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 ope ration 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.
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 t he 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. On December 11, 2025 the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office announced the arrest of three individuals who are suspected of running a network of brothels in the Bay Area, including one in Hayward. According to the Santa Clara District Attorney, the brothels were operating under legal cover as massage parlors. The Hayward Police Department collaborated with multiple agencies at the local, state and federal levels on the investigation that lead to the arrests of the suspects an d identification of over 40 women involved in commercial sex work at the brothels
J. 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 278
ATTACHMENT II
overconcentration of massage establishment s could occur within the City without full protection to the City from the secondary effects of massage establishments.
K. The City is currently studying revised regulations to preserve the public health, safety and welfare of its citizens, which staff intends to present to the City Council for consideration in Spring 2026.
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. An application to renew an existing permit or approval that includes a change in ownership shall be subject to the temporary moratorium.
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 applications submitted by new owners 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.
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 279
ATTACHMENT II
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 appli cation 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 af fect 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.
Section 11. This 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 . The moratorium imposed by this Ordinance shall terminate 10 months and 15 days after its adoption, or upon the effect ive date of amendments to the Hayward Municipal Code addressing massage businesses, whichever is earlier. Nothing in this section is intended to preclude a final extension of the moratorium as allowed by Government Code section 65858, should it be necessary.
280
ATTACHMENT II
INTRODUCED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hayward, held the ___ day of __, 2026, 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
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________________
City Attorney of the City of Hayward
281
CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: LB 26-002
DATE: January 27, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT
East Bay Greenway Multimodal Project: Adopt a Resolution Approving the Project Evaluation for the East Bay Greenway Multimodal - Hayward Segment Project
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopts the attached resolution (Attachment II) approving the completed scoping level evaluation of the East Bay Greenway Multimodal (EBGWMM) - Hayward Project, enabling project development activities to advance to the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase.
SUMMARY
Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) is the project sponsor and implementing agency for the EBGWMM along the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) alignment from Lake Merritt station in Oakland to South Hayward BART station. This staff report discusses the EBGWMM - Hayward Project, a near-term project (3-5 years) within the jurisdiction of the City of Hayward (City). City staff have been integral partners during this planning process, providing key input and coordination to ensure that the East Bay Greenway reflects local priorities while supporting regional connectivity. The project has been developed through extensive input from other project stakeholders such as AC Transit, BART, and various community groups, including public schools, local residents, Bike Hayward, disability groups, and community-based organizations (CBOs).
The goals of the EBGWMM - Hayward Project are to:
• Create a continuous north/south bike facility connecting the Hayward and South Hayward BART stations.
• Provide safe, high-quality bicycle facilities suitable for people of all ages and abilities. • Improve safety by physically separating bicyclists from high-speed vehicular traffic to the extent feasible.
• Improve access to regional transit, schools, Downtown areas, and major activity centers. • Improve multimodal access to BART.
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 1/22/2026Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
282
File #:LB 26-002
The EBGWMM - Hayward Project is currently in the scoping phase. Subject to City Council’sapproval of the scoping level project concepts, Alameda CTC is expected to commence the next phase of project development, i.e., the PA&ED phase, in early 2026.
The project team, comprised of the City, Alameda CTC and its consultant team members, have conducted robust public outreach, coordinated with a project-specific Active Transportation Working Group (ATWG), and developed project concepts that include conceptual level project alignment and facility types. The project improvements are expected to implement a safe near-term bicycle and pedestrian facility within the project corridor.
Council Infrastructure & Airport Committee Review
The Council Infrastructure and Airport Committee (CIAC) met, reviewed and approved the project evaluation in its October 22, 2025, meeting. Now, the City and Alameda CTC are seeking the City Council to review and approve the completed scoping level evaluation of the EBGWMM - Hayward Project, enabling the project development activities to advance to the next phase of project development activities, PA&ED phase.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Project Concepts
Attachment IV Phase 3 Outreach Summary
Attachment V East Bya Greenway Project Alignment
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 1/22/2026Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
283
DATE:
January 27, 2026
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: East Bay Greenway Multimodal Project: Adopt a Resolution Approving the Project Evaluation for the East Bay Greenway Multimodal – Hayward Segment Project
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopts the attached resolution (Attachment II) approving the completed scoping level evaluation of the East Bay Greenway Multimodal (EBGWMM) – Hayward Project, enabling project development activities to advance to the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase.
SUMMARY
Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) is the project sponsor and implementing agency for the EBGWMM along the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) alignment from Lake Merritt station in Oakland to South Hayward BART station. This staff report discusses the EBGWMM – Hayward Project, a near-term project (3-5 years) within the jurisdiction of the City of Hayward (City). City staff have been integral partners during this planning process, providing key input and coordination to ensure that the East Bay Greenway reflects local priorities while supporting regional connectivity. The project has been developed through extensive input from other project stakeholders such as AC Transit, BART , and various community groups, including public schools, local residents, Bike Hayward, disability groups, and community-based organizations (CBOs).
The goals of the EBGWMM – Hayward Project are to:
• Create a continuous north/south bike facility connecting the Hayward and South Hayward BART stations.
• Provide safe, high-quality bicycle facilities suitable for people of all ages and abilities.
• Improve safety by physically separating bicyclists from high-speed vehicular traffic to the extent feasible.
284
• Improve access to regional transit, schools, Downtown areas, and major activity centers.
• Improve multimodal access to BART .
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The EBGWMM – Hayward Project is currently in the scoping phase. Subject to City Council’s approval of the scoping level project concepts, Alameda CTC is expected to commence the next phase of project development, i.e., the PA&ED phase, in early 2026.
The project team, comprised of the City, Alameda CTC and its consultant team members, have conducted robust public outreach, coordinated with a project-specific Active Transportation Working Group (ATWG), and developed project concepts that include conceptual level project alignment and facility types. The project improvements are expected to implement a safe near-term bicycle and pedestrian facility within the project corridor.
Council Infrastructure & Airport Committee Review
The Council Infrastructure and Airport Committee (CIAC) met, reviewed and approved the project evaluation in its October 22, 20251, meeting. Now, the City and Alameda CTC are seeking the City Council to review and approve the completed scoping level evaluation of the EBGWMM – Hayward Project, enabling the project development activities to advance to the next phase of project development activities, PA&ED phase.
FISCAL IMPACT
This item has no impact on the General Fund or Measure C.
The current scoping phase and subsequent PA&ED phase of the project are funded by Alameda CTC. The future phases of final design and the construction of the project are likely to be funded from a mix of existing county, regional, state and federal fund sources. City staff time is required to manage and oversee the transportation impact study, design, community outreach, and the implementation of EBGWMM - Hayward Project. Staff participation in these activities is expected to be funded through Fund 212 - Measure BB (Local Transportation).
BACKGROUND
The East Bay Greenway is envisioned as a 37-mile regional trail connecting northern and southern Alameda County cities. The project originated with a non-profit group, Urban Ecology, which envisioned a trail in the BART/Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Oakland Subdivision corridor from Oakland to Hayward. Upon passage of 2014 Alameda County Measure BB, the East Bay Greenway was included as one of three
1 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7708757&GUID=03247E12-31D6-4A72-BD20- 684D57E5832D&Options=&Search=
285
major trails in the Transportation Expenditure Plan. During project development, several key risks were identified related to costs for land acquisition and other negotiations with Union Pacific.
In late 2021, the Alameda CTC directed the staff to evaluate a project that could be implemented in the near term (3-5 years). A near-term project likely will have to be implemented within existing City right-of-way, coordinating with local active transportation projects, serving BART stations, and providing bicycle facilities suitable for users of all ages and abilities. Recognizing the challenges in establishing an all ages-and-abilities route through Downtown and Mission Boulevard, in late 2022, Alameda CTC staff began evaluating scoping level alternatives consistent with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, west of the BART and Union Pacific tracks.
Streets were evaluated based on first- and last-mile connectivity to BART stations, transportation safety needs, and impacts to right-of-way and curblines.
On December 7, 2023, as the sponsoring agency, Alameda CTC approved the resources required for evaluating the street network for the multimodal project and directed its staff to form an ATWG. City and Alameda CTC staff recruited a project-specific ATWG comprised of participants from AC Transit, BART , members of bicycle advocacy organizations, people with disabilities, school and park districts, business community groups, parents of school going children and interested residents. The ATWG has met four times since its inception, to review and advise project staff and stakeholders on key project decisions and ensure that the project is responsive to local context and needs, while being suitable for bicyclists of all ages and abilities.
On October 23, 20242, staff presented a conceptual level draft alignment and types of facilities to the CIAC. The CIAC reviewed and requested to limit the number of parking space losses and conduct focused outreach to residents along Whitman Street. Staff performed additional outreach and incorporated community feedback in the recommendations where feasible. The specific outreach activities and their findings are described in the “Public Contact” section below and in Attachment IV: Phase 3 Outreach Summary.
As part of its outreach strategy, the project team conducted an online survey, met with community-based organizations, held walking and biking audits of the study corridor, conducted focus group meetings, conducted door-to-door outreach, met with school staff and conducted survey with Tennyson High School and Cesar Chavez Middle School staff and students. The project team incorporated community, school staff and students’ feedback in the project concepts.
In addition to conducting public outreach and performing field reviews, the project team also conducted traffic and parking studies, as well as a cut-through traffic
2 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6901017&GUID=8E4F8C13-1BB3-4A5A-A864- 43FA07A4498A&Options=&Search=
286
diversion analysis that informed the alignment and array of facility types that could be implemented in the near term.
On October 22, 2025, staff returned to CIAC, presented the refined project concepts, and sought CIAC’s approval of this refined project concepts/evaluation. CIAC reviewed and approved the completed evaluation, however, requested the staff to embark on additional public outreach and project evaluation in the upcoming PA&ED phase.
The following is a list of outreach activities that the project team is committed to implementing within the Calendar Year 2026:
January – March 2026
Solicit input from City Council/City Staff regarding specific groups or individuals to engage
Work with CBOs to identify small group meeting opportunities Continue to meet with the project’s ATWG to discuss ways to communicate/showcase project benefits
April – June 2026
Follow-up round of door-to-door outreach to residents to discuss project benefits.
Partner with study area schools (3) and the Safe Routes to School Program to promote the EBGWMM project during Walk & Roll to School Day in May 2026. Hold focus group meetings based on guidance from CBO partners and ATWG
July – December 2026
Meet with the ATWG to discuss feedback received and additional engagement
DISCUSSION
Alameda CTC approved an “All-Ages-and-Abilities” bicycle facility policy in December 2022, which provides guidance for selecting an appropriate level of separation between bicyclists and motorists based on traffic speeds and volumes, consistent with guidance from the Federal Highway Administration. The intent is for bicycle facilities to be comfortable to use regardless of a bicyclist’s age or experience. Most people are comfortable bicycling along busy arterial streets only when a separated Class IV bicycle facility is provided. Most riders are comfortable sharing the street with traffic only when the traffic volumes and vehicle speeds are low. The EBGWMM-Hayward project consists of a mix of local, collector, and arterial streets, and the draft alignments and facility types are tailored to each street’s specific characteristics.
Figure 1 and Table 2 below summarize the project concepts at the conclusion of current scoping phase. Additional detail is provided in Attachment III, and Figure 1 is also shown in Attachment V. These recommendations are still conceptual, with substantial work remaining to refine them through additional public outreach and technical study during the upcoming PA&ED phase.
287
While a continuous regional bicycle facility is an overall goal of the project, other community-serving amenities - such as landscaping, traffic calming, and lighting – are important elements as well. When the project is complete, it is expected to include shared use paths, protected bike lanes, bike boulevards with traffic calming, pedestrian crossing enhancements, pedestrian accessibility improvements, traffic signal modifications, lighting upgrades, bus boarding islands, transit signal priority, placemaking elements, landscaping, and urban design features.
Figure 1: Map of project concepts
288
Table 2: Table of project concepts
Street Name Description of Potential Improvements
Sunset Boulevard Bike Boulevard + Traffic Calming
Montgomery Street Bike Boulevard + Traffic Calming
B Street Two-Way Class IV Protected Bike Lanes
Grand Street (from B Street to D Street) Two-Way + One-Way Class IV Protected Bike Lanes
Grand Street (from D Street to Meek
Avenue)
One-Way Class IV Protected Bike Lanes
Meek Avenue One-Way Class IV Protected Bike Lanes
Silva Avenue Bike Boulevard + Traffic Calming
Sycamore Avenue Two-Way Class IV Protected Bike Lanes
Whitman Street (from Sycamore
Avenue to Fruitwood Way)
Class I Shared-Use Path + Traffic Calming
Whitman Street (from Fruitwood Way
to Tennyson Road)
Two-Way Class IV Protected Bike Lanes +
Traffic Calming
Tennyson Road Two-Way + One-Way Class IV Protected Bike Lanes
Dixon Street One-Way Class IV Protected Bike Lanes
Notes:
1) These are from a conceptual level evaluation only. Additional evaluation will be required in the next phase.
2) The streets described are consistent with the City’s current Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2020).
3) Due to high traffic volume generated from the residences along Silva Avenue, the bike boulevard concept will not meet AAA (all ages and abilities) criteria. Traffic calming measures will be implemented to slow down motorized vehicles.
Within three months of approval of the current project evaluation, the design team will complete the preliminary intersection and traffic calming concept designs, effectively concluding the Planning phase of the project. Project improvements will be further evaluated during the next phase (PA&ED phase) of project development that is expected to commence in early 2026. During PA&ED, the project need is defined and clarified, alternatives, including a no-build alternative, are considered, and environmental impacts are identified and mitigated if necessary. Based on analysis performed for other East Bay Greenway segments, the project team anticipates that the project will be Categorically Exempt from environmental review under CEQA at this time, but this will be confirmed in this upcoming project phase.
289
ECONOMIC IMPACT
The East Bay Greenway project includes placemaking elements, such as landscaping and lighting, and curb-separated bike lanes. Several studies have shown that high- quality infrastructure like this, as opposed to conventional painted lanes, is likely to increase the value of properties along the corridor. Negative economic impacts are possible that relate the availability of on-street parking or travel lanes. Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure encourages active transportation use, lowering the overall transportation costs for users and leading to better health outcomes from increased physical activity.
STRATEGIC ROADMAP
This agenda item supports the “Invest in Infrastructure” focus area and specifically supports implementation of the following:
Invest in Multi-Modal Transportation
• Project N1: Continue to implement major corridor traffic calming initiatives.
• Project N6: Continue to add approximate 10 miles of bike lanes annually, with a focus on protected bike lanes and intersections that have high traffic/incidents.
SUST AINABILITY FEATURES
This project will provide high-quality bicycle and pedestrian improvements that will encourage road users to adopt more active forms of transportation. Mode shift towards active transportation provides environmental benefits because unlike driving trips, walking and biking do not cause pollution or greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, active transportation infrastructure supports physical activity, leading to improved physical and mental health.
PUBLIC CONT ACT
The project team conducted robust public outreach to evaluate the project concepts for near-term implementation. The outreach plan includes several phases, three of which have been completed, as shown below:
290
Table 3: Phases of Public Outreach
Phase Outreach Goal Timeline
1 Share information about this EBGWMM-Hayward
Segment project and gather input on existing conditions.
March 2024 – June
2024
2 Solicit input on the EBGWMM-Hayward Segment project
alternatives to inform the draft concepts.
July 2024 – October
2024
3 Solicit input from residents and schools within the
project study limits regarding project tradeoffs and on- street parking.
January 2025 – July
2025
4 Update and refine the concept design for the EBGWMM- Hayward Segment project.
January 2026 – March
2026
5 Increase public awareness among neighboring residents of the project plans and opportunities to provide
feedback during environmental analysis.
April 2026-June 2026
6 Additional engagement as needed with input from Active Transportation Working Group
July 2026-December
2026
Outreach activities were designed to reach a broad and diverse cross-section of the community through different methods. Rather than relying on any single event, the effort was layered to ensure that different populations, including residents, students, and community-based organizations, could provide meaningful input.
Some activities were meant to reach broad audiences, and others were intended to facilitate deeper, more substantial discussion. Outreach activities are included as Attachment IV, and a summary list, as provided below:
• Coordination via e-mails and website announcements
• Pop-up events at the Hawaiian May Day Festival and Eden Greenway hot meal and grocery giveaway
• Walking and biking tours of the corridor , with attendees recommended by the ATWG
• Focus groups
• Coordination with the ATWG members
• Mailers and project information flyer
• Door-to-door outreach to residents living along the corridor • Meetings with the principals of Tennyson High School and Cesar Chavez Middle School
• Online survey to summer school students, faculty, and staff
Mailers and flyers were made available in English, Spanish, simplified Chinese, Tagalog, and Vietnamese.
291
At the request of CIAC in its October 2024 meeting, the project team performed additional public outreach to schools and residents directly on the proposed route between April and July 2025, where community members would be most immediately affected by the proposed alignment. In addition to distributing 969 flyers with online feedback forms, the project team knocked on 193 doors and held 55 in-person conversations. Residents shared a mixture of reactions to the proposed concept design in these in-person conversations. While some expressed support for their street receiving attention and investment and agreed that changes were necessary, there was mixed sentiment regarding what those changes may look like.
• Residents were generally supportive of the project’s main multimodal goals • Residents expressed strong support for improved aesthetics, safety, and walking conditions.
• Some residents expressed frustration with heavy traffic and speeding • Some residents were apprehensive about the potential for removal of parking or travel lanes
Documentation and discussion about these respondents and the frequency of their sentiments is provided in Attachment IV.
In addition, the project team met with staff at Tennyson High School and Cesar Chavez Middle School and developed a survey specifically for students and staff to share their feedback on the two proposed designs for Whitman Street. One alternative preserved parking on both sides of the street and one maintained parking only on one side of the street. Responses were evenly divided, with staff preferring the design that preserved parking on both sides, and students preferring the design that removed one parking lane for better walking and bicycling facilities.
Through Spring and Summer 2026 the project team plans to hold an additional round of door-to-door outreach and partner with neighborhood schools during Walk and Roll to School Day in May. An additional meeting will be held with the Active Transportation Working Group where the potential need for additional outreach will be discussed.
NEXT STEPS
Staff request that the City Council review and approve the project evaluation, enable the project team to conclude the current scoping phase and embark on the next phase of project development activities , while continuing to engage the community and interested groups to future evaluate the project.
City Council approval would allow the project to proceed with detailed environmental review, engineering studies, and continued community engagement. This approval does not commit funding to the project or finalize design decisions. Rather, it authorizes the necessary next steps to better understand project impacts, refine designs based on technical analysis and public input, and position the project for 292
future funding opportunities. The final plan will continue to evolve as additional community and stakeholder input is solicited.
Staff will continue to provide periodic project status update to CIAC and the City Council, and in early 2027, will seek City Council to adopt a support position on the environmental document to be prepared for the project. Completion of an environmental document for the project is essential for soliciting federal and state funding for the next phases of project development, including for the project construction phase.
Future CIAC/City Council actions:
CIAC/City Council
Receive yearly project status updates in Fall 2026
City Council
• Support the project in early 2027 (for environmental clearance) • Approve project design for construction in spring 2029 (T) • Accept completed construction and take ownership of project assets in spring 2031 (T).
Prepared by: Lucas Woodward, Senior Transportation Engineer
Recommended by: Alex Ameri, Director of Public Works
Approved by:
______________________________
Jennifer Ott, City Manager
293
ATTACHMENT II
HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 26-____
Introduced by Council Member __________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE
SCOPING EVALUATION OF THE EAST BAY GREENWAY MULTIMODAL -
HAYWARD PROJECT
WHEREAS, the East Bay Greenway Multimodal - Hayward Project is a proposed regional trail that connects Lake Merritt to the South Hayward BART station; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Transportation Commission is the responsible agency overseeing the East Bay Greenway Multimodal – Hayward Project in collaboration with the City of Hayward; and
WHEREAS, City Council approval of the Scoping Evaluation is needed to continue project development activities into the Project Approval and Environmental Document phase; and
WHEREAS, the Scoping Evaluation does not approve construction, finalize funding decisions, or authorize changes to public streets , b ut instead identifies the preliminary alignment and bicycle facility types for the regional trail to be further studied during the Environmental Phase.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hayward that the City Council reviews and approves the Scoping Evaluation of the East Bay Greenw ay Multimodal – Hayward Project.
294
IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA , 2024
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
295
East Bay Greenway Multimodal Project Hayward Segment 1
Attachment III:
Project Concepts - Sections
ATTACHMENT III PROJECT CONCEPTS
296
East Bay Greenway Multimodal Project Hayward Segment 2
Sunset Boulevard from Mission Blvd to Montgomery St (looking eastbound) Existing
Project Concept
Bicycle Boulevard + Traffic Calming
• Reduces vehicle travel lane width
• Maintains on-street parking
• Places speed humps every 250 – 300’
&
Employs additional traffic calming
treatments to keep vehicle volumes low and
reduce vehicle speeds to 20 MPH
42’
66’
66’
42’
297
East Bay Greenway Multimodal Project Hayward Segment 3
Montgomery Avenue from Sunset Blvd to B St (looking northbound) Existing
Project Concept
Bicycle Boulevard + Traffic Calming
• Maintains on-street parking
• Maintains existing cross section
• Places speed humps every 250 – 300’
&
Employs additional traffic calming treatments
recommended to keep vehicle volumes low
and reduce vehicle speeds to 20 MPH
36’
53’
53’
36’
298
East Bay Greenway Multimodal Project Hayward Segment 4
B Street from Montgomery Ave to Grand St (looking eastbound) Existing
Project Concept
Two-Way Class IV Bikeway
• Employs road diet from 3 lanes to 2
• Maintains on-street parking
• Introduces two-way Class IV bikeway
on south side, next to BART station
52’
76’
52’
76’
299
East Bay Greenway Multimodal Project Hayward Segment 5
Grand Street from B St to D St (looking northbound)
Existing
Project Concept
Two-Way + One-Way Class IV Bikeway
• Employs road diet from 5 lanes to 3
• Maintains on-street parking
• Introduces two-way Class IV on east side
near BART (changed from one-way Class IV
per BART’s and ATWG’s requests)
&
One-way Class IV on west side (retained
previously recommended, per ATWG’s
request)
63’
80’
62’
80’
Bike lanes
300
East Bay Greenway Multimodal Project Hayward Segment 6
Grand Street from D St to Meek Ave (looking northbound) Existing
Project Concept
One-Way Class IV Bikeway
• Employs road diet from 5 lanes to 3
• Maintains on-street parking
• Introduces one-way Class IV on both
sides
63’
80’
62’
80’
301
East Bay Greenway Multimodal Project Hayward Segment 7
Meek Avenue from Grand St to Silva Ave (looking westbound) Existing
Project Concept
One-Way Class IV Bikeway
• Removes on-street parking on west
side (68% utilization) (~11 spaces)
• Introduces one-way Class IV on both
sides
42’
60’
46’
60’
302
East Bay Greenway Multimodal Project Hayward Segment 8
Silva Avenue from Jackson St to Sycamore Ave (looking northbound) Existing
Project Concept
Bike Boulevard + Traffic Calming
• Maintains on-street parking
• Places speed humps every 250 – 300 feet
&
Employs additional traffic calming treatments to keep
vehicle volumes low and reduce vehicle speeds to 20
MPH
Notes: 1) Previously recommended “pinch point” will not work due to excessive traffic
2) Facility will not meet All Ages and Abilities (AAA) Criteria due to traffic volume generated within is over 5,000
vpd vs. 2,000 vpd to meet AAA Criteria
32’
48’
32’
48’
303
East Bay Greenway Multimodal Project Hayward Segment 9
Sycamore Avenue from Silva Ave to Whitman St (looking eastbound) Existing
Project Concept
Two-Way Class IV Bikeway
• Removes on-street parking (49% utilization, ~7
spaces)
• Introduces two-way Class IV on north side of
street
• Provides continuous two-way Class IV facility
around curve to Whitman St
33’
49’
33’
49’
Bike lanes
304
East Bay Greenway Multimodal Project Hayward Segment 10 Whitman Street from Sycamore Ave to Orchard Ave (looking northbound) Existing
Project Concept
40’
56’
29’
56’
Class I Shared Use Path
• Reduces lane width from 12 to 11 feet (and
maintains bus route)
• Removes on-street parking on east side only (49%
utilization, ~55 spaces) (changed from previously
recommended removal from both sides)
• Introduces Class I shared use path on east side
within city R/W, near rail line (fewer
bike/ped/driveway conflicts) (per city’s request,
changed from previously recommended two-
way Class IV bikeway & sidewalk)
• Employs traffic calming treatments to reduce
vehicle speeds to posted speed limit of 25 MPH
• Provides room for landscaping (city’s request)
14’
Shared Use Path
305
East Bay Greenway Multimodal Project Hayward Segment 11 68’
48’
Whitman Street from Orchard Ave to Berry Ave (looking northbound) Existing
Project Concept
< 20 parking spaces removed / ~20% average daily parking utilization 68’
36’
Class I Shared Use Path
• Maintains on-street parking on
both sides
• Introduces Class I shared use path
on east side within city R/W, near
rail line (changed from previously
recommended two-way Class IV
bikeway & sidewalk)
• Employs traffic calming treatments
to reduce vehicle speeds
• Provides room for landscaping
11’
Bikeway
6’
Walkway
19’ Shared Use Path
19’
Shared Use Path
306
East Bay Greenway Multimodal Project Hayward Segment 12 50’
38’
Whitman Street from Berry Ave to Harder Rd (looking northbound) Existing
Project Concept
50’
29’
Class I Shared Use Path
• Removes on-street parking on east side only
(50% utilization, ~77 spaces)
• Introduces Class I shared use path on east side
within city R/W, near rail line (changed from
previously recommended two-way Class IV
bikeway & separate sidewalk)
• Employs traffic calming treatments to reduce
vehicle speeds
12’
Shared Use Path
307
East Bay Greenway Multimodal Project Hayward Segment 13 Existing
Project Concept
60’
46’
60’
36’
Whitman Street from Harder Rd to Fruitwood Wy (looking northbound) Class I Shared Use Path
• Maintains on-street parking
• Introduces Class I shared use path on east
side within city R/W, near rail line (changed
from previously recommended two-way
Class IV bikeway & separate sidewalk)
• Employs traffic calming treatments to
reduce vehicle speeds
• Provides room for landscaping (city’s
request
)
12’
Shared Use Path
308
East Bay Greenway Multimodal Project Hayward Segment 14 Whitman Street from Fruitwood Way to Tennyson Road (looking northbound) Existing
Project Concept
60’
46’
60’
35’
Two-Way Class IV Bikeway
• Introduces two-way bikeway (transitions to
west side from Roadway north of, next to
middle and high schools to enhance safe
school access)
• Employs traffic calming treatments to
reduce vehicle speeds
309
East Bay Greenway Multimodal Project Hayward Segment 15 Tennyson Road from Whitman St to Dixon St (looking eastbound) Existing
Project Concept
Two-Way + One-Way Class IV Bikeway
• Removes on-street parking on both
sides (21% utilization)
• Introduces two-way Class IV bikeway on
south side of street next to BART station
• Converts existing westbound Class II
bike lane to Class IV bike lane (as
requested by ATWG, changed from
previous recommendation to leave as
is)
84’
100’
35’ 35’
84’
100’
35’ 35’
310
East Bay Greenway Multimodal Project Hayward Segment 16 Dixon Street from Tennyson Rd to BART (looking northbound) Existing
Project Concept
One-Way Class IV Bikeway
• Reduces travel lane widths to 11 feet
• Converts Class II bike lanes to Class VI
on both sides
48’
62’
48’
62’
311
East Bay Greenway Multimodal (EBGWMM) Project:
Hayward Segment
Phase 3 Outreach Summary
September 2025
ATTACHMENT IV
312
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 3 PURPOSE AND APPROACH OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................ 3 OVERVIEW OF RESULTS .................................................................................................................................. 3 OUTREACH APPROACH ............................................................................................................................... 4 MATERIALS ................................................................................................................................................... 5 FLYERING AND DOOR-TO-DOOR OUTREACH EFFORT ........................................................................................ 5 OUTREACH TO ORGANIZATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 6 TITLE VI COMPLIANCE EFFORTS ....................................................................................................................... 7 OUTREACH RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 9 IN-PERSON FEEDBACK (DOOR-TO-DOOR OUTREACH) ........................................................................................ 9 ONLINE FEEDBACK (FEEDBACK FORM) ........................................................................................................... 10 Parking Frequency ............................................................................................................................ 11 SCHOOL ENGAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................... 13 Tennyson High School Meeting ....................................................................................................... 13 School Survey .................................................................................................................................... 14 Cesar Chavez Middle School Meeting .......................................................................................... 17 INDIVIDUAL INPUT PROVIDED BY EMAIL OR PHONE ........................................................................................... 18 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP (ATWG) MEETING INPUT HIGHLIGHTS .......................................... 19 Traffic Calming Measures ................................................................................................................ 19 Whitman Street Recommendations ............................................................................................... 20 Silva Avenue & Sycamore Avenue Recommendations .............................................................. 21 Grand Street Recommendations ................................................................................................... 22 Project Alignment ............................................................................................................................. 22 BART Station Connections ................................................................................................................ 23 Next Steps .......................................................................................................................................... 24 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................ 25 APPENDIX A: OUTREACH AREA ................................................................................................................ 26 APPENDIX B: OUTREACH MATERIALS........................................................................................................ 27
313
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
3 Introduction and Executive Summary
This document summarizes engagement efforts and community input for Phase 3 of the Alameda County Transportation Commission’s (Alameda CTC) East Bay Greenway Multimodal (EBGWMM) Project: Hayward Segment (Project).
Purpose and Approach Overview
Timing: April-July 2025
Purpose: • Generate excitement about proposed improvements. • Educate residents along the corridor about the benefits of the project, as well as the timeline and tradeoffs.
• Gather input from residents and community members who may be directly impacted.
Engagement
Methods:
• Flyering and door-to-door outreach along Montgomery
Street, B Street, Grand Street, Meek Avenue, Silva Avenue, Sycamore Street, Whitman Street, and adjacent side streets. • Online feedback form for corridor residents to share input. • Correspondence with individual residents regarding questions or comments shared.
• Communication with all three schools located along Whitman Street.
• Tailored survey to collect input from Tennyson High School and Cesar Chavez Middle School staff and students.
• Active Transportation Working Group (ATWG) Meeting #4.
Materials: • Flyer with QR code to feedback form.
• Design concept cross sections.
• Feedback form.
• Presentation slide deck.
All materials were available in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Simplified Chinese, and Tagalog.
Overview of Results
Over five days, the Project Team distributed 969 total flyers covering 2.5 miles of the project corridor plus all cross streets. Flyers provided a project overview and encouraged residents to take the feedback form to offer their input. This effort included:
• Door-to-door outreach: 193 flyers distributed; staff knocked on doors with the intention of speaking with a resident. Residents answered the door in some cases, resulting in 55 conversations.
• Flyering: 776 flyers were distributed with links to online feedback form; staff left flyers at properties in visible locations.
314
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
4 Key themes of community and stakeholder feedback included:
• Support for future changes: Residents were curious and appreciative of the effort to improve aesthetics, safety, and walking conditions.
• Concerns with existing conditions: Residents were aware of and expressed frustration with heavy traffic and speeding in their neighborhood and viewed it as a primary safety issue.
• Apprehension regarding potential impacts of future changes: Some residents shared concern that removing parking and/or vehicle lanes would cause impacts to residents. Some requested other traffic calming measures be considered.
School engagement with students and staff through a digital survey showed a desire to prioritize the safety of school students, including curbing vehicular speeds and conserving street parking.
ATWG Meeting #4 with Hayward stakeholders concluded engagement for Phase 3.
ATWG members discussed the importance of traffic calming measures and emphasized the need for protected bike facilities.
Outreach Approach
To complete flyering and door-to-door outreach, the Project team spent 50 hours in the Hayward community knocking on doors, engaging in conversations, and flyering, to reach as many residents as possible and encourage people to complete the feedback form. Appendix A: Outreach Area includes a map showing the entire route, with blue and orange corridors signifying flyering routes and green corridors signifying door-to- door routes.
After every interaction and flyer distribution, a member of the Project team completed an internal reporting form to document the address, activity, and any comments or sentiments if a conversation ensued. In the portion of the outreach effort that involved knocking on doors, staff hand wrote messages on flyers when leaving them behind, to explicitly direct residents to the feedback form and encourage them to share their input.
To reach the communities of Tennyson High School, Cesar Chavez Middle School, and Harder Elementary School, the Project team visited the schools, distributed multiple emails to school staff, and followed up with phone calls with the intention of scheduling meetings. This resulted in one meeting with Tennyson High School, and a school survey distributed to students and staff of Tennyson High School and staff of Cesar Chavez Middle School developed based on feedback received in the meeting. 315
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
5 Materials
The Project team utilized multiple mediums to engage with residents: a Project flyer, feedback form, and cross section overview. Appendix B: Outreach Materials provides these materials. All materials were made available in Spanish, Simplified Chinese, Vietnamese, and Tagalog, meeting Title VI requirements. • Project flyer
o Content: existing challenges, proposed improvements, next steps, project benefits, and potential impacts.
o Interactivity: It included QR code links to the project website and feedback form.
o Language accessibility: The flyer included a brief overview in Spanish, Simplified Chinese, Vietnamese, and Tagalog, with QR code links to each respectively translated flyer and cross sections.
• Feedback form: The feedback form included questions surrounding the Project’s benefits, street parking, potential impacts, and general comments. • Cross sections: The cross sections, made available on the Project website, visually depicted the existing and proposed improvements, including the impacts in the Project area.
• School survey: A brief survey focusing on Whitman Street described the two options for consideration near Tennyson High and Cesar Chavez Middle Schools, detailed tradeoffs between the two options, and gathered input from students and staff on preferences between the two options.
• Presentation slide deck: For the ATWG meeting, a slide deck provided an overview of recent community engagement (door-to-door/flyering feedback and school engagement/survey) and presented on final project alternatives and design elements.
Flyering and Door-to-Door Outreach Effort
The Project team spent 50 hours in the field over the span of five days distributing a total of 969 flyers. Table 1 outlines the daily metrics that the Project team achieved in that time frame. The Project team covered approximately 19 miles of ground during outreach.
Table 1. Staff effort and flyers delivered by day.
Date Combined Staff
Hours
# of Staff # of Flyers
Distributed
Activity
4/16/2025 12 hours 4 94 Door-to-door
4/17/2025 12 hours 4 65 Door-to-door
316
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
6 Date Combined Staff
Hours
# of Staff # of Flyers
Distributed
Activity
4/22/2025 10 hours 3 199 Door-to-door &
Flyering
4/25/2025 10 hours 3 392 Flyering
4/28/2025 6 hours 2 219 Flyering
Total 50 hours 969 Flyers
Outreach to Organizations
In addition to private residences, the Project team ensured comprehensive outreach to stakeholders and community members in schools, businesses, places of worship, and apartment complexes along the Project area. The extent of response to the Project team’s outreach varied, with some organizations accepting multiple flyers to hang around the premises, while apartment complexes distributed links directly to their residents. Table 2 outlines the details surrounding the outreach for these organizations.
Table 2. Organizations reached through flyer distribution.
Organization Description Projected Reach or Audience
Animal Hospital Gave brief project
introduction and dropped off
flyer
Staff and clients
Berry Tree
Apartment Complex
Dropped off flyer in leasing or
manager office
34 residential units
Bethesda Christian
Retirement Center
Dropped off flyer in leasing or
manager office
40 residential units
Cesar Chavez
Elementary School
Attempted to speak with staff Not applicable
Church of Christ of
Hayward
Dropped off flyer Staff and church attendees
Collision Center Gave brief project
introduction and dropped off
flyer
Staff and clients
Community Garden Dropped off flyer Garden members
First Christian Church Dropped off flyer Staff and church attendees Fresh Outpouring
Church
Dropped off flyer Staff and church attendees
Harder Elementary
School
Attempted to speak with staff
multiple times but were
Not applicable
317
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
7 Organization Description Projected Reach or Audience
unavailable at time flyering
effort occurred
Journey Church East
Bay
Dropped off flyer Staff and church attendees
Ministerios Puente
de Fe
Dropped off flyer Staff and church attendees
Mundo Feliz Family
Daycare
Dropped off flyer Staff and clients
Park Manor
Apartment Complex
Sent email with links to flyers
and feedback form
81 residential units
Park Orchard
Apartment Complex
Sent email with links to flyers
and feedback form
150 residential units
Sycamore Plaza
Apartment Complex
Gave a brief project
introduction and flyer to
resident to share
22 residential units
Templo de la Cruz Dropped off flyer Staff and church attendees Tennyson High
School
Got contact information from
administrative secretary to
follow up after district
approval
After district approval, all
staff, parents, and students
Weinreb Place
Senior Housing
Dropped off flyer in leasing or
manager office
22 residential units
Whitman Green
Apartment Complex
Sent email with links to flyers
and feedback form
188 residential units
Young Scholars
Program
Dropped off flyer Staff and clients
Title VI Compliance Efforts
As part of Alameda CTC’s commitment to provide meaningful access to all individuals accessing services provided by the agency, outreach for the EBGWMM Project – Hayward segment included the following methods, guided by the Title VI Language Assistance Plan (LAP) for Limited English Proficient (LEP):
• Flyers distributed to residences and organizations were provided in English, with a translated paragraph in Spanish, Vietnamese, Tagalog, and Simplified Chinese directing readers to translated versions of the document. • Fully translated flyers and cross-section documents were available through the project website in Spanish, Vietnamese, Tagalog, and Simplified Chinese. 318
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
8 • The feedback form was also provided in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Tagalog, and Simplified Chinese.
• The team conducting outreach in the field always included at least one Spanish speaker, and multiple introductory conversations with residents occurred in Spanish.
• The City of Hayward made a phone number available for residents needing additional language support; this number was included in all flyers.
319
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
9 Outreach Results
The Project team distributed 969 total flyers through door-to-door outreach and flyering, resulting in 55 conversations and 37 responses in the feedback form. Coordination with schools resulted in 65 school survey responses.
• Door-to-door outreach: 193 flyers distributed to residents o 55 conversations
48 brief project introductions directing to the feedback form. 7 feedback forms completed during the conversation.
o Language Usage
43 conversations held in English.
12 conversations held in Spanish.
• Flyering: 776 flyers distributed to residents, apartments, businesses, and places of worship.
• Feedback form: 37 responses
• School survey: 65 responses
• ATWG meeting #4: 12 ATWG members provided input.
In-person feedback (door-to-door outreach)
Residents shared a mixture of reactions to the proposed concept design in conversations during the door-to-door outreach. While some expressed support of their street receiving attention/investment and agreed that changes were necessary, there was mixed sentiment regarding what those changes may look like. Though generally supportive of the project’s main multimodal improvements (design and connectivity), residents had concerns regarding current vehicle speeding and traffic congestion, and potential parking removal associated with the improvements. Common themes of input included:
• Safety
o Concern due to excessive speeding along Whitman Street. o Request for traffic calming measures, such as speed bumps and stop signs, to decrease vehicle speed.
o Fear of heavy traffic congestion and speeding due to personal experiences with injury or loss.
• Connectivity
o Appreciation for protected bike lanes and questions about the design aspect.
o Support for keeping pedestrians off the street and improving sidewalks. • Aesthetics
o Excitement for the improvements in lighting, trees, and landscaping. • Parking Removal
320
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
10 o Recognition of parking removal trade-off due to added improvements. o Hesitancy and disapproval of parking removal due to worry that parking would flood into side streets, especially in front of the schools.
Online feedback (feedback form)
Despite the extensive outreach effort made by Alameda CTC’s design team, only 37 responses were received via the online survey, which is approximately 4% of the total properties reached. The team suspects that the low number of responses may be due to several reasons, including residents being busy and unable to take time to complete the form, fatigued or overwhelmed by engagement efforts and requests, or comfortable with the direction the project is going and not motivated to share input. It may also be the case that volunteer response bias, a phenomenon where individuals choose to respond to a survey out of a strong feeling about the subject, partially skewed the data set, not representing the average view.
The feedback form posed specific questions around the project improvements and allowed residents to share their comments and concerns in their own words. Please refer to Appendix B: Outreach Materials to view the full set of survey questions.
Common themes of input included an appreciation for the intention of the Project and concern with the potential impacts. Residents noted current issues of speeding, traffic congestion, and parking availability. Many residents recognized that their street requires drastic improvements to alleviate these ailments and find that this concept design will not provide the relief necessary.
• Connectivity
o 4 residents stressed the importance of creating a continuous walking and biking experience along Whitman Street.
• Safety
o 4 residents highlighted the importance of prioritizing safer biking for children in the neighborhood. One had witnessed a near collision of kids on their bikes and oncoming traffic.
o 2 residents saw the existing bike lane on Whitman Street as sufficient space for cyclists and did not find the addition of protected bike lanes necessary.
o 7 residents recognized speeding as Whitman Street’s most dangerous challenge and pressing issue, desiring calming measures that impact speeding drivers instead of residents.
• Traffic Congestion
o 7 residents were nervous about the potential negative impacts on traffic flow and vehicular collisions during rush hours because of the proposed changes.
321
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
11 o 3 residents were worried that larger vehicles, like fire trucks and garbage trucks, would not be able to pass through because of the proposed changes/traffic calming.
• Parking and Vehicle Lane Reduction
o 13 residents held strong opinions surrounding the removal of parking, as it would cause an influx of parking into side streets, make parking more difficult for residents in multi-unit houses, and create traffic obstructions in front of the schools.
o 7 residents were not supportive of removing a vehicle lane as it would increase the already overcrowded and congested streets during traffic hours.
o 1 resident pointed out that the number of people driving and using street parking outweighed the number people using the bike lane.
Parking Frequency
Most residents who provided input via the online feedback form shared that they use street parking often, and many of these are also Whitman Street residents. According to feedback form responses:
• 60% of residents noted they use street parking daily (see Figure 1). • 70% of feedback received through the feedback form came from Whitman Street residents (see Figure 2).
• 43% of residents that selected ‘daily parking’ in the feedback form were Whitman Street residents (See Figure 3).
Hence, the majority of feedback collected from the outreach forms was from Whitman Street residents, residents that use street parking, or both. Issues and concerns raised in the feedback forms included residents’ observations of drivers bypassing Mission Boulevard, high frequency of collisions due to speeding vehicles, and heavy reliance on street parking. Parking removal was cited as the top concern for residents who filled out the feedback form. The figures below illustrate results of the feedback form regarding street parking frequency and response rate by street residence.
322
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
12 Figure 1.
As shown in Figure 1, 22 of the 37 respondents selected that they use street parking daily.
Figure 2.
As shown in Figure 2, Whitman Street residents provided the most survey responses, followed distantly by Sycamore Street and Silva Avenue residents. Not shown in Figure 2 are the streets where only one response was received (Montgomery Street, B Street, Grand Street, Meek Avenue, Hurley Drive, Beale Drive, Burke Drive, Joanne Street, and Starling Drive).
0 5 10 15 20 25
No response
Other
Multiple times per week
Weekly
Occasionally or for guests
Never
Daily
Number of Selections
Frequency of Street Parking
Total Street Parking Frequency
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Silva Avenue
Sycamore Street
Whitman Street
Number of Completed Feedback Forms
Street Name
Number of Completed Feedback Forms Per Street Name
323
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
13 Figure 3.
As shown in Figure 3, the majority of Whitman Street resident respondents use street parking daily, followed by never and no response. Of the 13 responses from other streets, 8 responded that they use street parking daily, 3 responded never, and 1 responded occasionally. In total, the 37 feedback from respondents provided 39 responses to this question with two respondents indicating parking on multiple streets.
School engagement
Tennyson High School Meeting
The Project team met with the principal, Veronica Estrada, and administrative secretary, Kathy Vigil, of Tennyson High School on 6/6/2025 to listen to their questions, concerns, and impressions on the project’s concept design, improvements, and impacts. Listed below is an overview of their feedback:
• Concept design
o Participants showed interest in viewing examples of the concept design to get a better understanding of what the reality of the construction would look like in front of their school.
• Parking
o Staff currently uses both sides of Whitman Street for parking. 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18Number of Resident Selections
Street Name
Street Parking Frequency by Street
Daily
Never
Occasionally
or for guests
Multiple times
per week
Other
No response
324
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
14 o Estrada and Vigil shared that staff could use the student parking lot for parking if one side of street parking were removed.
o The student parking lot has gates that close during the day, causing many students to park on Whitman Street and other side streets. • Biking
o Many staff and students regularly bike to school.
• Public Transit and Bus Drop Off
o Participants raised logistical questions on how AC Transit, Eden Area ROP (Regional Occupational Program) and other bus services would continue to function in lieu of added bike facilities.
• Arrival and dismissal
o Tennyson High School blocks off the loop driveway to avoid blockages during arrival and dismissal.
o Traffic congestion during this time piles up and down the street. • Desire for more engagement
o There was a desire to gather more input from security, students, and staff who would be directly impacted by these changes, with a focus on those who bike to school.
o Participants suggested some form of engagement during the upcoming summer school session and stated that additional outreach is vital to get their support.
School Survey
In response to direct feedback from Tennyson High School staff, the Project team created a specific survey for Tennyson High School and Cesar Chavez Middle School students, faculty, and staff. This survey highlighted two safety improvement concept options on Whitman Street in front of each facility, described tradeoffs between the options, and asked respondents to select their preference between the two options as shown in the images below.
325
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
15 Of the 65 respondents, 30 preferred Option 1 and 35 preferred Option 2. Please see Appendix B: Outreach Materials for the survey questions and corresponding graphics.
The results of the survey are outlined below:
• 65 total responses
o 6 responses from Cesar Chavez Middle School
All faculty or staff responses
o 59 responses from Tennyson High School
43 student responses
16 faculty or staff responses
• Travel mode to and from school
o 15 participants walk to school
o 6 participants bike to school
o 3 participants take public transit
o 41 participants drive or driven by another person. Of those, 9 use street parking on Whitman Street
6 use street parking on a side street
7 park in the student parking lot
15 park in the staff parking lot
4 participants selected other and indicated they are dropped off and picked up.
30 selections for Option 1, reasons including:
• Preference for a wider sidewalk as walking spaces become quite crowded with the large number of students that walk to and from school every day. o With more people walking and riding on the school side, it makes sense to provide more space on that side.
• Strong desire for a more bicycle and pedestrian friendly space due to ample staff and student parking availability.
• Convenience and aesthetics.
• Improves safety for students who use scooters and bikes by providing dedicated, protected bike lanes.
• Hope that narrowing lanes and parking spaces will slow down speeding drivers and encourage them to proceed with more caution, as many students have already reported being struck or nearly struck by vehicles with reckless drivers. • Student-centered and safety conscious.
35 selections for Option 2, reasons including:
• A strong desire to keep street parking on both sides, in order to accommodate residents in the community that rely on it, accommodate school drop off/pick up, and avoid illegal U-turns that block up traffic.
• More spacious for all no matter their travel mode.
326
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
16 • Concern that removing one side of street parking would make people mad. • Benefits both cyclists and drivers.
• Keeps cyclists protected and safe.
• Both schools have limited staff parking, making street parking a necessity for those driving to school.
• Need for a parking buffer between cars and pedestrians on both sides of the street.
• Reduces risk of collisions by reducing parking near intersections and crosswalks.
General comments, and concerns
• Traffic and road safety concerns
o Concern that drivers making a right turn out of driveways leaving the condos on the west side of Whitman may not be able to see cyclists in the bike lane approaching.
o Need for traffic calming measures beyond narrower vehicle lanes as riders are already impatient and pass stopped cars by speeding around. o Importance of street parking on both sides of Whitman in front of school areas to avoid traffic blockages during drop off/pick up. o Preference for traffic flow during drop off/pick up to come from the direction of Harder Elementary towards Tennyson Road.
o Request for cameras or a patrol officer to monitor reckless driving on Whitman.
o Disdain for morning traffic on Whitman and concern that these concept designs will worsen it.
o Dislike for either option, citing high vehicle speeds coupled with the end of the school day as a chaotic time. No changes would be best, as new blueprints will create more traffic and construction will be a nightmare. o Fear that narrowing vehicle lanes would increase risk of accidents and hinder first responders.
o Desire for speed bumps and crosswalk signals.
o Push for car-centered improvements (turning lane in front of school parking lots, bigger drop off area, etc.) due to higher usage of vehicles for travel modes to school.
o Alternative idea for green painted bike lanes on current road, with barriers only at intersections, since two-way traffic with bikes and scooters on the same side seems more dangerous.
o Concern for bus access during field trips when car lanes are narrowed. • Pedestrian and sidewalk concerns
o Request that the sidewalk on both sides of Whitman Street be the same size in width.
327
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
17 • Other
o Support for Greenway project.
o Request for construction to be in the summer months.
o Maintain enough space for street cleaning.
• Questions
o “Why are there two lanes [one in each direction] for cars coming and going and the same for bicycles?”
Takeaways
Although total selections between Option 1 and Option 2 were essentially split down the middle, preferences among students and staff/faculty differed, with more students preferring Option 1 and more staff/faculty preferring Option 2. The details of this breakdown are below.
Student vs Staff/Faculty Option Choices
Whitman Street Option 1 (30 supporters)
• 6 faculty/staff (4 Tennyson & 2
Cesar Chavez)
• 24 students (Tennyson)
Whitman Street Option 2 (35 supporters)
• 16 faculty/staff (12 Tennyson & 4
Cesar Chavez)
• 19 students (Tennyson)
More students preferred Option 1, which removes parking on the east side of Whitman Street and widens both the sidewalk and bike lanes. More faculty/staff preferred Option 2, which maintains parking on both sides of Whitman Street and narrows both the sidewalk and bike lanes. This preferential nuance must be considered when evaluating all school feedback.
Cesar Chavez Middle School Meeting
After the closing of the school survey, the Project team met with the principal, Khanh Yeargin, of Cesar Chavez Middle School on 7/22/2025 to listen to her questions, concerns, and impressions on the project’s concept design, improvements, and impacts. Listed below is an overview of her feedback:
• Preference for Option 1
o Yeargin explained that Option 1 encourages students to bike/scooter to school and is the overall safer option.
• Parking
o The current staff parking lot is small, at capacity, and does not hold everyone. About 10 staff members use street parking.
o Student parking is not a concern as students do not drive to school at Cesar Chavez.
328
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
18 o Yeargin wondered if all the school side parking will remain. The project team explained that all the school side parking will remain except for the 10 feet of space in front of crosswalks, aligning with existing conditions. • Biking and Safety
o School bike cage holds ~30 bikes/scooters.
o One Tennyson High School student got hit by a car while biking in front of Cesar Chavez.
o Yeargin’s main concern was that students can bike safely. • Stop signs
o Last year or so, Yeargin noted that the stop signs in front of the school at Beale Drive and Whitman Street were switched to yield signs. Yeargin requested stop signs remain in front of the school.
• Pick-Up and Drop-Off
o Yeargin requested that the pick-up and drop-off passenger loading zone for buses remains, while keeping drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists safe. • Overall, Yeargin appreciated being consulted, involved, and informed.
Individual input provided by email or phone
The Project team received some input from concerned residents through follow up phone calls and emails. Their input is briefly summarized in the below.
Table 3. Input from other sources.
Date Source Summary
4/13/2025 Email • Concern for parking removal, especially with muti-unit residents having multiple vehicles being common in
Hayward.
• Support for improved lighting as current car break-ins occur in darker portions of the street.
4/22/2025 Phone Call • Concern for speeding, as drivers treat Whitman Street like a freeway.
• Desire for improved speed enforcement and signage,
especially due to schools in the neighborhood.
• Excitement for more lighting and trees.
• No opinion regarding parking removal.
4/23/2025 Phone Call • Concern for parking removal as current parking options and conditions are already an issue.
• Favor for parking retention in exchange for narrower
bikeway and sidewalk facilities.
4/28/2025 Email • Suggestion to acquire Union Pacific Railroad right-of- way rather than reducing a lane at Grand and B.
• Request to not use plastic delineators/bollards due to eventually being worn.
329
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
19 Active Transportation Working Group (ATWG) Meeting
The ATWG met for the fourth time at Hayward City Hall on Wednesday, July 23, 2025 from 10:00 AM to 11:30 AM. The Project team gave an overview of community engagement (door-to-door/flyering feedback and school engagement/survey) and presented the draft final version of the conceptual project alignment, types of facilities, and traffic calming measures. The presentation was followed by a discussion session where ATWG members shared their impressions and provided direct feedback on the project recommendations. Two follow-up virtual meetings were conducted on July 25 and August 13, 2025 with two ATWG members who were unable to attend the July ATWG meeting.
The key outcomes of the ATWG meeting were as follows:
• General Support for the Project - The project team shared that the next steps for the project would be to present these recommendations to CIAC in October. No ATWG members objected to “co-signing” or showing support for the project at the October CIAC meeting.
• Modifications to Project Recommendations | Based on feedback provided by ATWG members, the project team modified the bike facility recommendations for two locations: 1) Grand Street between B Street and D Street; and 2) Tennyson Road between Whitman Street and Dixon Street.
The specific feedback received from the ATWG meeting is described below.
Traffic Calming Measures
• Speed Hump Design| One ATWG member inquired about the composition of speed humps. He cited the ones placed on Montgomery Avenue, made of plastic and rubber composite, as effective speed reducers. In response, the City replied that they are transitioning to hot mix asphalt speed humps due to improved durability. The ATWG member named newer speed humps placed on Tampa Avenue, C Street, Tyrrell Avenue, and Fairview Avenue as extremely effective at reducing the speed of vehicles. The City responded that it is open to reviewing and potentially updating speed hump specifications and overall design standards.
• Raised Crosswalk Design | An ATWG member noted that Alameda County installed raised crosswalks taller than the ones installed by the City, and that they appear more effective at slowing vehicles.
330
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
20 • Distance between Traffic Calming Measures | An ATWG member asked why the various traffic calming measures were recommended at 200 feet apart, with examples cited from 7th Street where speed humps appear closer together. In response, the project team shared that speed humps must stay clear of driveways and allow for utilities access. The City also uses best practice guidelines from its Traffic Calming Toolbox to determine speed hump placement.
• Bus Stop Locations | An ATWG member representing AC Transit requested that the placement of speed humps and other traffic calming measures consider AC Transit bus stop locations. Placing vertical traffic calming away from bus stops will allow buses to stop on a level surface for boarding and alighting passengers. As part of AC Transit Realign service changes, bus stop locations will not change; the existing stop locations need to be accounted for in the final EBGWMM design.
Whitman Street Recommendations
• Parking Removal | An ATWG member shared concerns about parking removal on Whitman Street as the parking spots that would be removed are in front of people’s homes, not businesses. In response, the project team confirmed that on-street parking removal is a complex issue, and that the additional community engagement completed as part of the Phase 3 Outreach showed nuanced responses for and against this tradeoff. ATWG members requested ongoing community outreach regarding the project and on-street parking, even after the environmental clearance.
• Landscaping | One ATWG member asked if the project team was open to reducing landscaping on Whitman Street to create a wider trail. In response, the project team explained that the recommended widths already meet minimum standards for Class I trails. The City noted that the project team conducted extensive outreach to the communities on Whitman Street, and the feedback received indicated that greenery, landscaping, lighting, and beautification should be included to balance those tradeoffs.
• Shared-Used Path | An ATWG member asked that the walking and biking lanes on the shared-use path will be delineated in some manner. The project team confirmed that delineation will be included where feasible.
Smooth Transitions | ATWG members asked how cyclists could maneuver safely between the two-way Class I bikeway on the east side (from Sycamore to Fruitwood) and the two-way Class IV bikeway on the west side (Fruitwood to Tennyson). The project team pointed out the transition point at Fruitwood Way 331
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
21 was chosen because there is an existing marked crosswalk that can be used.
Crosswalk improvements at this location will be addressed as part of the final design. One ATWG member suggested small medians approaching the crosswalk to slow down traffic and get the attention of drivers.
In a follow-up call, an ATWG member representing Bike Hayward (who could not attend the ATWG meeting) recommended a raised intersection be implemented at this location, if feasible.
• Railroad Right of Way | One ATWG member asked if there was a possibility to include Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right of way as part of this project. In response, the project team stated that securing right of way from the rail would take a lot longer and therefore will not fit into this near-term project implementation schedule.
Separation between On-Street Parking and Bikeway | An ATWG member emphasized the need for adequate space between parking and the bikeway so that people can open their car doors comfortably. The project team confirmed that this was taken into consideration in the recommendations.
Silva Avenue & Sycamore Avenue Recommendations
All Ages and Abilities (AAA) Criteria| An ATWG member wondered how Silva Avenue will be used as part of the project if it does not meet the AAA criteria.
The project team explained that the AAA guidelines are a recommendation rather than a requirement, and that Silva Avenue will still be part of the EBGWMM project. Traffic calming measures are expected to make bicycling along Silva Avenue more comfortable due to reduced speeds, and the traffic calming measures are likely to reduce cut-through traffic volumes. However, the traffic that is generated within the Silva/Whitman corridor will continue to be high. The project team explained that the EBGWMM project’s improvements will not preclude the City from evaluating and completing additional improvements in the future.
• Raised Bikeway | An ATWG member asked if it was possible to have a raised bikeway on Silva Avenue. In response, the project team shared that this was evaluated and not recommended due to the fencing and trees that limit the ability of drivers entering and exiting the residential driveways to see people on the sidewalk.
Sycamore/Whitman Curve | One ATWG member asked how the curve at Sycamore and Whitman will be addressed. The project team stated that a two- 332
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
22 way bike lane would be on the north side of Sycamore Avenue so that it continues to the east side of Whitman Street to avoid any crossing. The project team noted that the piers for the pedestrian bridge will pose a challenge for design solutions in this area. ATWG members agreed that it is important to maintain a continuous bike facility around the curve.
Grand Street Recommendations
Two-Way Class IV Bikeway | An ATWG member asked if Grand Street could include a two-way Class IV bike lane on the east side because cyclists ride along the east side going to and from Hayward BART. The ATWG member representing BART supported this suggestion as well. They explained that cyclists currently use the sidewalk which is narrow and inadequate. In response, the project team explained that a two-way bicycle facility would not be appropriate south of D Street due to the high number of single-family homes and driveways. The project team agreed to consider the potential for a two-way Class IV bike lane north of D Street.
Another ATWG member shared that they frequently bike and walk along Grand Street and do not witness cyclists biking the wrong way on the east side. They supported the current draft recommendation that has a one-way class IV bikeway on each side of Grand Street but would be okay with a revision of the recommendation if there is still room for a southbound class IV bikeway on the western side.
• Left Turn Lane | One ATWG member asked if the left turn lane on Grand Street was necessary. In response, the project team explained the safety benefits of the turn lane, especially with the proposed lane reductions.
• Revised Recommendation | Following ATWG Meeting #4, the project team revised the recommendation for Grand Street between B Street and D Street to include a two-way Class IV bike lane as requested.
Tennyson Road Recommendations
• Class IV Bike Lanes | Following ATWG Meeting #4, one ATWG member who was unable to attend the meeting requested that a one-way protected Class IV bike lanes be provided on the north side of the street (westbound direction), in addition to the two-way Class IV bike lane that is proposed along the south side of the street. They noted that bicyclists from neighborhoods north of the South 333
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
23 Hayward BART station are likely to use this connection. The project team agreed to review this recommendation.
• Revised Recommendation | Following ATWG Meeting #4, the project team revised the recommendation for Tennyson Road between Whitman Street and Dixon Street to include a one-way Class IV bike lane on the north side of the street as requested.
Project Alignment
• Montgomery Avenue and Sunset Boulevard | One ATWG member asked why A Street was not being considered as the connection to Mission Boulevard, instead of the existing recommendation of Montgomery Avenue and Sunset Boulevard.
In response, the project team noted the driveway conflicts along Mission Boulevard and the complex design of the Mission Boulevard/A Street intersection, and the challenges in addressing these as part of a near-term project.
One ATWG member asked what intersection treatments are proposed where Montgomery Avenue crosses A Street. The project team stated that a protected intersection is recommended at this location.
Mission Boulevard| An ATWG member expressed frustration that Mission Boulevard was no longer in the picture for safety and infrastructure improvements as part of the EBGWMM project. Although he is in favor of this project as proposed, he felt that needs along the Mission Boulevard corridor are severe. The project team noted that improvements along Mission Boulevard are being addressed separately by the City.
• Western Boulevard | One ATWG member expressed the desire for a two-way bikeway on Western Boulevard from A Street to Hampton Road with a possible connection to San Lorenzo. Their hope is that this route be considered for a future project.
BART Station Connections
• Hayward BART Transitions | ATWG members expressed a desire to maintain connectivity between bicycle facilities around the Hayward BART station, in particular from B Street to Grand Street down to Meek Avenue.
334
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
24 • Potential Development | One ATWG member stated that BART has identified the vacant property bordered by A Street, B Street, and Montgomery Avenue for potential transit-oriented development.
Next Steps
• Council Infrastructure and Airport Committee (CIAC) Meeting | The project team shared that the next steps for the project would be to present these recommendations to CIAC in October.
One ATWG member said the recommendations on Silva Avenue and Whitman Street make sense and seem like reasonable compromises. The ATWG members shared general excitement and support for the proposed conceptual level project improvements.
• Support for Students | One ATWG member was glad that the project prioritized pedestrian and cyclist safety on Whitman Street for students. They noted that Mayor Salinas is pushing for more kids to walk and bike to school, going hand in hand with the goals of this project.
335
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
25 Conclusion
In person and online feedback demonstrated appreciation of Project benefits and improvements that pertained to the safety, aesthetic, and walkability of their neighborhood. Proposed improvements that would impact traffic patterns, parking removal, and vehicle lane reductions, led to varying degrees of concern from residents who shared input, though generally residents recognized the need to improve current conditions.
This feedback can be grouped into support for future changes, concerns with existing conditions, and apprehension with future changes:
• Support for future changes
o Praise for landscaping efforts, signaling the desire to beautify the streets with greenery, better lighting, and maintenance improvements (such as potholes on Silva Avenue).
o Agreement with connectivity, safety, and visibility improvements, especially those that would improve walking and biking conditions on their streets, including the pedestrian bridge.
o Desire for safe and smooth transitions between changing bike facilities remained paramount.
• Concerns with existing conditions
o Excessive speeding is seen as a central issue in the Project area. Therefore, proposed traffic calming measures are much appreciated. o Frustration with daily traffic congestion, with a few residents citing drivers that use Whitman Street to bypass Mission Boulevard as significant contributors.
• Apprehension about future changes
o Concerns with parking removal and vehicle lane reduction, especially along Whitman Street, as it may exacerbate rather than alleviate current conditions.
o Proposed protected bike lanes generally well received but often not at the expense of residential parking removal.
Residents recognize the desire for and benefits of including better walking, biking, and rolling options between the Hayward and South Hayward BART stations. However, due to concerns around existing conditions, such as speeding, traffic congestion, and limited parking options, some residents are also weary of the impacts that the proposed EBGWMM Project would bring to their community.
336
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
26 Appendix A: Outreach Area
The blue and green corridor is the total project area.
The blue and orange corridors signify flyering routes. The orange flyering routes were added to the outreach area to include residences that do not live directly on Whitman Street, but use it frequently to access their homes.
The green corridor signify door-to-door routes.
337
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
27 Appendix B: Outreach Materials
• Project flyer and cross sections
o English
o Spanish
o Chinese
o Vietnamese
o Tagalog
• Door-to-door and Flyering Feedback form
338
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
28 Door-to-door and Flyering Feedback form
339
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
29 • School Survey
340
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
30
341
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
31
342
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
32
343
EBGWMM Hayward Segment – Phase 3 Outreach Summary
33
344
ATTACHMENT V
345