Agenda Packet — Hayward City Council, December 16, 2025 (part 4 of 4)

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hayward seeks to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Hayward from the negative secondary effects associated with massage establishments operating in violation of state and local law; and WHEREAS, in order to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare, and to allow staff an opportunity to further study the impacts of such business activities on the health, safety, and welfare, and to consider possible amendments to the Hayward Municipal Code, it is necessary that this interim urgency Ordinance be enacted; and WHEREAS, California Government Code section 65858 authorizes the City Council, by four-fifths (4/5) vote, to adopt an interim ordinance to prohibit uses that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the City is studying or intends to study within a reasonable time; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is intended to be of limited duration of 45 days unless extended pursuant to existing law, and accordingly, nothing in this Ordinance is intended to effect or be construed to effect an unconstitutional taking of a property interest of any permitted use during its duration; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65858(a), a public hearing was held concerning the adoption of this Ordinance.

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

Section 1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this interim urgency ordinance is to establish a temporary moratorium on issuance of massage establishment permits, business licenses, conditional use permits and any other approvals for massage establishments in the City to allow staff the opportunity to craft a more comprehensive approach to regulating massage establishments, and to avoid the negative secondary effects on the public health, safety and welfare.

Section 2. AUTHORITY
The City Council enacts this interim urgency ordinance under the authority granted to cities by Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, Section 51031 of the California Government Code, Section 65858 of the California Government Code and Section 617 of the City Charter.

Section 3. DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this ordinance, the terms defined below shall have the following meanings:

ATTACHMENT II

Page 3 of 6 ends

A. "Massage" shall mean the scientific manipulation of the soft tissues. For purposes of this definition, the terms "massage", "massage therapy", and "bodywork" shall have the same meaning.

B. "Massage Establishment" shall mean a fixed location where massage is performed for compensation, excluding those locations where massage is only provided on an out-call basis.

C. "Massage Practitioner" shall mean a person who is certified by the California Massage Therapy Council pursuant to CA Business and Professions Code Section 4604.2 and who administers massage for compensation.

D. “Massage Therapist” shall mean person who is certified by the California Massage Therapy Council under CA Business and Professions Code Section 4604 and who administers massage for compensation. For purposes of this definition, "Massage therapist", "Massage Technician", and "Masseuse" shall have the same meaning.

E. "Managing Employee" shall mean any employee of a massage establishment who has been designated by the massage establishment permittee to manage the business.

F. “Permit” shall mean a Massage Establishment Permit issued pursuant to Chapter 6, Article 10 of the Hayward Municipal Code, as well as any land use entitlement or use permit issued pursuant to Chapter 10 Article 1 of the Hayward Municipal Code, and any business license issued pursuant to Chapter 8, Article 1 of the Hayward Municipal Code.

G. “Person” shall mean any individual, co-partnership, firm, association, joint stock company, corporation, joint venture, or combination of individuals of whatever form or character.

Section 4. FINDINGS
The City Council of the City of Hayward hereby finds:

A. The City has received applications for issuance of massage establishment permits, as well as applications for business licenses and use permits for the establishment and/or conducting of massage.

B. The City is authorized by virtue of the California State Constitution and California Government Code Section 51031 to regulate massage establishments and massage practitioners by imposing reasonable standards relative to the skill and experience of massage practitioners and reasonable conditions on the operation of massage establishments.

C. There is a significant risk of injury to massage clients by improperly trained and/or educated massage practitioners and the City has a legitimate interest in providing reasonable safeguards against injury and economic loss to such massage clients.

D. Massage establishments are businesses which involve significant intimate contact between persons which creates opportunities for acts of prostitution and other unlawful sexual activity to occur.

E. The establishment of reasonable standards for the issuance of permits and restrictions on the operations of massage establishments would serve to reduce the risk of illegal activity.

ATTACHMENT II

Page 4 of 6 ends

F. The Hayward Police Department has become aware of instances of commercial sex work taking place at permitted and unpermitted massage businesses within the city, which have resulted in criminal investigations and prosecutions.

G. There are currently 17 permitted massage establishments in the City, with 10 of those establishments having complaints of illicit activity.

H. On October 8, 2025, the Police Chief revoked a massage establishment permit for a business in Downtown Hayward based on evidence of commercial sexual activity taking place on the premises
I. There is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare because without the moratorium, a massage establishment could be granted a license or an overconcentration of massage establishments could occur within the City without full protection to the City from the secondary effects of massage establishments.

J. The City is currently studying revised regulations to preserve the public health, safety and welfare of its citizens.

Section 5. APPLICABILITY
The regulations set forth in this Ordinance shall apply to the issuance of massage establishment permits issued pursuant to Chapter 6, Article 10 of the Hayward Municipal Code, as well as any land use entitlement or use permit issued pursuant to Chapter 10 Article 1 of the Hayward Municipal Code, and any business license issued pursuant to Chapter 8, Article 1 of the Hayward Municipal Code, and any other applicable entitlements or approvals for the establishment and/or operation of massage establishments. A temporary moratorium is not placed on the issuance of renewals of currently valid business licenses, massage establishment permits, or other renewable approvals applicable to massage establishments, unless the application for renewal also involves a change in ownership, in which case it shall be subject to the temporary moratorium imposed herein.

Section 6. REGULATION
No application for massage establishment permits, as those terms are defined herein, business licenses, use permits or other applicable entitlements for the establishment of a massage establishment shall be considered or approved and no such permits, business licenses, use permits or other applicable entitlements shall be issued unless the application was deemed complete and approved prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. The preceding sentence shall also apply to any permit applications involving a change in ownership of an existing permitted massage establishment. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Hayward Municipal Code or any other ordinance or regulation of the City to the contrary, no permit or entitlement for use or environmental document which either directly or indirectly has as its result the approval or allowance of a massage establishment, shall be approved, or granted while this Ordinance remains in effect.

ATTACHMENT II

Page 5 of 6 ends

Section 7. ENFORCEMENT
(a) It shall be the duty of the Chief of Police, and all officers and employees of the City of Hayward to enforce all provisions of this Ordinance.
(b) Any person, firm or corporation, whether as principal or agent, employee or otherwise, violating or causing or permitting the violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment in the Alameda County Jail for a term not exceeding one hundred eighty days or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Such person, firm or corporation shall be deemed to be guilty of a separate offense for each day during any portion of which a violation of this Ordinance is committed, continued or permitted by such person, firm or corporation, and shall be punishable as herein provided. (c) As an alternative to the provisions described in subsection (b), violations of this Ordinance may be enforced administratively pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Hayward Municipal Code.
(d) Any violation of this Ordinance shall constitute a public nuisance. In addition to any other remedies provided by law, the City may summarily abate such nuisance or may bring a civil suit to enjoin or abate the violation.

Section 8. NO TAKING OF PROPERTY INTENDED
Nothing in this Ordinance shall be interpreted to effect an unconstitutional taking of the property right of any person. If the City Council determined, based on specific evidence in the administrative record, that the application of one or more provisions of this Ordinance to a proposed project would effect an unconstitutional taking of a property right, the City Council shall disregard such provision or provisions to the extent necessary to avoid such unconstitutional taking.

Section 9. California Environmental Quality Act. Adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review as the adoption of this Ordinance does not qualify as a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), under Public Resource Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15320, 15378, and 15061(b) (3) as there is no possibility that such action would cause either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment.

Section 10. If any section, subsection, paragraph, or sentence of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, is for any reason found to be unconstitutional, invalid, or beyond the authority of the City of Hayward by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, and the City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, clause or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, clauses or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable.

ATTACHMENT II

Page 6 of 6 ends

Section 11. This Ordinance is an ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, and shall take effect immediately in accordance with California Government Code Section 36937 and section 620 of the Charter of the City of Hayward, upon the approval of four-fifths of the City Council and shall terminate in 45 days unless extended by the City Council in accordance with California Government Code Section 65858.

ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hayward, held the ___ day of __, 2025, by Council Member _______,
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
CITY OF HAYWARD Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: LB 25-047
DATE: December 16, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Clerk

SUBJECT
Mayor Pro Tempore Election: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Election of Mayor Pro Tempore of the City of Hayward for 2026

RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) electing the Mayor Pro Tempore.

SUMMARY
It is the Hayward City Council’s policy to elect the Mayor Pro Tempore to perform the duties of the Mayor during the Mayor’s absence or disability. The current term is based on the calendar year.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Mayor Pro Tempore List
CITY OF HAYWARD Page 1 of 1 Printed on 12/12/2025
powered by Legistar™

Page 1 of 2 ends

DATE: December 16, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Clerk
SUBJECT: Mayor Pro Tempore Election: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Election of Mayor Pro Tempore of the City of Hayward for 2026

RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) electing the Mayor Pro Tempore.

BACKGROUND
Below is the pertinent excerpt from the 2023 Council Member Handbook regarding the Mayor Pro Tempore. Attachment III is the list of members who have previously served as Mayor Pro Tempore. Based on the guidelines listed below, Council Member Syrop would be the next eligible Council Member to serve as Mayor Pro Tempore should the Council choose to continue the traditional selection process.

MAYOR PRO TEMPORE
In even number years, the Council shall elect the Mayor Pro Tempore following the installation of those newly elected Council Members. In odd years, the Council shall elect the Mayor Pro Tempore at the end of the calendar year.

The Mayor Pro Tempore shall serve at the pleasure of the Council for the term of one year and shall be elected and removed by the affirmative votes of at least five (5) members of Council.

The Council shall elect a Council Member with the most seniority as a Council Member and who has not previously served as Mayor Pro Tempore. In the event two Council Members begin service in the same year, the Council Member with the highest number of votes will serve as Mayor Pro Tempore. (See City Council Minutes, 4/28/92)

Page 2 of 2 ends

Prior to being elected as Mayor Pro Tempore, a Council Member shall have served at least two years on the Council. The term of the Mayor Pro Tempore shall be based on the calendar year January 1st to December 31st. (Resolution 98-120 and Council Minutes, 6/26/01)
The Mayor Pro Tempore shall perform the duties of the Mayor during the Mayor’s absence or disability. (Sec. 605, City Charter)

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

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.

NEXT STEPS
All related documents will be updated accordingly.

Prepared and Recommended by: Miriam Lens, City Clerk
Approved by:
________________________________
Jennifer Ott, City Manager

ATTACHMENT II

Page 1 of 1 ends

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 25-___
Introduced by Council Member _________

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ELECTION OF MAYOR PRO TEMPORE OF THE CITY OF HAYWARD FOR 2026
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted an election to select the Mayor Pro Tempore on December 10, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City Council elected Council Member Roche to serve as Mayor Pro Tempore of the City of Hayward from January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted an election to select the Mayor Pro Tempore for 2026 on December 16, 2025.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hayward that it hereby elects Council Member __________________ as Mayor Pro Tempore of the City of Hayward for a term from January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2026.

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA _______________________, 2025.

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

Page 1 of 2 ends

MAYOR PRO TEMPORE

COUNCIL MEMBER RESOLUTION DATE
William Ward 92-100 04/28/1992
Nicholas Randall 93-084 04/20/1993
Doris Rodriquez 94-069 04/19/1994
Joseph Hilson 95-71 04/18/1995
Ron Hulteen 96-067 04/02/1996
Olden Henson 97-063 05/13/1997
Matt Jimenez 98-122 06/30/1998
William Ward 99-112 06/22/1999
Joseph Hilson 00-043 Term 4/04/2001 - 6/30/2001
Kevin Dowling 01-101, adopted 6/26/2001 Term 7/1/2001 - 6/30/2002 Doris Rodriquez 02-093, adopted 6/25/2002 Term 7/1/2002 -6/30/2003 Olden Henson 03-117, adopted 7-15-2003 Term 7/1/2003 - 6/30/2004 Matt Jimenez 04-106, adopted 6-22-2004 Term 7/1/2004 - 6/30/2005 Matt Jimenez 05-089, adopted 6-28-2005 Term 7/1/2005 - 6/30/2006 Barbara Halliday 06-091, adopted 7-11-2006 Term 7/1/2006 - 6/30/2007 Bill Quirk 07-105, adopted 7/10/2007 Term 7/1/2007 - 06/30/2008 Kevin Dowling 08-109, adopted 7/8/2008 Term 7/1/2008 - 06/30/2009

ATTACHMENT III

Page 2 of 2 ends

MAYOR PRO TEMPORE

COUNCIL MEMBER RESOLUTION DATE
Olden Henson 09-104, adopted 6/30/2009 Term 7/1/2009 - 6/30/2010 Francisco Zermeño 10-119, adopted 07/13/2010 Term 7/1/2010 - 6/30/2011 Barbara Halliday 11-106, adopted 06/28/2011 Term 7/1/2011 - 6/30/2012 Marvin Peixoto 12-124, adopted 7/10/2012 Term 7/1/2012 - 6/30/2013 Mark Salinas 13-108, adopted 6/25/2013 Term 7/1/2013 - 6/30/2014 Greg Jones 14-113, adopted 7/8/2014 Term 7/1/2014 - 6/30/2015 Al Mendall 15-140, adopted 7/14/2015 Term 7/1/2015 - 6/30/2016 Sara Lamnin 16-135, adopted 7/12/2016 Term 7/1/2016 - 6/30/2017 Elisa Márquez 17-105, adopted 6/27/2017 Term 7/1/2017 - 12/30/2018 Francisco Zermeño 18-249, adopted 12/11/2018 Term 1/1/2019 - 12/31/2019 Mark Salinas 19-232, adopted 12/3/2019 Term 1/1/2020 - 12/31/2020 Aisha Wahab 20-225, adopted 12/15/2020 Term 1/1/2021 - 12/31/2021 Sara Lamnin 21-239, adopted 12/7/2021 Term 1/1/2022 - 12/31/2022 Angela Andrews 22-306 adopted 12/13/2022 Term 1/1/2023 - 12/31/2023 Francisco Zermeño 23-270, adopted 12/5/2023 Term 1/1/2024 - 12/31/2024 Julie Roche 24-252, adopted 12/10/2024 Term 1/1/2025 - 12/31/2025 CITY OF HAYWARD Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: RPT 25-097
DATE: December 16, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Manager

SUBJECT
Update on Federal Advocacy and City Legislative Priorities for the 2026 Federal Legislative Session

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council receive and comment on a presentation from Capitol Advocacy Partners regarding federal advocacy efforts, including updates relevant to the City’s Legislative Platform for the 2026 federal legislative session.

Capitol Advocacy Partners (CAP) serves as the City’s federal legislative advocate and supports the City’s Legislative Platform by monitoring congressional activity, assisting with federal funding strategies, and coordinating with congressional and agency staff.

Over the past year, CAP has assisted the City in securing several major federal and state awards and continues to support pending competitive applications. CAP has also monitored federal administrative changes following the recent government shutdown, including appropriations delays, updates to Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) eligibility, federal workforce reductions, and shifts in federal grantmaking and procurement requirements. These developments inform preparations for the 2026 federal legislative session and help identify emerging opportunities and risks for the City’s priority projects.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
CITY OF HAYWARD Page 1 of 2 Printed on 12/12/2025
powered by Legistar™
File #: RPT 25-097
CITY OF HAYWARD Page 2 of 2 Printed on 12/12/2025
powered by Legistar™

Page 1 of 5 ends

SUMMARY
This report provides an update on federal advocacy efforts and recent federal legislative and administrative developments that may affect the City’s operations, funding streams, and policy priorities. Capitol Advocacy Partners (CAP) serves as the City’s federal legislative advocate and supports the City’s Legislative Platform by monitoring congressional activity, assisting with federal funding strategies, and coordinating with congressional and agency staff.

BACKGROUND
Since 2014, CAP has advanced the City’s federal funding priorities, supporting competitive applications, coordinating with federal agencies, and monitoring congressional activity relevant to the City’s Legislative Platform.

DATE: December 16, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Update on Federal Advocacy and City Legislative Priorities for the 2026 Federal Legislative Session

Page 2 of 5 ends

In January 2025, the City received $15,000,000 through the Federal Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) for the Hayward Water Pollution Control Facility Improvements – Phase II. This award followed extensive coordination among City staff, CAP, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and congressional offices during development of the project concept and related advocacy efforts.

In addition, the City received $1,112,700 through the Alameda County Positive Youth Development Grant. CAP worked with City staff to prepare and submit the application, contributing grant writing and coordinating the submission while staff provided required data, program details, and background documentation. Although CAP’s contracted advocacy responsibilities apply only to the federal level, their technical and grant-preparation support contributed significantly to securing this award.

In 2025, CAP also assisted the City in securing $1,908,067 from the California Board of State and Community Corrections under the Proposition 47 program. This funding expands the Hayward Navigation Center’s diversion and reentry services for adults experiencing homelessness, mental illness, or substance-use disorders. The program will serve at least 48 individuals.

A summary of federal funding awarded to the City as a result of CAP’s assistance is shown in Table 1. These include both competitive grants and Community Project Funding (CPF) awards secured for the City as part of the federal budget process.

Table 1. Summary of Federal and State Grants
Project Description Year Amount
FEMA: Assistance to Firefighters Grant 2025 $1,784,580
CA BSCC: Proposition 47 Grant, Cohort 5 2025 $1,908,067 Alameda County for Positive Youth Development Grant 2025 $1,112,700 WRDA - Hayward Water Pollution Control Facility Improvements – Phase II Project
2025 $15,000,000
FY24 Community Project Funding: St.Regis Facility 2024 $1,930,000 Alameda County Delinquency Prevention Network (DPN) Grant 2023 $1,837,500 FY23 Community Project Funding: Hayward Evaluation and
Response Teams (HEART)
2023 $709,000
CA Behavioral Health Justice Intervention Services Grant 2023 $400,000 FY22 Community Project Funding: Stack Center 2022 $1,500,000 COVID-19 Pandemic Funding for Police Overtime 2020 $132,068

Page 3 of 5 ends

CA BSCC: Proposition 47 Grant 2019 $999,881
U.S. DOJ Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation
Planning Grant
2016 $167,995
Alameda County Delinquency Prevention Network (DPN) Grant 2016 $1,270,000 U.S. DOJ Community Oriented Policing (COPS) Grant 2016 $750,000 These prior and pending funding activities provide the foundation for the City’s upcoming federal advocacy and inform preparation for the 2026 federal legislative session.

DISCUSSION
Several major developments have emerged at the federal level that are likely to affect the City’s funding, operations, and resident needs. These situations are primarily the result of policy changes enacted since the inauguration of the current presidential administration in January 2025. Most prominent among these are the delays caused by the federal government shutdown that was in effect between October 1 and November 12, 2025, as well as the upcoming expiration of Affordable Care Act subsidies. Other developments include changes to SNAP policies, Medicaid eligibility, reductions in the federal workforce, and changes to federal grantmaking guidelines.

After a 43-day shutdown, the federal government resumed operations on November 12, 2025.

Most agencies are operating under a continuing resolution through January 30, 2026, which maintains prior-year funding levels and limits new program activity. While agencies have resumed processing pending applications and reimbursements, delays in issuing new notices of funding opportunities are expected until full-year appropriations are enacted. Congress must complete the remaining nine FY 2026 appropriations bills by January 30, 2026. Several of these bills—particularly Transportation–HUD and the Commerce–Justice–Science bill, which includes the Byrne Justice program—may include funding that supports City operations and public safety activities.

Enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies are set to expire on December 31, 2025, and proposals under consideration include converting the enhanced subsidies into Health Savings Account–based support. This shift could lower premiums but increase out-of-pocket costs, potentially affecting access to care for residents enrolled through Covered California.

Approximately 82,000 Alameda County residents are enrolled in medical insurance through Covered California, with an estimated 5,750 residents projected to lose coverage if subsidies expire.

SNAP remains funded through September 30, 2026; however, eligibility changes adopted in July 2025 expanded work requirements from adults under age 55 to adults under age 65 and removed exemptions previously available to unhoused adults and certain categories of lawful non-citizen residents. These changes may reduce benefit access for vulnerable populations in

Page 4 of 5 ends

Hayward and Alameda County and could increase demand for local safety-net and housingsupport programs.

New Medicaid policies enacted in July 2025 authorize states to impose work requirements and reduce the federal matching rate beginning in 2027. Approximately 20.4 percent of Hayward residents and 17.8 percent of Alameda County residents currently receive Medicaid, and coverage losses could increase demand for local health and supportive services.

Federal workforce reductions that began in early 2025 have slowed agency response times and extended federal grant-processing timelines, particularly at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Reduced staffing has limited the availability of program officers to review applications, issue guidance, or provide technical assistance, which may affect the timing of federal awards for City projects.

Access to federal grant funds may also be affected by an August 2025 Executive Order increased federal oversight of discretionary grants and directs agencies to align funding decisions with Administration policy priorities. City departments should coordinate closely with federal program officers to ensure timely reporting, drawdowns, and adherence to updated expectations.

Throughout 2025, CAP met with congressional offices and federal agencies to advance the City’s federal priorities. Engagements included discussions with the offices of Senators Padilla and Butler; Representative Swalwell; and federal program staff overseeing transportation, housing, infrastructure, and public safety programs. CAP continues to monitor grant programs relevant to City priorities—including transportation safety, climate resilience, broadband, water and wastewater improvements, and public safety—and is preparing for grant cycles expected to reopen in early 2026.

CPF guidance for the FY 2027 cycle has not yet been released. The CPF process allows the City to propose projects to its federal elected officials for inclusion as line items in annual federal budget bills. Preliminary discussions with congressional offices indicate that committees may continue to prioritize smaller, highly targeted projects with clear local benefits and limited long-term federal obligations. Offices representing majority-party members have conveyed a preference for jurisdictions whose policies and program priorities align more closely with current federal guidance.

The 2026 federal legislative session is expected to focus on appropriations, infrastructure implementation, and expanded administrative oversight of federal programs. Jurisdictions whose local policies differ substantially from current federal positions may face elevated scrutiny during grant review or reduced competitiveness in discretionary programs.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact as a result of this report.

Page 5 of 5 ends

The activities described in this report are supported by an existing contract with CAP that is paid for out of multiple funds, including the general fund. The contract amount is $69,996 in FY 2025, $72,756 in FY 2026, $74,976 in FY 2027, $77,592 in FY 2028, and $80,308 in FY 2029, for a total of $375,628 over five years.

Since 2014, CAP has assisted the City in securing approximately $37.5 million in federal and state funds awarded to the City. These external funds offset capital and operational costs that would otherwise fall to local resources, and the cumulative award amounts significantly exceed the annual cost of the contract.

STRATEGIC ROADMAP
The Legislative Program and CAP’s advocacy efforts are intended to reflect and support all six Strategic Priorities as outlined in the current Strategic Roadmap: 1) Enhance Community Safety and Quality of Life; 2) Preserve, Protect and Produce Housing for All; 3) Confront Climate Crisis and Champion Environmental Justice; 4) Invest in Infrastructure; 5) Grow the Economy; and 6) Strengthen Organizational Health.

NEXT STEPS
CAP will continue to monitor federal legislative activity, appropriations timelines, and pending administrative actions that may affect City programs and funding opportunities. Staff will work with CAP to develop project proposals for the FY 2027 Community Project Funding cycle and prepare for competitive grant programs expected to reopen once full-year appropriations are enacted. Updates will be provided to the City Council as significant developments occur or as federal guidance becomes available.

Prepared by: Vanessa Vergara, Client Manager, Capitol Advocacy Partners Rick Rivera, Management Analyst II
Recommended by: Jayanti Addleman, Interim City Manager
Approved by:

Jennifer Ott, City Manager
CITY OF HAYWARD Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: RPT 25-099
DATE: December 16, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Manager

SUBJECT
Update on State Advocacy and Legislative Developments for the 2025-26 Session

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council receive an update from Townsend Public Affairs regarding state legislative and budget developments relevant to the City’s policy and operational priorities for the 2025-26 Legislative Session.

SUMMARY
This report provides an update on state legislative actions and budget developments from the 2025 California Legislative Session that affect the City’s operations, funding opportunities, and policy responsibilities. Townsend Public Affairs (TPA) serves as the City’s state legislative advocate, supporting the City’s Legislative Platform by tracking state bill activity, monitoring budget deliberations, coordinating with legislative and agency staff, and identifying potential funding opportunities for City departments.

California’s Legislature operates on a calendar-year cycle. As a result, most early policy discussions, bill drafting, and negotiations occurred during FY 2024-25, with final votes, gubernatorial actions, and statewide budget decisions occurring in the current fiscal year. Many of the measures enacted during this session will take effect on January 1, 2026, positioning their impacts squarely within the City’s ongoing operational, planning, and service-delivery responsibilities.

Key developments affecting cities include modernization of the Brown Act, updates to land use and housing streamlining provisions, changes to labor and contracting requirements, regional transportation finance legislation, updates to immigration response policies, and significant fiscal actions related to climate and infrastructure, including the reauthorization and renaming of the State’s Cap-and-Trade program as Cap-and-Invest. These developments inform the City’s legislative engagement and highlight areas where state actions may influence local priorities and implementation timelines.

ATTACHMENTS
CITY OF HAYWARD Page 1 of 2 Printed on 12/12/2025
powered by Legistar™
File #: RPT 25-099
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II 2025 State Legislative Overview Memorandum CITY OF HAYWARD Page 2 of 2 Printed on 12/12/2025
powered by Legistar™

Page 1 of 6 ends

California’s Legislature operates on a calendar-year cycle. As a result, most early policy discussions, bill drafting, and negotiations occurred during FY 2024–25, with final votes, gubernatorial actions, and statewide budget decisions occurring in the current fiscal year.

Many of the measures enacted during this session will take effect on January 1, 2026, positioning their impacts squarely within the City’s ongoing operational, planning, and service-delivery responsibilities.

DATE: December 16, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Update on State Advocacy and Legislative Developments for the 2025–26 Session

Page 2 of 6 ends

BACKGROUND
Townsend Public Affairs (TPA) has represented the City of Hayward since 2009 as its state legislative advocate, supporting the City’s Legislative Platform by monitoring state legislation, tracking budget deliberations, coordinating with legislative and agency staff, and assisting departments in identifying and preparing for state funding opportunities. TPA’s work spans all City departments and focuses on aligning emerging state actions with local operational needs, long-term planning efforts, and major capital priorities.

Since 2016, TPA has also supported the City in pursuing State funding through the annual budget process. In recent fiscal years, the City has secured several targeted appropriations for community facilities, housing, health services, and local public safety initiatives. A list of prior year state budget allocations facilitated by TPA is shown in table 1, below.

Table 1. Summary of State Earmarks
Project Description Year Amount
The Stack Youth and Family Center – Phase II 2024 $2,500,000 St. Rose Hospital Sub-Acute Facility Modernization 2024 $2,000,000 Hayward Evaluation and Response Teams (HEART) 2024 $1,212,000 Alameda County Delinquency Prevention Network (DPN) Grant 2023 $1,837,500 Project Reclamation – Scattered Sites Housing Project 2023 $5,400,000 South Hayward Youth and Family Center 2022 $1,000,000
Hayward Navigation Center – Operations Support 2022 $662,000 California’s Legislature operates on a calendar-year cycle. As a result, much of the initial policy development, bill drafting, and committee activity for the first half of the biennial 2025–26 Legislative Session occurred coincided with the City’s FY 2024–25. This period included the introduction of new legislative proposals, negotiations over early budget packages, and the development of policy initiatives related to climate, housing, and public governance. Many of these efforts served as precursors to the final legislation acted upon in the later months of the session.

The State entered the 2025 legislative year facing a significant budget deficit and ongoing fiscal constraints, which shaped negotiations across policy areas and influenced the Administration’s and Legislature’s approach to new program creation or expansion. Trailer bills enacted during the summer and early fall of 2025 finalized the State’s budget framework and implemented statutory adjustments needed to carry out the Budget Act. These actions occurred alongside continuing discussions about long-term climate funding, regulatory reforms, and statewide governance modernization.

Page 3 of 6 ends

This early-session activity provides context for understanding the legislation and fiscal actions enacted later in 2025, many of which will take effect on January 1, 2026, and are relevant to the City’s current fiscal-year operations.

DISCUSSION
The 2025 California Legislative Session concluded on October 12, 2025, following a year marked by sustained fiscal pressure, policy negotiations between the Legislature and the Administration, and a series of late-session amendments to major bills affecting local governments. The first year of the two-year session generated significant activity in areas central to City operations, including transparency and public governance, land use and housing, climate and energy policy, public safety, labor and contracting, and regional transportation finance. Many enacted measures will take effect on January 1, 2026, and will influence local planning, operational timelines, administrative procedures, and long-term resource availability.

The State’s fiscal environment shaped much of the session’s final actions, including actions for the second year of the two year session In its November Fiscal Outlook for the upcoming fiscal year the Legislative Analyst’s Office projected an approximately $18 billion budget deficit for the upcoming fiscal year and identified multi-year structural shortfalls driven by slower revenue growth, reduced capital gains, and ongoing program commitments. The LAO noted that reserves have been drawn down in recent years, leaving the State with limited capacity to absorb future volatility. These conditions suggest tighter competition for State grants, increased scrutiny of local assistance appropriations, and potential adjustments to ongoing programs as the Legislature develops the 2026 Budget Act.

The Legislature also advanced several governance and transparency measures with direct implications for local procedures. One of the most significant of these actions was the consolidation of multiple remote‐meeting proposals into a single modernization framework under SB 707, intended to clarify statewide standards for public access and remote participation.

SB 707 updates the Brown Act by establishing new requirements for certain large public agencies to provide two-way telephonic or audiovisual access for all meetings of the legislative body and by defining when remote participation may occur without publicly posting a member’s location. The bill also introduces new agenda translation requirements for languages spoken by at least 20 percent of the community that reports speaking English “less than well,” with a maximum of three required translations and liability protections for inadvertent errors. Additional provisions address disruptions to remote access, allow public posting of translated agendas near meeting locations, and include a short implementation delay. Although further refinements may be considered in upcoming sessions, the changes will require the City to update meeting procedures, translation workflows, and related technology when the law takes effect on July 1, 2026. The teleconferencing flexibilities embedded within the new laws take effect January 1, 2026, to provide uninterrupted flexibility to local elected officials.

Page 4 of 6 ends

As part of the broader climate and infrastructure negotiations concluding the 2025 session, the Legislature advanced several measures intended to stabilize ongoing funding for statewide climate, water, transportation, and community resilience programs. A central component was SB 105, which implements the expenditure plan for Proposition 4—the statewide climate bond approved by voters in 2024. SB 105 allocates more than $3.2 billion for programs supporting safe drinking water, drought and flood resilience, wildfire and forest health, coastal protection, extreme heat mitigation, biodiversity, climate-smart agriculture, clean air investments, and outdoor access. These investments are expected to support forthcoming competitive grant programs and formula allocations for local governments, including cities, in 2026 and beyond.

In parallel, the Legislature acted on several energy and climate-related bills intended to align statewide regulatory and funding structures with long-term climate goals. This included the reauthorization and renaming of the State’s Cap-and-Trade program as Cap-and-Invest, which establishes a new expenditure framework for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund revenues.

While most associated funding is distributed through statewide programs, some portions— such as the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program—may continue to offer competitive opportunities for local transit-oriented housing and infrastructure.

In the area of housing, land use, and homelessness, the Legislature focused on refining major policy changes adopted earlier in the year and updating statutory timelines and definitions governing local implementation. A primary measure was SB 158, a land-use trailer bill intended to clarify elements of the Housing Crisis Act and the CEQA streamlining provisions enacted during the June 30 budget deadline. SB 158 establishes updated timelines for ministerial review under the Housing Accountability Act, refines the definition of “natural and protected lands,” adjusts deadlines for infill housing approvals, and narrows eligibility for certain CEQA exemptions. The bill also directs the State to prepare for administration of Round 7 of the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) Program, with initial disbursements expected for eligible jurisdictions beginning September 2026. HHAP has been an important funding source for the City in prior rounds, supporting operations of the Hayward Navigation Center, and the forthcoming guidelines will help determine potential future eligibility and program alignment.

Land use was also addressed through SB 79, which establishes statewide transit-oriented development standards for jurisdictions in “urban transit counties,” including Alameda County. The bill requires ministerial approval of qualifying residential projects near certain transit stations and applies two tiers of development standards based on service frequency.

For Hayward, applicability will primarily center on the Hayward and South Hayward BART stations, as the City has relatively few transit hubs that meet the statutory thresholds. SB 79 allows for local alternative plans that meet State criteria and includes limited exceptions for high fire zones, sea-level rise areas, and historic resources. Implementation begins July 1, 2026, with full applicability aligned to the start of the next RHNA cycle.

The Legislature took steps to address federal immigration enforcement activity, with an emphasis on transparency and coordination between State agencies, schools, and local jurisdictions. These measures clarify requirements for officer identification, communication

Page 5 of 6 ends

with families, and the handling of immigration-related activities on school campuses. While these policies have generated statewide attention, their direct operational impact on the City is expected to be limited.

Additionally, legislative changes were enacted in the labor and public employment area that may affect City contracting practices, timelines, and overall cost exposure. The most consequential measure for local governments was AB 339, which requires public agencies to provide recognized employee organizations with at least 30 days’ advance written notice before issuing a request for proposals, request for quotes, or renewing or extending contracts for services performed by represented classifications. The required notice must include anticipated contract duration, scope, estimated cost, any available solicitation materials, and the justification for the contract. While the bill includes an emergency exception, these procedural steps may lengthen procurement timelines, require earlier budget planning, and increase administrative workload to ensure compliance. The changes may also affect the City’s ability to contract for specialized or short-term services.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact as a result of this report.

The activities described in this report are supported by an existing contract with Townsend Public Affairs for $72,000, allocated across the General Fund, Water Fund, Measure D Recycling Fund, and Wastewater Fund based on service distribution. The General Fund share is $49,680, with the remaining $22,320 funded by the Water, Recycling, and Wastewater funds.

STRATEGIC ROADMAP
The Legislative Program and Townsend’s advocacy efforts are intended to reflect and support all six Strategic Priorities as outlined in the current Strategic Roadmap: 1) Enhance Community Safety and Quality of Life; 2) Preserve, Protect and Produce Housing for All; 3) Confront Climate Crisis and Champion Environmental Justice; 4) Invest in Infrastructure; 5) Grow the Economy; and 6) Strengthen Organizational Health.

NEXT STEPS
Staff will continue monitoring the implementation timelines and administrative guidance associated with the major bills enacted during the 2025 Legislative Session, including SB 707, SB 105, SB 158, and SB 79. As the State develops program guidelines for the 2024 climate bond and prepares for the launch of Round 7 of the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention Program, staff will evaluate funding opportunities to support City priorities in water, stormwater, wildfire mitigation, urban greening, and homelessness services. Staff will also review forthcoming regulatory updates and administrative procedures related to public meeting requirements, land-use review processes, and ministerial housing approvals to ensure local policies and workflows remain in compliance with State law.

Page 6 of 6 ends

Through the City’s contract with Townsend Public Affairs, staff will continue to receive regular legislative updates, budget analyses, and funding opportunity alerts as the second year of the 2025–26 Legislative Session progresses. Staff will return to Council with additional updates as needed or when significant State actions require adjustments to local programs, policies, or funding strategies.

Prepared by: Rick Rivera, Management Analyst II
Recommended by: Jayanti Addleman, Interim City Manager
Approved by:

Jennifer Ott, City Manager

ATTACHMENT II

Page 1 ends

M E M O R A N D U M
To: City of Hayward
Mayor Mark Salinas
Mayor Pro Tempore Julie Roche
Members of the City Council
From: Townsend Public Affairs
Niccolo De Luca, Vice President and Chief Advocacy Officer Carlin Shelby, Deputy Director
Alex Gibbs, Grants Director
Date: November 18, 2025
Subject: 2025 Legislative Session: Overview and Key Actions 2025 STATE LEGISLATIVE OVERVIEW
Strategic Engagement on Priority State Legislation
During the 2025 California Legislative Session, the City of Hayward closely monitored and engaged on priority legislation affecting housing production, land-use authority, transportation investments, fiscal sustainability, and public governance. Although the City did not take formal positions, TPA actively worked with bill authors, committee staff, regional partners, and statewide associations to shape outcomes, secure amendments, and protect Hayward’s operational and policy interests.

Bill Number
& Author
Title / Description Actions (City of Hayward / TPA
Engagement)
Outcome
AB 259
(Rubio)
Open meetings: local
agencies: teleconferences.

Expands Brown Act
teleconferencing flexibility and
accessibility. Incorporated into
SB 707.

Coordinated with regional city
manager/city clerk networks and the
League of California Cities to track
implementation impacts; monitored
integration into SB 707.

Incorporated
into SB 707;
Signed into
law.

AB 306
(Schultz)
Building regulations: state
building standards.

Significantly restricts local
amendments to residential
building codes unless justified
by climatic, geological, or
topographical conditions.

Engaged with author’s office and
committee staff to advocate for
broader exceptions; worked with
regional planning partners to
analyze impacts on Hayward’s
green building requirements;
coordinated with HCD on
applicability timeline.

Incorporated
into Budget
Trailer Bill AB
130; Signed
into law.

AB 650
(Papan)
Housing element: RHNA
refinements. Proposed
adjustments to improve
coordination between local
governments and HCD in
Worked with regional partners to
support technical refinements
aligned with Hayward’s Housing
Element; briefed staff on
implications for future RHNA cycles;
monitored negotiations with HCD.

Vetoed by
Governor.

ATTACHMENT II

Page 2 ends

housing element assessment
processes.

SB 63
(Wiener)
Bay Area Transportation
Revenue Measure. Authorizes
a five-county transportation
tax measure for 2026 ballot,
including rail, transit,
multimodal, and safety
corridors.

Monitored amendments affecting
Alameda County jurisdictions;
coordinated with regional staff and
transportation coalitions; engaged
legislative staff to ensure East Bay
funding parity and transparency.

Two-year bill;
eligible for
2026 action.

SB 79
(Wiener)
Statewide TOD upzoning.

Establishes by-right housing
near transit, authorizes transit
agencies to adopt objective
standards, preempts certain
local zoning controls.

Worked with author’s office and
Senate Housing Committee to
monitor amendments; coordinated
with AC Transit/BART and regional
partners to assess station-area
impacts; advised Hayward on
interaction with Housing Element
and local TOD plans.

Signed into
law.

SB 239
(Arreguín)
Open meetings:
teleconferencing for
subsidiary bodies. Updated
Brown Act rules for advisory
bodies; integrated into SB
707.

Worked with local clerks and
statewide governance partners to
track alignment with Hayward’s
existing commission/committee
practices; supported technical
clean-up amendments.

Incorporated
into SB 707;
Signed into
law.

SB 346
(Durazo)
Transient occupancy tax:
short-term rental facilitators.

Expands TOT collection
authority for local agencies.

Coordinated with regional finance
directors and the author’s office to
ensure local enforcement
mechanisms remained intact;
evaluated revenue implications for
Hayward – particularly in
preparation for upcoming Bay Area
sporting events.

Signed into
law.

SB 456
(Ashby)
Contractors: muralist licensing
exemption. Exempts muralists
from contractor licensing
requirements.

Engaged with author’s staff to
confirm scope aligned with
Hayward’s public art and cultural
programming; briefed staff on
implementation.

Signed into
law.

SB 707
(Durazo)
Brown Act Modernization.

Broad update to public
meeting requirements
including translation
thresholds, two-way public
participation, remote access
standards, and teleconference
rules.

Worked closely with author’s office
and coalition partners to secure key
amendments including: • 6-month
implementation delay • Clarifying
procedures for disrupted public
access • Reasonable agenda
translation thresholds • Limiting
punitive liability for technical failures
• Clarifying applicability to
subsidiary bodies
Signed into
law.

AB 736
(Wicks) / SB
417
(Cabaldon)
Affordable Housing Bond Act
of 2026. Proposed statewide
bond for affordable housing
production, preservation, and
supportive housing.

Coordinated with authors’ offices
and regional partners to advocate
for inclusion of accessible Local
Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) dollars;
tracked negotiations over program
structure and local set-asides.

Two-year
bills; pending
2026 action.

ATTACHMENT II

Page 3 ends

Overview
The 2025 legislative session came to a drawn-out close on Saturday, September 13, after a frenzied final week marked by last-minute proposals, late amendments, and negotiations between leadership in both houses and the Governor’s administration. This adjournment capped the first year of the two-year 2025–26 Legislative Session, during which California lawmakers introduced a total of 2,397 bills. Of these, 1,536 bills advanced through both houses of the Legislature—600 from the Senate and 936 from the Assembly. Governor Newsom ultimately signed 794 measures into law and vetoed 123, with the remainder either withdrawn, held, or pending at adjournment.

The Governor’s deadline to sign or veto bills was October 12, marking the close of a highly active session defined by a heavy focus on housing, climate, public safety, and fiscal stabilization.

While end-of-session policy pushes are a familiar feature of California’s legislative process, this year stood out for the number of sweeping amendments dropped into bill vehicles in the final 72 hours. These efforts targeted major issues such as Cap and Trade reauthorization, housing and land use, and public safety reforms.

Governor Newsom had a strong hand in session-end negotiations, seeking to shape outcomes around his climate and energy priorities as he enters his final year in office in 2026. Ultimately, his Administration worked closely with legislative leaders to advance several priority measures that took shape in several energy and climate-related measures in the last week of session.

Given the State’s ongoing fiscal challenges, vetoes are expected to mirror prior years, with the Governor frequently citing insufficient state resources to implement new programs and more fiscal uncertainty on the horizon. The Governor has until October 13 to sign or veto these measures; any measures left unsigned by that deadline will automatically become law. Unless otherwise specified, statutes signed into law this year will generally take effect January 1, 2026.

The end of the 2025 legislative session marks the beginning of the Interim Recess and the rampup to the November 2025 statewide special election, where Proposition 50, focused on redistricting, will be the headline measure on the ballot. The Legislature is scheduled to reconvene on January 5, 2026.

Brown Act Reforms
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Legislature passed a series of bills allowing local governments to meet remotely via two-way telephonic and/or audio-visual platforms, such as Zoom or Microsoft Teams. Included in these packages of bills was the authorization for members of the local legislative bodies to participate remotely without identifying their specific location as long as members of the public were also allowed to participate remotely.

One of those authorizations, AB 2449 (Rubio, 2022), is set to expire on January 1, 2026. In order to ensure continuity in the law for local public agencies, the Legislature set out at the beginning of the year to modernize the Brown Act related to remote participation and transparency. Several different bills were introduced throughout the legislative session, each tackling a unique piece of the puzzle for remote participation and access, including AB 259 (Rubio) to extend the sunset from AB 2449, AB 409 (Arambula) addressing community college student body organizations, AB 467 (Fong) related to neighborhood councils, and SB 239 (Arreguín) covering subsidiary bodies.

ATTACHMENT II

Page 4 ends

All of the bills were eventually folded in SB 707 (Durazo), encompassing a broad range of changes to the Brown Act focusing on transparency and public access. Specifically, SB 707 requires certain eligible legislative bodies (namely large public agencies, or public agencies in large counties) to have two-way telephonic and/or audio-visual platforms available at all meetings of the legislative body, such as City Council Meetings, Board of Supervisors Meetings, or Board of Directors l. This requirement does not extend to committees or other subsidiary bodies of the legislative body, such as commission meetings. However, should members of the legislative body wish to participate remotely in committees or subsidiary bodies that are not purely advisory without posting their location, then the local agency must have a two-way telephonic and/or audiovisual platform set up for the public to participate and provide public comment.

Furthermore, SB 707 requires the translation of agendas (not the entire agenda packet) into all languages spoken by at least 20% of the population that also speak English “less than well”, according to the American Community Survey of 2023. The maximum amount of languages that a local agency would need to translate is capped at three. Currently, the bill allows for the translation of agendas through electronic or digital means and provides legal protections for inaccurate translations. The bill would also require local governments to provide a space near the meeting location for the public to post their own translated agendas and provides similar legal protections for any content displayed this way.

SB 707 was passed by the Legislature on the final evening of the legislative session and is currently on the Governor's desk. Senator Durazo, the bill’s main author, received last minute opposition from certain transparency stakeholder groups in her District related to the agenda translation requirements the final few days of the legislative session, prompting her to attempt to address them next year in a cleanup bill.

Energy Affordability and Infrastructure
Headlining the priorities of the Governor and Legislature this session was addressing the State’s most pressing energy challenges. As a bundled response to rising fuel and electricity costs, wildfire liability and utility risk, and the need to maintain reliability while meeting climate goals, members of the legislature introduced, amended, and advanced six measures:
 SB 237 (Grayson) adjusts permitting and regulatory processes tied to in-state fuel production and gasoline specifications, intended to reduce supply shocks and reduce volatility in the price of fuel. The measure would provide some flexibility for oil operations while adding new safety oversight, but received criticism for increasing oil production in the state.
 SB 352 (Reyes) expands community air monitoring and environmental justice programs by codifying the Bureau of Environmental Justice in the Department of Justice. The measure also builds on AB 617 (Cristina Garcia, 2017) to assist communities disproportionately impacted by air pollution.
 SB 254 (Becker) contains sweeping reforms to the mechanics of the state’s electric and gas utilities to address rising electricity rates, reduce costs related to wildfire mitigation, authorize financing tools for transmission infrastructure, and streamline permits for clean energy projects.
 AB 825 (Petrie-Norris) reflects the vision for the Pathways Initiative Step 2 proposal by authorizing California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and several utilities to use voluntary regional energy markets governed by a regional organization, which is intended to expand energy markets.

ATTACHMENT II

Page 5 ends

 SB 840 (Limón) establishes the Cap and Invest expenditure plan from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, dedicating funding to the new Legislative Counsel Climate Bureau, High-Speed Rail, Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program, Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP), and Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP).
 AB 1207 (Irwin) reauthorizes and renames the State’s Cap and Invest program, while modifying components of the program reflective of the State’s intent to deliver on its climate goals while funding climate, transit, energy, and air quality programs.

The six bills were framed as a balanced deal to stabilize energy supplies, improve wildfire financing, and strengthen environmental protections, but they also revealed the political tensions within the Legislature.

Lawmakers packaged these measures to solve interconnected problems: affordability and fuel stability (SB 237), wildfire financial exposure and rate protection (SB 254), community air monitoring and environmental justice (SB 352), and broader grid and market fixes with funding to climate-conscious projects (AB 825, SB 840, AB 1207). Building that coalition required trading policy priorities between advocates and members. Progressives wanted stronger climate and environmental protections, moderates and some labor and rural lawmakers pushed for economic relief and reliability measures, and industry (utilities, oil and gas, transmission sponsors) pushed for regulatory certainty and financing mechanisms. The result was a compromise: concessions on fuel and permitting paired with enhanced monitoring and wildfire finance reforms. That balancing act produced cross-aisle support on some pieces and sharp opposition on others.

As such, amendments to the bills came just up against and even after the Tuesday, September 9 deadline to amend bills, which would give the Legislature the constitutionally required 72 hours before voting on the final versions of the bills. Four of these measures were amended on Wednesday, September 10, pushing their eligibility for a floor vote until Saturday, September 13.

It is likely these bills will be signed into law, and implementation will depend heavily on regulatory rulemaking, particularly for the wildfire financing program and the regional transmission provisions. Stakeholders across the spectrum are preparing for the next round of debate, whether in the Governor’s office, the regulatory process, or the courts. The six-bill package marks one of the most significant energy compromises of the session, blending affordability, reliability, and environmental policy into a single set of measures passed under the pressure of end of session deadlines.

Housing and Homelessness
After the scramble to address housing and homelessness this year during the June 30th budget deadline, most notably with the passage of landmark CEQA exemption bills, AB 130 and SB 131, the Legislature prioritized cleanup legislation for the quickly written bills. SB 158 was introduced as the vehicle with the intent of providing statutory changes necessary to implement the Budget Act of 2025.

This was the budget trailer bill relating to land use that included some provisions of importance to cities. One of the key provisions included the requirement of State Housing and Community Development (HCD) to prepare to administer Round 7 of the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) program with the goal that the initial Round 7 disbursement will be available to grantees meeting the statutory provisions beginning September 1, 2026. These funds are

ATTACHMENT II

Page 6 ends

critical to cities and counties when addressing the unhoused. Other important provisions impacting local governments in SB 158 include:
 Permit Streamlining: Extends PSA timelines to ministerial housing projects under the Housing Crisis Act.
 CEQA Deadlines: Adjusts lead agency deadline for infill housing approvals to 30 days after the later of (1) tribal consultation or (2) Housing Accountability Act timelines.  CEQA Definitions: Expands “natural and protected lands” to include lands in adopted conservation or resource protection plans.
 Builder’s Remedy Projects: Larger than 4 acres is not eligible for CEQA streamlining and CEQA exemption thresholds reduced from <5 acres to <4 acres).  Expanded CEQA Applicability: Applies CEQA to certain housing projects based on local population size and proximity to sensitive environmental/historic resources.

These provisions extended from conversations between legislators during the summer recess, with several expressing concerns about the lack of protection for natural lands and proximity to historic sites. Some controversy arose surrounding the updated provisions as they were altered to specifically block the development of a controversial apartment complex in the district of the incoming President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Monique Limón. SB 158 passed both chambers on Saturday afternoon.

As mentioned earlier, SB 840 by Senator Limón was passed and appropriated $800 million annually from GGRF revenues towards the AHSC program. The bill also includes a provision stating that as GGRF revenues decrease, the AHSC program can never receive less than 10% of annual GGRF revenue. The AHSC program provides grants and loans to projects that integrate low-carbon transportation and affordable housing, with an emphasis on providing benefits to disadvantaged and low-income communities.

Additionally, SB 634 by Senator Sasha Pérez passed both houses and was sent to the Governor’s desk. This bill started out as an extremely controversial measure that would have prohibited cities from imposing any penalties on a person who is homeless or for any act immediately relating to homelessness. Given the instant and extreme backlash from local governments and police departments across the state, the bill was significantly amended to prohibit cities from adopting or enforcing ordinances that prohibit a person or organization from providing support services to a person who is homeless. Many cities removed their opposition after these amendments were introduced, but some jurisdictions remained in opposition, citing their concern that this could protect needle exchange programs for homeless individuals.

Immigration Response
In response to heightened ICE enforcement in California, the Legislature has moved forward a package of bills now awaiting the Governor’s action.

With families and students concerned about immigration enforcement on school campuses, AB 49 (Muratsuchi) would require agents to present a valid judicial warrant before being allowed access. SB 98 (Perez) would strengthen communication with parents and guardians by requiring schools to notify them when immigration enforcement is present on campus. To address the impact of these activities on school attendance, AB 1348 (Bains) would classify immigration enforcement as an emergency for funding purposes, allowing up to 10 days of student absences to still count toward state apportionment.

ATTACHMENT II

Page 7 ends

As local policies and federal enforcement continue to lack alignment, many agencies are seeking clarity. SB 580 (Durazo) directs the Attorney General to issue model policies for how local agencies should handle immigration enforcement, which must be implemented by 2027.

As ICE raids increase without coordination with local agencies, lawmakers have introduced measures to strengthen officer identification and transparency standards. SB 805 (Perez) requires law enforcement agencies in California to adopt written policies ensuring visible identification of officers, with limited exemptions, and authorizes peace officers to request ID if impersonation is suspected. The author collaborated with law enforcement associations on amendments that addressed their concerns, leading to the removal of opposition and ensuring their continued role in implementation.

The most contentious bill in the package is SB 627 (Wiener), which passed despite continued opposition from law enforcement. The measure prohibits state and federal law enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings while on duty, with limited exemptions. The final bill analysis raised concerns that this broad prohibition could conflict with the Dormant Commerce Clause, suggesting the measure is likely to face legal challenges once implemented.

Together, these bills reflect the Legislature’s response to federal immigration enforcement activity and its effort to establish clearer policies for schools, families, and local agencies.

Labor & Public Employment
In the 2023-2024 legislative session, several different bills aiming to give additional power and influence to public sector unions were signed into law. The 2025 legislative session was no different, with multiple bills introduced that are expected to create significant impediments to local governments’ ability to contract with the private sector for services.

Specifically, AB 339 (Ortega) was passed by the Legislature, which requires the governing body of a public agency to give an impacted recognized employee organization no less than 30 days’ written notice before issuing a request for proposals, request for quotes, or renewing or extending an existing contract, to perform services that are within the scope of work of the job classifications represented by the recognized employee organization.

The written notice shall include all of the following:
 The anticipated duration of the contract.
 The scope of work under the contract.
 The anticipated cost of the contract.
 The draft solicitation, or if not yet drafted, any information that would normally be included in a solicitation.
 The reason the public agency believes the contract is necessary.  The bill provides that if an emergency or other exigent circumstance prevents the public agency from providing the amount of notice required, the public agency shall provide as much advance notice as is practicable under the circumstances.

Despite certain setbacks during the legislative session related to contracting, local governments secured a win with SB 456 (Ashby), which would exempt an artist who draws, paints, applies, executes, restores, or conserves a mural from the requirement to have a contractor’s license from

ATTACHMENT II

Page 8 ends

the Contractors State License Board. Recently interpretations of law have resulted in muralists and local government employers being threatened with litigation. SB 456 would make it clear that local muralists do not have to be licensed or possess any certification to engage in muralist activities.

Land Use
Transit-Oriented Development
SB 79 (Wiener) saw a significant level of engagement for local agencies throughout the state, many of them with concerns about local land use authority. In response to those concerns, the bill was amended a total of 15 times this session.

As ultimately approved by the Legislature, SB 79 (Wiener) will apply only to "urban transit counties" which are those with more than 15 rail stations within the county. Per the bill sponsors, the counties in which SB 79 will apply are Los Angeles, Orange, San Francisco, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Sacramento, and San Diego. Earlier versions of the bill would have had Tier 3 provisions apply to qualifying transit stops outside urban transit counties, but that language was ultimately removed. With the removal of Tier 3, the bill now captures Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and categorizes them under two tiers (Tier 1 and Tier 2) based on the type and frequency of transit.

A jurisdiction falls into Tier 1 when it is located within an urban transit county and has parcels located within one-half mile of a qualifying rail station. These stations include heavy rail, light rail, or commuter rail stops that meet service frequency thresholds set in the bill. Once an area qualifies as Tier 1, local governments are required to apply the most permissive set of land-use standards near those stations, reducing their discretion over zoning and development approvals.

This includes minimum height allowances in the range of 85 feet near the qualifying station, regardless of existing local height limits. Additionally, projects meeting Tier 1 standards must be processed ministerially, with limited CEQA review or discretionary hearings.

The Tier 2 provisions within SB 79 apply to jurisdictions located in an urban transit county that have parcels located within one-half mile of a qualifying light rail or commuter rail station that meets a lower frequency threshold than Tier 1. While still significant, Tier 2 designations apply to areas with moderate levels of transit service, such as regional commuter lines or light rail corridors with less frequent service than heavy rail or major hubs. Key Tier 2 requirements include height allowances up to about 65 feet with projects also being approved ministerially.SB 79 allows local agencies to adopt a TOD alternative plan through a housing element amendment, specific plan, zoning overlay, or ordinance, as long as it achieves compliance with the bill. Alternative plans include some narrow exceptions for high fire zones, sea-level rise areas, and historic sites.

The bill’s requirements will not take effect immediately. Implementation is delayed until July 1, 2026, and for local agencies, the new standards will not apply until the start of the 7th Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) cycle.

For local governments, SB 79 means reduced flexibility over zoning and development approvals near major transit stations. Cities and counties in the designated urban transit counties must now plan for increased housing density, height allowances, and streamlined approvals in these transitoriented areas, with state law overriding conflicting local standards.

ATTACHMENT II

Page 9 ends

Revenue and Taxation
Transit Revenue Measure District
As transit ridership has yet to fully recover to pre-pandemic levels, Senators Wiener and Arreguín partnered to author SB 63 to establish the Transportation Revenue Measure District (TRMD) encompassing Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties, along with the City and County of San Francisco. The measure authorizes the TRMD, with administrative support from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), to place a regional sales tax on the November 2026 ballot to fund operations for Bay Area transit agencies.

The regional sales tax would last 14 years and is projected to raise over $1 billion annually, distributed among the major operators based on each county’s contributions. To ensure accountability, SB 63 requires financial efficiency reviews, independent oversight committees, and the creation of ad hoc adjudication committees that can withhold up to 7% of an operator’s funding.

Divvied up between BART, ACT Transit, Muni, Caltrain, East Bay small bus operators, the San Francisco Bay Ferry, the Golden Gate Bridge District, and a discretionary “return to source” pot of funding, the measure would dedicate funding mostly for transit operations expenses, with some local flexibilities.

Taxpayer Protection Act
A re-run of the 2024 Taxpayer Protection Act has been submitted as a proposed initiative for the 2026 November ballot. The 2024 measure was touted to close loopholes that weakened voterapproved tax accountability measures and to increase the vote threshold to pass a voter-initiated special tax at the local level. However, the California Supreme Court ruled the measure could not go before the voters and removed the Act from the ballot. Central to their ruling was the potential impact the initiative would have on the State’s “basic plan of government.” Three different versions of the new initiative were cleared for circulation earlier this summer, and proponents have until late-February to submit 875,000 valid signatures. The intent again is to raise the threshold for votes on local taxes to 2/3 and to sunset all previously approved nonconforming taxes two years after passage. If the initiative should qualify and survive legal challenges, it would appear on the November 2026 ballot.

STATE BUDGET AND FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
Budget & Fiscal Policy
California’s 2025 legislative session was again dominated by efforts to manage a sizeable budget deficit of approximately $12 billion. Facing revenue shortfalls and slower economic growth, the Governor and Legislature leaned on a familiar mix of borrowing, reserve withdrawals, and cost shifts to close the gap. While the State avoided the most dramatic program cuts, the solutions were spread across multiple fiscal tools, reconciling both the scale of the deficit and the competing demands of legislative priorities.

As in prior years, many of the most consequential decisions came from trailer bills passed as late as into the final week of session, and amending prior years’ budgets. These measures finalized

ATTACHMENT II

Page 10 ends

the details of the budget package and implemented agreements negotiated between the Administration and legislative leaders. Among the most significant were AB 130, SB 131, SB 105, and SB 158 which carried technical but important fiscal provisions and programmatic adjustments.

A late tranche of trailer bills was heard and approved over the last few days of the session, ranging in subject area from health and human services to higher education to memorandums of understanding with state employee bargaining units. Late-session action also included the annual Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) expenditure plan, this year as a component of Cap and Trade reauthorization, which directs billions of dollars in auction revenues to climate, transportation, and community projects.

In addition, the session’s fiscal work featured a Prop 4 expenditure plan to allocate constitutionally required funding approved by voters last November as a part of the statewide climate bond, as well as responses to federal HR1, which carried implications for state tax conformity and compliance. For the rollout of Prop 4 funding, SB 105 appropriated a total of $3.287 billion from the Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024. This funding includes:
 $1.2 billion for Safe Drinking Water, Drought, Flood, and Water Resilience,  $416 million for Wildfire and Forest Resilience,
 $279 million for Coastal Resilience,
 $110 million for Extreme Heat Mitigation,
 $390 million for Biodiversity and Nature-Based Solutions  $153 million for Climate Smart Agriculture,
 $466 million for Park Creation and Outdoor Access
 $275 million for Clean Air and Energy
To shore up responses to HR 1 and other federal policy changes, the Legislature included various allocations to state programs to avoid harmful effects or loss of services. Many of these actions involve safety net and human services program such as the State’s CalFresh program, emergency food banks, attorney positions at the California Health and Human Services Agency, gender affirming care coverage, and the State’s application for the Rural Health Transformative program.

Looking forward, budget writers and fiscal analysts caution that future deficits remain likely. The 2025 budget relied heavily on one-time solutions, such as reserve withdrawals and cost shifts, rather than long-term structural reforms. While these strategies provide immediate relief, they set up the possibility of renewed shortfalls in the next economic downturn. As a result, the next session is expected to reopen debates about revenue measures, program growth, and the sustainability of California’s fiscal commitments.

Cap and Trade Reauthorization
Some of this year’s most laudable and impactful legislation happened in the truest of political styles: in a closed room, sealed with a handshake. And because that language was introduced at the very last minute permissible on the legislative calendar, lawmakers had to waive rules to extend this year’s Legislative Session, from Friday to Saturday, in order to vote on the reauthorization of California’s Cap and Trade program, renamed Cap-and-Invest, and a series of climate and energy sister bills, which they did, in the early hours of the morning of the last day of the legislative calendar with almost no one having read what they were voting on.

ATTACHMENT II

Page 11 ends

Cap-and-Invest wasn’t technically slated to sunset until 2030, which technically meant there was more time for the Legislature to work out its renewal. But pessimism was heavy that it could be done, which boded ill for this year’s emissions credit sales (one study indicated that pessimism last year cost the State an extra $3 billion in auction revenues), a drop in which could have cost billions to the programs funded by the revenues in an already underwater fiscal year.

Early in the legislative season, no one thought Cap-and-invest would come down to the wire. It seemed to have momentum out of the gate as Assembly working groups met early to take the first shot at drafting a proposal. But that language didn’t emerge in writing until the first week of August, just before the State Legislature returned from Summer Recess. Even after months, the Assembly’s language was drastically far apart from the working document Senate leadership was utilizing in its own internal and external conversations. The Governor wanted to ensure that whatever the outcome of the Cap-and-Invest negotiations would be, gas prices were going to remain stable, not see a surge. In the face of drastic federal cuts to climate funding, he also wanted to ensure long-term funding for combating wildfires and the State’s beleaguered highspeed rail project. As such, he requested $1 billion for high-speed rail and another $1.5 billion for wildfire funding. The Assembly language granted him all three of those things while prioritizing transitioning from gas production to electricity consumption. The Senate conceded on all three of those points but wanted to ensure that communities impacted by the increased emissions were accounted for in the programs funded by Cap-and Invest.

After a 90-minute in-person meeting between the Governor, Speaker Robert Rivas, and President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire, an accord had been reached. In the end, Cap-and-Invest passed via two bills. Assemblymember Irwin advanced amendments to AB 1207, officially rebranding the program Cap-and-Invest and extending it until 2045. In a win for emitters, AB 1207 set an emissions price cap, essentially lowering the price of emissions credits. It also provided free emissions credits to polluters to keep their business in California.

Senator Limón, the Senate President Pro Tempore-elect, put forward SB 840, codifying a reimagined plan for the State’s spending from the Greenhouse Gase Reduction Fund (GGRF). In so doing, SB 840 ends percentage-based continuous appropriations and instead assigns funded programs a dollar amount to be funded. Also reflected in the bill was one of her colleagues’ most frequent requests: legislative oversight. SB 840 added a mandate that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) report to the Legislature every 5 years on the efficacy of programs and funding. To further that, SB 840 provides one-time funding to create the Legislative Counsel’s office Climate Bureau, responsible for tracking and processing these reports and related legislative efforts.

The remaining funds fall into three categories: $1 billion for high-speed rail, fee backfills ($70-$90 million SRA Fee backfill and $100-$140 million Manufacturing Tax Credit backfill), and continuous appropriations.

Among the continuous appropriations are some of the State’s most significant projects to combat climate change in the long-term, particularly transportation emissions, which are the source of 50% of all emissions in California. To that end, $1 billion is allocated to the State Legislature to disburse at their discretion through the budget process. From their funds they are to pay: $125 million for transit passes, $25 million to seed UC Climate Research Center, and $85 million for supporting climate-focused technology, with the rest of the funds to be allocated at their discretion.

ATTACHMENT II

Page 12 ends

Next to be paid from the GGRF is $800 million for Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (affordable housing built near transit). This program has resulted in 279,964 affordable homes being built, 41,579 vehicles removed from the roadway, and a reduction of 5.7 million metric tons of GHG emissions avoided. Other transportation programs include $400 million for the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program and $200 million for the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program.

Finally come an assorted group of programs: $250 million for CARB for air protection programs, $200 million for the Department of Forestry, with the very specific provisions that 82.5% of those funds will pay for fire prevention and 17.5% of those funds will pay for fire reduction. $130 million is to be allocated for clean water with any remaining funds to be allocated by the State Legislature.

Funding Highlights Include:
 $1 billion for the High-speed rail.
 $70 – 90 million State Responsibility Area (SRA) fee backfill.  $100 – 140 million for the manufacturing tax credit backfill.  $1 billion dedicated to Legislature-controlled climate funds, including $125 million for transit passes, $25 million for a UC Climate Research Center, $85 million for climate tech, and the remainder as discretionary funding.
 $800 million Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities (AHSC), a program that has over the course of its life resulted in 279,964 homes built; 41,579 vehicles removed; 5.7M metric tons GHG reduced.
 $400 million for the Transit & Intercity Rail Capital Program.  $200 million for the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program.  $250 million for CARB air protection.
 $200 million to CAL FIRE for fire prevention and reduction.  $130 million for Safe and Affordable Drinking Water.
 Any remaining funds are subject to the Legislature’s discretion Looking Forward: Positioning the City for New Funding Opportunities Looking ahead, Townsend Public Affairs will continue to provide the City with consistent, strategic support across the full spectrum of state and federal grant opportunities. With the implementation of Prop 4 now underway and the next rounds of climate and infrastructure funding scheduled to be programmed over the coming year, we will work closely with City leadership and your state legislative delegation to identify competitive projects, align local priorities with emerging grant criteria, and position the City early for upcoming cycles.

This includes monitoring program guidelines as they are drafted, flagging discretionary and formula-based funding streams relevant to local needs, and coordinating targeted advocacy with committee staff, Administration officials, and legislative champions. In addition to Prop 4 resources, TPA will track earmark opportunities embedded in future state budget negotiations— including transportation, climate resilience, parks, and community infrastructure—to ensure that the City is well-prepared to seek direct allocations and to seize opportunities as they arise.

Through continuous engagement, early planning, and coordinated advocacy, TPA will ensure the City remains highly competitive and fully informed as the next generation of state investment decisions takes shape.

Hayward City CouncilDecember 16, 2025

Hayward City Council
December 16, 2025