CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
FEBRUARY 21, 2023
PRESENTATIONS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ORDINANCE
ITEM #12
WS 23-004
Hayward Affordable
Housing Ordinance
City Council Work Session
City of Hayward
February 21, 2023
Presentation overview
• Purpose of today’s item:
• Review findings and recommendations from the Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) policy analysis
• Review proposed administrative changes intended to provide AHO implementation
• Today’s presentation:
• Introduction
• Analysis findings
• Recommended changes
2 3
Introduction
Over half of Hayward’s renters are housing cost-
burdened
• Housing costs are
considered affordable
when they are 30% or less
of household income
• Households are considered
cost-burdened if they are
paying more than 30% of
their income
Source: American Community Survey, 1-YR, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2022. 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
Share of Households That are Cost Burdened
in Hayward and Alameda County, by Tenure,
2021
The AHO policy leverages market rate housing
production to produce affordable housing
• Applies to new market rate housing development projects • Does not directly control the types of projects proposed • AHO requires:
• % on-site deed-restricted affordable housing units and affordability levels of those units (“inclusionary” requirement)
• Other alternatives that produce affordable housing, or • Payment of In-lieu fees which subsidize the development of affordable housing • Last updated in 2017
• Increased in-lieu fees & applied the AHO to smaller projects • Increased flexibility for means of compliance
5 The AHO Study seeks to ensure affordable
housing production
• Revise the inclusionary housing requirements and in-lieu fees • Optimize the AHO’s potential to produce affordable housing 6 The AHO Study incorporated technical
analysis and stakeholder input
• Stakeholder and decisionmaker input:
• Homelessness-Housing Task Force
• Community surveys
• Technical Advisory Committee (developers)
• Technical Analyses:
• Financial feasibility analyses of AHO and alternatives • “Affordability gap” calculations to inform in-lieu fee amounts 7 Why Financial Feasibility
Matters for Achieving the AHO
Goals
There are two primary means of producing
affordable housing
Tax Credit Projects: External Subsidy Inclusionary Housing: Market Forces 100% Affordable
projects face a
funding gap
challenge,
primarily
addressed
through public
subsidy
Inclusionary projects
generate less revenue
than 100% market rate
Land Costs
Hard Costs
Soft Costs
Market Value
Market Value
Investment
Return
All Market Rate Units Market Rate + BMR
Units
Development Costs
Strategic Economics, 2023.
Strategic Economics, 2023.
Market rate housing projects must be financially
feasible to produce inclusionary units / in-lieu
revenues
• Development projects are
financially feasible when
revenues exceed project costs
and investment return
• Developers only build when
projects “pencil” (are financially
feasible)
• Costs and revenues change and
are largely outside of City control
Land Costs
Hard Costs
Soft Costs
Market Value
Market Value
Investment
Return
All Market Rate Units Market Rate + BMR
Units
Development Costs
Potential Impact of Inclusionary
Policies on Financial Feasibility
Strategic Economics, 2023.
Market Demand and Potential Revenue
• Market demand sets the “price”
that buyers and renters are willing
or able to pay
• This price is very local – often
jurisdiction specific
• Demand is based on many factors
including:
• Location
• Type of product
• Other amenities in the area
Strategic Economics, 2023.
Policies & Incentives Can Impact Financial
Feasibility
• Policies and incentives can make projects more or
less feasible while not impacting unit affordability
• Example Policy Levers
• Parking ratios
• Density controls (FAR, height, etc.)
• Example Incentives
• Reducing city fee requirements (reduces fee soft
costs)
• Density bonus (potentially increases value, but not
always)
• Streamlining of approvals (reduces
financing/holding soft costs; greater certainty may
also reduce investment return requirement)
Land Costs
Hard Costs
Soft Costs
Market Value
Market Value
Investment
Return
All Market Rate Units Market Rate + BMR
Units
Development Costs
Strategic Economics, 2023.
13 Current Hayward AHO –
Outcomes and Comparison to
“Peer Cities”
Current Hayward AHO Policy
14 • Alternative means of compliance
• In-lieu fees
• Off-site construction of affordable units (if approved) • Alternate proposal for compliance (if approved)
Type of Housing Development Project
Required Affordability Level as a Share
of Total Dwelling Units Total
Inclusionary
RequirementVery 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%
Hayward is producing more inclusionary units than
other communities, despite having lower
requirements
15 On-Site % Requirement, by Tenure On-Site Units Permitted, 2018-2021 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%% Inclusionary
Owner Renter
0 20
40 60
80 100
120Housing Unit Permits
Owner Renter
Source: California HCD, RHNA Annual Progress Report, 2022; Strategic Economics, 2022.Strategic Economics, 2022.
On-site inclusionary requirements are especially
helpful for producing moderate-income housing
16 Source: City of Hayward, 2022.
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income
Hayward Affordable Units Permitted from
2018-2021, by Income Level and Means of
Delivery
100% Affordable Inclusionary
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Extremely Low
or Very Low
Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Units Permitted
Income Level
Hayward 5th and 6th Cycle Housing Needs and
5th Cycle Permitting Progress
5th Cycle Estimated Compliance 5th Cycle Goal 6th Cycle Goal Source: California HCD, RHNA Annual Progress Report, 2022; Strategic Economics, 2022.
In-lieu fee revenue provides a major source of local
funding for 100% affordable housing projects
• Fee revenue is Hayward’s
second-largest and Fremont’s
largest source of local funding
for affordable housing projects
• Hayward’s largest “Other”
sources were Alameda County
Measure A1 bond revenue and
public land contributions
17 “Other” includes public land contributions, Alameda County Measure A1 revenues, and property tax “boomerang” funds from the dissolution of redevelopment agencies.
Source: City of Hayward, 2022; City of Fremont 2022; Strategic Economics, 2022. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Affordable
Housing
Trust Fund
(Fee
Revenue)
CDBG HOME Other
% of Local Funding Contribution
Share of Local Funding by Source for
Proposed and Entitled Affordable Housing
Projects, 2015-2023
Fremont % of Local Funding Contribution
Hayward % of Local Funding Contribution
18 Inclusionary Requirement:
Analysis Findings and
Recommendations
Only single-family homes and townhomes are
consistently feasible under the current AHO
requirements
19 Notes:
Prototypes are considered feasible if residual land value exceeds the assumed land price for its respective scenario. Each submarket is assumed to command higher rents and sales prices but is also associated with higher land prices.
Source: Strategic Economics, 2023.
• Single-family homes
and townhomes can
support current AHO
requirements
• Smaller rental
projects are largely
infeasible under
current AHO
requirements
• Higher-density rental
projects are
infeasible even
without the AHO
requirements
$78 $66 $67$72 $63 $53
-$110 -$108
-$129
$43
$22 $23
-$18
-$39 -$41
-$135
-$162
-$166
-$244
-$272 -$274-$300
-$250
-$200
-$150
-$100
-$50
$0
$50
$100
$150
No Affordable Requirements Existing Inclusionary Requirements Existing In-Lieu Fee Requirements Value per Square Foot of Land
Residual Land Value Results for “Tier Two” Market Conditions – With and Without Current AHO Compliance Options
Typical Range of Land Prices
Single Family Development (Ownership) Townhomes (Ownership) Condos (Ownership) Small Multifamily (Rental)
Stacked Flats (Rental) 5-Story Wrap (Rental)
5-Story Podium (TOD) (Rental)
The HHTF recommended increasing AHO
requirements for lower-density ownership housing
products
• Modestly increase inclusionary requirements for single-family homes and townhomes
• Seek to maintain feasibility as market conditions evolve • Maintain existing rental inclusionary requirement
• Maintain relatively limited inclusionary requirements for high- density ownership housing products
• Preference that larger projects provide on-site inclusionary units 20 Community input prioritized ownership
housing and targeting specific incomes
• Gathered input at two Fair Housing Workshops and a Housing Fair • 18 respondents
• Top 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
• 5 other options received fewer votes
21 Single-family & townhomes can support a 12%
50/50 low/mod income requirement
22 Sensitivity Analysis of Single Family and Townhomes to Hard Cost Increases While Supporting a 12% Inclusionary Requirement (Tier 1 Submarket)
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
• Maximum 22% moderate income requirement
• Maximum 18% low/moderate income requirement
• Maximum 12% low/moderate income requirement after accounting for modest shifts in development conditions
Source: Strategic Economics, 2023.
Recommend a 6% low-income & 6% moderate-
income requirement for lower-density ownership
products (12% total inclusionary)
• The low-income affordability level addresses HHTF and community priorities for meeting the needs of lower-income households • The moderate-income affordability level recognizes the AHO’s unique ability to provide ownership housing at this income level • Feasibility analyses show that this is the highest requirement reasonably supportable by single-family homes and townhomes • Higher-density ownership products and rental products cannot feasibly support higher inclusionary requirements
23 Recommendations: Inclusionary
Requirements
24 Existing AHO Recommended Revised AHO
Rental:
6% total inclusionary
• 3% Low income
• 3% Very low income
Rental:
No changes
Ownership
7.5% Moderate income if
more than 35 du/acre
10% Moderate income if less
than 35 du/acre
Ownership
No changes
12% if less than 35 du/acre
• 6% Low income
• 6% Moderate income
25 In-Lieu Fee:
Analysis Findings and
Recommendations
Selecting in-lieu fees requires consideration
of multiple factors
26 • Analytical Considerations:
• Affordability gap: Gap between affordable revenues versus construction costs for a housing development project
• Development feasibility: Ensuring homes can still be built • Other communities’ in-lieu fees: Significantly exceeding fee levels in peer communities may discourage housing development in Hayward • Policy Considerations:
• Encouraging/discouraging in-lieu fee payment versus on-site inclusionary Recommend increasing in-lieu fees for lower-
density ownership products
• Increasing lower-density ownership fees better aligns fees with adjusted inclusionary recommendations, peer city fee levels • Maintaining other existing in-lieu fees acknowledges limited feasibility of these products, aligns with peer city fees • TAC members emphasized importance of in-lieu fees for providing flexibility as market conditions evolve
• Fee revenues provide critical City funding for affordable housing production
27 28
$26.00 $26.00
$17.85
$21.64 $21.64 $21.64 $21.64
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
$50
Single Family Homes Townhomes Condos Small Multifamily Stacked Flats 5-Story Wrap 5-Story Podium (TOD)
$ per Square Foot of Housing Units
Comparison of Fee/Amount per Square Foot: Affordability Gap Analysis, Peer City Requirements, and Current and Proposed Fees for Hayward Calculated Affordability Gap (Based on Recommended Inclusionary Requirements) Peer Cities: Maximum Fee
Peer Cities: Median Fee
Hayward: Current Fee Level
Hayward: Recommended Fee
Source: Strategic Economics, 2023.
Recommendations: In-Lieu Fees
29 Existing AHO Recommended Revised AHO
Rental:
$21.64 per square foot
Rental:
Maintain $21.64 per square foot
Ownership
$17.85 per square foot if more
than 35 du/acre
$21.64 per square foot if less
than 35 du/acre
Ownership
Maintain $17.85 per square foot if
project built at 35 du/acre or greater
$26 per square foot for projects built
at less than 35 du/acre
30 Administrative
Recommendations
Administrative Amendments
Staff recommends the following amendments to improve implementation of the AHO:
• Affordable Housing Cost: Revise to make definition inclusive of all housing costs • Marketing Plan: Revise to align with development process. Currently, plan is requested too early. Elaborate on requirements to affirmatively further fair housing and marketing in multiple languages
• Approval of Affordable Unit Phasing Plan: Revise to replace Council approval with approval by decision making body to streamline
Administrative Amendments-Continued
• Priority Preference: Add priority preference to people displaced by City activity in addition to live/work preference.
• Maximum Resale Price: Revise formula for calculated resale price to be consistent with existing city agreements that apply one of two indices instead of the lessor of the two indices.
• Administrative Cost: Increase the amount of in-lieu fees to be applied to administrative costs from 10% to 15%.
• Seven non substantive changes for clarification purpose only 33 Summary and Questions
Summary of Recommendations
• Maintain existing inclusionary requirement for rental products and higher-density ownership products
• Increase ownership inclusionary requirement for lower-density housing products to 6% low-income and 6% moderate-income • Increase in-lieu fee for ownership products at less than 35 du/acre • Maintain existing in-lieu fee for condos at 35 du/acre or higher 34 Questions
Do you support:
• Maintaining existing inclusionary requirement for rental products and higher-density ownership products;
• Increasing ownership inclusionary requirement for lower-density housing products to 6% low-income and 6% moderate-income; • Increasing in-lieu fee for ownership products at less than 35 du/acre;
• Maintaining existing in-lieu fee for condos at 35 du/acre or higher; • Making recommended administrative changes?
36 Appendix: Additional Feasibility
Background and Analysis
Assumption Details
Project Costs: Hard Costs
• Hard costs are the largest of project
costs and are associated with physical
construction
• Includes construction of the building,
parking, and other site improvements
• Construction material and labor costs
have been increasing
• Construction costs vary by building type
• Construction costs are “regional”
- Labor
- Construction
materials (timber,
concrete, etc.)
- Site work (grading,
paving,
landscaping, etc.)
Project Costs: Soft Costs
• Soft costs are typically the
next largest project costs
• Soft costs include costs
associated with design,
implementation, and fees
- Architecture,
Engineering &
Consulting
- Taxes, Insurance,
Legal & Accounting
- City Fees
- Financing
Project Costs: Land Costs
• Land costs are much more variable than other
development costs
• Land costs vary depending on:
• Location & zoning
• Market strength
• Infrastructure
• Condition of the land (need for remediation,
etc.)
• Land costs are “residual”
• Value is based on what developers can afford to
pay while delivering a feasible project within the
site’s constraints and opportunities
• Non-residential developers can potentially
outbid housing developers
- Location
- Zoning
- Market strength
Project Costs: Investment Return
• Developers decide to build projects
based on the investment return
• Developers cannot attract
necessary project funding if
investment return is not
competitive
• Required investment return varies
based on project risks
• Greater certainty reduces risk
Return to developer
and investors
What is “Affordable Housing”?
• 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
area median income (AMI) of a
region
Income Category AMI Level
Extremely Low-Income 0% to 30%
Very Low-Income 31% to 50%
Low-Income 51% to 80%
Moderate-Income 81% to 100%
Above Moderate-Income >100%
Income Category AMI Level
Extremely Low-Income 0% to 30%
Very Low-Income 31% to 50%
Low-Income 51% to 76.8%
Moderate-Income 76.9% to 120%
Above Moderate-Income >120%
HCD Income Limits (Current AHO)
TCAC Income Limits (LIHTC)
Affordable Rents and Sales Prices
• Rents and sales prices are
typically regulated to below-
market rates (BMR) so that
households pay no more than
30% of the targeted income
level
Maximum Affordable Rent, 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.
Notes:
Describes maximum monthly rent, including all fees for housing services and a utility allowance.
The maximum monthly cost for each unit type is associated with households that have one more person than bedroom. (Ex: Maximum costs for studios are associated with affordability for one- person households; One-bedroom costs are associated with 2-person households; Two-bedroom costs are associated with 3-person households).
“Peer City” Policies
43 Set-Aside Requirement by Project Size Minimum Size
Threshold
Affordability Target Date
EnactedRental For-Sale Rental For-Sale
Hayward All projects: 6% Projects > 35 du/ac: 7.5%
Projects < 35 du/ac: 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% or more to moderate income households.
10% or more to low income households.
2 units Very-low and
low-income
Low and
Moderate-
income
2021
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, 2021.
Development Prototypes Tested in Analysis
44 Prototype Characteristics Units
Single Family
Development Townhomes
Small
Multifamily Stacked Flats
5-Story
Wrap
5-Story
Podium (TOD)
Parcel Square Feet square feet 217,800 217,800 21,780 65,340 174,240 108,900 Building Characteristics
Number of Stories floors 2 3 3 4 5 5
Number of Units dwelling units (du) 44 106 20 74 300 159 Gross Retail Area square feet 7,500
Residential Density du/acre 9 21 40 49 75 62
Average Unit Size square feet 2,580 1,695 950 900 800 900 Parking
Parking Format
In-unit In-unit Surface Podium +
Surface Wrap Podium
Residential Parking Ratio spaces/unit 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.33 Retail Parking Spaces parking spaces - - - - 17 -
Development Prototype Example Images
45 Single-Family Townhomes Small Multifamily
Source: City of Hayward, 2022. Project renderings completed by D.R. Horton, KTGY, and LANDARC. Projects are shown as examples of what the prototype could look like, but do not reflect the exact prototypes.
Development Prototype Example Images
46 Condos &
Stacked Flats 5-Story Wrap 5-Story Podium (TOD)
Source: City of Hayward, 2022. Project renderings completed by Taylor Morrison, Humphreys & Partners Architects, and BDE Architecture. Projects are shown as examples of what the prototype could look like, but do not reflect the exact prototypes. 47 POLICE DEPARTMET
ANNUAL REPORT
ITEM #13
WS 23-007
1 Hayward Police
Department:
2022 Year End Report
2 Introduction
• UCR vs NIBRS
• Crime Trends
• Recruitment and Hiring
• Training
• CALEA
• Internal Investigations
• District Command
• Youth and Family Services
• AB 481
• FLOCK Safety ALPR
3 Changes to Crime Statistics - Differences
Between UCR and NIBRS?
• UCR
• Consists of monthly aggregate crime counts for
eight Index Crimes.
• Records one offense per incident as determined
by hierarchy rule.
• Hierarchy rule suppresses counts of lesser
offenses in multiple-offense incidents.
• Does not distinguish between attempted and
completed crimes.
• Collects weapon information for murder,
robbery, and aggravated assault.
• Provides counts on arrests for the eight Index
crimes and 21 other offenses.
• NIBRS
• NIBRS collects data about victims, known
offenders and relationships for offenses
reported in 23 categories with 52 offenses. It
also presents arrest data for those crimes, as
well as ten additional categories for which only
arrest data is collected.
• Records each offense occurring in an incident.
• Distinguishes between attempted and
completed crimes.
• Collects weapon information for all violent
offenses.
4 Differences in how crimes are reported
Crime Reported Under UCR Reported in NIBRS
A bank robbery
followed by a
vehicle pursuit and a
hit and run collision Robbery
Robbery
Vehicle pursuit
Hit and run collision
A domestic violence
incident in which a
phone is vandalized,
and a purse is stolen Domestic Violence
Domestic violence
Vandalism
Theft
A kidnapping
followed by a
vehicle theft Kidnapping
Kidnapping
Vehicle theft
5 Part 1 Crimes Jan-Oct 2021 vs. 2022
Jan – Oct 2021 Jan – Oct 2022 # Change % Change
Murder 6 10** 4 40%
Forcible Rape 45 46 1 2%
Robbery 229 218 -11 -5%
Aggravated Assault 182 188 6 3%
VIOLENT CRIME TOTAL 462 462 0 0%
Residential Burglary 226 369 143 43%
Non-Residential Burglary 83 72 -11 -13%
TOTAL BURGLARY 309 441 132 63%
Larceny (Auto Burglary totals are included in Larceny) 2181 2164 -17 -1% Larceny From Vehicle 1259 1178 -81 -6%
Motor Vehicle Theft 1322 1474 152 11%
Arson 17 21 4 24%
PROPERTY CRIME TOTAL 3829 4100 271 7%
TOTAL PART 1 OFFENSES 4291 4562 271 6%
Domestic Violence* 467 471 4 1%
Hate Crimes* 2 3 1 50%
*DV and Hate Crimes, depending on Crime type, may or may not be included in Part 1 Offenses. **For the calendar year 2022 there were 11 homicides, table above is data Jan-Oct due to NIBRS implementation Nov 2022. 6 Part 1 Crime Trends Jan-Oct 2018-2022
543 466 455 462 462
4022 4067
4654
3829
4100
4565 4533
5109
4291
4562
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
VIOLENT CRIME PROPERTY CRIME TOTAL PART 1 OFFENSES
7 Recruitment and Hiring
Incentive Referral Recruiting Strategies
Process Mapping
8 Sworn and Professional Staff Applications
Received
Applications 2019 2020 2021 2022 2021 vs 2022
Sworn 1,768 1,164 585 821 29% Increase
Sworn Female 312 237 113 133 15% Increase
Sworn People of Color 1,329 859 447 669 33% Increase
Sworn No Response 27 19 13 17 24% Increase
Professional Staff 2,865 1,158 1,334 1,642 29% Increase 9 Sworn and Professional Staff
Applications Received by Ethnicity
American Indian or Alaskan
Native
1% Asian
14%
Black or African American
19%
Hispanic or Latinx
39%
Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander
5%
No Response
3%
White or Caucasian
19%
10 FY 2016-FY 2022 Sworn Officer Retention
FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 7-yr average Total (Prior FY) 180 183 190 178 178 180 170 179.9
Hired Current FY 13 15 9 15 20 15 8 13.6
Separated Current FY 10 8 21 15 18 25 20 16.7
Total (Current FY) 183 190 178 178 179 175 164 178.3
FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 7-yr average HPOA Employee
Average
181.5 186.5 184 178 179 175 164 178.3
HPOA Turnover Rate 6% 4% 11% 8% 10% 15% 22% 9%
Retention Rate 94% 96% 89% 92% 90% 85% 78% 91%
11 Continued Professional Training
Classification of Classes Discretionary POST
Mandated
Total Attendees
Professional Development 56 1 97
Technical Skills 32 6 234
Promotion/Assignment 71 21 35
Update 0 0 0
Total 159 28 366
Classification of
Classes
Discretionary
Hours
POST Mandated
Hours
Total Hours
Professional
Development
1,679 72 1,751
Technical Skills 2,087 505 2,592
Promotion/Assignment 4,075 2,296 6,371
Update 0 0 0
Total 7,841 2,873 10,714
12 CALEA
The Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) is an independent accrediting body for law enforcement agencies. CALEA accreditation is recognized internationally as the premier standard in public safety. CALEA accreditation is a voluntary endeavor that requires compliance with approximately 490 professional standards.
The Police Department has maintained CALEA accreditation continuously since CY 2011. Reaccreditation occurs every 4 years. The Police Department’s most recent reaccreditation award was achieved in March 2021 and the next is scheduled for March 2025. Within the 4-year span, compliance reviews are conducted annually to ensure the Police Department adheres to established CALEA standards. The Police Department successfully passed the CY 2022 review and is scheduled for an annual review in CY 2023. 13 Use of Force/External Complaints
100,666
33 0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
Calls for Service External Complaints
100,666
121
0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
Calls for Service Use of Force
14 District Command
Homeless Outreach
Response (City Task Force)
Hayward Mobile Evaluation
Team (HMET)
Community Engagement
(Events, Academy, Activity)
15 Youth and Family Services Bureau
Delinquency Prevention
Network (Crisis intervention,
counseling, case management,
and diversion services)
Explorer Program
Life Skills Education and
Restorative Justice Group
16 AB 481 (Military Equipment)
Deployment of AB 481 Equipment Totals Field Use Training Use
Robot 3 13
UAS 70 2
Armored Personnel Carrier 9 13
Command and Control Vehicle 3 4
Breaching Apparatus/Shotgun Slugs 0 0
Specialized Firearms and Ammunition 0 26
Noise Flash Diversionary Device 12 2
Chemical Agents “Tear Gas” 1 0
Pepper Powder Less Lethal Launcher 0 0
Specialty Impact Munitions Systems and Munitions 0 1
Total Deployments 361 61
17 FLOCK Safety ALPR
Daily License
Plate Reads
Daily Stolen
Vehicle Alerts
Daily Lost /
Stolen Plate
Alerts
Daily Vehicles
Associated
with a Felony
Crime Alerts
Daily Missing
Person Alerts
33,901 17 175 5 2
Vehicle Theft
Arrests
Car Jacking
Arrests
Other Felony
Crime Arrests
Unoccupied
Stolen Vehicles
Recovered
23 2 4 8
The alerts received from the FLOCK Safety ALPR cameras have resulted in the following arrests and stolen vehicle recoveries.
Below are the average daily plate reads and alerts received from October 2022 to January 2023. 18 Questions