BYRNE

JUSTICE ASSISTANCE G RANT FOR HAYWARD POL ICE DEPARTMENT

OPERATIONS

WHEREAS, the Hayward Police Department has a long history of receiving Byrne Justice Assistance Grant funds to support police department operations; and,

WHEREAS, execution of a subrecipient agreement is necessary to receive these funds;

WHEREAS, these funds require no local match and will be used to support criminal justice and community policing related activities such as training, equipment, supplies, prevention and education programs, mental health programs, and other related law enforcement and corrections programs;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hayward tha t the City Manager, City Attorney and Chief of Police are hereby authorized and directed to negotiate and execute MOUs, sub-recipient agreements, and any supporting documents, with the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, for the FY 2021 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant.

FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Hayward that the City Manager is authorized to accept and appropriate the FY 2021 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant to the Byrne Grant Fund (Fund 820) in the amount of $40,217.40.

ATTACHMENT II

Page 2 of 2 ends

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

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

MAYOR:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ATTEST:

City Clerk of the City of Hayward

City Attorney of the City of Hayward

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: CONS 23-088
DATE: February 21, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Assistant City Manager

SUBJECT
Adopt a Resolution 1) Appropriating $15,000 from the Rent Stabilization Fund Balance and 2) Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Project Sentinel for Administration of the Rent Increase Dispute Resolution Process in the Amount of $45,000 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Contract Amount of $120,000

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) authorizing the City Manager to do the following:

1. Appropriate $15,000 from the Rent Stabilization Fund Balance; and

2. Execute an amendment to the agreement with Project Sentinel to add $45,000 for a total not-to- exceed contract amount of $120,000 to administer the rent increase dispute resolution process stipulated in the Residential Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection Ordinance (RRSO) and Mobile Home Space Rent Stabilization Ordinance (MRSO).
..End

SUMMARY
The Residential Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection Ordinance (RRSO) and Mobile Home Space Rent Stabilization Ordinance (MRSO) establish mandatory mediation programs with binding arbitration to resolve rent increase disputes for tenants of covered rental units (RRSO) and eligible mobile home units.

Project Sentinel currently provides administrative support, administers the mediation and arbitration programs, and develops and facilitates educational workshops to advise tenants and landlords of their rights and responsibilities under the City’sRRSO and MRSO. Project Sentinel’sexisting contract with the City will expire on June 30, 2023.

As tenants and landlords continue to experience economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been an increase in need for Project Sentinel’s services. Additional funding is needed to continue providing services required by the RRSO and MRSO. Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to appropriate $15,000 from the Rent Stabilization Fund balance, which will be added to the contract along with $30,000 that has already been appropriated and is available through delayed marketing efforts resulting from COVID-19 constraints. With the additional $15,000 appropriation from fund balance, there will be sufficient funds in the Rent Stabilization Fund for this contract amendment.

CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/17/2023Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:CONS 23-088

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/17/2023Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™

Page 1 of 4 ends

DATE: February 21, 2023

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Assistant City Manager

SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution 1) Appropriating $15,000 from the Rent Stabilization Fund Balance and 2) Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Project Sentinel for Administration of the Rent Increase Dispute Resolution Process in the Amount of $45,000 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Contract Amount of $120,000

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) authorizing the City Manager to do the following:

1. Appropriate $15,000 from the Rent Stabilization Fund Balance; and

2. Execute an amendment to the agreement with Project Sentinel to add $45,000 for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $120,000 to administer the rent increase dispute resolution process stipulated in the Residential Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection Ordinance (RRSO) and Mobile Home Space Rent Stabilization Ordinance (MRSO).

SUMMARY

The Residential Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection Ordinance (RRSO) and Mobile Home Space Rent Stabilization Ordinance (MRSO) establish mandatory mediation programs with binding arbitration to resolve rent increase disputes for tenants of covered rental units (RRSO) and eligible mobile home units. Project Sentinel currently provides administrative support, administers the mediation and arbitration programs, and develops and facilitates educational workshops to advise tenants and landlords of their rights and responsibilities under the City’s RRSO and MRSO. Project Sentinel’s existing contract with the City will expire on June 30, 2023.

Page 2 of 4 ends

additional $15,000 appropriation from fund balance, there will be sufficient funds in the Rent Stabilization Fund for this contract amendment.

BACKGROUND

On June 19, 2019, City Council approved adding Chapter 12 to the Hayward Municipal Code to adopt a new Residential Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection Ordinance (RRSO) to mitigate displacement of Hayward residents.1 The revised ordinances expanded the number of covered units from approximately 1000 to 11,000 and includes a mediation and binding arbitration program in which tenants living in units covered by the residential rent threshold provision of the ordinance (Section 12-1.05) have access to free mediation and arbitration services through a petition process under the following circumstances:
 They do not receive lawful notice of a rent increase,  They receive a rent increase greater than five percent,  They dispute a banked rent increase or receive a banked rent increase that exceeds ten percent,
 They receive a utility cost increase of more than one percent of current rent,  They request a reduction in rent due to a reduction in housing services,  They contest a capital improvement pass through, or
 They request a review of rent due to unaddressed health, safety, fire, building violations, or repairs.

Project Sentinel coordinates the petition process, administers the mediation and arbitration program along with their panel of mediators and arbitrators , and conducts educational workshops to advise tenants and landlords of their rights and responsibilities under the City’s RRSO. The Mobile Home Space Rent Stabilization Ordinance (MRSO) was introduced in 1980 and most recently amended in 2008. Under the MRSO, tenants can file a petition to resolve a rent increase or a housing service reduction dispute . Upon filing a petition, Project Sentinel manages the mandatory meet and confer and subsequent arbitration process.

DISCUSSION

In FY 2021 and 2022, the City increased its contract amount with Project Sentinel from $75,000 to $150,000 to account for free mediation services being provided to tenants and landlords experiencing COVID-19-related financial hardship. Requests for free mediation declined significantly in the last half of FY 2022, so the program was ended and the FY 2023 agreement with Project Sentinel returned to $75,000.

Since the start of FY 2023, the number of petitions for review of rent have increased substantially and are on track to exceed pre-pandemic rates of petition requests. As shown in Figure 1, the City received 35 petitions in FY 2020. Through the first half of FY 2023, the City has received 26 petitions, which puts the City on pace for an almost 50% increase in petitions

1 June 19, 2019 City Council Meeting Staff Report and Attachments:
https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3985848&GUID=52D1B678-D6BB-401A-AB3C- 8990885C0CDD&Options=ID|Text|&Search=rent+stabilization

Page 3 of 4 ends

compared to the year before the pandemic. Importantly, both the RRSO and MRSO include clear timeframe requirements that stipulate maximum time limits for the City to receive, notice, and advance petitions through the mediation and arbitration process. Therefore, slowing or reducing the timeframe in which petitions are processed is not an option under either ordinance.

The increase in petition volume results in additional expenses for Project Sentinel’s administrative, arbitration, and mediat ion staff. City staff have worked closely with Project Sentinel to estimate the remaining expenses for FY 2023. An additional $45,000 will cover the increased costs resulting from the increase in petitions without having to make cuts to educational and administrative services.

Figure 1. RRSO & MRSO Tenant Petition Outcomes, as of March 31, 2021

Staff proposes funding this amendment through the following Council actions:

1. Appropriation of $15,000 from available Rent Stabilization Fund balance and addition to the contract

2. Approving the addition of $30,000 in unspent marketing funds to the contract

The above actions would bring the total not-to-exceed amount for the FY 2023 agreement with Project Sentinel to $120,000 ($45,000 increase) and would allow the City to continue to provide services required by the RRSO and MRSO.

FISCAL IMPACT

The FY 2023 operating budget does not include sufficient funds to cover the costs associated with this professional services agreement amendment. The total fiscal impact exceeds the amount budgeted and requires an additional appropriation in the amount of $15,000 to the Rent Stabilization Fund (Fund 286). Currently, there is sufficient funding in the fund balance of the Rent Stabilization Fund to cover the increased appropriation. 35 16 17
26 26
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 July 2019-June 2020 July 2020-June 2021 July 2021-June 2022 July 2023-Dec 2023 Actual Petitions Projected Petitions

Page 4 of 4 ends

STRATEGIC ROADMAP

This agenda item supports the Strategic Priority of Preserve, Protect, and Produce Housing.

This item is not specifically related to a project identified in the Strategic Roadmap. Staff is bringing forth this item because amending the contract with Project Sentinel is necessary to maintain required implementation provisions of the RRSO.

PUBLIC CONTACT

This is an administrative item and there has been no public comment related to this item.

NEXT STEPS

If this item is approved, staff will prepare and execute an amendment to the agreement with Project Sentinel to provide the services described in this report.

Prepared by: Amy Cole-Bloom, Management Analyst

Recommended by: Dustin Claussen, Assistant City Manager Christina Morales, Housing Division Manager

Approved by:

_________________________________
Kelly McAdoo, City Manager

ATTACHMENT II

Page 1 of 2 ends

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION NO. 23-____

Introduced by Council Member _____________

RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING $15,000 FROM THE RENT STABILIZATION

FUND BALANCE AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN

AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
PROJECT SENTINEL FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CITY’S RENT INCREASE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS IN THE AMOUNT OF $45,000 FOR A TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $120,000

WHEREAS, an Agreement with Project Sentinel was executed on July 1, 2019, to administer the City’s Residential Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection Ordinance (RRSO) and the Mobile Home Space Rent Stabilization Ordinance (MRSO) and to provide administrative support, develop a curriculum and provide education regarding tenant and landlord rig hts and responsibilities, and mediation and arbitration services to resolve disputes regarding rent increases in an amount not-to-exceed $75,000; and

WHEREAS, during the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, as a result of local and state-level State of Emergency declarations and local and state Shelter -in-Place orders, many tenants experienced sudden income loss and further income impacts, leaving tenants vulnerable when existing declarations and state and local eviction moratoria are lifted; and

WHEREAS, ongoing economic pressure on both tenants and landlords is contributing to an increase in petitions allowed under the RRSO and MRSO; and

WHEREAS, Project Sentinel requires additional funding to meet the increased petition volume and to maintain services as required by the RRSO and MRSO; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hayward hereby authorizes the appropriation of $15,000 from the Rent Stabilization Fund balance (Fund 286) and authorizes the City Manager to execute an amendment to the agreement with Project Sentinel, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to add $45,000 for a total not -to- exceed amount of $120,000.

ATTACHMENT II

Page 2 of 2 ends

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA _______________________, 2023

ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

MAYOR:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: ______________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Hayward

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________________________
City Attorney of the City of Hayward

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: CONS 23-089
DATE: February 21, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works

SUBJECT
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Hayward’s Participation in East Bay Community Energy’s Community Solar Program
That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) authorizing the City’s participation in East Bay Community Energy’s (EBCE) Community Solar Program.

SUMMARY
EBCE is preparing to launch a community solar program that may result in the development of a solar project in Hayward that would benefit low-income customers. Enrolled customers would be allocated 100% solar electricity and would receive a 20% bill discount. The program requires a community sponsor and allows the sponsor to receive up to 25% of the electricity generated.

On January 25, 2023 , the Council Infrastructure Committee (CIC) voted unanimously to recommend that Hayward participate as a community sponsor to support the program and help enroll Hayward households. The CIC also recommended that 100% of the solar electricity go to Hayward households and that none should be allocated to City facilities. This item would also have been presented to the Council Sustainability Committee, but the Committee’s January meeting was cancelled and a letter of commitment from the City is needed by mid-February.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Map of Disadvantaged Communities
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/17/2023Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™

Page 1 of 5 ends

DATE: February 21, 2023

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Director of Public Works

SUBJECT Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Hayward’s Participation in East Bay Community Energy’s Community Solar Program

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) authorizing the City’s participation in East Bay Community Energy’s (EBCE) Community Solar Program.

SUMMARY

EBCE is preparing to launch a community solar program that may result in the development of a solar project in Hayward that would benefit low-income customers.

Enrolled customers would be allocated 100% solar electricity and would receive a 20% bill discount. The program requires a community sponsor and allows the sponsor to receive up to 25% of the electricity generated.

On January 25, 20231, the Council Infrastructure Committee (CIC) voted unanimously to recommend that Hayward participate as a community sponsor to support the program and help enroll Hayward households. The CIC also recommended that 100% of the solar electricity go to Hayward households and that none should be allocated to City facilities.

This item would also have been presented to the Council Sustainability Committee, but the Committee’s January meeting was cancelled and a letter of commitment from the City is needed by mid-February.

EBCE is preparing to launch a community solar program that may result in the development of a solar project in Hayward and would benefit low-income customers.

BACKGROUND

1 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6002335&GUID=13A1C464-70BB-4948-9A63- EE68FC3D414B&Options=&Search

Page 2 of 5 ends

In December 2016, Hayward joined the County of Alameda and ten of its cities in launching EBCE as a joint powers authority to provide cleaner, greener energy to their customers at lower rates. EBCE began providing electricity to commercial, municipal, and residential accounts in 2018 with three electricity products:
 Bright Choice – Varying carbon content; currently higher than PG&E. Rates were 1% lower than PG&E rates.
 Brilliant 100 – 100% carbon free electricity, including hydropower, at rates equal to PG&E.
 Renewable 100 – 100% renewable electricity (sourced entirely from California solar and wind energy) for one penny per kWh more than PG&E rates.

In 2018, Council voted to make Brilliant 100 the default for the Hayward community. In 2020, EBCE announced that as of January 1, 2022, due to the rising cost of hydropower, Brilliant 100 would no longer be offered. On July 6, 20212, Council voted to transition Hayward customers, with the exception of low-income customers, to Renewable 100.

In 2021, EBCE’s Board of Directors approved lowering customer rates by increasing the discount for Bright Choice customers from 1% to 3% relative to PG&E rates. The Board also lowered rates for Renewable 100 customers, lowering the premium to ¾ of a penny per kWh more than PG&E rates.

On January 25, 2023, the Council Infrastructure Committee (CIC) considered a report3 on the proposed program. The CIC expressed support for the program and for maximizing the number of low-income households that can be served. The CIC voted unanimously to recommend that Hayward participate as a community sponsor to support the program and help enroll Hayward households. The CIC also recommended that 100% of the solar electricity go to low-income households in Hayward and that none should be allocated to City facilities.

DISCUSSION

The Community Solar Green Tariff (CSGT) is a program4 of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) that is being implemented by several community choice energy programs. The community solar program offered by EBCE requires participating solar projects to be located in EBCE’s service area and within a disadvantaged community5. The project must also be located not more than five miles away from the DAC census tracts in which subscribing customers reside. Eligible customers must be enrolled in a low-income

2 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5018124&GUID=8CCC9164-4B0D-463C-AD16- 709EFC1035D4&Options=&Search=
3 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6002335&GUID=13A1C464-70BB-4948-9A63- EE68FC3D414B&Options=&Search=
4 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/SolarInDACs/#CSGT
5 For the Community Solar program, the CPUC has indicated that a disadvantaged community is a census tract in the top 25% as shown in either CalEnviroScreen 3.0 or 4.0.

Page 3 of 5 ends

discount program (CARE or FERA6). The solar project will likely be a large installation on a rooftop in Hayward’s industrial district. The solar would be on the grid side of the meter and would not benefit the industrial building’s tenant.

Hayward has three census tracts that qualify as disadvantaged communities, which are shown in Attachment III. The tracts include portions of the Tennyson/Alquire neighborhood, the Mt. Eden neighborhood, and the western industrial corridor. The three census tracts have a combined population of approximately 17,000 and an estimated 5,500 households. Throughout all of Hayward, roughly thirty percent of Hayward households are enrolled in CARE or FERA, so it is estimated that approximately 1,650 customers are eligible to enroll in the community solar program. The program would enable Hayward customers to receive the benefits of solar without having to install the solar on their own rooftop.

Each solar project must have a community sponsor to support the developer’s proposal.

The role of the sponsor is to demonstrate interest from the host community and to support outreach to customers for program enrollment. EBCE has offered to partner with sponsors to provide tools, such as online portals for eligibility verification and enrollment, as well as outreach, such as the development of City/EBCE co-branded marketing and to support reaching and enrolling eligible customers. Staff expects the time and effort associated with outreach and enrollment to be minimal.

In addition to Hayward, the cities of Oakland and San Leandro also have eligible disadvantaged communities and expressed interest in participating in the program.

On December 2, 2022, EBCE issued a request for offers (RFO) seeking proposals for 1.6 megawatts of new solar paired with battery energy storage. The solar could be located all in one city or distributed among the three cities. Four developers have shown interest in the program, but only one has approached the cities to discuss specifics.

Prologis, a major corporation that owns warehouse and distribution facilities around the world, will likely propose one project in each of the three cities that will cumulatively equal

1.6 megawatts. Each project would be paired with battery storage sufficient to provide approximately four hours of power. Prologis is currently considering three potential rooftop solar projects in Hayward (see table below), but would most likely only develop one.

Location Size
Estimated
Generation
(KWh per
year)
# of Low-
Income
Customers
(No Allocation
to City
Facilities)
# of Low-Income
Customers
(City Facilities
Receive 25% of
Output)

6 CARE is the California Alternate Rates for Energy program. FERA is the Family Electric Rate Assistance program. Information about both programs is at https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/save-energy-money/help-paying-your-bill/longer-term- assistance/care/care.page?WT.mc_id=Vanity_carefera

Page 4 of 5 ends

____ W. Winton Ave. 600 kW 1,508,472 173 130
____ Cabot Blvd. 560 kW 1,407,907 161 121
____ Lincoln Ave. 480 kW 1,206,778 138 104

The program, as designed by the CPUC, allows the sponsor to receive up to 25% of the electricity generated. If the City elects to receive the allocation, it will also receive a 20% bill discount on the allocation.

Approximately 30% of all residential customers in Hayward are enrolled in a low-income discount program and that percentage is estimated to be even higher in the eligible census tracts. Of the estimated 1,650 qualifying households in the eligible census tracts, about 10% would need to enroll to utilize the solar generation from the largest project that is proposed for Hayward. Given the significant discount available to customers, staff anticipates there will be sufficient interest to enroll the required number of customers.

ECONOMIC IMPACT

While most Hayward customers are enrolled in Renewable 100, customers on income or medical-related discounts are enrolled in Bright Choice. Bright Choice rates are set at 3% less than PG&E rates. Customers enrolled in the CARE or FERA low-income discount programs receive a 18 to 20% discount on their bill. Customers who enroll in the community solar program would receive an additional 20% discount for a total discount of approximately 40%.

As for the development of the solar and storage project, EBCE is committed to creating community benefits, which includes engaging a skilled and trained workforce. Workforce development and job training (e.g., local hiring and targeted hiring) are a requirement of the CSGT program. EBCE’s RFO requires the project developer to submit a workforce development plan.

FISCAL IMPACT

Hayward’s participation as a sponsor in EBCE’s Community Solar program would have no impact to the City’s General Fund or other funds other than staff time from existing budgeted positions. If the City were to take an allocation of 25% of the solar output as allowed by the program, the 20% discount to the City, depending on the specific account(s) enrolled, may be worth approximately $20,000 per year.

STRATEGIC ROADMAP

This agenda item relates to the Strategic Priority of Confront Climate Crisis and Champion Environmental Justice. Specifically, this agenda item relates to the implementation of the following project:

Project C9: Work with EBCE to transition citywide electricity use to 100% carbon-free

Page 5 of 5 ends

SUSTAINABILITY FEATURES

Community choice energy was identified in the City’s Climate Action Plan as the program with the greatest potential to reduce community wide GHG emissions. In 2018, Hayward’s participation in EBCE resulted in the 20% GHG reduction goal for 2020 being met two years early. In 2019, due in large part to EBCE, Hayward’s emissions were 25.7% lower than the 2005 baseline. However, in 2021, the carbon content for Bright Choice increased significantly while PG&E increased their GHG free portion of their product to 93%. Given that eligible customers are enrolled in the Bright Choice electricity product and that City facilities are already enrolled in Renewable 100, maximizing the number of enrolled customers would also maximize the greenhouse gas emissions reduction attributed to the program.

PUBLIC CONTACT

No public contact was made for this agenda item.

NEXT STEPS

If Council approves the resolution, staff will send a letter of commitment to EBCE with a copy to potential project developers. Project proposals are due to EBCE on March 2, 2023.

Once the developer and specific projects are chosen, then EBCE, the City and the developer will begin outreach for enrollment as well as design and construction of the projects.

Prepared by: Erik Pearson, Environmental Services Manager

Recommended by: Alex Ameri, Director of Public Works

Approved by:

Kelly McAdoo, City Manager

ATTACHMENT II

Page 1 of 2 ends

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION NO. 23-_______

Introduced by Council Member __________

RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF HAYWARD’S PARTICIPATION IN EAST BAY COMMUNITY ENERGY’S COMMUNITY SOLAR PROGRAM

WHEREAS, on December 6, 2016, the City of Hayward City Council adopted Ordinance 16-21 authorizing Hayward’s participation in Alameda County’s Community Choice Energy program known as East Bay Community Energy (EBCE); and

WHEREAS, EBCE began serving Hayward customer in 2018; and

WHEREAS, on March 6, 2018, Council voted to designate Brilliant 100 as the default product for all non -residential customers in Hayward and Brilliant 100 for all municipal facilities; and

WHEREAS, on May 22, 2018, Council voted to designate Brilliant 100 as the default product for all residential customers and that all income -qualified customers enrolled in the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE), Family Electric Rate Assistance (FERA), and Medical Baseline programs be enrolled in Bright Choice; and

WHEREAS, on June 16, 2020, Council adopted new Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission targets of 30% below 2005 levels by 2025, 55% below 2005 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045; and
WHEREAS, on July 6 , 2021, Council voted to select Renewable 100 as the default product for all customers in Hayward, except those customers enrolled in income -qualified or medical-related discount programs; and

WHEREAS, Hayward customers enrolled in Medical Baseline and income-qualified customers enrolled in the California Alternate Rates for Energy ( CARE) or Family Electric Rate Assistance (FERA) programs are automatically enrolled in the lower cost Bright Choice product; and

WHEREAS, EBCE’s Community Solar program will provide an opportunity for some income-qualified customers to benefit from 100% solar electricity and receive an additional bill discount of 20%; and

ATTACHMENT II

Page 2 of 2 ends

WHEREAS, the Community Solar program, as designed by the California Public Utilities Commission, requires a community sponsor and the sponsor is allowed to receive up to 25% of the electricity generated by the solar project; and

WHEREAS, on January 25, 2023, the Council Infrastructure Committee voted to recommend that Council adopt a resolution committing Hayward as a community sponsor for EBCE’s Community Solar program and that Hayward’s municipal accounts should not receive any of the solar generation.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hayward hereby approves the City’s participation as a community sponsor in EBCE’s Community Solar program.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that none of the electricity from the new solar project shall be allocated to the City’s municipal accounts.

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA _______________________, 2023

ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

MAYOR:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: ______________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Hayward

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________________________
City Attorney of the City of Hayward

Attachment III

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: CONS 23-096
DATE: February 21, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Assistant City Manager

SUBJECT
Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution 22-225 to Award up to $627,554 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds to Bay Area Community Services (BACS) for the St. Regis Multi-Service Campus Project

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) amending Resolution 22-225 to make the following changes:

1. Reallocation of the original appropriation of a $627,554 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) award to Bay Area Community Services (BACS) from acquisition of the St. Regis Multi- Service Campus to rehabilitation of the St. Regis Multi-Service Campus, and

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with BACS for an amount not to exceed $627,554 for rehabilitation of the St. Regis Multi-Service Campus.

SUMMARY
In January 2022, the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) and the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) announced a joint Request for Applications (RFA) to expand the State’s behavioral health infrastructure and address historic gaps in the long-term care continuum serving seniors, people with disabilities, and people with behavioral health needs. Under this joint RFA, the State made available $518.5 million for launch-ready behavioral health infrastructure projects through the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (BHCIP) and $570 million to preserve and expand adult and senior care facilities through the Community Care Expansion (CCE) program.

BACS applied for BHCIP and CCE funding to acquire and rehabilitate the St. Regis retirement center and develop a holistic campus of behavioral health treatment, crisis services, and supportive housing. BACS was awarded CCE funding but was not awarded BHCIP funding for this program.

Since they did not receive BHCIP funding, BACS anticipated having a funding gap for acquisition of the St.

Regis in the Summer 2022. On August 9, 2022, Council adopted Resolution 22-225, appropriating $627,554 in CDBG funds to BACS for acquisition expenses to help address the anticipated acquisition funding gap. In December 2022, the County of Alameda provided additional funding to BACS, closing the CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/17/2023Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:CONS 23-096
funding gap. In December 2022, the County of Alameda provided additional funding to BACS, closing the acquisition gap; however, since BACS did not receive BHCIP funding, they continue to need additional funding to support rehabilitation costs. Staff are working closely with BACS to ensure that BACS has CDBG-eligible rehabilitation expenses that are allowable under HUD regulations and the City’sapproved Annual Action Plans.

Staff recommend that Council adopts a resolution amending Resolution 22-225 to make the following changes:

2. Add City Manager authorization to negotiate and execute an agreement with BACS for an amount not to exceed $627,554 for rehabilitation of the St. Regis Multi-Service Campus.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Resolution 22-225
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/17/2023Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™

Page 1 of 4 ends

DATE: February 21, 2023

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Assistant City Manager

SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution 22-225 to Award up to $627,554 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds to Bay Area Community Services (BACS) for the St. Regis Multi-Service Campus Project

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) amending Resolution 22 -225 to make the following changes:

1. Reallocation of the original appropriation of a $627,554 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) award to Bay Area Community Services (BACS) from acquisition of the St. Regis Multi-Service Campus to rehabilitation of the St. Regis Multi-Service Campus, and

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with BACS for an amount not to exceed $627,554 for rehabilitation of the St. Regis Multi-Service Campus.

SUMMARY

In January 2022, the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) and the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) announced a joint Request for Applications (RFA) to expand the State’s behavioral health infrastructure and address historic gaps in the long-term care continuum serving seniors, people with disabilities, and people with behavioral health needs. Under this joint RFA, the State made available $518.5 million for launch-ready behavioral health infrastructure projects through the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (BHCIP) and $570 million to preserve and expand adult and senior care facilities through the Community Care Expansion (CCE) program.

Page 2 of 4 ends

Since they did not receive BHCIP funding, BACS anticipated having a funding gap for acquisition of the St. Regis in the Summer 2022. On August 9, 2022, Council adopted Resolution 22-225, appropriating $627,554 in CDBG funds to BACS for acquisition expenses to help address the anticipated acquisition funding gap. In December 2022, the County of Alameda provided additional funding to BACS, closing the acquisition gap; however, since BACS did not receive BHCIP funding, they continue to need additional funding to support rehabilitation costs. Staff are working closely with BACS to ensure that BACS has CDBG-eligible rehabilitation expenses that are allowable under HUD regulations and the City’s approved Annual Action Plans.

Staff recommend that Council adopts a resolution amending Resolution 22-225 to make the following changes:

1. Reallocation of the original appropriation of a $627,554 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) award to Bay Area Community Services (BACS) from acquisition of the St. Regis Multi-Service Campus to rehabilitation of the St. Regis Multi-Service Campus, and

2. Add City Manager authorization to negotiate and execute an agreement with BACS for an amount not to exceed $627,554 for rehabilitation of the St. Regis Multi- Service Campus.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

In January 2022, DHCS and CDSS announced a join t RFA to expand the State’s behavioral health infrastructure and address historic gaps in the long-term care continuum serving seniors, people with disabilities, and people with behavioral health needs. Under this joint RFA, the State made available just over $1 billion through the BHCIP and CCE Program.

DHCS was authorized to establish BHCIP and award $2.2 billion to construct, acquire, and expand properties and invest in mobile crisis infrastructure related to behavioral health.

Through this joint RFA, DHCS made available $518.5 million for launch-ready behavioral health infrastructure projects. This funding was announced January 31, 2022 , and applications were due on April 8th, 2022. Awards were announced in late June 2022. The CCE program provides $805 million in funding for acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation to preserve and expand adult and senior care facilities that serve low-income individuals, including those who are experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. Awards were announced in September. Additional information on this funding can be found in the August 9th, 2022 staff report to the Hayward City Council.1

BACS applied for funding from both CCE and BHCIP to acquire and rehabilitate the St. Regis Retirement Center, with plans to turn it into a holistic campus of behavioral health treatment, crisis services, and supportive housing . The funding from both programs was intended to cover the majority of the project costs; however, BACS only r eceived funding from the CCE program and did not receive BHCIP funding.

1 Meetings materials of the August 9th, 2022 meeting of the Hayward City Council:
https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5749367&GUID=8C5E6C88-47DD-4226-8472- DFEA8CC27167&Options=&Search=

Page 3 of 4 ends

As BACS did not receive BHCIP funding, they projected a significant acquisition funding gap and in Summer 2022 , they approached the City for support. On August 9, 2022, Council adopted Resolution 22-225, appropriating $627,554 in CDBG funds to BACS to help acquire the St. Regis Retirement Center. Subsequently, the County of Alameda contributed over $7 million to support the acquisition of the St. Regis , closing the acquisition funding gap. BACS intends to apply for the next round of BHCIP funding. In their first application for BHCIP , BACS did not have site control of the property. As BACS acquired the property in 2022, they will be able to demonstrate site control and anticipate a more competitive application.

While the anticipated next round of BHCIP funding will support the majority of rehabilitation expenses, staff and BACS have determined that the community health center portion of the St. Regis campus may not be eligible for BHCIP or CCE funding. Therefore, staff recommends amending Resolution 22-225 to appropriate the funds for rehabilitation expenses instead of acquisition expenses. The CDBG funds appropriated in Resolution 22 -225 are eligible for both acquisition and rehabilitation activities. This change will both contribute to the timely opening of the St. Regis Multi-Service Health Campus, which is widely supported and recognized by the State and County as a vital component of the region’s response to homelessness and individuals experiencing mental health crises and will help the City meet its federal obligations to expend CDBG funds in a timely manner. Staff also recommends amending Resolution 22 -225 to include Council authorization of the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with BACS for the rehabilitation expenses at the St.

Regis Multi-Service Campus in an amount not to exceed $627,554.

ECONOMIC IMPACT

There is a positive economic impact with providing services for low-income individuals with complex behavioral, medical, and social needs. Creating long -term housing options with targeted supportive services can reduce the prevalence of “high utilizers” of emergency services, ultimately reducing local crisis response costs . Furthermore, u pgrading and expanding the use of the current facility will create additional job opportunities for individuals with a wide range of certifications and experience.

FISCAL IMPACT

Staff had previously identified $627,554 in available CDBG funds for this project. These funds are eligible for rehabilitation expenses, align with the City’s current and past Annual Action Plans under the "Housing" project categories , and will sup port the City in meeting HUD's timely expenditure requirements. Expending these CDBG funds on rehabilitation expenses helps the City meet its federal obligation to expend its CDBG entitlement in a timely manner.

STRATEGIC ROADMAP

This item supports Strategic Roadmap item H2, to implement the Let’s House Hayward! homelessness reduction strategic plan. Within the Let’s House Hayward! plan, this item supports:

Page 4 of 4 ends

 Strategy 2.4: Increase Diversity and Availability of Holistic Supportive Services  Strategy 3.2: Prioritize the Development of Housing Targeted to People Experiencing Homelessness

PUBLIC CONTACT

This item is related to the Let’s House Hayward (LHH) Strategic Plan, under Strategy 2.1, to Expand Housing-Focused Shelter Capacity through continued oversight and management of the Hayward Navigation Center. Through the LHH process, Homebase, City staff, and partners throughout the Hayward community worked together to engage a diverse set of stakeholders to inform the plan 's goals, strategies, and spec ific activities for achieving its goals.2 Additionally, the original Resolution 22 -225 was passed on consent on August 9, 2022. Members of Council and the public had the opportunity to pull the item for comment and no comments were made.

NEXT STEPS

If Council adopts the resolution, staff will work to execute the new agreement with BACS for use of the CDBG funds.

Prepared by: Amy Cole-Bloom, Management Analyst

Recommended by: Jessica Lobedan, Community Services Manager Regina Youngblood, Assistant City Manager

Approved by:

_________________________________
Kelly McAdoo, City Manager

2 For more information on the Let’s House Hayward! Strategic Plan process, please visit https://www.haywardca.gov/lets-house-hayward

ATTACHMENT II

Page 1 of 2 ends

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION NO. 23-____

Introduced by Council Member ______________

RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 22 -225 TO 1) CHANGE THE APPROPRIATION OF A $627,554 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK

GRANT (CDBG) AWARD TO BAY AREA COMMUNITY SERVICES (BACS) FROM ACQUISITION OF THE ST. REGIS MULTI-SERVICE CAMPUS TO
REHABILITATION OF THE ST. REGIS MULTI -SERVICE CAMPUS AND 2)

AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT WITH BACS FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $627,554 FOR REHABILITATION OF THE ST. REGIS MULTI-SERVICE CAMPUS

WHEREAS, i n January 2022, the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) and the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) announced a joint Request for Applications (RFA) to expand the State’s behavioral health infrastructure and address historic gaps in the long -term care continuum serving seniors, people with disabilities, and people with behavioral health needs; and

WHEREAS, under this joint RFA, the State made available $518.5 million for launch ready behavioral health infrastructure projects through the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (BHCIP) and $570 million to preserve and expand adult and senior care facilities through the Community Care Expansion (CCE) program; and

WHEREAS, BACS applied for both BHCIP and CCE funding to acquire the St. Regis retirement center located at 23950 Mission B oulevard and develop a holistic camp us of behavioral health treatment and crisis services and supportive housing; and

WHEREAS, BACS received the CCE award but did not receive the BHCIP award and anticipated having an acquisition closing gap; and

WHEREAS, on August 9, 2022, Council adopted Resolution 22 -225 appropriating a $627,554 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) award to Bay Area Community Services (BACS) to help acquire the St. Regis Retirement Center; and

WHEREAS, BACS subsequently identified additional acquisition funds in partnership with the County of Alameda; and

WHEREAS, the BHCIP award would have provided rehabilitation funds; and

WHEREAS, the CDBG funds appropriated by Resolution 22 -225 are also eligible for rehabilitation expenses for neighborhood facilities such as the St. Regis Multi-Service Campus; and

ATTACHMENT II

Page 2 of 2 ends

WHEREAS, expending these CDBG funds on rehabilitation expenses helps the City meet its federal obligation to expend its CDBG entitlement in a timely manner; and

WHEREAS, amending Resolution 22 -225 to appropriate the CDBG funds for rehabilitation expenses instead of acquisition expenses meets an existing need to convert the St. Regis facility into a multi-service campus; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , that the City Council of the City of Hayward amends paragraph seven of Resolution 22 -225 to read, “ WHEREAS, Council approved Resolutions 22-107, 21-057, and 19-095, authorizing the use of CDBG funds for acquisition and rehabilitation activities to support community development and production and preservation of affordable housing”; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the City Council of the City of Hayward amends paragraph eight of Resolution 22-225 to read, “WHEREAS, staff have identified $627,554 in available and eligible CDBG funds from FY 2019, FY 2021, and FY 2023 to contribute to rehabilitation expenses at the St. Regis Multi-Service Campus”; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the City Council of the City of Hayward authorizes the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with BACS for rehabilitation expenses at the St. Regis Multi-Service Campus in an amount not to exceed $627,554.

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA _______________________, 2023

ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

MAYOR:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: ______________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Hayward

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________________________
City Attorney of the City of Hayward

ATTACHMENT III

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: CONS 23-097
DATE: February 21, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Human Resources

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

RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) approving an amendment to the City of Hayward Salary plan for Fiscal Year 2023 (FY 2023), which designates all classifications and the corresponding salary range for employment in the City of Hayward as of February 27, 2023, superseding Resolution No. 23- 034.

SUMMARY
As required by the Municipal Code, the FY 2023 Salary Plan has been updated to reflect a salary adjustment to one (1) classification in the City’sclassified service. The Salary Plan has also been revised to reflect the addition of one (1) classification. On February 2, 2023, the Personnel Commission held a public hearing in which it reviewed and recommended to Council the Salary Plan for each position in the City’s classified service for FY 2023, effective February 27, 2023.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III FY 2023 Salary Plan
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/17/2023Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™

Page 1 of 2 ends

DATE: February 21, 2023

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Director of Human Resources

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) approving an amendment to the City of Hayward Salary plan for Fiscal Year 2023 (FY 2023), which designates all classifications and the corresponding salary range for employment in the City of Hayward as of February 27, 2023, superseding Resolution No. 23-034.

SUMMARY

As required by the Municipal Code, the FY 2023 Salary Plan has been updated to reflect a salary adjustment to one (1) classification in the City’s classified service. The Salary Plan has also been revised to reflect the addition of one (1) classification. On February 2, 2023, the Personnel Commission held a public hearing in which it reviewed and recommended to Council the Salary Plan for each position in the City’s classified service for FY 2023, effective February 27, 2023.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

New Classification:

SENIOR SUSTAINABILITY SPECIALIST (T804): Due to the changing needs of the Public Works Department and the desire to provide an advanced journey-level opportunity to the already existing journey-level position, the Sustainability Specialist classification is being changed into a flexibly-staffed classification. The current journey-level classification of Sustainability Specialist will be the lower level of the flex classification, while the new advanced journey- level classification is being created with the title Senior Sustainability Specialist. The salary for the Senior Sustainability Specialist has been internally set to be ten percent (10%) above Sustainability Specialist (T803). The salary range for Senior Sustainability Specialist is $48.55 per hour at Step A and $59.00 per hour at Step E.

Salary Adjustments:

Page 2 of 2 ends

EQUITY AND INCLUSION OFFICER (U340): The salary for Equity and Inclusion Officer is internally set to be equivalent to Assistant to the City Manager (U320). In February 2022, the Assistant to the City Manager classification received a ten percent (10%) equity adjustment effective November 7, 2022, as a result of a total compensation market study. As such, the Equity and Inclusion Officer shall receive a ten percent (10%) salary adjustment effective November 7, 2022. The salary range for Equity and Inclusion Officer is $61.79 per hour at Step A and $75.09 per hour at Step E.

FISCAL IMPACT

SENIOR SUSTAINABILITY SPECIALIST: The additional annual fiscal impact for Senior Sustainability Specialist is an increase of approximately $1,827: $1,218 from Measure D Recycling Funds, and $609 from Enterprise Funds. Budget adjustments will be included in the FY 2023 mid-year budget process.

EQUITY AND INCLUSION OFFICER: The additional fiscal impact for Equity and Inclusion Officer is an increase of approximately $13,646 to the General Fund. Budget adjustments will be included in the FY 2023 mid-year budget process.

STRATEGIC ROADMAP

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

NEXT STEPS

If approved, salary adjustments will be implemented by the Human Resources Department and Finance Department and will be reflected in the employees’ paychecks dated March 31, 2023. Retroactive payments will follow based on the dates in the report.

Prepared by: Valeria Cazares, Acting Human Resources Analyst I

Recommended by: Brittney Frye, Director of Human Resources Regina Youngblood, Assistant City Manager

Approved by:

____________________________________
Kelly McAdoo, City Manager

ATTACHMENT II

Page 1 of 2 ends

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION NO. 23-_____

Introduced by Council Member _______________

RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED FISCAL YEAR 202 3 SALARY PLAN

DESIGNATING POSITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE CITY OF HAYWARD AND SALARY RANGE; AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 2 3-034 AND ALL

AMENDMENTS THERETO

WHEREAS, the Salary Plan has been revised to reflect a salary adjustment to one classification as a result of market study results; and

WHEREAS, the Salary Plan has been revised to reflect the addition of one additional classification; and

WHEREAS, the Salary Plan must be amende d to ensure it is reflective of these changes.

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

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

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

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

Section 4 . The City Manager may approve in advance of an established effective date, payment to certain classifications in the Management Unit of all or a portio n of a general salary increase previously approved by the City Council. Such advance payments shall be made only for those management classifications where the salary range is less than ten percent above an immediately subordinate classification. The amoun t of advance payment approved by the City Manager shall not exceed the amount required to establish a ten

ATTACHMENT II

Page 2 of 2 ends

percent salary differential between the affected classifications. The City Manager shall advise the City Council and each bargaining unit in advance of any payments made pursuant to the provisions of this section.

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

Section 6. This resolution supersedes Resolution No. 23-034 and all amendments thereto.

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA _______________________, 2023

ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

MAYOR:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: ______________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Hayward

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

__________________________________________
City Attorney of the City of Hayward

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

ATTACHMENT III
Recommended by
Personnel Commission
on Februrary 2, 2023
Approved by Council
on February 21, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS/APPOINTED OFFICERS/EXECUTIVES
Hourly
Bi-Weekly
Monthly
Annual 39,960.00
Hourly
Bi-Weekly
Monthly
Annual 24,975.00
Hourly 152.76
Bi-Weekly 12,220.80
Monthly 26,478.40
Annual 317,740.80
Hourly 132.36
Bi-Weekly 10,588.80
Monthly 22,942.40
Annual 275,308.80
Hourly 80.11
Bi-Weekly 6,408.80
Monthly 13,885.73
Annual 166,628.80
Hourly 104.68 109.92 115.41 121.18 127.24
Bi-Weekly 8,374.40 8,793.60 9,232.80 9,694.40 10,179.20 Monthly 18,144.53 19,052.80 20,004.40 21,004.53 22,054.93 Annual 217,734.40 228,633.60 240,052.80 252,054.40 264,659.20 Hourly 105.93 111.21 116.78 122.62 128.74
Bi-Weekly 8,474.40 8,896.80 9,342.40 9,809.60 10,299.20 Monthly 18,361.20 19,276.40 20,241.87 21,254.13 22,314.93 Annual 220,334.40 231,316.80 242,902.40 255,049.60 267,779.20 Hourly 73.99 77.70 81.56 85.66 89.95
Bi-Weekly 5,919.20 6,216.00 6,524.80 6,852.80 7,196.00
Monthly 12,824.93 13,468.00 14,137.07 14,847.73 15,591.33 Annual 153,899.20 161,616.00 169,644.80 178,172.80 187,096.00 Hourly 95.51 100.28 105.30 110.58 116.09
Bi-Weekly 7,640.80 8,022.40 8,424.00 8,846.40 9,287.20
Monthly 16,555.07 17,381.87 18,252.00 19,167.20 20,122.27 Annual 198,660.80 208,582.40 219,024.00 230,006.40 241,467.20 Hourly 93.41 98.07 102.99 108.14 113.54
Bi-Weekly 7,472.80 7,845.60 8,239.20 8,651.20 9,083.20
Monthly 16,191.07 16,998.80 17,851.60 18,744.27 19,680.27 Annual 194,292.80 203,985.60 214,219.20 224,931.20 236,163.20 Hourly 91.63 96.20 101.03 106.08 111.37
Bi-Weekly 7,330.40 7,696.00 8,082.40 8,486.40 8,909.60
Monthly 15,882.53 16,674.67 17,511.87 18,387.20 19,304.13 Annual 190,590.40 200,096.00 210,142.40 220,646.40 231,649.60 Hourly 95.51 100.27 105.29 110.55 116.07
Bi-Weekly 7,640.80 8,021.60 8,423.20 8,844.00 9,285.60
Monthly 16,555.07 17,380.13 18,250.27 19,162.00 20,118.80 Annual 198,660.80 208,561.60 219,003.20 229,944.00 241,425.60 Hourly 94.31 98.99 103.96 109.17 114.62
Bi-Weekly 7,544.80 7,919.20 8,316.80 8,733.60 9,169.60
Monthly 16,347.07 17,158.27 18,019.73 18,922.80 19,867.47 Annual 196,164.80 205,899.20 216,236.80 227,073.60 238,409.60 Hourly 93.41 98.07 102.99 108.14 113.54
Bi-Weekly 7,472.80 7,845.60 8,239.20 8,651.20 9,083.20
Monthly 16,191.07 16,998.80 17,851.60 18,744.27 19,680.27 Annual 194,292.80 203,985.60 214,219.20 224,931.20 236,163.20 Hourly 93.41 98.07 102.99 108.14 113.54
Bi-Weekly 7,472.80 7,845.60 8,239.20 8,651.20 9,083.20
Monthly 16,191.07 16,998.80 17,851.60 18,744.27 19,680.27 Annual 194,292.80 203,985.60 214,219.20 224,931.20 236,163.20 Hourly 95.16 99.94 104.93 110.20 115.68
Bi-Weekly 7,612.80 7,995.20 8,394.40 8,816.00 9,254.40
Monthly 16,494.40 17,322.93 18,187.87 19,101.33 20,051.20 Annual 197,932.80 207,875.20 218,254.40 229,216.00 240,614.40 Hourly 115.80 121.57 127.66 134.05 140.75
Bi-Weekly 9,264.00 9,725.60 10,212.80 10,724.00 11,260.00 Monthly 20,072.00 21,072.13 22,127.73 23,235.33 24,396.67 Annual 240,864.00 252,865.60 265,532.80 278,824.00 292,760.00 E110 Unclassified
UnclassifiedE100
A110 Unclassified
UnclassifiedA100
A120 Unclassified
UnclassifiedU311
P500 Unclassified
U735 Unclassified
U725 Unclassified
UnclassifiedU700
U505 Unclassified
U710 Unclassified
U720 Unclassified
U705 Unclassified
F800 Unclassified
U730 Unclassified
UnclassifiedU715

DIRECTOR OF LIBRARY SERVICES

DIRECTOR OF MAINTENANCE SERVICES

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

FIRE CHIEF

COMMUNICATIONS AND MARKETING OFFICER / PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER (PIO)

DEPUTY CITY MANAGER

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

DIRECTOR OF FINANCE

DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES

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

CITY COUNCIL

CITY MANAGER

CITY ATTORNEY

CITY CLERK

ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

CHIEF OF POLICE
Salaries Effective February 27, 2023 1

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

ATTACHMENT III
Recommended by
Personnel Commission
on Februrary 2, 2023
Approved by Council
on February 21, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

CITY WIDE ADMINISTRATIVE/ANALYTICAL SUPPORT
Hourly 55.59 58.34 61.26 64.32 67.53
Bi-Weekly 4,447.20 4,667.20 4,900.80 5,145.60 5,402.40
Monthly 9,635.60 10,112.27 10,618.40 11,148.80 11,705.20 Annual 115,627.20 121,347.20 127,420.80 133,785.60 140,462.40 Hourly 50.54 53.07 55.72 58.50 61.41
Bi-Weekly 4,043.20 4,245.60 4,457.60 4,680.00 4,912.80
Monthly 8,760.27 9,198.80 9,658.13 10,140.00 10,644.40
Annual 105,123.20 110,385.60 115,897.60 121,680.00 127,732.80 Hourly 45.95 48.26 50.66 53.18 55.84
Bi-Weekly 3,676.00 3,860.80 4,052.80 4,254.40 4,467.20
Monthly 7,964.67 8,365.07 8,781.07 9,217.87 9,678.93
Annual 95,576.00 100,380.80 105,372.80 110,614.40 116,147.20 Hourly 44.85 46.91 49.03 51.13 53.38
Bi-Weekly 3,588.00 3,752.80 3,922.40 4,090.40 4,270.40
Monthly 7,774.00 8,131.07 8,498.53 8,862.53 9,252.53
Annual 93,288.00 97,572.80 101,982.40 106,350.40 111,030.40 Hourly 44.42 46.62 48.96 51.38 53.96
Bi-Weekly 3,553.60 3,729.60 3,916.80 4,110.40 4,316.80
Monthly 7,699.47 8,080.80 8,486.40 8,905.87 9,353.07
Annual 92,393.60 96,969.60 101,836.80 106,870.40 112,236.80 Hourly 41.57 43.28 44.98 46.68 48.53
Bi-Weekly 3,325.60 3,462.40 3,598.40 3,734.40 3,882.40
Monthly 7,205.47 7,501.87 7,796.53 8,091.20 8,411.87
Annual 86,465.60 90,022.40 93,558.40 97,094.40 100,942.40 Hourly 38.00 39.48 41.09 42.60 44.24
Bi-Weekly 3,040.00 3,158.40 3,287.20 3,408.00 3,539.20
Monthly 6,586.67 6,843.20 7,122.27 7,384.00 7,668.27
Annual 79,040.00 82,118.40 85,467.20 88,608.00 92,019.20 Hourly 33.44 34.97 36.74 38.44 40.26
Bi-Weekly 2,675.20 2,797.60 2,939.20 3,075.20 3,220.80
Monthly 5,796.27 6,061.47 6,368.27 6,662.93 6,978.40
Annual 69,555.20 72,737.60 76,419.20 79,955.20 83,740.80 Hourly 29.32 30.53 31.77 33.19 34.82
Bi-Weekly 2,345.60 2,442.40 2,541.60 2,655.20 2,785.60
Monthly 5,082.13 5,291.87 5,506.80 5,752.93 6,035.47
Annual 60,985.60 63,502.40 66,081.60 69,035.20 72,425.60 Hourly 25.81 27.19 28.56 30.09 31.66
Bi-Weekly 2,064.80 2,175.20 2,284.80 2,407.20 2,532.80
Monthly 4,473.73 4,712.93 4,950.40 5,215.60 5,487.73
Annual 53,684.80 56,555.20 59,404.80 62,587.20 65,852.80 Hourly 15.82 20.00
Bi-Weekly 1,265.60 1,600.00
Monthly 2,742.13 3,466.67
Annual 32,905.60 41,600.00
Hourly 17.73 18.59 19.53
Bi-Weekly 1,418.40 1,487.20 1,562.40
Monthly 3,073.20 3,222.27 3,385.20
Annual 36,878.40 38,667.20 40,622.40
H105 Classified
ClassifiedH110
H115 Classified
ClassifiedC120
H120 Classified
UnclassifiedU315
C105 Classified
ClassifiedC110
C115 Classified
C410 Classified
ClassifiedZ120
C100 Classified

ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK II

ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK I

ADMINISTRATIVE INTERN

MAIL CLERK

MANAGEMENT ANALYST I

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISOR

ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY

SENIOR SECRETARY

SECRETARY

SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST

MANAGEMENT ANALYST II
Salaries Effective February 27, 2023 2

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

ATTACHMENT III
Recommended by
Personnel Commission
on Februrary 2, 2023
Approved by Council
on February 21, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

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

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

CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT
Hourly 50.54 53.08 55.71 58.50 61.42
Bi-Weekly 4,043.20 4,246.40 4,456.80 4,680.00 4,913.60
Monthly 8,760.27 9,200.53 9,656.40 10,140.00 10,646.13
Annual 105,123.20 110,406.40 115,876.80 121,680.00 127,753.60 ClassifiedM305
M405 Classified
ClassifiedM410
ClassifiedU215
U210 Classified
M200
M300
M830
M905
Classified
U196
U195
Classified
Classified
ClassifiedU205
U200 Classified
ClassifiedH500
C930 Classified
ClassifiedC935

SENIOR PARALEGAL

PARALEGAL

LEGAL SECRETARY II

LEGAL SECRETARY I

DEPUTY CITY CLERK

MAINTENANCE WORKER

LABORER

SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY

ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY

DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY II

DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY I

ELECTRICIAN II

ELECTRICIAN I
Salaries Effective February 27, 2023 3

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

ATTACHMENT III
Recommended by
Personnel Commission
on Februrary 2, 2023
Approved by Council
on February 21, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT

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

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

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

NEIGHBORHOOD PARTNERSHIP SERVICES
Hourly 68.85 72.26 75.87 79.66 83.65
Bi-Weekly 5,508.00 5,780.80 6,069.60 6,372.80 6,692.00
Monthly 11,934.00 12,525.07 13,150.80 13,807.73 14,499.33 Annual 143,208.00 150,300.80 157,809.60 165,692.80 173,992.00 Hourly 61.90 65.00 68.23 71.66 75.24
Bi-Weekly 4,952.00 5,200.00 5,458.40 5,732.80 6,019.20
Monthly 10,729.33 11,266.67 11,826.53 12,421.07 13,041.60 Annual 128,752.00 135,200.00 141,918.40 149,052.80 156,499.20 U340 Classified
ClassifiedT470
T300 Classified
U320 Unclassified
Classified
Classified
H745
T705
U300 Classified
T715 Classified
T725 Classified
T730 Classified
H735 Classified
ClassifiedH730
H710 Classified
ClassifiedT745
U330 Classified

PROPERTY REHABILITATION SPECIALIST

PARATRANSIT COORDINATOR

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANAGER

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST

NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT MANAGER

NEIGHBORHOOD PARTNERSHIP MANAGER

CHIEF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

GRAPHICS AND MEDIA RELATIONS TECHNICIAN

DIGITAL APPLICATIONS DEVELOPER

MANAGEMENT FELLOW

COMMUNITY SERVICES MANAGER

COMMUNITY PROGRAMS SPECIALIST

SENIOR PROPERTY REHABILITATION SPECIALIST

ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER

EQUITY AND INCLUSION OFFICER
Salaries Effective February 27, 2023 4

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

ATTACHMENT III
Recommended by
Personnel Commission
on Februrary 2, 2023
Approved by Council
on February 21, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

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

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

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

BUILDING DIVISION
Hourly 71.57 75.16 78.90 82.88 87.00
Bi-Weekly 5,725.60 6,012.80 6,312.00 6,630.40 6,960.00
Monthly 12,405.47 13,027.73 13,676.00 14,365.87 15,080.00 Annual 148,865.60 156,332.80 164,112.00 172,390.40 180,960.00 Hourly 61.08 64.13 67.34 70.71 74.25
Bi-Weekly 4,886.40 5,130.40 5,387.20 5,656.80 5,940.00
Monthly 10,587.20 11,115.87 11,672.27 12,256.40 12,870.00 Annual 127,046.40 133,390.40 140,067.20 147,076.80 154,440.00 Hourly 53.77 56.64 59.50 62.30 65.41
Bi-Weekly 4,301.60 4,531.20 4,760.00 4,984.00 5,232.80
Monthly 9,320.13 9,817.60 10,313.33 10,798.67 11,337.73 Annual 111,841.60 117,811.20 123,760.00 129,584.00 136,052.80 Hourly 53.77 56.64 59.50 62.30 65.41
Bi-Weekly 4,301.60 4,531.20 4,760.00 4,984.00 5,232.80
Monthly 9,320.13 9,817.60 10,313.33 10,798.67 11,337.73 Annual 111,841.60 117,811.20 123,760.00 129,584.00 136,052.80 Hourly 53.77 56.64 59.50 62.30 65.41
Bi-Weekly 4,301.60 4,531.20 4,760.00 4,984.00 5,232.80
Monthly 9,320.13 9,817.60 10,313.33 10,798.67 11,337.73 Annual 111,841.60 117,811.20 123,760.00 129,584.00 136,052.80 Hourly 46.42 48.61 51.08 53.68 57.19
Bi-Weekly 3,713.60 3,888.80 4,086.40 4,294.40 4,575.20
Monthly 8,046.13 8,425.73 8,853.87 9,304.53 9,912.93
Annual 96,553.60 101,108.80 106,246.40 111,654.40 118,955.20 Hourly 57.03 59.78 62.80 66.08 69.43
Bi-Weekly 4,562.40 4,782.40 5,024.00 5,286.40 5,554.40
Monthly 9,885.20 10,361.87 10,885.33 11,453.87 12,034.53 Annual 118,622.40 124,342.40 130,624.00 137,446.40 144,414.40 Hourly 64.82 68.05 71.47 75.05 78.81
Bi-Weekly 5,185.60 5,444.00 5,717.60 6,004.00 6,304.80
Monthly 11,235.47 11,795.33 12,388.13 13,008.67 13,660.40 Annual 134,825.60 141,544.00 148,657.60 156,104.00 163,924.80 Hourly 53.77 56.64 59.50 62.30 65.41
Bi-Weekly 4,301.60 4,531.20 4,760.00 4,984.00 5,232.80
Monthly 9,320.13 9,817.60 10,313.33 10,798.67 11,337.73 Annual 111,841.60 117,811.20 123,760.00 129,584.00 136,052.80 Hourly 48.90 51.46 54.09 56.66 59.49
Bi-Weekly 3,912.00 4,116.80 4,327.20 4,532.80 4,759.20
Monthly 8,476.00 8,919.73 9,375.60 9,821.07 10,311.60
Annual 101,712.00 107,036.80 112,507.20 117,852.80 123,739.20 U515 Classified
T710 Classified
H715 Classified
T750 Classified
ClassifiedT365
H335 Classified
ClassifiedH330
ClassifiedT360
T355
T350
T335 Classified
Classified
Classified
ClassifiedT325
T330
H325 Classified
ClassifiedSENIOR PLAN CHECKER

PLAN CHECKER

SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR/STRUCTURAL

SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR/PLUMBING-MECHANICAL

SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR/ELECTRICAL

BUILDING INSPECTOR

PLAN CHECKING ENGINEER

SUPERVISING PLAN CHECKER AND EXPEDITOR

HOUSING MANAGER

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST

HOMEOWNERSHIP COORDINATOR

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL

SUPERVISING BUILDING INSPECTOR
Salaries Effective February 27, 2023 5

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

ATTACHMENT III
Recommended by
Personnel Commission
on Februrary 2, 2023
Approved by Council
on February 21, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Hourly 43.60 45.78 48.06 50.47 52.99
Bi-Weekly 3,488.00 3,662.40 3,844.80 4,037.60 4,239.20
Monthly 7,557.33 7,935.20 8,330.40 8,748.13 9,184.93
Annual 90,688.00 95,222.40 99,964.80 104,977.60 110,219.20 Hourly 40.20 41.86 43.48 45.36 47.67
Bi-Weekly 3,216.00 3,348.80 3,478.40 3,628.80 3,813.60
Monthly 6,968.00 7,255.73 7,536.53 7,862.40 8,262.80
Annual 83,616.00 87,068.80 90,438.40 94,348.80 99,153.60 Hourly 36.25 37.68 39.21 40.91 42.97
Bi-Weekly 2,900.00 3,014.40 3,136.80 3,272.80 3,437.60
Monthly 6,283.33 6,531.20 6,796.40 7,091.07 7,448.13
Annual 75,400.00 78,374.40 81,556.80 85,092.80 89,377.60 Hourly 32.95 34.25 35.64 37.16 39.06
Bi-Weekly 2,636.00 2,740.00 2,851.20 2,972.80 3,124.80
Monthly 5,711.33 5,936.67 6,177.60 6,441.07 6,770.40
Annual 68,536.00 71,240.00 74,131.20 77,292.80 81,244.80

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

CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION
Hourly 56.57 59.40 62.35 65.47 68.73
Bi-Weekly 4,525.60 4,752.00 4,988.00 5,237.60 5,498.40
Monthly 9,805.47 10,296.00 10,807.33 11,348.13 11,913.20 Annual 117,665.60 123,552.00 129,688.00 136,177.60 142,958.40 Hourly 49.17 51.64 54.23 56.92 59.78
Bi-Weekly 3,933.60 4,131.20 4,338.40 4,553.60 4,782.40
Monthly 8,522.80 8,950.93 9,399.87 9,866.13 10,361.87
Annual 102,273.60 107,411.20 112,798.40 118,393.60 124,342.40 Hourly 48.56 50.99 53.53 56.21 59.02
Bi-Weekly 3,884.80 4,079.20 4,282.40 4,496.80 4,721.60
Monthly 8,417.07 8,838.27 9,278.53 9,743.07 10,230.13
Annual 101,004.80 106,059.20 111,342.40 116,916.80 122,761.60 Hourly 44.14 46.33 48.64 51.09 53.63
Bi-Weekly 3,531.20 3,706.40 3,891.20 4,087.20 4,290.40
Monthly 7,650.93 8,030.53 8,430.93 8,855.60 9,295.87
Annual 91,811.20 96,366.40 101,171.20 106,267.20 111,550.40 Hourly 40.12 42.12 44.21 46.43 48.77
Bi-Weekly 3,209.60 3,369.60 3,536.80 3,714.40 3,901.60
Monthly 6,954.13 7,300.80 7,663.07 8,047.87 8,453.47
Annual 83,449.60 87,609.60 91,956.80 96,574.40 101,441.60 H340 Classified
ClassifiedC199
C200 Classified
ClassifiedC205
ClassifiedT315
H310 Classified
ClassifiedH320
H315 Classified
ClassifiedT320
T310
T305
Classified
Classified
T605 Classified
ClassifiedT600
T370
H300 Classified
Classified
ClassifiedH703
H700 Classified
T610 Classified

CODE ENFORCEMENT INSPECTOR II

CODE ENFORCEMENT INSPECTOR I

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SPECIALIST

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

ASSOCIATE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER

CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR

SENIOR CODE ENFORCEMENT INSPECTOR

PLANNING MANAGER

PRINCIPAL PLANNER

SENIOR PLANNER

ASSOCIATE PLANNER

ASSISTANT PLANNER

JUNIOR PLANNER

SUPERVISING PERMIT TECHNICIAN

SENIOR PERMIT TECHNICIAN

PERMIT TECHNICIAN II

PERMIT TECHNICIAN I
Salaries Effective February 27, 2023 6

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

ATTACHMENT III
Recommended by
Personnel Commission
on Februrary 2, 2023
Approved by Council
on February 21, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

FINANCE DEPARTMENT

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

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

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

PURCHASING DIVISION
Hourly 58.20 61.11 64.16 67.36 70.71
Bi-Weekly 4,656.00 4,888.80 5,132.80 5,388.80 5,656.80
Monthly 10,088.00 10,592.40 11,121.07 11,675.73 12,256.40 Annual 121,056.00 127,108.80 133,452.80 140,108.80 147,076.80 Hourly 38.77 40.70 42.73 44.87 47.13
Bi-Weekly 3,101.60 3,256.00 3,418.40 3,589.60 3,770.40
Monthly 6,720.13 7,054.67 7,406.53 7,777.47 8,169.20
Annual 80,641.60 84,656.00 88,878.40 93,329.60 98,030.40 Hourly 27.84 29.24 30.60 32.20 33.77
Bi-Weekly 2,227.20 2,339.20 2,448.00 2,576.00 2,701.60
Monthly 4,825.60 5,068.27 5,304.00 5,581.33 5,853.47
Annual 57,907.20 60,819.20 63,648.00 66,976.00 70,241.60 H165 Classified
ClassifiedC320
U500
H170
Classified
Classified
H140
H145 Classified
Classified
ClassifiedH150
H160
H155
Classified
Classified
ClassifiedC305
C300 Classified
C332
C330
C325
C322
Classified
Classified
Classified
Classified
H180 Classified
C345 Classified
ClassifiedC335

PURCHASING TECHNICIAN

MAIL AND PURCHASING CLERK

FINANCE SUPERVISOR

SUPERVISING CUSTOMER ACCOUNT CLERK

SENIOR CUSTOMER ACCOUNT CLERK

CUSTOMER ACCOUNT CLERK

MAIL AND REVENUE CLERK

PURCHASING AND SERVICES MANAGER

ACCOUNTING MANAGER

SENIOR ACCOUNTANT

ACCOUNTANT

SENIOR ACCOUNT CLERK

ACCOUNT CLERK

REVENUE MANAGER

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE

BUDGET OFFICER

FINANCIAL ANALYST

FINANCE TECHNICIAN
Salaries Effective February 27, 2023 7

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

ATTACHMENT III
Recommended by
Personnel Commission
on Februrary 2, 2023
Approved by Council
on February 21, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

FIRE DEPARTMENT
SWORN
Hourly 105.21 110.47 116.00 121.80 127.88
Bi-Weekly 8,416.80 8,837.60 9,280.00 9,744.00 10,230.40 Monthly 18,236.40 19,148.13 20,106.67 21,112.00 22,165.87 Annual 218,836.80 229,777.60 241,280.00 253,344.00 265,990.40 Hourly 84.70 88.94 93.39 98.06 102.95
Bi-Weekly 6,776.00 7,115.20 7,471.20 7,844.80 8,236.00
Monthly 14,681.33 15,416.27 16,187.60 16,997.07 17,844.67 Annual 176,176.00 184,995.20 194,251.20 203,964.80 214,136.00 Hourly 91.49 96.06 100.86 105.90 111.20
Bi-Weekly 7,319.20 7,684.80 8,068.80 8,472.00 8,896.00
Monthly 15,858.27 16,650.40 17,482.40 18,356.00 19,274.67 Annual 190,299.20 199,804.80 209,788.80 220,272.00 231,296.00 Hourly 91.49 96.06 100.86 105.90 111.20
Bi-Weekly 7,319.20 7,684.80 8,068.80 8,472.00 8,896.00
Monthly 15,858.27 16,650.40 17,482.40 18,356.00 19,274.67 Annual 190,299.20 199,804.80 209,788.80 220,272.00 231,296.00 Hourly 59.40 62.37 65.49 68.77 72.21
Bi-Weekly 6,652.80 6,985.44 7,334.88 7,702.24 8,087.52
Monthly 14,414.40 15,135.12 15,892.24 16,688.19 17,522.96 Annual 172,972.80 181,621.44 190,706.88 200,258.24 210,275.52 Hourly 83.16 87.31 91.70 96.28 101.08
Bi-Weekly 6,652.80 6,984.80 7,336.00 7,702.40 8,086.40
Monthly 14,414.40 15,133.73 15,894.67 16,688.53 17,520.53 Annual 172,972.80 181,604.80 190,736.00 200,262.40 210,246.40 Hourly 80.08 84.08 88.29
Bi-Weekly 6,406.40 6,726.40 7,063.20
Monthly 13,880.53 14,573.87 15,303.60
Annual 166,566.40 174,886.40 183,643.20
Hourly 74.14 77.85 81.74
Bi-Weekly 5,931.20 6,228.00 6,539.20
Monthly 12,850.93 13,494.00 14,168.27
Annual 154,211.20 161,928.00 170,019.20
Hourly 51.98 54.58 57.33
Bi-Weekly 5,821.76 6,112.96 6,420.96
Monthly 12,613.81 13,244.75 13,912.08
Annual 151,365.76 158,936.96 166,944.96
Hourly 72.80 76.43 80.24
Bi-Weekly 5,824.00 6,114.40 6,419.20
Monthly 12,618.67 13,247.87 13,908.27
Annual 151,424.00 158,974.40 166,899.20
Hourly 44.06 46.24 48.54 50.98 53.52
Bi-Weekly 4,934.72 5,178.88 5,436.48 5,709.76 5,994.24
Monthly 10,691.89 11,220.91 11,779.04 12,371.15 12,987.52 Annual 128,302.72 134,650.88 141,348.48 148,453.76 155,850.24 Hourly 57.06 59.92 62.92 66.07 69.37
Bi-Weekly 4,564.80 4,793.60 5,033.60 5,285.60 5,549.60
Monthly 9,890.40 10,386.13 10,906.13 11,452.13 12,024.13 Annual 118,684.80 124,633.60 130,873.60 137,425.60 144,289.60 Hourly 61.62 64.72 67.95 71.35 74.90
Bi-Weekly 4,929.60 5,177.60 5,436.00 5,708.00 5,992.00
Monthly 10,680.80 11,218.13 11,778.00 12,367.33 12,982.67 Annual 128,169.60 134,617.60 141,336.00 148,408.00 155,792.00 Hourly 41.70 43.79 45.98 48.28 50.69
Bi-Weekly 4,670.40 4,904.48 5,149.76 5,407.36 5,677.28
Monthly 10,119.20 10,626.37 11,157.81 11,715.95 12,300.77 Annual 121,430.40 127,516.48 133,893.76 140,591.36 147,609.28 Hourly 38.63 40.54 42.58 44.70 46.94
Bi-Weekly 4,326.56 4,540.48 4,768.96 5,006.40 5,257.28
Monthly 9,374.21 9,837.71 10,332.75 10,847.20 11,390.77 Annual 112,490.56 118,052.48 123,992.96 130,166.40 136,689.28 Hourly 58.33 61.25 64.31 67.52 70.91
Bi-Weekly 4,666.40 4,900.00 5,144.80 5,401.60 5,672.80
Monthly 10,110.53 10,616.67 11,147.07 11,703.47 12,291.07 Annual 121,326.40 127,400.00 133,764.80 140,441.60 147,492.80 Hourly 39.30 41.27 43.33 45.51 47.79
Bi-Weekly 4,401.60 4,622.24 4,852.96 5,097.12 5,352.48
Monthly 9,536.80 10,014.85 10,514.75 11,043.76 11,597.04 Annual 114,441.60 120,178.24 126,176.96 132,525.12 139,164.48 Hourly 55.04 57.78 60.66 63.70 66.89
Bi-Weekly 4,403.20 4,622.40 4,852.80 5,096.00 5,351.20
Monthly 9,540.27 10,015.20 10,514.40 11,041.33 11,594.27 Annual 114,483.20 120,182.40 126,172.80 132,496.00 139,131.20 Hourly 47.38 49.74
Bi-Weekly 3,790.40 3,979.20
Monthly 8,212.53 8,621.60
Annual 98,550.40 103,459.20
Classified
ClassifiedF401
F600
F415 Classified
ClassifiedF400
F420 Classified
ClassifiedF410
F225 Classified
F250 Classified
Classified
Classified
ClassifiedF245
F241
F240
F221 Classified
ClassifiedF220
F210 Classified
ClassifiedF200
F211 Classified
ClassifiedF215
F100 Classified
F205 Classified
FIREFIGHTER (56 HR)
FIREFIGHTER (40 HR)
FIREFIGHTER TRAINEE (40 HR)
FIRE PREVENTION INSPECTOR (56 HR)
FIRE PREVENTION INSPECTOR - EMT (40 HR)
FIRE PREVENTION INSPECTOR (40 HR)
APPARATUS OPERATOR (56 HR)
APPARATUS OPERATOR - EMT (56 HR)
APPARATUS OPERATOR (40 HR)
BATTALION CHIEF (56 HR)
BATTALION CHIEF (40 HR)
STAFF FIRE CAPTAIN (40 HR)
STAFF FIRE CAPTAIN - EMT (40 HR)
FIRE CAPTAIN (56 HR)
FIRE CAPTAIN (40 HR)
DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF (40 HR)
FIRE MARSHAL - EMT (40 HR)
FIRE MARSHAL (40 HR)
FIRE TRAINING OFFICER (40 HR)
Salaries Effective February 27, 2023 8

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

ATTACHMENT III
Recommended by
Personnel Commission
on Februrary 2, 2023
Approved by Council
on February 21, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

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

HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
Hourly 79.83 83.81 88.00 92.41 97.02
Bi-Weekly 6,386.40 6,704.80 7,040.00 7,392.80 7,761.60
Monthly 13,837.20 14,527.07 15,253.33 16,017.73 16,816.80 Annual 166,046.40 174,324.80 183,040.00 192,212.80 201,801.60 Hourly 72.55 76.18 79.99 83.99 88.19
Bi-Weekly 5,804.00 6,094.40 6,399.20 6,719.20 7,055.20
Monthly 12,575.33 13,204.53 13,864.93 14,558.27 15,286.27 Annual 150,904.00 158,454.40 166,379.20 174,699.20 183,435.20 Hourly 55.60 58.35 61.27 64.33 67.55
Bi-Weekly 4,448.00 4,668.00 4,901.60 5,146.40 5,404.00
Monthly 9,637.33 10,114.00 10,620.13 11,150.53 11,708.67 Annual 115,648.00 121,368.00 127,441.60 133,806.40 140,504.00 Hourly 50.55 53.08 55.73 58.50 61.43
Bi-Weekly 4,044.00 4,246.40 4,458.40 4,680.00 4,914.40
Monthly 8,762.00 9,200.53 9,659.87 10,140.00 10,647.87
Annual 105,144.00 110,406.40 115,918.40 121,680.00 127,774.40 Hourly 45.95 48.27 50.67 53.18 55.85
Bi-Weekly 3,676.00 3,861.60 4,053.60 4,254.40 4,468.00
Monthly 7,964.67 8,366.80 8,782.80 9,217.87 9,680.67
Annual 95,576.00 100,401.60 105,393.60 110,614.40 116,168.00 Hourly 41.79 43.89 46.09 48.37 50.77
Bi-Weekly 3,343.20 3,511.20 3,687.20 3,869.60 4,061.60
Monthly 7,243.60 7,607.60 7,988.93 8,384.13 8,800.13
Annual 86,923.20 91,291.20 95,867.20 100,609.60 105,601.60 Hourly 43.66 45.45 47.24 49.02 50.96
Bi-Weekly 3,492.80 3,636.00 3,779.20 3,921.60 4,076.80
Monthly 7,567.73 7,878.00 8,188.27 8,496.80 8,833.07
Annual 90,812.80 94,536.00 98,259.20 101,961.60 105,996.80 ClassifiedH590
T505 Classified
ClassifiedH585
T510 Classified
ClassifiedC260
H580 Classified
ClassifiedT500
U520 Classified
ClassifiedC250
C255 Classified
Classified
Classified
ClassifiedU115
U120
U135
U105 Classified
ClassifiedU100
U110 Classified

HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES

HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER

SENIOR HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST

HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST II

HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST I

HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN

ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INSPECTOR

FIRE SERVICES SUPERVISOR

SENIOR FIRE TECHNICIAN

FIRE TECHNICIAN II

FIRE TECHNICIAN I

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAM COORDINATOR

FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES COORDINATOR
Salaries Effective February 27, 2023 9

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

ATTACHMENT III
Recommended by
Personnel Commission
on Februrary 2, 2023
Approved by Council
on February 21, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

LIBRARY SERVICES DEPARTMENT

LIBRARY SERVICES DIVISION
Hourly 48.16 50.56 53.09 55.73 58.52
Bi-Weekly 3,852.80 4,044.80 4,247.20 4,458.40 4,681.60
Monthly 8,347.73 8,763.73 9,202.27 9,659.87 10,143.47
Annual 100,172.80 105,164.80 110,427.20 115,918.40 121,721.60 Hourly 48.16 50.56 53.09 55.73 58.52
Bi-Weekly 3,852.80 4,044.80 4,247.20 4,458.40 4,681.60
Monthly 8,347.73 8,763.73 9,202.27 9,659.87 10,143.47
Annual 100,172.80 105,164.80 110,427.20 115,918.40 121,721.60 Hourly 38.15 40.07 41.99 44.13 46.21
Bi-Weekly 3,052.00 3,205.60 3,359.20 3,530.40 3,696.80
Monthly 6,612.67 6,945.47 7,278.27 7,649.20 8,009.73
Annual 79,352.00 83,345.60 87,339.20 91,790.40 96,116.80 Hourly 34.60 36.33 38.15 39.96 42.00
Bi-Weekly 2,768.00 2,906.40 3,052.00 3,196.80 3,360.00
Monthly 5,997.33 6,297.20 6,612.67 6,926.40 7,280.00
Annual 71,968.00 75,566.40 79,352.00 83,116.80 87,360.00 Hourly 33.66 35.36 37.05 38.86 40.91
Bi-Weekly 2,692.80 2,828.80 2,964.00 3,108.80 3,272.80
Monthly 5,834.40 6,129.07 6,422.00 6,735.73 7,091.07
Annual 70,012.80 73,548.80 77,064.00 80,828.80 85,092.80 Hourly 31.08 32.46 33.94 35.43 37.14
Bi-Weekly 2,486.40 2,596.80 2,715.20 2,834.40 2,971.20
Monthly 5,387.20 5,626.40 5,882.93 6,141.20 6,437.60
Annual 64,646.40 67,516.80 70,595.20 73,694.40 77,251.20 Hourly 28.16 29.47 30.80 32.21 33.72
Bi-Weekly 2,252.80 2,357.60 2,464.00 2,576.80 2,697.60
Monthly 4,881.07 5,108.13 5,338.67 5,583.07 5,844.80
Annual 58,572.80 61,297.60 64,064.00 66,996.80 70,137.60 Hourly 22.65
Bi-Weekly 1,087.20
Monthly 2,355.60
Annual 28,267.20
Hourly 20.58
Bi-Weekly 493.92
Monthly 1,070.16
Annual 12,841.92
Hourly 48.16 50.56 53.09 55.73 58.52
Bi-Weekly 3,852.80 4,044.80 4,247.20 4,458.40 4,681.60
Monthly 8,347.73 8,763.73 9,202.27 9,659.87 10,143.47
Annual 100,172.80 105,164.80 110,427.20 115,918.40 121,721.60 Hourly 33.81 35.51 37.30 39.15 41.12
Bi-Weekly 2,704.80 2,840.80 2,984.00 3,132.00 3,289.60
Monthly 5,860.40 6,155.07 6,465.33 6,786.00 7,127.47
Annual 70,324.80 73,860.80 77,584.00 81,432.00 85,529.60 Hourly 33.85 35.57 37.33 39.11 41.12
Bi-Weekly 2,708.00 2,845.60 2,986.40 3,128.80 3,289.60
Monthly 5,867.33 6,165.47 6,470.53 6,779.07 7,127.47
Annual 70,408.00 73,985.60 77,646.40 81,348.80 85,529.60 Hourly 33.66 35.36 37.05 38.86 40.91
Bi-Weekly 2,692.80 2,828.80 2,964.00 3,108.80 3,272.80
Monthly 5,834.40 6,129.07 6,422.00 6,735.73 7,091.07
Annual 70,012.80 73,548.80 77,064.00 80,828.80 85,092.80 Hourly 28.16 29.47 30.80 32.21 33.72
Bi-Weekly 2,252.80 2,357.60 2,464.00 2,576.80 2,697.60
Monthly 4,881.07 5,108.13 5,338.67 5,583.07 5,844.80
Annual 58,572.80 61,297.60 64,064.00 66,996.80 70,137.60 ClassifiedT795
H750 Classified
ClassifiedH755
C515
C510 Classified
Classified
ClassifiedT790
C520 Classified
H760 Classified
Classified
Classified
C505
C500
ClassifiedC506
C508 Classified
Classified
ClassifiedT785
T780

LITERACY PROGRAM COORDINATOR

LEAD PROGRAM ASSISTANT

PROGRAM ASSISTANT

SENIOR LIBRARY ASSISTANT

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

EDUCATION SERVICES MANAGER

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES COORDINATOR

LIBRARY OPERATIONS MANAGER

SUPERVISING LIBRARIAN I

LIBRARIAN II

LIBRARIAN I

LEAD LIBRARY ASSISTANT
Salaries Effective February 27, 2023 10

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

ATTACHMENT III
Recommended by
Personnel Commission
on Februrary 2, 2023
Approved by Council
on February 21, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

MAINTENANCE SERVICES DEPARTMENT

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

FLEET MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Hourly 64.28 67.47 70.85 74.40 78.12
Bi-Weekly 5,142.40 5,397.60 5,668.00 5,952.00 6,249.60
Monthly 11,141.87 11,694.80 12,280.67 12,896.00 13,540.80 Annual 133,702.40 140,337.60 147,368.00 154,752.00 162,489.60 Hourly 43.47 45.50 47.80 50.29 52.77
Bi-Weekly 3,477.60 3,640.00 3,824.00 4,023.20 4,221.60
Monthly 7,534.80 7,886.67 8,285.33 8,716.93 9,146.80
Annual 90,417.60 94,640.00 99,424.00 104,603.20 109,761.60 Hourly 37.45 39.20 41.19 43.34 45.48
Bi-Weekly 2,996.00 3,136.00 3,295.20 3,467.20 3,638.40
Monthly 6,491.33 6,794.67 7,139.60 7,512.27 7,883.20
Annual 77,896.00 81,536.00 85,675.20 90,147.20 94,598.40 Hourly 34.09 35.80 37.64 39.49 41.44
Bi-Weekly 2,727.20 2,864.00 3,011.20 3,159.20 3,315.20
Monthly 5,908.93 6,205.33 6,524.27 6,844.93 7,182.93
Annual 70,907.20 74,464.00 78,291.20 82,139.20 86,195.20 Hourly 31.75 33.46 35.06 36.84 38.71
Bi-Weekly 2,540.00 2,676.80 2,804.80 2,947.20 3,096.80
Monthly 5,503.33 5,799.73 6,077.07 6,385.60 6,709.73
Annual 66,040.00 69,596.80 72,924.80 76,627.20 80,516.80 Hourly 29.31 30.46 31.72 32.80 34.07
Bi-Weekly 2,344.80 2,436.80 2,537.60 2,624.00 2,725.60
Monthly 5,080.40 5,279.73 5,498.13 5,685.33 5,905.47
Annual 60,964.80 63,356.80 65,977.60 68,224.00 70,865.60 ClassifiedM130
M140 Classified
ClassifiedH605
M135 Classified
M125 Classified
ClassifiedM120
M115 Classified
ClassifiedM620
H635 Classified
M110 Classified
ClassifiedM105
Classified
ClassifiedM600
M605
M615
M610 Classified
Classified

FLEET MAINTENANCE MANAGER

SENIOR EQUIPMENT MECHANIC

EQUIPMENT MECHANIC II

EQUIPMENT MECHANIC I

EQUIPMENT PARTS STOREKEEPER

EQUIPMENT SERVICE ATTENDANT

FACILITIES PAINTER II

FACILITIES PAINTER I

FACILITIES CARPENTER II

FACILITIES CARPENTER I

FACILITIES SERVICEWORKER II

FACILITIES SERVICEWORKER I

FACILITIES AND BUILDING MANAGER

FACILITIES LEADWORKER

HVAC MECHANIC
Salaries Effective February 27, 2023 11

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

ATTACHMENT III
Recommended by
Personnel Commission
on Februrary 2, 2023
Approved by Council
on February 21, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

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

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

POLICE DEPARTMENT
SWORN
Hourly 93.49 98.15 103.08 108.22 113.62
Bi-Weekly 7,479.20 7,852.00 8,246.40 8,657.60 9,089.60
Monthly 16,204.93 17,012.67 17,867.20 18,758.13 19,694.13 Annual 194,459.20 204,152.00 214,406.40 225,097.60 236,329.60 Hourly 83.57 87.64
Bi-Weekly 6,685.60 7,011.20
Monthly 14,485.47 15,190.93
Annual 173,825.60 182,291.20
Hourly 71.60 75.05 78.90
Bi-Weekly 5,728.00 6,004.00 6,312.00
Monthly 12,410.67 13,008.67 13,676.00
Annual 148,928.00 156,104.00 164,112.00
Hourly 52.58 55.10 57.78 60.57 63.45
Bi-Weekly 4,206.40 4,408.00 4,622.40 4,845.60 5,076.00
Monthly 9,113.87 9,550.67 10,015.20 10,498.80 10,998.00 Annual 109,366.40 114,608.00 120,182.40 125,985.60 131,976.00 Hourly 38.47 40.37
Bi-Weekly 3,077.60 3,229.60
Monthly 6,668.13 6,997.47
Annual 80,017.60 83,969.60
M210 Classified
H615 Classified
ClassifiedH610
M215 Classified
M702 Classified
ClassifiedM700
ClassifiedH625
M220 Classified
ClassifiedM205
M310 Classified
ClassifiedM315
H620 Classified
P300
P215 Classified
Classified
ClassifiedP210
P200 Classified
ClassifiedP100

POLICE CAPTAIN

POLICE LIEUTENANT

POLICE SERGEANT

POLICE OFFICER

POLICE OFFICER TRAINEE

STREETS MAINTENANCE MANAGER

STREETS MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR

SENIOR MAINTENANCE LEADER

MAINTENANCE LEADER

LEAD SWEEPER EQUIPMENT OPERATOR

SWEEPER EQUIPMENT OPERATOR

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE MANAGER

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR

GROUNDSKEEPER III

GROUNDSKEEPER II

GROUNDSKEEPER I

TREE TRIMMER
Salaries Effective February 27, 2023 12

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

ATTACHMENT III
Recommended by
Personnel Commission
on Februrary 2, 2023
Approved by Council
on February 21, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

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

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

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

SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION
Hourly 80.15 84.15 89.22 93.68 98.34
Bi-Weekly 6,412.00 6,732.00 7,137.60 7,494.40 7,867.20
Monthly 13,892.67 14,586.00 15,464.80 16,237.87 17,045.60 Annual 166,712.00 175,032.00 185,577.60 194,854.40 204,547.20 Hourly 55.59 58.35 61.26 64.33 67.55
Bi-Weekly 4,447.20 4,668.00 4,900.80 5,146.40 5,404.00
Monthly 9,635.60 10,114.00 10,618.40 11,150.53 11,708.67 Annual 115,627.20 121,368.00 127,420.80 133,806.40 140,504.00 Hourly 41.03 43.08 45.23 47.48 49.84
Bi-Weekly 3,282.40 3,446.40 3,618.40 3,798.40 3,987.20
Monthly 7,111.87 7,467.20 7,839.87 8,229.87 8,638.93
Annual 85,342.40 89,606.40 94,078.40 98,758.40 103,667.20 Hourly 37.37 39.24 41.21 43.29 45.32
Bi-Weekly 2,989.60 3,139.20 3,296.80 3,463.20 3,625.60
Monthly 6,477.47 6,801.60 7,143.07 7,503.60 7,855.47
Annual 77,729.60 81,619.20 85,716.80 90,043.20 94,265.60 Hourly 41.45 43.32 45.31 47.33 49.58
Bi-Weekly 3,316.00 3,465.60 3,624.80 3,786.40 3,966.40
Monthly 7,184.67 7,508.80 7,853.73 8,203.87 8,593.87
Annual 86,216.00 90,105.60 94,244.80 98,446.40 103,126.40 Hourly 37.68 39.38 41.18 43.03 45.07
Bi-Weekly 3,014.40 3,150.40 3,294.40 3,442.40 3,605.60
Monthly 6,531.20 6,825.87 7,137.87 7,458.53 7,812.13
Annual 78,374.40 81,910.40 85,654.40 89,502.40 93,745.60 Hourly 34.09 35.57 37.29 38.99 40.84
Bi-Weekly 2,727.20 2,845.60 2,983.20 3,119.20 3,267.20
Monthly 5,908.93 6,165.47 6,463.60 6,758.27 7,078.93
Annual 70,907.20 73,985.60 77,563.20 81,099.20 84,947.20 Classified
Classified
Classified
H450
H460
H400 Classified
ClassifiedH405
PROPERTY & EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN C665 Classified
CRIME SCENE SPECIALIST C687 Classified
CRIME SCENE TECHNICIAN C685 Classified
PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE SUPERVISOR H410 Classified
POLICE ID SPECIALIST T555 Classified
OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER U400 Classified
PROPERTY/EVIDENCE AND CRIME SCENE ADMINISTRATOR H415 Classified T550 ClassifiedFAMILY COUNSELOR
CERTIFIED LATENT PRINT EXAMINER T560 Classified
YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR H445 Classified COUNSELING SUPERVISOR H440 Classified
Classified
CRIME PREVENTION SPECIALIST I C670 Classified
RESERVE OFFICER COORDINATOR H455 Classified

PERSONNEL OPERATIONS SPECIALIST

SENIOR CRIME AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST

CRIME AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST

POLICE PROGRAMS ANALYST
CRIME PREVENTION SPECIALIST II C671
H406

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATOR
Salaries Effective February 27, 2023 13

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

ATTACHMENT III
Recommended by
Personnel Commission
on Februrary 2, 2023
Approved by Council
on February 21, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Hourly 55.59 58.35 61.26 64.33 67.55
Bi-Weekly 4,447.20 4,668.00 4,900.80 5,146.40 5,404.00
Monthly 9,635.60 10,114.00 10,618.40 11,150.53 11,708.67 Annual 115,627.20 121,368.00 127,420.80 133,806.40 140,504.00 Hourly 37.56 39.23 41.06 42.94 44.98
Bi-Weekly 3,004.80 3,138.40 3,284.80 3,435.20 3,598.40
Monthly 6,510.40 6,799.87 7,117.07 7,442.93 7,796.53
Annual 78,124.80 81,598.40 85,404.80 89,315.20 93,558.40 Hourly 32.29 33.95 35.49 37.16 38.92
Bi-Weekly 2,583.20 2,716.00 2,839.20 2,972.80 3,113.60
Monthly 5,596.93 5,884.67 6,151.60 6,441.07 6,746.13
Annual 67,163.20 70,616.00 73,819.20 77,292.80 80,953.60 Hourly 26.86 28.01 29.12 30.40 31.91
Bi-Weekly 2,148.80 2,240.80 2,329.60 2,432.00 2,552.80
Monthly 4,655.73 4,855.07 5,047.47 5,269.33 5,531.07
Annual 55,868.80 58,260.80 60,569.60 63,232.00 66,372.80 Hourly 26.86 28.01 29.12 30.40 31.91
Bi-Weekly 2,148.80 2,240.80 2,329.60 2,432.00 2,552.80
Monthly 4,655.73 4,855.07 5,047.47 5,269.33 5,531.07
Annual 55,868.80 58,260.80 60,569.60 63,232.00 66,372.80 Hourly 55.59 58.35 61.26 64.33 67.55
Bi-Weekly 4,447.20 4,668.00 4,900.80 5,146.40 5,404.00
Monthly 9,635.60 10,114.00 10,618.40 11,150.53 11,708.67 Annual 115,627.20 121,368.00 127,420.80 133,806.40 140,504.00 Hourly 46.51 48.84 51.29 53.85 56.57
Bi-Weekly 3,720.80 3,907.20 4,103.20 4,308.00 4,525.60
Monthly 8,061.73 8,465.60 8,890.27 9,334.00 9,805.47
Annual 96,740.80 101,587.20 106,683.20 112,008.00 117,665.60 Hourly 40.36 42.42 44.49 46.77 49.12
Bi-Weekly 3,228.80 3,393.60 3,559.20 3,741.60 3,929.60
Monthly 6,995.73 7,352.80 7,711.60 8,106.80 8,514.13
Annual 83,948.80 88,233.60 92,539.20 97,281.60 102,169.60 Hourly 33.59 35.23 37.01 38.86 40.81
Bi-Weekly 2,687.20 2,818.40 2,960.80 3,108.80 3,264.80
Monthly 5,822.27 6,106.53 6,415.07 6,735.73 7,073.73
Annual 69,867.20 73,278.40 76,980.80 80,828.80 84,884.80 Hourly 55.59 58.35 61.26 64.33 67.55
Bi-Weekly 4,447.20 4,668.00 4,900.80 5,146.40 5,404.00
Monthly 9,635.60 10,114.00 10,618.40 11,150.53 11,708.67 Annual 115,627.20 121,368.00 127,420.80 133,806.40 140,504.00 Hourly 40.37 42.39 44.50 46.73 49.07
Bi-Weekly 3,229.60 3,391.20 3,560.00 3,738.40 3,925.60
Monthly 6,997.47 7,347.60 7,713.33 8,099.87 8,505.47
Annual 83,969.60 88,171.20 92,560.00 97,198.40 102,065.60 Hourly 31.39 32.64 33.95 35.43 37.17
Bi-Weekly 2,511.20 2,611.20 2,716.00 2,834.40 2,973.60
Monthly 5,440.93 5,657.60 5,884.67 6,141.20 6,442.80
Annual 65,291.20 67,891.20 70,616.00 73,694.40 77,313.60 Hourly 27.59 29.03 30.57 32.07 33.80
Bi-Weekly 2,207.20 2,322.40 2,445.60 2,565.60 2,704.00
Monthly 4,782.27 5,031.87 5,298.80 5,558.80 5,858.67
Annual 57,387.20 60,382.40 63,585.60 66,705.60 70,304.00 Hourly 55.59 58.35 61.26 64.33 67.55
Bi-Weekly 4,447.20 4,668.00 4,900.80 5,146.40 5,404.00
Monthly 9,635.60 10,114.00 10,618.40 11,150.53 11,708.67 Annual 115,627.20 121,368.00 127,420.80 133,806.40 140,504.00 Hourly 42.72 44.51 46.66 48.83 51.17
Bi-Weekly 3,417.60 3,560.80 3,732.80 3,906.40 4,093.60
Monthly 7,404.80 7,715.07 8,087.73 8,463.87 8,869.47
Annual 88,857.60 92,580.80 97,052.80 101,566.40 106,433.60 Hourly 37.32 38.94 40.81 42.69 44.72
Bi-Weekly 2,985.60 3,115.20 3,264.80 3,415.20 3,577.60
Monthly 6,468.80 6,749.60 7,073.73 7,399.60 7,751.47
Annual 77,625.60 80,995.20 84,884.80 88,795.20 93,017.60 COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER C650 Classified
JAIL ADMINISTRATOR H420 Classified
JAIL SUPERVISOR C660 Classified
POLICE RECORDS CLERK II C695 Classified
POLICE RECORDS CLERK I C690 Classified
RECORDS ADMINISTRATOR H425 Classified
RECORDS SUPERVISOR C705 Classified
COMMUNICATIONS OPERATOR C635 Classified
CALL TAKER C633 Classified
COMMUNICATIONS ADMINISTRATOR H435 Classified
COMMUNICATIONS SUPERVISOR C645 Classified
ANIMAL CARE ATTENDANT C600 Classified
SHELTER VOLUNTEER COORDINATOR C607 Classified
SHELTER OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR C621 Classified
ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER C610 Classified
ANIMAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR H430 Classified
Salaries Effective February 27, 2023 14

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

ATTACHMENT III
Recommended by
Personnel Commission
on Februrary 2, 2023
Approved by Council
on February 21, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES DEPARTMENT

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

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

ENGINEERING/TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
Hourly 50.49 53.03 55.67 58.47 61.38
Bi-Weekly 4,039.20 4,242.40 4,453.60 4,677.60 4,910.40
Monthly 8,751.60 9,191.87 9,649.47 10,134.80 10,639.20
Annual 105,019.20 110,302.40 115,793.60 121,617.60 127,670.40 Hourly 44.82 47.18 49.53 51.94 54.51
Bi-Weekly 3,585.60 3,774.40 3,962.40 4,155.20 4,360.80
Monthly 7,768.80 8,177.87 8,585.20 9,002.93 9,448.40
Annual 93,225.60 98,134.40 103,022.40 108,035.20 113,380.80 Hourly 38.21 40.12 42.02 44.13 46.34
Bi-Weekly 3,056.80 3,209.60 3,361.60 3,530.40 3,707.20
Monthly 6,623.07 6,954.13 7,283.47 7,649.20 8,032.27
Annual 79,476.80 83,449.60 87,401.60 91,790.40 96,387.20 Hourly 66.40 69.71 73.22 76.86 80.70
Bi-Weekly 5,312.00 5,576.80 5,857.60 6,148.80 6,456.00
Monthly 11,509.33 12,083.07 12,691.47 13,322.40 13,988.00 Annual 138,112.00 144,996.80 152,297.60 159,868.80 167,856.00 Hourly 58.69 61.66 64.65 67.93 71.24
Bi-Weekly 4,695.20 4,932.80 5,172.00 5,434.40 5,699.20
Monthly 10,172.93 10,687.73 11,206.00 11,774.53 12,348.27 Annual 122,075.20 128,252.80 134,472.00 141,294.40 148,179.20 Hourly 50.55 53.18 55.90 58.58 61.53
Bi-Weekly 4,044.00 4,254.40 4,472.00 4,686.40 4,922.40
Monthly 8,762.00 9,217.87 9,689.33 10,153.87 10,665.20
Annual 105,144.00 110,614.40 116,272.00 121,846.40 127,982.40 ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEER T215 Classified
ASSISTANT CIVIL ENGINEER T210 Classified
REAL PROPERTY ASSISTANT T255 Classified
SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER H240 Classified
REAL PROPERTY MANAGER H225 Classified
REAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATE T260 Classified
AIRPORT MAINTENANCE WORKER M505 Classified
AIRPORT ATTENDANT M500 Classified
AIRPORT OPERATIONS SPECIALIST T270 Classified
SENIOR AIRPORT MAINTENANCE WORKER M510 Classified
AIRPORT OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR H200 Classified
AIRPORT BUSINESS SUPERVISOR H198 Classified
STOREKEEPER - EXPEDITER M100 Classified
AIRPORT MANAGER H205 Classified
UTILITIES ENGINEERING MANAGER H880 Classified
SENIOR UTILITY SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE M820 Classified
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS U510 Classified
WATER RESOURCES MANAGER H875 Classified
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS-UTILITIES U525 Classified Salaries Effective February 27, 2023 15

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

ATTACHMENT III
Recommended by
Personnel Commission
on Februrary 2, 2023
Approved by Council
on February 21, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Hourly 38.25 40.11 42.14 44.23 46.35
Bi-Weekly 3,060.00 3,208.80 3,371.20 3,538.40 3,708.00
Monthly 6,630.00 6,952.40 7,304.27 7,666.53 8,034.00
Annual 79,560.00 83,428.80 87,651.20 91,998.40 96,408.00 Hourly 59.09 62.06 65.17 68.42 71.82
Bi-Weekly 4,727.20 4,964.80 5,213.60 5,473.60 5,745.60
Monthly 10,242.27 10,757.07 11,296.13 11,859.47 12,448.80 Annual 122,907.20 129,084.80 135,553.60 142,313.60 149,385.60 Hourly 47.79 50.15 52.63 55.25 58.03
Bi-Weekly 3,823.20 4,012.00 4,210.40 4,420.00 4,642.40
Monthly 8,283.60 8,692.67 9,122.53 9,576.67 10,058.53
Annual 99,403.20 104,312.00 109,470.40 114,920.00 120,702.40 Hourly 66.39 69.71 73.20 76.86 80.69
Bi-Weekly 5,311.20 5,576.80 5,856.00 6,148.80 6,455.20
Monthly 11,507.60 12,083.07 12,688.00 13,322.40 13,986.27 Annual 138,091.20 144,996.80 152,256.00 159,868.80 167,835.20 Hourly 58.69 61.66 64.65 67.93 71.24
Bi-Weekly 4,695.20 4,932.80 5,172.00 5,434.40 5,699.20
Monthly 10,172.93 10,687.73 11,206.00 11,774.53 12,348.27 Annual 122,075.20 128,252.80 134,472.00 141,294.40 148,179.20 Hourly 50.55 53.18 55.90 58.58 61.53
Bi-Weekly 4,044.00 4,254.40 4,472.00 4,686.40 4,922.40
Monthly 8,762.00 9,217.87 9,689.33 10,153.87 10,665.20
Annual 105,144.00 110,614.40 116,272.00 121,846.40 127,982.40 Hourly 55.47 58.22 61.14 64.19 67.40
Bi-Weekly 4,437.60 4,657.60 4,891.20 5,135.20 5,392.00
Monthly 9,614.80 10,091.47 10,597.60 11,126.27 11,682.67 Annual 115,377.60 121,097.60 127,171.20 133,515.20 140,192.00 Hourly 49.51 51.94 54.53 57.33 60.08
Bi-Weekly 3,960.80 4,155.20 4,362.40 4,586.40 4,806.40
Monthly 8,581.73 9,002.93 9,451.87 9,937.20 10,413.87
Annual 102,980.80 108,035.20 113,422.40 119,246.40 124,966.40 Hourly 40.17 42.11 44.25 46.44 48.66
Bi-Weekly 3,213.60 3,368.80 3,540.00 3,715.20 3,892.80
Monthly 6,962.80 7,299.07 7,670.00 8,049.60 8,434.40
Annual 83,553.60 87,588.80 92,040.00 96,595.20 101,212.80 Hourly 61.08 64.13 67.34 70.71 74.25
Bi-Weekly 4,886.40 5,130.40 5,387.20 5,656.80 5,940.00
Monthly 10,587.20 11,115.87 11,672.27 12,256.40 12,870.00 Annual 127,046.40 133,390.40 140,067.20 147,076.80 154,440.00 Hourly 53.77 56.64 59.50 62.30 65.41
Bi-Weekly 4,301.60 4,531.20 4,760.00 4,984.00 5,232.80
Monthly 9,320.13 9,817.60 10,313.33 10,798.67 11,337.73 Annual 111,841.60 117,811.20 123,760.00 129,584.00 136,052.80 Hourly 45.05 47.36 49.57 52.09 54.73
Bi-Weekly 3,604.00 3,788.80 3,965.60 4,167.20 4,378.40
Monthly 7,808.67 8,209.07 8,592.13 9,028.93 9,486.53
Annual 93,704.00 98,508.80 103,105.60 108,347.20 113,838.40 SENIOR CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR T250 Classified
ClassifiedT245CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR
TRAFFIC SIGNAL TECHNICIAN T220 Classified
ClassifiedSUPERVISING CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR H235
SENIOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNER H210 Classified
ASSOCIATE TRANSPORTATION PLANNER T225 Classified
ASSOCIATE TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER T240 Classified
ASSISTANT TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER T235 Classified
SURVEYOR T265 Classified
SENIOR TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER H215 Classified
ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN T200 Classified
SURVEY ENGINEER H230 Classified
Salaries Effective February 27, 2023 16

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

ATTACHMENT III
Recommended by
Personnel Commission
on Februrary 2, 2023
Approved by Council
on February 21, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

RECYCLING-SOLID WASTE
Hourly 55.59 58.34 61.26 64.32 67.53
Bi-Weekly 4,447.20 4,667.20 4,900.80 5,145.60 5,402.40
Monthly 9,635.60 10,112.27 10,618.40 11,148.80 11,705.20 Annual 115,627.20 121,347.20 127,420.80 133,785.60 140,462.40 Hourly 38.54 40.46 42.42 44.58 46.80
Bi-Weekly 3,083.20 3,236.80 3,393.60 3,566.40 3,744.00
Monthly 6,680.27 7,013.07 7,352.80 7,727.20 8,112.00
Annual 80,163.20 84,156.80 88,233.60 92,726.40 97,344.00 Hourly 48.55 50.96 53.52 56.19 59.00
Bi-Weekly 3,884.00 4,076.80 4,281.60 4,495.20 4,720.00
Monthly 8,415.33 8,833.07 9,276.80 9,739.60 10,226.67
Annual 100,984.00 105,996.80 111,321.60 116,875.20 122,720.00 Hourly 44.14 46.33 48.65 51.08 53.64
Bi-Weekly 3,531.20 3,706.40 3,892.00 4,086.40 4,291.20
Monthly 7,650.93 8,030.53 8,432.67 8,853.87 9,297.60
Annual 91,811.20 96,366.40 101,192.00 106,246.40 111,571.20 Hourly 40.13 42.12 44.22 46.42 48.75
Bi-Weekly 3,210.40 3,369.60 3,537.60 3,713.60 3,900.00
Monthly 6,955.87 7,300.80 7,664.80 8,046.13 8,450.00
Annual 83,470.40 87,609.60 91,977.60 96,553.60 101,400.00

WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY (WPCF)
Hourly 78.10 82.01 86.13 90.44 94.95
Bi-Weekly 6,248.00 6,560.80 6,890.40 7,235.20 7,596.00
Monthly 13,537.33 14,215.07 14,929.20 15,676.27 16,458.00 Annual 162,448.00 170,580.80 179,150.40 188,115.20 197,496.00 Hourly 63.71 66.89 70.25 73.77 77.46
Bi-Weekly 5,096.80 5,351.20 5,620.00 5,901.60 6,196.80
Monthly 11,043.07 11,594.27 12,176.67 12,786.80 13,426.40 Annual 132,516.80 139,131.20 146,120.00 153,441.60 161,116.80 Hourly 57.95 60.83 63.88 67.08 70.43
Bi-Weekly 4,636.00 4,866.40 5,110.40 5,366.40 5,634.40
Monthly 10,044.67 10,543.87 11,072.53 11,627.20 12,207.87 Annual 120,536.00 126,526.40 132,870.40 139,526.40 146,494.40 Hourly 57.95 60.83 63.88 67.08 70.43
Bi-Weekly 4,636.00 4,866.40 5,110.40 5,366.40 5,634.40
Monthly 10,044.67 10,543.87 11,072.53 11,627.20 12,207.87 Annual 120,536.00 126,526.40 132,870.40 139,526.40 146,494.40 Hourly 53.41 55.53 57.75 60.01 62.45
Bi-Weekly 4,272.80 4,442.40 4,620.00 4,800.80 4,996.00
Monthly 9,257.73 9,625.20 10,010.00 10,401.73 10,824.67 Annual 111,092.80 115,502.40 120,120.00 124,820.80 129,896.00 Hourly 48.54 50.48 52.49 54.55 56.76
Bi-Weekly 3,883.20 4,038.40 4,199.20 4,364.00 4,540.80
Monthly 8,413.60 8,749.87 9,098.27 9,455.33 9,838.40
Annual 100,963.20 104,998.40 109,179.20 113,464.00 118,060.80 Hourly 42.42 44.08 45.92 47.50 49.36
Bi-Weekly 3,393.60 3,526.40 3,673.60 3,800.00 3,948.80
Monthly 7,352.80 7,640.53 7,959.47 8,233.33 8,555.73
Annual 88,233.60 91,686.40 95,513.60 98,800.00 102,668.80 OPERATOR-IN-TRAINING M925 Classified
WPCF LEAD OPERATOR M935 Classified
WPCF OPERATOR M930 Classified
WPCF MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR H860 Classified
ClassifiedH855WPCF OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY MANAGER H870 Classified WPCF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANAGER H865 Classified SUSTAINABILITY SPECIALIST T803 Classified
SUSTAINABILITY TECHNICIAN T802 Classified
SOLID WASTE PROGRAM MANAGER H800 Classified
RECYCLING SPECIALIST T800 Classified
SENIOR SUSTAINABILITY SPECIALIST T804 Classified
Salaries Effective February 27, 2023 17

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

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

SEWER COLLECTIONS & WATER DISTRIBUTION
Hourly 71.91 75.48 79.25 83.21 87.38
Bi-Weekly 5,752.80 6,038.40 6,340.00 6,656.80 6,990.40
Monthly 12,464.40 13,083.20 13,736.67 14,423.07 15,145.87 Annual 149,572.80 156,998.40 164,840.00 173,076.80 181,750.40 Hourly 59.92 62.89 66.06 69.35 72.82
Bi-Weekly 4,793.60 5,031.20 5,284.80 5,548.00 5,825.60
Monthly 10,386.13 10,900.93 11,450.40 12,020.67 12,622.13 Annual 124,633.60 130,811.20 137,404.80 144,248.00 151,465.60 Hourly 59.92 62.89 66.06 69.35 72.82
Bi-Weekly 4,793.60 5,031.20 5,284.80 5,548.00 5,825.60
Monthly 10,386.13 10,900.93 11,450.40 12,020.67 12,622.13 Annual 124,633.60 130,811.20 137,404.80 144,248.00 151,465.60 Hourly 57.95 60.83 63.88 67.08 70.43
Bi-Weekly 4,636.00 4,866.40 5,110.40 5,366.40 5,634.40
Monthly 10,044.67 10,543.87 11,072.53 11,627.20 12,207.87 Annual 120,536.00 126,526.40 132,870.40 139,526.40 146,494.40 Hourly 47.23 49.61 52.07 54.69 57.42
Bi-Weekly 3,778.40 3,968.80 4,165.60 4,375.20 4,593.60
Monthly 8,186.53 8,599.07 9,025.47 9,479.60 9,952.80
Annual 98,238.40 103,188.80 108,305.60 113,755.20 119,433.60 WATER INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR H815 Classified UTILITIES FIELD SERVICES SUPERVISOR H825 Classified
ClassifiedH823WASTEWATER COLLECTIONS SYSTEM SUPERVISOR
UTILITIES OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANAGER H835 Classified UTILITIES OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR H830 Classified SENIOR WATER RESOURCES ENGINEER H813 Classified
ClassifiedH810SENIOR UTILITIES ENGINEER
WATER POLLUTION SOURCE CONTROL INSPECTOR I T809 Classified ClassifiedZ125TECHNICAL INTERN
SENIOR WATER POLLUTION SOURCE CONTROL INSPECTOR T815 Classified WATER POLLUTION SOURCE CONTROL INSPECTOR II T810 Classified ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MANAGER H805 Classified
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATOR H845 Classified
CHEMIST T807 Classified
LABORATORY TECHNICIAN T805 Classified
ClassifiedH850LAB SUPERVISOR
Salaries Effective February 27, 2023 18

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

GENERAL MAINTENANCE
Hourly 40.02 41.60 43.35 44.84 46.59
Bi-Weekly 3,201.60 3,328.00 3,468.00 3,587.20 3,727.20
Monthly 6,936.80 7,210.67 7,514.00 7,772.27 8,075.60
Annual 83,241.60 86,528.00 90,168.00 93,267.20 96,907.20 Hourly 49.85 51.84 54.00 55.87 58.05
Bi-Weekly 3,988.00 4,147.20 4,320.00 4,469.60 4,644.00
Monthly 8,640.67 8,985.60 9,360.00 9,684.13 10,062.00
Annual 103,688.00 107,827.20 112,320.00 116,209.60 120,744.00 Hourly 43.36 45.07 46.95 48.61 50.47
Bi-Weekly 3,468.80 3,605.60 3,756.00 3,888.80 4,037.60
Monthly 7,515.73 7,812.13 8,138.00 8,425.73 8,748.13
Annual 90,188.80 93,745.60 97,656.00 101,108.80 104,977.60 Hourly 39.41 40.97 42.68 44.16 45.89
Bi-Weekly 3,152.80 3,277.60 3,414.40 3,532.80 3,671.20
Monthly 6,831.07 7,101.47 7,397.87 7,654.40 7,954.27
Annual 81,972.80 85,217.60 88,774.40 91,852.80 95,451.20 Hourly 48.57 50.50 52.56 54.43 56.54
Bi-Weekly 3,885.60 4,040.00 4,204.80 4,354.40 4,523.20
Monthly 8,418.80 8,753.33 9,110.40 9,434.53 9,800.27
Annual 101,025.60 105,040.00 109,324.80 113,214.40 117,603.20 Hourly 42.24 43.92 45.71 47.31 49.15
Bi-Weekly 3,379.20 3,513.60 3,656.80 3,784.80 3,932.00
Monthly 7,321.60 7,612.80 7,923.07 8,200.40 8,519.33
Annual 87,859.20 91,353.60 95,076.80 98,404.80 102,232.00 Hourly 38.39 39.93 41.57 43.01 44.69
Bi-Weekly 3,071.20 3,194.40 3,325.60 3,440.80 3,575.20
Monthly 6,654.27 6,921.20 7,205.47 7,455.07 7,746.27
Annual 79,851.20 83,054.40 86,465.60 89,460.80 92,955.20 Hourly 48.54 50.48 52.49 54.55 56.76
Bi-Weekly 3,883.20 4,038.40 4,199.20 4,364.00 4,540.80
Monthly 8,413.60 8,749.87 9,098.27 9,455.33 9,838.40
Annual 100,963.20 104,998.40 109,179.20 113,464.00 118,060.80 M920 Classified
UTILITIES MAINTENANCE MECHANIC M415 Classified
Classified
Classified
Classified

SENIOR UTILITY LEADER - SEWER

UTILITY LEADER - SEWER
UTILITY WORKER - SEWER M910 Classified
ClassifiedM915

SENIOR UTILITY LEADER

UTILITY LEADER
UTILITY WORKER M835
M840
M845
UTILITIES SERVICE WORKER M900 Classified
M400EQUIPMENT OPERATOR Classified
ClassifiedM800BACKFLOW/CROSS CONNECTION TESTER
UTILITIES MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR H820 Classified
ClassifiedM810WATER METER MECHANIC
CUSTOMER FIELD TECHNICIAN M807 Classified
SENIOR UTILITY CUSTOMER SERVICE LEADER M825 Classified
CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL SPECIALIST M815 Classified
SENIOR UTILITY FIELD SERVICES LEADER M827 Classified
Salaries Effective February 27, 2023 19

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

ATTACHMENT III
Recommended by
Personnel Commission
on Februrary 2, 2023
Approved by Council
on February 21, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

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

ClassifiedT410AUDIO VIDEO SPECIALIST
VIDEO ASSISTANT T400 Classified
INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT TECHNICIAN T415 Classified
DATA SYSTEMS OPERATOR C450 Classified
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TECHNICIAN II T425 Classified
ClassifiedT424INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TECHNICIAN I
ClassifiedT465GEOGRAPHIC INFO SYSTEM TECHNICIAN II
GEOGRAPHIC INFO SYSTEM TECHNICIAN I T464 Classified
T445 ClassifiedTECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS ANALYST II
TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS ANALYST I T440 Classified

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ANALYST II

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ANALYST I
T435
T430
Classified
Classified
SYSTEMS ANALYST II T455 Classified
ClassifiedT450WEB SPECIALIST
SYSTEMS ANALYST I T454 Classified
ClassifiedH555NETWORK SYSTEMS SPECIALIST
GEOGRAPHIC INFO SYSTEMS COORDINATOR T460 Classified
ClassifiedH566INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGER
DATA AND SYSTEMS COORDINATOR H560 Classified
ClassifiedU530DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION SYSTEMS MANAGER H565 Classified
Salaries Effective February 27, 2023 20

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

ATTACHMENT III
Recommended by
Personnel Commission
on Februrary 2, 2023
Approved by Council
on February 21, 2023
Classification Title Job Code Service Type Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Monthly 2,742.13 3,466.67
Annual 32,905.60 41,600.00
ClassifiedZ121INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INTERN
Salaries Effective February 27, 2023 21

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: CONS 23-105
DATE: February 21, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Manager

SUBJECT
Adopt a Resolution Ending the Local Emergency Due to the Spread of a Severe Acute Respiratory Illness Caused by Novel (New) Coronavirus (COVID-19)

RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) rescinding Council’s March 17, 2020 ratification of a Proclamation that declared a Local Emergency on March 11, 2020 by the City Manager in her capacity as Director of Emergency Services. ..End

SUMMARY
On March 11, 2020, the City Manager, in her capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed a local emergency due to the ongoing spread of a severe acute respiratory illness in Alameda County caused by a novel coronavirus (COVID -19). In the days that would follow, a shelter in place order was issued by the state and began on March 18, 2020, which included the City. This report requests that the City Council adopt a resolution (Attachment II) ending the Proclamation of a Local Emergency (Attachment III); doing so will end all departures from policy allowed by such a proclamation and the City will then follow only those enacted following established and applicable statutes.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Proclamation of a Local Emergency
Attachment IV AB 2449 Notifications and Considerations
Attachment V Food Delivery Ordinance
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/17/2023Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™

Page 1 of 5 ends

DATE: February 21, 2023

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: City Manager

SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Ending the Local Emergency Due to the Spread of a Severe Acute Respiratory Illness Caused by Novel (New) Coronavirus (COVID-19)

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) rescinding Council’s March 17, 2020 ratification of a Proclamation that declared a Local Emergency on March 11, 2020 by the City Manager in her capacity as Director of Emergency Services.

SUMMARY

On March 11, 2020, the City Manager, in her capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed a local emergency due to the ongoing spread of a severe acute respiratory illness in Alameda County caused by a novel coronavirus (COVID -19). In the days that would follow a shelter in place order was issued by the state and many local jurisdictions including the City which began on March 18, 2020. This report requests that the City Council approve a resolution ending the Proclamation of a Local Emergency (Attachment II), doing so will end all departures from policy allowed by such a proclamation and will follow only those enacted following established and applicable statutes.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

On March 1, 2020, the Alameda County Public Health Department and Solano County Public Health Department reported two presumptive cases of COVID-19, pending confirmatory testing by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), prompting Alameda County to declare a local health emergency.

On March 4, 2020, the Governor proclaimed a State of Emergency to exist in California as a result of the threat of COVID-19.

On March 11, 2020, the City Manager, in her capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed a local emergency due to the spread of COVID-19, including several confirmed cases in Alameda County and many more in the San Francisco Bay Area.

A Proclamation of Local Emergency allows the Director of Emergency Services to make rules and regulations related to the protection of life and property, obtain vital supplies and

Page 2 of 5 ends

equipment needed for the protection of life and property, and require emergency services of City officers and employees in their roles as designated Disaster Services Workers. On March 1, 2020, the Alameda County Public Health Department and Solano County Public Health Department reported two presumptive cases of COVID-19, pending confirmatory testing by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), prompting Alameda County to declare a local health emergency.

On March 16, 2020, the Governor of the State of California issued Executive Order N-28-201 in response to the economic impacts of COVID-19 that threaten to undermine California’s housing security and the stability of California businesses due to substantial loss of income, which authorized local jurisdictions to prohibit commercial and residential evictions due to non-payment of rent or mortgage payments, where failure to pay is related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

On March 17, 2020, Alameda County issued a legal order directing residents to shelter at home for three weeks, which has been amended and reissued multiple times, no longer includes an end date, and outlines a phased reopening plan for the County. The original order limited activity, travel, and business functions to only the most essential needs. The Shelter-in- Place Order has caused and will continue to cause a decrease in income for many Hayward businesses and residents, which will increase the risk of job loss, displacement, and homelessness. While “essential businesses” such as pharmacies and grocery stories were exempt and restaurants were only allowed to serve customers via take-out and outdoor dining only, the business community is facing severe economic injury. Businesses small and large reported a complete collapse of their revenue streams, reduced sales, and the need to layoff or reduce their workforce’s hours. While sales dramatically fell, fixed costs such as rents, health care costs, outstanding loans, and taxes remained on the books.

On March 24, 20202, Council adopted an emergency ordinance that 1) established a temporary moratorium on evictions in the City of Hayward for non-payment of rent caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, or for no-fault evictions unless the eviction is necessary for the health and safety of the tenant or landlord (e.g. unit is deemed uninhabitable), and 2) provided residential tenants and landlords mediation services to negotiate payment agreements. At that meeting, the Council also directed staff to evaluate further the potential of including prohibitions on commercial and homeowner evictions.

On April 7, 20203, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding state and local emergency orders, Council voted to expand the Temporary Moratorium on Evictions to

1 State of California Executive Order N-80-20 issued March 16, 2020:
https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/3.16.20-Executive-Order.pdf 2 March 24, 2020 City Council Meeting Staff Report and Attachments:
https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4399195&GUID=BFD696C9-8ED0-4F9F-8B99- 98912C9C0679&Options=&Search=
3 April 7, 2020 City Council Meeting Staff Report and Attachments:
https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4411520&GUID=D179CF31-EC55-4AA7-B3C1- 430B1C8DC5E4&Options=&Search=

Page 3 of 5 ends

prevent displacement of residential and commercial tenants impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

On April 21, 2020, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors adopted amendments to the Countywide Eviction Moratorium4 to provide expanded tenant eviction protections Countywide. Subsequently, the Superior Court of Alameda County issued a stay of execution of writs of possession following judgment in an unlawful detainer action until December 31, 2020. On February 5, 2021, the Court extended this stay to June 30, 2021 to align with California’s statewide eviction moratorium.

On June 30, 20205, Council adopted an Emergency Ordinance amending the temporary moratorium on residential and commercial evictions in the City for non-payment of rent or mortgage payments caused by the COVID-19 pandemic to extend the moratorium until September 30, 2020 and the repayment period an additional 90 days.

On August 31, 2020, the State enacted AB 3088 that put into place a statewide moratorium on residential evictions until January 31, 2021, and precluded local governments from extending any existing moratoria on residential evictions beyond their already enacted expiration dates. As a result, the City of Hayward could not extend its moratorium on residential evictions beyond September 30, 2020. The State did not enact any protections or place any restrictions on commercial evictions.

On September 22, 20206, Council adopted an Emergency Ordinance amending the temporary moratorium on commercial evictions in the City of Hayward for non-payment of rent caused by COVID-19 to extend the moratorium until January 31, 2021. Also on this date, Council adopted an ordinance, Attachment V, limiting fees related to delivery of food service providers to a maximum of 15% to support restaurants in Hayward.

On January 26, 20217, Council extended the commercial eviction moratorium through June 30, 2021. Furthermore, on January 26, 2021, in anticipation of the sunset of AB 3088 and the termination of the residential eviction moratorium, the Council adopted an emergency ordinance enacting a moratorium on residential evictions through June 30, 2021.

On January 29, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law SB-91, COVID-19 relief: tenancy:
federal rental assistance, which extended the residential statewide eviction moratorium through June 30, 2021, and created the State Rental Assistance Program.

4 Alameda County Moratorium:
http://www.acgov.org/cda/hcd/
5 June 30, 2020 City Council Meeting Staff Report and Attachments:
https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4580377&GUID=12885384-9D38-48A5-885F- 4C0C7916C304&Options=&Search=
6 Sept 22, 2020 City Council Meeting Staff Report and Attachments:
https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4646748&GUID=525441D6-E924-4A3E-AFC5- 21B74FEF5B7C&Options=&Search=
77 January 26, 2021 City Council Meeting Staff Report and Attachments https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4762240&GUID=3134D5B8-8823-47AC-A4DE- 41D5B915DC84&Options=&Search=

Page 4 of 5 ends

On March 4, 2021, the Governor of the State of California issued Executive Order N-03-21 extending the timeframe for protections set-forth in Executive Order N-28-20 with respect to commercial evictions through June 30, 2021. 8 While the State and Alameda County officially lifted most COVID-19 restrictions on June 15, 2021, many individuals continued to struggle to recover from the economic hardships of the prior 18 months and much of the State and County tenant relief funding was slow to be distributed.

On September 13, 2022, Governor Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill (AB) 2449 (Rubio), which became effective on January 1, 2023, and expires on Ja nuary 1, 2026, unless further legislation is adopted to extend it. The bill amends the Brown Act by providing an exception to the traditional Brown Act teleconferencing requirements that the agenda be posted at each teleconference location and that each teleconference location be accessible to the public.

It has been announced that the Governor of the State of California will end the state of emergency in California on February 28, 2023. In anticipation of the lifting of the state of emergency on February 28, 2023, by Governor Newsom, City staff developed guidance for members of legislative bodies and City staff to comply with AB 2449. The information is available as Attachment IV.

The City Manager was empowered to proclaim a local emergency pursuant to California Government Code Section 8630 and Hayward Municipal Code Section 3-2.12. When a local emergency is proclaimed by the Director of Emergency Services, City Council must ratify the proclamation within seven (7) days, or the proclamation has no further effect. This item requests that the City Council ratify a resolution ending the Local Emergency proclaimed in March 2020 due to COVID-19.

STRATEGIC ROADMAP

This item does not relate to a specific priority on the City’s Strategic Roadmap.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no specific fiscal impact associated with this action.

PUBLIC CONTACT

While COVID-19 has been discussed frequently in public meetings since the onset of the pandemic, this specific item has not had prior public contact, other than compliance with the Brown Act.

NEXT STEPS

Page 5 of 5 ends

If adopted by Council, the Resolution will rescind the ratification of the Proclamation declaring a Local Emergency.

Prepared by: Dustin Claussen, Assistant City Manager Michael Vigilia, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Miriam Lens, City Clerk

Approved by:

____________________________________
Kelly McAdoo, City Manager

ATTACHMENT II

Page 1 of 2 ends

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION NO. 23-____

Introduced by Council Member ________________

RESOLUTION ENDING THE PROCLAMATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY

WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020 the City Council of the City of Hayward adopted Resolution 20 -036 proclaiming the Emergency Services Act, Government Code sections 8558(c) and 8630 authorize the proclamation of a local emergency when conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the territorial limits of a city exist; and

WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020 the City Council of the City of Hayward adopted Resolution 20-036 proclaiming that pursuant to Government Code section 8630 such an emergency may be proclaimed by the governing body or by an official designated by ordinance adopted by the governing body; and

WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020 the City Council of the City of Hayward adopted Resolution 20-036 proclaiming that Hayward Municipal Code section 3-2.12 provides that the City Manager, serving as the Director of Emergency Services, may request the City Council to proclaim the existence of a local emergency; and

WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020 the City Council of the City of Hayward adopted Resolution 20-036 proclaiming that under provision of local law, if the City Council cannot be convened and, in the judgment of the Director of Emergency Services, the circumstances warrant it, a proclamation of local emergency may be issued which must be ratified or nullified by the City Council within seven days of issuance; and

WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020 the City Council of the City of Hayward adopted Resolution 20-036 proclaiming that the City Council did find that the City Council could not be convened at that time, and that these conditions did warrant and necessitate the proclamation of a local emergency.

WHEREAS on September 22, 2020 the City Council of the City of Hayward adopted Ordinance 20-16 proclaiming that the City Council did limit the per-order fees at 15 percent will achieve the public purpose of ensuring the continued operation of local restaurants and third-party platforms during the period of emergency; the 15 percent cap is based on the findings and experience of other California cities that have already adopted 15 percent fee ceilings as reasonable emergency regulations in collaboration with food delivery companies.

ATTACHMENT II

Page 2 of 2 ends

WHEREAS, in accordance with authority granted under the above provisions of state and local law, the Director of Emergency Services beginning on March 11, 2020 did proclaim the existence of a local emergency caused by epidemic in the form of the global spr ead of a severe acute respiratory illness caused by a novel (new) coronavirus ("COVID-19"), including confirmed cases in the San Francisco Bay Area and Alameda County prompting the County to declare a local health emergency; and

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED by the Council of the City of Hayward that it is hereby proclaimed and ordered that on February 28, 2023 the Proclamation of Local Emergency, issued by the Director of Emergency Services, is hereby ended; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that after this local emergency the powers, functions, and duties of the emergency organization of this City shall be those prescribed by state law, and the Charter, ordinances, resolutions and approved plans of the City of Hayward.

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA _______________________, 2023

ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

MAYOR:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

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

_________________________________________
City Attorney of the City of Hayward

ATTACHMENT III

ATTACHMENT IV

Page 1 of 2 ends

PUBLIC MEETINGS AFTER END OF STATE OF EMERGENCY

In order to use the teleconferencing rules established under AB 2449, the City must comply with the following meeting requirements: 1) a quorum of the members of the agency’s legislative body must participate in person from a singular physical location open to the public and located within the City’s jurisdictional boundaries identified on the agenda; 2) the legislative body must provide (a) a two -way audiovisual platform, such as Zoom, which allows the meeting to be viewed and heard from a remote location, and/or (b) a two -way telephonic service and a live webcasting of the meeting; 3) the agenda must give notice of the means by which memb ers of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment; and 4) i n the event of a disruption that prevents the legislative body from broadcasting the meeting to members of the public using the call-in option or internet-based option, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control that prevents members of the public from offering public comment via the call-in or internet-based option, the meeting must be paused and no action may be taken until public access to the meeting via the call-in option or internet-based service option is restored.

A member of a legislative body who wishes to participate remotely under the AB 2449 procedures may only do so based on “just cause” or an “emergency circumstance” as further described below:

1. Remote Participation based on Just Cause
The member must notify the legislative body at the earliest opportunity possible, including at the start of a regular meeting, of the member’s need to participate remotely for “just cause”, including a general description of the circumstances related to the member’s need to appear remotely at the given meeting.
“Just cause” is defined as any of the following: 1) a childcare or caregiving needs of a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner that requires a member to participate remotely ; 2) A contagious illness that prevents a member from attending in person; 3) a need related to a physical or mental disability as defined by statute, or 4) travel while on official business of the legislative body or another state or local agency. Each member of the legislative body is permitted to invoke the “just cause” provisions to participate remotely a maximum of two times per calendar year. The permission of the legislative body is not required for a member to participate remotely based on just cause.

2. Remote Participation based on Emergency Circumstance A member may participate remotely if the legislative body approves the member’s request to allow them to participate in the meeting remotely due to “emergency circumstances”. The request must be made as soon as possible and must include a general description (generally not to exceed 20 words) of the circumstances related to their need to appear remotely at the given meeting. The member must make a separate request for each meeting in which they seek to participate remotely. “Emergency circumstance” is defined as a physical or family medical emergency that prevents a member from attending in person. When making a request to appear remotely, a member need not disclose confidential or private medical

ATTACHMENT IV

Page 2 of 2 ends

information. The legislative body must take action on the request at the earliest opportunity, which would normally be at the beginning of the meeting.

3. Additional Requirements of AB 2449
A member participating remotely pursuant to AB 2449 must participate through both audio and visual technology. Additionally, the member must disclose whether any other individuals 18 years of age or older are present in th e room at the remote location and describe the general nature of the member’s relationship to those individuals. A member’s remote participation may not exceed 1) three consecutive months, or 2) 20% of the legislative body’s regular meetings within a calen dar year. If the legislative body regularly meets fewer than 10 times per calendar year, a member’s participation from a remote location may not exceed two meetings, including any remote participation for “just cause”.

To provide opportunity for notification and consideration of requests made under AB 2449, staff is revising all agenda templates to include a standing agenda item entitled “AB 2449 Notifications and Consideration”, which will be used to comply with the legislation by giving written notification of any legislative body member’s remote participation.

Following implementation of AB 2449, the traditional teleconference procedures will remain available in the event that legislative body members and the City wish to comply with the full teleconference and noticing requirements set forth under the Brown Act. The AB 361 teleconferencing procedures used during the COVID 19 state of emergency cannot be used once the Governor’s state of emergency is lifted, and the legislation will expire on January 1, 2024.

ATTACHMENT V

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: WS 23-004
DATE: February 21, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Assistant City Manager

SUBJECT
Affordable Housing Ordinance: Discuss Findings from Affordable Housing Ordinance Feasibility Study and Proposed Modifications of the Affordable Housing Ordinance

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council reviews and provides comments on the findings from the Affordable Housing Ordinance Feasibility Study and proposed Modification to the Affordable Housing Ordinance.

SUMMARY
In early 2020, with the intention of increasing the supply of affordable housing, Council directed staff to evaluate the existing Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) as part of the adoption of the “Preserve, Protect, Produce Housing for All” Priority in the Strategic Road Map and the Incentives to Housing Production work plan. In March 2022, the Homelessness Housing Task Force (HHTF) and the Planning Commission reviewed the outcomes and performance of the existing AHO and provided direction to staff regarding the goals and target populations to be served by any future revisions to the AHO. In consideration of the feedback established by the HHTF and the Planning Commission and in order to ensure economic feasibility of any proposed changes to the City’s AHO, the City contracted with Strategic Economics Inc (the Consultant) to conduct a feasibility study. On September 28, 2022 and December 8, 2022, Strategic Economics presented preliminary finding to the HHTF and the Planning Commission respectively to discuss preliminary findings of the feasibility study and receive feedback. The purpose of the report is to discuss the findings and recommendations of the feasibility study and prior feedback.

Findings related to the current AHO show that:
• While Hayward had lower inclusionary housing requirements than other comparable jurisdictions, Hayward produced more inclusionary units than most of the other comparable jurisdictions;
• There is some capacity for increasing affordable housing requirements for low density ownership housing project types;
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/17/2023Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:WS 23-004
• The sensitivity analysis illustrates how slightest negative change in development conditions can result in projects becoming infeasible; and
• Most rental housing types are financially infeasible with or without City affordable housing requirements.

The Consultant conducted a feasibility analysis in consultation with a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that was comprised of developers to ensure assumptions were consistent with current market conditions. Based on this analysis, the consultant proposed recommendations related to both the on-site affordable housing requirements and the rate of the affordable housing in-lieu fee as listed below.

On-site affordable housing recommendations:
• For-sale single-family homes and townhomes: Increase the inclusionary requirement to 12% of the total units setting affordability levels for half of the units at low-income and the other half at moderate income and maintain current requirements 7.5% of units for high density condominiums.
• Rental: Maintain existing affordable housing requirements for rental property due to infeasibility of developing most rental housing product types.

Affordable housing in-lieu fee recommendations:
• Rental: Maintain existing fee ($21.64)
• Ownership:
o Maintain existing fee ($17.85) for high density condominiums (35 dwelling units per acre or greater)
o Increase fee for lower density ownership projects from $21.64 to $26 per square foot.

Supporting analysis for these findings is included Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study (Attachment II) prepared by the Consultant.

In addition to the recommendations provided by the Consultant, it is important to note that the TAC expressed a preference to maintain current compliance flexibility allowed under the AHO. Also, the TAC cautioned that increasing affordable housing requirements are ultimately paid by the market rate renter or purchaser thus increasing housing prices.

In addition to the recommendations that resulted from the feasibility study, staff recommends making modifications to the AHO to improve implementation by clarifying language, better aligning some of the requirements with the development process to streamline, and to conform requirements with existing affordable housing agreements and resale restrictions. A full list of proposed administrative changes are included in Attachment III.

Furthermore, staff seeks feedback from Council regarding timing for implementing changes to the AHO - should changes to the ordinance only apply to new applications not currently in the application process? Developers determine project feasibility prior to submitting applications for entitlement. Changing requirements during the entitlement application can impact project feasibility.

CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/17/2023Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:WS 23-004
Lastly, to ensure that the AHO produces units that meet the diverse housing needs of Hayward community members, the AHO must both produce: 1) inclusionary units providing ownership opportunities for moderate- and low-income households (as proposed); and 2) generate fee revenue to subsidize the development of affordable housing for low, very low, and extremely low-income households. Furthermore, increases in construction costs combined with increasing interest rates will further challenge the development of market rate housing; therefore, there is concern that an aggressive increase in requirements under the AHO may further delay recovery from these market challenges.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Feasibility Study
Attachment III List of Proposed Administrative Modifications CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/17/2023Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™

DATE: February 21, 2023

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Assistant City Manager

SUBJECT: Affordable Housing Ordinance: Discuss Findings from Affordable Housing Ordinance Feasibility Study and Proposed Modifications of the Affordable Housing Ordinance.

RECOMMENDATION

That the City Council reviews and provides comments on the findings from the Affordable Housing Ordinance Feasibility Study and proposed Modification to the Affordable Housing Ordinance.

SUMMARY

In early 2020, with the intention of increasing the supply of affordable housing, Council directed staff to evaluate the existing Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) as part of the adoption of the “Preserve, Protect, Produce Housing for All” Priority in the Strategic Road Map and the Incentives to Housing Production work plan. In March 2022, the Homelessness Housing Task Force (HHTF) and the Planning Commission reviewed the outcomes and performance of the existing AHO and provided direction to staff regarding the goals and target populations to be served by any future revisions to the AHO. In consideration of the feedback established by the HHTF and the Planning Commission and in order to ensure economic feasibility of any proposed changes to the City’s AHO, the City contracted with Strategic Economics Inc (the Consultant) to conduct a feasibility study. On September 28, 2022 and December 8, 2022, Strategic Economics presented preliminary finding to the HHTF and the Planning Commission respectively to discuss preliminary findings of the feasibility study and receive feedback. The purpose of the report is to discuss the findings and recommendations of the feasibility study and prior feedback.

Page 2 of 12 ends

• The sensitivity analysis illustrates how slightest negative change in development conditions can result in projects becoming infeasible; and • Most rental housing types are financially infeasible with or without City affordable housing requirements.

On-site affordable housing recommendations:
• For-sale single-family homes and townhomes: Increase the inclusionary requirement to 12% of the total units setting affordability levels for half of the units at low-income and the other half at moderate income and maintain current requirements 7.5% of units for high density condominiums. • Rental: Maintain existing affordable housing requirements for rental property due to infeasibility of developing most rental housing product types.

Supporting analysis for these findings is included Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study (Attachment II) prepared by the Consultant.

Furthermore, staff seeks feedback from Council regarding timing for implementing changes to the AHO – should changes to the ordinance only apply to new applications not currently in the application process? Developers determine project feasibility prior to submitting applications for entitlement. Changing requirements during the entitlement application can impact project feasibility.

Page 3 of 12 ends

Lastly, to ensure that the AHO produces units that meet the diverse housing needs of Hayward community members, the AHO must both produce: 1) inclusionary units providing ownership opportunities for moderate- and low-income households (as proposed); and 2) generate fee revenue to subsidize the development of affordable housing for low, very low, and extremely low-income households. Furthermore, increases in construction costs combined with increasing interest rates will further challenge the development of market rate housing; therefore, there is concern that an aggressive increase in requirements under the AHO may further delay recovery from these market challenges.

BACKGROUND

The AHO was adopted in 2003 to address the need for affordable housing that is created by the development of market rate housing. On November 28, 2017, the Council adopted amendments to the AHO based on feedback from a variety of stakeholders, including the following major revisions:

 Extending applicability of the AHO from projects consisting of 20 units or more to projects that consist of 2 units or more;
 Increasing the affordable housing in-lieu fee from $3-$5 per habitable square foot to $15-$18, depending on project density, to encourage on-site inclusion of affordable housing;
 Increasing the on-site affordable housing requirement for ownership housing from

7.5% to 10% of the units targeting moderate income while retaining the lower requirement 7.5% of units for high density ownership projects due to concern over feasibility;
 Reducing the on-site rental housing requirement option from 7.5% to 6% of the units in order to require units for both low-and very-low-income households;  Allowing a reduced fee for projects less than nine units in order not to disincentivize the development of small-scale infill projects; and
 Allowing the developer to choose their method of compliance, including the following options:
 on-site affordable units
 off-site affordable units
 paying an affordable housing in-lieu fee
 proposing alternate plans.

On March 3, 20221 and on March 10, 20222, the HHTF and Planning Commission respectively reviewed the outcomes and performance of the existing AHO and provided feedback to staff regarding the goals and target populations to be served by any future revisions to the AHO.

The following goals were identified:

1 March 3, 2022 HHTF Staff Report and Attachments
CITY OF HAYWARD - File #: RPT 22-023 (legistar.com)
2 March 10, 2022 HHTF Staff Report and Attachments
CITY OF HAYWARD - File #: WS 22-006 (legistar.com)

Page 4 of 12 ends

• Help most vulnerable renters and home purchasers by maximizing the effectiveness of the AHO;
• Provide a mixture of housing opportunities to provide for diverse housing needs; • Make Hayward one of the most affordable cities by building higher density mixed income housing as fast as possible with an emphasis on helping students and seniors;
• Provide down payment assistance; and
• Find a model that will create ownership housing that meets the needs of community members that are most at risk of displacement and being barred from homeownership.

Additionally, members of the HHTF and the Planning Commission requested that the feasibility analysis include:
• A comparison of other local jurisdictions’ affordable housing requirements; • Outreach to the development community; and
• Consider the changes in economic variables that impact development.

On September 28, 20223 and December 8, 20224, the Consultant presented the preliminary findings from the feasibility study to the HHTF and Planning Commission respectively.

Feedback from the bodies included:
• Maintain the existing rental inclusionary requirement; • Maintain relatively lower inclusionary requirements for high-density ownership housing products;
• Increase inclusionary requirements for single-family homes and townhomes while still accommodating potential short-term changes in development conditions; • General preference that projects provide on-site inclusionary units rather than pay in-lieu fees;
• Concerns about maintaining development feasibility as conditions change; • Concerns about the infeasibility of higher density market-rate rental housing; and • Potential uses of the in-lieu fee revenue

Based on this feedback the Consultant has conducted further analysis and sensitivity testing to ensure that the City is maximizing the production of affordable housing under the City’s AHO while ensuring continued feasibility of housing development in Hayward.

State Law and Inclusionary Housing
Effective January 1, 2018, AB 1505 reaffirmed the authority of local governments to include rental units within inclusionary ordinance requirements, as well as added a limited California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) review of inclusionary ordinances, under certain circumstances. One of the key provisions includes requiring local jurisdictions to conduct economic feasibility studies to demonstrate that an inclusionary

3 September 28, 2022 HHTF Staff Report and Attachments
CITY OF HAYWARD - File #: WS 22-031 (legistar.com)
4 December 8, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments CITY OF HAYWARD - File #: WS 22-038 (legistar.com)

Page 5 of 12 ends

ordinance does not unduly constrain the production of housing. Due to potential scrutiny by HCD and the City’s intention to increase the supply of affordable housing, staff recommends that any increase to the City’s affordable housing requirements adhere to the findings in the feasibility study to minimize the potential that modifications to the AHO requirements will unduly constrain or halt the production of housing.

Hayward Housing Need
The City’s displacement study, prepared by HR&A Advisors, draws a picture of low-income households, particularly renters and Black and Hispanic households, who are experiencing intense economic pressure and housing need in Hayward. Study findings demonstrate that those pressures have intensified in the last decade and have already resulted in a loss of low- income Hayward residents. Those who are still living in Hayward are struggling with cost burden, especially Black and Hispanic households, as housing supply does not align with household income. Figure 1 below illustrates the housing supply gap and a need to develop housing with rents below $1,250 per month, which equates to very-low-income housing.

Figure 1. Hayward Housing Supply Gap (2019)

Housing Element and Regional Housing Needs Allocation Compliance Local jurisdictions report progress annually on meeting their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goals. Table 1 demonstrates progress made toward meeting Hayward’s RHNA goals for the period between 2015-2023 as of the last report year (2021) and estimates potential compliance by including approved projects and projects pending approval. Permits to construct the units must be issued in order to count toward the City’s RHNA goals. The City has already exceeded its goal for above moderate income units.

Page 6 of 12 ends

Table 1. 2023 RHNA Goal Progress in the City of Hayward Income
Category
Unit
Goal
Reported
2021 Approved Pending
Approval
Estimated
Compliance
Estimated
Deficiency
Units % of
Goal Units % of
Goal Units % of
Goal Units % of
Goal Units % of
Goal
Very low 851 168 20% 293 34% 26 3% 487 57% 364 43%
Low 480 174 36% 226 47% 4 1% 404 84% 76 16%
Moderate 608 128 21% 60 10% 0 0% 188 31% 420 69%
*The City has achieved the Above Market Rate housing goals for the 2015-2023 RHNA cycle.

The AHO is one tool to help the City comply with its RHNA goals by: 1) providing on-site inclusionary units (mostly targeting moderate income households) and 2) providing fee revenue that the City can use to subsidize the development of affordable housing (targeting low, very low and extremely low income households). To maximize the number of affordable units produced under the AHO and to ensure that an increase to the requirements under the AHO do not unduly constrain development, the City contracted with the Consultant to conduct a feasibility study. The purpose of the report is to discuss the findings and recommendations of the feasibility study and proposed modifications of the AHO.

DISCUSSION

Development projects are feasible when revenues exceed project costs and there is an investment return. Housing is only built by the private sector when the projects are financially feasible. However, costs and revenues are dynamic. While many factors are beyond the City’s control, adding additional costs or increasing costly requirements to a development can affect the feasibility. The following information summarizes some of the main findings of the feasibility analysis and recommendations.

Comparison of Local Jurisdictions

As part of the feasibility study, the Consultant conducted a survey of affordable housing requirements in comparable jurisdictions including Concord, El Cerrito, Fremont, Newark, Richmond, San Leandro, and Union City. Major findings include:
• Higher on-site affordable unit requirements do not always result in more affordable units. While Hayward had lower inclusionary housing requirements than other comparable jurisdictions, Hayward produced more inclusionary units than most of the other jurisdictions (Concord, El Cerrito, Newark, Richmond, San Leandro, and Union City);
• In-lieu fee revenue provides the major source of local funding for 100% affordable housing projects that provide low-, very low- and extremely low-income units; and • On-site inclusionary housing requirements were helpful in producing moderate income housing in a limited number of cities including Hayward.

Feasibility Analysis

Page 7 of 12 ends

The Consultant conducted a feasibility analysis on six housing prototypes, which include single family homes, townhomes, small multifamily rental, stacked flats rental, five-story rental with wraparound parking, and five-story rental with podium parking. For the most part, the results of the analysis varied based on tenure.

For-sale single-family homes and townhomes: The feasibility analysis demonstrates that single family development and townhome development is feasible under current market conditions including the existing affordable housing requirements with some additionally capacity for inclusionary requirements.

Rental Housing Development. For the most part, none of the rental housing prototypes analyzed are feasible with current affordable housing requirements except for small multifamily developments located in areas of the City that charge the highest rents. Higher- density rental products are infeasible even without affordable housing requirements. Overall, there is little capacity for inclusionary requirements in rental housing products. Additionally, removal of the requirements would have little effect on feasibility because the cost of the affordability requirements are relatively low compared to the overall development costs.

Feasibility Recommendations

Based on the survey of comparable jurisdictions, findings of the feasibility analysis, sensitivity analysis, and feedback from the TAC, the Consultant identified the following recommendations:

For-sale single-family homes and townhomes: Increase inclusionary requirement to 12% of project units changing the affordability targets to half moderate income and half low-income targeting. This level of affordable housing requirement accounts for submarket variations and future market changes that could affect the viability of developing single-family homes and townhomes in the future. Sensitivity testing included in the feasibility study shows that a higher required percentage of affordable housing would result in these projects becoming infeasible with the slightest negative change in development conditions.

High density ownership housing. Maintain the current lower inclusionary requirement of

7.5% for denser ownership projects, such as condominiums. This product type is infeasible under current market conditions; therefore, no change is recommended.

Rental housing. Maintain existing affordable housing requirements for rental housing. Higher density rental housing is infeasible under current market conditions; therefore, no change is recommended.

Affordable Housing In-lieu Fee. The Consultant conducted an analysis to determine a reasonable affordable housing in-lieu fee. This analysis calculates the difference between the construction costs and the value based on restricted rents or sales prices. In addition to this analysis, the Consultant took into consideration prototype feasibility and current fees in comparable jurisdictions. Based on the analysis, the Consultant proposes the following fees:

Page 8 of 12 ends

• Rental: Maintain existing fee ($21.64)
• Ownership:
o Maintain existing fee ($17.85) for high density condominiums (35 dwelling units per acre or greater)
o Increase fee for lower density ownership projects from $21.64 to $26 per square foot.

Administrative Recommendations

In addition to the recommendations that resulted from the feasibility study, staff recommends making modifications to the AHO to improve implementation by clarifying language, better aligning some of the requirements with the development process, and by conforming requirements with existing affordable housing agreements. A full list of proposed administrative changes is included in Attachment III. Most of the modifications are for clarification only and do not change the requirements. The following proposed modification are more notable:

1. Affordable Housing Cost. Modify the definition of affordable housing cost used to calculate the maximum sales price to be inclusive of housing costs not specifically referenced in the AHO to adapt to changes. For example, newer housing requires payment of a solar lease, which should be factored into the calculation of the maximum sales price.

2. Marketing Plan. Delay the requirements to provide a final marketing plan until near the end of the development process and prior to marketing, as a condition of the Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA). Marketing plans are currently required while the project is still in the application process before the marketing team has been assembled, timelines are still undetermined, and pricing and rents are still unknown.

Requiring complete marketing plans early and recording them to title as part of the AHA creates unnecessary work modifying plans. Delaying the requirements and removing the plans from the AHA will reduce the administrative burden of compliance.

3. Approval of Affordable Unit Phasing Plans. Under the AHO, only the City Council can approve the Affordable Unit Phasing Plan. The purpose of the Affordable Unit Phasing Plan is to describe the timing of development of the number of affordable units proportionate to each proposed phase. Otherwise, the developer has to finish all the affordable units first or concurrently with the market rate units. When necessary, this plan gets memorialized in the AHA, which is recorded to title. Staff recommends revising to allow the decision-making body to approve the Affordable Unit Phasing Plan to streamline the development/approval process.

4. Priority Preference. The AHO gives priority preference to people who live or work in the City of Hayward. Existing affordable housing agreements also give preference to people displaced by City activity. Staff recommends conforming the AHO to the existing agreements to ensure these requirements are added to new development projects with affordable units to help rehouse households in the event City activity causes the displacement of otherwise eligible tenants.

5. Maximum Affordable Resale Price. The AHO requires the maximum affordable resale price be calculated based on the lessor of two different indices. Existing resale restriction documents only reference one of the two indices and therefore do not

Page 9 of 12 ends

evaluate which of the two is less. Staff recommends using only one index in the resale restriction formula to provide clearer requirements for owners of affordable units.

6. Administrative Cost. Staff proposes increasing the proportion of the affordable housing in-lieu fees that can be used to cover administrative costs from 10% to15% if allowable under state law. The fees paid under the AHO are not covering the administrative cost to the City to administer the ordinance because fewer large projects paying fees.

Developers determine project feasibility prior to submitting applications for entitlement.

Changing requirements during entitlement application can impact feasibility. Staff seeks feedback regarding when to apply the new requirements if supported by Council. Should changes to the ordinance only apply to new applications not currently in the application process? Table 2 compares the level of risk to the various application stages.

Table 2. Level of Risk of Changing Requirements During Entitlement Process.

Apply to: Level of Risk
New entitlement applications Eliminates risk to developers that have already invested in the entitlement process by only
imposing new requirements to new projects
Applications submitted but not
deemed complete
Increases risk of infeasibility; however,
applicants are still required to make
modifications to project to comply with city
requirements
Applications deemed complete but not
approved prior to the effective date
Higher level of risk of infeasibility because
project has finished all submittal requirements.

Senate Bill 330 limits the ability of the City to change fees after the preliminary application is submitted with exception to indexed increases in fees. Staff will evaluate the appropriate time for imposing increased fees if supported by Council.

Conclusion

Staff supports the proposed recommendations considering the current economic conditions.

Increasing construction costs, increasing interest rates, and concerns about a recession are all factors that can impact the feasibility of housing development in Hayward, which would slow or possibly stop housing production. While market rate housing development primarily produces units affordable to households above moderate income, the lack of housing production impacts lower income households more as higher income households compete with lower income households for existing housing. Development of on-site inclusionary affordable housing and producing fee revenue to subsidize the development of 100% affordable housing is dependent on the development of market rate housing; therefore, proposed modifications to the City’s AHO must maintain housing development feasibility while maximizing the production of affordable units.

While high density rental housing development is currently infeasible, staff supports

Page 10 of 12 ends

maintaining current requirements because:

1. The cost of the affordable housing requirements is nominal compared to the development costs and reducing the requirements will not improve feasibility; and

2. When market conditions change, it is important that there are requirements in place to support the development of affordable housing.

Lastly, to ensure that the AHO produces units that meets the diverse housing needs of Hayward community members, the AHO must both produce:

1. Inclusionary units providing ownership opportunities for moderate and low income households (as proposed); and

2. Generate fee revenue to subsidize the development of affordable housing for low, very low and extremely low-income households.

ECONOMIC IMPACT

Social research indicates that access to affordable housing can improve education outcomes, increase health and wellbeing, boost economic activity, and lower the costs for state and local governments to provide emergency housing, mental health crisis services, emergency medical care, and other services to assist the homeless or families and individuals with a housing crisis. The rent for affordable housing is relative to income levels versus market prices which reduces rent burden. This increases available income to pay for other basic needs or save for other financial goals such as furthering education or homeownership. Stabilizing housing costs can be the first step to creating opportunities for personal economic advancement.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund associated with this item.

STRATEGIC ROADMAP

This agenda item supports the Strategic Priority of Preserve, Protect, & Produce Housing.

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

Project 5, Part 5.b: Evaluate the Affordable Housing Ordinance and hold a work session to discuss potential revisions.

PUBLIC CONTACT

Staff engaged different community stakeholders through both the displacement study and the Let’s House Hayward! Strategic Plan process. Through the displacement study, HR&A Advisors interviewed local developers and service providers to gain a more qualitative understanding of displacement trends and housing needs. Through the Let’s House Hayward! planning process, staff and the consultant Homebase held virtual forums and interviews with individuals with lived experience of homelessness, homeless services providers, members of the business community, City staff, and other Hayward residents. Feedback ranged widely and is still being integrated, but initial findings demonstrate that community members broadly favored efforts

Page 11 of 12 ends

to prevent displacement and to increase affordable housing development for the City’s most vulnerable residents.

Outreach to Developers: The Consultant facilitated a TAC. The purpose was to provide feedback on market conditions, housing needs, development prototypes, and analysis assumptions/results. Members include market rate and affordable housing developers with recent projects in Hayward. The TAC reviewed the preliminary recommendations on November 15, 2022, and had the following comments:
 Maintain flexible AHO compliance options because feasibility related to AHO compliance is project specific;
 Fees and on-site affordable housing requirements increase rents and prices for non- restricted units which gets passed on to the end user;
 The current requirements strike a good balance for the developer, market rate buyer and the affordable buyer;
 Some developers indicated they prefer providing on-site units when feasible but wished the city would loosen requirements regarding implementation;  There was concern that the sensitivity testing was too conservative with constructions cost increasing on average between 5% and 10% and interest rates rising; and  Would like the AHO to allow affordable housing developers to use Low-income Housing Tax Credit rent and income limits.

Community Outreach: Staff gathered input from community members at two fair housing workshops and a Housing Fair. There were approximately 18 respondents who indicated the following priorities.
 Ownership housing
 Prioritize middle-income households ($171,350 annual income for 4-person household)
 Prioritize extremely low-income households ($42,850 annual income for 4-person household)
 Prioritize mixed income housing within new developments  Prioritize rental housing

While there was limited response, the responses indicated that there is a wide span of housing priorities indicating that proposed housing policy should meet these diverse needs. The AHO provides several tools to address those various housing needs and some tools have been more effective than others at creating units that serve those specific target populations.

NEXT STEPS

The following are the next steps for the project.
 Introduce Modifications to the AHO for City Council Approval (March 2023)  Adoption of Modification of the AHO (April 2023)

Prepared by: Christina Morales, Housing Division Manager

Page 12 of 12 ends

Recommended by: Dustin Clausen, Assistant City Manager

Approved by:

______________________________________________
Kelly McAdoo, City Manager

AYWARD AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ORDINANCE STUDY

PUBLIC DRAFT REPORT
Prepared for:

City of Hayward
February 1, 2023

ATTACHMENT II
Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 1 TABLE OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 4 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 9 Purpose of Study .................................................................................................................................. 9 Relationship Between Financial Feasibility and Affordable Housing Production ............................. 9 Existing AHO and Comparison to Peer Cities ................................................................................... 14 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS APPROACH AND ASSUMPTIONS ................................ ........ 21 Approach ............................................................................................................................................ 21 Feasibility Analysis Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 23 FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS AND IN-LIEU FEE RESULTS ................................ ................................ .. 31 Initial Feasibility Analysis Results..................................................................................................... 31 Alternative Inclusionary Policies Analysis ........................................................................................ 34 In-Lieu Fee Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 37 SUMMARY OF POLICY DIRECTION AND ROLE OF THE AHO IN ADDRESSING DISPLACEMENT .... 42 AHO Policy Support for Preventing Displacement ........................................................................... 44 AHO UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ................................ ......................... 44 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS ................................ ................................ ............................. 48 Definitions from Current AHO ........................................................................................................... 48 Definitions of Other Key Terms ........................................................................................................ 49 APPENDIX B: FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS DETAILS ................................ ................................ ..................... 50 Feasibility Assumptions .................................................................................................................... 50 Pro Forma Results ............................................................................................................................. 51

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 2

TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Current AHO Inclusionary Requirements (Share of Total Project Units) .................................. 4 Figure 2: Recommended Changes to Inclusionary Requirements ........................................................... 5 Figure 3: In-Lieu Fee Recommendations .................................................................................................... 7 Figure 4: Components of Financial Feasibility: Project Value and Project Cost Components ............. 11 Figure 4: Share of Households Who Are Cost Burdened in Hayward and Alameda County, by Tenure, 2021 .......................................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 5: Definition of Income Limits for Alameda County based on California Code of Regulations and HCD ............................................................................................................................................................ 12 Figure 6: Potential Impact of Inclusionary Policies on Financial Feasibility .......................................... 13 Figure 7: Project Revenue and Development Costs for Affordable Housing Projects .......................... 14 Figure 8: Current AHO Inclusionary Requirement (Share of Total Project Units) ................................. 15 Figure 9: Comparison of Inclusionary Requirements in Hayward vs. “Peer Cities” ............................. 17 Figure 10: Inclusionary Requirements by City and Tenure, from 2018-2021 ...................................... 18 Figure 11: Number of Permitted Inclusionary Housing Units in “Peer Cities,” by Type, 2018-2021 .. 18 Figure 12: Total Units Permitted, 2018-2021, by City, Income Level, and Funding Approach............ 19 Figure 13: Share of Local Funding by Source for Proposed and Entitled Affordable Housin g Projects, Fremont and Hayward, To Be Completed From 2015-2023 ................................................................. 20 Figure 14: Hayward 5th and 6th Cycle RHNA Housing Needs and 5th Cycle Permitting Progress ..... 20 Figure 15: Overview of Prototype Assumptions ...................................................................................... 24 Figure 16: Hayward Housing Prototype Example Images ....................................................................... 25 Figure 17: Hayward Housing Market Tiers and Corresponding Prices or Rents ................................... 26 Figure 18: Maximum Affordable Sale Price for Ownership Units, by Type, Income, and Bedrooms ... 28 Figure 19: Maximum Affordable Rent in Hayward, Effective 2022. ..................................................... 28 Figure 20: Hard Costs, by Prototype ........................................................................................................ 29 Figure 21: Overview of Soft Cost Assumptions ....................................................................................... 29 Figure 22: City of Hayward Municipal Fees, Excluding In-Lieu Fees ...................................................... 30 Figure 23: Developer Financing Cost Assumptions ................................................................................ 30 Figure 24: Site Acquisition Cost per Square foot, By Market Tier .......................................................... 31 Figure 25: Residual Land Value Results Under Existing AHO On -Site Inclusionary Requirements, By Market Tier ................................................................................................................................................ 33

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 3 Figure 26: Residual Land Value Results for Tier Two – With and Without Current AHO Compliance Options ....................................................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 27: Feasibility results For Policy Alternatives -- Moderate-Income Units Only ........................... 35 Figure 28: Feasibility Results for Policy Alternatives – with 50/50 Split Between Low and Moderate- Income Units ............................................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 29: Tier 1 Sensitivity Analysis for Single Family and Townhomes with 17% Inclusionary Requirements – Moderate-Income Units Only ........................................................................................ 36 Figure 30: Tier 1 Sensitivity Analysis for Single Family and Townhomes with 12% Inclusionary Requirements – 50/50 Split between Moderate- and Low-Income Units ............................................ 36 Figure 31: Affordable Unit Revenue and Costs – Ownership Prototypes .............................................. 38 Figure 32: Affordability Gap and Equivalent In-Lieu Fees – Ownership Products ................................ 39 Figure 33: Supportable Debt per Unit – Rental Prototypes ................................................................... 40 Figure 34: Affordability Gap Per Unit, and Equivalent In-Lieu Fee Per Square Foot of Project ............ 40 Figure 35: In-Lieu Fees or Affordable Housing Impact Fees in Hayward (Current AHO) and Peer Communities, Applied to Hayward Prototypes ........................................................................................ 41 Figure 36: Recommended Changes to Inclusionary Requirements ...................................................... 45 Figure 37: In-Lieu Fee recommendations ............................................................................................... 47 Figure 38: Square Feet per Unit and Share of Units by Bedroom Size Assumptions ........................... 50 Figure 39: Multifamily and Retail Rent and Revenue Assumptions ...................................................... 50 Figure 40: Financing Cost Calculations, by Prototype (in Millions of Dollars) ....................................... 50 Figure 41: Tier Two Full Pro Forma results - with Current AHO Requirements (In Millions of Dollars) 51 Figure 42: Tier One Full Pro Forma Results with Recommended Changes to AHO: Maintaining Current Requirements for Condos and Rental Prod ucts; Requiring 6% Low and 6% Mod. Units for SF and TH Products (In Millions of Dollars) ............................................................................................................... 52

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Hayward uses a variety of policy tools in its efforts to produce affordable housing and meet the State of California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements. One such tool is the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) . The AHO seeks to increase the production of affordable housing via requirements that housing developers either include deed-restricted affordable housing units as part of their projects or provide other contributions. The primary ways developers can comply with Hayward’s AHO are by dedicating a certain percentage of their project’s units as “inclusionary” deed-restricted affordable housing, or by paying an “in-lieu” fee that the City can use to fund affordable housing programs and production. The City may also, at it s discretion, approve an alternative mitigation proposed by a project developer.

The City of Hayward initiated this study of the AHO’s inclusionary and in-lieu fee requirements to ensure the AHO optimizes the production of affordable housing. Strategic Eco nomics completed a development financial feasibility analysis to evaluate the impacts of current AHO requirements and potential changes to these requirements on a variety of housing development “proto types” under varying submarket conditions found within H ayward. The analysis also included an “affordability gap analysis” to identify corresponding in-lieu fee levels . Another component of the analysis compared inclusionary and in -lieu fee requirements across several peer communities and examined recent affordable housing production in those communities.

The AHO study incorporated input and feedback from a variety of stakeholders and decisionmakers. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), consisting of five developers with local experience, met twice to vet analysis assumptions, results, and recommendations. City staff gathered community input on housing priorities via a survey activity conducted at two Fair Housing Workshops and a Housin g Fair.

The Homelessness-Housing Task Force (HHTF) reviewed analysis results and provided policy guidance, and the recommendations described in this report were presented to the Planning Commission for comment on December 8, 2022. The City of Hayward intends to use the results of this study to inform potential changes to the affordability requirements and in-lieu fee levels specified in its AHO.

The current Hayward AHO applies to all projects with at least two units. For ownership housing projects that are less than 35 units per acre, the AHO requires that ten percent of units in a project be dedicated to moderate-income households. For ownership housing projects at a density of 35 units per acre or greater, the AHO requires that 7.5 percent of units are dedicated to moderate-income households. For rental projects, the AHO requires that at least six percent of units in a development are designated as affordable units—split evenly between very low-income households and low-income households. These rental requirements are the same regardless of density.

FIGURE 1: CURRENT AHO INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS (SHARE OF TOTAL PROJECT UNITS)

Required Affordability Level as a Share of
Total Dwelling Units Total
Inclusionary
Requirement Type of Project Very Low Low Moderate
Ownership Projects
Less than 35 dwelling units per acre 10% 10%
35 or more dwelling units per acre 7.5% 7.5%
Rental Projects
All densities 3% 3% 6%
Source: City of Hayward AHO, 2017; Strategic Economics, 2023.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 5

INCLUSIONARY POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND RELATED CONCLUSIONS Strategic Economics recommends maintaining current inclusionary requirements for rental products and high -density ownership products, while increasing the required inclusionary percentage and deepening affordability requirements for low -density ownership products. The recommendation for ownership projects that are less than 35 dwelling units per acre (single family homes and townhomes) is to increase the required total inclusionary percentage from ten percent to 12 percent, split evenly between low -income households and moderate -income households. This is a departure from the current AHO policy, which only requires that these ownership products provide affordable units for moderate-income households. Figure 2 summarizes these changes.

FIGURE 2: RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS

These recommendations were informed by the following stakeholder input and analysis conclusions:
• The majority of the analyzed rental housing prototypes are currently not feasible within Hayward, regardless of the level of AHO requirements or submarket “tier.” This aligns with current development conditions, as developers have not proposed any major market -rate rental projects since adoption of Hayward’s current AHO requirements. Reduction or elimination of affordable housing requirements is not expected to significantly improve feasibility for these multifamily products due to their wide gap between achievable revenues and construction costs.

• The recommended requirements are within a typical range of s even “peer” cities for which Strategic Economics reviewed inclusionary policies and affordable housing production outcomes.

o As shown in the Existing AHO and Comparison to Peer Cities analysis on page 14, Hayward’s current inclusionary requirements are relatively lower than peer communities, yet these low requirements led to production of a relatively high number of affordable low - and modera te-income housing units. Inclusionary requirements should be set at a level that does not encourage developers to build projects in nearby communities instead of Hayward. Inclusionary on -site units we re also the primary Current Requirements
•Rental
•3% very low-income
•3% low-income
•Ownership: <35
du/acre
•10% moderate-
income
•Ownership: >35
du/acre
•7.5% moderate-
income
Recommendations
•Rental
•3% very low-income
•3% low-income
•Ownership: <35
du/acre
•6% low-income
•6% moderate-income
•Ownership: >35
du/acre
•7.5% moderate-
income

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 6 means by which Hayward and peer communities produce deed-restricted housing for moderate-income households.

• The peer cities and policy analyses also suggested the importance of maintaining inclusionary requirements at a level that supports the financial feasibility of new development.

o Some jurisdictions, such as Fremont, may be able to sustain higher inclusionary requirements because they have higher market-rate rents that could support the cost of affordable units.
o In Hayward, t he Inclusionary Policy Alternatives Findings on page 35 indicate that single-family homes and townhomes are only margin ally feasible at a 15 percent requirement—the level used by some peer communities.

• The City’s Homelessness-Housing Task Force (HHTF) expressed a preference for maintaining existing rental requirements to ensure developers are obligated to provide inclusionary or in - lieu fee contributions if development conditions improve in the future.

• A condominium prototype (a higher-density ownership product) is not currently feasible under any market tier within Hayward, and developers are not proposing condominiums in Hayward.

• Strategic Economics found through sensitivity testing that a 12 percent requirement for low and moderate-income households applicable to low-density ownership products (single-family homes and townhomes) would allow projects to maintain feasibility w hile also sustaining increases in construction costs of up to four percent. In contrast, a higher required percentage would re sult in these projects becoming infeasible with the slightest negative change in development conditions. See the Sensitivity Analysis section on page 36 for further details.

• The HHTF expressed a preference for increasing ownership requirements, but not to such a point that they block housing development if project costs and revenues shift in the near term.

IN-LIEU FEE RECOMMENDATIONS AND RELATED CONCLUSIONS
Strategic Economics recommends maintaining the current level of in-lieu fees for rental products and high-density ownership products, while increasing the fee for low -density ownership products to $26 per habitable square foot. The goal of these recommendations is to strike a balance between generating revenue for producing affordable units while ensuring that the fee does not prevent development activity . The recommended changes represent a relatively small increase in total development costs.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 7 FIGURE 3: IN-LIEU FEE RECOMMENDATIONS

These recommendations were informed by the following stakeholder input and analysis conclusions:
• The affordability gap analysis found that the in-lieu fee amount required to build off-site deed- restricted affordable housing equivalent to the revised inclusionary requirements would be $29.26 per square foot for single-family homes and $16.92 per square foot for townhomes.

• Among other considerations, i n-lieu fees should be set at a level that does not encourage developers to build projects in nearby communities instead of Hayward. The maximum effective in-lieu fee for ownership products among Hayward’s “peer” communities is $44 per square foot of habitable space, but the median fee is closer to Hayward’s current level.

• The maximum in-lieu fee for rental products among Hayward’s peer communities is approximately $30 per square foot, while the median fee is close to Hayward’s current level.

o Based on the affordability gap, the in -lieu fee for rental products would be between $29 per square foot and $40 per square foot.
o However, rental products are largely not feasible under existing AHO requirements; maintaining a lower in -lieu fee for rental projects increases the possibility of development occurring if conditions improve in the future.

• The Homelessness-Housing Task Force supported increasing AHO requirements on low-density ownership products while m aintaining consistent requirements for high -density ownership housing and rental products.

• Analysis of affordable housing funding data for Hayward and Fremont demonstrated the importance of i n-lieu fee revenues as a local funding source for production of 100 percent affordable housing projects . These projects can provide a deeper level of affordability than what can be achieved through inclusionary units. These projects can also provide permanent supportive housing units and housing units for extremely low -income households —serving community members who are at high risk for displacement or homelessness.

Current In-Lieu
Requirements
•Rental
•$21.64/sf
•Ownership: <35 du/acre
•$21.64/sf
•Ownership: >35 du/acre
•$17.85/sf
In-Lieu Recommendations
•Rental
•$21.64/sf
•Ownership: <35 du/acre
•$26/sf
•Ownership: >35 du/acre
•$17.85/sf

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 8 • Lastly, TAC members noted that financial considerations for in-lieu fees or provision of on-site units differ from project to project, and that flexibility is important for ensuring that they can find a feasible approach for future projects.

The full discussion of the research and findings described in this executive summary can be found throughout the remainder of this report. The “Existing AHO and Comparison to Peer Cities ” section beginning on page 14 describes Hayward’s current AHO requirements and compares Hayward’s requirements and production of inclusionary housing to nearby East Bay communities. Further explanation of feasibilit y results, sensitivity testing, and in -lieu fee analysis is provided in the “Feasibility Analysis and In-Lieu Fee Results” section on page 31.

In addition, this report includes two appendices. Appendix A: Glossary of Key Terms includes a glossary of key terms and definitions which are otherwise also defined throughout the report narrative .

Appendix B: Feasibility Analysis Details provides detailed tables describing the feasibility assumptions and results, including unit size calculations, cost calculations, and detailed pro forma results.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 9

INTRODUCTION
Purpose of Study
Hayward’s Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) provides a framework through which developers of new market-rate housing projects are required to provide affordable housing units or support the development of affordable housing through other means. This ordinance is a type of inclusionary housing policy. Inclusionary housing policies work by requiring market -rate developers to dedicate a portion of their project’s total units to be permanently affordable to moderate-, low-, or very low-income households. In most communities, developers also have the option of complying with the requirements by paying a fee instead. This fee, known as an in-lieu fee, can be used to substitute for some or all of the required affordable units in the housing project. Developers may also pr opose an alternative means of complying with the AHO, with approval at the City’s discretion.

The goal of this study was to identify potential changes to the AHO that would help maximize the production of affordable housing in Hayward. Hayward’s AHO was most recently updated in 2017. At that time, the City of Hayward increased the AHO’s in -lieu fee and reduced the project size threshold to which requirements apply. However, since th at time, the COVID -19 pandemic altered market conditions for housing development, meaning that the development assumptions upon which the AHO requirements were changed are no longer the same. Therefore, t he purpose of th is study wa s to identify the current market context for development feasibility and to analyze how changes to the AHO could be structured to increase production of affordable housing without curtailing market-rate housing production due to unsupportable requirements.

The remainder of the report consists of five sections:
• II: Introduction: The remainder of the Introduction describes approaches to affordable housing production, financial feasibility, and how inclusionary policies can be used to help produce affordable housing;
• III: Financial Feas ibility Analysis Approach and Assumptions : This section explains the approach and assumptions used for analyzing financial feasibility of different housing types. • IV: Feasibility Analysis and In-Lieu Fee Results: This section focuses on the feasibility analysis results and analysis of how policy changes would impact development feasibility for different types of housing.
• V: Summary of Policy Direction and Role of the AHO in Addressing Displacement: This section describes stakeholder and decisionmaker input that was used to guide the analysis and AHO recommendations, and describes the role of the AHO in addressing displacement concerns. • V: AHO Update Recommendations : This section presents final recommendations for both inclusionary requirements and in-lieu fees.

Relationship Between Financial Feasibility and Affordable Housing Production
Because inclusionary housing policies like Hayward’s AHO seek to leverage the activities of the private market to produce affordable housing, they are reliant on the financial feasibility of market -rate housing projects. This means inclusionary and in-lieu fee policies are reliant on some factors outside

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 10 of the City’s control. Cities can control what types of housing are allowed on each parcel using land use regulation, and whether particular project proposals are approved. However, a city cannot control whether developers propose projects within those regulations, nor the exact composition of proposed projects. Developers will only propose projects that they assess as being feasible to construct.

Requirements to provide inclusionary affordable units or pay a certain level of additional fees influence development feasibility for market-rate housing developers by reducing revenues or increasing costs.

Thus, for an inclusionary policy to contribute to affordable housing production, its requirements must be high enough that they result in the production of new affordable units, but not be so high that they prevent market-rate housing projects from being feasible. This makes it important to identify how different affordability requirements for inclusionary units relate to the total revenue and expenses of a project.

On the other hand, requiring deeper levels of affordability or higher in-lieu fee contributions can help Hayward meet its affordable housing development goals through multiple means of affordable housing production. Thus, the content of this section explains why financial feasibility of housing development matters for setting inclusionary policies ; how “affordable” housing is defined and affects financial feasibility considerations; and how inclusionary policies fit within the context of overall affordable housing production in a community.

FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
From a market -rate housing developer’s perspective, development projects are only financially feasible when the market value of the project (based on total revenue) exceeds project costs and investment return. As shown in Figure 4, this is determined by the following factors. • Total project revenue is determined by the market value of the project. o For for-sale projects, the market value consists of the sales prices the units can obtain. o For rental projects, the market value of the project depends on the annual revenue it will generate and the current capitalization rate , which reflects overall project investment risk relative to alternative investments.

• Total project costs include hard costs, soft costs, investment return, and land costs. o Hard costs include materials and labor associated with phys ical construction of the building.
o Soft costs include indirect expenses such as architecture and engineering, taxes, insurance, financing costs, and municipal fees.
o Investment return consists of the required financial return on investment that a project must achieve to attract developer and lender investment. o Land costs refer to the price the developer pays to acquire the land.

Each of these factors is very dynamic; project costs and revenues can fluctuate significantly, and many factors, such as the market -rate price of housing, are beyond the City’s direct sphere of influence.

Instead, the market -rate price of housing is set by local market demand —which may rise and fall according to the availability of housing supply, presence of amenities, or other factors in the market.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 11 FIGURE 4: COMPONENTS OF FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY: PROJECT VALUE AND PROJECT COST COMPONENTS

Source: Strategic Economics, 2022.

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND “AFFORDABLE HOUSING” DEFINITIONS Housing prices are considered affordable if a household pay s less than 30 percent of its monthly income on housing costs; in Hayward, many households’ expenses are currently exceeding this threshold. Households whose expenses are exceeding 30 percent of their income are referred to as housing “cost -burdened.” Figure 5 displays the share of households in both Alameda County and Hayward that are cost burdened. Approximately 37 percent of households in Hayward are housing cost burdened—implying that the market-rate price of housing of their current unit is too high for them to afford with their current household income.

FIGURE 5: SHARE OF HOUSEHOLDS WHO ARE COST BURDENED IN HAYWARD AND ALAMEDA COUNTY, BY TENURE, 2021

Source: U.S. Census, American Community Survey, 1-YR, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2022.

Note: Hayward’s combined cost-burdened household percentage is 37 percent.

Deed-restricted affordable housing units help to reduce cost -burdens for households within specific income categories. In the context of this report, “affordable housing ” refers to units with deed - restrictions limited to households earning certain incomes. Affordable housing units target households within select income categories, which are based on the area median income (AMI) of a region. Rents and sales prices are set at below market-rate (BMR) levels so that households pay no more than 30 Land Costs
Hard Costs
Soft Costs
Market Value
Investment
Return
53%
25%
49%
28%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Renters
Owners
Renters
Owners
Hayward
Alameda
County
Share of Renters or Owners Whose Housing Costs Exceed 30 Percent of Their Income

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 12 percent of the targeted income level for their income category.1 Each year, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) publishes income limits for every county corresponding to its AMI and standard affordable housing income categories. Figure 6 shows the percentage of AMI that falls into each income category in Alameda County.

FIGURE 6: DEFINITION OF INCOME LIMITS FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY BASED ON CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS AND HCD
Income Category AMI Level
Acutely Low-Income 0% to 15%
Extremely Low-Income >15% to 30%
Very Low-Income >30% to 50%
Low-Income >50% to 76.8%
Moderate-Income >76.8% to 120%
Above Moderate-Income >120%
Sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2022; Strategic Economics, 2022.

Note: These percentages were calculated from income limits for Alameda County that are determined by HCD and published annually in Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 6932. “Moderate-income” limits generally start at or above 80% of AMI.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION TOOLS
In order to produce housing units with rents or sales prices that are below market-rates, jurisdictions often u se either public or private forms of subsidy. Two of the mos t common types of affordable housing production tools are inclusionary housing policies —which require private subsidy—and 100 percent affordable housing programs—which primarily leverage public subsidy to produce affordable housing.

INCLUSIONARY HOUSING POLICIES
Inclusionary housing policies work by requiring market-rate housing developers to subsidize affordable housing units directly. Typically, this is done by requiring developers to set aside a certain percentage of their project’s housing units to be deed-restricted affordable housing. Alternatively, an inclusionary policy may allow developers to pay an affordable housing fee, “in -lieu” of providing on -site units, or allow them to assist with the production of affordable units in some other way. In such a policy, the goal is to use the revenue generated by market-rate housing units to cross-subsidize development of affordable units.

These policies have the benefit of potentially producing affordable housing units without requiring public subsidy, but also drive down financial feasibility by reducing the total revenue and market value of the project. Because inclusionary units generat e less revenue per unit than market -rate units, requiring developers to substitute them for market -rate units will reduce the project’s total revenue.

Figure 7 visualizes this impact on the project’s overall feasibility. This figure also illustrates the purpose of conducting a feasibility analysis —to identify an inclusionary requirement level that allows projects to generate enough revenue to proceed while also providing BMR units.

1 This practice does not entirely eliminate housing cost burden for low -income households. Because maximum costs are based on a target income level for each group of households, housing cost burden can still occur in cases where the household’s income is below the target income level for their category. However, the BMR restrictions reduce the households’ housing cost burdens below the levels of market rate rents.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 13 FIGURE 7: POTENTIAL IMPACT OF INCLUSIONARY POLICIES ON FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY

Source: Strategic Economics, 2022.

Another benefit of inclusionary policies is that they give local governments more flexibility in determining which income levels to target. Jurisdictions with inclusionary policies can choose whether the policies target moderate-, low-, or very low-income populations, and can also implement different requirements for different housing products, such as ownership or rental projects. Thus, inclusionary policies can be used to target income thresholds— such as moderate -income households—that may not typically be supported by other forms of affordable housing. This flexibility can help local jurisdictions achieve their affordable housing goals and meet state regional housing needs allocations.

However, because inclusionary requirements only produce affordable housing units or fee revenues if market-rate housing developers choose to pursue projects, jurisdictions must incorporate consideration of financial feasibility impacts on future development projects when setting inclusionary requirements.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS
The other common approach to produce affordable housing is to use public subsidy to fund p rojects in which all units are affordable. These projects are typically referred to as 100 percent affordable projects. The largest source of funding for many of these projects comes from the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), which gives inves tors a dollar -for-dollar credit on their tax liability in exchange for equity contributions to an affordable housing development. In a 100 percent affordable housing project, the developer must assemble a funding “stack” consisting of a variety of federal, state, local, and private funding sources to offset the costs of producing the units—which are typically much higher than the revenue that will be generated from the deed -restricted affordable units. This process is illustrated in Figure 8, which shows the funding gap these projects have because of the reduced revenue they can raise from the BMR units.

Land Costs
Hard Costs
Soft Costs
Market Value
Market Value
Investment
Return
All Market Rate Units Market Rate + BMR
Units
Development Costs

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 14 FIGURE 8: PROJECT REVENUE AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS

Source: Strategic Economics, 2022.

Affordable housing projects can often leverage more diverse funding sources and achieve deeper levels of affordability than inclusionary housing projects, but available funding can be highly competitive or difficult to obtain . Federal and state funding sources have the benefit of being less sensitive to changing market conditions than private financing. However, f ederal and state funding sources often have a li mited pool of resources and can only be accessed through a competitive application process. In addition, they often require the use of local matching funds in order to receive funding. Inclusionary policies can be an important resource to provide local mat ching funds: if developers elect to comply with inclusionary policies by paying in-lieu fees instead of providing on-site units, those funds can be used to help support financing for other 100 percent affordable housing projects. In this way, inclusionary policies can be used to support both on -site affordable units and affordable units in 100 percent affordable projects —which in tandem produce more housing opportunity diversity in relation to income levels and tenure.

Existing AHO and Comparison to Peer Cities
Housing production in Hayward does not occur in a vacuum; developers often construct housing in many different areas, and differences in inclusionary requirements between regions can have an impact on where they choose to develop housing. Therefore, this section describes Hayward’s current inclusionary housing requirements and compares them to other nearby communities that could be viewed as Hayward’s “peers.” Seven communities were selected for comparison with Hayward based on their similarity to Hayw ard’s population size, as well as various characteristics of their housing markets: median rents, home values, age of housing , types of housing, and amount of recent construction activity.

This comparison of Hayward’s affordable housing production and developers’ use of its inclusionary policy to other Bay Area Cities revealed several key findings, described in greater detail in this section:
• Hayward’s current inclusionary requirements are relatively lower than most “peer” communities; yet these low require ments led to production of a relatively high number of Land Costs
Hard Costs
Soft Costs
Market
Value
Investment
Return
Funding
Gap
0 5
10 15
20 25

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 15 affordable low- and moderate-income housing units. This result implies that Hayward’s lower inclusionary requirements allowed market -rate housing development to remain financially feasible and therefore be built along with the corresponding inclusionary units. • Inclusionary on -site units are the primary means of producing deed -restricted housing for moderate-income households.
o Shifting away from moderate income requirements in an inclusionary policy would eliminate the primary means of delivering these units.
• In-lieu fees raised from inclusionary policies are one of the primary local funding sources for communities to support 100 percent affordable projects. • In order to achieve its affordable housing goals, Hayward will need to increase its production of affordable units at all income levels.
o The AHO is likely to be an important tool for producing both moderate and lower-income affordable units because it can produce both inclusionary units and fee revenue needed to subsidize 100 percent affordable housing.

CURRENT HAYWARD AFFORDABLE HOUSING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS The current Hayward AHO establishes different requirements depending upon the tenure type, size, and residential density of a proposed housing development. Figure 9 summarizes the current requirements based on housing density and housing tenure. • For ownership housing projects , the AHO has different requirements depending on the residential density.
o For projects that are less than 35 dwelling units per acre (du/acre):
 Ten percent of units are required to be dedicated to moderate -income households.
o For projects at a density of 35 units per acre or more:
 7.5 percent of units are required to be dedicated to moderate -income households.
• For rental projects, requirements are the same regardless of density. o Three percent of units are required to be dedicated to very low-income households, and
o Three percent of units are required to be dedicated to low -income households, for a total of six percent.

FIGURE 9: CURRENT AHO INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENT (SHARE OF TOTAL PROJECT UNITS)

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 16

PEER CITY INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS
Hayward’s current inclusionary requirements are lower than the required percentages in many of its “peer” communities, and many communities require deeper levels of affordability than Hayward. The only exceptions are Newark, which uses impact fees instead of requiring on-site units; Concord, which has a lower requirement than Hayward for ownership units; and Richmond, which uses in -lieu fees only for rental projects. Five of the six peer cities with ownership inclusionary policies require developers to provide units to both low - and moderate -households, while Hayward only requires provision of moderate-income units in its ownership projects. These requirements are shown in Figure

10. Fremont’s inclusionary requirements were among the highest among peer communities from 2015 to 2021, but were revised downwards i n 2021. For-sale requirements were revised down from around 20 percent to 15 percent, while rental requirements were revised from 12 to 10 percent. City staff cited three reasons for revising the total requirements: simplifying the ordinance, becoming more comparable to other jurisdictions, and making the on -site option more realistic for developers. Staff indicated that since the ordinance was adopted in 2015, no for -sale developers had elected to build on-site inclusionary units. 2 Both the previous and c urrent requirements for Fremont are shown in Figure 10.

2 City of Fremont, Affordable Housing Ordinance Update Staff Report, October 2021.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 17

FIGURE 10: COMPARISON OF INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS IN HAYWARD VS. “PEER CITIES” Set-Aside Requirement by Project Size Minimum Size
Threshold
Affordability Target by Tenure Date
Enacted Rental For-Sale Rental Ownership
Hayward All projects: 6%
Projects > 35 du/acre:

7.5%
Projects < 35 du/acre:
10%
2 units Very low and low-
income Moderate-income 2017
Concord
Either 10 percent at low
income, or six percent at
very low income
Either 10 percent at
moderate income, or six
percent at low income
5 units or more for
all residential
projects
Very low, low and
moderate income
Low and Moderate-
income 2021
El Cerrito 10% of units 12% of units
Rental or Combo
Rental/Sale: 9 units
For Sale only: 10
units
Very low and low-
income Moderate-income 2018
Fremont All projects: 10%
15% of units:
5% moderate
10% low-income
2 units Very low and low-
income
Low and Moderate-
income 2021
Fremont
(old) All projects 12.9% 18% for attached

21.6% for detached 2 units
Extremely low, very
low, low, and
moderate
Extremely low, very
low, low, and
moderate
2002
Newark (Impact fee only) (Impact fee only)
Richmond
In-lieu fee is default.

Developer can provide on-
site units. No % specified.

One of the following:

Moderate: 17%
Low Income: 15%
Very Low Income: 10%
10 units Very low, low, and
moderate income
Very low, low, and
moderate income 2020
San
Leandro
Roughly 15% - rounded to
the nearest unit.

Roughly 15% - rounded to
the nearest unit
4 for rental, 2 for
ownership
Very low and low-
income
Low and Moderate-
income 2006
Union City All projects: 15% All projects: 15% 7 Very low and low- income
Low and Moderate-
income 2018
Source: Municipal Ordinances, 2022; Strategic Economics, 2022.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 18

COMPARISON OF HOUSING PRODUCTION OUTCOMES
Hayward has produced more inclusionary units than its peer communities in recent years, likely because Hayward has lower inclusionary requirements. Figure 11 shows the required inclusionary percentages at the time that those units were produced while Figure 12 shows the total number of inclusionary units produced by product type. While housing markets differ from city to city, these charts illustrate that many communities with higher requirements are not producing any inclusionary units at all. One exception to this trend is F remont. However, F remont is among the strongest residentia l markets in the region, meaning that residential projects can achieve higher market -rate revenues to offset losses from including greater amounts of inclusionary units . According to C oStar, the average effective monthly rent per square foot for multifamily units in Fremont was $3.15, while the effective rent per square foot for units in Hayward was $2.68.3
FIGURE 11: INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS BY CITY AND TENURE, FROM 2018-2021

Source: Municipal Codes and Inclusionary Ordinances, 2022; Strategic Economics, 2022.

Note: In cases where the percentage depends on project density or affordability level, this chart reflects the average of all compliance options. Fremont’s required inclusionary percentages changed in 2021. This chart displays the previous requirements. The required levels of affordability within these inclusionary requirements varies; see the previous table for details.

FIGURE 12: NUMBER OF PERMITTED INCLUSIONARY HOUSING UNITS IN “PEER CITIES,” BY TYPE, 2018-2021

Source: California HCD, RHNA Annual Progress Report, 2022; Strategic Economics, 2022.

3 CoStar, East Bay – CA. Multi-Family Market Report, 2022. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Concord El Cerrito Fremont Hayward Newark Richmond San
Leandro
Union City
% Inclusionary as Share of
Units
Owner Renter
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
Owner RenterOwner Renter Owner Renter Owner RenterOwner RenterOwner RenterOwner RenterOwner Renter Concord El Cerrito Fremont Hayward Newark Richmond San Leandro Union City Housing Units
Multifamily SF Attached SF Detached ADUs, Mobile Homes

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 19

Affordable housing projects are the primary source of production for low- and very low-income housing units; however, inclusionary policies are the primary way that Hayward and its “peer” communities are permitting deed-restricted units for moderate-income households. These types of units are not typically produced via 100 percent affordable housing projects, because projects receiving federal funding are required to target incomes at 80 percent of AMI or below —that is, low -income, very low-income, or extremely low-income households. As shown in Figure 13, the only way that deed-restricted moderate- income housing units were produced in Hayward or its peer communities from 2018 to 2021 was through inclusionary housing policies.

FIGURE 13: TOTAL UNITS PERMITTED, 2018-2021, BY CITY, INCOME LEVEL, AND FUNDING APPROACH

Source: California HCD, RHNA Annual Progress Report, 2022; Strategic Economics, 2022.

Inclusionary housing policies also contribute to the production of low and very low-income units in 100 percent affordable projects by providing an important source of local funding for these projects. When developers elect to pay in -lieu fees instead of providing on -site units, these fees go into affordable housing trust funds, which are a significant source of local funding for 100 percent affordable housing projects. In Hayward, over 20 percent of local funds for these projects came from affordable housing trust fund revenue since 2015—supported by in-lieu fees. The majority of remaining funds came from one-time funding sources such as Alameda County’s A-1 bond measure and public land contributions.

In Fremont, the percentage of local revenue supported by in -lieu fees is even higher, at almost 80 percent. This illustrates that on-site inclusionary housing is not the only way that inclusionary housing policies like Hayward’s AHO can support the production of affordable housing. 0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Concord
El Cerrito
Fremont
Hayward
Newark
Richmond
San Leandro
Union City
Concord
El Cerrito
Fremont
Hayward
Newark
Richmond
San Leandro
Union City
Concord
El Cerrito
Fremont
Hayward
Newark
Richmond
San Leandro
Union City
Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income
Total Units Permitted
100% Affordable Inclusionary

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 20 FIGURE 14: SHARE OF LOCAL FUNDING BY SOURCE FOR PROPOSED AND ENTITLED AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS, FREMONT AND HAYWARD, TO BE COMPLETED FROM 2015-2023

Source: City of Hayward, 2022. City of Fremont, 2022.

Note: Hayward’s largest “Other” sources were Alameda County A1 bond revenue and public land contributions.

In order to achieve its affordable housing goals, Hayward will need to find ways to increase its affordable housing production overall and maximize the effectiveness of its AHO. These affordable housing goals are described in Hayward’s State-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

Every eight years, California HCD uses population projections and affordable housing needs to set goals for housing production for each region of the state. These goals are allocated to each jurisdiction in the Bay Area by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The resulting allocation is referred to as RHNA. Each eight-year period is called a “Cycle” and Hayward is currently completing its 5th Cycle, which ends on January 31 st, 2023. Figure 15 summarizes Hayward’s projected progress towards its 5th Cycle goals, alongside the number of housing units for each income level that the City has been allocated for the 6th Cycle—which will begin in 2023. This shows that Hayward is falling well short of its affordable housing goals—particularly for moderate-income housing. Hayward will need to substantially increase its rate of moderate-income housing production to meet its 6th Cycle RHNA goals, but the City will also need to increase production of low and extremely low or very low-income housing. This means that production of moderate -income units through on -site inclusionary requirements and in-lieu fee revenues raised through the AHO will both be important for Hayward to achieve its 6th Cycle goals.

FIGURE 15: HAYWARD 5TH AND 6TH CYCLE RHNA HOUSING NEEDS AND 5TH CYCLE PERMITTING PROGRESS

Source: City of Hayward, 2022; Strategic Economics, 2022.

Note: For 5th Cycle Estimated Compliance, this chart includes pipeline projects as well as those that had already been permitted. 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Affordable Housing
Trust Fund (Fee
Revenue)
CDBG HOME Other
% of Local Funding
Contribution
Fremont % of Local Funding Contribution Hayward % of Local Funding Contribution -
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Extremely Low or Very
Low
Low Moderate Above Moderate
Units Permitted
Income Level
5th Cycle Estimated Compliance 5th Cycle Goal 6th Cycle Goal

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 21

FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS APPROACH

AND ASSUMPTIONS
Strategic Economics performed a financial feasibility analysis to test the extent to which different market-rate housing products can still proceed in Hayward while providing different levels of on -site inclusionary units or in -lieu fee revenues. Strategic Economics worked with City staff and analyzed information about recent projects to create development prototypes, which represent the types of new residential development projects likely to be built in Hayward. Then, Strategic Economics built a pro forma model to test the financial feasibility of different inclusionary requirements or the payment of in lieu fees on each prototype.

This analysis examined the impact of both existing AHO requirements and a variety of alternative AHO policies on feasibility outcomes for each housing prototype. Assumptions used in these analyses were informed by a review of the existing housing development pipeline, interviews with local housing developers, and feedback from the City’s Technical Advisory Committee for the AHO.

This report section describes the following:
o Approach used to develop housing prototypes;
o Approach used for testing financial feasibility;
o Assumptions for development prototypes;
o Assumptions for allowable rents or prices for affordable units within each project type; and o Assumptions used for costs and revenues in feasibility analysis modeling.

Approach

DEFINING DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPES
In collaboration with City staff, Strategic Economics developed seven representative but generic housing prototypes for analysis in the feasibility assessment. These prototypes represent the range of typical residential developments likely to be proposed in Hayward over the short term. Therefore, these prototypes are mostly based on recently completed projects or current development proposals in the pipeline in Hayward. They include both ownership and rental product types. Characteristics of recent projects were used to develop generalized assumptions for each prototype, which were refined to conform to City policies based on input from City staff as well as input from developers in Hayward and nearby communities. For example, though condominium developments are not common in the recent development pipeline in Hayward, this type of ownership housing was deemed important to include because it would have different requirements than other ow nership projects under the existing Hayward AHO due to the project’s higher density.

FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

FEASIBILITY METHODOLOGY
Strategic Economics measured the financial feasibility of each prototype using a static pro forma model that solves for the residual land value (RLV) of each project. A pro forma model is a tool that is commonly used to estimate the financial performance of a development project. The base static model reflects today’s market conditions such as prices/rents, construction cos ts, and financing costs.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 22 Residual Land Value represents the value remaining to pay for land after all other project costs and expected revenues are accounted for.

Residual Land Value (RLV) is calculated in four steps:

1. Estimate the total sales revenue for ownership prototypes or the net operating income for the project’s first stabilized year, and the corresponding capitalized value of each rental prototype.

2. Calculate the total supportable value of the project, based on the capitalized value of the project and the developer “target return” (i.e., the current industry standard return on costs the developer would need to pursue the project);

3. Estimate all development costs except land cost. These costs include direct construction costs (“hard” costs) and indirect costs (“soft” costs such as design, engineering, taxes, insurance, professional fees, municipal and development impact fees, and developer overhead, as well as financing costs and a contingency for unanticipated overruns);

4. Subtract the development costs estimated in Step 3 from the total supportable value of the project estimated in Step 2. The result is the residual land value. In real estate economics, the residual land value represents the maximum amount the developer can pay for land for the project to be feasible. This value is compared to prevailing site acquisition costs for each prototype to evaluate project feasibility.

FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS PROCESS
Strategic Economics performed an initial analysis of developm ent feasibility using the requirements of the existing AHO and pro forma assumptions based on input from local developers in Hayward. In addition to conducting market research using secondary data sources, Strategic Economics gathered input from nine diffe rent developers with experience in Hayward to inform these assumptions. The final assumptions are described in the sections that follow. The initial feasibility analysis considered three different scenarios related to the current AHO:

1. Feasibility if complying with the existing AHO by providing on-site units;

2. Feasibility if complying with the existing AHO by paying an in-lieu fee instead of providing BMR units; and

3. As a control scenario, feasibility without any AHO requirements.

For each scenario, Strategic Economics identified three different housing market tiers within Hayward—allowing for analysis of development feasibility in different market contexts within the city.

Based on these results , Strategic Economics gathered input from City staff, City Council , and community members to identify AHO policy alternatives to test for additional feasibility considerations.

Policies considered included reductions to AHO requirements for rental units, increases to percentage requirements for ownership units, and chang es in the income levels required for affordable units.

These findings, alongside feedback from the HHTF , City staff, and local stakeholders, were used to shape final recommendations.

Lastly, Strategic Economics identified the affordability gap associated w ith each prototype and analyzed the appropriate in -lieu fee levels based on each policy alternative. This assessment considered the gap between costs and revenue for off -site units associated with each affordability level of inclusionary requirement and what in-lieu fees would be for each prototype under “peer” city

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 23 inclusionary policies. Results from this analysis were used to make final recommendations for in -lieu fees.

Feasibility Analysis Assumptions

DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPES
As discussed in the previous section, Strategic Economics refined development prototypes in collaboration with the City of Hayward, based on the pipeline of recent projects proposed and completed in the city. The final development prototypes represent a ra nge of residential densities, average unit sizes, building heights, and parking formats. Technical details of these prototypes are shown in Figure 16, while Figure 17 shows example images for each prototype.

These prototypes vary based on the following characteristics:
• Ownership Status: Single-family, townhome, and condo prototypes are all for-sale units, while the remainder would be marketed as rental units.
• Project Density, Mixed-Use, and Building Size
o The single-family prototype represents a project with 44 detached two -story dwelling units on five acres of land.
o The townhome prototype represents a project with 106 attached units on five acres of land. Each unit is three stories in height.
o The condo and stacked flats prototypes each contain 74 units in a four-story building on 1.5 acres of land. This equates to 49 units per acre. o The small multifamily prototype is a 20-unit, three-story apartment building on half an acre of land.
o The wrap prototype includes 300 apartm ent units and 7,500 square feet of retail space in a five-story building on four acres of land. It has 75 dwelling units per acre. o The podium prototype has 159 units in a five -story building on roughly 2.5 acres of land. It is slightly less efficient than the wrap prototype and has 62 units per acre. • Unit Size
o The single-family and townhome prototypes have the largest units, at 2,600 and 1,700 square feet on average per unit.
o The small multifamily prototype has an average unit size of 950 square feet. o The condo, stacked flats, and podium prototypes each have an average unit size of 900 square feet.
o The wrap prototype has an average unit size of 800 square feet. • Parking Formats
o For the single-family and townhome prototypes, each unit has a two-car garage and a driveway for additional parking.
o The small multifamily prototype uses only surface parking , in which a paved ground - level lot surrounds the residential building.
o The condo and stacked flats prototypes use a combination of podium parking (in which housing is built on top of a concrete parking “podium” structure) and surface parking spaces
o The wrap prototype uses a n enclosed concrete parking garage structure with residential and retail space “wrapped” around it.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 24 o The podium prototype uses a first -floor parking “podium” structure, with residential units stacked on top.
 This prototype is designated as a Transit Oriented Development (TOD).

Because it would be located near transit, the podium prototype includes a lower parking ratio than the rest of the rental prototypes, at 1.33 spaces per unit. This parking ratio is about average for recent five -story developments proposed in Hayward.

FIGURE 16: OVERVIEW OF PROTOTYPE ASSUMPTIONS
Prototype
Characteristics
Unit of
Measurement
Single
Family Townhomes Condos
Small
Multifamily
Stacked
Flats
5-Story
Wrap
5-Story
Podium
(TOD)
Tenure Ownership Ownership Ownership Rental Rental Rental Rental Parcel Acreage acres 5.00 5.00 1.50 0.50 1.50 4.00 2.55 Building
Characteristics

Number of
Stories floors 2 3 4 3 4 5 5
Number of
Units
dwelling units
(du) 44 106 74 20 74 300 159
Gross Retail
Area square feet 7,500
Residential
Density du/acre 9 21 49 40 49 75 62
Average Unit
Size square feet 2,580 1,695 900 950 900 800 900 Parking
Parking Format In-unit In-unit Podium +
Surface Surface Podium +
Surface Wrap Podium
Residential
Parking Ratio spaces/unit 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.33 Retail Parking
Spaces parking spaces - - - - - 17 -
Source: Strategic Economics, 2022. Assumptions informed by examples of recent developments in Hayward.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 25 FIGURE 17: HAYWARD HOUSING PROTOTYPE EXAMPLE IMAGES

Single Family Homes Townhomes

Condos or Stacked Flats Small Multifamily

5-Story Wrap 5-Story Podium

Sources: City of Hayward, 2022. Renderings produced by D.R. Horton; KTGY; LANDARC; Taylor Morrison; Humphreys & Partners Architects; and BDE Architecture.

Note: Projects are shown as examples of what the prototypes could look like, but do not reflect the exact prototypes described in the analysis.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 26

UNIT REVENUES AND MARKET VALUE ASSUMPTIONS
Strategic Economics also compiled assumptions for project revenues to use in the pro forma analysis— based on a combination of market research , City and State policy guidelines, and input from local developers in Hayward and nearby communities. This analysis included market-rate revenues for each product type, as well as affordable unit revenue for each prototype calculated using affordable housing regulations. This section documents these assumptions and describes the analyses that informed them.

MARKET-RATE REVENUE AND MARKET TIERS
In order to identify how inclusionary requirements might impact development feasibility in all areas of the city, Strategic Economics defined three different market tiers for identifying market-rate housing prices or rents. Market rate revenues for each prototype are a function of the project’s location, the unit size, and the type of product that is for sale or for rent. Strategic Economics used data from CoStar and Redfin to identify the market tiers, based on examples of current rents and recent housing sales.

Tier One represents the housing market with the highest level of demand and is hi ghlighted in red in Figure 18. This area includes Downtown Hayward and the Mission Boulevard corridor and is where the majority of new market-rate rental housing is currently being constructed. The majority of market-rate ownership housing is currently being constructed in the Tier Two market areas, which is shaded in orange in Figure 18. The remainder of Hayward is designated as Tier Three areas, which command the lowest sales prices or market rents.

FIGURE 18: HAYWARD HOUSING MARKET TIERS AND CORRESPONDING PRICES OR RENTS

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 27 Figure 18 also lists multifamily rents per square foot and sales prices per square foot for each tier and product type. These per square foot prices were used in conjunction with assumptions about the bedroom sizes and average square foot per unit to calculate the total market -rate revenue for each unit in each tier. A full table of average bedroom counts and unit sizes is shown in the appendix in Figure 38.

For the ownership prototypes, the total project value was obtained by multiplying the per unit sale price by the total number of units. For the rental prototypes (Prototypes 4 and 5), an in come capitalization approach was used. This approach first estimates the annual net operating income (NOI) of the prototype, which is the difference between project income (annual rents for residential and retail) and project expenses (operating costs and vacancies). The NOI is then divided by the current cap rate to derive total project value. 4 Assumptions for each of these calculations are shown in the appendix in Figure 39.

AFFORDABLE UNIT REVENUES
The maximum allowable rent or sales prices for affordable units are primarily based upon the unit’s number of bedrooms, the area median income, and the assigned household income level associated with the unit. However, for both ownership and rental units, there are other housing costs that factor into the maximum affordable sale price or rent. For ownership products, t he current Hayward AHO allows for inclusion of mortgage principal and interest, homeowner’s insurance, an d homeowner or condo association fees in the calculation of maximum affordable prices . The rental cost calculation includes the monthly rent as well as a utility allowance—as determined by the Alameda County Housing Authority. These provisions ensure that households will not pay too large of a percentage of their monthly income on housing expenses, because costs that would normally be passed on to a tenant or owner are subtracted from the maximum sales price or monthly rent that is allowed under the ordinance.

For affordable ownership products , monthly expenses are limited by Hayward’s current AHO to 35 percent of monthly income. Strategic Economics used California HCD’s annually-published definition of area median incomes by household size alongside the AHO’s income limits as a share of median income to calculate the maximum monthly income for each affordability level available for housing expenses. Additional housing expenses included HOA dues, property taxes, private mortgage insurance, homeowner’s insurance, and interior property insurance. 5 Maximum affordable sales
prices are shown in Figure 19.

4 According to a 2022 Lee & Associates market report, the current average cap rate for multifamily in the East Bay is 4.1 percent.
5 These assumptions were informed by data from Freddie Mac, Zillow, Property Tax Shark, JVM Lending, and QuoteWizard.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 28 FIGURE 19: MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE SALE PRICE FOR OWNERSHIP UNITS, BY TYPE, INCOME, AND BEDROOMS Product Type and Income Studio 1-BD 2-BD 3-BD 4-BD 5-BD Single-Family
Very Low Income $191,345 $213,483 $233,009 $242,168 Low Income $238,660 $266,699 $292,147 $306,027
Moderate Income $475,231 $532,777 $587,836 $625,321 Townhomes
Very Low Income $187,825 $208,600 $221,161
Low Income $241,040 $267,737 $285,020
Moderate Income $507,119 $563,426 $604,314
Condos
Very Low Income $155,061 $175,246 $192,186 $206,087 $204,559 Low Income $196,454 $222,561 $245,402 $265,225 $268,418 Moderate Income $403,415 $459,132 $511,480 $560,914 $587,712 Source: California HCD, 2022; Strategic Economics, 2022.

Notes:

Assumes that monthly housing expenses are capped at 35 percent of monthly income for each income level. Assumes homeowner’s association dues of $0.07 per sf for single-family, $0.24 per sf for townhomes, and $0.37 per sf for condos. Assumes an annual effective property tax rate of 1.37% of the sales price and a private mortgage insurance premium of 0. 85% of the mortgage amount. Uses a 30- year loan term with an annual interest rate of 5.22%, the current 30- year mortgage interest rate according to Freddie Mac.

Maximum monthly rents were calculated by using the AHO’s income guidelines, with monthly expenses capped at 30 percent of the targeted income level. In order to calculate maximum rents based on this percentage of each income level, Strategic Economics subtracted monthly utility allowances, calculated for each unit size annually by the Alameda County Housing Authority. Resulting maximum rents are shown in Figure 20. For both ownership and rental housing, Hayward’s AHO standards assume that the expected number of residents in a household is one plus the number of bedrooms .

For example, rents for a studio assume a household size of one person, rents for a one-bedroom unit assume a household size of two persons, and rents for a two-bedroom unit assume a household size of three persons. These assumptions are used for calculating rent, but do not constitute an occupancy limit for each unit. An income capitalization approac h was also applied to BMR units to derive total residential value of those units within inclusionary projects—using the same per-unit assumptions for operating costs as the market-rate units.

FIGURE 20: MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE RENT IN HAYWARD, EFFECTIVE 2022.

Bedroom Size Studio 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR
Very Low $1,249 $1,428 $1,606 $1,785
Low $1,499 $1,714 $1,928 $2,142
Moderate $2,749 $3,142 $3,534 $3,927
Sources: Alameda County Housing Authority, 2022; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2022; Strategic Economics, 2022.

DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Strategic Economics compiled assumptions for development costs based on market research and input from developers in Hayward and nearby communities. As explained in the financial feasibility overview, total development costs are a combination of hard costs, soft costs, land costs, and required developer return. Hard costs refer to the construction costs associated with the physical construction

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 29 of the building, while soft costs include all “indirect” expenses required to construct the building, such as architecture, engineering, taxes, contingency, municipal fees, and financing costs.

HARD COSTS
Hard costs for each prototype differed primarily based on the materials used to construct the building and the cost of parking associated with each prototype. Assumptions for hard costs, shown in Figure 21, included estimates for basic site improvements and construction costs for residential areas, retail areas, and parking structures. For the 5-story wrap prototype, hard costs also included allowances for the retail space. This includes a higher per-square foot cost of construction for the retail shell, as well as a tenant improvement allowance for retail tenants to modify their space to fit their needs. This allowance was an additional $70 per net square foot of retail space.

FIGURE 21: HARD COSTS, BY PROTOTYPE
Hard Costs
Single Family
Development
Town-
homes Condos
Small
Multifamily
Stacked
Flats
5-Story
Wrap
5-Story
Podium
(TOD)
Site Prep (per sf) $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25
Construction Type Type V Type V Type V Type V Type V
Type IIIA,
Type I
Type IIIA,
Type I
Residential (per gsf) $150 $185 $250 $250 $250 $300 $325 Retail (per gsf) $340
Parking Costs (per
space)
Surface $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 Podium $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 Wrap $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 Sources: Developer Interviews, 2022. Strategic Economics, 2022.

SOFT COSTS
Soft costs include items such as architectural fees, engineering fees, insurance, taxes, legal fees, accounting fees, marketing costs, developer overhead, and City fees. In addition, Strategic Economics assumed a hard cost contingency of five percent and additional soft costs of two percent; these figures provide buffers for unexpected fluctuations in hard costs or unanticipated expenses. In cluding City fees, these soft costs represent a n approximately 25 to 30 percent addition to hard costs.

Assumptions for most of these costs are shown in Figure 22.

FIGURE 22: OVERVIEW OF SOFT COST ASSUMPTIONS
Soft Costs Unit Value
Architecture, Engineering, Taxes, Developer Overhead % of hard costs 12% Other Soft Costs % of hard costs 2%
Hard Cost Contingency % of hard costs 5%
Municipal Fees and Permits As Calculated by City
Marketing Costs for Single Family % of sales value 4%
Sources: CoStar, 2022. Developer Interviews, 2022; Strategic Economics, 2022.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 30 Municipal fees include building permit expenses such as plan checks and inspections as well as impact fees for parks, traffic, and water. City fees were calculated for the individual prototypes by City staff. These figures are shown in Figure 23
FIGURE 23: CITY OF HAYWARD MUNICIPAL FEES, EXCLUDING IN-LIEU FEES

Calculations for financing costs included considerations for amount financed, outstanding loan balances, loan fees, and annual interest rates. Assumptions for these costs are shown in Figure 24, while final calculated costs are shown in the appendix in Figure 40. Total financing costs accounted for 3.7 percent to 4.2 percent of total project hard and soft costs. Strategic Economics’ calculations assumed a five percent interest rate, which is higher than typical, but reflects the fact that interest rates have risen substantially in recent years.

FIGURE 24: DEVELOPER FINANCING COST ASSUMPTIONS
Financing
Costs Units
Single
Family Townhomes Condos
Small
Multifamily
Stacked
Flats
5-Story
Wrap
5-Story
Podium
(TOD)
Amount
Financed
(Loan-to-cost)
% of direct +
soft costs 70% 70% 65% 65% 65% 60% 60%
Average
outstanding
balance
% of Amt
Financed 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55%
Construction
Loan Fee
% of Amt
Financed 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%
Construction
Interest
(annual) Rate 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
Term Months 18 18 18 18 18 24 24
Source: Developer Interviews, 2022. Strategic Economics, 2022.

LAND COSTS
Strategic Economics reviewed recent land sales prices throughout the city to estimate the site acquisition costs by market tier. Like rents and sales prices, land prices also differ based on the location and zoning characteristics of each parcel. Sales prices of individual parcels differ substantially based on site-specific conditions, but the figures in Figure 25 represent an expected average price for land within each market tier.

Single
Family Townhomes Condos
Small
Multiplex
Stacked
Flats
5-Story
Wrap
5-Story
Podium
(TOD)
Total
Municipal
Fees $2,726,553 $5,252,895 $2,529,120 $583,175 $2,614,221 $8,014,224 $4,638,684 Fees per
Unit $61,967 $49,556 $34,177 $29,159 $35,327 $26,714 $29,174 Source: City of Hayward, 2022; Strategic Economics, 2022.

Note: Does not include in-lieu fees.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 31 FIGURE 25: SITE ACQUISITION COST PER SQUARE FOOT, BY MARKET TIER Hayward Submarket Unit Value
Market Tier 1 per square foot $75
Market Tier 2 per square foot $45
Market Tier 3 per square foot $25
Sources: CoStar, 2022. Developer Interviews, 2022.

DEVELOPER RETURN AND FEASIBILITY
Strategic Economics used input from local developers alongside market research from previous studies to refine assumptions for developer return. D evelopers must meet a m inimum market standard for return on their investment in order for the project to be “feasible” and for them to secure financing. Though for -sale and for -rent projects often use different metrics to assess feasibility, Strategic Economics used the metric “ return-on-cost” to ensure consistency in evaluating feasibility across product types. This metric is expressed as the net revenue for the project divided by the total development costs of the project. Based on feedback from local developers, a reasonable minimum standard for return on cost across project types is 20 percent.

FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS AND IN-LIEU FEE RESULTS
Strategic Economics conducted the feasibility analysis in three stages. First, an init ial feasibility analysis was conducted using the current requirements of the AHO. Next, Strategic Economics collaborated with City staff to identify policy alternatives to test and analyze potential changes to the AHO. Lastly, Strategic Economics used the results of the feasibility analysis to identify the affordability gap associated with each prototype and calculate in -lieu fees that would be associated with revised policy scenarios.

Initial Feasibility Analysis Results
Strategic Economics performed an initial analysis of development feasibility considering three different scenarios related to the current AHO. For each scenario, Strategic Economics identified three different housing market tiers within Hayward —allowing for analysis of development feasibili ty in different market contexts within the City. Scenarios considered were as follows:

1. Feasibility if complying with the existing AHO by providing on-site units;

2. Feasibility if complying with the existing AHO by paying an in-lieu fee instead of providing BMR units; and

3. As a control scenario, feasibility without any AHO requirements.

For each scenario, Strategic Economics calculated the Residual Land Value, which represents the value remaining to pay for land after all other project costs and expected revenues are accounted for.

In these results, prototypes are considered feasible if their residual land value exceeds the prevailing value of land. T he charts presenting results of the feasibility analysis thus display two values for comparison:
• The prevailing value of land relevant to each scenario and market tier, and

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 32 • The residual land value of each prototype in that scenario and market tier.

The section that follows presents results from all components of this initial feasibility analysis —first, by submarket for the on-site inclusionary scenario and second, by scenario for market tier two.

FEASIBILITY BY SUBMARKET
Under current AHO requirements for on -site units, only single -family developments and townhomes are consistently feasible in all Hayward market tiers. Figure 26 compares the residual land value of all prototypes under the current AHO to land prices by market tier. Other than single-family and townhome projects, the majority of prototypes are not currently feasible in any Hayward market.

The only other feasible prototype is small multifamily (rental), which is only expected to be feasible in the highest-performing markets in Hayward. Because rents are higher in these markets, rental projects are expected to generate more total revenue than elsewhere. However, because land prices are typically around $75 per square foot in these areas, condos and the remainder of prototypical rental projects are still not expected to be feasible in Tier One market areas.

The feasibility outlook is particularly limited for five -story multifamily projects, which have a negative residual land value in all market tiers. This means that in the current development climate, these types of projects are not considered financially feasible even for a developer who has already covered the cost of their land. Based on conversations with local developers, this finding reflects the market reality that construction costs have risen substantially in the last two years without a corresponding increase in rents for these market-rate units.

While neither condominiums nor stacked flats are expected to be feasible, stacked flats are closer to being feasible in all market tiers than cond ominiums. Since the building type assumptions for both prototypes are the same, this result helps explain why condo minium development proposals have been rare in Hayward over the past few years . The feasibility outlook for both prototypes is poor in Tiers Two and Three, but stacked flats especially are expected to come close to being feasible in the highest-value market areas of Hayward. This project type has a Tier One residual land value of $35 per square foot, while typical land prices in this tier are $75 per square foot.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 33 FIGURE 26: RESIDUAL LAND VALUE RESULTS UNDER EXISTING AHO ON-SITE INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS, BY

MARKET TIER

Source: Strategic Economics, 2022.

FEASIBILITY BY AHO REQUIREMENT
Only single-family homes and townhomes are consistently feasible across applications of the current AHO in Tier Two markets. Figure 27 shows feasibility results for each prototype in policy scenarios with either no affordable requirements or a varying application of the current AHO. These results correspond to Tier Two market area land prices. This means that for a project to be feasible, its residual land value must exceed $50 per square foot of land. As shown in Figure 27, only single-family homes and townhomes exceed the price of land in all policy scenarios.

In Hayward’s Tier Two markets, the current AHO requirements do not appear to change development feasibility results for any of the seven prototypes. Most of the higher-density rental projects are currently infeasible, and are not expected to become feasible even if inclusionary housing requirements were eliminated. While eliminating AHO requirements would slightly increase the residual land value for each of the prototypical developments, most still c ould not afford to pay anything at all for the land on which they would be built—much less the $50 per square foot average that is expected in Tier Two markets.

Small multifamily projects are largely infeasible under current AHO requirements, but come the closest to meeting feasibility standards of any rental project type. If the AHO requirements were removed, this project type would come close to development feasibility in Tier Two markets, with a residual land value of $43 per square foot compared to typical land prices of $45 per square foot. $94
$66 $47
$92
$63
$45
-$21
-$108
-$184
$86
$22 -$10$35
-$39
-$76-$63
-$162
-$212
-$177
-$272
-$320-$350
-$300
-$250
-$200
-$150
-$100
-$50
$0
$50
$100
$150
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Value per Square Foot of Land
Land Price Single Family Development Townhomes
Condos Small Multifamily Stacked Flats
5-Story Wrap 5-Story Podium (TOD)

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 34 FIGURE 27: RESIDUAL LAND VALUE RESULTS FOR TIER TWO – WITH AND WITHOUT CURRENT AHO COMPLIANCE

OPTIONS

Source: Strategic Economics, 2022.

Alternative Inclusionary Policies Analysis
Strategic Economics presented results of the initial feasibility analysis to City staff, the Homelessness- Housing Task Force (HHTF) , and the TAC and gathered input from each group to identify AHO policy alternatives to test for additional feasibility considerations. The City Council members of the HHTF expressed two priorities that informed the development of policy alternatives:
• That rental inclusionary requirements should not decrease, and • That increases to ownership requirements should be modest enough that these projects would retain feasibility even if construction costs were to increase slightly.

Because the prospects for development feasi bility among moderate and high -density residential prototypes were so limited and the HHTF members were not interested in alternatives that would reduce these requirements, Strategic Economics focused its policy changes analysis on alterations to the AHO r equirements for single-family and townhome projects only. The policy analysis focused on the impact of policy changes on Tier One pro forma results because this was the tier in which feasibility margins for ownership projects were most limited due to the commensurate higher land values.

Feasibility testing evaluated the impacts of two policy alternatives for these low-density ownership prototypes:

1. Increasing required percentages of affordable units substantially, while maintaining a focus on moderate-income households; and

2. Increasing required percentages of affordable units slightly, while changing the level of income targeted by affordable units.

Strategic Economics also conducted analysis to assess the sensitivity of the feasibility results to a five percent change in construction costs. The section that follows describes the findings from each of these phases of alternative policy analysis.
$78 $66 $67$72 $63 $53
-$110 -$108 -$129
$43 $22 $23
-$18 -$39 -$41
-$135
-$162
-$166
-$244
-$272 -$274-$300
-$200
-$100
$0
$100
No Affordable Requirements Existing Inclusionary Requirements Existing In-Lieu Fee Requirements Value per Square Foot of Land
Typical Range of Land Prices
Single Family Development (Ownership) Townhomes (Ownership) Condos (Ownership) Small Multifamily (Rental)

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 35

INCLUSIONARY POLICY ALTERNATIVES FINDINGS
ALTERNATIVE ONE: MODERATE-INCOME UNITS ONLY
At current development costs, s ingle-family and townhome projects can support a relatively large percentage of moderate -income units without becoming infeasible. Figure 28 presents the findings from policy alternative one, which tested the extent to which inclusionary requirements could increase while maintaining moderate-income requirements only for high-density ownership projects. If the AHO continues to require only moderate -income units for low -density ownership projects, these products could support a maximum of 22 percent inclusionary units while retaining feasibility for both product types.

FIGURE 28: FEASIBILITY RESULTS FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES -- MODERATE-INCOME UNITS ONLY Single Family Development Townhomes
Alternative Requirements
15% Inclusionary Feasible Marginally Feasible
19% Inclusionary Marginally Feasible Marginally Feasible 23% Inclusionary Infeasible Marginally Feasible
25% Inclusionary Infeasible Infeasible
Source: Strategic Economics, 2022.

Notes:

Projects are considered "Feasible" if Return on Cost is greater than 25%. Projects are considered "Marginally Feasible" if Return on Cost is greater than 20%. Projects are considered "Infeasible" if Return on Cost is less than 20% ALTERNATIVE TWO: SPLIT BETWEEN LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME UNITS At current development costs, single-family and townhome projects can still support a small increase in inclusionary percentages if they are required to split affordable on -site units between moderate - income and low-income households. Figure 29 presents the findings from policy alternative two, which tested the extent to which inclusionary requirements could increase if low -density ownership requirements were required to provide both low- and moderate-income units . With a n even split between low and moderate-income units, single-family and townhome projects can retain feasibility with up to a maximum of an 18 percent total inclusionary requirement.

FIGURE 29: FEASIBILITY RESULTS FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES – WITH 50/50 SPLIT BETWEEN LOW AND MODERATE-

INCOME UNITS
Single Family Development Townhomes
Alternative Requirements
12% Inclusionary Feasible Marginally Feasible
15% Inclusionary Marginally Feasible Marginally Feasible 19% Inclusionary Marginally Feasible Infeasible
22% Inclusionary Infeasible Infeasible
Source: Strategic Economics, 2022.

Notes:

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 36

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
However, the currently-supported inclusionary requirement would be highly sensitive to slight changes in construction costs. Based on HHTF feedback, Strategic Economics analyzed the sensitivity of policy alternatives to increases in construction costs, for both moderate-only policies and policies that would also require low -income units. These scenarios analyzed the impact of hard cost increases of up to five percent on the feasibility outcomes for single family and townhome prototypes for each of the policy alternatives. This five percent scenario is well within the range of expected price fluctuations in costs; TAC members expressed that annual development cost increases are often even higher than five percent.

If construction costs increased by as little as four percent, projects with only moderate -income units would be feasible at a maximum of a 17 percent inclusionary requir ement. This represents the sensitivity analysis results from policy alternative one. These sensitivity analysis results are shown in Figure 30.

FIGURE 30: TIER 1 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND TOWNHOMES WITH 17% INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS – MODERATE-INCOME UNITS ONLY
Scenario # Current Costs Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Increase in Hard Costs of
Construction 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%
Project Type
Single Family Development
Marginally
Feasible
Marginally
Feasible
Marginally
Feasible
Marginally
Feasible
Marginally
Feasible
Marginally
Feasible
Townhomes
Marginally
Feasible
Marginally
Feasible
Marginally
Feasible
Marginally
Feasible
Marginally
Feasible Infeasible
Source: Strategic Economics, 2022.

Notes:

Projects considered "Feasible" if Return on Cost is greater than 25% Projects considered "Marginally Feasible" if Return on Cost is greater than 20% Projects considered "Infeasible" if Return on Cost is less than 20%

If construction costs increased by as little as four percent, projects split evenly between low - and moderate-income households would be feasible at a maximum of a 12 pe rcent inclusionary requirement. This represents the sensitivity analysis results from policy alternative two. These sensitivity analysis results are shown in Figure 31.

FIGURE 31: TIER 1 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND TOWNHOMES WITH 12% INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS – 50/50 SPLIT BETWEEN MODERATE- AND LOW-INCOME UNITS Scenario # Current Costs Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Increase in Hard Costs of
Construction 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%
Project Type
Single Family Development Feasible Feasible Feasible
Marginally
Feasible
Marginally
Feasible
Marginally
Feasible
Townhomes
Marginally
Feasible
Marginally
Feasible
Marginally
Feasible
Marginally
Feasible
Marginally
Feasible Infeasible
Source: Strategic Economics, 2022.

Notes:

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 37 The results of the sensitivity analysis, therefore, describe the target for inclusionary requirements suggested by the HHTF: the maximum inclusionary requirements that single family and townhome projects could support in Hayward with slight cost increases. These targets are 17 percent if requiring only moderate -income units, and 12 percent if required units are evenly split between low - and moderate-income units.

In-Lieu Fee Analysis
In an inclusionary housing policy, in -lieu fees are used to enable a City to support development of affordable housing units off-site, when they would otherwise be provided by the market-rate developer as on-site units. As in the example of a 100 percent affordable housing development explained in Figure 8, in-lieu fees are used to fill the funding gap between the market value of an affordable unit and the total development costs for an individual unit . In other words, this “affordability gap” represents the difference between the revenue generated from each affordable unit and the total cost of developing those units.

Calculating this affordability gap on the basis of off -site affordable units is a common means for determining the appropriate in-lieu fee that a City should set in an inclusionary policy. From the City’s perspective, an in-lieu fee that is set to equal the affordability gap could be relatively value neutral; the City could either obtain one affordable unit as part of an inclusionary project, or they could use the money provided by an in -lieu fee payment to build one off -site affordable unit at the same income level. However, it is not the only important factor for determining appropriate in-lieu fees.

In order to determine in -lieu fee recommendations, Strategic Economics also compared potent ial in- lieu fees with current fees being used by Hayward’s “peer communities.” This section presents the results of each of these analyses.

AFFORDABILITY GAP AND CORRESPONDING IN-LIEU FEES
Calculating the affordability gap for each unit is relatively simpl e, but must be converted to a per - square foot basis to estimate the corresponding in-lieu fee. The affordability gap is generally calculated in two simple steps: calculate the revenue that would be raised for each affordable unit, and calculate the total costs of producing each unit. In order to convert this result into an in-lieu fee per square foot, Strategic Economics multiplied the affordability gap per unit by the total number of required affordable units and divided by the square footage of the units in each project. This section presents the resulting affordability gap and in-lieu fee calculations, first for ownership products and then for rental products.

AFFORDABILITY GAP AND IN-LIEU FEE CALCULATIONS FOR OWNERSHIP UNITS Affordability gap calculations for ownership units involve only the sales price of each unit and the cost of producing those units. The total revenue available from affordable units depends on the income level associated with the unit, but the total costs of constructing an affordable unit are the same for all income levels. Figure 32 shows the total revenue for each ownership prototype on a per-unit basis based on the required affordable income level in the inclusionary policy. This average revenue can be compared to total development costs to calculate the overall affordability gap.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 38 FIGURE 32: AFFORDABLE UNIT REVENUE AND COSTS – OWNERSHIP PROTOTYPES

Prototype 1: Single Family
Development
Prototype 2:

Townhomes
Prototype 3:

Condos
Revenue
Average Low Unit $290,412 $268,925 $237,060
Average Moderate Unit $585,945 $567,270 $493,568
50/50 Split, Low & Moderate Units $438,178 $418,098 $365,314 Costs
Land Costs per Unit, Tier 1 $371,250 $154,104 $66,223
Development Costs per Unit,
Excluding Land $696,110 $502,954 $456,904
Total Development Costs $1,067,360 $657,057 $523,127
Sources: Strategic Economics, 2022. HCD, 2022. City of Hayward, 2022. CoStar, 2022.

The affordability gap and equivalent in -lieu fees were calculated for different mixes of inclusionary requirements. The results are shown in Figure 33, which defines the affordability gap per unit, and expresses this gap in the terms that in-lieu fees are structured in Hayward’s AHO—per total square foot of habitable space in each project. Because this fee is calculated on the basis of the total square feet in the entire project, calculating the total in -lieu fee per square foot requires adjusting for the total required affordable units in the project. Three steps were taken to calculate the affordability gap-based in-lieu fee on a per square-foot basis:
• Calculate the affordability gap per unit, based on the average affordable revenue and the total cost of producing a unit;
• Multiply this gap by the required number of affordable units in the project , using the percentages identified in the sensitivity analysis; and • Divide this value by the total habitable square foot of the project as a whole.

The affordability gap per unit for an affordable housing policy that requires a mix of low and moderate- income ownership units is much larger than the gap for a policy that only requires moderate units. The results shown in Figure 33 correspond to the require d percentages from the policy alternatives and sensitivity analysis results. With a 17 percent inclusionary requirement for only moderate -income units, the affordability-gap based in-lieu fee for single-family and townhome projects would be $32 per square foot and $9 per square foot, respectively. With a 12 percent requirement and a 50/50 split between low and moderate-income units, the affordability gap per square foot would be $29 per square foot and $17 per square foot, respectively.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 39 FIGURE 33: AFFORDABILITY GAP AND EQUIVALENT IN-LIEU FEES – OWNERSHIP PRODUCTS

Prototype 1: Single
Family Development
Prototype 2:

Townhomes
Prototype 3:

Condos
Affordability Gap per Unit
With 50/50 Low & Moderate Units $629,182 $238,960 $157,813 With Only Moderate Units $481,415 $89,787 $29,558
Affordability Gap per SF of Habitable Space, for
Each % Inclusionary Req.

With 50/50 Low & Moderate Units $2.44 $1.41 $1.75
With Only Moderate Units $1.87 $0.53 $0.33
In-Lieu Fee per SF With Only Moderate Units
At 7.5% Inclusionary Req. $14.09 $4.00 $2.48
At 17% Inclusionary Req. $31.72 $9.01 $5.58
In-Lieu Fee per SF With 50/50 Low & Moderate
Units
At 12% Inclusionary Req. $29.26 $16.92 $21.04
Source: Strategic Economics, 2022.

AFFORDABILITY GAP AND IN-LIEU FEE CALCULATIONS FOR RENTAL UNITS The total revenue that will be generated for each affordable rental unit in an off -site project is based on the amount of debt that could be supported annually from an affordable rent. This calculation is shown in Figure 34. The supportable debt per unit is calculated in three steps:
• Calculate the annual revenue for each unit, based on the maximum affordable rent corresponding to the required affordable income level;
• Calculate the net operating income for each unit, by subtracting the operating costs identified in the market-rate feasibility model; and
• Calculate the supportable debt that this level of annual net operating income could support, by assuming it is the annual payment on a 30 -year loan with a six -percent interest rate and

1.15 debt coverage ratio.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 40 FIGURE 34: SUPPORTABLE DEBT PER UNIT – RENTAL PROTOTYPES

Prototype 4:

Small
Multifamily
Prototype 5:

Stacked Flats
Prototype 6:
5-Story Wrap
Prototype 7: 5-
Story Podium
(TOD)
Annual Revenue per Affordable Unit
Very Low $15,093 $15,157 $14,245 $14,822
Low $18,798 $18,873 $17,673 $18,424
Moderate $37,325 $37,455 $34,808 $36,435
50/50 Split, Very Low & Low Units $16,946 $17,015 $15,959 $16,623 Net Operating Income per Affordable
Unit $3,786 $4,500 $4,790 $4,122
Supportable Debt per Affordable Unit $45,322 $53,866 $57,331 $49,334 Source: Strategic Economics, 2022.

Notes: Net Operating Income assumes 5% vacancy and equivalent operating costs to market-rate units of the same type.

Supportable Debt calculation assumes 30-year term and a 6% interest rate, with a 1.15 Debt Coverage Ratio.

The affordability gap and equivalent in-lieu fees for the rental prototypes were calculated using a six percent moderate-income requirement. Figure 35 compares the supportable debt per unit of rental prototypes with their total development costs to identify the total affordability gap per unit and evaluate how this gap translates to potential in-lieu fee levels per square foot of residential area in each project.

The calculation assumed that inclusionary requirements for rental housing do not change from the existing AHO requirements. When compared to the total development costs of each unit, the affordability gap per unit for rental projects in Hayward is very large compared to ownership housing projects, but in-lieu fees per square foot are only slightly larger. The in-lieu fee per square foot based on the affordability gap ranges from $29 for small multifamily to $41 for the five -story podium prototype.

FIGURE 35: AFFORDABILITY GAP PER UNIT, AND EQUIVALENT IN-LIEU FEE PER SQUARE FOOT OF PROJECT

Prototype 4: Small
Multifamily
Prototype 5:

Stacked Flats
Prototype 6: 5-
Story Wrap
Prototype 7: 5-Story
Podium (TOD)
Supportable Debt per
Affordable Unit $45,322 $53,866 $57,331 $49,334
Costs
Land Costs per Unit, Tier 1 $81,675 $66,223 $43,560 $51,368 Development Costs per Unit,
Excluding Land $420,491 $458,096 $484,014 $609,622
Total Development Costs $502,166 $524,319 $527,574 $660,990 Affordability Gap per Unit $456,844 $470,453 $470,243 $611,657 In-Lieu Fee per SF, for each
% Req. $4.81 $5.23 $5.88 $6.80
In-Lieu Fee per SF, 6% Req. $28.85 $31.36 $35.27 $40.78 Source: Strategic Economics, 2022.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 41

PEER CITY IN-LIEU FEE REQUIREMENTS
Like other municipal fees, the level of in -lieu fee set by a jurisdiction can play a part in influencing where market-rate developers decide to pursue new development projects. In order to construct a realistic comparison of Hayward’s in-lieu fees with requirements in nearby communities, Strategic Economics applied the in -lieu fee structure of each “peer community” to each of the seven development prototypes.

Hayward’s current in-lieu fees are relatively on par with the peer communities, though this varies by product type. Figure 36 shows the in-lieu fee that would be required for each prototype in Hayward and each of its “peer” communities . The maximum current fee level for each prototype is shown in bold. The key findings from this analysis were as follows:
• For ownership prototypes, Hayward’s current in -lieu fee would approximately represent the median value among the seven current fee levels. This shows that there is some room for increase in Hayward’s ownership fees without exceeding the levels of its peers.

• However, Hayward’s rental in-lieu fees are already closer to the maximum fees within the peer communities. This implies that there is not as much room to increase Hayward’s rental in-lieu fees as there is for ownership housing products.

FIGURE 36: IN-LIEU FEES OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT FEES IN HAYWARD (CURRENT AHO) AND PEER

COMMUNITIES, APPLIED TO HAYWARD PROTOTYPES

Single Family
Development Townhomes Condos
Small
Multifamily
Stacked
Flats
5-Story
Wrap
5-Story
Podium
(TOD)
Hayward $21.64 $21.64 $17.85 $21.64 $21.64 $21.64 $21.64 Concord $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 El Cerrito $22.88 $22.88 $22.88 $18.72 $18.72 $18.72 $18.72 Fremont
(current) $44.00 $44.00 $27.00 $16.19 $16.19 $14.88 $16.19 Fremont (old) $26.00 $27.00 $27.00 $27.00 $27.00 $27.00 $27.00 Newark $15.51 $18.49 $24.02 $23.58 $24.02 $24.22 $23.66 Richmond $10.50 $12.95 $21.88 $20.59 $21.88 $25.45 $30.33 Union City $27.00 $27.00 $27.00 $27.00 $27.00 $27.00 $27.00 Maximum Fee $44.00 $44.00 $27.00 $27.00 $27.00 $27.00 $30.33 Median Fee $22.26 $22.26 $23.45 $21.12 $21.76 $22.93 $22.65 Source: Municipal Ordinances, 2022; Strategic Economics, 2022.

Note: Estimates in-lieu fee for each prototype under each City’s policies, using the project assumptions.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 42

SUMMARY OF POLICY DIRECTION AND ROLE OF

THE AHO IN ADDRESSING DISPLACEMENT
The recommended revisions to the AHO incorporate community input, technical feedback, decisionmaker input, and previously completed displacement analysis findings , in addition to the findings of the feasibility and affordability gap analyses. This section summ arizes these sources of input and how the AHO analysis and recommendations incorporate this input . Strategic Economics and City of Hayward staff obtained feedback from a variety of stakeholders and City leaders throughout the analysis process. Engagements included a presentation of results to the City’s Homelessness - Housing Task Force; a hearing with the City of Hayward Planning Commission; community input from two Fair Housing Workshops and a Housing Fair; and input from developers via two Technical Advisory Committee meetings. A total of 18 community members provided input during the community workshops, while five locally active and knowledgeable developers served on the Technical Advisory Committee.

HOMELESSNESS-HOUSING TASK FORCE
After viewing preliminary feasibility analysis results, the City of Hayward’s Homelessness-Housing Task Force (HHTF) issued the following policy recommendations:
• Maintain the existing rental inclusionary requirement; • Maintain relatively lower inclusionary requirements for high -density ownership housing products;
• Increase inclusionary requirements for single -family homes and townhomes while still accommodating potential short-term changes in development conditions; and • General preference that projects provide on-site inclusionary units rather than pay in-lieu fees, especially for projects with 20 or more housing units.

These recommendations reflect the feasibility analysis findings that rental projects are currently not feasible with existing AHO requirements, but that single fam ily and townhome products could accommodate a substantial increase in inclusionary requirements. The HHTF recommended that requirements for these ownership products should increase, but also encouraged Strategic Economics to anticipate potential shifts in development feasibility due to changing costs and revenues.

These recommendations were used to determine which policy alternatives to analyze as well as informing recommendations for in -lieu fees. Based on this guidance, Strategic Economics further analyzed changes to inclusionary requirements for ownership products . Strategic Economics also developed new in-lieu fee recommendations intended to provide flexibility for development projects to meet the AHO’s requirements while still encouraging provision of on-site inclusionary units.

INPUT FROM COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS
Community members expressed that their top priorities were ownership housing, providing housing affordable to middle-income households, and providing housing affordable to extremely low-income households. A total of 18 community members provided input over the course of two fair housing workshops and a housing fair. Respondents selected their top housing priorities from a list of ten options. Community priorities were diverse, but the top overall priorities were as follows:
• Prioritize ownership housing

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 43 • Prioritize middle-income households ($171,350 annual income for 4-person household) • Prioritize extremely low-income households ($42,850 annual income for 4-person household) • Prioritize mixed income housing within new developments • Prioritize rental housing
These recommendations suggest two primary uses of the inclusionary policy . First, it is important to optimize the use of the inclusionary housing policy to maintain feasibility for ownership products that would provide on -site units for moderate -income households. Second, it is important to use the inclusionary policy to generate in -lieu fee revenue that can be used to produce rental housin g units that are affordable to extremely low -income households, given that housing at this affordability level requires additional outside subsidies beyond what can typically be supported through an inclusionary requirement.

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Input from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was used to validate the feasibility analysis results and ensure that final recommendations for inclusionary requirements would be productive for maximizing affordable housing construction in Hayward . During the first TAC meeting, these locally knowledgeable developers of single family and multifamily projects provided the following key points of emphasis:
• Confirmed the basic assumptions and inputs applied in the feasibility analyses; • Confirmed analysis findings that single -family homes are currently more financially feasible than multifamily developments in Hayward;
• Discussed trade-offs between the use of in-lieu fees versus providing on-site units, expressing that flexibility is necessary to en sure different projects can be delivered under different circumstances while still delivering affordable housing units or funding.

Tradeoffs between in-lieu fees and on-site inclusionary units were also a subject of discussion at the second TAC meeting. At this second meeting developers emphasized the following points:
• Flexibility is important to them for being able to figure out how to make a particular project financially feasible;
• Fees and affordable housing requirements get passed on to the residents paying market-rate costs, since these requirements necessitate higher prices and rents to achieve project feasibility;
• Construction costs are currently rising rapidly, by as much as ten percent per year; and • The AHO should allow affordable housing developers to apply rent and income limits matching those of the Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program.

Based on this feedback, Strategic Economics conducted additional sensitivity analysis of the impacts of increased construction costs on the ownership prot otypes’ abilities to support increased inclusionary requirements and incorporated additional analysis of development cost burdens into the in-lieu fee recommendations.

CITY OF HAYWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Members of the City of Hayward Planning Commission raised concerns about ensuring development feasibility as conditions change and noted preferences for developers to provide on -site inclusionary housing units rather than in -lieu fees. Strategic Economics and City staff shared the analysis results

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 44 and this report’s recommendations as an informational item at the Planning Commission’s December 8, 2022 public meeting. The Planning Commissioners primarily asked questions about the analyses and the basis of the recommend ed revisions to the AHO’s inclusionary re quirements. Areas of focus for other comments and questions included:
• Concerns about maintaining development feasibility as conditions change; • Concerns about the infeasibility of higher density market-rate rental housing; • Potential uses of the in-lieu fee revenue; and
• Preference that developers provide on-site inclusionary units rather than in-lieu fee revenue.

AHO Policy Support for Preventing Displacement
A recently completed displacement analysis for the City of Hayward found that that there is significant need for very low-income housing in Hayward, and that on-site inclusionary housing alone will not meet the City’s affordable housing needs. 6 In 2021, HR&A Advisors completed a displacement study analyzing trends in housing costs and residen tial displacement within Hayward. This study identified that rents and home values have been outpacing housing growth; housing production has not kept pace with jobs; homelessness is increasing; and low -income residents are likely undergoing displacement.7 The AHO update was undertaken in part to examine how policy modifications could contribute toward addressing these displacement concerns by providing additional affordable housing units and housing units at a deeper level of affordability.

AHO policy modifications can address displacement by prioritizing housing for low -income and very low-income households in Hayward and generating in-lieu fees t hat can be leveraged to generate relatively greater numbers of affordable housing units at deeper levels of af fordability. Based on findings from the feasibility and affordability gap analyses, the A HO can support displacement prevention by modifying the income requirements for ownership housing to include low -income households (in addition to moderate-income households) and by retaining the option for developers to pay in-lieu fees instead of building on-site units. The low-income requirement will serve households at greater risk of displacement. The in -lieu fees create an opportunity for the City to partner w ith affordable housing developers to leverage outside funding sources such as Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and provide more affordable housing units at a deeper level of affordability than inclusionary requirements alone could achieve.

AHO UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS

INCLUSIONARY POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Strategic Economics recommends maintaining current inclusionary requirements for rental products and high -density ownership products, while increasing the required inclusionary percentage and deepening affordability requirements for low -density ownership products. The recommendation for

6 City of Hayward Assistant City Man ager. (2022). Staff Report on Implementation of the Existing Affordable Housing Ordinance and Next Steps for Potential Modifications to the Ordinance. 7 HR&A Advisors. (2021). City of Hayward Displacement Study.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 45 ownership projects that are less than 35 dwelling units per acres is to increase the required total inclusionary percentage from ten percent to 12 percent, split evenly between low-income households and moderate-income households. This is a departure from the current policy, which only requires that ownership projects provide affordable units for moderate -income households. Recommended changes are summarized in Figure 37.

FIGURE 37: RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS

These recommendations were informed by the following analysis and community input findings:
• The majority of the analyzed rental housing prototypes are currently not feasible within Hayward, regardless of the level of AHO requirements or submarket “tier.” This aligns with current development conditions, as developers have not proposed any major ma rket-rate rental projects since adoption of the Hayward’s current AHO requirements. Reduction or elimination of affordable housing requirements is not expected to significantly improve feasibility for these multifamily products due to their wide gap between achievable revenues and construction costs.

• The recommended requirements are within a typical range of seven “peer” cities for which Strategic Economics reviewed inclusionary policies and affordable housing production outcomes.

o As shown in the Existing AHO and Comparison to Peer Cities analysis on page 14, Hayward’s curren t inclusionary requirements are relatively lower than peer communities, yet these low requirements led to production of a relatively high number of affordable low - and moderate -income housing units. Inclusionary requirements should be set at a level that does not encourage developers to build projects in nearby communities instead of Hayward. Inclusionary on -site units we re also the primary means by which Hayward and peer communities produce deed-restricted housing for moderate-income households.

Current Requirements
•Rental
•3% very low-income
•3% low-income
•Ownership: <35
du/acre
•10% moderate-
income
•Ownership: >35
du/acre
•7.5% moderate-
income
Recommendations
•Rental
•3% very low-income
•3% low-income
•Ownership: <35
du/acre
•6% low-income
•6% moderate-income
•Ownership: >35
du/acre
•7.5% moderate-
income

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 46 • The peer cities analysis also suggested the importance of maintaining inclusionary requirements at a level that supports the financial feasibility of new development. o Some jurisdictions, such as Fremont, may be able to sustain higher inclusionary requirements because they have higher market-rate rents that could support the cost of affordable units.

o In Hayward, the Inclusionary Policy Alternatives Findings on page 35 indicate that single-family homes and townhomes are only marginally feasible at a 15 percent requirement—the level used by some peer communities.

• The HHTF expressed a pr eference for maintaining existing rental requirements to ensure developers are obligated to provide inclusionary or in -lieu fee contributions if development conditions improve in the future.

• A condominium prototype (a higher-density ownership product) is not currently feasible under any market tier within Hayward, and developers are not proposing condominiums in Hayward.

• Strategic Economics found through sensitivity testing that a 12 percent requirement for low and moderate-income households applicable to low-density ownership products (single-family homes and townhomes) would allow projects to maintain feasibility while also sustaining increases in construction costs of up to four percent. In contrast, a higher required percentage would result in these pr ojects becoming infeasible with the slightest negative change in development conditions. See the Sensitivity Analysis section on page 36 for further details.

• The HHTF expressed a preference for increasing ownership requirements, but not to such a point that they block housing development if project costs and revenues shift in the near term.

IN-LIEU FEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Strategic Economics recommends maintaining the current level of in-lieu fees for rental products and high-density ownership products, while increasing the fee for low -density ownership products to $26 per habitable square foot. The goal of these recommendations is to strike a balance between generating revenue for producing affordable units while ensuring that the fee does not prevent development activity. The recommended changes represent a relatively small increase in total development costs.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 47 FIGURE 38: IN-LIEU FEE RECOMMENDATIONS

These recommendations were informed by the following feasibility analysis and community input findings:
• The affordability gap analysis found that the in-lieu fee amount required to build off-site deed- restricted affordable housing equivalent to the revised inclusionary requirements would be $29.26 per square foot for single-family homes and $16.92 per square foot for townhomes.

• Among other considerations, in -lieu fees should be set at a level that does not encourage developers to build projects in nearby c ommunities instead of Hayward. The maximum effective in-lieu fee for ownership products among Hayward’s “peer” communities is $44 per square foot of habitable space, but the median fee is closer to Hayward’s current level.

• The maximum in-lieu fee for rental products among Hayward’s peer communities is approximately $30 per square foot, while the median fee is close to Hayward’s current level. o Based on the affordability gap, the in -lieu fee for rental products would be between $29 per square foot and $40 per square foot.
o However, rental products are largely not feasible under existing AHO requirements; maintaining a lower in -lieu fee for rental projects increases the possibility of development occurring if conditions improve in the future.

• The HHTF supported increasing AHO requirements on low -density ownership products while maintaining consistent requirements for high-density ownership housing and rental products.

• Analysis of affordable housing funding data for Hayward and Fremont demonstrated the importance of i n-lieu fee revenues as a local funding source for production of 100 percent affordable housing projects. These projects can provide a deeper level of affordability than what can be achieved through inclusionary units. These projects can also provide permanent supportive housing units and housing units for extremely low -income households —serving community members who are at high risk for displacement or homelessness.

• Lastly, TAC members noted that financial considerations for in-lieu fees or provision of on-site units differ from project to project, and that flexibility is important for ensuring that they can find a feasible approach for future projects.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 48 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
Definitions from Current AHO
• "Affordable Unit" is defined as an ownership or rental Dwelling Unit whose price is set at an Affordable Ownership Cost or Affordable Rent as defined in this Article. • "Affordable Ownership Cost" is defined as the maximum purchase price that will be affordable to a Moderate-Income Household at Presumed Occupancy Levels, based on a reasonable down payment and monthly housing payments (including mortgage principal and interest, property taxes, homeowner's insurance, and homeowner/condominium association fees where applicable) that do not exceed one hundred ten percent of Area Median Income multiplied by thirty-five percent and divided by twelve.
• "Affordable Rent" is defined as the maximum monthly rent, including all fees for housing services and a utility allowance as determined by the Alameda County Housing Authority, that does not exceed the following, based on Presumed Occupancy Levels:
o For Extremely Low Income Households: thirty percent of Area Median Income multiplied by thirty percent and divided by twelve.
o For Very Low Income Households: fifty percent of Area Median Income multiplied by thirty percent and divided by twelve.
o For Low Income Households: sixty percent of Area Median Income multiplied by thirty percent and divided by twelve.
• "Area Median Income (AMI)" is defined as the median income for Alameda County, adjusted for household size, as published annually in Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 6932 (or its successor provision) by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
• "Dwelling Unit" is defined as a dwelling designed and intended for residential occupancy by one household.
• "Extremely Low, Very Low, Low, and Moderate-Income Households" are defined as households whose incomes do not exceed the extremely low, very low, low, or moderate-income limits, as applicable, established for Alameda County and adjusted for household size that are published annually in Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 6932 (or its successor provision) by HCD.
• "Household Income" is defined as the gross annual household income, monetary benefits, and all other sources of household income, before deductions or exemptions, and includes the income of all members of the household 18 years of age or older. • "Ownership Residential Project" is defined as any Residential Development Project that creates new Dwelling Units that may be sold individually, including but not limited to condominiums, townhomes, stock cooperatives, community apartments, and attached or detached single-family homes. An Ownership Residential Project also includes any Residential Development Project with a recorded condominium plan or map and the conversion of residential property to common interest developments as described in Hayward Municipal Code Section 10-3.370. • "Presumed Occupancy Levels" as listed below shall be used to establish Affordable Ownership Cost and Affordable Rents, unless the Residential Development Project is financed with federal tax credits, in which case the applicable federal regulations shall determine the Presumed Occupancy Levels:
o One person for a studio unit;

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 49 o Two people for a one bedroom unit;
o Three people for a two bedroom unit; and
o One additional person for each additional bedroom thereafter. • "Rental Residential Project" is defined as any Residential Development Project that creates new Dwelling Units that cannot be sold individually.

Definitions of Other Key Terms

INCLUSIONARY HOUSING POLICY TERMS
• “Affordability Gap” is defined as the difference between the revenue generated from each affordable unit and the total cost of developing those units. a. For ownership housing prod ucts, the affordability gap is the difference between the affordable sales price of a home and the total development cost of each unit. b. For rental products, the affordability gap is based on the difference between the total debt that can be supported from affordable rental revenue and the total development cost of each unit.
• “Inclusionary Requirement,” or “Inclusionary Percentage,” as used in this report, refers to the percentage of a project’s housing units that are required to be set aside as deed-restricted affordable housing at specific affordability levels.
• “In-Lieu Fee” is defined as a set fee, assessed per square foot of habitable space in a residential project, that c an be paid to substitute for some or all of the required affordable units in a housing project.

DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY TERMS
• “Hard Costs” include materials and labor associated with physical construction of the building. • “Investment Return” consists of the required financial return on investment that a project must achieve to attract developer and lender investment.
• “Land Costs” refer to the price the developer pays to acquire the land. • “Residual Land Value” represents the value remaining to pay for land after accounting for all other project costs, expected revenues, and required investment return. a. This value is compared to prevailing site acquisition costs for each prototype to evaluate project feasibility.
• “Soft Costs” include indirect expenses such as architecture and engineering, taxes, insurance, financing costs, and municipal fees.
• “Total Project Revenue” is determined by the market value of the project. a. For for -sale projects, the market value consists of achievable sales prices for the housing units.
b. For rental projects, the market value of the project depends on the annual revenue it will generate and the current capitalization rate, which reflects overall project investment risk relative to alternative investments.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 50 APPENDIX B: FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS DETAILS
Feasibility Assumptions
FIGURE 39: SQUARE FEET PER UNIT AND SHARE OF UNITS BY BEDROOM SIZE ASSUMPTIONS

Single Family
Development Townhomes Condos
Small
Multifamily
Stacked
Flats
5-Story
Wrap
5-Story
Podium
(TOD)
Unit Size (sq. ft.)
Studio - - 600 600 600 580 575
1-BD - - 750 800 750 800 800
2-BD 1,600 1,450 950 1,000 950 1,000 1,000
3-BD 1,980 1,650 1,200 1,300 1,200 1,325 1,350
4-BD 2,500 1,900 - - - - -
5-BD 3,245 - - - - - -
Unit Share
Studio - - 11 4 11 90 25
1-BD - - 13 3 13 135 68
2-BD - 16 39 9 39 60 42
3-BD 9 58 11 4 11 15 24
4-BD 24 32 - - - - -
5-BD 11 - - - - - -
Total 44 106 74 20 74 300 159

FIGURE 40: MULTIFAMILY AND RETAIL RENT AND REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS Units Apartments Retail
Operating Expenses % of Gross Revenue 30% 0%
Vacancy Rate % of Gross Revenue 5% 10%
Cap Rate Net Operating Income / Total Capitalized Value 4.1% 4.1% Sources: Strategic Economics, 2022; Developer Interviews, 2022; Lee & Associates, 2022.

Notes: Operating Expenses are assumed to be negligible for retail because rent is expressed as triple-net. Under a triple net lease (NNN) the tenant pays operating expenses, including real estate taxes, building insurance, and maintenance (the three "nets") on the property in addition to the rents.

FIGURE 41: FINANCING COST CALCULATIONS, BY PROTOTYPE (IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)

Single
Family
Town-
homes Condos
Small
Multifamily
Stacked
Flats
5-Story
Wrap
5-Story
Podium
(TOD)
Total Development Cost (Excl. Financing) $39.3 $61.1 $35.6 $9.1 $35.6 $147.2 $97.9 Amount Financed $27.5 $42.8 $23.1 $5.9 $23.2 $88.3 $58.8 Average Outstanding Balance $15.1 $23.5 $12.7 $3.3 $12.7 $48.6 $32.3 Construction Loan Fee $0.4 $0.6 $0.3 $0.1 $0.3 $1.3 $0.9 Cost of Interest $1.1 $1.8 $1.0 $0.2 $1.0 $4.9 $3.2
Total Cost of Financing $1.5 $2.4 $1.3 $0.3 $1.3 $6.2 $4.1 Financing Cost as Share of TDC 3.9% 3.9% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 4.2% 4.2% Source: Strategic Economics, 2022; Developer Interviews, 2022.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 51 Pro Forma Results
FIGURE 42: TIER TWO FULL PRO FORMA RESULTS - WITH CURRENT AHO REQUIREMENTS (IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)

Single
Family
Town-
homes Condos Small MF
Stacked
Flats
5-Story
Wrap
5-Story
Podium
(TOD)
Revenues
For-Sale Revenue
Gross Revenue $56.5 $83.8 $33.5
Less Marketing Costs -$2.4 -$3.5 -$1.3
Net Sales Revenue $54.1 $80.3 $32.2
Rental Revenue
Gross Income, Residential $0.7 $2.4 $8.7 $5.2
Gross Income, Retail $0.2
Less Vacancy & Operating Costs -$0.2 -$0.9 -$3.1 -$1.9 Net Operating Income $0.4 $1.5 $5.6 $3.3
Total Capitalized Value $10.7 $37.8 $140.2 $80.9

Development Costs
Hard Costs
Site Prep, Demo $5.4 $5.4 $1.6 $0.5 $1.6 $4.4 $2.7
Vertical Hard Costs $17.0 $33.2 $23.7 $5.8 $23.7 $105.9 $71.6 Tenant Improvement Allowance $0.5
Soft Costs
Hard Cost Contingency $1.1 $1.9 $1.3 $0.3 $1.3 $5.5 $3.7 Arch., Eng., and Other Soft Costs $3.1 $5.4 $3.5 $0.9 $3.5 $15.5 $10.4 Municipal Fees, with AHO fees $2.8 $5.3 $2.6 $0.6 $2.7 $7.9 $4.7 Financing Costs $1.2 $2.0 $1.2 $0.3 $1.2 $5.8 $3.9
Total Development Costs $30.8 $53.3 $33.9 $8.5 $34.0 $145.6 $97.0

Feasibility Summary
Total Market Value of Project $54.1 $80.3 $32.2 $10.7 $37.8 $140.2 $80.9 Minimum Return on Cost 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
Total Supportable Value $45.1 $67.0 $26.8 $8.9 $31.5 $116.8 $67.4 Less Development Costs -$30.8 -$53.3 -$33.9 -$8.5 -$34.0 -$145.6 -$97.0 Residual Land Value of Project $14.4 $13.6 -$7.1 $0.5 -$2.5 -$28.7 -$29.6 Typical Site Acquisition Cost $9.8 $9.8 $2.9 $1.0 $2.9 $7.8 $4.9 RLV Less Typical Acquisition Cost $4.6 $3.8 -$10.0 -$0.5 -$5.5 -$36.6 -$34.5 Source: Strategic Economics, 2022.

Notes:

Gross Income and Revenue Includes BMR Units.

Municipal fees shown here are slightly different from municipal fees shown in the rest of the report, because inclusionary units are exempt from some fees. In addition, in-lieu fees were required for some prototypes, even with on- site units, in order to account for fractional units.

Hayward Affordable Housing Ordinance Study 52 FIGURE 43: TIER ONE FULL PRO FORMA RESULTS WITH RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO AHO: MAINTAINING CURRENT REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDOS AND RENTAL PRODUCTS; REQUIRING 6% LOW AND 6% MOD. UNITS FOR SF AND TH

PRODUCTS (IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)

Single
Family
Town-
homes Condos Small MF Stacked Flats
5-Story
Wrap
5-Story
Podium
(TOD)
Revenues

For-Sale Revenue
Gross Revenue $62.4 $89.5 $40.7
Less Marketing Costs -$2.7 -$3.8 -$1.6
Net Sales Revenue $59.7 $85.7 $39.0
Rental Revenue
Gross Income, Residential $0.8 $2.8 $10.0 $6.0
Gross Income, Retail $0.2
Less Vacancy & Operating Costs -$0.3 -$1.0 -$3.6 -$2.2 Net Operating Income $0.5 $1.8 $6.6 $3.8
Total Capitalized Value $12.4 $43.6 $161.0 $93.4
Development Costs
Hard Costs
Site Prep, Demo $5.4 $5.4 $1.6 $0.5 $1.6 $4.4 $2.7
Vertical Hard Costs $17.0 $33.2 $23.7 $5.8 $23.7 $105.9 $71.6 Tenant Improvement Allowance $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.5 $0.0 Soft Costs
Hard Cost Contingency $1.1 $1.9 $1.3 $0.3 $1.3 $5.5 $3.7 Arch., Eng., and Other Soft Costs $3.1 $5.4 $3.5 $0.9 $3.5 $15.5 $10.4 Municipal Fees, with AHO $2.8 $5.1 $2.6 $0.6 $2.7 $7.9 $4.7 Financing Costs $1.2 $2.0 $1.2 $0.3 $1.2 $5.8 $3.9
Total Development Costs $30.7 $53.1 $33.9 $8.5 $34.0 $145.6 $97.0 Feasibility Summary
Total Market Value of Project $59.7 $85.7 $39.0 $12.4 $43.6 $161.0 $93.4 Minimum Return on Cost 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
Total Supportable Value of Project $49.7 $71.4 $32.5 $10.3 $36.3 $134.2 $77.8 Less Development Costs -$30.7 -$53.1 -$33.9 -$8.5 -$34.0 -$145.6 -$97.0 Residual Land Value of Project $19.1 $18.3 -$1.4 $1.9 $2.3 -$11.4 -$19.2 Typical Site Acquisition Cost $16.3 $16.3 $4.9 $1.6 $4.9 $13.1 $8.2 RLV Less Typical Acquisition Cost $2.7 $1.9 -$6.3 $0.2 -$2.6 -$24.5 -$27.4 Source: Strategic Economics, 2022.

Notes:

Gross Income and Revenue Includes BMR Units.

Municipal fees shown here are slightly different from municipal fees shown in the rest of the report, because inclusionary units are exempt from some fees. In addition, in-lieu fees were required for some prototypes, even with on-site units, in order to account for fractional units.

List of Proposed Administrative Changes to the Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) ATTACHMENT III

Section Topic Proposed Change Reason
SEC. 10-

17.120(b)
Definition of
Affordable
Ownership Cost
Modify language to be inclusive of all potential monthly housing cost payments as a basis for calculating the maximum purchase price. As development requirements change, so do the required housing costs.

Inclusive language allows the City to include direct housing costs, not specifically listed in the AHO, in calculating the affordable ownership costs.

These costs may be project specific or changes in industry standards, for example, cost for solar leases.

Align with Affordable
Housing Agreement
(AHA)
10-17.205 Unit Threshold
Requirements
Definition of Residential Development Project includes projects with two or more units or lots. Add language to Unit Threshold Requirements to clarify that the requirements apply to lots as well as units consistent with the definition.

Clarification
10-

17.205(b&e)
Unit Threshold
Requirements
Add language to identify the level of approval currently required (Decision Making Body) to means of compliance
Clarification
10-17.210(c) On-Site Units in
Ownership
Residential
Projects
This section currently only legally restricts ownership units to moderate income; however, the AHO allows the applicant to elect to provide units affordable at lower income targets. Add language so that the legal restriction will correspond with the affordability levels chosen by the developer.

Clarification
10-17.215 On-Site Units in
Rental Residential
Projects
This section currently only legally restricts rental units to low and very low income; however, the AHO allows the applicant to elect to provide units affordable at lower income targets. Add language so that the legal restriction will correspond with the affordability levels chosen by the developer.

Clarification
10-17.220(a) Design,
Distribution and
Timing of
Affordable Units
The AHO requires that the on-site affordable units be at least equal in size and amenities as the market rate units. Add clarifying language that indicates that size refers to both number of bedrooms and square footage.

Clarification
10-17.220(b) Design,
Distribution and
Timing of
Affordable Units
Change approval level of the Affordable Housing Phasing Plan from the City Council to the decision-making body to streamline the approval process.

Streamlining/Align
with development
process
10-17.225(c) Off-Site
Construction
The AHO requires that the affordable off-site units be at least equal in size and amenities of units that would be provided on-site. Add clarifying language that indicates that size refers to both number of bedrooms and square footage.

Clarification
List of Proposed Administrative Changes to the Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) ATTACHMENT III

Section Topic Proposed Change Reason
10-17.510
(d)
Affordable
Housing Plan
Applicants are required by the AHO to produce the affordable units concurrently or prior to the market rate units. Applicants that wish to seek permits or certificates of occupancy for market rate units prior to completion of all affordable units must submit a plan that describes the timing of development of the number of affordable units proportionate to each proposed phase. These projects may not be phased in the traditional sense but have a staggered development timeline which causes confusion for the developers. Revise language to clarify requirements to improve compliance with this requirement.

Clarification
10-17.510 (g) Affordable
Housing Plan
Reduce requirement from providing marketing plan at application phase to providing a preliminary marketing plan since developers do not typically have their marketing team identified at this stage of development.

Streamlining/Align
with development
process
10-17.515(e) Affordable
Housing
Agreement
Change requirement from providing marketing plan in Affordable Housing AHA to including marketing plan requirements in the AHA. Affordable Housing Agreement stipulates time frame for providing final marketing plan.

Having the marketing plan outside AHA allows staff to address change in timeline or market conditions that effect the marketing plan.

Streamlining/Align
with development
process
10-17.805 Selection Criteria Revise selection criteria to give priorities to include persons displaced by City Activity for the affordable units to be consistent with AHA.

Alignment with AHA
10-17.820 Resale of For-Sale
Affordable Units
Delete language requiring the lessor of two different indices to calculate the maximum sales price. Existing Resale restriction documents only reference one of the two indices and therefore do not evaluate which of the two is less.

Staff recommends using only one index in the resale restriction formula to provide clearer requirements for owners of affordable units.

Alignment with
Borrower Occupancy
and Resale Restrictions
10-17.835 Marketing Plan Add additional language to elaborate on Marketing Plan requirements including requirements to affirmatively further fair housing and provide marketing materials in multiple languages.

Clarification/Alignment
with AHA
10-17.1010 Purpose,
Limitations and
Administration.

Staff proposes increasing the proportion of the affordable housing in-lieu fees that can be used to cover administrative costs from 10% to 15% if allowable under state law. The fees paid under the AHO are not covering the administrative cost to the City due to a decrease in large projects paying fees.

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: WS 23-007
DATE: February 21, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Acting Chief of Police
SUBJECT Police Department Annual Report: Receive and Review the Hayward Police Department’s Annual Report for Calendar Year 2022

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council receives and reviews the Hayward Police Department’s annual report for the 2022 Calendar Year.

SUMMARY
This report serves as a highlight of the actions and accomplishments of the Hayward Police Department during the 2022 Calendar Year.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/17/2023Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™

Page 1 of 39 ends

Hayward City CouncilFebruary 21, 2023

Hayward City Council
February 21, 2023