Council Packet — Hayward City Council, April 11, 2023 (part 2 of 3)

Source: City of Hayward Annual Comprehensive Financial Report 170
Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
$16,158,933 $36,743,529 $26,842,761 $30,267,967 $24,801,183 $19,288,029 128,069,028 136,621,829 130,098,500 128,620,640 139,350,883 120,120,829 25,599,837 24,077,319 26,136,150 22,129,650 26,493,672 25,616,470 7,056,242 10,673,935 10,026,345 10,983,659 11,444,270 12,359,104 152,175 1,480,505 2,177,009 2,565,850 2,981,340 6,672,124 8,628,739 11,093,298 10,688,978 10,662,520 10,430,293 10,485,538 8,288,824 11,482,643 11,993,462 12,156,273 12,442,998 12,539,476 3,078,848 3,238,555 2,863,705 2,784,563 2,551,130 2,320,830 197,032,626 235,411,613 220,826,910 220,171,122 230,495,769 209,402,400 22,755,149 19,762,825 22,065,651 20,147,930 21,928,468 23,143,122 46,225,355 52,084,024 46,827,858 47,714,898 49,135,479 48,798,451 6,348,333 4,236,680 4,045,984 3,755,558 3,428,349 4,299,086 2,450,088 2,817,649 2,793,121 2,784,429 2,727,484 2,658,755 16,514 283,369 240,200
77,778,925 78,901,178 75,732,614 74,419,329 77,503,149 79,139,614 $274,811,551 $314,312,791 $296,559,524 $294,590,451 $307,998,918 $288,542,014 $2,627,359 $3,920,063 $3,328,124 $4,220,061 $2,491,348 $2,237,533 4,638,881 4,859,695 4,837,363 4,240,808 3,537,739 2,469,328 7,009,479 6,019,771 6,061,761 4,894,838 5,505,441 5,909,251 2,537,062 317,596 3,101,839 885,787 3,919,571 2,341,288 544,108 520,189 2,653,271
6,926,489 6,294,675 7,052,017 5,479,966 5,751,306 6,237,845 1,488,851 1,555,141 1,652,433 1,489,507 1,682,246 2,120,249 11,984,727 10,626,753 14,868,015 14,757,617 29,517,552 34,655,418 1,463,593 2,472,715 4,831,794 5,780,882 5,395,405 3,594,521 38,676,441 36,066,409 45,733,346 42,293,574 58,320,797 62,218,704 171

CITY OF HAYWARD
Changes in Net Position
(continued)
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Accrual Basis of Accounting)
Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
2013 2014 2015 2016
Business-Type Activities:

Charges for Services:

Sewer 22,136,846 25,527,904 28,389,311 33,557,099
Water 43,128,089 47,045,822 44,704,910 46,264,199
Airport 2,963,971 3,365,514 2,995,362 3,239,400
Centennial Hall Maintenance & Operation
Stormwater 2,821,653 2,777,228 2,832,703 2,894,801
Recycling
Operating Grants and Contributions 88,916
Capital Grants and Contributions
Total Business-Type Activities Program Revenue 71,139,475 78,716,468 78,922,286 85,955,499 Total Primary Government Program Revenues $118,559,166 $115,325,163 $114,449,014 $152,004,070 Net (Expense)/Revenue
Governmental Activities ($98,736,197) ($108,447,796) ($119,572,409) ($106,721,218) Business-Type Activities 7,520,210 17,156,899 16,138,274 16,925,449 Total Primary Government Net Expense ($91,215,987) ($91,290,897) ($103,434,135) ($89,795,769) Total Primary Government Net Expense
from prior page ($91,215,987) ($91,290,897) ($103,434,135) ($89,795,769) General Revenues and Other Changes in Net Position
Governmental Activities:

Taxes:

Property Taxes $39,297,973 $39,456,863 $42,740,159 $44,750,688 Incremental Property Tax
Special Assessments
Sales Taxes 29,197,989 31,019,079 39,148,631 46,495,377 Utility Users Tax 14,939,639 15,761,544 15,680,721 22,040,616 Real Property Transfer Tax 4,595,640 4,878,857 5,710,272 7,849,464 Franchise Tax 9,687,980 9,488,631 10,127,647 10,139,140 Business Tax 2,548,248 2,649,279 2,634,539 2,603,305
Excise Tax 1,868,695 1,694,229 2,142,691 3,782,330
Other Taxes 5,820,346 6,748,616 6,314,878 5,774,001
Motor Vehicle in-lieu, Unrestricted 78,484 64,954 62,743 61,688 Investment Earnings 534,927 424,910 349,196 523,123
Gain (Loss) on land held for resale
Gain (Loss) on Sale of Capital Assets (352,880) 882,491 Miscellaneous 3,192,697 3,473,568 2,996,956 5,505,290
Transfers (refer to ACFR Footnote 4) 2,889,691 2,458,989 2,618,309 2,801,309 Extraordinary Item (refer to ACFR Footnote 19)
Total Governmental Activities General Revenues
and Transfers 114,652,309 118,119,519 130,173,862 153,208,822 Business-Type Activities:

Investment Earnings 269,873 650,066 533,521 1,019,170
Gain (Loss) from disposal of capital assets
Loss on equity investment
Miscellaneous
Transfers (refer to ACFR Footnote 19) (2,889,691) (2,458,989) (2,618,309) (2,801,309) Total Business-Type Activities General Revenues
and Transfers (2,619,818) (1,808,923) (2,084,788) (1,782,139) Total Primary Government General Revenues
and Transfers $112,032,491 $116,310,596 $128,089,074 $151,426,683 Change in Net Position
Governmental Activities $15,916,112 $9,671,723 $10,601,453 $46,487,604 Business-Type Activities 4,900,392 15,347,976 14,053,486 15,143,310 Total Primary Government $20,816,504 $25,019,699 $24,654,939 $61,630,914 * Due to City of Hayward Departmental reorganization, Community Development, and Culture and Leisure Departments no longer exist.

Source: City of Hayward Annual Comprehensive Financial Report 172
Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
27,000,318 26,374,872 37,064,893 30,078,797 30,144,384 31,457,157 53,565,672 59,385,204 61,614,956 61,951,757 61,842,042 61,480,757 4,161,002 3,426,086 3,611,746 3,616,344 3,610,821 3,900,365 3,066,075 3,165,846 3,328,818 5,019,351 3,633,200 3,618,896 42,546 104,027
1,162,390 119,683
88,955,457 92,352,008 105,620,413 100,785,932 99,272,993 100,561,202 $127,631,898 $128,418,417 $151,353,759 $143,079,506 $157,593,790 $162,779,906 ($158,356,185) ($199,345,204) ($175,093,564) ($177,877,548) ($172,174,972) ($147,183,696) 11,176,532 13,450,830 29,887,799 26,366,603 21,769,844 21,421,588 ($147,179,653) ($185,894,374) ($145,205,765) ($151,510,945) ($150,405,128) ($125,762,108) ($147,179,653) ($185,894,374) ($145,205,765) ($151,510,945) ($150,405,128) ($125,762,108) $48,768,731 $52,136,552 $55,970,615 $58,939,316 $62,227,460 $64,950,195 48,848,674 48,550,524 52,917,415 56,566,457 58,652,032 64,666,358 20,753,813 17,487,828 16,935,327 16,065,943 17,267,592 17,308,117 8,349,727 9,168,329 12,256,155 12,150,286 17,120,032 21,226,290 9,646,261 9,647,904 9,730,173 10,581,960 10,624,234 10,515,952 3,664,550 4,550,835 4,415,292 4,057,795 4,365,441 3,996,798 2,226,200 2,261,598 2,329,766 2,383,998 2,070,754 1,958,345 5,607,637 6,924,304 8,637,556 8,505,009 8,497,353 9,879,685 71,223 84,769 77,775 126,184 117,578 182,633
1,470,868 1,253,635 3,277,620 3,272,624 1,124,743 (3,912,851) 10,982,198 3,390,000
121,761 49,910 82,854 37,265
5,130,121 5,514,057 7,837,732 15,167,508 18,633,107 9,449,880 2,861,623 2,621,785 3,665,266 3,054,013 3,185,444 4,112,715 157,521,189 160,252,030 189,032,890 190,871,093 207,358,624 204,371,382 1,920,919 925,665 4,305,963 5,088,464 1,081,381 (4,862,077) 135,712
(111,379) (965,799)
(2,861,623) (2,621,785) (3,665,266) (3,054,013) (3,185,444) (4,112,715) (940,704) (1,560,408) 529,318 2,034,451 (2,104,063) (9,940,591) $156,580,485 $158,691,622 $189,562,208 $192,905,544 $205,254,561 $194,430,791 ($834,996) ($39,093,174) $13,939,326 $12,993,545 $35,183,652 $57,187,686 10,235,828 11,890,422 30,417,117 28,401,054 19,665,781 11,480,997 $9,400,832 ($27,202,752) $44,356,443 $41,394,599 $54,849,433 $68,668,683 173
Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
2013 2014 2015 2016* 2017* 2018* 2019* 2020* 2021* 2022* General Fund
Reserved
Unreserved
Nonspendable
$7,028,303 $9,255,154 $9, 284,281 $8,474,463 $7,657,001 $6,880,088 $6, 067,818 $5,242,902 $4,442,423 $3,641,156 Restricted
Assigned
256,170 459,100 8,150,187 13, 485,813 10,276,759 17,794,142 13,959, 459 22,092,043 30,317,921 20,025,339 Unassigned 28,115,304 25,052,543 22, 134,362 22,098,817 21,767,997 25,248,062 30, 554,839 25,348,230 31,431,063 34,224,937 Total General Fund (a) $35,399,777 $34,766,797 $39,568, 830 $44,059,093 $39,701,757 $49, 922,292 $50,582,116 $52,683 ,175 $66,191,407 $57,891,432 All Other Governmental Funds
Restricted $22,811,952 19,827,871 33,488, 600 68,772,861 $76,555,491 $76,19 0,135 $84,761,983 $94,077,9 86 $117,664,651 $121,721,287 Assigned 2,646,543 7,670,060 68,374,788 58, 691,704 33,810,387 26,111,962 27,536,543 14,454,839 10,507,228 Unassigned (724,802) (2,508,938) (1,644,451) (5,969,846) (9,212,995) Total all other governmental funds $24,733,693 $29,736,960 $31,213, 691 $137,147,942 $135,247,195 $108,356,071 $104,9 04,099 $112,401,534 $132,119,490 $132,228,515 * General Fund includes balances related to the City's Measure C District Sales Tax (a) The change in total fund balance for the General Fund and All Other Governmental Funds is explained in Management's Discussi on and Analysis.

The detail of Reserved and Designated Fund balance is explained in Note 9 of the financial statement footnotes.

Source: City of Hayward Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR)

CITY OF HAYWARD
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Modified Accrual Basis of Accounting)
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
2013 2014 2015 2016* 2017* 2018* 2019* 2020* 2021* 2022* Thousands
Reserved
Unreserved Nonspendable Restricted Assigned UnassignedGeneral Fund only 174
This Page Left Intentionally Blank

CITY OF HAYWARD
Changes in Fund Balance of Governmental Funds
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Modified Accrual Basis of Accounting)
Fiscal Years Ended June 30,
2013 2014 2015 2016
Revenues
Property Taxes $39,180,750 $38,971,067 $42,128,306 $44,159,430 Property Tax Incremen
t
Sales Taxes 29,197,989 31,019,079 39,148,631 46,495,377 Utility Users Taxes 14,939,639 15,761,544 15,680,721 22,040,616 Other Taxes 20,630,166 21,310,770 23,424,572 26,554,046 Licenses and permits 3,605,753 4,078,392 5,031,300 6,316,823 Fines and forfeitures 2,938,106 2,285,486 2,549,034 2,341,565 Special Assessments 891,037 972,339 980,329 1,166,399
Use of money and property 756,670 635,092 357,388 561,895 Intergovernmental revenues 28,617,999 33,839,482 22,647,381 37,101,458 Fees and charges for services 8,377,718 8,172,604 7,639,834 9,885,890 Reimbursement from Developer 109,677 252,910
Gain on Sale
Othe
r 1,934,141 2,402,380 5,002,806 7,909,582
Total Revenues 151,179,645 159,701,145 164,590,302 204,533,081 Expenditures
Current:

General governmen
t 9,841,308 10,551,378 13,702,855 12,675,974
Public safety 90,696,723 91,851,849 96,719,824 105,164,624 Public works and transportation 10,498,047 3,764,567 6,623,943 3,850,989 Library and community services 6,531,206 7,004,537 6,748,325 8,371,078 Economic development 1,847,619 2,017,787 763,285 1,984,194 Planning and building 5,806,741 5,981,108 6,495,171 7,382,233 Maintenance services 3,685,853 4,591,395 5,581,077 6,279,365 Nondepartmental
Capital outlay 36,797,417 22,587,661 30,819,943 39,864,835 Debt service:

Principal 1,854,870 2,216,033 2,156,489 2,397,381
Interest and fiscal charges 2,040,992 1,093,538 1,158,708 1,055,901 Bond issuance cos
t 1,054,619
Pass-through payments
169,600,776 151,659,853 170,769,620 190,081,193
(18,421,131) 8,041,292 (6,179,318) 14,451,888
87,348,775
6,565,740
(20,455,936)
2,488,880 5,500,000
11,304,955 16,346,295 9,012,179 25,098,265
(12,689,762) (22,375,934) (12,188,316) (27,899,357)
(1,384,807) (3,540,759) 2,323,863 70,657,487
($19,805,938) $4,500,533 ($3,855,455) $85,109,375

3.0% 2.6% 2.4% 2.4%
Total Expenditures
Excess (deficiency) of revenues over
(under) expenditures
Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Transfer of land held for resale to cap assets
Proceeds from sale of capital asset
Proceeds of refunding bonds (refer to ACFR Footnote 6)
Premium on refunding bonds issued (refer to ACFR Footnote 6) Payment to refunded bond escrow agent (refer to ACFR Footnote 6) Proceeds of repayment agreement
Proceeds from long term debt (refer to ACFR Footnote 6) Proceeds from capital lease
Gain on land held for resale
Transfers in (refer to ACFR Footnote 4)
Transfers out (refer to ACFR Footnote 4)
Total other financing sources (uses)
Extraordinary Item (Refer to ACFR Footnote 19)
Net Change in fund balances
Debt service as a percentage of
noncapital expenditures
176
Fiscal Years Ended June 30,
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
$47,195,566 $51,235,946 $54,467,978 $58,431,804 $61,196,409 $63,524,226 48,848,674 48,550,524 52,917,415 56,566,457 58,652,032 64,666,358 20,753,813 17,487,828 16,935,327 16,065,943 17,267,592 17,308,117 27,518,428 28,116,819 32,658,149 31,774,255 36,672,642 42,293,995 7,766,510 7,091,074 7,814,026 6,435,587 5,439,030 7,040,991 2,499,964 2,487,183 2,670,298 2,210,385 2,194,569 2,908,314 1,026,071 1,003,388 1,059,378 1,297,894 1,408,903 1,427,107 1,746,291 1,644,775 3,473,471 3,901,043 1,729,716 (2,085,572) 28,403,369 23,151,743 28,991,082 28,937,153 38,526,058 42,581,105 5,889,181 7,360,450 7,373,160 5,585,549 9,712,963 8,305,207 10,982,198
11,082,590 6,084,935 10,689,323 18,289,406 24,378,704 17,150,080 202,730,457 194,214,665 230,031,805 229,495,476 257,178,618 265,119,928 13,182,512 14,309,144 15,335,579 14,607,161 13,971,584 19,264,532 110,461,347 110,621,648 118,169,989 123,148,622 129,477,772 135,547,462 4,001,258 3,772,501 8,850,429 6,849,771 8,198,266 9,841,151 6,678,908 7,638,673 7,722,543 8,707,212 9,123,989 10,597,268 56,797 81,274 1,512,567 1,576,741 2,350,344 6,674,218
8,497,395 8,372,228 9,229,204 8,618,787 8,712,707 9,576,414 7,711,268 7,720,401 9,973,511 9,840,025 10,752,525 12,017,944 48,972,280 47,870,707 45,601,421 34,471,404 40,657,890 53,296,125 2,561,048 2,676,156 5,013,353 5,207,513 5,416,028 6,257,552 3,303,835 3,321,225 3,190,198 3,007,504 2,795,772 2,615,974 2,972
205,429,620 206,383,957 224,598,794 216,034,740 231,456,877 265,688,640 (2,699,163) (12,169,292) 5,433,011 13,460,736 25,721,741 (568,712) 1,063,021
3,390,000
40,553,431 13,461,040 40,742,247 15,104,770 12,292,089 42,742,446 (44,118,007) (17,962,337) (48,967,406) (18,967,012) (17,809,505) (51,427,705) (3,564,576) (4,501,297) (8,225,159) (3,862,242) (2,127,416) (7,622,238) ($6,263,739) ($16,670,589) ($2,792,148) $9,598,494 $23,594,325 ($8,190,950)

3.8% 3.5% 4.2% 4.2% 4.1% 3.9%
177
Millions
Total
Fiscal Total Secured Total Unsecured Total Estimated Direct Year Property Property Assessed ( c ) Full Market ( a ) Tax Rate ( b ) 2013 $14,269,516,867 $1,219,715,968 $15,489,232,835 $15,489,232,835 1% 2014 15,692,946,952 1,249,273,320 16,942,220,272 16,942,220,272 1% 2015 16,639,488,990 1,340,155,668 17,979,644,658 17,979,644,658 1% 2016 17,432,403,170 1,452,793,040 18,885,196,210 18,885,196,210 1% 2017 18,505,587,803 1,439,106,697 19,944,694,500 19,944,694,500 1% 2018 19,779,304,369 1,454,651,151 21,233,955,520 21,233,955,520 1% 2019 21,249,763,958 1,469,205,980 22,718,969,938 22,718,969,938 1% 2020 22,702,279,301 1,570,761,064 24,273,040,365 24,273,040,365 1% 2021 24,086,121,795 1,669,659,173 25,755,780,968 25,755,780,968 1% 2022 25,074,926,004 1,580,752,210 26,655,678,214 26,655,678,214 1% NOTE:
( a ) The State Constitution requires property to be assessed at one hundred percent of the most recent purchase price, plus an increment of no more than two percent annually, plus any local over-rides. These values are considered to be full market values. ( b ) California cities do not set their own direct tax rate. The state constitution establishes the rate at 1% and allocates a portion of that amount, by an annual calculation, to all the taxing entities within a tax rate area. ( c ) Total assessed represents gross amount of the total assessed valuation of the taxable property.

Source: Alameda County Auditor Controller Office Certificate of Assessed Valuations

CITY OF HAYWARD

ASSESSED AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL

VALUE OF TAXABLE PROPERTY

LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Series1 Series2
178
Hayward Chabot-Las Positas
Fiscal Alameda County City of Alameda County Unified Community College Bay Area Rapid Hayward Area East Bay Year Wide Levy Hayward Go Bond School District District Transit (BART) Rec & Park Regional Park 2013 1.0000 0.0018 0.0000 0.0553 0.0219 0.0043 0.0051
2014 1.0000 0.0018 0.0000 0.0486 0.0214 0.0075 0.0078
2015 1.0000 0.0018 0.0000 0.0527 0.0217 0.0045 0.0085
2016 1.0000 0.0018 0.0000 0.0970 0.0198 0.0026 0.0067
2017 1.0000 0.0018 0.0000 0.0974 0.0246 0.0080 0.0032
2018 1.0000 0.0018 0.0000 0.0881 0.0445 0.0084 0.0299 0.0021 2019 1.0000 0.0018 0.0112 0.0806 0.0443 0.0070 0.0300 0.0057 2020 1.0000 0.0018 0.0108 0.1350 0.0422 0.0120 0.0300 0.0060 2021 1.0000 0.0018 0.0036 0.1310 0.0214 0.0139 0.0299 0.0014 2022 1.0000 0.0018 0.0041 0.1150 0.0458 0.0060 0.0299 0.0020

CITY OF HAYWARD

PROPERTY TAX RATES

ALL OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENTS

LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS

0.00 0.20

0.40 0.60

0.80 1.00

1.20 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Percent
Chabot-Las Positas Community College District School District Alameda County Wide Levy Source: Alameda County Assessor's Office
179
Percentage Percentage
of Total City of Total City
Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable
Assessed Assessed Assessed Assessed
Employer Value Rank Value Value Rank Value
Russell City Energy Company, LLC $364,400,000 1 0.013670633 Southland Mall LP 251,091,465 2 0.009419812 $147,009,347 2 0.90% PSB Northern Calif Industrial Portfolio LLC 224,097,072 3 0.008407104 Hayward 544 LLC 173,510,380 4 0.006509322
ROC III CA Creekwood LLC 104,733,910 7 0.003929141 Hayward Point Eden I LP 112,558,109 5 0.004222669 95,083,722 5 0.60% Hayward Industrial Park Associates 104,901,016 6 0.00393541 90,404,215 7 0.60% IPT Hayward Logistics Center LLC 100,236,482 8 0.003760418 Rar2 Hayward 92 LLC 98,284,389 9 0.003687184
Lincoln Landing Property Owner Llc 71,586,920 10 0.002685616 Bottling Group LLC 129,310,845 3 0.80%
SCI Limited Partnership 92,534,400 6 0.60%
Northern Cal Industrial Portfolio 191,348,900 1 1.20% Berkeley Farm Inc. 107,277,093 4 0.70%
Target Corporation 57,019,413 10 0.40%
Impax Laboratories Inc. 75,697,018 8 0.50%
Essex Wimbledon Woods Apartments, LLC 57,973,033 9 0.40% Subtotal $1,605,399,743 6.02% $1,043,657,986 6.16%
Total Assessed Valuation:

Fiscal Year 2021/2022 $26,655,678,214
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 16,942,220,272
Source: Alameda County Assessor Fiscal Year Combined Tax Rolls City of Hayward
Principal Property Tax Payers
Current Year and Ten Years Ago
FY 2022 FY 2013
180

CITY OF HAYWARD

PROPERTY TAX LEVIES AND COLLECTIONS

LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
#
#
#
Percent of
Current Percent Delinquent Total Total Tax
Fiscal Total Tax of Levy Tax Tax Collections
Year Tax Levy Collections Collected Collections Collections to Tax Levy 2013 $23,375,741 $22,340,018 95.57% $748,912 $23,088,930 98.77% 2014 25,027,044 24,356,397 97.32% 399,535 24,755,932 98.92% 2015 26,474,019 25,522,217 96.40% 382,845 25,905,062 97.85% 2016 27,915,350 26,854,859 96.20% 446,987 27,301,846 97.80% 2017 29,275,215 28,172,161 96.23% 448,808 28,620,970 97.77% 2018 31,255,890 30,158,955 96.49% 410,565 30,569,520 97.80% 2019 33,360,474 32,234,964 96.63% 403,490 32,638,455 97.84% 2020 36,054,277 34,833,923 96.62% 505,412 35,339,334 98.02% 2021 38,025,883 36,767,160 96.69% 537,243 37,304,403 98.10% 2022 39,223,816 37,821,398 96.42% 604,452 38,425,850 97.97% Source: Alameda County Assessor Office
$10.0
$12.5
$15.0
$17.5
$20.0
$22.5
$25.0
$27.5
$30.0
$32.5
$35.0
$37.5
$40.0
$42.5
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Millions
Total Tax Levy Total Tax Collections
181

CITY OF HAYWARD

RATIO OF OUTSTANDING DEBT BY TYPE

LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
Governmental Activities
Tax Certificates Capital
Fiscal Allocation of Revenue
Lease
Year Bonds Participation Bonds Obligations Total
2013 0 (a) $24,525,000 $575,000 $5,943,842 $31,043,842
2014 0 (a) 22,895,000 3,003,880 5,699,806 31,598,686
2015 0 (a) 21,195,000 2,695,717 11,279,313 35,170,031
2016 0 (a) 87,348,775 2,371,338 10,787,079 100,507,193
2017 0 (a) 91,613,001 2,044,350 9,050,057 102,707,408
2018 0 (a) 89,212,869 1,709,786 7,661,734 98,584,389
2019 0 (a) 84,487,311 1,372,620 6,444,597 92,304,528
2020 0 (a) 79,584,001 1,028,478 5,001,566 85,614,045
2021 0 (a) 74,484,994 681,218 4,225,876 79,392,088
2022 0 (a) 69,185,304 766,118 3,646,076 73,597,498
Business-Type Activities
Water Sewer
Fiscal Revenue Revenue Total Government Debt
Year Bonds Bonds Total Government Per Capita (b)
2013 $8,225,000 $50,073,263 $58,298,263 $89,342,105 $600.59 2014 6,570,000 46,137,248 52,707,248 84,305,934 558.18 2015 6,055,000 42,151,592 48,206,592 83,376,623 545.34 2016 5,525,000 38,116,304 43,641,304 144,148,497 906.68 2017 4,980,000 34,755,949 39,735,949 142,443,357 884.52 2018 4,420,000 31,370,520 35,790,520 134,374,909 829.32 2019 3,840,000 43,337,073 47,177,073 139,481,601 874.86 2020 3,245,000 38,786,145 42,031,145 127,645,190 796.23 2021 2,630,000 40,524,958 43,154,958 122,547,046 775.18 2022 2,000,000 36,523,498 38,523,498 112,120,996 698.18 Note : Debt amounts exclude any premiums, discounts, or other amortization amounts. (a) Tax Allocation Bonds are reported under Redevelopment Successor Agency as Fiduciary Fund as Redevelopment Agency was dissolved on January 31, 2012 as per ABx1 26 and AB1484. (b) Per Capita based on City population; refer to Demographic and Statistics Schedule for population data.

Source: City of Hayward
State of California, Department of Finance (population) U.S. Dept of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (income)
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Millions
Total Governmental Activities Total Business-Type Activities 182
2021-22 Assessed Valuation: $26,135,678,970
Redevelopment Incremental Valuation: (3,101,296,705)
Adjusted Assessed Valuation: $23,034,382,265
Total Debt City's Share of Debt
6/30/2022 % Applicable (1) 6/30/2022
DIRECT DEBT:

City of Hayward General Fund Obligations $73,597,498 100.000% $73,597,498 $73,597,498
Total Direct Debt $73,597,498
OVERLAPPING DEBT:

Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt:

Alameda County $183,745,000 7.54% 13,854,373
Bay Area Rapid Transit District 2,521,570,000 3% 74,058,511 Chabot-Las Positas Community College District 805,595,000 18% 144,733,198 Castro Valley Unified School District 144,115,000 0% 170,056 Hayward Unified School District 759,685,496 86% 654,598,201 New Haven Unified School District 229,434,534 14% 31,432,531 Pleasanton Unified School District 195,875,000 0% 68,556 San Lorenzo Unified School District 177,335,000 15% 27,229,789 Washington Township Healthcare District 343,045,000 2% 6,089,049 Hayward Area Recreation and Park District 102,115,000 56% 56,721,819 East Bay Regional Park District 184,590,000 5% 8,657,271 City of Hayward Community Facilities District No. 1 4,588,014 100% 4,588,014 City of Hayward 1915 Act Bonds 80,000 100% 80,000
Subtotal Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt $1,022,281,368 Ratios to 2021-22 Assessed Valuation:

Subtotal Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt 4.44%
OVERLAPPING GENERAL FUND DEBT:

Alameda County General Fund Obligations $742,688,000 7.540% $55,998,675 Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District Certificates of Participation 11,655,000 8.927% 1,040,442 Hayward Unified School District Certificates of Participation 13,204,467 86.167% 11,377,893 San Lorenzo Unified School District Certificates of Participation 8,605,000 15.355% 1,321,298 Castro Valley and Pleasanton Unified School District Certificates of Participation 4,445,000 0.118% 5,245 Subtotal Overlapping General Fund Debt $69,743,553
OVERLAPPING TAX INCREMENT DEBT(Successor Agencies): $46,565,000 7.372 & 100. % $25,807,065 $25,807,065
Total Overlapping Debt $1,117,831,986
Grand Total Direct and Overlapping Debt $1,191,429,484 (2) Combined Total Direct and Overlapping Debt $1,191,429,484 (2) Ratio to 2021-22 Assessed Valuation:

Combined Total Direct and Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt 5.17% NOTE:
(1) The percentage of overlapping debt applicable to the city is estimated using taxable assessed property value. Applicabl e percentages were estimated
by determining the portion of the overlapping district's assessed value that is within the boundaries of the city divid ed by the district's total taxable
assessed value.
(2) Excludes tax and revenue anticipation notes, enterprise revenue, mortgage revenue and non-bonded capital lease obligatio ns. Qualified Zone Academy
Bonds are included based on principal due at maturity.

Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.

CITY OF HAYWARD

COMPUTATION OF DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING DEBT
183

CITY OF HAYWARD

COMPUTATION OF LEGAL BONDED DEBT MARGIN
Last Ten Fiscal Years
ASSESSED VALUATION:

Secured property assessed value, net of
exempt real property $26,655,678,214
BONDED DEBT LIMIT (15.% OF ASSESSED VALUE) $3,998,351,732 AMOUNT OF DEBT SUBJECT TO LIMIT:

Total Bonded Debt $73,597,498
Less Tax Allocation Bonds and Sales Tax Revenue
Bonds, Certificate of Participation not subject to limit 73,597,498 Amount of debt subject to limit 0
LEGAL BONDED DEBT MARGIN $3,998,351,732
Total net debt
Total Net Debt Legal applicable to the limit
Fiscal Debt Applicable to Debt as a percentage
Year Limit Limit Margin of debt limit
2013 $2,541,333,041 $0 $2,541,333,041 0.00%
2014 2,541,333,041 0 2,541,333,041 0.00%
2015 2,696,946,699 0 2,696,946,699 0.00%
2016 2,832,779,432 0 2,832,779,432 0.00%
2017 2,991,704,175 0 2,991,704,175 0.00%
2018 3,185,093,328 0 3,185,093,328 0.00%
2019 3,407,845,491 0 3,407,845,491 0.00%
2020 3,640,956,055 0 3,640,956,055 0.00%
2021 3,863,367,145 0 3,863,367,145 0.00%
2022 3,998,351,732 0 3,998,351,732 0.00%
Source: County of Alameda Auditors Office
184
Debt Service Requirements
Net Revenue
Fiscal Gross Operating Available for
Year Revenue (1) Expenses (2) Debt Service Principal Interest Total Ratio Coverage 2013 $65,512,421 $49,506,563 $16,005,858 $1,490,000 $527,831 $2,017,831 7.93 2014 73,136,288 47,380,860 25,755,428 2,160,000 459,280 2,619,280 9.83 2015 73,564,675 49,566,818 23,997,857 1,615,000 302,938 1,917,938 12.51 2016 80,748,945 52,915,644 27,833,301 1,555,498 205,533 1,761,031 15.81 2017 82,325,821 60,602,745 21,723,076 886,781 151,341 1,038,122 20.93 2018 86,614,724 63,289,309 23,325,415 919,040 121,929 1,040,969 22.41 2019 102,636,863 60,860,754 41,776,109 450,133 90,738 540,871 77.24 2020 96,734,751 60,046,086 36,688,665 462,357 78,514 540,871 67.83 2021 93,001,615 62,364,681 30,636,934 479,467 66,069 545,536 56.16 2022 88,096,478 62,788,487 25,307,991 487,444 52,812 540,256 46.84 Notes: (1) Includes all Wastewater Operating Revenues, Non-operating Interest Revenue, Connection Fees and other Non-operating Revenue (2) Includes all Wastewater Operating Expenses less Depreciation and Interest

CITY OF HAYWARD

REVENUE BOND COVERAGE

WASTEWATER REVENUE BONDS

LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Ratio Coverage
Source: City of Hayward Annual Financial Statement
185

CITY OF HAYWARD

BONDED DEBT PLEDGED REVENUE COVERAGE

TAX ALLOCATION BONDS

LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
Tax Debt Service Requirements
Fiscal Increment
Year Revenue Principal Interest Total Coverage
2013 $4,934,694 $1,605,000 $2,400,322 $4,005,322 1.23
2014 4,317,292 1,680,000 2,328,657 4,008,657 1.08
2015 5,365,287 1,750,000 2,253,588 4,003,588 1.34
2016 6,427,560 1,835,000 2,173,931 4,008,931 1.60
2017 5,089,716 2,035,000 347,642 2,382,642 2.14
2018 3,163,863 1,685,000 1,550,975 3,235,975 0.98
2019 4,109,694 1,735,000 1,487,550 3,222,550 1.28
2020 3,791,673 1,805,000 1,417,450 3,222,450 1.18
2021 4,020,771 1,880,000 1,344,550 3,224,550 1.25
2022 3,701,590 1,975,000 1,254,250 3,229,250 1.15
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
$11,000
$12,000
$13,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Thousands
Tax Increment Revenue Debt Service Payment
Source: City of Hayward Annual Financial Statements
186

CITY OF HAYWARD

DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS

LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
City City
Fiscal City Per Capita Unemployment Alameda Co. Population Year Population Income Rate Population % of County
2013 148,756 $25,019 10.3% 1,548,681 9.61%
2014 151,037 25,208 10.3% 1,573,254 9.60%
2015 152,889 25,770 13.2% 1,594,569 9.59%
2016 158,985 26,405 13.2% 1,627,865 9.77%
2017 161,040 27,774 13.3% 1,645,359 9.79%
2018 162,030 32,021 3.1% 1,660,202 9.76%
2019 159,433 29,583 2.8% 1,669,301 9.55%
2020 160,311 37,243 11.0% 1,670,834 9.59%
2021 158,089 7.6% 1,656,591 9.54%
2022 160,591 3.2% 1,651,979 9.72%
Note: FY21 AND FY22 data not available for Per Capita Income Sources: U.S. Census Bureau
State of California - Department of Finance, Office of The Director State of California - Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division 0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
11%
12%
13%
14%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Unemployment Rate (%)
8%
9%
10%
11%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
City Population as a % of County Population

1.4 1.5

1.6 1.7
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Alameda Co. Population
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Thousands
Per Capita Income
187
FY 2022
Number Percentage
of of Total City
Employer Employees Rank Employment
Alameda County Sheriff's Department * 1,200 4 0.8%
Baxter Bio Pharma *
California State University East Bay * 2,207 2 1.5%
Chabot Community College *
Fremont Bank Operations Center *
Hayward Unified School District * 2,200 3 1.5%
Illumina *
Impax Laboratories, Inc. *
Pentagon Technologies * 650 8 0.4%
Plastikon Industries, Inc. *
Siemens Building Tech *
St. Rose Hospital * 700 6 0.5%
Gillig Corporation 700 6 0.5%
Kaiser Permanente Medical Center 2,500 1 1.7%
City of Hayward 800 5 0.5%
IMPAX Laboratories Inc 594 10 0.4%
Berkeley Farms LLC 600 9 0.4%
Subtotal 12,151 8.2%
Total City Population Using Census Data 148,756
Source: City of Hayward Adopted Operating Budget FY21
Note: FY21 data not available for ranking or total employment. * Presented in alphabetical order based on economic development's assessment.

City of Hayward
Principal Employers
Current Year and Ten Years Ago
FY 2013
188
Fiscal Years Ended June 30,
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Function
General government 146.90 156.00 165.00 175.00 168.50 168.50 181.50 188.25 186.25 185.75 Public safety 436.50 437.50 439.50 457. 00 459.00 460.00 469.00 473.00 473.00 473.00 Public works 26.10 25.00 26.00 20. 50 19.56 20.71 20.56 24.00 24.45 24.15 Library and community services 38.55 38. 55 40.20 42.20 42.80 44.80 35.80 36.80 36.80 37.80 Development services 30.00 32.00 36.00 39.00 50.00 50.00 49.50 50.00 50.00 50.00 Water 58.40 58.50 58.50 57.30 60. 61 60.46 61.41 61.26 60.71 61.61 Wastewater 51.00 53.00 56.00 70.40 71.58 73.58 73.78 73.24 73.34 75.24 Solid Waste 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.8 02 . 7 52 . 7 52 . 7 52 . 7 52 . 7 5 2 . 2 5 Total 790.45 803.55 824.20 864.20 874. 80 880.80 894.30 909.30 907.30 909.80 Source: City of Hayward Adopted Operating Budget

CITY OF HAYWARD
Full-Time Equivalent City Government Employees by Function Last Ten Fiscal Years
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
General government Public safety Public works Library and community services Development services Water Wastewater Solid Waste
189

CITY OF HAYWARD
Operating Indicators by Function/Program
Last Five Fiscal Years
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Function/Program
Public safety:

Fire alarms 18,898 18,823 18,860 18,414 20,361
Police: (Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics)
Property crime calls 4,967 4,749 5,462 4,682 4,918
Violent crime calls (a) 633 604 568 520 511
Arson calls 33 28 20 19 28
Public works
Pavement Condition Index (PCI)* 69 70 69 70 69
*Industry measure of street condition with 100 ideal score Annual pavement improvement projects 13 10 10 10 10
Airport operations count/flights 112,962 106,447 90,048 126,219 132,096 Airport reported based aircraft 470 461 461 461 461
Library and Community Services
Social Services Projects Funded 20 18 18 26 19
Facilities Projects Funded 22114
Economic Development Projects Funded 23265
New Housing/Rehab Projects Funded 182222
Public Services Projects Funded 555 1 87
Measure B Projects Funded 78846
Measure BB Projects Funded 10011
Planning
Active Subdivisions 45 41 40 48 38
Active Parcel Maps 7 7 11 12 13
Building Permits 4,934 5,107 4,501 4,291 4,517
Residential Rental Inspections 1,039 977 943 334 142
Library and neighborhood services
Library Materials in Collection 166,100 164,396 204,416 154,535 158,258 Library Circulation (Items checked out) 654,989 159,806 395,758 144,108 370,628 Community Preservation Cases 2,771 2,917 2,522 2,518 2,159 Water
Water service connections 36,327 37,526 38,236 38,532 37,764 Water main breaks 14 21 17 19 9
Average daily consumption (thousands of gallons or gallons) 14,458 14,046 13,962 14,405,184 13,901,276 Wastewater
Sewer service connections 34,320 34,728 35,256 35,256 35,497 Average daily treatment (thousands of gallons) 11,480 11,574 10,717 10,355 10,605 Solid Waste
Landfilled waste recycled and diversion rate* 70%-75% 66% 66% 73% 77% *Diversion rate beginning in calendar year 2000 and each year thereafter.
(a) Excluded Simple assault calls, restated prior years.

Source: City of Hayward
190
This Page Left Intentionally Blank

CITY OF HAYWARD
Capital Asset Statistics by Function/Program
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Function/Program
Public safety:

Fire stations (a) 99999
Number of firefighters and officers (b) 115 127 118 118 114 Police stations 11111
Number of police officers (c) 189 199 177 186 194
Public works
Miles of streets 266 266 266 283 283
Street lights 8,143 8,161 8,178 8,273 8,288
Traffic Signals 135 135 134 134 136
Airport 11111
Library and neighborhood services
City Libraries 22222
Water
Number of consumers 140,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 155,000 Average daily consumption (gallons) 15,500,000 15,200,000 13,600,000 12,255,000 12,870,000 Miles of water mains 370 380 385 385 385
Storage capacity (gallons) 29,350,000 29,350,000 29,350,000 29,350,000 30,550,000 Wastewater
Miles of sewers 320 325 325 325 325
Number of treatment plants 11111
Treatment capacity (gallons) 18,500,000 18,500,000 18,500,000 18,500,000 18,500,000 (a) Includes Fairview Fire District Station under contract (b) Represents actual hired firefighters and officers which may be different than budgeted number of positions (c) Represents actual hired police officers which may be different than budgeted number of positions Sources: City of Hayward
192
Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
9 9 999
129 124 122 121 125
1 1 111
176 178 181 169 161
283 283 283 283 283
8,238 8,327 8,327 8,327 8,377
143 146 146 146 146
1 1 111
2 2 222
160,500 159,500 159,203 162,954 159,827
14,650,000 14,046,000 13,962,000 14,405,184 13,901,276
385 391 391 391 391
30,550,000 25,350,000 31,250,000 25,000,000 25,000,000
325 321 321 321 321
1 1 111
18,500,000 18,400,000 18,500,000 18,500,000 18,500,000
193
This Page Left Intentionally Blank

Finance Department, 777 B Street, Hayward CA 94541Finance Department, 777 B Street, Hayward CA 94541 www.Hayward-CA.govwww.Hayward-CA.gov

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: CONS 23-200
DATE: April 11, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Fire Chief

SUBJECT
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Appropriate $88,598.89 from the Measure C Operating Fund (Fund 101) for the Purchase of (1) EagleAir® Model RVA15M3D4U RavenCFS Breathing Air Compressor System

RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) authorizing the City Manager to appropriate and expend $88,598.89 from the Measure C Operating Fund (Fund 101) for the purchase of (1) EagleAir® Breathing Compressor System.

SUMMARY
In 2014, Hayward voters approved Measure C, which authorized the City to increase the sales tax rate by one-half cent for, among other things, the restoration and maintenance of City services and facilities, including firefighting/emergency medical services. The purchase from EagleAir of a new Breathing Air Compressor System will allow for continued use of existing equipment and the ease of maintenance and services, due to an already existing service agreement with the local provider. Hayward Fire already owns and maintains three similar units from EagleAir, and this additional purchase will increase capacity to refill breathable air tanks for Fire personnel. An increase in appropriation in the Measure C fund is required for the purchase of the EagleAir equipment.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 4/7/2023Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™

Page 1 of 3 ends

DATE: April 11, 2023

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Fire Chief

SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Appropriate and Expend $88,598.89 From the Measure C Operating Fund (Fund 101) For the Purchase of (1) EagleAir® Model RVA15M3D4U RavenCFS Breathing Air Compressor System

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) authorizing the City Manager to appropriate and expend $88,598.89 from the Measure C Operating Fund (Fund 101) for the purchase of (1) EagleAir® Breathing Compressor System.

SUMMARY

In 2014, Hayward voters approved Measure C, which authorized the City to increase the sales tax rate by one-half cent for, among other things, the restoration and maintenance of City services and facilities, including firefighting/emergency medical services. The purchase from EagleAir of a new Breathing Air Compressor System will allow for continued use of existing equipment and the ease of maintenance and services, due to an already existing service agreement with the local provider. Hayward Fire already owns and maintains three similar units from EagleAir, and this additional purchase will increase capacity to refill breathable air tanks for Fire personnel. An increase in appropriation in the Measure C fund is required for the purchase of the EagleAir equipment.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

There is a current need to increase speed and capacity of use in the method of replenishing breathable air tanks throughout the department. Hayward Fire Department initially purchased EagleAir products in 2013, after a SCBA Grant was awarded to replace an expired system. Prior to that purchase, there was a mobile air compressor that had a 2-tank fill capacity. The new new unit will upgrade that capacity to 4 tanks.

EagleAir was selected via a Request for Proposals due to their competitive pricing, product availability, and local service providers. Since the decision to move forward with EagleAir,

Page 2 of 3 ends

HFD has added additional units at Station 6 and station 7.

The purchase of the EagleAir® Model RVA15M3D4U RavenCFS Breathing Air Compressor System would allow for the easiest and most cost-effective option for adding capacity to the existing breathable air system within Hayward Fire Department. By increasing capacity of the existing equipment rather than diverting to a new system, there are significant savings in relation to time and money, as no additional purchases will need to be made to replace existing equipment, as well as the time to learn and integrate a new system. In order to assure fair market pricing, there were inquiries into Stallion Air for similar equipment, and pricing was nearly identical.

STRATEGIC ROADMAP

This project does not relate to any projects on the strategic roadmap.

FISCAL IMPACT

In 2014, Hayward voters approved Measure C which authorized the City to increase the sales tax rate by one-half cent for, among other things, the restoration and maintenance of City services and facilities, including firefighting/emergency medical services.

Therefore, staff recommends that Council approve an increase in budget appropriation in the Measure C Operating Fund (Fund 101) in the amount of $88,598.89 to allow for the purchase of (1) EagleAir® Model RVA15M3D4U RavenCFS Breathing Air Compressor System.

SUSTAINABILITY FEATURES

Continuing with an existing brand rather than replacing a department-wide product will help eliminate waste by continuing to use existing products and eliminating excess purchases due to lack of compatibility.

PUBLIC CONTACT

There is no public contact needed for this item.

NEXT STEPS

If Council approves the resolution to appropriate funds, staff will route the budget amendment and continue with the proposed invoice and complete the purchase. Staff will then coordinate with local providers for delivery and implementation.

Prepared by: Lauren Dekas, Fire Administration Management Analyst I

Recommended by: Garrett Contreras, Fire Chief

Page 3 of 3 ends

Approved by:

_________________________________
Kelly McAdoo, City Manager

ATTACHMENT II

Page 1 of 2 ends

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION NO. 23-____

Introduced by Council Member __________

ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
APPROPRIATE AND EXPEND $88,598.89 FROM THE MEASURE C
OPERATING FUND (FUND 101) FOR THE PURCHASE OF (1) E AGLEAIR® MODEL RVA15M3D4U RAVENCFS BREATHING AIR COMPRESSOR SYSTEM

WHEREAS, the City of Hayward Fire Departmen t has researched and identifie d a system compliant breathing air compressor system; and

WHEREAS, breathing apparatus is a vital piece of emergency equipme nt that allows the City’s firefighters to enter dangerous atmospheres, combat fires, an d protect the life and property for the Hayward community; and

WHEREAS, the City Manager authorizes a sole source justification to purchase of breathing apparatuses (SCBA) with EagleAir; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hayward hereby approves the amendment to the FY 2023 Operating Budget resolution by increasing the bud get appropriation in the Measure C Fund in the amount of $88,598.89 to allow for the purchase of one (1) Breathing Air Compressor System and authorizes the C ity Manager to execute the purchase order.

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 23-201
DATE: April 11, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Fire Chief

SUBJECT
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Appropriate $640,894 from the Measure C Operating Fund (Fund 101) for the Purchase of Motorola Dispatch Console Equipment and Service Plans and to Execute an Agreement with Motorola for Purchase of those Products

RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II): (1) approving the appropriation of $640,894 in Measure C funds to purchase additional Motorola Dispatch Console equipment and service plans for necessary system updates and expansion while maintaining product continuity for ease of integration and compatibility; and (2) authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Motorola for the purchase of equipment and lifecycle maintenance services.

SUMMARY
In continued efforts to maintain the effectiveness, responsiveness, and safety of the Hayward Fire Department, there are necessary expenses that must be made to meet the needs of a fast-paced and high- functioning emergency response system. There is a current need to increase capacity of use in dispatch communication needs throughout the department. This request is an expansion of current equipment that is in daily use within fire operations in conjunction with all East Bay Regional Communications Systems (EBRCS). The purchase of the Motorola Console equipment will allow for the necessary expansion of dispatch systems in two locations while maintaining one operating system. The purchase of the additional equipment will require an increase in Measure C fund appropriations in the amount of $640,894.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 4/7/2023Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:CONS 23-201
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 4/7/2023Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™

Page 1 of 3 ends

DATE: April 11, 2023

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Fire Chief

SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Appropriate $640,894 From the Measure C Operating Fund (Fund 101) For the Purchase of Motorola Dispatch Console Equipment and Service Plans and to Execute an Agreement With Motorola for Purchase of Those Products

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II): (1) approving the appropriation of $640,894 in Measure C funds to purchase additional Motorola Dispatch Console equipment and service plans for necessary system updates and expansion while maintaining product continuity for ease of integration and compatibility; and (2) authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Motorola for the purchase of equipment and lifecycle maintenance services.

SUMMARY

In continued efforts to maintain the effectiveness, responsiveness, and safety of the Hayward Fire Department, there are necessary expenses that must be made to meet the needs of a fast- paced and high-functioning emergency response system. There is a current need to increase capacity of use in dispatch communication needs throughout the department. This request is an expansion of current equipment that is in daily use within fire operations in conjunction with all East Bay Regional Communications Systems (EBRCS). The purchase of the Motorola Console equipment will allow for the necessary expansion of dispatch systems in two locations while maintaining one operating system. The purchase of the additional equipment will require an increase in Measure C fund appropriations in the amount of $640,894.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

In 2007, there was a joint powers agreement initiated by the East Bay Regional Communications Systems Administration (EBRCSA) to standardize communications across all emergency response dispatch systems. This has been established using Motorola equipment.

At the initiation of this decision, EBRCSA purchased 203 dispatch consoles for members, and assumed all maintenance and upgrading needs. Motorola has now been established as the only authorized console to continue cooperative use between emergency communications

Page 2 of 3 ends

systems. While EBRCSA no longer provides the consoles, they have continued to service and maintain the units as needed. The purchase of two additional consoles and four consolettes would allow for the necessary expansion of internal capabilities by placing new devices at the Emergency Operations Center at Fire Station 6.

In 2014, Hayward voters approved Measure C, which authorized the City to increase the sales tax rate by one-half cent for, among other things, the restoration and maintenance of City services and facilities, including firefighting/emergency medical services. The necessary expansion of dispatch capabilities will directly impact the entire emergency response system, creating a safer environment for all Hayward residents and guests. The continued use of Motorola products will keep compliance with EBRCSA and will maintain interoperable and regionally compliant public safety radio system, which allows for effective communication between different agencies in emergency situations.

The purchase of the requested equipment will allow for the expansion of dispatch to two locations with one system. This will also strengthen the capacity of the City’s Emergency Operations Center by having appropriate and compatible back up communications systems available to interconnect with the existing emergency response system. The cost of the equipment and maintenance service agreement totals $640,894. An additional appropriation in the Measure C Operating Fund (Fund 101) is required to secure equipment and maintenance services with Motorola.

STRATEGIC ROADMAP

This project aligns with the strategic roadmap core priority 1 “Enhance Community Safety & Quality of Life”, with impact on the specific project Q5c - Implement Dispatch Needs Assessment and Capacity.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is insufficient budget appropriation available in FY 2023 to cover the cost of the additional equipment and maintenance service agreement. An increase in appropriation in the Measure C Operating Fund (Fund 101) in the amount of $640,894 is required to allow for the purchase of two additional Motorola Consoles and four Consolettes, and lifecycle maintenance services. Of the total amount, $414,573 is for the purchase of equipment, $79,669 for Advanced Plus Services: Years 2 – 6, and $146,652 for System Upgrade Agreement (SUA): Years 2- 6.

SUSTAINABILITY FEATURES

Page 3 of 3 ends

The purchase of a compatible system will allow for continued maintenance agreements with EBRCSA and will minimize additional service agreements and technicians, or additional equipment needs to make another system type compatible.

PUBLIC CONTACT

There is no public contact needed for this item.

NEXT STEPS

If Council adopts the resolution to appropriate funds, staff will route the budget amendment to the Finance Department, and will execute the contract with Motorola to facilitate the purchase and installation of necessary equipment. Staff will then coordinate with EBRCSA to incorporate the new equipment into their operating system and initiate the maintenance agreement.

Prepared by: Lauren Dekas, Fire Administration Management Analyst I

Recommended by: Garrett Contreras, Fire Chief

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 APPROPRIATE
$640,894 FROM THE MEASURE C OPERATING FUND (FUND 101) FOR THE

PURCHASE OF MOT OROLA DISPATCH CONSOLE EQUIPMENT A ND SERVICE

PLANS AND TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH MOTOR OLA FOR

PURCHASE OF THOSE PRODUCTS

WHEREAS, the City of Hayward Fire Department has researched and identified a system compliant radio console system; and

WHEREAS, interagency communication is a v ital piece of emergency management that allows the City’s firefighters to respond to all emergency needs , and protect the life and property for the Hayward community; and

WHEREAS, the City Manager authorizes a sole source justification to purchase of Motorola dispatch site and consoles.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Haywa rd hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with Motorola for the purchase of equipment and lifecycle maintenance services.

FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City C ouncil of the City of Hayward her eby approves the amendment to the FY 2023 Budget Res olution by increasing the Measure C Fund appropriation by $640,894 for the purch ase of equipment and l ifecycle maintenance services with Motorola.

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 #: WS 23-011
DATE: April 11, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Assistant City Manager

SUBJECT
Community Agency Funding: Fiscal Year 2024 Community Agency Funding Recommendations for Services, Arts & Music, Special Events, and Economic Development and Infrastructure and Overview of the FY 2024 Annual Action Plan

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council:

1. Conducts a work session regarding the FY 2024 Community Agency Funding recommendations prepared by the Community Services Commission;

2. Reviews and comments on the draft funding recommendations; and

3. Reviews and comments on the overview of the FY 2024 Annual Action Plan

SUMMARY
This report provides an overview of the FY 2024 Community Agency Funding process, the Community Services Commission (CSC) Application Review Committees’ (ARCs) proposed funding recommendations for consideration by the CSC, and next steps in the funding process. Funding is allocated from two sources: Hayward’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) annual entitlement and the City’s General Fund.

The amount of funding requested for FY 2024 continues to increase compared to previous years. The continual increase in requested funds resulted in a highly competitive funding allocation process for the FY 2024 cycle. Consequently, the ARCs were faced with challenging decisions about how to appropriately allocate funds with consideration for the CSC and City’s goals to provide resources and services for those in the community who need it the most. The proposed funding is summarized by category in Table 1 on the following page and in detail in Attachment II. CDBG funds are based on the FY 2024 actual entitlement award, received in March.

This report summarizes the funding recommendations for the City’s annual entitlement of CDBG funds ($1,527,801) for economic development, infrastructure, and public services, and $686,950 in General Funds for social services, arts and music programs, and special events. The report concludes with a high- CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 4/7/2023Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:WS 23-011
level overview of the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) required FY 2024 Annual Action Plan, which specifies the City’s priority needs and goals for using CDBG entitlement funds in FY 2024.

Table 1. Summary of Recommended Funding Allocation by Category Funding Source Category Recipient Amount
General Fund Arts & Music Community Agencies $105,301
General Fund Special Events Community Agencies $66,708
General Fund Social Services Community Agencies $454,950 CDBG Public Services Community Agencies $267,416
CDBG Economic Development/Infrastructure Community Agencies $653,120 Total ARC Recommended Grants $1,547,492
CDBG HUD-Required Fair Housing Services Community Agency $25,000 CDBG Home Rehabilitation & Infrastructure
Project Management
Community Agency $325,000
Total Non-Competitive Grants $350,000
GRAND TOTAL FY 2024 RECOMMENDED FUNDING
(ALL SOURCES)
$1,897,492

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Funding Recommendations
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 4/7/2023Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™

Page 1 of 11 ends

DATE: April 11, 2023

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Assistant City Manager

SUBJECT Community Agency Funding: Fiscal Year 2024 Community Agency Funding Recommendations for Services, Arts & Music, Special Events, and Economic Development and Infrastructure and Overview of the FY 2024 Annual Action Plan

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1. Conducts a work session regarding the FY 2024 Community Agency Funding recommendations prepared by the Community Services Commission;

2. Reviews and comments on the draft funding recommendations; and

3. Reviews and comments on the overview of the FY 2024 Annual Action Plan

SUMMARY

This report provides an overview of the FY 2024 Community Agency Funding process, the Community Services Commission (CSC) Application Review Committees’ (ARCs) proposed funding recommendations for consideration by the CSC, and next steps in the funding process. Funding is allocated from two sources: Hayward’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) annual entitlement and the City’s General Fund.

1 20% of the annual entitlement is set aside for administration (e.g., staff salaries, fair housing programming) and planning activities (e.g., homelessness point in time count, homelessness reduction strategic plan).

Page 2 of 11 ends

Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) required FY 2024 Annual Action Plan, which specifies the City’s priority needs and goals for using CDBG entitlement funds in FY 2024.

Table 1. Summary of Recommended Funding Allocation by Category Funding
Source Category Recipient Amount
General Fund Arts & Music Community Agencies $105,301 General Fund Special Events Community Agencies $66,708 General Fund Social Services Community Agencies $454,950 CDBG Public Services Community Agencies $267,416
CDBG Economic Development/Infrastructure Community Agencies $653,120 Total ARC Recommended Grants $1,547,492
CDBG HUD-Required Fair Housing Services Community Agency $25,000 CDBG Home Rehabilitation & Infrastructure Project
Management
Community Agency $325,000
Total Non-Competitive Grants $350,000
GRAND TOTAL FY 2024 RECOMMENDED FUNDING (ALL SOURCES) $1,897,492

BACKGROUND

The CSC serves as an advisory body to the Hayward City Council. The CSC makes recommendations to Council regarding the distribution of Infrastructure and Economic Development (CDBG), Public/Social Services (CDBG/General Fund), and Arts and Music (General Fund) program funding through the annual Community Agency Funding (CAF) process. For FY 2024, the CSC is also making recommendations to Council regarding the distribution of Special Event funds for eligible community events that encourage inclusion and celebrate diversity in the Hayward community.

The FY 2024 Community Agency Funding Process
The CAF process opened with the publication of a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) on September 30, 2022. The announcement was published in English and Spanish in the Daily Review; posted to the City’s website; and emailed to currently funded agencies, previously funded agencies, applicants from previous years and all other interested parties on the CSC mailing list. Furthermore, a Stack article featuring the NOFA and highlighting the introduction of the new requirements for requesting and awarding Cultural and Special Event funding was published in advance of the Mandatory Bidder’s Conference. Hayward City Council and Commissioners were also encouraged to share the NOFA with their networks.

Several broadcast email reminders were also sent in advance of the Mandatory Bidder’s Conference held on November 1, 2022.

The CSC reviews all eligible applications, and the CSC Chairperson appoints three ARCs by funding category to conduct applicant interviews prior to drafting funding recommendations for Council review and approval. The three funding categories are:

1. Infrastructure and Economic Development (CDBG): Affordable housing (not including new construction); housing rehabilitation; nonprofit facility improvements; job creation; and capacity building. Funds must meet one of three national objectives: benefit low-moderate income Hayward residents; prevent or eliminate slum blight; or meet an urgent need (i.e., disaster).

Page 3 of 11 ends

2. Arts & Music/Special Events (General Fund): Arts and music programs that benefit Hayward residents, with an emphasis on activities that support youth education. Free cultural and special events that meet the goals of the Commitment for an Inclusive, Equitable, and Compassionate Community (CIECC) policy, including but not limited to parades, gatherings, arts and crafts shows, fairs, festivals, athletic events, car shows, and musical and other live performances.

3. Public/Social Services (CDBG/General Fund): Benefit low-moderate income Hayward residents through programs to provide food security, health services, homelessness and anti-displacement services; legal services; youth and education services.

On February 15, 20232, the CSC met and reviewed the preliminary draft recommendations made by each ARC. ARC Chairs summarized the discussion and rationale behind ARC decision- making. Additionally, the CSC heard public comment and initiated a 30-day public comment period for community members to submit feedback on the recommendations to the City and CSC. In-person quorum was not reached at the March CSC meeting. Staff presented the funding recommendations, received public comment, closed the public comment period for the draft recommendations, and received individual Commissioner feedback. Formal action was deferred to a future special meeting. On April 3, 2023 the CSC held a special meeting to act on the CAF funding recomnedations and unanimously voted to recommend the recommendations as outlined in Attachment II.

DISCUSSION

FY 2024 Community Agency Funding Process
Each year, the City receives applications from community agencies requesting funding through the competitive CAF process. The CSC is responsible for reviewing the applications, interviewing applicants, and making recommendations to the Council for how a portion of the City’s General Fund and the City’s CDBG entitlement award should be allocated. As part of the Community Agency Funding process, the CSC Chair appoints three ARCs to conduct applicant interviews and make preliminary recommendations for full CSC consideration.

Available Funding and Funding Requests
The majority of applications are reviewed through a competitive process to allocate $686,950 from the General Fund and approximately $1,300,000 from the City’s estimated CDBG entitlement, after the costs of administration and planning are set aside.3 Staff used past allocations to estimate the FY 2024 CDBG entitlement award and the City’s General Fund contribution.

By the December 2, 2022, deadline, the City received 58 applications for FY 2024 funding, with 18 new proposed programs/events and 13 new applicants. Given the new funding caps and emphasis on diversifying funding sources, two Special Event applicants determined that

2 February 15, 2022, Community Services Commission Staff Report and Attachment https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6021793&GUID=5EFD5D90-DD28-444C-8E84- 3300746EA3BA&Options=&Search=
3 Staff estimate this allocation based on previous years’ entitlement awards. The actual award is expected to be announced by the end of March.

Page 4 of 11 ends

their eligible funding amounts were insufficient to host their events, and voluntarily withdrew their applications.

The ARCs reviewed applications in December 2022 and conducted interviews over two Saturdays in January 2023. Subsequently, the ARCs deliberated and made allocation recommendations using estimates made by staff based on assumed funding from HUD and the City.

Similarly to prior years, the amount of funding requested for both General Fund and CDBG allocations exceeded available funding, which resulted in a highly competitive funding allocation process for the FY 2023 cycle. Furthermore, even after Council increased the amount of funding for Art and Music programs in FY 2023, the FY 2024 funding requests far exceeds the amount of available funding, as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Funding Requests and Availability
since FY 201745

In total, the Public/Social Services, Arts and Music/Special Events, and Infrastructure/Economic Development ARCs interviewed applicants who requested the amounts listed in Table 2 on the following page.

Table 2. Requested FY 2024 Funding by Category

4 Total funding available in this figure is based on estimates used at the time of ARC deliberations. 5 The significant increase in funding requests for FY 2022 are partially driven by $2.3M in requests from three agencies for capital or property acquisition projects.
$1,813,542
$1,927,775
$1,871,270
$1,799,981
$2,508,384
$4,881,344
$3,631,586
$3,698,052
$1,934,372
$1,936,997
$1,760,347
$2,054,334
$1,891,071
$1,877,954
$2,088,950
$1,869,456
FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24
Total Funding Requested Total Funding Available

Page 5 of 11 ends

Category Funding
Source
Number of
Applicants
Amount
Requested
Amount
Available
Competitive
Arts and Music General Fund 6 $139,857 $132,000
Special Events General Fund 12 $92,500 $100,000
Social Services General Fund 19 $880,162 $454,950
Public Services CDBG 7 $362,577 $233,243*
Economic Development CDBG 4 $635,637 $599,263* Infrastructure CDBG 4 $1,187,319 Non-Competitive
HUD Required Fair
Housing Services6 CDBG 1 $25,000 $25,000
Home Rehabilitation &
Infrastructure Project
Management
CDBG 2 $325,000 $325,000
TOTALS 56 $3,698,052 $1,869,456*
* Based on estimates and used at the time of the ARC deliberations

Non-Competitive Applications
Per the City of Hayward Compliance Policy Manual adopted by Council in 2014, in each CDBG program year, the cost of administration and HUD-related fair housing activities are subtracted from the annual entitlement award amount. In 2019, staff conducted a competitive RFP process for HUD-mandated fair housing services and Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) was selected. Through the Alameda County analysis of impediments to fair housing completed in 2020, the City committed to funding home rehabilitation programs to prevent displacement of low-income households. For FY 2024, $25,000 from the CDBG category is allocated to ECHO to provide fair housing services to Hayward residents. This award is required by HUD and the expenses are paid out of the CDBG Administration funds and do not count towards the CDBG Public Services cap.

Furthermore, the City allocates an additional $25,000 to Habitat for Humanity to support project management of the CDBG infrastructure grants, ensuring the City maintains compliance with federal regulations.

Based on guidance from Council at the April 17, 20187 meeting, Eden Information and Referral (EIR) was removed from the competitive pool of CAF applicants and has since received a non-competitive Services award of $50,000 from the General Fund to operate 2-1-1 services. EIR is the sole provider of 2-1-1 in Alameda County and the agency has contractually provided critical information and referral services for 45 years. They also serve as the county- wide call center for Alameda County’s Coordinated Entry System. Funds are provided through a consortium of 14 cities and several County agencies and departments. Since receiving this direction, EIR’s allocation has been taken from the competitive funding pool prior to ARC deliberations.

6 These funds are allocated from the City’s administration and planning set-aside, so they do not impact the HUD- mandated 15% cap on CDBG funds for public services.
7 April 17, 2018, Staff Report and Attachments
https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3478580&GUID=2981C591-F2C9-4FA2-A12C- 29BD575383EA&Options=&Search=

Page 6 of 11 ends

Given the growing gap in funding requested versus funding available, the CSC and staff recommend a separate $50,000 allocation be included in the annual budget process to support 2-1-1 services, starting in FY 2025. This would result in an additional $50,000 being made available through the competitive process that previously was reserved for 2-1-1 services. Staff have identified unallocated FY 2023 funding to support a direct allocation to 2-1-1 for FY 2024 services, allowing for the fully budgeted $454,950 to be distributed through the competitive funding process.

Competitive Application Review
After allocating the non-competitive projects, the remaining funds are made available to eligible community partners and social service applicants through the CAF process. Each application is thoroughly reviewed by staff and the CSC, and agency specific questions are compiled and shared with applicants prior to their interview. During this process, agencies are given ten minutes to present their projects to the appropriate ARC, then an additional ten minutes to answer questions from the ARC. As with last year’s funding process, all interviews were held virtually using Microsoft Teams.

Following the interviews, each ARC engaged in extensive deliberation, weighing criteria that included agencies’ capacity, leveraging of other funds, history providing quality services, ability to meet target outcomes, and the community’s need for the service. Additional consideration was taken in evaluating the number of applications a single agency submitted and the over impact that any one agency's recommended funding would have on the total available funds. Their recommendations are reported in detail in Attachment II.

Funding Approach
The CSC approaches the CAF process with the intent to use available funds for the greatest impact by providing needed services for the City’s most vulnerable residents. The CSC is committed to refining this process and continually makes changes to ensure that funding recommendations are in alignment with Council priorities and are responsive to emerging needs. As a result of the most recent CAF review process, modifications were made to better align recommendations to Council priorities, streamline funding opportunities, create a more systematic way to evaluate applications and promote a more equitable distribution of funding amongst community organizations serving different Hayward populations.

CDBG Estimated vs. Actual Award
The City typically receives its CDBG entitlement award notification by late March. Annually, staff use past entitlement awards to estimate the subsequent year’s entitlement award. The CSC developed their initial FY2024 funding recommendations based on an estimated entitlement award amount of $1,300,000. As part of deliberations, the CSC makes recommendations on how to allocate funds in excess of the estimated award.

Page 7 of 11 ends

The ARCs recommended allocating additional funds in excess of CDBG award estimates as depicted in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Methodology of Recommended Allocations for
Additional Funding by Category

CATEGORY GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Economic Development/
Infrastructure
 Designated two agencies to receive additional funding not to exceed the original requested amounts
Public/Social Services
 Designated three agencies to receive additional funding not to exceed 75% of the original requested amounts
 Should there be additional funding, the funding will be allocated 50% to two of the three agencies identified in an amount not to exceed the original requested amounts

In early March, the City was notified of its FY2024 CDBG entitlement award of $1,527,801, which exceeds the amount staff estimated for the ARC deliberations. Table 4 below, outlines actual FY 2024 available funding in both the General Fund and CDBG monies.

The updated available FY 2024 funding is provided in Table 4 below.

Table 4. Actual FY 2024 Available Funding

FUNDING

SOURCE CATEGORY AMOUNT

AVAILABLE
General Fund
Arts and Music $132,000
Special Events $100,000
Social Services $454,950
General Fund Total $686,950
CDBG
Public Services $267,413
Economic Development & Infrastructure $653,120
HUD Required Fair Housing Services8 $25,000
Home Rehabilitation & Infrastructure Project Management $325,000 CDBG Total $1,270,533
TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING $1,957,483

Recommended Allocations
The preliminary ARC recommendations were presented to the CSC at the February 15, 2023, meeting.9 At the meeting, the CSC heard public comments, the Chairs of each ARC summarized the discussion and decision-making of their ARC, and discussion ensued. As part of the discussion around equitable funding, the CSC noted the importance of an

8 These funds are allocated from the City’s administration and planning set-aside, so they do not impact the HUD- mandated 15% cap on CDBG funds for public services.
9 February 15, 2022, Community Services Commission Staff Report and Attachment https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6021793&GUID=5EFD5D90-DD28-444C-8E84- 3300746EA3BA&Options=&Search=

Page 8 of 11 ends

agency’s ability to diversify funding and not solely rely on the City for ongoing financial support. At the CSC special meeting on April 3, 2023, the CSC unanimously approved the adjusted funding recommendations, which are presented for final review in this report and Attachment II.

Unallocated Special Events Funding
As part of the recent CAF review process, the subcommittee reviewed the Special Event Support and Grant Program established by Council in 201910 and integrated special event funding into the annual CAF process. Modifications included caps for Special Events based on the number of prior years the event had been awarded City funding and the event’s projected budget. Special Events applicants are not required to perform audits or acquire fiscal sponsors. As a result, the maximum possible award is limited to the category maximum based on years of prior funding or 20% of the event budget, whichever is less.

The recommended Special Event funding allocations fully fund all 12 Special Event applicants up to their allowable maximums. The recommendation would leave approximately $33,000 in funding available. The CSC expressed desire to distribute these funds to further support Special Event applicants. To maintain a level of transparency and in an effort to equitably distribute funding in a timely manner, staff recommends distributing any unallocated funding through a separate administrative process.

After considering various options, staff recommends administering the $33,000 in first come first serve grants in an amount of $3,000. This process would only be available to Special Event applicants that submitted an application through the CAF process, including two applicants who submitted applications and subsequently withdrew themselves from the process due to the 20% grant budget cap.

Staff would notify the eligible Special Event applicants with instructions on how to separately apply for additional funding, including explanation of how additional funding will be used.

This process would be separate from the initial CAF process and would not impact the CAF recommendations nor will it be subject to the Special Event funding caps outlined in the Special Event guidelines. If there are funds available after this process, staff recommend carrying it forward to support the Special Event program in future years.

Racial Equity
The CSC utilizes a racial equity lens in making funding recommendations through the CAF process. Recognizing that cultural humility and shared experience can assist in removing barriers to accessing service, it is the desire of the CSC to fund agencies that reflect the diversity of the community that they serve.

The CSC plays an active role in advancing racial equity in the CAF process and continues to implement changes to their approach for funding recommendations to support the advancement of racial equity. Examples of recent changes include requiring applicants to submit demographic data about their staffing, leadership, and Board of Directors, as well as asking agencies to describe efforts an organization is undertaking to address racial equity,

10 December 17, 2019, Staff Report and Attachments:
https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4281863&GUID=F67B2968-D186-4128-96D1- 87C842FAAB61&Options=&Search=

Page 9 of 11 ends

including any integration of Racial Equity into Strategic Planning and Implementation processes.

The CSC has requested staff offer translation services to interested applicants during the CAF process, particularly during the ARC interviews to help foster participation from non-English speaking applications. The CSC continues to play a critical role in recommending process improvements and funding towards social programs that provide free or low-cost services to the community, including vulnerable, marginalized, and underserved populations.

The Annual Action Plan

Overview
HUD requires that the City update its Annual Action Plan each year. The Annual Action Plan carries out the Consolidated Plan, which is updated every five years. Council approved the current FY 2021-2025 Consolidated Plan on June 23, 2020.11 The Consolidated Plan identifies affordable housing, homelessness, housing preservation, and permanent supportive housing; community development of public facilities and public services; elderly, youth, and family education services; and economic development as priority needs for the City.

The FY 2024 Annual Action Plan summarizes the actions, activities, and financial resources to be used in FY 2023 to address the priority needs and goals identified in the 2021-2025 Consolidated Plan. Community input gathered during the Consolidated Planning process informed the development of these priority needs and goals. To achieve the City’s goals for its use of CDBG funds, the FY 2024 Annual Action Plan includes the projects listed in Table 5.

Table 5. FY 2024 Annual Action Plan Projects

Project Description Sample Activities
Public Facilities and
Infrastructure
Improve and expand access to public
infrastructure through development
activities. Public facilities may include
neighborhood facilities, non-profit
agencies’ facilities, community centers,
and parks and recreation facilities.
 Repairs for non-profit facilities
and shelters
 Development to improve ADA
compliance for public facilities
 Acquisition of real property to
improve capacity of public
facilities
Public Services Provide supportive services for low-
income and special needs populations,
including services to address
homelessness.
 Homelessness outreach
services
 Youth and adult education
programming
 Employment training
programs
 Legal services
Housing Programs Provide rehabilitation resources for low- income homeowners to reduce risk of
displacement and homelessness.
 Minor and substantial home
repair grants

11 June 23, 2020 Staff Report and Attachments:
https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4576644&GUID=7D9A237D-8934-4D4A-94FA- CFF24B9589CA&Options=&Search=

Page 10 of 11 ends

Project Description Sample Activities
 Acquisition or rehabilitation of
real property to increase
affordable housing
opportunities
Economic
Development
Provide economic development support
to small businesses
 Technical assistance to small
businesses
 Grants or loans to small
businesses
Administration Citywide administration of the CDBG
program for FY 2023
 Staffing costs for administering
the grant
 Planning projects for future
programs or development
projects
 Fair housing activities

Timeline
Staff will publish a draft of the FY 2024 Annual Action Plan for public comment on April 4, 2023, with a Public Hearing for comment and Council recommendation for approval on April 25, 2023. The City’s public comment period will conclude on May 4, 2023 and staff will submit the report to HUD no later than Friday, May 12, 2023.

ECONOMIC IMPACT

The proposed programs funded through CDBG and the General Fund’s Social Services programs have a collective positive economic impact on the community, as they will increase food security; provide vital support services to help individuals and families maintain and obtain housing, such as legal aid, fair housing services, shelter, and home rehabilitation; and infuse capital and provide training for local small business.

STRATEGIC ROADMAP

These funding allocation recommendations support several of the City’s Strategic Roadmap priority areas, including Preserve, Protect, & Produce Housing; Grow the Economy; Improve Infrastructure; and Support Quality of Life.

FISCAL IMPACT

The CDBG Program has a neutral impact on the City’s General Fund, as a portion of CDBG funds (up to 20%) may be used to pay for eligible Planning and Administration of the Program. Potential reductions to the City’s CDBG grant size and unpredictable program income will result in equivalent reductions to available funds and to the administrative cap.

The CDBG program remains an administratively complex undertaking requiring enhanced dedication of resources from recipients and subrecipients to meet federal reporting standards.

Social Services, Arts and Music, and Special Event funds are General Fund-based and subject to Council discretion. If other General Fund obligations require reductions to this funding, individual grants would be adjusted on a percentage basis accordingly. Historically, Council

Page 11 of 11 ends

has acknowledged Social Services grants support “safety net” services (i.e., food, housing, support services for low-income people, and information and referral) and has refrained from reducing or eliminating funding based on fiscal impact. Additionally, as part of the FY 2023 Annual Operating Budget, Council authorized an additional $50,000 to support Arts and Music programs. These funds are included in the FY 2024 CAF recommendations.

PUBLIC CONTACT

The Public Comment period for the FY 2024 recommended funding allocations and the FY 2024 Annual Plan is in place from April 4, 2023, through May 4, 2023. Public comment on the Community Agency Funding Process and Annual Action Plan will be heard at the Public Hearing on April 25, 2023. Additionally, prior to this Work Session item, the public had the opportunity to provide public comment on the CAF process during the public comment period and at the CSC’s February 15, 2023 and March 15, 2023, meetings.

NEXT STEPS

Next steps include the following:
 On Tuesday, April 25, 2023, a Public Hearing will be held regarding the FY 2024 funding recommendations and FY 2024 Annual Action Plan at the City Council meeting.
 On Thursday, May 4, 2023, the City’s public comment period will conclude.  Staff will address public comment and on May 12, 2023, will submit the FY 2024 Annual Action Plan to HUD.

Prepared by: Carol Lee, Management Analyst

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

Approved by:

_________________________________
Kelly McAdoo, City Manager

CATEGORY AGENCY PROJECT FY 2023 FUNDING FY 2024 REQUESTS FY 2024

RECOMMENDATIONS
Economic Development Centro Community Partners Technical Assistance Programs and Services for Small Businesses and Underserved Entrepreneurs 45,445$ 50,000$ 50,000$ Economic Development Downtown Streets Inc Hayward Downtown Streets Team* 206,920$ 2 08,297$ 2 08,297$ Infrastructure-Neighborhood
Facilities
Community Child Care Council (4-Cs) of
Alameda County Child Care Initiative Project 45,000$ 45,000$ 4 5,000$ Infrastructure-Neighborhood
Facilities
First Presbyterian Church of Hayward dba
South Hayward Parish South Hayward Parish Critical Infrastructure Upgrade 193,800$ 123,500$ 1 23,500$ Infrastructure-Neighborhood
Facilities
Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley,
Inc. Home Repair Program 224,500$ 175,000$ 1 75,000$ Infrastructure-Neighborhood
Facilities Love Never Fails IT Biz 127,000$ 3 32,340$ 1 42,850$ Infrastructure-Neighborhood
Facilities Love Never Fails I AM Launch House -$ 5 54,000$ -$ Infrastructure-Neighborhood
Facilities Rebuilding Together Oakland Rehabilitation and Repair 150,000$ 1 50,000$ 1 50,000$ Infrastructure-Neighborhood
Facilities Ruby's Place Program Enhancement: Tiny Homes on Wheels 250,419$ 2 50,419$ 8 3,473$ Infrastructure-Neighborhood
Facilities St. Rose Hospital Foundation Sub Acute Facility 49,599$ 2 59,400$ -$ 1,292,683$ 2,147,956$ 978,120$ Information & Referral Love Never Fails Community Engagement Center -$ 6 2,190$ -$ Housing and Homelessness A-1 Community Housing Services Housing Counseling -$ 2 7,795$ 27,795$ Housing and Homelessness Abode Services Alameda County Impact 49,124$ 5 4,786$ 41,090$ Housing and Homelessness Centro Legal de la Raza Tenant Rights 93,998$ 1 00,000$ 85,069$ Housing and Homelessness Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity Tenant/Landlord Services 15,000$ 1 5,000$ 15,000$ Housing and Homelessness Ruby's Place Shelter and Children 45,141$ 4 5,141$ 45,141$ Housing and Homelessness The Alliance for Community Wellness dba La Familia FESCO Les Marquis House - Emergency Shelter 45,141$ 57,665$ 53,318$ Housing and Homelessness Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity Fair Housing Services** 25,000$ 2 5,000$ 25,000$ 273,404$ 387,577$ 292,413$ Food Security 05 Sikh Seva* Feed the Hayward Community* -$ 18,250$ 1 0,000$ Food Security First Presbyterian Church of Hayward
(FPCH) dba South Hayward Parish South Hayward Parish Food Pantry* -$ 50,000$ Food Security Mercy Retirement & Care Center Mercy Brown Bag Program 25,000$ 2 0,000$ 1 4,665$ Food Security Spectrum Community Services Meal Program for Seniors 25,000$ 5 0,000$ 3 3,693$ Health Bay Area Community Health (BACH) HIV Program - Early Intervention Services -$ 25,000$ 1 2,994$ Health Crisis Support Services of Alameda County Expanding Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Services in Hayward 25,000$ 34,000$ 21,036$ Housing and Homelessness Building Opportunities for Self Sufficiency (BOSS) South County Homeless Project (SCHP) 18,000$ 50,000$ 3 0,833$ Housing and Homelessness Community Resources for Independent Living (CRIL) Hayward Housing Services 20,000$ 25,000$ 1 5,645$ Housing and Homelessness Family Violence Law Center Family Violence and Homelessness Prevention Project 59,745$ 60,000$ 41,858$ Housing and Homelessness First Presbyterian Church of Hayward (FPCH) dba South Hayward Parish
South Hayward Parish Shelter & Resource
Center* -$ 100,000$ 69,565$ Housing and Homelessness First Presbyterian Church of Hayward (FPCH) dba South Hayward Parish
South Hayward Parish: Case Management
Services 55,000$ 74,412$
Legal Services Immigration Institute of the Bay Area Legal Services for Immigrants 20,000$ 3 0,000$ 1 7,076$ Legal Services Legal Assistance for Seniors (LAS) Legal Services & Education to Hayward Seniors 14,450$ 3 0,000$ 2 0,065$ Youth & Education East Bay Agency for Children (EBAC) Hayward HUB Family Resource Center 40,000$ 5 0,000$ 3 1,315$ Youth & Education Eden United Church of Christ Newcomer Navigation Center 50,000$ 7 5,000$ 4 9,235$ Youth & Education Eden Youth and Family Center Eden Youth and Family Center 22,500$ 5 0,000$ 3 3,083$ Youth & Education El Puente Comunitario* Parents In Action For Education* -$ 38,500$ 1 0,000$ Youth & Education Hayward Area Historical Society Filipino Asian Basketball* -$ 50,000$ 1 0,000$ Youth & Education Horizon Services, Inc. Lambda Project 35,000$ 5 0,000$ 3 3,887$ 409,695$ 880,162$ 454,950$ Arts & Music Hayward Area Historical Society Photograph and Collections Digitzation 12,444$ 20,000$ 2 0,000$ Arts & Music Hayward Arts Council Hayward Arts Council 13,500$ 20,000$ 2 0,000$ Arts & Music Love Never Fails Healing Arts 10,615$ 56,062$ 2 5,000$ Arts & Music Pacific Chamber Orchestra Discover Music educational assemblies for the HUSD Elementary Schools 6,750$ 20,000$ 16,506$ Arts & Music Ruby's Place*** Sun Gallery 14,000$ 20,000$ 2 0,000$ Arts & Music Youth Orchestra of Southern Alameda County (EBYO) Hayward Scholarships/Stipends 3,795$ 3,795$ 3,795$ 61,104$ 139,857$ 105,301$ Special Events 100K Trees for Humanity* 100K Trees for Humanity - Hayward* 10,000$ 1 0,000$ Special Events Building Opportunities for Self Sufficiency (BOSS) Wellness Party & Resource Fair* 10,000$ 2,000$ Special Events Hayward Area Historical Society*** Hayward Municipal Band 7,500$ 7,085$ Special Events Hayward Business Association* Latin Jazz Festival* 5,000$ 5,000$ Special Events Hayward Business Association* Vintage Alley Car Show* 7,000$ 5,795$ Special Events Kuma Hula Association of Northern
California* Hawaiian May Day Festival 2024* 10,000$ 10,000$ Special Events La Alianza De Hayward* Annual Cinco De Mayo Festival* 7,000$ 3,858$ Special Events West Coast Blues Society Russell City Awareness Concert Series & Juneteenth Celebration 5,000$ 3,000$ Special Events The Alliance for Community Wellness Dba
La Familia
La Familia - Building Community through
Culture* 5,000$ 5,000$
Special Events The Araminta Ross Foundation* Community Resource Fair 10,000$ 3 ,000$ Special Events Treasures Unleashed* Treasures Unleashed* 6,000$ 1,970$ Special Events Velda Goe* Kwanzaa: An-African American Cultural Tradition* 10,000$ 10,000$
92,500$ 66,708$
**Non-competitive award
***Fiscal Sponsor
All amounts are preliminary and subject to change. Final award amounts will be authorized by Hayward City Council in June 2023. CDBG awards are dependent upon FY 2023 federal funding allocations and GF awards are subject to available budgetary funding.

COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION

COMMUNITY AGENCY FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
FY 2024

CDBG - PUBLIC SERVICES

TOTAL CDBG PUBLIC SERVICES

CDBG - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE

GENERAL FUND - SPECIAL EVENTS

TOTAL SPECIAL EVENTS

TOTAL CDBG ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE

GENERAL FUND - ARTS & MUSIC

TOTAL ARTS & MUSIC

GENERAL FUND - SERVICES

TOTAL SOCIAL SERVICES
*New agency/program applying for funds

ATTACHMENT II

Page 1 of 1 ends

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: LB 23-015
DATE: April 11, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk

SUBJECT
Council Vacancy and Appointment: Adopt a Resolution Appointing a Candidate to Fill a Two-Year Term City Council Vacancy or Consider Alternative Options for Filling the Vacancy

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council reviews the remaining candidates from the January interview process and adopts a resolution (Attachment II) appointing one of the three remaining candidates to fill the unexpired term of Council Member Elisa Márquez; or directs staff to pursue one of the alternative options outlined in this report, including calling for a Special Election if the appointment process is unsuccessful.

SUMMARY
In February 2023, Alameda County Supervisor Richard Valle tragically passed away. Following his sudden passing, the County Board of Supervisors conducted a recruitment, interview, and selection process. Council Member Elisa Márquez submitted her application for the vacancy and on March 30, was selected to fill the vacant District Two Supervisor position until the next election. She was sworn in on April 4, 2023, leaving a vacancy in her City Council seat that the Council will need to fill within the next 30 days. Following the November 2022 General Municipal Election, the City conducted an extensive outreach and interview process to fill the vacant Council seat created when Mark Salinas was elected Mayor. The Council appointed Dan Goldstein to fill that vacancy. There are three remaining candidates that the Council interviewed in January 2023 that are still interested in the vacancy at this time. Staff recommends reconsidering these three candidates and selecting one to fill Council Member Elisa Márquez’ vacant City Council seat. Alternatively, Council could direct staff to conduct a new outreach and recruitment effort to allow the Council to interview and appoint a candidate in the next 30 days or to call for a Special Election if the appointment process is unsuccessful.

CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 4/7/2023Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:LB 23-015

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 4/7/2023Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™

Page 1 of 5 ends

DATE: April 11, 2023

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: City Manager
City Clerk
City Attorney

SUBJECT: Council Vacancy and Appointment: Adopt a Resolution Appointing a Candidate to Fill a Two-Year Term City Council Vacancy or Consider Alternative Options for Filling the Vacancy

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council reviews the remaining candidates from the January interview process and adopts a resolution (Attachment II) appointing one of the three remaining candidates to fill the unexpired term of Council Member Elisa Márquez; or directs staff to pursue one of the alternative options outlined in this report, including calling for a Special Election if the appointment process is unsuccessful.

SUMMARY

In February 2023, Alameda County Supervisor Richard Valle tragically passed away.

Following his sudden passing, the County Board of Supervisors conducted a recruitment, interview, and selection process. Council Member Elisa Márquez submitted her application for the vacancy and on March 30, was selected to fill the vacant District Two Supervisor position until the next election. She was sworn in on April 4, 2023, leaving a vacancy in her City Council seat that the Council will need to fill within the next 30 days. Following the November 2022 General Municipal Election, the City conducted an extensive outreach and interview process to fill the vacant Council seat created when Mark Salinas was elected Mayor. The Council appointed Dan Goldstein to fill that vacancy. There are three remaining candidates that the Council interviewed in January 2023 that are still interested in the vacancy at this time. Staff recommends reconsidering these three candidates and selecting one to fill Council Member Elisa Márquez’ vacant City Council seat. Alternatively, Council could direct staff to conduct a new outreach and recruitment effort to allow the Council to interview and appoint a candidate in the next 30 days or to call for a Special Election if the appointment process is unsuccessful.

BACKGROUND

Page 2 of 5 ends

In February 2023, Alameda County Supervisor Richard Valle tragically passed away.

Supervisor Valle served and represented District Two, which includes the City of Hayward.

Section 501 of the Charter of the City of Hayward (“Vacancy in Elective Office”) provides guidance when an elective office becomes vacant:

“A vacancy in an elective office shall be filled by appointment by the City Council, such appointee to hold office until the first Tuesday following the next General Municipal Election and until the officer's successor is elected and qualified. At the next General Municipal Election following any such appointment, the person so elected shall serve for the remainder of any unexpired term.

No appointment to fill a vacancy in an elective office shall be made during such time prior to a General Municipal Election that nomination papers may be filed for candidates seeking office at said election. In the event that Council shall fail to fill a vacancy by appointment within thirty days after such office shall have become vacant, it shall forthwith cause an election to be held to fill such vacancy (AMENDED: STATS. 1964 CH. 41; Amended on November 3, 2020)”

Following the November 2022 General Municipal Election, the City conducted an extensive outreach and interview process to fill the vacant Council seat created when Mark Salinas was elected Mayor. The Council appointed Dan Goldstein to fill that vacancy. Council Member Elisa Márquez was reelected to her current City Council seat in November 2020 and her term would have expired in November 2024. Her appointment to the County Board of Supervisors leaves a vacancy in this Council seat until the next General Municipal Election in November 2024. Per the provisions of the City Charter and given that Council Member Márquez was sworn in on April 4, 2023, the Council now has until May 4, 2023 to fill the vacancy or will be required to call for a special election.

DISCUSSION

Given that the City Council just completed an extensive outreach and interview process to fill a vacant Council seat in January 2023, staff recommends appointing for the current vacancy from the remaining list of candidates. At the December 13, 2022 City Council meeting1, the Council approved a process for filling a two-year City Council vacancy created when Council Member Mark Salinas was elected Mayor and sworn into office on December 13, 2022. Following the Council meeting and as directed, City staff issued a news release

1 December 13, 2022 City Council Meeting – Council Vacancy Process CITY OF HAYWARD - File #: LB 22-026 (legistar.com)

Page 3 of 5 ends

about the Council vacancy and a Notice of Vacancy was published in the Daily Review c/o Bay Area News Group-East Bay on December 16, 2022.

At the January 3, 2023 City Council meeting2, the Council accepted applications from forty- five qualified candidates and approved the interview process to select a member of the City Council. On January 5, 2023, members of the City Council individually nominated up to five applicants and submitted their selections to the City Clerk. The City Clerk tallied choices and invited applicants who received five or more points to interview with the City Council on Monday, January 9, 2023. The Council interviewed the following individuals during the January 9 meeting: Dan Goldstein; Artavia Berry; Ray Bonilla; Austin Bruckner; and Aidan Ali-Sullivan. Dan Goldstein was appointed as a result of this process. Aidan Ali-Sullivan has since withdrawn his name from consideration in this current process.

Following the January selection process, the City Manager received feedback that the nomination and selection process was somewhat confusing. As such, staff is recommending an alternative selection process that mirrors the recent voting process the County Board of Supervisors used to fill the vacant District Two position. Staff recommends that the Council use this process or, alternatively, any member of the Council may make a nomination from those named and, if the nomination receives a second, then the full Council will vote on the nomination. This process would continue until a nominee receives four votes.

If the Council chooses to appoint from the remaining three candidates at this evening’s meeting, the suggested voting process follows:

Round 1:

The Council will be presented with the names of all candidates who were interviewed for the position. Each Council Member will then vote orally by roll call vote for as many as two candidates. The City Clerk shall tally the votes and announce the results aloud. The two candidates who receive the greatest number of votes will be retained for consideration in the next round.

Round 2:

The Council will be presented with a list of the two candidates who received the greatest number of votes in Round 1. Each Council Member will then vote orally by roll call vote for one candidate and the City Clerk shall tally the votes and announce the results aloud. The candidate receiving the highest number of votes will be the selected candidate to fill the vacancy.

Following this voting process, the Council would then need to make a formal motion with a second to adopt a resolution (Attachment II) to officially appoint the selected candidate for the vacancy. The new member would be sworn in at the beginning of the meeting on Tuesday, April 18, 2023 and would begin his/her duties at that meeting.

2 January 3, 2023 City Council Meeting – Council Vacancy Update CITY OF HAYWARD - File #: LB 23-001 (legistar.com)

Page 4 of 5 ends

Alternatively, the Council could direct staff to conduct another recruitment process similar to the one conducted in December 2022/January 2023. Staff does not recommend this alternative given the extensive process that was recently conducted and the amount of staff effort needed to undertake it.

Special Election:

If the Council does not wish to make an appointment or is unable to achieve a majority vote3 to appoint someone, the Charter requires that the matter go to election. In order for Council to accomplish that in a timely and fiscally responsible manner, Council would have to call for a Special Municipal Election and order a Mail Ballot Election. The City would need to call for the Special Municipal Election well before June 2, 2023 in order to meet the deadline for an August 29, 2023 Mail Ballot Election. The nomination filing would start May 8, 2023 and end June 2, 2023. These deadlines and the requirement that Council make a solid attempt to appoint a new member per the Charter before going to election puts pressure on the appointment timeline.

The City Clerk would not formally file the resolution calling for a Special Election with the Alameda County Registrar of Voters and Alameda County Board of Supervisors unless and until the appointment process fails within the 30-day period called for in the Charter or the Council chooses to proceed with the Special Election option. Should Council not be successful in the appointment process and miss the deadline to call for a Special Election (Mail Ballot Election), the option would remain to call for a Standalone Special Election, which would be at a time specified by Council after the August 29, 2023 Mail Ballot Election. This would be very expensive ($19 - $21 per registered voter) and should be considered only as a last and remote possibility.

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT

There is no economic impact associated with the appointment process. There is a potentially significant fiscal impact to the General Fund if Council defaults to the Special Municipal Election. Generally, a Standalone Vote by Mail Election would cost between $9 - $11 per registered voter and estimating 80,000 registered voters, the cost would be $720,000-$880,000.

STRATEGIC ROADMAP

This agenda item does not relate to any of the priorities in the Strategic Roadmap.

NEXT STEPS

If Council votes to appoint a new member from the remaining three candidates and adopts the attached resolution, the new member would be sworn in at the beginning of the April

3 A "majority vote" is four votes regardless of how many Council Members are in attendance at the meeting.

Page 5 of 5 ends

18, 2023 Council meeting and would begin service. If the Council chooses either alternative process (new full recruitment or special election), staff would take the steps necessary to proceed with these options.

Recommended by:

Kelly McAdoo, City Manager
Miriam Lens, City Clerk
Michael Lawson, City Attorney

Approved by:

________________________________________
Kelly McAdoo, City Manager

ATTACHMENT II

Page 1 of 1 ends

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION NO. 23-____

Introduced by Council Member _____________

RESOLUTION APPOINTING ___________________________ AS COUNCIL MEMBER FOR THE CITY

OF HAYWARD

BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hayward herby appoints ______________________ as Council Member, to serve for the remaining term of former Council Member Márquez. The term of appointment will expire subsequent to the certification of the canvass of the General Municipal Election to be held in November 2024, and assumption of the office of Council Member by the duly elected candidate.

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 #: LB 23-014
DATE: April 11, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works

SUBJECT
Stormwater Management and Urban Runoff Control Ordinance: Adopt a Resolution and Introduce Stormwater Ordinance Amendments Related to Municipal Regional (Stormwater) Permit-MRP 3.0 and Finding the Action is Exempt from CEQA Review

RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) and introduces the ordinance (Attachment III) to amend the Stormwater Management and Urban Runoff Control ordinance (Chapter 11, Article 5 of the Municipal Code).

SUMMARY
This report presents proposed changes to the stormwater ordinance in response to the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP 3.0) requirements regarding trash reduction. The requirements adopted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) on July 1, 2022, require a 100% trash reduction in the City’s stormwater system by July 1, 2025. The proposed ordinance changes include new language requiring property owners with documented trash violations to install full trash capture systems to prevent trash and other pollutants from entering the City’s storm sewer system. On March 13, 2023, the draft ordinance was considered and unanimously recommended for approval by the Council Sustainability Committee (CSC).

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Stormwater Ordinance
Attachment III-a Ordinance Text
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 4/7/2023Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™

Page 1 of 7 ends

DATE: April 11, 2023

TO: City Council

FROM: Director of Public Works

SUBJECT Introduction of Stormwater Ordinance Amendments Related to Municipal Regional (Stormwater) Permit-MRP 3.0 and Finding the Action is Exempt from CEQA Review

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) and introduces the ordinance (Attachment III) to amend the Stormwater Management and Urban Runoff Control ordinance (Chapter 11, Article 5 of the Municipal Code).

SUMMARY

This report presents proposed changes to the stormwater ordinance in response to the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP 3.0) requirements regarding trash reduction. The requirements adopted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) on July 1, 2022, require a 100% trash reduction in the City’s stormwater system by July 1, 2025. The proposed ordinance changes include new language requiring property owners with documented trash violations to install full trash capture systems to prevent trash and other pollutants from entering the City’s storm sewer system. On March 13, 2023, the draft ordinance was considered and unanimously recommended for approval by the Council Sustainability Committee (CSC).

BACKGROUND

The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program was established in 1972 by the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). The NPDES program was amended in 1986 to regulate stormwater runoff and established a permitting structure for municipal discharge to the waters of the state. From 1990 to 2009, each municipality in the Bay Area was regulated under countywide stormwater permits with individual requirements specific to each county. On October 14, 2009, the first regional stormwater permit, the MRP, was adopted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board).

The MRP regulated municipalities within the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Mateo as well as the cities of Fairfield, Suisun, and Vallejo and the Vallejo

Page 2 of 7 ends

Sanitation and Flood Control District. Municipalities and local agencies included in the MRP are referred to as ‘Permittees’.

The first MRP, adopted on October 14, 2009, was adopted as a five-year permit and administratively extended through December 2015. The permit was revised and MRP 2.0 was adopted on November 19, 2015, and became effective on January 1, 2016. MRP 2.0 was to expire on June 30, 2021, but was extended through July 1, 2022. The Water Board adopted the new permit known as MRP 3.01 on May 11, 2022, and it became effective July 1, 2022.

On January 10, 20222, staff presented to the CSC a summary of the trash reduction requirements in the MRP 2.0 and the proposed MRP 3.0 to regulate properties for trash violations. The requirements address those properties that discharge stormwater directly to the City’s storm drain system and staff provided a recommended approach to address the requirements in the City’s Stormwater Management and Urban Runoff Control ordinance3 (Chapter 11, Article 5 of the Municipal Code). Trash reduction requirements in the MRP 2.0 required Permittees to be responsible for private properties larger than 10,000 square feet that contribute to trash pollution to the storm drain system. If those private properties have private storm drains that bypass the City’s storm drain inlets (meaning the City cannot treat their stormwater downstream) then the City must require the private property owners to control their trash or install their own full trash capture systems. As reported to the CSC on January 10, 2022, staff was mapping the private properties subject to the trash reduction requirements and had estimated that more than 850 parcels were potentially subject to the regulation. The new MRP 3.0 modified the requirement by removing the 10,000 square-foot minimum area. Staff predicts the number of properties requiring enforcement oversight for trash reduction will double.

On March 14, 20224, staff presented to the CSC an overview of the proposed changes in the then draft MRP. The amended regulatory requirements pertain to stormwater pollution prevention for both public and private properties and addresses municipal operations, new development, inspections, response to illicit discharges, education and outreach, water quality monitoring, and specific controls for pollutants of concern identified by the Water Board. There were no significant changes from the March draft to the final version that was adopted on May 11, 2022.

On March 13, 20235, staff presented to the CSC an overview of proposed amendments to the stormwater ordinance (Chapter 11, Article 5 of the Municipal Code) to address the MRP

3.0 requirements for trash reduction and the mandate to control trash from private properties, particularly the requirement to control trash from identified private properties that bypass the City’s storm drain inlets. The amendments include defining full trash capture and language to provide enforcement tools to achieve trash reduction on private

1 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2022/R2-2022-0018.pdf 2 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5374350&GUID=DDFCFD4C-97BB-45B3-80A0- D93A23E07F9E&Options=&Search=
3 https://library.municode.com/ca/hayward/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=HAYWARD_MUNICIPAL_CODE_CH11PUUT_ART5STMAURRUCO 4 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5523059&GUID=7112B7B8-AC21-4EC5-9289-D35DC0FCDE01&Options=&Search= 5 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6058171&GUID=CF24A795-A3B2-418F-A4FD-0C97B2C40222&Options=&Search=

Page 3 of 7 ends

properties. The CSC voted unanimously to recommend that Council adopt the stormwater ordinance amendments. The CSC requested that staff focus on the largest litter generators first, including fast food establishments, coffee shops and retail stores. The CSC also requested signage be provided to those properties conducting good practices to control trash on their property. Staff concurred and will provide appropriate signage as public display for compliant properties so property owners can show their pride and to encourage others to help prevent litter.

DISCUSSION

Currently, the mandate for trash reduction in the City’s stormwater system is 100% by July 1, 2025, as stated in the MRP 3.0. The City cannot achieve 100% compliance without controlling trash from private properties with their own private storm drains that bypass the City’s storm drain inlets. To comply with the MRP 3.0, staff proposes to add language to the City’s municipal Stormwater Management and Urban Runoff Control ordinance to provide enforcement tools to achieve trash reduction on private properties.

To meet the 100% reduction goal, staff intends to increase stormwater inspections and enforcement, which will include asking businesses to clean up their properties and take a more active role in managing trash from their establishments. City staff will review each business as appropriate prior to enforcement.

For private properties that are directly plumbed to the City’s stormwater pipes and bypass the City’s storm drain inlets, the proposed ordinance amendments would require trash reduction either through installation of full trash capture infrastructure or another equivalent method such as manual cleaning. The Water Board provides a list of approved full trash capture devices. Two examples of full trash capture devices for storm drain inlets are provided below as Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1: Triton Drop Inlet Filter

Page 4 of 7 ends

Figure 2: BioClean Grate Inlet Filter

The proposed ordinance amendments also address private properties that are not plumbed directly to the City’s stormwater pipes, but have surface flow to City streets, gutters and inlets. The proposed ordinance would require better trash management for private properties and would require enforcement by Water Pollution Source Control (WPSC) inspectors. To help mitigate trash from these properties, the City has installed 629 small trash capture devices in inlets where feasible. These devices require regular cleaning (a device more than 50% full is a violation of the MRP 3.0) and better trash control from private properties will help to reduce the City’s cost of maintaining the devices.

While the proposed changes to the ordinance include some new definitions, the bulk of changes are to Section 11-5.22, “Reduction of Pollutants in Stormwater”. The amended ordinance also removes the full text of the MRP at the end of the ordinance and replaces it with a link to the current permit to prevent the City’s ordinance from becoming outdated when the MRP is regularly updated every five years. The full text of the proposed amendments is available on the City’s website6 and in Attachment III – a summary is provided below:

 Define “Full Trash Capture System” as a device that traps trash down to 5mm in size as defined by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.  Define “NPDES” as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System to update the ordinance with regulatory terms.
 Define “Stormwater Management Facility” as a device that treats stormwater such as a “Full Trash Capture System”.
 Define “Premises” as a property with structures, sidewalks, and parking strips (examples such as a parking lot or commercial building are included).  Section 11-5.22 is amended to require:

6 https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/ARTICLE_5_STORMWATER_MANAGEMENT_URBAN_Runoff_edits_Final021423.pdf

Page 5 of 7 ends

o Installation of a Full Trash Capture System within four months of written notice to prevent trash and other pollutants from entering the drainage facilities. Also, an operation and maintenance agreement may be required to be recorded with the property to ensure the Full Trash Capture System is maintained.
o Any transfer of ownership of the property must be communicated to the City and the new owners must be informed of their new obligation to maintain the Full Trash Capture System on the property.
o Any alteration or removal of the Full Trash Capture System is unlawful.

City staff will conduct regular inspections of private properties with private storm drains that bypass the City’s storm drain inlets as well as all properties not treated with City owned full trash capture downstream. Property owners with trash violations would be advised to employ trash reduction methods (either on-land pick up of trash or installation of full trash capture devices) to avoid future citations for non-compliance. If a trash concern is confirmed, the property owner may be given an enforcement action at the discretion of the inspector, which can be a written warning, notice of violation or a citation with a fine depending upon the egregiousness of the trash found during the inspection.

Enforcement actions will include a requirement for the property owner to submit a plan describing how they will manage trash so it does not impact the storm drain system. The owner will have 10 days to submit the plan. If the presence of trash persists, staff may escalate enforcement, which can include further citations and/or a requirement for installation of a full trash capture device if pick-up efforts to contain trash are insufficient to control trash on the property. If full trash capture is infeasible or the drainage is not directly connected to the City’s main storm drainpipe in the street, then the property owner would be required to implement frequent manual cleaning of the property and staff would schedule regular inspections of the property to ensure compliance.

The new proposed language supports staff’s efforts to implement trash reduction requirements in the MRP as well as achieve a high level of standards to keep Hayward clean and compliant with stormwater regulation. With the emphasis on trash compliance during stormwater inspections and follow up enforcement actions as needed, staff will be able to document compliance with the MRP in annual reports to the Water Board.

ECONOMIC IMPACT

Compliance with MRP Provision C.10 will result in costs to some Hayward businesses as compliance with trash reduction will require increased monitoring, trash pickup, and possible installation of trash capture facilities as determined through stormwater inspection and follow up for compliance. The cost of installing a trash capture device will depend on the shape and size of the storm drain inlets, number of inlets, and size of drainage area. The cost of a single device can range from a few hundred to thousands of dollars.

Page 6 of 7 ends

FISCAL IMPACT

The City’s compliance with the MRP is managed by Water Pollution Source Control (WPSC) staff within the Environmental Services Division of the Public Works & Utilities Department. Implementing MRP 3.0 trash reduction regulations will require increased field duties, oversight, administrator analysis and reporting. Funding for MRP-related activities is currently provided by the City’s stormwater enterprise fund, which is funded by an assessment on property tax bills. However, expenditures have increased and are expected to increase in the future. Staff is challenged with finding innovative tools and other resources to comply with the MRP, but will continue to participate in the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program and their committees to receive regional support for these efforts. Staff continues to seek external funding and grants for trash reduction.

STRATEGIC INITIATIVES

This agenda item relates to the Strategic Priority of Invest in Infrastructure. Specifically, this agenda item relates to the implementation of the following projects:

Project N22: Meet regulatory requirements for zero trash in stormwater by installing trash capture devices
Project N22a: Install trash capture devices
Project N22b: Perform related trash reduction activities

SUSTAINABILITY FEATURES

Preventing pollution from entering the storm drain system will benefit Haywards’s aquatic ecosystems and the health of the San Francisco Bay and will help to create a clean and green community for Hayward residents and businesses.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Adoption of the proposed amendments to the Stormwater Management and Urban Runoff Control Ordinance are not a project under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, together with related State CEQA Guidelines (collectively, “CEQA”), because it has no potential for resulting in a physical change to the environment. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility that the action approved may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA applies only to actions that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this circumstance, the proposed action would have no or only a de minimis effect on the environment. The Ordinance is also exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines section 15308, because it is a regulatory action for the protection of the environment.

Page 7 of 7 ends

PUBLIC CONTACT

A letter explaining the proposed changes to the Stormwater Management and Urban Runoff Control ordinance was mailed to all property owners through the water bills over a period of three months (October through December of 2022). The letter explained the need for the ordinance change, the requirements of stormwater regulation to control trash from entering the environment and provided a link to this webpage7, which included the draft ordinance and listed public meetings (including the CSC and Council meeting) for the public to attend and comment about the proposed ordinance language. WPSC staff received two phone calls from single-family home property owners concerned about where and when to purchase full trash capture devices. Staff explained to the callers that the focus of the program will be on non-residential properties and any residential properties needing full trash capture devices would be notified and would first be given an opportunity to clean the property manually. The property owners understood and were happy the City was taking action to address litter.

NEXT STEPS

If Council adopts the draft ordinance amendments, staff will begin the new inspection program for all private properties to comply with trash reduction and implement further enforcement actions as needed. Staff expects that all properties subject to the new requirements will be inspected and will work with property owners to achieve the 100% compliance mandate by July 1, 2025.

Prepared by: Elisa Wilfong, Water Pollution Control Administrator Erik Pearson, Environmental Services Manager

Recommended by: Alex Ameri, Director of Public Works

Approved by:

Kelly McAdoo, City Manager

7 https://www.hayward-ca.gov/services/city-services/stormwater-services

ATTACHMENT II

Page 1 of 3 ends

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION NO. 23-____

Introduced by Council Member

RESOLUTION TO ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 11, ARTICLE 5, (STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND URBAN RUNOFF CONTROL ) OF

THE HAYWARD MUNICIPAL CODE IN RESPONSE TO THE MUNICIPAL REGIONAL PERMIT (MRP 3.0)

WHEREAS, the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program was established in 1972 by the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and the NPDES program was amended in 1986 to regulate stormwater runoff and established a permitting structure for municipal discharge to the waters of the state; and

WHEREAS, on October 14, 2009, the first regional stormwater permit, the Municipal Regional Permit or MRP, was adopted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) to regulate municipalities within the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Mateo as well as the cities of Fairfield, Suisun, and Vallejo and the Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District; and

WHEREAS, the second MRP, known as MRP 2.0, was adopted on November 19, 2015 and became effective on January 1, 2016; and

WHEREAS, MRP 2.0 was to expire on June 30, 2021, but was extended through July 1, 2022; and

WHEREAS, in May 2022, the Hayward City Council adopted a Strategic Roadmap identifying priority projects to m eet regulatory requirements for zero trash in stormwater by installing trash capture devices by installing trash capture devices and performing related trash reduction activities; and

WHEREAS, the Water Board adopted a new permit known as MRP 3.0 on May 11, 2022, and it became effective July 1, 2022; and

WHEREAS, MRP 3.0 requires a 90% reduction in trash in the City’s stormwater system by July 1, 2023, and a 100% trash reduction in the City’s stormwater system by July 1, 2025; and

WHEREAS, private properties with private storm drains that bypass the City’s storm drain inlets must prevent trash from reaching the City’s stormwater system in order to allow the City to meet the MRP 3.0 mandate; and

ATTACHMENT II

Page 2 of 3 ends

WHEREAS, the City’s existing stormwater inspection program is in need of additional enforcement tools to achieve trash reduction on private properties; and

WHEREAS, between October and December 2022, City staff conducted public outreach to solicit input on the draft ordinance amendments by including a letter wi th all water bills; and

WHEREAS, the City Council Sustainability Committee received reports and presentations on the draft MRP 3.0 January 10, 2022 and March 14, 2022; and

WHEREAS, on March 13, 2023 , the City Council Sustainability Committee recommended adopting the draft amendments to the Stormwater Management and Urban Runoff Control Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the provisions in the amended Ordinance are designed to allow City staff to require private property owners to either 1) keep their properties clean, or 2) install full trash capture devices; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the aforementioned amendments to the Stormwater Management and Urban Runoff Control Ordinance are hereby adopted.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds that this Ordinance is not a project under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, together with related State CEQA Guidelines (collectively, “CEQA”) because it has no potential for resulting in a physical change to the environment. In the event that th is Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility that the action approved may have a significant effect on th e environment. CEQA applies only to actions which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the en vironment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this circumstance, the proposed action would have no or only a de minimis effect on the environment. The Ordinance is also exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines section 15308, because it is a regulatory action for the protection of the environment. The foregoing determination is made by the City Council in its independent judgment.

ATTACHMENT II

Page 3 of 3 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

ATTACHMENT III

ORDINANCE NO. 23-

Introduced by Council Member __________

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND
URBAN RUNOFF CONTROL ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 11, ARTICLE 5 OF

THE HAYWARD MUNICIPAL CODE) IN RESPONSE TO THE MUNICIPAL REGIONAL PERMIT (MRP 3.0)

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HAYWARD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Purpose and intent. it is the purpose and intent of this ordinance to amend the City’s Stormwater Management and Urban Runoff Control Ordinance in response to the trash control requirements in the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP 3.0).

Chapter 11 of the Hayward Municipal Code
(Public Utilities)

Chapter 11, Article 5 of the Hayward Municipal Code is amended as shown in Attachment III- a.

Section 2. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are severable, and if any clause, sentence, paragraph, provision , or part of this Ordinance, or the application of this Ordinance to any person, is held to be invalid or preempted by state or federal law, such holding shall not impair or invalidate the remainder of this Ordinance. If any provision of this Ordinance is held to be inapplicable, the provisions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless continue to apply with respect to all other covered development projects and applicants. It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent of the City Council that this Ordinance would have been adopted had such provisions not been included or such persons or circumstances been expressly excluded from its coverage.

Section 3. Effective Date. The provisions of this Ordinance shall become effective 30 days following adoption by the City Council.

Page 2 ends

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hayward, held the 11th day of April, 2023, by Council Member .

ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hayward held the ___th day of April, 2023, by the following votes of members of said City Council.

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

MAYOR:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED: _____________________________________
Mayor of the City of Hayward

DATE:

ATTEST: _______
City Clerk of the City of Hayward

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______
City Attorney of the City of Hayward
ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 1 of 48 ends

ARTICLE 5 - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND URBAN RUNOFF CONTROL[7] Footnotes:
--- (7) ---
Note— Amended in full by Ordinance 05-09, adopted September 27, 2005.

TITLE, PURPOSE, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 11-5.10 - TITLE.

This article shall be known as the "City of Hayward Stormwater Management and Urban Runoff Control Ordinance" and may be so cited.

SEC. 11-5.12 - PURPOSE AND INTENT.

The purpose of this article is to ensure the future health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of the City by:
(a) eliminating non-stormwater discharges to the municipal separate storm sewer; (b) controlling the discharge to municipal separate storm sewers from spills, dumping, or disposal of materials other than storm water; and
(c) reducing pollutants in storm water discharges to the maximum extent practicable.

The intent of this ordinance is to protect and enhance the water quality of watercourses, water bodies, and wetlands in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Clean Water Act and the current Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (Order No. R2-20152022-00490018), which is available at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/stormwater/ http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/water_issues/programs/stormwater/Municipal/.

(Amended by Ordinance 17-09 , adopted June 20, 2017)
SEC. 11-5.13 - DEFINITIONS.
(a) Any terms defined in the federal Clean Water Act, and acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, or defined in t he regulations for the stormwater discharge permitting program issued by the Environmental Protection Agency on November 16, 1990 (as may from time to time be amended) as used in this article shall have the same meaning as in that statute or those regulati ons. Specifically, the definitions of the following terms included in that statute or those regulations are hereby incorporated by reference, as now applicable or as may hereafter be amended: administrator, discharge of a pollutant, illicit discharge, navi gable waters, point source, pollutants, pollution, publicly owned treatment works, and stormwater. These terms are presently defined as follows:
(1) Administrator: The Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2) Discharge of a Pollutant: (a) Any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source, or (b) Any addition of any pollutant to the waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other floating craft.

ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 2 of 48 ends

(3) Full Trash Capture System: Any device or series of devices that traps all particles retained by a 5mm mesh screen and has a design treatment capacity of not less than the peak flow rate resulting from a one- year, one-hour storm in the sub-drainage area or design ed. All Full Trash Capture Systems must be approved the Regional Water Quality Control Board. (34) Illicit Discharge: Any discharge to the City storm sewer system that is not composed entirely of stormwater except exempt discharges pursuant to the NPDES permit. (45) Navigable Waters: All navigable waters of the United States; tributaries of navigable waters of the United States; interstate waters; intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams which are utilized by interstate travelers for recreational or other purposes; intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams from which fish or shellfish are taken and sold in inter-state commerce; and intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams which are utilized for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce. (6) NPDES: (National Pollutant Discharge El imination System ): A permit program of the United States Environmental Protection Agency that addresses water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants to waters of the United States. The NPDES program was created by the Clean Water Act in 1972.
(57) Point Source: Any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged.
(68) Pollutants: Dredged soil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharge into water.
(79) Pollution: The man-made or man induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and radiological integrity of water.
(810) Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW): Any device or system used in the treatment (including recycling and reclamation) of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of liquid nature which is owned by a state or municipality. This definition includes sewers, pipes, or other conveyances only if they convey wastewater to a POTW providing treatment. (911) Regulated Project: "Regulated Project," as used in this Article, refers to projects as defined in NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 and any amendment or revision thereto, or reissuance there of.

However, the City has the authority to expand this definition, when deemed appropriate, to include any development or redevelopment project.
(1012) Significant Redevelopment Project: "Significant Redevelopment Project," as used in this Article, refers to both projects as defined in NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 and any amendment or revision thereto, or reissuance thereof. However, the City has the authority to expand this definition, when deemed appropriate, to include any redevelopment project. (1113) Stormwater: Stormwater runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage. (14) Stormwater Management Facility : Any device designated to detain, retain, filter, or infiltrate stormwater including, without limitation, a Full Trash Capture System. (b) When used in this article, the following words shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section:
(1) Authorized Enforcement Official: Individuals designated by the City Manager. (2) Best Management Practices (BMPs): Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of the water s of the United States. BMPs also include treatment requirements, operating procedures, and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage.
(3) City: The City of Hayward.

ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 3 of 48 ends

(4) Municipal Storm Sewer System: Includes but is not limited to those facilities within the City by which stormwater may be conveyed to waters of the United States, including any roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, dit ches, man-made channels, or storm drains, which is not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works. (5) Non-Stormwater Discharge: Any discharge of a pollutant that is not entirely composed of stormwater.
(6) Premises: Any building, structure, facility, or installation, (including a building’s ground or other appurtenances), and adjacent sidewalks and parking strips. Examples of Premises include, but are not limited to, parking lots, gasoline stations, industrial facilities, and other commercial enterprises.Premises: Any building, lot parcel, real estate, or land or portion of land, whether improved or unimproved, including adjacent sidewalks and parking strips. (7) Watercourse: Watercourse is defined as a river, stream, creek, watercourse, waterway, or channel, including any property over which the City of Hayward has an easement for drainage purposes duly recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Alameda. (Amended by Ordinance 17-09 , adopted June 20, 2017)
SEC. 11-5.14 - RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADMINISTRATION.

This article shall be administered by the Director of Public Works, or his or her designee of Utilities and Environmental Services. Where storm drain facilities or watercourses have been accepted for maintenance by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District or other public agency legally responsible for certain watercourses, then the responsibility for enforcing the provisions of this article may be assigned by contract executed by the City and such agency to those public agencies over those watercourses for which they have accepted maintenance. (Amended by Ordinance 17-09 , adopted June 20, 2017)
SEC. 11-5.15 - CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION.

This article shall be construed to assure consistency with the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, applicable implementing regulations, and NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 and any amendment or revision thereto, or reissuance thereof. (Amended by Ordinance 17-09 , adopted June 20, 2017)
SEC. 11-5.17 - INVERSE CONDEMNATION.

The provisions of this article shall not operate to deprive any landowner of substantially all of the value of his or her property or otherwise constitute an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation. If application of this article to a specific project would create a taking of property then, pursuant to this section the City Council may allow additional land uses, but only to the extent necessary to avoid a taking. Such uses shall be consistent with and carry out the purposes of this article as stated in section 11-5.12 above.

DISCHARGE REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
SEC. 11-5.19 - DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS.

The discharge of non-stormwater discharges to the City storm sewer system is prohibited. Prohibited discharges include, but are not limited to polluted cooling water, chlorinated or chloraminated swimming pool water, hazardous or toxic chemicals, grease, animal wastes, detergents, solvents, pesticides, ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 4 of 48 ends

herbicides, fertilizers, and dirt. All discharges of material other than stormwater must be in compliance with a NPDES Permit issued for the discharge other than NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. Exceptions to this prohibition are set forth in subsections (a) and (b) below. (a) NPDES permitted non-stormwater discharges and discharges which are not sources of pollutants to waters of the state (as described in 40 C.F.R. 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B)(1)) provided that the discharger is in full compliance with all requirements of the permit and other applicable laws or regulations.

Discharges from the following activities will not be considered a source of pollutants to waters of the United States when properly managed in a manner satisfactory to the Director of Utilities and Environmental ServicesPublic Works: water line flushing or other discharges from potable water sources, landscape irrigation, lawn watering, irrigation water, diverted stream flows, rising ground waters, infiltration to separate storm drains, uncontaminated pumped ground water, foundation and footing drains, water from crawl space pumps, air conditioning condensation, springs, individual residential car washings, flows from riparian habitats and wetlands, dechlorinated swimming pool discharges, or flows from firefighting.

Allowable discharges shall not cause any impairment in the beneficial uses or quality of water of the state as defined in the California Water Code or any special requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, or injure or interfere with the operation of any watercourses within the State.
(Amended by Ordinance 17-09 , adopted June 20, 2017)
SEC. 11-5.20 - DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PERMIT.

Any discharge that would result in or contribute to a violation of NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, attached to this article as Attachment A, and any amendment or revision thereto, or reissuance thereof, either separately considered or when combined with other discharges, is prohibited. The person causing or responsible for the discharge shall be liable for the discharge, and shall defend, indemnify, and hold the City harmless in any administrative or judicial enforcement action relating to such discharge. (Amended by Ordinance 17-09 , adopted June 20, 2017)
SEC. 11-5.21 - ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND ILLICIT CONNECTIONS.

The establishment, use, maintenance, or continuation of an illicit drainage connection to the City storm sewer system, and the commencement or continuation of any illicit discharges to the City storm sewer system is prohibited. This prohibition is expressly retroactive and applies to connections made in the past, regardless of whether made under a permit or other authorization or whether permissible under the law or practices applicable or in effect at the time of the connection.

SEC. 11-5.22 - REDUCTION OF POLLUTANTS IN STORMWATER.

Any person engaged in activities which will or may result in pollutants entering the City storm sewer system shall undertake all practicable measures to reduce such pollutants. Examples of activities that might result in pollutants entering the City storm sewer system include littering and ownership or use of facilities which may be a source of pollutants such as but not limited to parking lots, gasoline stations, industrial facilities, commercial facilities, and stores fronting City streets. The following are minimal requirements applicable to such persons:
(a) Littering Prohibited. No person shall throw, deposit, leave, maintain, keep, or permit to be thrown, deposited, placed, left, or maintained, any 'refuse,' 'rubbish,' 'garbage,' or other discarded or abandoned objects, articles, and accumulations, in or upon any street, alley, sidewalk, storm drain, inlet, catch basin, conduit, or other drainage structures, business place, or upon any public ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 5 of 48 ends

or private lot of land in the City, so that the same might be or become a pollutant. Nor shall any person throw or deposit litter in any fountain, pond, lake, stream, or any other body of water in a park or elsewhere within the City. The occupant or tenant, or in the absence of occupant or tenant, the owner, lessee, or proprietor, of any real property in the City of Hayward that abuts a paved sidewalk shall maintain said sidewalk free of dirt or litter to the maximum extent practicable.

Sweepings from said sidewalk shall not be swept or otherwise made or allowed to go into the gutter or roadway , but shall be disposed of in receptacles maintained on said real property as required for the disposal of garbage.
(b) Standard of Maintenance for Parking Lots and Similar Structures Premises. Persons owning, operating or maintaining owning or operating Premises a parking lot, a gasoline station, or a similar structure or uses shall clean the property as frequently and thoroughly as practicable in a manner that does not result in discharge of pollutants to the City storm sewer system.

Persons owning, operating or maintaining a such Premises shall install and maintain a Full Trash Capture System within four months of written notification by the Authorized Enforcement Official to prevent the discharge of trash or other pollutants into the City’s Municipal Storm Sewer System from private parking lots, streets, roads, and drainage facilities. At a minimum, the Full Trash Capture System must be installed before the onsite drainage enters the City’s public stormwater system (i.e. trash capture must take place no farther downstream than the last private stormwater drainage structure on the site). The Director or the Authorized Enforcement Official may require Persons owning, operating or maintaining such Premises to enter into a n operation and maintenance agreement, in a form approved by the City and which has been recorded with the property, to ensure the operation and maintenance of the Full Trash Capture System. Failure or refusal to timely comply with these requirements is prohibited and shall consti tute a violation of the Chapter.

Upon transferring ownership of the property, any property owner required by this article to install and maintain a Full Trash Capture System shall notify the City in writing of the transfer of ownership and provide the new owners with a current copy of this Chapter and inform the new owners in writing of their obligation to properly operate and maintain the Full Trash Capture System.

It shall be unlawful to alter, modify, change, or remove any Full Trash Capture Sys tem without first obtaining from the Authorized Enforcement Official written certification that the requirements of this article have been satisfied.

(c) Outdoor Storage of Materials.
(1) Proper Outdoor Storage of Materials Required. All applicable materials stored outdoors at a commercial or industrial establishment shall be managed in a manner that minimizes the discharge of pollutants to stormwater. Establishments covered by the General Industrial NPDES Permit promulgated by the Ca lifornia Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activities, excluding construction activities, shall address this requirement in applicable provisions of their Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs).
(2) Protection Against Accidental Discharge. Each property owner, its administrators, lessees/tenants, or successors, or any other persons in possession or control of the property who store applicable materials outdoors at a commercial or industrial establishment shall provide protection against the accidental discharge of prohibited materials to the City's storm sewer system or watercourse. Such protection may include, but is not limited to, secondary containment systems or a ny equivalent protective measures. Any secondary containment system that includes the permanent modification of a building or site, or the addition of a building or structure, shall be submitted to the City's Planning Division and Building Division for approval in accordance with applicable codes. All facilities necessary to prevent the ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 6 of 48 ends

accidental discharge of prohibited materials to the City's storm sewer system or watercourse shall be provided and maintained at the property owner's or operator's expense. (3) Report of Accidental Discharge to the Storm Drain. The property owner, its administrators, successors, or any other persons shall notify the City of any accidental discharge to the City's storm sewer system or watercourse as described in Section 11-5.26 of this Code. (4) Posted Notice. A notice advising employees of the requirements of Section 11-5.26 and the telephone number to call in case of such an accidental discharge shall be permanently posted in a conspicuous place on the premises of each commercial or industrial establishment.

SEC. 11-5.23 - WATERCOURSE PROTECTION.

Every person owning property through which a watercourse passes, or such person's lessee or tenant, shall keep and maintain that part of the watercourse within the property reasonably free of trash, debris, excessive vegetation, and other obstacles which would pollute, contaminate, or significantly retard the flow of water through the watercourse; shall maintain existing privately owned structures within or adjacent to a watercourse so that such structures will not become a hazard to the use, function, or physical integrity of the watercourse; and shall not remove healthy bank vegetation beyond that actually necessary for its maintenance nor remove healthy bank vegetation in a manner so as to increase the vulnerability of the watercourse to erosion.

No person shall commit or cause to be committed any of the following acts, unless a written permit has first been obtained from the Director of Public Works:
(a) Discharge into or connect any pipe or channel to a watercourse; (b) Modify the natural flow of water in a watercourse; (c) Carry out development within a watercourse setback; (d) Deposit in, plant in, or remove any material from a watercourse including its banks, except as required for necessary maintenance;
(e) Construct, alter, enlarge, connect to, change, or remove any structure in a watercourse; or (f) Place any loose or unconsolidated material along the side of or within a watercourse or so close to the side as to cause a diversion of the flow, or to cause a probability of such material being carried away by stormwaters passing through such watercourse.

INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 11-5.24 - AUTHORITY TO INSPECT.

Whenever necessary to make an inspection to enforce any of the provisions of this article, or whenever an Authorized Enforcement Official has reasonable cause to believe that there exists in any building or upon any premises any condition which constitutes a violation of the provisions of this article, the official may enter such building or premises at all reasonable times to inspect the same or perform any duty imposed upon the official by this article; provided that (1) if such building or premises be occupied, he or she shall first present proper credentials and request entry; and (2) if such building or premises be unoccupied, he or she shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other persons having charge or control of the building or premises and request entry.

Any such request for entry shall state that the property owner or occupant has the right to refuse entry and that in the event such entry is refused inspection may be made only upon issuance of a search warrant by a duly authorized magistrate. In the event the owner or occupant refuses entry after such request has been made, the official is hereby empowered to seek assistance from any court of competent jurisdiction in obtaining such entry.

ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 7 of 48 ends

Routine or area inspections shall be based upon such reasonable selection processes as may be deemed necessary by the Authorized Enforcement Official to carry out the objectives of this article, including but not limited to random sampling and/or sampling in areas with evidence of stormw ater contamination, illicit discharges, discharge of non-stormwater to the stormwater system, or similar factors.

SEC. 11-5.25 - AUTHORITY TO SAMPLE AND ESTABLISH SAMPLING DEVICES.

An Authorized Enforcement Official shall have the right to establish on any property such devices as are necessary to conduct sampling or metering operations. During all inspections as provided in this article, the official may take any samples deemed necessary to aid in the pursuit of the inquiry or in the recordation of the activities on site.

SEC. 11-5.26 - NOTIFICATION OF SPILLS.

As soon as any person in charge of a facility, or responsible for emergency response for a facility, has knowledge of any confirmed or unconfirmed release of materials, pollutants, or waste which may result in pollutants or non-stormwater discharges entering the City storm sewer system or watercourse, such person shall take all necessary steps to ensure the discovery and containment and clean upcleanup of such release and shall notify the City of the occurrence by telephoning an Authorized Enforcement Official.

SEC. 11-5.31 - CONCEALMENT.

Causing, permitting, aiding, abetting, or concealing a violation of any provision of this article shall constitute a violation of such provision.

SEC. 11-5.32 - ACTS POTENTIALLY RESULTING IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT OR STATE LAW.

Any person who violates any provision of this article, or any provision of any permit issued pursuant to this article, or who discharges waste or wastewater which causes pollution, or who violates any cease and desist order, prohibition, or effluent limitation, may also be in violation of the federal Clean Water Act and state law, including the Porter-Cologne Act, and may be subject to the sanctions of those laws including civil and criminal penalty. Any enforcement action authorized under this article shall also include notice to the violator of such potential liability.

SEC. 11-5.33 - VIOLATIONS DEEMED A PUBLIC NUISANCE.

In addition to the penalties provided herein, any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this article is a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare and is declared and deemed a public nuisance, andnuisance and may be summarily abated or restored by any Authorized Enforcement Official and civil action to abate, enjoin, or otherwise compel the cessation of such nuisance may be taken by the City Attorney.

The cost of such abatement and restriction shall be borne by the owner of the property and the cost thereof shall be a lien upon and against the property and such lien shall continue in existence until the same shall be paid. If the lien is not satisfied by the owner of the property within three (3) months after the completion by the Authorized Enforcement Official of the removal of the nuisance and the restoration of the property to its original condition, the property may be sold in satisfaction thereof in a like manner as other real property is sold under execution.

If any violation of this article constitutes a seasonal and recurrent nuisance, the City Council shall so declare. Thereafter such seasonal and recurrent nuisance shall be abated every year without the necessity of any further hearing.

SEC. 11-5.34 - CIVIL ACTIONS.

ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 8 of 48 ends

In addition to any other remedies provided in this article, any violation of this article may be enforced by civil action brought by the City. In any such action, the City may seek, and the Court shall grant, as appropriate, the following remedies:
(a) A temporary or permanent injunction;
(b) Assessment of the violator for the costs of any investigation, inspection, or monitoring survey which led to the establishment of the violation and for the reasonable costs of preparing and bringing legal action under this article;
(c) Costs incurred in removing, correcting, or terminating the adverse effects resulting from the violation; and
(d) Compensatory damages for loss or destruction to water quality, wild-life, fish, and aquatic life.

Any assessments ordered under subsection (d) shall be paid to the City to be used exclusively for costs associated with monitoring and establishing stormwater discharge pollution control systems and implementing or enforcing the provisions of this article SEC. 11-5.35 - ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT POWERS.

In addition to the other enforcement powers and remedies established by this article, any Authorized Enforcement Official has the authority to utilize the administrative remedies set forth below. (a) Cease and Desist Orders. When an Authorized Enforcement Official finds that a discharge has taken place or is likely to take place in violation of this article, the official may issue an order to cease and desist such disc harge, or practice, or operation likely to cause such discharge and direct that those persons not complying shall: (1) comply with the requirement; (2) comply with a time schedule for compliance; and (3) take appropriate remedial or preventive action to pr event the violation from recurring.
(b) Notice to Clean. Whenever an Authorized Enforcement Official finds any oil, earth, dirt, grass, weeds, dead trees, tin cans, rubbish, refuse, waste, or any other material of any kind, in or upon the sidewalk abutting or adjoining any parcel of land or upon any parcel of land or grounds which may result in an increase in pollutants entering the City storm sewer system or a non-stormwater discharge to the City storm sewer system, he or she shall give notice to re move such oil, earth, dirt, grass, weeds, dead trees, tin cans, rubbish, refuse, waste, or other material, in any manner that he or she may reasonably provide.

SEC. 11-5.36 - REMEDIES NOT EXCLUSIVE.

Remedies under this article are in addition to and do not supersede or limit any and all other remedies, civil or criminal. The remedies provided for herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive.

COORDINATION WITH OTHER PROGRAMS
SEC. 11-5.37 - COORDINATION WITH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INVENTORY AND RESPONSE PROGRAM.

The first revisions of the business plan for any facility subject to the City's hazardous materials inventory and response program shall include a program for compliance with this arti cle, including the prohibitions on non-stormwater discharges and illicit discharges, and the requirements to reduce stormwater pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.

SEC. 11-5.38 - STORMWATER TREATMENT MEASURES REQUIRED.
(a) All Regulated Projects shall include Stormwater Treatment Measures to reduce water quality impacts of urban runoff from the entire project site for the life of the project. Such measures shall be in accordance with the guidelines contained in the City of Hayward's Site Design Standards and Guidance, including but not limited to flow duration and volume control requirements. All Regulated Projects shall also abide by the rules set forth in the NPDES municipal stormwater discharge permit ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 9 of 48 ends

issue to the City by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region.

Furthermore, all other development projects deemed appropriate by the City, are required to apply the City of Hayward's Source Control Measures List to each respective project. (b) All Significant Redevelopment Projects shall include Stormwater Treatment Measures to reduce water quality impacts of urban runoff for the life of the project. (1) Significant Redevelopment Projects that result in an increase of, or replacement of, more than fifty percent (50%) of the impervious surface of a previously existing development shall include Stormwater Treatment Measures sufficient to reduce water quality impacts of urban runoff from the entire site for the life of the project.
(2) Significant Redevelopment Projects that result in an increase of, or replacement of, fifty percent (50%) or less of the impervious surface of a previously existing development shall include Stormwater Treatment Measures sufficient to reduce water quality impacts of urban runoff f rom the increased or replaced portion of the site for the life of the project. (c) Stormwater Treatment Measures must be incorporated into all applicable plan documents. All plan documents and construction activities are subject to inspection and approval by the City. (d) No final building or occupancy permit shall be issued without the written certification of the Director of Utilities and Environmental ServicesPublic Works or his or her designee that the requirements of this article have been satisfied. Such certification shall be in the form prescribed by the City and shall not be issued without payment of all applicable fees, if any, which may be imposed for administration of this article.
(Amended by Ordinance 17-09 , adopted June 20, 2017)
SEC. 11-5.39 - INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF STORMWATER TREATMENT MEASURES. (a) The property owner, its administrators, s uccessors, or any other persons in possession or control of the property, including any homeowners association, shall take all necessary actions to ensure that Stormwater Treatment Measures or other required measures are properly maintained so that they continue to operate as originally designed and approved, for the life of the development. The Director of Utilities and Environmental Servicesof Public Works may require verification of proper maintenance be submitted to the City. Any property owner required by this article to construct, install, operate or maintain Stormwater Treatment Measures or other measures shall record a document evidencing the permanent maintenance requirement and binding all successors in interest to the maintenance obligation.
(b) Upon transferring ownership of the property, any property owner required by this article to construct, install, operate, or maintain Stormwater Treatment Measures or other measures shall notify the City in writing of the transfer of ownership and provide the new owners with a current copy of this Chapter, and inform the new owners in writing of their obligation to properly operate and maintain the Stormwater Treatment Measures.
(c) It shall be unlawful to alter, modify, change, or remove any Stormwater Treatment Measures or other measures without first obtaining from the Director of Utilities and Environmental Services or his or her designee written certification that the requirements of this article have been satisfied. (Amended by Ordinance 17-09 , adopted June 20, 2017)
SEC. 11-5.40 - BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES DURING CONSTRUCTION.

Any construction contractor performing work in the City shall adhere to the City of Hayward's Site Design Standards and Guidance as it relates to construction Best Management Practices (BMPs).

SEC. 11-5.41 - COMPLIANCE WITH BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.

ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 10 of 48 ends

Where best management practices guidelines or requirements have been adopted by any federal, State of California, regional, and/or City agency, for any activity, operation, or facility which may cause or contribute to stormwater pollution or contamination, illicit discharges, and/or discharge of non-stormwater to the stormwater system, every person undertaking such activity or operation, or owning or operating such facility, shall comply with such guidelines or requirements.

SEC. 11-5.42 - AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE INDUSTRIAL STORMWATER PERMITS.

The City of Hayward shall have the authority to enforce the permit requirements of any individual, group, or general stormwater discharge permit issued to any industrial facility by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, State of California Water Resources Control Board, or the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board to the extent that such authority is delegated to the City by the issuing agency of government.

SEC. 11-5.43 - AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER PERMITS.

The City of Hayward shall have the authority to enforce the permit requirements of any individual, group, or general stormwater discharge permit issued to any construction activity by the Environmental Protection Agency, the State of California Water Resources Control Board, or the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board to the extent that such authority is delegated to the City by the issuing agency of government.

FUNDING PROVISIONS
SEC. 11-5.50 - CITY OF HAYWARD STORMWATER SYSTEM UTILITY FUND.

The City of Hayward Stormwater System Utility Fund (hereinafter "Fund") is hereby established to provide funding for the Stormwater Management and Urban Runoff Control Program. The Fund may be expended for the following:
(a) All activities and resultant expenses required under the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program;
(b) All activities and resultant expenses required by the NPDES permit which authorizes and regulates discharge from the City of Hayward stormwater collection and conveyance system; (c) All activities and resultant expenses associated with the maintenance and operation of the stormwater collection and conveyance system;
(d) Capital expenses associated with the repair, replac ement, and capital improvement of the stormwater collection and conveyance system;
(e) All expenses associated with the maintenance, operation, and capital requirements of any stormwater treatment system which may be prospectively required by state or fe deral law; (f) All expenses for any activities directly related to any of the foregoing.

SEC. 11-5.51 - FUNDING PROVISION—DEFINITIONS.
(a) Land use category: That category of land use assigned to a parcel of real property as shown on the most current official assessment roll of the Alameda County Assessor. (b) Parcel: A unit of real property in one ownership as shown on the most current official assessment roll of the Alameda County Assessor; parcel size means the area of such a unit, measure in acres, as determined from records maintained by Alameda County or the City of Hayward. (c) Runoff factor: The indicator of stormwater generation of a parcel and is based on the average ratio of impervious area to total parcel area for a category of land use.

SEC. 11-5.52 - REVENUE SOURCE.

ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 11 of 48 ends

The City of Hayward Stormwater System Utility Fund shall derive revenue from the following sources:
(a) Reimbursements an d subventions made available through the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program;
(b) Reimbursements and subventions made available by any other governmental entity for the purpose of supporting any of the activities of the City of Hayward Stormwater Management and Urban Runoff Control Program;
(c) Any other funds the City Council directs be allocated to the Stormwater System Utility Fund from money available to it, including but not limited to, money in its General Fund; and (d) Service charges assessed by the City of Hayward in accordance with the provisions of this article.

SEC. 11-5.53 - ESTABLISHMENT OF SERVICE CHARGE.

Every person or entity owning real property within the City of Hayward, or owning property not within the incorporated City limits but discharging stormwater to a collection and conveyance system owned and operated by the City of Hayward, shall pay a service charge calculated in accordance with the provisions of this article as set forth from time to time by resolution of the City Council.

SEC. 11-5.54 - CALCULATION OF SERVICE CHARGES.

Service charges shall be calculated in a manner which distributes, as equitably as possible, stormwater system costs to users of the system proportionate to the benefit received. In consideration of the fact that stormwater runoff and consequent stormwater system loading is directly related to the physical size and impervious surface area of any parcel of land, those factors shall be utilized in the calculation of service charges. For the purpose of this section, impervious surface area shall be represented by the runoff factor established for parcels on the basis of use and as otherwise determined by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. In addition, other factors which disproportionately affect stormwater system costs and which are attributable to any user or class of users may be utilized in the setting of rates for that user or class of users.

SEC. 11-5.55 - COLLECTION; INTEREST AND PENALTIES.

The City Manager is authorized to have the charges imposed by this article collected by the County of Alameda in conjunction with the County's collection of property tax revenues for the City of Hayward. In the event that the County of Alameda collects the charges imposed by this article, the imposition of penalties, additional fees, and interest upon owners who fail to remit any charge imposed by this article or who fail to remit any delinquent remittance under this ordinance shall be subject to and governed by the rules, regulations, and procedures utilized by the County of Alameda in its collection of property taxes and charges for the City of Hayward, and in its collection of this additional charge for the City of Hayward.

Every penalty imposed and such interest as accrues under the provisions of this article shall become a part of the charges herein required to be paid.

SEC. 11-5.56 - DELINQUENT CHARGES REMEDIES.
(a) Delinquent charges are hereby made a lien upon the real property served by the stormwater system; (b) The amount of any charge, penalty, and interest imposed under the provisions of this article shall be deemed a debt to the City.

ATTACHMENT "A" TO ORDINANCE 05-09
_____
The Alameda Countywide NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region is available at the following website:

ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 12 of 48 ends

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/stormwater/

California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Francisco Bay Region
Alameda Countywide NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit
Order R2-2003-0021\NPDES Permit No. CAS0029831
For The Cities Of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Oakland, Piedmont, Pleasanton, San Leandro, Union City, Alameda County (Unincorporated area), the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, which have joined together to form the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program. _____

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION
ORDER R2-2003-0021
NPDES PERMIT NO. CAS0029831
REISSUING WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR:

THE CITIES OF ALAMEDA, ALBANY, BERKELEY, DUBLIN, EMERYVILLE, FREMONT, HAYWARD,

LIVERMORE, NEWARK, OAKLAND, PIEDMONT, PLEASANTON, SAN LEANDRO, UNION CITY,

ALAMEDA COUNTY (UNINCORPORATED AREA), THE ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, AND ZONE 7 OF THE ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD

CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, WHICH HAVE JOINED TOGETHER TO FORM

THE ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE CLEAN WATER PROGRAM
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, (hereinafter referred to as the Regional Board) finds that:

Findings
Finding 1: Incorporation of Fact Sheet

1. The Fact Sheet for the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program NPDES Permit Reissuance includes cited references and additional explanatory information in support of the requirements of this Permit. This information, including any supplements thereto, and any future response to comments on the Revised Tentative Order, is hereby incorporated by reference.

Findings 2-3: Existing Permit

2. The Cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Oakland, Piedmont, Pleasanton, San Leandro, Union City, Alameda County (Unincorporated area), the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Permittees and individually as the Permittee) have joined together to form the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (hereinafter referred to as the Program).

3. The Permittees are currently subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS0029831 issued by Order No. 97- 030 on February 19, 1997, and modified by Order No. 99-049 on July 21, 1999.

Findings 4-5: Permit Coverage
ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 13 of 48 ends

4. The Permittees each have jurisdiction over and/or maintenance responsibility for their respective municipal separate storm drain systems and/or watercourses in Alameda County. (See Attachment C: Municipalities and Major Open Creeks and Waterbodies in Ala meda County)

5. Federal, state or regional entities within the Permittees' boundaries, not currently named in this Order, operate storm drain facilities and/or discharge stormwater to the storm drains and watercourses covered by this Order. The Permittees may lack jurisdiction over these entities.

Consequently, the Regional Board recognizes that the Permittees should not be held responsible for such facilities and/or discharges. The Regional Board will consider such facilities for coverage in 2003 under its NPDES permitting scheme pursuant to United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Phase II stormwater regulations. Under Phase II, the Regional Board intends to permit these federal, state, and regional entities either directly, or potentially through use of a Statewide Phase II NPDES General Permit.

Findings 6-8: Permit Background

6. On August 6, 2001, the Permittees and the Program submitted a permit re- application package that included a completed Application/Report of Waste Discharge for reissuance of waste discharge requirements under the NPDES permit referenced in Finding 3 (hereinafter referred to as the Permit) to discharge stormwater runoff from storm drains and watercourses under the Permittees' jurisdictions.

7. The application re quirements that the Regional Board has determined to be applicable to the Permittees include submittal of a proposed Stormwater Quality Management Plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) and to effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges into municipal storm drain systems and watercourses within the Permittees' jurisdictions.

8. The application incorporated by reference the Program's 2001- 2008 Stormwater Quality Management Plan. The intent of the Stormwater Quality Management Plan is to reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable, and in a manner designed to achieve compliance with water quality standards and objectives, and effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges into municipal storm drain systems and watercourses within the Permittees' jurisdictions. The Stormwater Quality Management Plan fulfills the Regional Board's permit application requirements, and it will be improved and revised in accordance w ith the provisions of this Order.

Findings 9-15: Stormwater Quality Management Plan

9. The Stormwater Quality Management Plan describes a framework for management of stormwater discharges during the term of the Permit. The title page and table of contents of the Program's 2001-2008 Stormwater Quality Management Plan (Management Plan) are appended to this Order as Attachment A. The Management Plan describes the Program's goals and objectives and the annual reporting and program evaluation process. Perform ance Standards, which represent the baseline level of effort required of each of the Permittees, are contained in Section 5 of the Management Plan. The Performance Standards serve as a reference point upon which to base effectiveness evaluations and consideration of opportunities for improving them.

10. The Management Plan, including the Performance Standards, is incorporated in the Permit by reference and enforceable as such, and is considered an enforceable component of this Order.

11. Program activities are focused on the following components:
• Regulatory Compliance, Planning, Program Management
• Annual Reporting and Evaluation
• Watershed Assessment
• Monitoring and Special Studies
• Pollutants of Concern
ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 14 of 48 ends

• Public Information and Participation
• Municipal Maintenance Activities
• Illicit Discharge Controls
• Industrial and Commercial Discharge Controls
• New Development, Significant Redevelopment, and Construction Controls

12. Through the Public Information and Participation (PIP) component, the Program provides information to residents in order to educate them about stormwater pollution and change behaviors that adversely affect water quality. PIP activities are conducted locally, countywide and in collaboration with other regional agencies. The Management Plan states that, at a minimum, annual PIP efforts must include general outreach, targeted outreach (including outreach to municipal staff within each Permittees' jurisdictions), educational programs, and citizen participation activities. The Management Plan also states that one of the PIP component objectives is to evaluate component effectiveness of the PIP activities and make improvements so as to increase effectiveness.

13. The Management Plan contains Performance Standards and supporting documents to address the post -construction and construction phase impacts of new development and significant redevelopment projects on stormwater quality.

14. The goal of the Industrial and Commercial Discharge Controls component is to reduce or eliminate adverse water quality impacts from activities conducted at any industrial and commercial site within the Permittees' jurisdictions that have a potential for significant urban runoff pollution. The Management Plan requires each Permittee to develop a five- year Illicit Discharge Control Action Plan (Action Plan) to reduce, control and/or otherwise address sources of discharges. The Action Plan will ensure that each Permittee identifies high- priority areas for inspection and investigation, regularly surveys those areas at a specified frequency, identifies which staff within each Permittee will be responsible for c ompleting field surveys, identifies how illicit discharge control activities are documented, and ensures that appropriate enforcement is taken for problem discharges. In short, it will serve as the framework document for each Permittee to appropriately control illicit discharges.

15. The Program and the Permittees are committed to a process of evaluating the effectiveness and improving the Performance Standards and plans contained in the Management Plan, which includes seeking new opportunities to control stormwater pollution and to protect beneficial uses.

Changes and updates to control measures, Best Management Practices, and Performance Standards will be documented in the Annual Report and, following Regional Board approval, will be considered part of the Management Plan and an enforceable component of this Order.

Finding 16: Cooperative Effort Among Entities

16. The Program participates in, and contributes to, joint efforts with other entities, including regulatory agencies, public benefit corporations, universities, and citizens' groups. These entities may take a lead role in addressing particular sources because they are regional, statewide or national in scope, because they have different skills or expertise, or because they have appropriate regulatory authority.

Finding 17: Annual Reviews

17. The Regional Board staff will perform, in coordination with the Permittees and interested persons, an annual performance review and evaluation of the Program, the Permittees and their compliance activities. The reviews are a useful means of evaluating overall Program effectiveness, implementation of Performance Standards, and improvement opportunities. The following areas will be evaluated:
a. Overall Program and Permittee effectiveness and compliance; b. Performance Standard improvements;
ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 15 of 48 ends

c. Permittees' coordination and implementation of watershed-based management actions (e.g., flood management, new development and construction, industrial source controls, public information/participation, monitoring);
d. Partnership opportunities with other Bay Area stormwater programs; and e. Consistency in meeting maximum extent practicable measures within the Program and with other regional, statewide, and national municipal stormwater management programs.

Findings 18-25: Applicable Federal, State and Regional Regulations

18. Section 402(p) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, requires NPDES permits for stormwater discharges from separate municipal storm drain systems, stormwater discharges associated with i ndustrial activity (including construction activities), and designated stormwater discharges which are considered significant contributors of pollutants to waters of the United States. On November 16, 1990, US EPA published regulations (40 CFR Part 122) which prescribe permit application requirements for municipal separate storm drain systems pursuant to Section 402(p) of the CWA. On May 17, 1996, US EPA published an Interpretive Policy Memorandum on Reapplication Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm S ewer Systems (MS4s), which provided guidance on permit application requirements for regulated MS4s.

19. The Regional Board adopted a revised Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan) on June 21, 1995, which was approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the Office of Administrative Law on July 21 and November 13 of 1995, respectively.

This updated and consolidated plan represents the Regional Board's master water quality control planning document. The Urban Runoff Management, Comprehensive Control Program section of the Basin Plan requires the Permittees to address existing water quality problems and prevent new problems associated with urban runoff through the development and implementation of a comprehensive control program focused on reducing current levels of pollutant loading to storm drains to the maximum extent practicable. The Basin Plan comprehensive program requirements are designed to be consistent with federal regulations (40 CFR Parts 122- 124) and are implemented through issuance of NPDES permits to owners and operators of storm drain systems. A summary of the regulatory provisions is contained in Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations at Section 3912. The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses and establishes water quality objectives for surface waters in the Region, as well as effluent limitations and discharge prohibitions intended to protect those uses. This Order implements the plans, policies, and provisions of the Regional Board's Basin Plan.

20. The State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) has issued NPDES general permits for the regulation of stormwater discharges associated with industrial activities and construction activities. To effectively implement the New Development (and significant redevelopment) and Construction Controls, Illicit Discharge Controls, and Industrial and Commercial Discharge Controls components of the Management Plan, the Permittees will conduct investigations and local regulatory activities at industries and construction sites covered by these general permits.

However, under the Clean Water Act, the Regional Board cannot delegate to the Permittees its own authority to enforce these general permits. Therefore, Regional Board staff intend to work cooperatively with the Permittees to ensure that industries and construction sites within the Permittees' jurisdictions are in compliance with applicable general permit requirements and are not subject to uncoordinated stormwater regulatory activities.

21. The beneficial uses of Central, Lower and South San Francisco Bay, its tributary streams and contiguous water bodies, and other water bodies within the drainage basin are listed in the Basin Plan.

22. The Regional Board considers stormwater discharges from urban and developing areas in the San Francisco Bay Region, such as Alameda County, to be significant sources of certain pollutants in waters of the Region that may be causing or threatening to cause or contribute to water quality impairment. Furthermore, as delineated on the CWA Section 303(d) list, the ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 16 of 48 ends

Regional Board has found that there is a reasonable potential that municipal stormwater discharges may cause or contribute to an excursion above water quality standards for: mercury, PCBs, dioxins, furans, diazi non, dieldrin, chlordane, DDT, copper, and selenium in Central San Francisco Bay; diazinon in all urban creeks in Alameda County; and trash and low dissolved oxygen in Lake Merritt. In accordance with CWA Section 303(d), the Regional Board is required to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for these pollutants to these waters in order to gradually eliminate impairment and attain water quality standards. Therefore, certain early actions and/or further assessments by the Permittees are warranted and required pursuant to this Order.

23. The Regional Board considers the Management Plan an essential component of an urban watershed management plan for urbanized portions of Alameda County, and the portions of Alameda County that are currently being developed. The Management Plan is intended to provide a framework for protection and restoration of Alameda County watersheds and the Central, Lower and South San Francisco Bay in part through effective and efficient implementation of appropriate control measures for sources of pollutants within the watersheds.

24. The San Francisco Estuary Project, established pursuant to CWA Section 320, culminated in June 1993 with completion of its Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for the preservation, restoration, and enhancement of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary. The CCMP includes recommended actions in the areas of aquatic resources, wildlife, wetlands, water use, pollution prevention and reduction, dredging and waterway modification, land use, p ublic involvement and education, and research and monitoring. Recommended actions which may, in part, be addressed through implementation of the Permittees' Management Plan include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Action PO-2.1: Pursue a mass emissions strategy to reduce pollutant discharges into the Estuary from point and nonpoint sources and to address the accumulation of pollutants in estuarine organisms and sediments.
b. Action PO-2.4: Improve the management and control of urban runoff from public and private sources.
c. Action PO -2.5: Develop control measures to reduce pollutant loadings from energy and transportation systems.
d. Action LU-1.1: Local General Plans should incorporate watershed protection plans to protect wetlands and stream environments and reduce pollutants in runoff. e. Action LU -3.1: Prepare and implement Watershed Management Plans that include the following complementary elements: 1) wetlands protection, 2) stream environment protection, and, 3) reduction of pollutants in runoff.
f. Action LU-3.2: Develop and implement guidelines for site planning and Best Management Practices.
g. Action PI-2.3: Work with educational groups, interpretive centers, decision- makers, and the general public to build awareness, apprec iation, knowledge, and understanding of the Estuary's natural resources and the need to protect them. This would include how these natural resources contribute to and interact with social and economic values.

25. This action to adopt an NPDES permit is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 of the Public Resources Code, Chapter 3, Section 21100, et. seq.) in accordance with Section 13389 of the California Water Code.

Findings 26-30: Nature of Discharges and Sources of Pollutants

26. The discharge consists of the surface runoff generated from various land uses in all the hydrologic sub basins in the basin which discharge into watercourses, which in turn flow into Central, Lower and South San Francisco Bay.

27. The quality and quantity of runoff discharges varies considerably and is affected by hydrology, geology, land use, season, and sequence and duration of hydrologic event. Pollutants of concern ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 17 of 48 ends

in these discharges are certain heavy metals, excessive sedim ent production from erosion due to anthropogenic activities, petroleum hydrocarbons from sources such as used motor oil, microbial pathogens of domestic sewage origin from illicit discharges, certain pesticides associated with the risk of acute aquatic tox icity, excessive nutrient loads which may cause or contribute to the depletion of dissolved oxygen and/or toxic concentrations and dissolved ammonia, trash which impairs beneficial uses including but not limited to support for aquatic life, and other pollutants which may cause aquatic toxicity in the receiving waters.

28. Certain pollutants present in stormwater and/or urban runoff may be derived from extraneous sources that the Permittees have limited or no direct jurisdiction over. Examples of such pollutants and their respective sources are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) which are products of internal combustion engine operation and other sources; heavy metals, such as copper from brake pad wear and zinc from tire wear; dioxins as products of c ombustion; mercury resulting from atmospheric deposition; and natural -occurring minerals from local geology. All of these pollutants, and others, may be deposited on paved surfaces, rooftops, and other impervious surfaces as fine airborne particles, thus y ielding stormwater runoff pollution that is unrelated to the particular activity associated with a given new or redevelopment project.

29. It may be more efficient to manage airborne pollutants at their sources of release and/or through reformulating pol lutant-generating products rather than through treatment of stormwater.

However, unless restricted by jurisdictional limitations, Permittees can implement structural treatment control measures, or require developers to implement structural treatment contro l measures to reduce entry of these pollutants into stormwater and their discharge to receiving waters.

30. Retail gasoline outlets (RGOs), commonly referred to as "gas stations," are sources for pollutants of concern in stormwater and have been widely documented as such. The most common pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff from RGOs are heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons (such as Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)), and oil and grease. [8] RGOs fall within the new development and significant redevelopment projects subject to Provision C.3 of this Order, when they meet the impervious surface thresholds within that Provision. Pursuant to Provision C. 3., as with any other project meeting the thresholds of that Provision, RGOs are required to incorporate appropriate source controls and design measures, and to appropriately treat stormwater runoff prior to discharge to the storm drain or local water. As with any commercial and/or industrial activity within the Permittees' jurisdictions that has the potential to discharge pollutants in stormwater runoff, RGOs may also be subject to regulation under other sections of the Permit and Management Plan, including the I llicit Discharge Control and Industrial and Commercial Discharge Control sections.

Findings 31-41 in Support of Provision C.3: New Development and Redevelopment Performance Standards

31. Urban Development Increases Pollutant Load, Volume, and Velocity of Runoff: During urban development two (2) important changes occur. First, natural vegetated pervious ground cover is converted to impervious surfaces such as paved highways, streets, r ooftops, and parking lots.

Natural vegetated soil can both absorb rainwater and remove pollutants providing a very effective natural purification process. Because pavement and concrete can neither absorb water nor remove pollutants, the natural purificatio n characteristics of the land are lost. Secondly, urban development creates new pollution sources as human population density increases and brings with it proportionately higher levels of car emissions, car maintenance wastes, municipal sewage, pesticides, household hazardous wastes, pet wastes, trash, etc., which can be washed into the municipal separate storm sewer system. As a result of these two (2) changes, the runoff leaving the developed urban area is significantly greater in volume, velocity and pol lutant load than the pre-development runoff from the same area.

32. The pollutants found in urban runoff can have damaging effects on both human health and aquatic ecosystems. In addition, the increased flows and volumes of stormwater discharged from new impervious surfaces resulting from new development and redevelopment can significantly ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 18 of 48 ends

impact beneficial uses of aquatic ecosystems due to physical modifications of watercourses, such as bank erosion and widening of channels.

33. Water Quality Degradation Increases with Percent Imperviousness: The increased volume and velocity of runoff from developed urban areas can greatly accelerate the erosion of downstream natural channels. A number of studies have demonstrated a direct correlation between the degree of imperviousness of an area and the degradation of beneficial uses of downstream receiving waters. Significant declines in the biological integrity and physical habitat of streams and other receiving waters have been found to occur with as little as a 10% conversion from natural to impervious surfaces. Typical medium- density single-family home projects range between 25 to 60% impervious. Even at very low densities, such as 1- 2 housing units per acre, standard subdivision designs can exceed the 10% imperv iousness threshold that, as noted above, is theorized to be the threshold for degradation of streams and other waters with increasing imperviousness of their catchment. [9] Studies on the impacts of imperviousness on beneficial uses of waters include "Urbanization of aquatic systems: Degradation thresholds, stormwater detection, and the limits of mitigation," Derek B. Booth and C. Rhett Jackson, Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33(5), Oct. 1997, pp. 1077- 1089; "Urbanization and Stream Quality Impairment," Richard D. Klein, Water Resources Bulletin 15(4), Aug. 1979, pp. 948-963; "Stream channel enlargement due to urbanization," Thomas R. Hammer, Water Resources Research 8(6), Dec. 1972, pp. 1530- 1540; and, summaries of work on the impacts of imperviousness, including "The Importance of Imperviousness," in Watershed Protection Techniques 1(3), Fall 1994, pp. 100- 111, and "Impervious surface coverage: The emergence of a key environmental indicator," Chester L. Arnold et al., Journal of the American Planning Association 62(2), Spring 1996, pp.243-259.

34. The Permittees have encouraged developers to minimize increases in impervious surfaces through a number of techniques such as those described in the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association's (BASMAA's) "Start at the Source Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection," 1999 edition (Start at the Source). One of the techniques recommended by Start at the Source is to use permeable pavements to infiltrate stormwater while still providing a stable load-bearing surface. For purposes of this Order, the Program may submit guidelines for use of these techniques for minimizing increases in impervious surfaces described in Start at the Source, implementation of which techniques will provide that such areas will not count toward the creation or replacement of impervious surfaces, or may be modeled differently for the purposes of sizing post -construction stormwater treatment controls, for approval of the Regional Board's Executive Officer.

35. Because land use planning is where urban development begins, it is the phase in which the greatest and most cost-effective opportunities to protect water quality in new and redevelopment exist. When a Permittee incorporates policies and principles designed to safeguard water resources into its General Plan and development project approval processes, it has taken a far - reaching step towards the preservation of local water resources for future generations.

36. Provision C.3 is written with the assumption that the Permittees are responsible for considering potential stormwater impacts when making planning and land use decisions. The goal of these requirements is to address pollutant dis charges and changes in runoff flows from new development and significant redevelopment projects, through implementation of post - construction and treatment measures, source control, and site design measures, to the maximum extent practicable. Neither Provis ion C.3 nor any of its requirements are intended to restrict or control local land use decision-making authority.

37. For the purposes of this Order, the term "Redevelopment" is defined as a project on a previously developed site that results in the addi tion or replacement of impervious surface, and the term "brownfield site" means real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.

38. Opportunities to address stormwater pollution and hydrograph modification can be limited by current local design standards and guidance. For example, such standards and guidance may ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 19 of 48 ends

reduce or prohibit opportunities to minimize impervious surfaces, minim ize directly connected impervious area, provide for small-scale detention, and implement other management measures.

Revision of current standards and guidance can result in a significantly increased ability for project designers to minimize project impacts and can also enhance local property values, neighborhood character, and overall quality of life. Further, revision of standards and guidance can allow implementation of site design measures in projects to meet or help meet the numeric sizing criteria in Provision C.3.d and/or the hydrograph modification limitation in Provision C.3.f.

39. Certain control measures implemented or required by Permittees for urban runoff management may create a habitat for vectors (e.g., mosquitoes and rodents) if not properl y designed or maintained. Close collaboration and cooperative effort among Permittees, local vector control agencies, Regional Board staff, and the State Department of Health Services is necessary to minimize potential nuisances and public health impacts resulting from vector breeding.

40. Provision C.3.f requires the Permittees to prepare a Hydrograph Modification Management Plan (HMP), for approval by the Regional Board, to manage impacts from changes to the volume and velocity of stormwater runoff from new development and significant redevelopment projects, where these changes can cause excessive erosion damage to downstream watercourses. Transit village type developments within ¼ to within ½ mile of transit stations and/or intermodal facilities, and pr ojects within "Redevelopment Project Areas" (as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 33000, et seq.) that redevelop an existing brownfield site or create housing units affordable to persons of low or moderate income as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50093, are excepted from the requirements of C.3.f and the HMP. Significant change in impervious surface or significant change in stormwater runoff volume or timing is unlikely in these redevelopment circumstances, because these developments woul d be within a largely already paved catchment, and on a site that is largely already paved or otherwise impervious.

Similarly, as specified in Provision C.3.g.v, an exemption without the requirement for alternate, equivalent offsite treatment is allowed for the following redevelopment projects after impracticability of including onsite treatment measures is established, where such projects are built as redevelopment projects as defined in Finding 14, and it is clearly demonstrated that cost of participation in alternate, equivalent offsite treatment through a regional treatment or other equivalent water quality benefit project fund will unduly burden the project: creation of housing units affordable to persons of low or moderate income as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50093, brownfield sites, and/or transit village type developments within ¼ mile of transit stations and/or intermodal facilities. Not only is significant change in impervious surface or significant change in stormwater runoff volume or timing unlikely in these redevelopment circumstances, but these redevelopment projects are also likely to provide reduced water quality impacts and/or other environmental benefits in their own right.

41. The Regional Board recognized in its "Policy o n the Use of Constructed Wetlands for Urban Runoff Pollution Control" (Resolution No. 94- 102) that urban runoff treatment wetlands that are constructed and operated pursuant to that Resolution and are constructed outside of a creek or other receiving water , are stormwater treatment systems and, as such, are not waters of the United States subject to regulation pursuant to Sections 401 or 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. Regional Board staff is working with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG ) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to identify how maintenance for stormwater treatment controls required under permits such as this Permit can be appropriately streamlined, given CDFG and USFWS requirements, and particularly those that address s pecial status species. The Permittees are expected to work diligently and in good faith with the appropriate agencies to obtain any approvals necessary to complete maintenance activities for treatment controls. If the Permittees have done so, when necessary and where maintenance approvals are not granted, the Permittees shall be considered by the Regional Board to be in compliance with Provision C.3.e of this Order.

Finding in Support of Provision C.4: Public Information and Participation Performance Standards
ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 20 of 48 ends

42. The implementation of a public information and participation program is a critical component of a stormwater management program. An informed and knowledgeable community is critical to the success of a stormwater program because it helps ensure greater support for the program as the public gains a greater understanding for stormwater pollution issues. An informed community also ensures greater compliance with the program as the public becomes aware of the personal responsibilities expected of them and others in the community, including the individual actions they can take to protect or improve the quality of area waters.

Finding in Support of Provision C.5: Performance Standards for Municipal Maintenance

43. Provision C.5 requires the Permittees to implement the municipal maintenance Performance Standards as set forth in the Management Plan, including, but not limited to, activities as described below. The work of municipal maintenance personnel is vital to minimize stormwater pollution, because personnel work directly on municipal storm drains and other municipal facilities (e.g., roads, parking lots, sidewalks, parks, landscaping, etc.). Through work such as inspecting and cleaning storm drain drop inlets and pipes and appropriately conducting m unicipal construction and maintenance activities upstream of the storm drain, municipal maintenance personnel are directly responsible for preventing and removing pollutants from the storm drain.

Maintenance personnel also play an important role in educati ng the public and in reporting and cleaning up illicit discharges.

Finding in Support of Provision C.6: Performance Standard for Rural Public Works Maintenance and Support

44. Provision C.6 requires the Permittees to create an effective Best Manangement Practice (BMP) approach for the following rural public works maintenance and support activities: a) management and/or removal of large woody debris and live vegetation from stream channels; b) streambank stabilization projects; c) road construction, maintenance, and repairs in rural areas to prevent and control road- related erosion; and d) environmental permitting for rural public works activities.

Road construction and other activities can disturb the soil and drainage patterns to streams in undeveloped areas, causing excess runoff and thereby erosion and the release of sediment. In particular, poorly designed roads can act as man-made drainages that carry water and sediment into natural streams, impacting water quality. In addition, other rural public wor ks activities, including those the BMP approach would address, have the potential to significantly affect sediment discharge and transport within streams and other waterways, which can degrade the beneficial uses of those waterways. This Provision would he lp ensure these impacts are appropriately controlled.

Findings 45-46: Monitoring

45. Provision C.8 requires the annual and multi -year submittal and implementation of a Monitoring Program Plan, to include monitoring of receiving waters, in accordance with 40 CFR Parts 122.44(I) and 122.48. The purpose of the Monitoring Program Plan is to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Program's Management Plan and accordingly, demonstrate compliance with the conditions of the Permit. On April 15, 1992, the Regional Board adopted Resolution No. 92- 043 directing the Executive Officer to implement th e Regional Monitoring Program for San Francisco Bay. Subsequent to a public hearing and various meetings, Board staff requested major permit holders in the Region, under authority of Section 13267 of California Water Code, to report on the water quality of the Estuary. These permit holders, including the Permittees, responded to this request by participating in a collaborative effort through the San Francisco Estuary Institute.

This effort has come to be known as the San Francisco Estuary Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances (RMP). The RMP involves collection and analysis of data on pollutants and toxicity in water, sediment and biota of the Estuary. The Permittees should continue to report on the water quality of the estuary, as presently requir ed. Compliance with the requirement through participation in the RMP is considered to be adequate compliance. Alternatively, the Permittees may submit and implement an acceptable alternative monitoring plan. Annual reports from the RMP are referenced elsewhere in this Order.

ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 21 of 48 ends

46. The Regional Board has received the Program's draft Watershed Assessment and Monitoring Strategy for Fiscal Years 2002- 2008, appended to this Order as Attachment B. The goal of this monitoring strategy is to support the development and implementation of the Management Plan and demonstrate its effectiveness along with showing the results of the Program's related monitoring work.

Finding in Support of Provision C.9

47. Provision C.9 requires identification of the non-prohibited types of discharges that the Permittees wish to exempt from Prohibition A. For conditionally exempted discharges which are pollutant sources, the Provision requires the Permittees to identify and incorporate into the Management Plan control measures to minim ize the adverse impact of such sources. This Provision also establishes a mechanism to authorize under the Permit non- stormwater discharges owned or operated by the Permittees. The Program has developed a list of BMPs to eliminate adverse impacts of condit ionally exempt discharges such as uncontaminated pumped groundwater, foundation drains, water from crawl spaces pumps, footing drains and planned and unplanned discharges from potable water sources, and water line and hydrant flushing.

Finding in Support of Provision C.10: Water Quality-Based Requirements for Specific Pollutants of Concern

48. This Provision requires the Permittees to implement programs to control pollutants that have the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality standards, including programs for copper, mercury, pesticides, polycholorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxin- like compounds, and sediment, pursuant to the schedule provided in the Order. In addition, pursuant to Provision C.1 of this Order, if exc eedances of water quality objectives persist notwithstanding implementation of Provisions C.2 through C.8 of this Order and the Plan, a Permittee shall report to the Regional Board on the control measures that are being implemented to reduce the amount of pollutants, and develop a plan to further address the pollutants that cause impairment over time. In response to prior Provision C.1 submissions, the Regional Board is including additional requirements in Provision C.10 of this Order to continue implementation of previously delineated pollutant specific control measures and identification and implementation of additional control measures necessary to prevent or reduce discharges of pollutants that are causing or contributing to the exceedance of water quality standards.

Findings 49-50: Mercury

49. In 1998, the Regional Board met in a public hearing and adopted a CWA Section 303(d) list that classified all of San Francisco Bay as impaired due to mercury. The Permit requires Permittees to control mercury, which has been found by the Regional Board to have the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality standards, to the maximum extent practicable.

50. To reduce levels of mercury in stormwater discharges, the Permittees have begun to implement a Mercury Pollutant Reduction Plan (Mercury Plan).

Finding 51: Pesticides

51. The Program conducted pioneering studies starting in 1994, determining that diazinon from urban runoff was responsible for toxicity in urban creeks. The Permit requires the Permittees to address pesticides, which have been found by the Regional Board to have the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality standards. The Program has submitted a proactive Diazion Pollutant Reduction Plan, hereafter referred to as the "Pesticide Plan." The goals of the Pesticide Plan and of its resulting implementing actions are to reduce or substitute pesticide use (especially diazinon use) with less toxic alternatives.

Findings 52-55: PCBs and Dioxins
ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 22 of 48 ends

52. US EPA lists PCBs as a potential carcinogen. In addition, PCBs are suspected of having negative impacts on the human immune system, reproductive system, nervous system, endocrine system, and digestive system. Although their manufacture is now banned in the United States, PCBs continue to pose a serious risk due to their persistence in t he environment. PCBs accumulate in fatty tissue. This is important to human health in that several of the more common food fishes in the Bay (e.g., striped bass, white croaker) are marked by relatively high fat content.

The California Office of Environment al Health and Hazard Assessment issued an interim fish consumption advisory for all of San Francisco Bay, partly based on PCB concentrations found in Bay fishes.

53. Urban runoff is highly likely to be a conveyance mechanism associated with the impairment of San Francisco Bay for PCBs.

54. The Permit requires Permittees to control PCBs, which have been found by the Regional Board to have the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality standards, to the maximum extent practicable. The Program has submitted a PCBs Pollutant Reduction Plan.

This Plan includes surveys of stream sediments to assess concentrations and loadings of PCBs, assesses potential for ongoing discharges of PCBs, and develops a plan to reduce discharges of PCBs in runoff.

55. Dioxins are persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic compounds that are produced from the combustion of organic materials in the presence of chlorine. Dioxins enter the air through fuel and waste emissions, including diesel and other motor vehicle exhaust fumes and trash incineration, and are carried in rain and contaminate soil. Dioxins bioaccumulate in fat and most human exposure occurs through the consumption of animal fats, including those from fish.

Findings 56-58: Implementation

56. It is the Regional Board's intent that this Order shall ensure attainment of applicable water quality objectives and protection of the beneficial uses of receiving waters and associated habitat. This Order therefore includes standard requirements to the effect that discharges shall not cause exceedances of water quality objectives nor shall they cause certain conditions to occur which create a condition of nuisance or water quality impairment in receiving waters. Accordingly, the Regional Board is requiri ng that these standard requirements be addressed through the implementation of technically and economically feasible control measures to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable as provided in Provisions C.1 through C.10 of this Order. Compliance with the Discharge Prohibition, Receiving Water Limitations, and Provisions of this Order is deemed compliance with the requirements of this Order. If these measures, in combination with controls on other point and nonpoint sources of pollutants, do not result in attainment of applicable water quality objectives, the Regional Board may invoke Provision C.1 and may reopen this Permit pursuant to Provisions C.1 and C.13 of this Order to impose additional conditions which require implementation of additional control measures.

57. It is generally not considered feasible at this time to establish numeric effluent limitations for pollutants in municipal stormwater discharges. Instead, the provisions of this permit require implementation of BMPs to the maximum extent practicable to control and abate the discharge of pollutants in stormwater discharges.

58. The Program is organized, coordinated, and implemented based upon the "Agreement for Implementation of the Alameda County Urban Run off Clean Water Program," now Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, and referred to in this Order as the Program. The agreement is provided as Appendix A of the Management Plan. The roles and responsibilities of the Permittees are, in part, as follows:
a. The Management Committee, which includes representatives from all of the Permittees, is the decision making body of the Program. It operates within the budget and policies established by the Permittees' governing boards and councils to decide matters o f budget and policy necessary to implement the Management Plan, and provides direction to the Program Manager and staff. The Management Committee has established subcommittees ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 23 of 48 ends

to assist in planning and implementation of the Management Plan, and may add, modify, or delete such groups as deemed necessary.
b. Each of the Permittees is individually responsible for adoption and enforcement of ordinances and policies, implementation of assigned control measures/ BMPs needed to prevent or reduce pollutants in stormwater, and for providing funds for the capital, operation, and maintenance expenditures necessary to implement such control measures/BMPs within its jurisdiction. Each Permittee is also responsible for its share of the costs of the area- wide component of the Program as specified in the Agreement. Except for area-wide components of the Program, enforcement actions concerning this Order will be pursued only against the individual Permittee(s) responsible for specific violations of this Order.

Findings 59-64: Public Process

59. Regional Board staff has worked in cooperation with the Program to develop a Tentative Order and the Performance Standards in the Management Plan. Regional Board staff conducted a series of meetings with the Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) coordinating committee, a subgroup of the Program. These meetings included Regional Board staff and representatives of the Permittees. Through this process, the SWQMP coordinating committee attempted to identify, prioritize, and resolve issues related to the Permittees' and Program's performance, the Management Plan, and this Order, and attempted to develop a consensus concerning the requirements reflected herein.

60. The following is a brief summary of public meetings and comment peri ods on versions of the Permit's Tentative Order. Regional Board staff met with the SWQMP coordinating committee on February 22, March 22, April 26, and May 23, 2002. The administrative draft was released on June 6, 2002, and comments on the draft were received until June 27, 2002. Regional Board staff met with a workgroup consisting of representatives of the Permittees on July 17, July 25, August 5, and October 28, 2002, and with representatives of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) on July 18, 2002. The Permittees and Regional Board staff together conducted three (3) outreach workshops on the portions of the Tentative Order addressing new development and redevelopment. Workshops were held on July 18, 2002, in Hayward; on July 25, 2002, in Oakland; and on July 29, 2002, in Pleasanton; and were attended by Permittee staff and other interested parties, including consultants and builders. Regional Board staff also met on dates including April 23, May 22, and October 30, 2002, with representatives of the Coastal Region Vector Control Agencies, including representatives of the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District and the State Department of Health Services. On December 18, 2002, and January 22, 2003, the Regional Board heard testimony from the Dischargers and interested public on the Revised Tentative Order. On January 17 and 31, and February 7 and 14, 2003, Regional Board staff conducted public meetings on the Revised Tentative Order.

The Tentative Order was released for public comments on August 21, 2002, by surface mail, electronic mails and posting on the Regional Board website. Comments on the Tentative Order were accepted until October 9, 2002. Based on comments received, appropriate changes were made and submitted to the Regional Board as a Revised Tentative Order for its consideration on December 18, 2002. From December 20, 2002 to January 10, 2003, the comment period was reopened by the Regional Board to allow additional submittals relative to projected cost of the amendment of Order No. 99-058 to both the Dischargers and the development community.

61. The Regional Board has notified the Permittees and interested agencies and interested persons of its intent to prescribe reissued waste discharge requirements and a reissued NPDES permit for t his discharge and has provided them with an opportunity for a public hearing and an opportunity to submit their written views and recommendations.

62. The Regional Board, through public testimony in public meetings and in written form, has received and considered all comments pertaining to this Order.

63. The Regional Board will notify interested agencies and interested persons of the availability of reports, plans, and schedules, including Annual Reports, Work Plans, Performance Standards, ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 24 of 48 ends

and the Management Plan, and will provide interested persons with an opportunity for a public hearing and/or an opportunity to submit their written views and recommendations. The Regional Board will consider all comments and may modify the reports, plans, or schedules or may modify this Order in accordance with applicable law. All submittals required by this Order conditioned with acceptance by the Regional Board will be subject to these notification, comment, and public hearing procedures.

64. This Order supercedes and rescinds Order Nos. 97-030 and 99-049.

65. This Order serves as a NPDES permit, pursuant to CWA Section 402, or amendments thereto, and shall become effective fifty (50) days after the date of its adoption provided the Regional Administrator, US EPA, Region IX, has no objections.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Permittees, in order to meet the provisions contained in Division 7 of the California Water Code and regulations adopted hereunder and the provisions of the Clean Water Act as amended and regulations and guidelines adopted hereunder, shall comply with the following:

A. DISCHARGE PROHIBITION
The Permittees shall, within their respective jurisdictions, effectively prohibit the discharge of non- stormwater (materials other than stormwater) into the storm drain systems and watercourses.

NPDES permitted discharges are exempt from this prohibition. Compliance with this prohibition shall be demonstrated in accordance with Provision C.1 and C.9 of this Order. Provision C.9 describes a tiered categorization of non-stormwater discharges based on potential for pollutant content, which may be discharged upon adequate assurance that the discharge contains no pollutants of concern, at concentrations that will impact beneficial uses or cause exceedances of water quality standards.

B. RECEIVING WATER LIMITATIONS

1. The discharge shall not cause the following conditions to create a condition of nuisance or to adversely affect beneficial uses of waters of the State:
a. Floating, suspended, or deposited macroscopic particulate matter, or foam; b. Bottom deposits or aquatic growths;
c. Alteration of temperature, turbidity, or apparent color beyond present natural background levels;
d. Visible, floating, suspended, or deposited oil or other products of petroleum origin; and/or e. Substances present in concentrations or quantities which will cause deleterious effects on aquatic biota, wildlife, or waterfowl, or which render any of these unfit for human consumption.

2. The discharge shall not cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable water quality standard for receiving waters. If applicable water quality objectives are adopted and approved by the State Board after the date of the adoption of this Order, the Regional Board may revise and modify this Order as appropriate.

C. PROVISIONS

1. Water Quality Standards Exceedances
The Permittees shall comply with Discharge Prohibition A and Receiving Water Limitations B.1 and B.2 through the timely implementation of control measures and other actions to reduce pollutants in the discharge in accordance with the Management Plan and other requirements of this permit, including any modifications. The Management Plan shall be designed to achieve compliance with Receiving Water Limitations B.1 and B.2. If exceedance(s) of water quality standards or water quality objectives (collectively, WQSs) persist notwithstanding implementation of the Management Plan, a Permittee shall assure compliance with Discharge ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 25 of 48 ends

Prohibition A and Receiving Water Limitations B.1 and B.2 by complying with the following procedure:
a. Upon a determination by either the Permittee(s) or the Regional Board that discharges are causing or contributing to an exceedance of an applicable WQS, the Permittee(s) shall promptly notify and thereafter submit a report to the Regional Board that describes BMPs that are current ly being implemented and additional BMPs that will be implemented to prevent or reduce any pollutants that are causing or contributing to the exceedance of WQSs. The report may be incorporated in the annual update to the Management Plan unless the Regional Board directs an earlier submittal. The report shall include an implementation schedule. The Regional Board may require modifications to the report; b. Submit any modifications to the report required by the Regional Board within 30 days of notification;
c. Within 30 days following approval of the report described above by the Regional Board, the Permittees shall revise the Management Plan and monitoring program to incorporate the approved modified control measures that have been and will be implemented, the implementation schedule, and any additional monitoring required; and, d. Implement the approved revised Management Plan and monitoring program in accordance with the approved schedule.

As long as Permittees have complied with the procedures set forth above and are implementing the revised Management Plan, they do not have to repeat the same procedure for continuing or recurring exceedances of the same receiving water limitations unless directed by the Regional Board to develop additional control measures and BMPs.

2. Stormwater Quality Management Plan and Performance Standards a. The Permittees shall implement control measures/BMPs to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable. The Management Plan shall serve as the framework for identification, assignment, and implementation of practices of such control measures/BMPs. The Management Plan contains Performance Standards that address the following Program components: Public Information and Participation, Municipal Maintenance, New Development and Significant Redevelopment, Construction Site Controls, Illicit Discharge Controls, and Industrial and Commercial Discharge Controls.

Performance Standards are defined as the level of implementation necessary to demonstrate the control of pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable. The Permittees shall implement the Management Plan, and shall subsequently demonstrate its effectiveness and provide for necessary and appropriate revisions, modifications, and improvements to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable and as required by Provisions C.1 through C.11 of this Order. b. The Management Plan shall be revised to adopt and incorporate any new Performance Standards developed by the Permittees or any revised Performance Standard identified by the Permittees through the Program's process for evaluating and improving its effectiveness or other means described in Provision C.1. Performance Standards shall be developed or revised through a process which includes 1) opportunities for public participation, 2) appropriate external technical input and criteria for the applicability, economic feasibility, design, operation, and maintenance, and 3) measures for evaluation of effectiveness so as to achieve pollutant reduction or pollution prevention benefits to the maximum extent practicable. New or revised Performance Standards may be based upon special studies or other activities conducted by the Permittees, literature review, or specia l studies conducted by other programs or Permittees. New or revised Performance Standards shall include the baseline components to be accomplished and the method to be used to verify that the Performance Standard has been achieved. The Permittees shall inc orporate newly developed or updated Performance Standards, acceptable to the Executive Officer, into applicable annual revisions to the Management Plan and adhere to implementation of the ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 26 of 48 ends

new/revised Performance Standard(s). In addition to the annual Management Plan revisions, the Permittees shall submit a compilation of all annual Management Plan revisions by three (3) years after Board adoption of this Order, which shall serve in part as the re- application package for the next Permit. The draft Annual Wor kplan required in Provision C.6 shall identify Performance Standards that will be developed or revised for the upcoming fiscal year. Following the addition/revision of a Performance Standard, acceptable to the Executive Officer, the Permittees for which the Performance Standard is applicable shall adhere to its implementation.

3. New Development and Redevelopment Performance Standards The Permittees will continue to implement the new development and redevelopment Performance Standards contained in the Management Plan and improve them to achieve the control of stormwater pollutants to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the following sections:
a. Performance Standard Implementation
The Dischargers shall continue to implement and improve, as necessary and appropriate, the performance standards for new development and redevelopment controls detailed on Pages B-ND-1 through B-ND-6 of the July 1996 Management Plan. b. Development Project Approval Process
The Permittees shall modify their project review processes as needed to incorporate the requirements of Provision C.3. Each Permittee shall include conditions of approval in permits for applicable projects, as defined in Provision C.3.c, to ensure that stormwater pollutant discharges are reduced by incorporation of treatment measures and other appropriate source control and site design measures, and increases in runoff flows are managed in accordance with Provision C.3.f, to the maximum extent practicable. Such conditions shall, at a minimum, address the following goals:
i. Require a project proponent to implement site design/landscape characteristics where feasible which maximize infiltration (where appropriate), provide retention or detention, slow runoff, and minimize impervious land coverage, so that post-development pollutant loads from a site have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable; and ii. For new and redevelopment projects that discharge directly (not mixed with runoff from other developed sites) to water bodies listed as impaired by a pollutant(s) pursuant to CWA Section 303(d), ensure that post project runoff does not exceed pre-project levels for such pollutant(s), through implementation of the control measures addressed in this provision, to the maximum extent practicable, in conformance with Provision C.1.

Modification of project review processes shall be completed by February 15, 2005. c. Applicable Projects - New and Redevelopment Project Categories New development and significant redevelopment projects that are subject to Provision C.3 are grouped into two (2) categories based on project size. While all projects regardless of size should consider incorporating appropriate source control and site design measures that minimize stormwater pollutant discharges to the maximum extent practicable, new and redevelopment projects that do not fall into Group 1 or Group 2 are not subject to the requirements of Provision C.3. Provision C.3 shall also not apply to projects for which a privately-sponsored development application has been deemed complete by a Permittee or, with respect to public projects, for which funding has been committed and for which construction is scheduled by February 15, 2005.
i. Group 1 Projects
ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 27 of 48 ends

Permittees shall require Group 1 Projects to implement appropriate source control and site design measures and to design and implement stormwater treatment measures, to reduce the discharge of stormwater pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.

Implementation of this requirement shall begin February 15, 2005. Group 1 Projects consist of all public and private projects in the following categories:

1. Commercial, industrial, or residential developments that create one acre (43,560 square feet) or more of impervious surface, including roof area, streets and sidewalks. This category includes any development of any type on public or private land, which falls under the planning and building authority of the Permittees, where one acre or more of new impervio us surface, collectively over the entire project site, will be created.

Construction of one single-family home, which is not part of a larger common plan of development, with the incorporation of appropriate pollutant source control and design measures, and using landscaping to appropriately treat runoff from roof and house-associated impervious surfaces (e.g., runoff from roofs, patios, driveways, sidewalks, and similar surfaces), would be in substantial compliance with Provision C.3.

2. Streets, roads, highways, and freeways that are under the Permittees' jurisdiction and that create one acre (43,560 square feet) or more of new impervious surface.

This category includes any newly constructed paved surface used primarily for the transportation of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and other motorized vehicles.

Excluded from this category are sidewalks, bicycle lanes, trails, bridge accessories, guardrails, and landscape features.

3. Significant Redevelopment projects. This category is defined as a projec t on a previously developed site that results in addition or replacement, which combined total 43,560 sq ft or more of impervious surface on such an already developed site ("Significant Redevelopment"). Where a Significant Redevelopment project results in an increase of, or replacement of, more than fifty percent (50%) of the impervious surface of a previously existing development, and the existing development was not subject to stormwater treatment measures, the entire project must be included in the treatment measure design. Conversely, where a Significant Redevelopment project results in an increase of, or replacement of, less than fifty percent (50%) of the impervious surface of a previously existing development, and the existing development was not subject to stormwater treatment measures, only that affected portion must be included in treatment measure design. Excluded from this category are interior remodels and routine maintenance or repair. Excluded routine maintenance and repair includes roof or ext erior surface replacement, pavement resurfacing, repaving and road pavement structural section rehabilitation, within the existing footprint, and any other reconstruction work within a public street or road right -of-way where both sides of that right -of-way are developed.
ii. Group 2 Projects
The Group 2 Project definition is in all ways the same as the Group 1 Project definition above, except that the size threshold of impervious area for new and Significant Redevelopment projects is reduced from one (1) acre (43,560 sq ft) of impervious surface to ten thousand (10,000) square feet. Permittees shall require Group 2 Projects to implement appropriate source control and site design measures and to design and implement appropriate stormwater treatment measures to reduce stormwater pollution to the maximum extent practicable. Projects consisting of one single family home not part of a larger common plan of development are excluded from the Group 2 Project definition, and therefore excluded from the requirement to implement appropriate stormwater treatment measures. Implementation of this ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 28 of 48 ends

requirement shall begin by August 15, 2006, at which time the definition of Group 1 Projects is changed to include all Group 2 Projects.
iii. Proposal for Alternative Group 2 Project Definition The Program and/or any Permittee may propose, for approval by the Regional Board, an Alternative Group 2 Project definition, with the goal that any such alternative definition aim to ensure that the maximum created impervious surface area is treated for the minimum number of projects subject to Permittee review. Any such proposal shall contain supporting information about the Permittees' development patterns, and sizes and numbers of proposed projects for several years, that demonstrates that the proposed definition would be substantially as effective as the Group 2 Project definition in Provision C.3.c.ii. Proposals may include differentiating projects subject to the Alternative Group 2 Project definition by land use, by focusing solely on the techniques recommended by Start at the Source for documented low pollutant loading land uses, and/or by optimum use of landscape areas required by Permittees under existing codes as treatment measures. Proposals may be submitted anytime, with the understanding that the Group 2 Project definition, as described in Provision C.3.c.ii will be upheld as the default in the absence of an approved Alternative Group 2 Project definition.
d. Numeric Sizing Criteria For Pollutant Removal Treatment Systems All Permittees shall require that treatment measures be constructed for applicable projects, as defined in Provision C.3.c, that incorporate, at a minimum, the following hydraulic sizing design criteria to treat stormwater runoff. As appropriate for each criterion, the Permittees shall use or appropriately analyze local rainfall data to be used for that criterion. i. Volume Hydraulic Design Basis
Treatment measures whose primary mode of action depends on volume capacity, such as detention/retention units or infiltration structures, shall be designed to treat stormwater runoff equal to:

1. The maximized stormwater quality capture volume for the area, based on historical rainfall records, determined using the formula and volume capture coefficients set forth in Urban Runoff Quality Management, WEF Manual of Practice No. 23/ ASCE Manual of Practice No. 87, (1998), pages 175- 178 (e.g., approximately the 85th percentile twenty-four-hour storm runoff event); or

2. The volume of annual runoff required to achieve eighty percent (80%) or more capture, determined in accordance with the methodology set forth in Appendix D of the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook (1993), using local rainfall data.
ii. Flow Hydraulic Design Basis
Treatment measures whose primary mode of action depends on flow capacity, such as swales, sand filters, or wetlands, shall be sized to treat:

1. 10% of the 50-year peak flow rate; or

2. The flow of runoff produced by a rain event equal to at least two (2) times the eighty-fifth percentile hourly rainfal l intensity for the applicable area, based on historical records of hourly rainfall depths; or

3. The flow of runoff resulting from a rain event equal to at least 0.2 inches per hour intensity.
e. Operation and Maintenance of Treatment Measures
ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 29 of 48 ends

All treatment measures shall be adequately operated and maintained by complying with the process described below. Beginning July 1, 2004, each Permittee shall implement a treatment measures operation and maintenance (O&M) verification program (O&M Program), which shall include the following:
i. Compilation of a list of properties (public and private) and responsible operators for, at a minimum, all treatment measures implemented from the date of adoption of this Order. Information on the location of all stormwater treatment measures shall be sent to the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District. In addition, the Permittees shall inspect a subset of prioritized treatment measures for appropriate O&M, on an annual basis, with appropriate follow-up and correction.
ii. Verification and access assurance at a minimum shall include: where a private entity is responsible for O&M, the entity's signed statement accepting responsibility for maintenance until the responsibility is legally transferred to another entity, and access permission to the extent allowable by law for representatives of the Permittee, local vector control district, and Regional Board staff strictly for the purpose of O&M verification for the specific stormwater treatment system to the extent allowable by law; and, for all entities, either:

1. A signed statement from the public entity assuming post-construction responsibility for treatment measure maintenance and that the treatment measures meet all local agency design standards; or

2. Written conditions in the sales or lease agreement requiring the buyer or lessee to assume responsibility for O&M consistent with this provision, which conditions, in the case of purchase and sale agreements, shall be written to survive beyond the close of escrow; or

3. Written text in project conditions, covenants and restrictions (CCRs) for residential properties assigning O&M responsibilities to the home owners association for O&M of the treatment measures; or

4. Any other legally enforceable agreement or mechanism that assigns responsibility for the maintenance of treatment measures.
iii. O&M Reporting: the Permittees shall report on their O&M Program in each Annual Report, starting with the Annual Report to be submitted September 2005. The Annual Report shall contain a description of the organizational structure of the Permittee's O&M Program; an evaluation of that O&M Program's effectiveness; summary of any planned improvements in O&M Program; and a list or summary of treatment measures that have been inspected that year with inspection results.
iv. The Program shall submit by June 1, 2004, a vector control plan for Executive Officer approval, after consultation with the appropriate vector control agencies. The plan shall include design guidance for treatment measures to prevent the production of vectors, particularly mosquitoes, and provide guidance on including vector abatement concerns in O&M and verification inspection activities.
v. The Permittees are expected to work diligently and in good faith with the appropriate state and federal agencies to obtain any approvals necessary to complete maintenance activities for stormwater treatment measures. If the Permittees have done so, and maintenance approvals are not granted, where necessary, the Permittees shall be deemed by the Regional Board to be in compliance with this Provision. f. Limitation on Increase of Peak Stormwater Runoff Discharge Rates i. The Permittees shall manage increases in peak runoff flow and increased runoff volume, for all Group 1 Projects where such increased flow and/or volume is likely to cause increased erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollutant generation, or other impacts to beneficial uses. Such management shall be through implementation of a Hydrograph ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 30 of 48 ends

Modification Management Plan (HMP). The HMP, once approved by the Regional Board, shall be implemented so that post-project runoff shall not exceed estimated pre- project rates and/or durations, where the increased stormwater discharge rates and/or durations will result in increased potential for erosion or other significant adverse impacts to beneficial uses, attributable to changes in the amount and timing of runoff.

The term duration in this Provision is defined as the period that flows are above a threshold that causes significant sediment transport and may cause excessive erosion damage to creeks and streams.
ii. Provision C.3.f.i does not apply to new development and significant redevelopment projects where the project discharges stormwater runoff into creeks or storm drains where the potential for erosion or other impacts to beneficial uses, is minimal. Such situations may include discharges into creeks that are concrete- lined or significantly hardened (e.g., with rip-rap, sackrete, etc.) downstream to their outfall in San Francisco Bay, underground storm drains discharging to the Bay, and construction of infill projects in highly developed watersheds, where the potential for single-project and/or cumulative impacts is minimal. Guidelines for identification of such situations shall be included as a part of the HMP. However, plans to restore a c reek reach may re- introduce the applicability of HMP controls, and would need to be addressed in the HMP. iii. The HMP may identify conditions under which some increases in runoff may not have a potential for increased erosion or other impacts to benefic ial uses. Reduced controls or no controls on peak stormwater runoff discharge rates and/or durations may be appropriate in those cases, subject to the conditions in the HMP. In the absence of information demonstrating that changes in post-development runoff discharge rates and durations will not result in increased potential for erosion or other adverse impacts to beneficial uses, the HMP requirements shall apply.
iv. The HMP proposal, at a minimum, shall include:

1. A review of pertinent literature;

2. A protocol to evaluate potential hydrograph change impacts to downstream watercourses from proposed projects;

3. An identification of the rainfall event below which these standards and management requirements apply, or range of rainfall events to whic h these requirements apply;

4. A description of how the Permittees will incorporate these requirements into their local approval processes, or the equivalent; and,

5. Guidance on management practices and measures to address identified impacts.

The Permittees may prioritize which individual watersheds the HMP would initially apply to, if it were demonstrated in the HMP that such prioritization is appropriate.

The Permittees may work appropriately with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program and/or other Bay Area stormwater programs as part of completing these requirements. For example, the Permittees may wish to expand on the literature review being completed by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Program under its permit, rather than authoring their own literature review from scratch. While such cooperation is encouraged, it shall not be grounds for delaying compliance beyond the schedule set forth herein.
v. The identified maximum rainfall event or rainfall event range may be different for specific watersheds, streams, or stream reaches. Individual Permittees may utilize the protocol to determine a site- or area-specific rainfall event or event range standard. vi. The HMP's evaluation protocols, management measures, a nd other information may include the following:

ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 31 of 48 ends

1. Evaluation of the cumulative impacts of urbanization of a watershed on stormwater discharge and stream morphology in the watershed;

2. Evaluation of stream form and condition, including slope, discharg e, vegetation, underlying geology, and other information, as appropriate;

3. Implementation of measures to minimize impervious surfaces and directly connected impervious area in new development and redevelopment projects;

4. Implementation of measures including stormwater detention, retention, and infiltration;

5. Implementation of land use planning measures (e.g., stream buffers and stream restoration activities, including restoration- in-advance of floodplains so that floodplains will be able to handle the anticipated increased flows, revegetation, use of less -impacting facilities at the point(s) of discharge, etc.) to allow expected changes in stream channel cross sections, stream vegetation, and discharge rates, velocities, and/or durations without adverse impacts to stream beneficial uses;

6. A mechanism for pre- vs. post-project assessment to determine the effectiveness of the HMP and to allow amendment of the HMP, as appropriate; and,

7. Other measures, as appropriate.
vii. Equivalent limita tion of peak flow impacts: The Permittees may develop an equivalent limitation protocol, as part of the HMP, to address impacts from changes in the volumes, velocities, and/or durations of peak flows through measures other than control of those volumes and/or durations. The protocol may allow increases in peak flow and/or durations, subject to the implementation of specified design, source control, and/or treatment control measures and land planning practices that take into account expected stream change (e.g., increases in the cross-sectional area of stream channel) resulting from changes in discharge rates and/or durations, while maintaining or improving beneficial uses of waters.
viii. The Permittees as a group shall complete the HMP according to the sc hedule below.

All required documents shall be submitted for approval by the Executive Officer, based on the criteria set forth in this Order, except the HMP, which shall be submitted for approval by the Regional Board. Development and implementation status shall be reported in the Permittees' Annual Reports, which shall also provide a summary of projects incorporating measures to address this Provision and the measures used.

1. February 15, 2004: Submit a detailed workplan and schedule for completion of the literature review, development of a protocol to identify an appropriate limiting storm, development of guidance materials, and other required information;

2. February 15, 2004: Submit literature review;

3. November 15, 2004: Submit a draft HMP, including the analysis that identifies the appropriate limiting storm and the identified limiting storm event(s) or event range(s);

4. May 15, 2005: Submit the HMP for Regional Board approval; and,

5. Upon approval by the Regional Board, implement the approved HMP, which shall include the requirements of this Provision. Prior to approval of the HMP by the Regional Board, the early implementation of measures likely to be included in the HMP shall be encouraged by the Permittees.
g. Alternative Compliance Based on Impracticability and Requiring Compensatory Mitigation
i. The Permittees may establish a program under which a project proponent may request alternative compliance with the requirement in Provision C .3.c. to install treatment ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 32 of 48 ends

measures onsite for a given project, upon an appropriate showing of impracticability, and with a provision to treat offsite an equivalent surface area, pollutant loading or quantity of stormwater runoff, or provide other equivalent water quality benefit, such as stream restoration or other activities that limit or mitigate impacts from excessive erosion or sedimentation. The offsite location of this equivalent stormwater treatment, or water quality benefit, shall be where no other requirement in Provision C.3.c for treatment exists, and within the same stormwater runoff drainage basin and treating runoff discharging to the same receiving water, where feasible. Under this Provision, enhancements of existing mitigation projects are acceptable. The Permittees should specifically define the basis for impracticability or infeasibility, which may include situations where onsite treatment is technically feasible, but excessively costly, as determined by set criteria.
ii. Regional Solutio ns: The alternative compliance may allow a project proponent to participate in a regional or watershed- based stormwater treatment facility, without a showing of impracticability at the individual project site, if the regional or watershed- based stormwater treatment facility discharges into the same receiving water, where feasible.
iii. The Program is encouraged to propose a model alternative compliance program on behalf of the Permittees, for approval by the Regional Board, and for potential adoption and implementation by the Permittees.
iv. The alternative compliance program proposal should state the criteria for granting alternatives from the requirement to install treatment measures onsite; criteria for determining impracticability or infeasibility; and criteria for use of regional or watershed- based stormwater treatment facilities. The proposal should also describe how the project sponsor will provide equivalent water quality benefits or credit to an alternative project or to a regional or watershed treatment facility and tracking mechanisms to support the reporting requirements set forth in Provision C.3.g.vi below. v. An exemption without the requirement for alternate, equivalent offsite treatment is allowed for the following redevelopment projects after impracticability of including onsite treatment measures is established, where such projects are built as redevelopment projects as defined in Finding 14, and it is clearly demonstrated that cost of participation in alternate, equivalent offsite treatment through a regional treatment or other equivalent water quality benefit project fund will unduly burden the project: creation of housing units affordable to persons of low or moderate income as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50093, brownfi eld sites, and/or transit village type developments within ¼ mile of transit stations and/or intermodal facilities. vi. Reporting: Each year, as part of its Annual Report, each Permittee shall provide a list of alternative projects and exemptions it granted. For each project and exemption, the following information shall be provided:

1. Name and location of the project for which the alternative project or exemption was granted;

2. Project type (e.g., restaurant, residence, shopping center) and size;

3. Area or percent of impervious surface in the project's final design;

4. Reason for granting the alternative project or exemption, including, for those projects granted an exemption without the requirement for alternate, equivalent offsite treatment, a demonstration that cost of such equivalent offsite treatment unduly burdened the project;

5. Terms of the alternative project or exemption; and,

6. The offsite stormwater treatment project receiving the benefit, and the date of completion of the project.

ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 33 of 48 ends

vii. Interim Alternative Compliance Program: In the event that an alternative compliance program has not been proposed by the Program and/or a Permittee, approved by the Regional Board, or implemented by a particular Permittee by the date of implementation of Group 1 Projects, provision for an interim alternative to the requirement to install treatment measures onsite may be granted by a Permittee. An interim alternative compliance project may be granted if the project proponent (1) demonstrates onsi te impracticability due to extreme limitations of space for treatment and lack of below grade surface treatment options, and (2) presents sufficient assurance of providing equivalent offsite stormwater pollutant and/or volume treatment at another location within the drainage basin, for which construction of stormwater treatment measures is not otherwise required, discharging into the same receiving water, where feasible. The Permittee shall be responsible for assuring that equivalent offsite treatment has occurred for any use of this interim alternative compliance, within six (6) months of project construction, and shall report the basis of onsite impracticability and the nature of equivalent offsite treatment for each project in its Annual Report. Any equiv alent offsite treatment that does not include construction of stormwater treatment measures must be approved by the Executive Officer, based on the criteria set forth in this Order.

This interim alternative compliance clause will be void when Regional Boar d approves the alternative compliance program described in Provision C3.g.i— iv, above. h. Alternative Certification of Adherence to Design Criteria for Stormwater Treatment Measures
In lieu of conducting detailed review to verify the adequacy of measures required pursuant to Provisions C.3.d, a Permittee may elect to accept a signed certification from a Civil Engineer or a Licensed Architect or Landscape Architect registered in the State of California, or another Permittee that has overlapping jurisdictional project permitting authority, that the plan meets the criteria established herein. The Permittee should verify that each certifying person has been trained on treatment measure design for water quality not more than three (3) years prior to the signature date, and that each certifying person understands the groundwater protection principles applicable to the project site (see Provision C.3.i: Limitations on Use of Infiltration Treatment Measures). Training conducted by an organization with stormwater treatment measure design expertise (e.g., a university, American Society of Civil Engineers, American Society of Landscape Architects, American Public Works Association, or the California Water Environment Association) may be considered qualifying.
i. Limitations on Use of Infiltration Treatment Measures - Infiltration and Groundwater Protection
In order to protect groundwater from pollutants that may be present in urban runoff, treatment measures that function primarily as infiltration devices (such as infiltration basins and infiltration trenches not deeper than their maximum width) shall meet, at a minimum, the following conditions:
i. Pollution prevention and source control measures shall be implemented at a level appropriate to protect groundwater quality at sites where infiltration devices are to be used;
ii. Use of infiltration devices shall not cause or contribute to degradati on of groundwater water quality objectives;
iii. Infiltration devices shall be adequately maintained to maximize pollutant removal capabilities;
iv. The vertical distance from the base of any infiltration device to the seasonal high groundwater mark shall be at least ten (10) feet. Note that some locations within the Permittees' jurisdiction are characterized by highly porous soils and/or a high groundwater table; in these areas treatment measure approvals should be subject to a ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 34 of 48 ends

higher level of analysis (e.g., considering the potential for pollutants such as on- site chemical use, the level of pretreatment to be achieved, and similar factors); v. Unless stormwater is first treated by a means other than infiltration, infiltration devices shall not be rec ommended as treatment measures for areas of industrial or light industrial activity; areas subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or greater average daily traffic on main roadway or 15,000 or more average daily traffic on any intersecting roadway); automotive repair shops; car washes; fleet storage areas (bus, truck, etc.); nurseries; and other high threat to water quality land uses and activities as designated by each Permittee; and,
vi. Infiltration devices shall be located a minimum of 100 feet hori zontally from any water supply wells.
j. Site Design Measures Guidance and Standards Development i. The Permittees shall review their local design standards and guidance for opportunities to make revisions that would result in reduced impacts to water quality and beneficial uses of waters. In this event, the Permittees shall make any such revisions and implement the updated standards and guidance, as necessary.

Areas of site design that may be appropriate to address include the following, which are offered as examples:

1. Minimize land disturbance;

2. Minimize impervious surfaces (e.g., roadway width, driveway area, and parking lot area), especially directly connected impervious areas;

3. Minimum-impact street design standards for new development and redevelopment, including typical specifications (e.g., neo- traditional street design standards and/or street standards recently revised in other cities, including Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, British Columbia);

4. Minimum-impact parking lot design standards, including parking space maximization within a given area, use of landscaping as a stormwater drainage feature, use of pervious pavements, and parking maxima;

5. Clustering of structures and pavement;

6. Typical specifications or "acceptable design" guidelines for lot -level design measures, including:
• Disconnected roof downspouts to splash blocks or "bubble-ups;" • Alternate driveway standards (e.g., wheelways, unit pavers, or other pervious pavements); and,
• Microdetention, including landscape detention and use of cisterns (may also be considered treatment measures);

7. Preservation of high-quality open space;

8. Maintenance and/or restoration of riparian areas and wetlands as project amenities, including establishing vegetated buffer zones to reduce runoff into waterways, allow for stream channel change as a stream's contributing watershed urbanizes, and otherwise mitigate the effects of urban runoff on waters and beneficial uses of waters (may also be considered treatment measures); and,

9. Incorporation of supplemental controls to minimize changes in the volume, flow rate, timing, and duration of runoff, for a given precipitation event or events. These changes include cumulative hydromodification caused by site development.

Measures may include landscape-based measures or other features to reduce the ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 35 of 48 ends

velocity of, detain, and/or infiltrate stormwater runoff (may also be considered treatment measures).
ii. The standards and guidance review shall be completed according to the schedule below. A summary of review, revision, and implementation status shall be submitted for acceptance by the Executive Officer and reported in the Permittees' Annual Reports, beginning with the Annual Report due September 15, 2005.

1. No later than August 15, 2003: The Permittees shall submit a detailed workplan and schedule for completion of the r eview of standards and guidelines, any proposed revisions thereto and any implementation of revised standards and guidance;

2. No later than November 15, 2004: The Permittees shall submit a draft review and analysis of local standards and guidance, oppor tunities for revision, and any proposed revised standards and guidance; and,

3. No later than November 15, 2005: The Permittees shall incorporate any revised standards and guidance into their local approval processes and shall fully implement the revised standards and guidance.
k. Source Control Measures Guidance Development
The Permittees shall, as part of their improvement process, submit enhanced new development and significant redevelopment Performance Standards, which summarize source control requirements for such projects to limit pollutant generation, discharge, and runoff, to the maximum extent practicable. Examples of source control measures may include the following, which are offered as examples:
i. Indoor mat/equipment wash racks for restaurants, or covered outdoor wash racks plumbed to the sanitary sewer;
ii. Covered trash and food compactor enclosures with a sanitary sewer connection for dumpster drips and designed such that run-on to trash enclosure areas is avoided; iii. Sanitary sewer drains for swimming pools;
iv. Sanitary drained outdoor covered wash areas for vehicles, equipment, and accessories; v. Sanitary sewer drain connections to take fire sprinkler test water; vi. Storm drain system stenciling;
vii. Landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff, promotes surface infiltration where appropriate, minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and where feasible removes pollutants from stormwater runoff; and,
viii. Appropriate covers, drains, and storage precautions for outdoor material storage areas, loading docks, repair/maintenance bays, and fueling areas.

A model enhanced new development and significant redevelopment source control Performance Standard and proposed workplan for its implementation shall be submitted by August 15, 2004. Implementation shall begin no later than February 15, 2005, and the status shall thereafter be reported in the Permittees' Annual Reports beginning with the Annual Report due September 15, 2005, which shall also provide appropriate detail on projects reflecting the application of the enhanced Performance Standards consistent with Provision C.3.b, above.
l. Update General Plans
At the next scheduled update/revision of its General Plan, each Permittee shall confirm that it has incorporated water quality and watershed protection principles and policies into its General Plan or equivalent plan, to the extent necessary, to require implementation of the ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 36 of 48 ends

measures required by Provision C.3 for applicable development projects. These principles and policies shall be designed to protect natural water bodies, reduce impervious land coverage, slow runoff, and where feasible, maximize opportunities for infiltration of rainwater into soil. Such water quality and watershed protection principles and policies may include the following, which are offered as examples:
i. Minimize the amount of impervious surfaces and directly connected impervious surfaces in areas of new development and redevelopment and where feasible maximize on- site infiltration of runoff;
ii. Implement pollution prevention methods supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment. Use small collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e., the point where water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport of urban runoff and pollutants offsite and into a municipal separate storm sewer system; iii. Preserve, and where possible, create or restore areas that provide important water quality benefits, such as riparian corridors, wetlands, and buffer zones. Encourage land acquisition and/or conservation easement acquisition of such areas; iv. Limit disturbances of natural water bodies and natural drainage systems caused by development including roads, highways, and bridges;
v. Prior to making land use decisions, utilize methods available to estimate increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from projected future development. Require incorporation of structural and non- structural treatment measures to mitigate the projected increases in pollutant loads and flows;
vi. Avoid development of areas that are particularly susceptible to erosion and sediment loss; or establish development guidance that identifies these areas and protects them from erosion and sediment loss; and,
vii. Reduce pollut ants associated with vehicles and increased traffic resulting from development.

If amendments of General Plans are determined to be legally necessary to allow for implementation of any aspect of Provision C.3, such amendments shall occur by the implementation date of the corresponding component of the Provision. If legally necessary General Plan amendments cannot occur by the implementation date because of CEQA requirements or other constraints imposed by the laws applicable to amending General Plans, the Permittee shall report this to the Executive Officer as soon as possible, and no later than in the Annual Report due more than six (6) months in advance of the implementation date. Should changes to implementation dates to enable a Permittee to comply with CEQA and General Plan legal requirements be necessary, the Permittee shall recommend a new implementation date for approval by the Regional Board. m. Water Quality Review Processes
When Permittees conduct environmental review of projects in their jurisdictions, the Permittees shall evaluate water quality effects and identify appropriate mitigation measures. This requirement shall be implemented by May 15, 2004. Questions that evaluate increased pollutants and flows from the proposed project include the following, which are offered as examples:
i. Would the proposed project result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters? Consider water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical stormwater pol lutants (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen- demanding substances, and trash).

ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 37 of 48 ends

ii. Would the proposed project result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction?
iii. Would the proposed project result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff?
iv. Would the proposed project create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes? v. Would the proposed project result in increased erosion in its watershed? vi. Is the project tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the CWA Section 303(d)? If so, will it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired?
vii. Would the proposed project have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality, to marine, fresh, or wetland waters? viii. Would the proposed project have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality?
ix. Will the proposed project cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? x. Will the project impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? n. Reporting, including Pesticide Reduction Measures
The Permittees shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Provision C.3 by providing in their Annual Reports the information described in Table 1, beginning with the dates shown in Table 1 and continuing thereafter. In addition, the following information shall be collected for Annual Report submittal, beginning upon the date of adoption of this Order.
i. For all new development and significant redevelopment pr ojects which meet the Group 1 or Group 2 definitions in Provision C.3.c, collect and report the name or other identifier, type of project (using the categories in Provision C.3.c), site acreage or square footage, and square footage of new impervious surface.
ii. For projects that must implement treatment measures, report which treatment measures were used and numeric -sizing criteria employed, the O&M responsibility mechanism including responsible party, site design measures used, and source control measur es required. This information shall also be reported to the appropriate local vector control district, with additional information of access provisions for vector control district staff.

This reporting shall begin in the Annual Report following the impleme ntation date specified in Provision C.3.c.
iii. A summary of the types of pesticide reduction measures required for those new development and significant redevelopment projects to be addressed under Provision C.3.c, and the percentage of such new development and significant redevelopment projects for which pesticide reduction measures were included. These measures are required under Provision C.10.c, and relate directly to Provision C.3 requirements.

The Permittees may utilize their Annual Reports to highlight their budget constraints and suggest reprioritization of any Program activities in order to achieve the most cost effective overall Program.
o. Implementation Schedule
The Permittees shall implement the requirements of Provisions C.3.b through C.3.n according to the schedule in Table 2.

4. Public Information and Participation Performance Standards ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 38 of 48 ends

The Program shall develop a specific workplan with the Permittees based on Section 3. Task 5 of the PIP component of the Management Plan to evaluate the effectiveness of the PIP component and report on this on-going evaluation starting September 2004 for the 2003-2004 Annual Report, and annually thereafter. Effectiveness may be measured through direct or indirect means, such as observation of behavior; surveys; and/or analysis of available data on public involvement in or in response to PIP activities.

5. Performance Standards for Municipal Maintenance
The Program shall implement municipal maintenance performance standards as set forth in the Management Plan.

6. Performance Standard for Rural Public Works Maintenance and Support For the purpose of this provision, rural means any watershed or portion thereof that remains undeveloped or with primarily agricultural, grazing or open space uses, and drains to unchannelized streams. The Program shall develop, within one year after the adoption of this Order, Performance Standards, appropriate training and technical assistance requirements, and annual reporting requirements for the following rural public works maintenance and support activities: a) management and/or removal of large woody debris and live vegetation from stream channels; b) streambank stabilization projects; and, c) road construction, maintenance, and repairs in rural areas to prevent and control road-related erosion. In addition, Permittees shall develop: d) education and guidance on permitting requirements for rural public works activities so as to stress the importance of proper planning and construction.

7. Annual Reports and Workplans
a. Annual Reports
The Permittees shall submit an Annual Report to the Regional Board by September 15 of each year, documenting the status of the Program's and the Permittees' activities during the previous fiscal year, including the results of a qualitative assessment of activities implemented by the Permittees, and the performance of tasks contained in the Management Plan.

The Annual Report shall include a compilation of deliverables and milestones completed during the previous twelve-month period, as described in the Management Plan. In either the Annual Reports or the Workplans, the Permittees shall propose pertinent updates, improvements, or revisions to the Management Plan, which shall be complied with under this Order unless disapproved by the Executive Officer or acted upon in accordance with Provision C.12. As part of the Annual Report process, each Permittee shall evaluate the effectiveness of the activities completed during the reporting period.

Direct and indirect measures of effectiveness may include, but are not limited to, conformance with established Performance Standards, quantitative monitoring to assess the effectiveness of control measures, measurements or estimates of pollutant load reductions, detailed accounting of Program accomplishments, funds expended , or staff hours utilized. Methods to improve effectiveness in the implementation of tasks and activities, including development of new, or modification of existing, Performance Standards, shall be identified through the Program's review and improvement pr ocess, where appropriate. The Annual Report information shall be adequate to describe each Permittee's compliance status with respect to the provisions of this Order, and the required actions under the Management Plan and the Annual Workplans. i. Enhanced Annual Reporting Requirements for Public Information and Participation
The level of implementation of PIP activities shall be reported annually. The Program will report on the implementation of its specific workplan to evaluate effectiveness of ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 39 of 48 ends

the PIP component starting in September 2004 for the 2003-2004 Annual Report, and annually thereafter. This evaluation will be included in the General Program deliverables for General Program activities and in the deliverables by Permittees for activities that were conducted by individual Permittees. ii. Enhanced Annual Reporting Requirements for Illicit Discharge Controls The goal of the Illicit Discharge Controls component is to identify and eliminate non - permissible non-stormwater discharges associated with illegal dumping or illicit connections to the storm drain system.

Enhanced annual reporting for this Program component shall, at a minimum, include:

1. Training and coordination of staff most likely to encounter illicit discharges; and

2. Identification and follow-up for all illicit discharges and problem areas identified within each Permittee's jurisdiction, including number of responses to reports of potential impacts to water quality, complaints, spills, and other similar reports. These should be, at a minimum, characterized as to report source, nature of the report, location of the event, reported source of pollutants, and follow-up and investigation, if any. For any actual non-compliance or threatened non-compliance noted during the investigation of the report, the nature of follow-up will be reported, through resolution of the noted issue, up to and including enforcement action. iii. Enhanced Annual Reporting Requirements for Industrial and Commercial Discharge Controls
The goal of the Industrial and Commercial Discharge Controls component is to reduce or eliminate adverse water quality impacts from activities conducted at any industrial and commercial site within the Permittees' jurisdictions that have a potential for significant urban runoff pollution. Performance measures for this Program component are in the Management Plan.

Frequency of inspection of a given site or category of industry or commercial business with a potential to impact stormwater may vary depending upon known or anticipated threats to water quality, but should not be less frequent than once in five (5) years.

Inspection frequency can be reduced for sites that demonstrate a history of compliance or exhibit little threat to water quality, and increased for sites that demonstrate non-compliance, or exhibit significant threat to water quality.

Permittees shall report a summary of inspection activity for any non-compliance noted during an inspection, the nature of follow-up through resolution of the noted issue, up to and including enforcement action.
b. Annual Workplans and Updates
By 100 days from the adoption of this order and on March 1 st of each year thereafter, the Permittees shall submit draft Workplans and Updates that describe the proposed implementation of the Management Plan for the next fiscal year in areas described below.

The Workplans and Updates shall consider the status of implementation of current year activities and actions of the Permittees, problems encountered, and proposed solutions, and shall address any comments received from the Executive Officer on the previous year's Annual Report. The Workplans and Updates shall include clearly defined tasks, responsibilities, and schedules for implementation of Program and Permittee actions for the next fiscal year.

ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 40 of 48 ends

The Workplans and Updates shall be deemed to be final and incorporated into the Management Plan and this Order as of June 1 unless previously determined to be unacceptable by the Executive Officer. The Permittees shall address any comments or conditions of acceptability received from the Executive Officer on their draft Workplans and Updates prior to the submission of their Annual Report on September 15, at which time the modified Workplans and Updates shall be deemed to be incorporated into the Management Plan and this Order unless disapproved of by the Executive Officer. i. Performance Standards and Monitoring Plan Updates
Any proposal for development of new, or modification of existing, Performance Standards in accordance with Provision C.2.b, as well as alternative monitoring activities as required in Provision C.8, shall be reported in the workplans. ii. Public Information and Participation
By 100 days from the adoption of this order, the Program shall submit a specific workplan to evaluate the effectiveness of the PIP component. iii. Industrial and Commercial Discharge Controls Program Each Permittee, except the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control District, shall submit an annual update to its five-year Industrial and Commercial Business Inspection Plan (Inspection Plan) with the following information:

1. Estimated number of facilities to be inspected listed by type of business or geographical sector as outlined in the Inspection Plan; and,

2. Estimated number of high priority facilities to be inspected on a yearly basis based on priorities described in Inspection Plan.

The range of industrial and commercial businesses that will require regular inspection is not limited to those industrial sites that are required to obtain coverage under the State Board's Industrial Stormwater NPDES General Permit.
c. One-time Reports and Five-Year Inspection and Illicit Discharge Control Action Plans In addition to Annual Reports and Annual Updates, the Permittees shall provide the following information by 100 days of adoption of this order:
i. Illicit Discharge Controls
Each Permittee will develop a five-year Illicit Discharge Control Action Plan to reduce, control and/or otherwise address sources of discharge. Performance measures for this program area are in the Management Plan.

Permittees shall describe the specific procedures they use to follow-up on non- compliance.

Permittees shall identify an alternate publicized number to report illicit discharges in addition to 911.

Proposed changes to the five-year Illicit Discharge Control Action Plan shall be submitted annually through subsequent workplans.
ii. Industrial and Commercial Discharge Controls Program Each Permittee, except the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control District, shall submit a fiv e- ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 41 of 48 ends

year Industrial and Commercial Business Inspection Plan (Inspection Plan) containing the following information:

1. Estimate of total number of Industrial and Commercial sites requiring inspection, within each Permittee's jurisdiction, for the five-year period;

2. A list of types of business within the Permittee's jurisdiction with an estimate of the number of businesses in each category;

3. A description of the process for prioritizing inspections and rationale for inspecting a business or business type more frequently or before another business or business type. Each Permittee will explain criteria used for designating a business as high priority. If any geographical areas are to be targeted for yearly inspections because of their high potential for stormwater pollution, these areas should be indicated in the Inspection Plan, with optional maps indicating priority zoning, if any, in each Permittees' jurisdiction;

4. A description of Permittee's procedures for follow -up inspections, enforcement actions or referral to another agency, including appropriate time periods of action; and,

5. An Annual Update detailing inspection activities for the next fiscal year shall be due by March 1 of the year following the submission of each Annual Report. The Annual Update shall be subject to the due dates and Executive Officer approvals stated in Provision C.7.b and reporting requirements further listed in Provision C.7.b.iii.

Each Permittee shall also submit a description of a data management system that the Permittee maintains to track changes in industrial and commercial sites, as well as inspection and enforcement activity of these sites.

8. Monitoring Program
a. The Permittees shall implement a Monitoring Program that supports the development and implementation and demonstrates the effectiveness of the Management Plan and related work conducted by the Program among other goals. The Monitoring Program shall be a multi-year receiving waters monitoring plan designed to achieve the following objectives:
• Characterization of representative drainage areas and stormwater discharges, including land-use characteristics pollutant concentrations and mass loadings; • Assessment of existing or potential adverse impacts on beneficial uses caused by pollutants of concern in stormwater discharges, including an evaluation of representative receiving waters;
• Identification of potential sources of pollutants of concern found in stormwater discharges; and,
• Evaluation of effectiveness of representative stormwater pollution prevention or control measures.

The Monitoring Program shall include the following:
i. Provision for conducting and reporting the results of special studies conducted by the Permittees which are designed to determine effectiveness of BMPs or control measures, define a Performance Standard or assess the adverse impacts of a pollutant or pollutants on beneficial uses.
ii. Provisions for conducting watershed monitoring activities including: identification of major sources of pollutants of concern; evaluation of the effectiveness of control measures and BMPs; and use of physical, chemical and biological parameters and indicators as appropriate.

ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 42 of 48 ends

iii. Identification and justification of representative sampling locations, frequencies and methods, suite of pollutants to be analyzed, analytical methods, and quality assurance procedures. Alternative monitoring methods in place of these (special projects, financial participation in regional, state, or national special projects or research, literature review, visual observations, use of indicator parameters, recognition and reliance on special studies conducted by other programs, etc.) may be proposed with justification. b. Multi-Year Monitoring and Assessment Plan. In conjunction with the submissions required by Provision C.10, the Permittees shall submit, by 100 days of adoption of this order, a multi- year monitoring plan, acceptable to the Executive Offi cer, designed to comply with these Monitoring Program requirements. The monitoring and assessment plan shall include provisions for monitoring Central and South/Lower San Francisco Bay by participating in the San Francisco Estuary Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances or an acceptable alternative monitoring program.
c. Annual Monitoring Program Plan. The Permittees shall submit, by 100 days from the adoption of this order and on March 1 st of each year thereafter, an annual monitoring program plan, acceptable to the Executive Officer, that includes clearly defined tasks, responsibilities, and schedules for implementation of monitoring activities for the next fiscal year designed to comply with these Monitoring Program requirements.

9. Non-Stormwater Discharges
a. Exempted Discharges
In carrying out Prohibition A of this Order, the following non-stormwater discharges are not prohibited unless they are identified by the Permittees or the Executive Officer as sources of pollutants to receiving waters:
i. Flows from riparian habitats or wetlands;
ii. Diverted stream flows;
iii. Springs;
iv. Rising ground waters; and
v. Uncontaminated groundwater infiltration.

If any of the above categories of discharges, or sources of such discharges, are identified as sources of pollutants to receiving waters, then such categories or sources shall be addressed as conditionally exempted discharges in accordance with Provision C.9.b. b. Conditionally Exempted Discharges
The Program has developed control measures to eliminate adverse impacts of certain conditionally exempted discharges as listed in the Findings (uncontaminated pumped groundwater, foundation drains, water from crawl spaces pumps, footing drains and planned and unplanned discharges from potable water sources, and water line and hydrant flushing). The following non-stormwater discharges are not prohibited if they are identified by either the Permittees (and incorporated into the Management Plan) or the Executive Officer as not being sources of pollutants to receiving waters or if appropriate control measures to prevent or eliminate adverse impacts of such sources are developed and implemented under the Management Plan in accordance with Provision C.9.c:
i. Uncontaminated pumped groundwater;
ii. Foundation drains;
iii. Water from crawl space pumps;
iv. Footing drains;
ATTACHMENT III-a

Page 43 of 48 ends

Hayward City CouncilApril 11, 2023

Hayward City Council
April 11, 2023