Agenda packet — Hayward City Council, June 2, 2026 (part 2 of 4)

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Calling for Bids for the FY 2026 Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Wheelchair Ramp Project, Project No. 05348

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) approving the plans and specifications for the FY26 Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Wheelchair Ramps Project No. 05348 and calling for bids to be received on July 7, 2026.

SUMMARY
This project is a continuation of the City’s Annual Sidewalk Repair Program that began in 2001. The City is currently divided into ten districts for the purpose of the Program (Attachment III). Two districts, 1 and 8, will be the focus of this year’s program to address continuous repair and improvement needs.

The project budget is $1,000,000 and is included in the FY26 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Project includes 296 locations for sidewalk repair and installation of 10 wheelchair ramps. The proposed improvements will repair damaged sections of sidewalks and increase pedestrian mobility.

On November 15, 20161, Council adopted a resolution authorizing a Community Workforce Agreement (CWA) with the Alameda County Building Trades Council (BTC), which applies to City projects with construction costs of $1,000,000 or more. The construction cost estimate for this project is LESS than $1,000,000; therefore, the CWA agreement does not apply to this project.
1 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2882111&GUID=118B2EF9-1D2C-471F-999E4BE0929706A0&Options=&Search= 120

Page 2 of 5 ends

FISCAL IMPACT
This item has no impact on General Fund. The adopted FY26 CIP includes $1,000,000 for the Project in the Street System Improvements Fund (Fund 450). Reimbursement from property owners for the sidewalk rehabilitation is estimated to be approximately $80,000.

The estimated project costs are as follows:

Contract Construction $700,000
Trip Hazard Removal (under a separate contract) $40,000 Design $60,000
Construction Administration, Construction Survey, Inspection, and Testing
$100,000
Administrative Change Orders $100,000
TOTAL $1,000,000

BACKGROUND
When the Program was initiated, the City was divided into ten districts (Attachment III) to facilitate the selection of sidewalk areas for repairs during each year of a five-year cycle. This year, the work will be performed in two districts, Districts 1 and 8.

The Program for the repair of damaged concrete sidewalks consists of two components, each performed under separate construction contracts. City staff conducted a sidewalk survey in these districts to identify the number and location of sidewalk repairs. The first contract, which will be processed under the City Manager’s contract authority, will remove tripping hazards from sidewalk displacements or offsets up to 1¾ inches. These hazards will be removed by saw cutting or grinding each uplifted sidewalk panel across the width of the sidewalk to produce a smooth and uniform surface that meets the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) slope requirements. Grinding or saw cutting up to 1¾” from a short segment of the typical 4” sidewalk section is less expensive and more cost effective than the removal and replacement of an entire sidewalk section.

The second component of the Program, which is the subject of this report, removes and replaces, with new concrete, all sidewalk displacements exceeding 1¾ inches.

DISCUSSION
This year’s project will repair damaged sidewalks in the Downtown Area (District 1) and the Sleepy Hollow Area (District 8). The project includes repair of approximately 13,000 square feet of damaged sidewalk and curb and gutters plus the installation of 10 new wheelchair ramps in various locations, tree trimming, root pruning of existing trees and planting of new trees. As part of the project, the contractor will retain an arborist to examine the condition of existing trees and inspect all root-pruning work. Based on the preliminary inspection, staff anticipates removing 16 trees and planting 27 new trees in various locations. New trees 121

Page 3 of 5 ends

will be planted where street trees are absent, where an existing tree must be removed because of disease or it is in danger of falling, where a need for extensive root pruning may kill the tree, or where a more suitable tree species will minimize future maintenance efforts.

Ten (10) new wheelchair ramps will also be installed or upgraded to bring wheelchair ramps into compliance with current ADA standards. (Attachment IV) Pursuant to Section 5610 of the California Street and Highway Code, property owners are responsible for repairing damaged sidewalks in front of their properties. Under the City’s program, property owners with damaged sidewalks are given the choice of completing the work themselves or having the repairs undertaken by the City’s contractor for a nominal fee of $550 per property.

Non-residential properties, like commercial property owners are responsible for 100% of the cost to repair damaged sidewalks fronting their properties. For the current year, the City will not perform sidewalk repairs for non-residential properties because the amount of repairs needed to residential properties exceeded the budgeted amount. Non-residential property owners will be notified of required repairs and directed to complete them at their own expense within a specified timeframe. Permits will be required to ensure the repairs are done in compliance with City standards; however, the permit fees will be waived. Failure to comply may result in further enforcement actions as permitted by City regulations.

The project budget is $1,000,000 and is included in the FY26 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Project includes 296 locations for sidewalk repair and installation of approximately 10 wheelchair ramps. The proposed improvements will repair damaged sections of sidewalks and increase pedestrian mobility.

On November 15, 20162, Council adopted a resolution authorizing a CWA with the BTC, which applies to City projects with construction costs of $1,000,000 or more. The construction cost estimate for this project is less than $1,000,000; therefore, the CWA agreement does not apply to this project.

This project is categorically exempt for environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15301(c) that covers the operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing streets, sidewalks, and gutters.

ECONOMIC IMPACT
This project will have a positive economic impact on the community as it provides safer and more accessible sidewalks and ramps for pedestrians. Dividing the City into ten districts allows staff to select and recommend districts to ensure equitable distribution of this service to all City residents and businesses.

STRATEGIC ROADMAP
2 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2882111&GUID=118B2EF9-1D2C-471F-999E4BE0929706A0&Options=&Search= 122

Page 4 of 5 ends

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

SUSTAINABILITY FEATURES
This project requires that all material generated during demolition and construction be sent to designated facilities for recycling. Recycled Portland Cement Concrete will be required for use as aggregate base for the concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The improvements made to the sidewalks will encourage the public to walk more as opposed to driving their vehicles.

This reduces both carbon emissions and carbon footprints, which is beneficial for the environment.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Owners of the affected properties will receive certified letters regarding the program along with a response form to return to the City indicating their choice to complete the repairs themselves or pay the $550 fee for a single-family. Property owners have the option of paying the fee in one lump sum or in twelve monthly payments. The response form also includes a list of trees that an owner can choose from for a replacement tree. Before construction commences, a second notice will be sent to all property owners who did not respond to the first notice to assure they were aware of the program. Prior to the start of the construction another 48-hour advance door-hanger notice will be placed by the contractor of the start of the repair work.

NEXT STEPS
If Council approves, staff will release the calls for bids. The estimated schedule for this project is as follows:

Receive Bids July 07, 2026
Award Contract August 18, 2026
Begin Construction September 21, 2026
Complete Construction November 12, 2026
123

Page 5 of 5 ends

Prepared by: Mir Ali, Assistant Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Dave Hung, Acting Deputy Director of Public Works Recommended by: Alex Ameri, Director of Public Works
Approved by:
______________________________
Jennifer Ott, City Manager
124

ATTACHMENT II

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 26-____
Introduced by Council Member _________
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE FY 2026

SIDEWALK REHABILITATION AND WHEELCHAIR RAMPS PROJECT, PROJECT NO. 05348, AND CALL FOR BIDS
WHEREAS, those certain plans and specifications for the Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Wheelchair Ramps, FY 2026 Project, Project No. 05348, on file in the office of the City Clerk, are hereby adopted as the plans and specifications for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice calling for bids for the required work and material to be made in the form and manner provided by law; and WHEREAS, sealed bids therefor will be received by the City Clerk’s office at City Hall, 777 B Street, at the Rotunda, Hayward, California 94541, up to the hour of 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 7, 2026, and immediately thereafter publicly opened and declared by the City Clerk in the Rotunda, first Floor, at City Hall.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council will consider a report on the bids at a regular meeting following the aforesaid opening and declaration of same.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the project is categorically exempt under section 15301(c) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines for the operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing facilities. 125

Page 2 of 2 ends

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA _______________________, 2026 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
126

ATTACHMENT III
127

LOCATION MAP
SIDEWALK REHABILITATION DISTRICT NO. 1
PROJECT NO. 05348
NOTE: LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. REFER TO TABLE FOR DETAILS.

ATTACHMENT IV Page 1 of 7
128

LOCATION MAP
SIDEWALK REHABILITATION DISTRICT NO. 1
PROJECT NO. 05348
NOTE: LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. REFER TO TABLE FOR DETAILS.

ATTACHMENT IV Page 2 of 7
129

LOCATION MAP
SIDEWALK REHABILITATION DISTRICT NO. 1
PROJECT NO. 05348
NOTE: LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

REFER TO TABLE FOR DETAILS.

ATTACHMENT IV Page 3 of 7
130

LOCATION MAP
WHEELCHAIR RAMPS DISTRICT NO. 1
PROJECT NO. 05348
NOTE: LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. REFER TO TABLE FOR DETAILS.

ATTACHMENT IV Page 4 of 7
131

LOCATION MAP
SIDEWALK REHABILITATION DISTRICT NO. 8
PROJECT NO. 05348
NOTE: LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. REFER TO TABLE FOR DETAILS.

ATTACHMENT IV Page 5 of 7
132

LOCATION MAP
SIDEWALK REHABILITATION DISTRICT NO. 8
PROJECT NO. 05348
NOTE: LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

REFER TO TABLE FOR DETAILS.

ATTACHMENT IV Page 6 of 7
133

LOCATION MAP
WHEELCHAIR RAMPS DISTRICT NO. 8
PROJECT NO. 05348
ATTACHMENT IV Page 7 of 7
134
CITY OF HAYWARD Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: CONS 26-215
DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Manager

SUBJECT
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a First Amendment to the Master Agreement and Lease with the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District for the Inclusion of the Matt Jimenez Gymnasium

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute the proposed First Amendment to the Master Agreement and Lease to incorporate the Matt Jimenez Gymnasium (Attachment III) with the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District (HARD).

SUMMARY
The City and HARD entered into a Master Agreement and Lease (MLA) effective July 1, 2023, for the operation and maintenance of City-owned park sites. Under the MLA, HARD assumes responsibility for operating and maintaining designated facilities in exchange for nominal rent of $1.00 per year.

Since execution of the MLA, the City and HARD have identified an opportunity to clarify the roles and responsibilities for the Matt Jimenez Gymnasium (MJG), located within the Stack Center facility. The City and HARD staff both recommend the terms for an exhibit outlining roles, responsibilities, and costsharing for the MJCC gymnasium. The proposed First Amendment incorporates the exhibit into the MLA, ensuring consistency with the overarching lease framework while establishing facility-specific operational terms.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Amendment Exhibit
CITY OF HAYWARD Page 1 of 2 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™135
File #: CONS 26-215
CITY OF HAYWARD Page 2 of 2 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™136

Page 1 of 3 ends

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a First Amendment to the Master Agreement and Lease with the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District for the Inclusion of the Matt Jimenez Gymnasium

Since execution of the MLA, the City and HARD have identified an opportunity to clarify the roles and responsibilities for the Matt Jimenez Gymnasium (MJG), located within the Stack Center facility. The City and HARD staff both recommend the terms for an exhibit outlining roles, responsibilities, and cost-sharing for the MJCC gymnasium. The proposed First Amendment incorporates the exhibit into the MLA, ensuring consistency with the overarching lease framework while establishing facility-specific operational terms.

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

The Amendment establishes a proportional cost-recovery mechanism for utilities and shared systems at the MJCC, ensuring that operational costs are equitably distributed between the parties.
137

Page 2 of 3 ends

BACKGROUND
HARD was created in 1944 as an independent special district under California law. HARD maintains and operates parks in Hayward and surrounding unincorporated communities and receives property tax revenue and voter-approved bond funding (Measure F1) to support its operations and capital improvements.

The City and HARD have maintained a long-standing partnership since 1970 through successive master agreements governing City-owned parkland. The current MLA, effective July 1, 2023, established a ten-year term with three optional five-year extensions and formalized responsibilities related to park operations, maintenance standards, and collaboration.

DISCUSSION
When the MLA was executed, the former Matt Jimenez Community Center (now the Stack Center) was under construction, including the Gymnasium. Now that the Stack Center Phase I and MJG are operational, staff is proposing an amendment to the MLA that incorporates the MJG into the existing agreement framework.

The Amendment adds the MJCC as a new exhibit to the MLA, establishing facility-specific provisions for operations, maintenance, cost-sharing, and programming, while maintaining consistency with the broader lease terms. HARD will be responsible for operating, maintaining, and programming designated portions of the MJCC, while the City or the Stack Center operator will retain responsibility for exterior elements and shared systems. HARD will reimburse its proportional share of utilities and shared facility costs.

The Amendment also provides a coordinated operational framework for the multi-use facility and reinforces shared goals of equitable community access. HARD will retain primary scheduling authority, provide a minimum of seven weekly hours to the Police Athletic League (PAL) at no cost, and accommodate limited City use annually, subject to availability. All other provisions of the MLA remain unchanged, with the Amendment controlling in the event of any conflict.

NEXT STEPS
Upon Council approval, the City Manager will execute the First Amendment. Staff will coordinate with HARD and the Stack Center operator to implement the operational, maintenance, and programming provisions for the MJG.

Staff will continue to monitor performance and coordination under the MLA and may return to Council with future updates or amendments as needed.
138

Page 3 of 3 ends

Prepared by: Tracy Irvin, Real Property Manager
Recommended by: Mary Thomas, Assistant to the City Manager Approved by:
_______________________________
Jennifer Ott, City Manager
139

ATTACHMENT II

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 26-____
Introduced by Council Member _________

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND

EXECUTE A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER AGREEMENT AND LEASE

WITH THE HAYWARD AREA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT FOR

INCLUSION OF THE MATT JIMENEZ GYMNASIUM
WHEREAS, Chapter 4 of Division 5 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California authorizes and empowers any city and recreation district to cooperate with each other and to that end enter into agreements with each other for the purpose of establishing community recreation programs and facilities; and
WHEREAS, City and District entered into a Master Agreement and Lease dated November 17, 1970, for the purpose of establishing and maintaining park sites within the City of Hayward; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District (“District”) entered into a Master Agreement and Lease (“MLA”) dated July 1, 2023, for the purpose of establishing and maintaining park sites and recreational facilities within the City of Hayward; and
WHEREAS, City and District staff have developed and agreed upon terms related to the operation, maintenance, cost-sharing, and programming of the Matt Jimenez Gymnasium (“MJG”), which both parties desire to incorporate the terms into the MLA through a First Amendment, in order to ensure consistency and clarity within a single governing document; and
WHEREAS, the proposed First Amendment clarifies the roles and duties of the MJG to the MLA and establishes facility-specific provisions while maintaining all other terms and conditions of the MLA in full force and effect.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hayward authorizes the City Manager to negotiate and execute the First Amendment to the Master Agreement and Lease with the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District to incorporate an exhibit for the Matt Jiminez Gymnasium, in a form approved by the City Attorney, into the MLA.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all other terms and conditions of the Master Agreement and Lease shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect except as expressly modified by the First Amendment.
140

ATTACHMENT II

Page 2 of 2 ends

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA _______________________, 2026 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
141

ATTACHMENT III

Page 1 of 3 ends

EXHIBIT A

PROVISIONS FOR THE USE OF THE MATT JIMENEZ GYMNASIUM AT THE STACK CENTER As with all properties covered in this Master Lease, it is mutually agreed and understood that the nominal rent is in recognition that the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District (“District”) will expend substantial funds to operate and maintain the facility, as defined in the Facility Section (see below).

Facility
For the term of the Master Lease, the District will operate and maintain the section of the Stack Center shown in green below, which includes the gymnasium, gymnasium bathrooms, north storage area, storage rooms, northeast office, storage room 8, etc.

The District is aware that the City has a separate agreement with an operator (“the Stack Center Operator”) for the Stack Center. The Stack Center Operator will operate and maintain the section of the facility shown in grey on the facility map below, as well as all external areas immediately surrounding the building.

Although the District is not a tenant of the Stack Center Operator, the Stack Center Operator will include 142

ATTACHMENT III

Page 2 of 3 ends

the District staff in the Stack Center Tenant Council (“Tenant Council”) and on any communications regarding MJCC operations and programming. District participation in the Tenant Council is optional.

Care of Premises
The District agrees to maintain the area defined in green of the Facility Section above to the same standard as all facilities covered by this Master Lease Agreement, Section 4: Care of Premises. This includes all necessary and ordinary custodial and janitorial functions, as well as routine maintenance of fixtures and equipment, and the interior of the facility, such as lighting and bathroom fixtures, within the areas noted in the Facilities section above. The City or the Stack Operator will be responsible for all areas not defined in the Facility Sections and for all exterior building elements, including exterior walls, roof, windows, and landscaping – including broken windows, graffiti, and weeding.

Repairs - For shared building systems, such as heating and water heating (for the area defined in the Facility Section), the District agrees to reimburse the City or the Stack Center Operator for fifty percent (50%) of all costs for the repairs and maintenance as defined in the Facility Section.

If any repairs are needed to the shared building systems, the City or the Stack Center Operator shall be solely responsible for identifying and addressing the required repairs. The City or the Stack Center Operator will notify the District of non-emergency maintenance or repairs at least one month in advance. The City or the Stack Center Operator will provide a quote for the work, allowing the District no more than thirty (30) days to propose other options. With written approval from the City or the Stack Center Operator, the District may also bill the City or the Stack Center Operator, the approving party, for all approved repair work performed by District staff. Written approval from the City or the Stack Center Operator must be received prior to the District performing any repairs. Any work performed by the District prior to written approval from the City or Stack Center Operator will be at the District’s own expense and risk of non-reimbursement. The City or the Stack Center Operator will notify the District immediately of emergency repairs.

Utilities
The District will be responsible for a share of gas, electric, and water utilities. The share will be equal to the proportion of hours used, based on the previous quarter's hourly usage. The proportional share of hours will be determined no later than 30 days after the end of each quarter. The Stack Center Operator will be the lead organization for paying bills and will bill the District quarterly for reimbursement, including an invoice for: total programmed hours, District programmed hours, and the rate per hour.

The City or Stack Center Operator will cover garbage for the full facility. The District will reimburse the City or the Stack Center Operator for its prorated share of the garbage use.

The District will be responsible for its own alarm system, as indicated in the green area in the image. The rest of the building will have a security alarm that is operated by the City or the Stack Center Operator.

Fire and all other alarms shall be paid and managed by the City or the Stack Center Operator. The District will reimburse the City or the Stack Center Operator for the prorated share of any Fire or other alarm systems shared across the premises.

Programming of the Gymnasium:

The City and the District share a vision of equitable access to the MJCC, including access for youth residents of South Hayward. The District will use its current prioritization and existing health equity initiatives to pursue this shared vision.
143

ATTACHMENT III

Page 3 of 3 ends

The District will allocate a minimum of seven (7) weekly gym hours to the Police Athletic League (PAL) at no cost. PAL will submit the reservation request in accordance with the District’s established scheduling procedures.

District Data Collection and Reporting
The District will make available the following summary of indicators every year to the Public through an annual District Report:

1. Summary of applicants for the MJCC slot, where available

2. Summary of users by zip codes, where available
City Usage of Gymnasium:

The City will have the right to use the Gymnasium at no cost for up to twelve (12) events and programs per year. The City will notify the District at least six (6) weeks in advance of any request to use the facility. The District has the first right to scheduling and can deny the City’s request if other programs or events are already scheduled. Otherwise, the District will make its best effort to accommodate any requests. In the event of an emergency, the District and City shall follow the protocol outlined in Section 3 of the Master Lease Agreement.
144
CITY OF HAYWARD Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: CONS 26-216
DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Assistant City Manager

SUBJECT
Adopt Resolutions Authorizing the City Manager to 1) Accept and Appropriate a Congressionally Designated Community Project Funding Grant in the Amount of $1,930,000 to Support Regis Village Improvements, and 2) Execute an Agreement with Bay Area Community Services to Pass Through the Community Project Funding Grant as Designated by Congress

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:

1. Adopts a resolution (Attachment II) authorizing the City Manager to accept and appropriate $1,930,000 in FY2024 Community Project Funding Grant funds from the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development to support Regis Village Improvements; and

2. Adopts a resolution (Attachment III) authorizing the City Manager to execute an Agreement with Bay Are Community Services to pass through the FY2024 Community Project Funding Grant funds for Regis Village Improvements.

SUMMARY
This month, staff is bringing two items to Council related to Bay Area Community Services (BACS) and the Hayward Navigation Center (HNC): 1) This time-sensitive item seeking Council approval to pass through federal funds to BACS for infrastructure improvements, and 2) An item on June 16 seeking Council authorizing to execute the FY 2026-27 operating agreement with BACS.

The purpose of this report is to request City Council authorization for the City Manager to accept and appropriate congressionally designated Community Project Funding and to execute an agreement with BACS to pass through these funds for HNC physical improvements to Regis Village, including rehabilitation activities necessary to support the transition of the HNC to the new site. This passthrough funding was included in the FY 2024-25 federal budget and is time sensitive. Staff will return on June 16 with the second item that will include a discussion of HNC and Regis Village operations for the coming year.

ATTACHMENTS
CITY OF HAYWARD Page 1 of 2 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™145
File #: CONS 26-216
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Draft Resolution to Accept and Appropriate CPF Grant Attachment III Draft Resolution CPF Grant Agreement
CITY OF HAYWARD Page 2 of 2 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™146

Page 1 of 3 ends

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolutions Authorizing the City Manager to 1) Accept and Appropriate a Congressionally Designated Community Project Funding Grant in the Amount of $1,930,000 to Support Regis Village Improvements, and 2) Execute an Agreement with Bay Area Community Services to Pass Through the Community Project Funding Grant as Designated by Congress

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:

Page 2 of 3 ends

BACKGROUND
In Fiscal Year 2024-2025, the City was designated as a pass-through entity for a congressionally directed FY2024 Economic Development Initiative – Community Project Funding (EDI-CPF) grant administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024. EDI-CPF grants support a broad range of community and economic development activities, typically tied to public infrastructure construction and improvements, housing, and community services projects identified through Congressional Community Project Funding requests. The City was awarded $1,930,000 to support the Regis Multi-Service Campus Project. These restricted funds will be used for site preparation and rehabilitation activities necessary to bring the property into compliance to support planned uses, including operation of the HNC.

DISCUSSION
EDI-CPF Grants are congressionally directed grants administered by HUD under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024. Congress appropriated approximately $3.29 billion across 2,407 projects nationwide.

In August 2024, staff was notified that the City was awarded a CPF grant in the amount of $1,930,000 in support of the Regis Multi-Service Campus Project. These funds were specifically designated by Congress and were not awarded through a competitive process. Since notification, staff have participated in required HUD onboarding meetings and trainings and completed the Environmental Review requirements as required by HUD. The grant funds are restricted to the approved project scope and support site preparation and rehabilitation activities necessary to bring the property into compliance to support planned uses, including operation of the HNC.

FISCAL IMPACT
This item has no impact on the General Fund. Approval of this resolution allows BACS to complete planned property rehabilitation activities.

Upon Council approval, staff will be prepared to promptly draw down eligible costs under the grant to ensure timely reimbursement from HUD.

ECONOMIC IMPACT
Reducing homelessness and poverty and supporting individuals in moving into permanent housing through programs like the ones offered at Regis Village produce broader positive economic and community impacts.
148

Page 3 of 3 ends

STRATEGIC ROADMAP
This agenda item supports the Strategic Priority of Preserve, Protect, and Produce Housing, under
• Project H2: Implement the Homelessness Reduction Strategic Plan

PUBLIC CONTACT
This item is related to the Let’s House Hayward (LHH) Strategic Plan, under Strategy 2.1.

Through the LHH process, Homebase, City staff, and partners throughout the Hayward community have worked together to engage a diverse set of stakeholders to inform the plan and strategy for Hayward moving forward.1

NEXT STEPS
If City Council adopts these resolutions, staff will work with the City Manager to execute agreements with BACS to pass through the EDI-CPF grant funds.

Prepared by: Carol Lee, Senior Management Analyst
Recommended by: Dr. Emily Young, YFSB Administrator
Mary Thomas, Assistant City Manager
Approved by:
______________________________
Jennifer Ott, City Manager
1 For more information on the Let’s House Hayward! Strategic Plan process, please visit https://www.haywardca.gov/lets-house-hayward
149

ATTACHMENT II

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 26-____
Introduced by Council Member _________

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT AND
APPROPRIATE A FISCAL YEAR 2024 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE - COMMUNITY PROJECT FUNDING (CPF) GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,930,000 FROM DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE ST. REGIS MULTI-SERVICES CAMPUS PROJECT
WHEREAS, In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law 118-42) (the FY2024 Act), and the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law 118-47) (the Further FY2024 Act) Congress made $3,290,054,336 in funding available for Community Project Funding (CPF); and
WHEREAS, CPF awards are administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and
WHEREAS, HUD received the information below about the St. Regis Multi-Services Campus project from Congress; and
WHEREAS, in August 2024, the City was awarded $1,930,000 for the St. Regis MultiServices Campus project; and WHEREAS, these funds are restricted to the approved project scope and will support site preparation and rehabilitation activities necessary to bring the property into compliance to support planned uses, including operation of the HNC.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hayward authorizes the City Manager or their designee to accept $1,930,000 in grant funding from HUD to support the St. Regis Multi-Services Campus project and increase revenue and appropriations in Fund 220 (Federal Grants) for FY 2025-26. 150

ATTACHMENT II

Page 2 of 2 ends

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA _______________________, 2026 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
151

ATTACHMENT IV

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 26-____
Introduced by Council Member _________

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN

AGREEMENT WITH BAY AREA COMMUNITY SERVICES (BACS) TO PASS

THROUGH A COMMUNITY PROJECT FUNDING GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,930,000
WHEREAS, In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law 118-42) (the FY2024 Act), and the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law 118-47) (the Further FY2024 Act) Congress made $3,290,054,336 in funding available for Community Project Funding (CPF); and
WHEREAS, CPF awards are administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and
WHEREAS, HUD received the information below about the St. Regis Multi-Services Campus project from Congress; and
WHEREAS, in August 2024, the City was awarded $1,930,000 for the St. Regis MultiServices Campus project; and WHEREAS, the City will act as a passthrough for said funds for Bay Area Community Services (BACS) to support the necessary improvements to bring the property into compliance to support planned uses, including operation of the HNC; and WHEREAS, said funds were specifically designated by Congress for this purpose and were not awarded through a competitive process; and
WHEREAS, through separate resolution the City Council of the City of Hayward has accepted these funds and increased revenue and appropriations in Fiscal Year 2025-26; and WHEREAS, staff have complied with and completed HUD requirements in order to receive the award; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hayward authorizes the City Manager or their designee to execute an agreement between the City and Bay Area Community Services for an amount not-to-exceed $1,930,000 as a pass through for the FY2024 EDI-CPF Grant in support of the St. Regis Multi-Services Campus Project. 152

ATTACHMENT IV

Page 2 of 2 ends

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA _______________________, 2026 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
153
CITY OF HAYWARD Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: CONS 26-217
DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Clerk

SUBJECT
Adopt a Resolution Calling for the City of Hayward General Municipal Election, to Be Consolidated with the Statewide General Election on November 3, 2026, for the Purpose of Electing One Council Member from District 1, One Council Member from District 6, and One At-large Mayor, Each to Serve Four-Year Terms; and Adopt a Resolution Establishing Regulations for Candidate Statements

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council (1) adopt a resolution that: a) calls and orders a General Municipal Election to be held in the City of Hayward on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, for the purpose of electing one Council Member from District 1, one Council Member from District 6, and one at-large Mayor, each to serve fouryear terms, b) requests that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors consolidate the City of Hayward General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election, and c) authorizes specific procedural and contractual actions (Attachment II); and (2) adopt a resolution establishing policies for the filing of candidate statements of qualifications (Attachment III).

SUMMARY
Pursuant to the requirements of the City Charter and the Elections Code of the State of California relating to general municipal elections, the City Council is requested to adopt a resolution calling a general municipal election and requesting the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to order the consolidation of the City of Hayward General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026. Due to expiring terms, it is necessary to elect one Council Member from District 1, one Council Member from District 6, and one at-large Mayor, to serve four-year terms. The City Council is also requested to adopt a resolution setting forth particulars of the election relating to candidate statements.

According to Elections Code 10220, the first day for issuing nomination papers is Monday, July 13, 2026, and the last day is Friday, August 7, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. If an incumbent decides not to seek re-election, the nomination period extends to Wednesday, August 12, 2026. Incumbents cannot file during the extended period. The California Secretary of State will conduct a random alpha drawing on August 13, CITY OF HAYWARD Page 1 of 2 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™154
File #: CONS 26-217
2026, to determine the order in which candidate names will appear on the ballot.

The Alameda County Registrar of Voters, acting under the direction of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, is requested to provide all necessary election services at the request of the City Clerk. These services include signature verification for nomination petitions, official ballot production, preparation of sample ballots and voter information guides, vote-by-mail operations, vote center and drop boxes, voter registration services, voting equipment, canvassing activities, and any additional services required for the conduct of the General Municipal Election.

The Alameda County Registrar of Voters provides an estimate of the total cost of printing, handling, translating, and mailing candidate statements, including costs associated with compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. Each candidate submitting a statement must pay an estimated pro rata share in advance as a condition of having the statement included in the voter information pamphlet. Candidates may later be billed for additional actual costs or refunded any excess depending on the final cost of services.

Pursuant to Hayward Municipal Code section 2-13.04, a mayoral candidate who accepts the adjusted Voluntary Expenditure Limit may also accept the established contribution limit, which for 2026 is $1,838 per individual. The current Voluntary Expenditure Limit per mayoral candidates is $93,865. For candidates in district elections who accept the Voluntary Expenditure Limit, the individual contribution limit is $1,500, and the Voluntary Expenditure Limit is $50,000 per individual.

Pursuant to Hayward Municipal Code section 2-13.03, the current contribution limit for candidates who do not accept the Voluntary Expenditure Limit is $420 per individual.

During the election cycle, campaign disclosure statements for all candidates will be posted on the City’s Election webpage - Public Portal for Campaign Finance Disclosure - within twenty-four hours of receipt.

The General Municipal Election Calendar (Attachment IV) provides a list of pertinent dates related to the election.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Candidate Statement Resolution
Attachment IV General Municipal Election Calendar
CITY OF HAYWARD Page 2 of 2 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™155

Page 1 of 3 ends

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Clerk
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Calling for the City of Hayward General Municipal Election, to Be Consolidated with the Statewide General Election on November 3, 2026, for the Purpose of Electing One Council Member from District 1, One Council Member from District 6, and One At-large Mayor, Each to Serve Four-Year Terms; and Adopt a Resolution Establishing Regulations for Candidate Statements

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council (1) adopt a resolution that: a) calls and orders a General Municipal Election to be held in the City of Hayward on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, for the purpose of electing one Council Member from District 1, one Council Member from District 6, and one atlarge Mayor, each to serve four-year terms, b) requests that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors consolidate the City of Hayward General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election, and c) authorizes specific procedural and contractual actions (Attachment II); and (2) adopt a resolution establishing policies for the filing of candidate statements of qualifications (Attachment III).

FISCAL IMPACT
The Alameda County Registrar of Voters has estimated the cost of consolidating elections at $4 to $6 per registered voter. Based on this estimate, the City projects an election cost of approximately $500,000 and has included this amount in the proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 Operating Budget.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Pursuant to the requirements of the City Charter and the Elections Code of the State of California relating to general municipal elections, the City Council is requested to adopt a resolution calling a general municipal election and requesting the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to order the consolidation of the City of Hayward General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026. Due to expiring terms, it is necessary to elect one Council Member from District 1, one Council Member from District 6, and one at-large Mayor, to serve four-year terms. The City Council is also requested to adopt a resolution setting forth particulars of the election relating to candidate statements. 156

Page 2 of 3 ends

Incumbents cannot file during the extended period. The California Secretary of State will conduct a random alpha drawing on August 13, 2026, to determine the order in which candidate names will appear on the ballot.

Pursuant to Hayward Municipal Code section 2-13.03, the current contribution limit for candidates who do not accept the Voluntary Expenditure Limit is $420 per individual.

During the election cycle, campaign disclosure statements for all candidates will be posted on the City’s Election webpage – Public Portal for Campaign Finance Disclosure1 within twentyfour hours of receipt.

The General Municipal Election Calendar (Attachment IV) provides a list of pertinent dates related to the election.
1 Elections Page – Public Portal for Campaign Finance Disclosure https://public.netfile.com/pub2/Default.aspx?aid=HWD
157

Page 3 of 3 ends

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

PUBLIC CONTACT
Information regarding the election is available on the City’s website at: https://www.haywardca.gov/your-government/elections The Notice of Election will be published in the East Bay Times – Daily Review as required by Section 12101 of the California Elections Code. In addition, election-related requirements will be posted on the City’s Elections webpage and included in the 2026 Election Guide, which will be provided to all candidates running for office in the November 3, 2026 election.

Prepared and Recommended by: Miriam Lens, City Clerk
Approved by:
______________________________
Jennifer Ott, City Manager
158

ATTACHMENT II

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 26-_
Introduced by Council Member ______________

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HAYWARD CALLING FOR A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 2026, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING ONE COUNCIL MEMBER FROM DISTRICT 1, ONE COUNCIL MEMBER FROM DISTRICT 6, AND ONE AT-LARGE MAYOR, EACH TO SERVE FOUR-YEAR TERMS; AND REQUESTING THAT THE

ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONSOLIDATE THE CITY OF

HAYWARD GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE

ELECTION

WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Hayward City Charter, a General Municipal Election for the election of officers shall be consolidated with the General Election held in even numbered years; and
WHEREAS, a Statewide Election will be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026.

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

SECTION 1. That the City of Hayward General Municipal Election is hereby called and ordered to be consolidated with the Statewide Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2023, for the purpose of electing one Council Member from District 1, one Council Member from District 6, and one at-large Mayor, to serve four-year terms ending in 2030.

SECTION 2. That in accordance with the provisions of the State of California Elections Code Section 10002 and 10403, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors is requested to consolidate the City of Hayward General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election.

SECTION 3. That the Registrar of Voters of Alameda County is requested to perform services in connection with said election at the request of the City Clerk. These services include all necessary services related to:
a. signature verification for nomination petitions; and b. official ballot production; and
c. preparation of sample ballots and voter information guides; and d. vote-by-mail operations; and
159

ATTACHMENT II

Page 2 of 3 ends

e. vote center and drop boxes; and
f. voter registration services; and
g. canvassing activities; and
h. any additional services required for the conduct of the General Municipal Election.

SECTION 5. That in the particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by State law for holding municipal elections.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause the posting, publication, and printing of all notices or other election materials pursuant to the requirements of Elections and Government Codes of the State of California.

SECTION 7. That in the event of a tie vote (if any two or more persons receive an equal number of votes for an office) as certified by the Alameda County Registrar, the City Council, in accordance with Election Code Section 15651(b), shall conduct a special runoff election to resolve the tie vote and such special runoff election is to be held on a Tuesday no less than 40 nor more than 125 days after the administrative or judicial certification of the election which resulted in a tie vote.

SECTION 8. That the City Council authorizes the City Clerk to administer said election and all reasonable and actual election expenses shall be paid by the City upon presentation of a properly submitted bill.

SECTION 9. That the Alameda County Board of Supervisors is hereby authorized to canvass, or cause to be canvassed, as provided by law, the returns of the General Municipal Election with respect to the votes cast for one Council Member from District 1, one Council Member from District 6, and one at-large Mayor and to certify such canvass of the votes cast.

SECTION 10. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify to the duly adoption of this resolution and to transmit a copy thereof so certified to the Alameda County Clerk and the Alameda County Registrar.

SECTION 11. That the City Council shall meet at a regular meeting to review the canvass of the returns of the General Municipal Election and declare the results thereof. 160

ATTACHMENT II

Page 3 of 3 ends

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA ______________________________, 2026 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
161

ATTACHMENT III

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 26-____
Introduced by Council Member ______________

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HAYWARD,

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE

OFFICE PERTAINING TO CANDIDATE STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2026

WHEREAS, Section 13307 of the Elections Code of the State of California provides that the City Council may adopt regulations pertaining to materials prepared by any candidate for a municipal election, including costs of the candidate’s statement.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

That pursuant to Section 13307 of the Elections Code of the State of California, each candidate for elective office to be voted for at the General Municipal Election to be held in the City of Hayward on November 3, 2026, may prepare a candidate’s statement. The statement shall be filed in typewritten form in the office of the City Clerk at the time the candidate’s nomination papers are filed. The statement may be withdrawn, but not changed, during the period for filing nomination papers and until 5:00 p.m. of the next working day after the close of the nomination period. Statements are confidential until the close of the nomination period and are subject to public review and contest. Statements may include the name, age and occupation of the candidate and a brief description of no more than 200 words of the candidate’s education and qualifications expressed by the candidate themselves. Word counting guidelines in Elections Code Section 9 will govern the counting of words. The statement shall not include party affiliation of the candidate, nor membership or activity in partisan political organizations. Any mention of any opponent or other candidate for the same office is prohibited. Statements must be submitted in plain text formatting, single paragraph, without any formatting such as underline, bold, italics, or all caps. Signed and completed consent forms are required for each resident referenced as an endorser and for any person and any organization mentioned in the text of the statement as an endorser or supporter.

Candidate statements must be attached to the form provided by the City Clerk.
162

ATTACHMENT III

Page 2 of 3 ends

SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall comply with all recommendations and standards set forth by the California Secretary of State regarding occupational designations and other matters relating to elections.

SECTION 3. FOREIGN LANGUAGE POLICY.

A. Pursuant to the Federal Voting Rights Act, candidates’ statements will be translated into all languages required by the County of Alameda. The County is required to translate candidates’ statements into Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese and Tagalog.

B. The Alameda County Registrar of Voters will print and mail voter information guides and candidates’ statements in Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese and Tagalog to only those voters who are on the county voter file as having requested a voter information guide in a particular language. The County will make the voter information guides and candidates’ statements in the required languages available at all polling places.

SECTION 4. PAYMENT
Candidates filing a statement are required to pay in advance the estimated pro rata share as a condition of having a statement included in the voter’s pamphlet. The Alameda County Registrar of Voters estimates the total cost of printing, handling, translating, and mailing, including costs incurred as a result of complying with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The estimate is an approximation of the actual cost which varies from one election to another election and may be significantly more or less than the estimate depending upon the actual number of candidates filing statements. Accordingly, the City Clerk is not bound by the estimate and may, on a pro rata basis, bill the candidate for additional actual expenses or refund any excess paid depending upon the final actual cost. In the event of underpayment, the City Clerk may require the candidate to pay the balance of the cost incurred. In the event of overpayment, the City Clerk will prorate the excess amount among the candidates and refund the excess amount paid.

SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall provide each candidate or the candidate’s representative with a copy of this resolution at the time nominating petitions are issued.
163

ATTACHMENT III

Page 3 of 3 ends

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA ______________________________, 2026.

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
164

ATTACHMENT IV

Page 1 of 2 ends

GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ABBREVIATED CALENDAR
Tuesday, November 3, 2026

DATE ACTION
July 13, 2026
EC § 10220 Nomination Period Opens
First day candidates may pick up nomination papers.

July 31, 2026
FPPC Semi-Annual Campaign Statement Due
Deadline for financial disclosure report covering
1/1/26 to 6/30/26.

August 5, 2024 – November 3, 2026
FPPC 24-hour Contribution Report
Sums of $1,000 or more to/from a single source must be
reported within 24 hours.

August 7, 2026
EC § 10220 Nomination Period Closes
Deadline to file all required nomination papers.

August 8, 2026 – August 12, 2026
EC § 10225 Nomination Extended Period
If the incumbent fails to file a Declaration of Candidacy by the deadline for their office, there will be a 5-calendar-day extension during which any candidate, other than the
incumbent, may file for said office.

August 13, 2026
EC § 13111 Randomized Alphabet Drawing
The Secretary of State will conduct a drawing of letters of the alphabet to determine the order in which candidates appear on the ballot.

September 24, 2026
FPPC 1st Pre-Election Campaign Statement Due
Deadline to file financial disclosure report covering
7/1/26 - 9/19/26.

October 5, 2026
ROV
First day of mailing Vote by Mail Ballots and Early Voting at ROV.

October 19, 2026
EC § 2102 Last Day to Register to Vote
Date for the November 3, 2026 General Election.

October 22, 2026
FPPC 2nd Pre-Election Campaign Statement Due
Deadline for financial disclosure report covering
9/20/26 - 10/17/26.
165

ATTACHMENT IV

Page 2 of 2 ends

DATE ACTION
October 24, 2026 ROV
Ten-day Vote Centers Open.

October 31, 2026 ROV
Four-day Vote Centers Open.

November 3, 2026
EC § 1000 ELECTION DAY
Vote Centers open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.

December 3, 2026
EC § 15372 Official Canvass of Votes
Last Day for Registrar of Voters to submit a certified statement of the results of the canvass of the returns.

December 8, 2026
EC §§ 10262, 10263
City Council to certify election results.

February 1, 2026
FPPC Semi-Annual Campaign Statement Due
Deadline for financial disclosure report covering
10/18/26 - 12/31/26.

California Elections Code - EC
Alameda County Registrar of Voters - ROV
Fair Political Practices Commission - FPPC
166
CITY OF HAYWARD Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: CONS 26-218
DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works

SUBJECT
Adopt a Resolution Approving Addendums No. 1 and No. 2, Rejecting the Bid from Devaney Engineering, Inc., and Awarding a Contract to SubTerra Construction, Inc., for the FY 2024 Water Line Replacement Project, Project No. 07072, in a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $8,665,745

RECOMMENDATION
That City Council adopts the attached resolution (Attachment II) approving Addendums No. 1 and No. 2, providing minor revisions to the project specifications and plans, rejecting the bid from Devaney Engineering, Inc., and awarding the construction contract to SubTerra Construction, Inc., for the FY24 Water Line Replacement Project, Project No. 07072, in an amount of $7,877,950 and approving $787,795 in administrative construction contingency for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $8,665,745.

SUMMARY
The FY24 Water Line Replacement Project will improve water supply reliability by replacing approximately 15,000 linear feet of existing cast iron and asbestos cement (ACP) pipes ranging from 6 to 12-inch diameters with new 8 or 12-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or earthquake resistant ductile iron (ERDIP) pipes. This project takes place at three locations, where needed, in the City and all the pipe replacement will be done by traditional open-cut method.

On May 5, 2026, eleven (11) bids were received. The lowest bidder, Devaney Engineering, requested to withdraw their bid due to multiple errors in their bid proposal. Staff recommends that Council reject the lowest bid and award the contract to the second lowest responsible and responsive bidder, SubTerra Construction, Inc., in the amount of $7,877,950, which is $1,422,050, or 15.3%, below the Engineer’s Estimate of $9,300,000. Furthermore, Staff is requesting Council’s approval of Addendums No. 1 and No. 2, which provided minor revisions to clarify the specifications and plans, and approval of $787,795 in Administrative Construction Contingency for potential change orders.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
CITY OF HAYWARD Page 1 of 2 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™167
File #: CONS 26-218
Attachment II Resolution
CITY OF HAYWARD Page 2 of 2 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™168

Page 1 of 4 ends

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Approving Addendums No. 1 and No. 2, Rejecting the Bid from Devaney Engineering, Inc., and Awarding a Contract to SubTerra Construction, Inc., for the FY 2024 Water Line Replacement Project, Project No. 07072, in a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $8,665,745

On May 5, 2026, eleven (11) bids were received. The lowest bidder, Devaney Engineering, requested to withdraw their bid due to multiple errors in their bid proposal. Staff recommends that Council reject the lowest bid and award the contract to the second lowest responsible and responsive bidder,SubTerra Construction, Inc., in the amount of $7,877,950, which is $1,422,050, or 15.3%, below the Engineer’s Estimate of $9,300,000. Furthermore, Staff is requesting Council’s approval of Addendums No. 1 and No. 2, which provided minor revisions to clarify the specifications and plans, and approval of $787,795 in Administrative Construction Contingency for potential change orders.
169

Page 2 of 4 ends

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no impacts to the General Fund or Measure C.

The estimated costs for the FY24 Water Line Replacement Project are as follows:

Construction Contract $7,877,950
Administrative Construction Contingency $787,795
Professional Engineering Services – Consultant $1,077,500 Inspection, Testing & Permitting $500,000
Construction Administration – City Staff $755,000
Total $10,998,245
The adopted FY26 CIP includes $17,274,000 for the FY24 Water Line Replacement Project, Project No. 07072 in the Water Replacement Fund (Fund 603), which is an Enterprise Fund.

Of that amount, $10,998,245 will be allocated for the FY24 Water Line Replacement Project.

The remaining $6,275,755 will be returned to the Water Replacement Fund (Fund 603) to be used for the FY25 Water Line Replacement Project, Project No. 07028, to address updated system priorities. Recent breaks in several large water mains have highlighted the need to accelerate the design and replacement of higher-priority, larger-diameter pipelines that serve more residents. Redirecting the available funding allows the City to focus its limited resources where they provide the greatest benefit. The accelerated FY25 Water Line Replacement Project schedule anticipates completion of design in Spring 2027and construction beginning in Summer 2027.

BACKGROUND
The City’s current Capital Improvement Program includes funding to replace the City’s water mains to improve supply reliability and fire flow through annual water line replacement projects. The City has approximately 375 miles of water distribution pipeline, of which approximately 67% consists of asbestos cement pipe, 8% consists of cast iron pipe, and a majority of the existing pipelines are 6 inches in diameter. The water line locations were selected by staff for a variety of reasons including being undersized, having exceeded service life, frequency of breaks, and/or upgrades needed for supply reliability and fire flow improvements.

On February 20, 20241, City Council approved Resolution No. 24-066, authorizing the City to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with BKF Engineers (BKF), for design services and technical support during construction for the FY24 Water and Sewer Line Replacement Projects. The Consultant completed the design specifications and plans for the FY24 Water Line Replacement Project in March 2026. On March 17, 2026, City Council approved the plans and specifications for the project and called for bids to be received on May 5, 2026. 1 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6517563&GUID=3DE2D074-1334-47C7-8115-C6F3C5D16B78 170

Page 3 of 4 ends

DISCUSSION
On May 5, 2026, the City received eleven (11) bids for the project, ranging from $7,376,250 to $15,535,525. Devaney Engineering, Inc.. submitted the lowest bid in the amount of $7,376,250, which is approximately 20.7% below the Engineer’s estimate of $9,300,000.

However, on May 12, 2026, the City received a letter from Devaney Engineering, Inc., requesting to withdraw their bid due to errors in pricing on in five major bid items in their proposal. Staff reviewed the request and determined the bid to be unresponsible given the error and staff is requesting City Council to reject the bid.

SubTerra Construction, Inc., submitted the second lowest bid in the amount of $7,877,950 which is 15.3% lower than the Engineer’s Estimate. Staff is requesting that City Council award the contract to SubTerra Construction, Inc., with an additional $787,795 (or 10% of the contract amount) for Administrative Construction Contingency in the event additional funds are needed for unforeseen conditions and changes during construction.

ECONOMIC IMPACT
The community will enjoy the benefits of the project, including the continued operability and serviceability of the water distribution system. Furthermore, a robust and reliable water infrastructure can help foster economic development and viability in the City.

Replacing the water mains and appurtenances are part of an effort to, pursuant to City Council direction, modernize and upgrade existing infrastructure. The project will reduce operations and maintenance costs associated with servicing the undersized and aging water mains. In addition, staff time attending to issues related to high frequency maintenance and system breaks will be reduced.

On June 24, 20252, City Council passed a resolution authorizing a Community Workforce Agreement (CWA) with the Alameda County Building Trades Council (BTC), which applies to City projects with construction costs of $1,000,000 or more. The agreement requires contractors to utilize local union hiring halls, encourages the employment of Hayward residents and Hayward Unified School District graduates, and requires workers to pay applicable union dues and contribute to other benefit trust funds. The CWA agreement applies to the FY24 Water Line Replacement Project as its construction cost exceeds $1,000,000.
2 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7437057&GUID=2CA848AA-3F0F-4AE9-A53E2309AEDED8CC&Options=Advanced&Search= 171

Page 4 of 4 ends

STRATEGIC ROADMAP
This agenda item supports the Strategic Roadmap, which includes Invest in Infrastructure as one of the strategic priorities. Specifically, this item relates to the implementation of Objective 4: Invest in Water Supplies, Sanitation Infrastructure & Storm Sewers under “Invest in Infrastructure:”
N20: Replace an average of 2.5 miles of water pipelines annually

SUSTAINABILITY FEATURES
The repair and replacement of deteriorating water lines would reduce potable water and energy losses related to leaks and main breaks.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Prior to and during construction, notices will be provided to affected residents, property, and business owners to inform them of the nature and purpose of the work, potential impacts, work schedule and City contact for additional information. In addition, staff will separately contact any large employers and schools that may be affected by the project and coordinate work to minimize impact.

NEXT STEPS
The following schedule has been developed for this project:

Award Construction Contract June 2, 2026
Notice to Proceed July 2026
Construction Completion Spring 2027
Prepared by: Derek Pham, Senior Utilities Engineer
Reviewed by: Zaheer Shaikh, Utilities Engineering Manager Recommended by: Alex Ameri, Director of Public Works
Approved by:
__________________________________
Jennifer Ott, City Manager
172

ATTACHMENT II

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 26-____
Introduced by Council Member__________
RESOLUTION APPROVING ADDENDA NO. 1 AND NO. 2, REJECTING THE BID FROM DEVANEY ENGINEERING, INC., AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO SUBTERRA CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR THE FY24 WATER LINE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT, PROJECT NO. 07072, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $8,665,745
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 26-017, on March 17, 2026, the City Council approved the plans and specifications for the FY24 Water Line Replacement Project, Project No. 07072, and called for bids to be received on May 5, 2026; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 1 and Addendum No. 2 were issued to make minor revisions to the specifications and plans; and
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2026, eleven (11) bids were received ranging from $7,376,250 to $15,535,525. The low bid of $7,376,250, submitted by Devaney Engineering, Inc., is approximately 20.7% below the Engineer’s Estimate of $9,300,000. The second lowest bid of $7,877,950, submitted by SubTerra Construction, Inc., is approximately 15.3% below the Engineer’s Estimate; and
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2026, Devaney Engineering requested to withdraw their bid from consideration due to major clerical errors in the pricing of five bid items in their bid proposal. Staff reviewed the request and determined the bid to be unresponsive.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hayward that Addendum No. 1 and Addendum No. 2 are hereby approved and adopted as part of the plans and specifications for the project.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that SubTerra Construction, Inc., of San Francisco, CA, is hereby awarded the contract for the FY24 Water Line Replacement Project, Project No. 07072, in accordance with the plans and specifications adopted therefore and on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Hayward, at and for the price named and stated in the final proposal of the hereinabove specified bidder, and all other bids are hereby rejected. 173

Page 2 of 2 ends

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute an agreement with SubTerra Construction, Inc., in the name of and for and on behalf of the City of Hayward, in an amount of $7,877,950 and approving $787,795 in administrative construction contingency for the project, for a total contract amount not-toexceed $8,665,745 in a form to be approved by the City Attorney.

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA _______________________, 2026 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
174
CITY OF HAYWARD Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: CONS 26-219
DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Manager

SUBJECT
Adopt a Resolution Designating City-Owned Properties at 24491, 24331, 24321, and 24311 Mission Blvd (APNs 444-0033-018-01, 444-0033-019-00, 444-0033-020-00, and 444-0033-023-00) and Spring Drive (APNs 445-0220-114-00, 445-0220-113-00, 445-0220-112-00, 445-0220-111-00, 445-0220-110-00), as Surplus Land, Authorizing Notices of Availability, and Finding the Action Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act Review

The properties include the 24491, 24331, 24321, and 24311 Mission Blvd properties (APNs 444-0033- 018-01, 444-0033-019-00, 444-0033-020-00, and 444-0033-023-00), and the Spring Drive properties (APNs 445-0220-114-00, 445-0220-113-00, 445-0220-112-00, 445-0220-111-00, 445-0220-110-00).

Adoption of the resolution will allow the City to initiate the Surplus Land Act notification process prior to any potential future disposition or redevelopment of the properties. Staff further recommends that this action be found exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it does not constitute a project under CEQA.

SUMMARY
The Surplus Land Act (SLA), Government Code section 54220, et seq., requires a local agency to follow specific procedural steps before disposing of land or negotiating to dispose of land that is no longer needed for the agency’s use. The steps generally involve (1) adopting a resolution declaring the property surplus or exempt surplus, (2) sending notices of availability to entities designated in the SLA, primarily affordable housing developers/sponsors, and (3) negotiating in good faith for ninety (90) days with any entity that submits a notice of interest within sixty (60) days of the issuance of the notice of availability.

This item involves the Spring Drive properties, totaling approximately 0.56 acres across five parcels (APNs 445-0220-114-00, 445-0220-113-00, 445-0220-112-00, 445-0220-111-00, 445-0220-110-00); and the Mission Blvd parcels, located 24491, 24331, 24321, and 24311 Mission Blvd, totaling approximately 1.51 acres across four parcels (APNs 444-0033-018-01, 444-0033-019-00, 444-0033-020- CITY OF HAYWARD Page 1 of 2 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™175
File #: CONS 26-219
approximately 1.51 acres across four parcels (APNs 444-0033-018-01, 444-0033-019-00, 444-0033-020- 00, and 444-0033-023-00).

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution declaring these parcels as surplus pursuant to the SLA. Staff also recommends that the Council authorizes the City Manager or their designee to begin the surplus property notice of availability process consistent with the Surplus Land Act. If the City receives notices of interest in the parcels, staff will return to Council for further direction.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
CITY OF HAYWARD Page 2 of 2 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™176

Page 1 of 4 ends

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Designating City-Owned Properties at 24491, 24331, 24321, and 24311 Mission Blvd (APNs 444-0033-018-01, 444-0033-019-00, 444-0033-020-00, and 444-0033-023-00) and Spring Drive (APNs 445-0220- 114-00, 445-0220-113-00, 445-0220-112-00, 445-0220-111-00, 445-0220- 110-00), as Surplus Land, Authorizing Notices of Availability, and Finding the Action Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act Review

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopt a resolution declaring two groupings of City-owned properties as surplus land pursuant to the California Surplus Land Act (Government Code Section 54220 et seq.) and authorizing the City Manager to issue Notices of Availability consistent with the requirements of the Act. The properties include the 24491, 24331, 24321, and 24311 Mission Blvd properties (APNs 444-0033-018-01, 444-0033-019-00, 444-0033-020-00, and 444- 0033-023-00), and the Spring Drive properties (APNs 445-0220-114-00, 445-0220-113-00, 445-0220-112-00, 445-0220-111-00, 445-0220-110-00). Adoption of the resolution will allow the City to initiate the Surplus Land Act notification process prior to any potential future disposition or redevelopment of the properties. Staff further recommends that this action found exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it does not constitute a project under CEQA.

SUMMARY
TheSurplus LandAct(SLA),Government Code section 54220, et seq., requires a local agency to followspecific procedural steps before disposing ofland ornegotiating to dispose ofland that is no longerneeded for the agency’s use. The steps generally involve (1) adopting a resolution declaring the property surplus or exempt surplus, (2) sending notices of availability to entities designated in the SLA, primarily affordable housing developers/sponsors, and (3) negotiating in good faith for ninety (90) days with any entity that submits a notice of interest within sixty (60) days of the issuance of the notice of availability.

Page 2 of 4 ends

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution declaring these parcels as surplus pursuant to the SLA. Staff also recommend that the Council authorizes the City Manager or their designee to begin the surplus property notice of availability process consistent with the Surplus Land Act. If the City receives notices of interest in the parcels, staff will return to Council for further direction.

FISCAL IMPACT
The sale of these parcels will result in potential revenue for the City to restore the City’s general fund reserves. The price for the propertieswill be determined by staff based primarily on current market rates and as part of any subsequent land sale negotiation process.

For the properties owned by the Successor Agency, the sale of the parcels will go to all taxing entities in Alameda County that receive property tax. Hayward would receive its portion of the proceeds.

BACKGROUND
The City of Hayward is initiating the process to declare several City-owned properties as surplus land in accordance with the California Surplus Land Act. This action includes the Mission Blvd. parcels and the Spring Drive parcels. Declaring these properties as surplus allows the City to begin the required Notices of Availability and explore opportunities for redevelopment, strategic disposition, or partnership that support the City’s ongoing efforts to revitalize key areas, enhance economic activity, and optimize underutilized public assets.

The Spring Drive properties (APNs 445-0220-114-00, 445-0220-113-00, 445-0220-112-00, and related parcels) were acquired by the City in 1980 for the development of a neighborhood park. The City Council authorized the acquisition through Resolution No. 80-303, approving a negotiated land purchase contract for the Alves property following unsuccessful efforts to acquire other nearby parcels better suited for recreational use. Due to topographical constraints, only a portion of the assembled land was ultimately developed as parkland, with several parcels remaining unused. The Hayward Area Recreation and Park District (HARD) has confirmed that it has no present or future need for these remaining parcels.

The Mission Boulevard properties located at 24491, 24331, 24321, and 24311 Mission Blvd. (APNs 444-0033-018-01, 444-0033-019-00, 444-0033-020-00, and 444-0033-023-00) were formerly owned by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Hayward and were transferred to the City in March 2011 as part of redevelopment dissolution activities. In 2012, pursuant to Assembly Bill x1 26 and AB 1484, the City approved the transfer of these properties to the Hayward Successor Agency to facilitate the orderly wind-down of redevelopment affairs and future disposition planning. In 2013, the properties were formally conveyed via grant deed between the City and the Successor Agency in accordance with state law requirements.

As a result, the City has determined that the subject properties are surplus to its needs and is now pursuing their disposition to return the sites to productive use consistent with City goals and applicable regulations.
178

Page 3 of 4 ends

DISCUSSION
Before disposing of, or negotiating disposition of surplus land, the SLA requires the City to follow specific procedural steps. First, the City Council must declare the land to be surplus or exempt surplus at a public meeting. Next, the City must send Notices of Availability (NOA) of the property to (1) the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), (2) specified public entities within whose jurisdiction the surplus land is located, and (3) any housing sponsors certified by California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) that have provided notice to HCD of their interest in receiving SLA notices. Thirdly, the City must negotiate in good faith for no less than ninety (90) days with any entity that submits a notice of interest within sixty (60) days ofthe issuance ofNOA.

If no notices of interest are received in a timely manner, or good faith negotiations do not result in an agreement on disposition within the ninety (90) day negotiating period, the City maydispose ofthepropertywithout further regard to theSLA, subject only to the requirement that a covenant is recorded against the property imposing affordability conditions on any development involving construction of ten (10) or more residential units on the property. At least 15% of the total units must be sold or rented at affordable housing cost to lower income households as defined by state law and must remain affordable for at least 55 years for rental housing and 45 years for ownership housing.

HCD and the Attorney General have authority to enforce the SLA. A local agency that is found to be in violation oftheSLAfor the firsttime faces monetarypenalties of30% ofthe property’s disposition value, which is the greater of the fair market value and the actual sale price.

Subsequent violations result in penalties of 50% of disposition value. The penalty is required to be deposited in a local housing trust fund and used within five (5) years, otherwise the funds will revert to the State. Staff have determined that properties are no longer necessary for the City's use and may be declared surplus.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The designation ofthe parcels as surplus is exemptfromreviewunder CEQApursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5) and 15061(b)(3). The action is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment and does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. If the parcels are subsequently conveyed, any development applications related to the parcels will be subject to environmental review as required by law.

ECONOMIC IMPACT
Declaring these properties surplus will attract private investment and support redevelopment and mixed-use projects, which can create jobs, expand the tax base, and draw new businesses and residents. Redeveloping these key sites, especially in the civic and downtown core, will enhance commercial activity, strengthen economic vitality, and advance long-term community goals such as improved public spaces, cultural amenities, and housing. 179

Page 4 of 4 ends

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

PUBLIC CONTACT AND NEXT STEPS
Upon adoption of the attached resolution, the City Manager and staff will send a NOA to all entities required to receive notice under the SLA and HCD’s Surplus Land Act Guidelines. If notices of interest are received within the 60-day NOA timeframe, staff will return to Council for further direction prior to commencing negotiations.

Prepared by: Tracy Irvin, Real Property Manager
Recommended by: Mary Thomas, Assistant City Manager
Michael Lawson, City Attorney
Approved by:
_________________
Jennifer Ott, City Manager
180

ATTACHMENT II

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 26-____
Introduced by Council Member _________

RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 24491, 24331, 24321, AND 24311 MISSION BOULEVARD (APNs 444-0033- 018-01, 444-0033-019-00, 444-0033-020-00, AND 444-0033-023-00) AND SPRING DRIVE (APNs 445-0220-114-00, 445-0220-113-00, 445-0220-112- 00, 445-0220-111-00, AND 445-0220-110-00), HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA AS SURPLUS LAND PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54221;

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ISSUE NOTICES OF AVAILABILITY AS REQUIRED BY THE SURPLUS LAND ACT; AND FINDING THAT THE ACTION IS

EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
WHEREAS, the Surplus Land Act (Government Code section 54220, et seq.) imposes procedural steps that a local agency must follow before disposing of, or negotiating disposition of surplus land; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 54221(b)(1) requires a local agency to declare property as surplus and not necessary for the agency’s use during a regular public meeting prior to taking any action to dispose of the property; and WHEREAS, after declaration of property as surplus, Government Code section 54222 requires a public agency to issue a Notice of Availability (“NOA”) of the surplus property to entities identified in the statute, including the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), local public entities, and affordable housing developers; and
WHEREAS, the City of Hayward owns in fee simple approximately 1.51 acres located along Mission Boulevard, identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 444-0033-018-01, 444-0033-019-00, 444-0033-020-00, and 444-0033-023-00 (hereafter “Mission Boulevard Properties”); and
WHEREAS, the Mission Boulevard Properties were formerly owned by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Hayward and were transferred to the City as part of redevelopment dissolution activities, and are not necessary for the City’s current use; and WHEREAS, the City of Hayward owns in fee simple approximately 0.56 acres located at Spring Drive, identified as APNs 445-0220-114-00, 445-0220-113-00, 445-0220-112-00, 445-0220-111-00, and 445-0220-110-00 (hereafter “Spring Drive Properties”); and 181

ATTACHMENT II

Page 2 of 5 ends

WHEREAS, the Spring Drive Properties were acquired by the City for the development of a neighborhood park, and portions of the assembled land remain unused, and the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District has confirmed that it has no present or future need for these parcels; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the Mission Boulevard Properties and the Spring Drive Properties (collectively, the “Properties”) are not necessary for the City’s use and may be declared surplus.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hayward finds and declares as follows:

1. The Mission Boulevard Properties, consisting of approximately 1.51 acres, more or less, across four parcels (APNs 444-0033-018-01, 444-0033-019-00, 444-0033-020- 00, and 444-0033-023-00), as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein, are owned in fee simple by the City of Hayward, are not necessary for the City’s use, and are hereby declared surplus.

2. The Spring Drive Properties, consisting of approximately 0.56 acres, more or less, across five parcels (APNs 445-0220-114-00, 445-0220-113-00, 445-0220-112-00, 445-0220-111-00, and 445-0220-110-00), as more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein, are owned in fee simple by the City of Hayward, are not necessary for the City’s use, and are hereby declared surplus.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or their designee is authorized and directed to issue Notices of Availability for the Properties to the entities identified in Government Code section 54222 and in accordance with the Surplus Land Act Guidelines issued by HCD.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or their designee is authorized to take any further actions necessary to comply with the Surplus Land Act and applicable guidelines.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the designation of the Properties as surplus is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5) and 15061(b)(3). The action is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment and does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. If the Properties are subsequently conveyed, any development applications related to the Properties will be subject to environmental review as required by law. 182

ATTACHMENT II

Page 3 of 5 ends

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA _______________________, 2026 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
183

Page 4 of 5 ends

EXHIBIT A
MISSION BLVD. PARCEL MAP
(APNS 444-0033-018-01, 444-0033-019-00, 444-0033-020-00, AND 444-0033-023-00) 184

Page 5 of 5 ends

EXHIBIT B

SPRING DRIVE PARCEL MAP
(APNS 445-0220-114-00, 445-0220-113-00, 445-0220-112-00, 445-0220-111-00, AND 445-0220-110-00)
185
CITY OF HAYWARD Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: CONS 26-220
DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Finance

SUBJECT
Adopt a Resolution Amending the Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Removing Charges and Fees Associated with Accessory Commercial Units and Finding the Action is Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act Review

Planning, 25(e) and finding the action exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review.

SUMMARY
The proposed amendment to the Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2026-2027 removes all fees related to Zoning Conformance Permits of Accessory Commercial Units (ACUs). During City Council Business Friendly Hayward discussions on April 21, 2026, regarding the implementation of ACUs, City Council deferred consideration of ACUs. As a result, staff is recommending removal of the associated fees from the Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2026-2027. If adopted, changes will become effective July 1, 2026.

A complete and detailed listing of fees is reflected in the attached Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2026- 2027 and, after adoption the final Adopted Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2026-2027 can be found on the Master Fee Schedule website link found in the City’s website:
<https://www.hayward-ca.gov/your-government/documents/master-fee-schedule> ca.gov/your-government/documents/master-fee-schedule. <https://www.hayward-ca.gov/yourgovernment/documents/master-fee-schedule>

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Proposed Amended Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2026- 2027 CITY OF HAYWARD Page 1 of 2 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™186
File #: CONS 26-220
CITY OF HAYWARD Page 2 of 2 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™187

Page 1 of 3 ends

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and CityCouncil
FROM: Director of Finance
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Amending the Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Removing Charges and Fees Associated with Accessory Commercial Units and Finding the Action is Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act Review

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopts the attached resolution (Attachment II) amending the Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2026-2027 (Attachment III) associated with Accessory Commercial Units (ACUs), Section B: Planning, 25(e) and finding the action exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review.

SUMMARY
The proposed amendment to the Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2026-2027 removes all fees related to Zoning Conformance Permits of Accessory Commercial Units (ACUs). During City Council Business Friendly Hayward discussions on April 21, 2026, regarding the implementation of ACUs, City Council deferred consideration of ACUs. As a result, staff is recommending removal of the associated fees from the Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2026- 2027. If adopted, changes will become effective July 1, 2026.

A complete and detailed listing of fees is reflected in the attached Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2026-2027 and, after adoption the final Adopted Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2026- 2027 can be found on the Master Fee Schedule website link found in the City’s website:
https://www.hayward- ca.gov/your-government/documents/master-fee-schedule.

BACKGROUND
On April 21, 20261, the City Council adopted a resolution approving the Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2026-2027. At the same meeting, Council held a public hearing regarding proposed amendments to the Hayward Municipal Code associated with the Business Friendly Hayward project2. In conjunction with prior discussions regarding potential zoning 1 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7987069&GUID=6CEF1E6F-33C3-46AD-ADE0- BAD3FE631F3A&Options=&Search=
2 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7987053&GUID=C94A3DF0-8BAB-4F0D-B8CE188

Page 2 of 3 ends

and permitting regulations for ACU’s, staff included proposed application and permit fees in the City’s FY 2026-2027 Master Fee Schedule. These fees were intended to recover administrative costs associated with processing planning-related applications and permits.

During City Council consideration of the proposed changes associated with the BusinessFriendly Hayward project, Council deferred consideration of Accessory Commercial Units until a later time. Since the City is not currently accepting or processing ACU applications, the associated fees are no longer necessary and should be removed from the Master Fee Schedule.

DISCUSSION
The proposed amendment would eliminate all references and fees related to ACUs from the Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2026-2027. Removal of these fees will align the Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2026-2027 with current City Council policy direction and avoid confusion for applicants and the public regarding the availability of ACU permits. In addition, removal of the fees ensures the City does not maintain fees for programs that are not authorized or implemented. Should the City Council choose to revisit ACUs in the future, Development Services Department staff can return with updated program information and proposed fees at that time.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This item is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Section 15273 of CEQA Guidelines which states that CEQA does not apply to the establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, and other charges by public agencies which the public agency finds are for the purposes of:
• Meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits; • Purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or materials; • Meeting financial reserve needs and requirements;
• Obtaining funds necessary for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas; or
• Obtaining funds necessary to maintain intra-city transfers as are authorized by the City Charter.

ECONOMIC IMPACT
5076FDDDD36E&Options=&Search=
189

Page 3 of 3 ends

Approval of the attached resolution will not have an economic impact on our community as fees were never implemented.

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

FISCAL IMPACT
Removal of the Accessory Commercial Unit fees is not anticipated to have a material fiscal impact on the City’s budget because the City has not implemented the permit or collected related fee revenue.

PUBLIC CONTACT
This agenda item was published in accordance with all Brown Act requirements.

NEXT STEPS
Upon approval of the attached resolution, the fees will be removed from the Fiscal Year 2026- 2027 Master Fee Schedule effective July 1, 2026.

Prepared by: Crissy Mello, Administrative Secretary
Recommended by: DeAnna Hilbrants, Director of Finance
Approved by:
_____________________________
Jennifer Ott, City Manager
190

ATTACHMENT II

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 26-__
Introduced by Council Member_______

RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF HAYWARD MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 REMOVING FEES AND CHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH

ACCESSORY COMMERCIAL UNITS FOR THE CITY OF HAYWARD AND FINDING

THAT THE ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW
WHEREAS, as part of a general cost recovery strategy, the City of Hayward has adopted user fees to fund programs and services that provide direct benefit to a specified user; and
WHEREAS, in November 1996, California voters passed Proposition 218, the “Right to Vote on Taxes Act.” This constitutional amendment protects taxpayers by limiting the methods by which local governments can create or increase taxes, fees, and charges without taxpayer consent. Proposition 218 requires voter approval prior to imposition or increase of general taxes, assessments, and certain user fees; and
WHEREAS, in November 2010, California voters approved Proposition 26, which amended Article XIII C of the State Constitution regarding the adoption of fees and taxes.

Proposition 26 seeks to assure that taxes, which must be approved by the voters, are not disguised as fees, which can be approved by legislative bodies, such as a city council. The proposed Master Fee Schedule (MFS) is compliant; and
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2026, the City Council adopted a resolution approving the FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 and the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Fine and Bail Schedule (Resolution No. 26-060); and
WHEREAS, at a separate public hearing, City Council directed staff to remove a proposed Accessory Commercial Unit (ACU) from consideration; and WHEREAS, as the ACU was not adopted as an allowable use in the City of Hayward, the fees associated with ACU and included in the adopted Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2026-2027 is not necessary and should be removed; and
WHEREAS, Section 15273 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that CEQA does not apply to the establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, and other charges by public agencies which the public agency finds are for the purposes of:
191

Page 2 of 2 ends

1. Meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits;

2. Purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or materials;

3. Meeting financial reserve needs andrequirements;

4. Obtaining funds necessary for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas; or

5. Obtaining funds necessary to maintain intra-city transfers as are authorized by the City Charter.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hayward hereby amends the Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2026-2027 relating to fees and charges of Accessory Commercial Units for Development Services of the City of Hayward incorporated herein by reference and as outlined in the June 2, 2026, City Council report; either on its face or as applied, the invalidity of one provision shall not affect the other provisions of the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 and the applications thereof; and to that end the provisions of this Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2026 shall be deemed severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the fees and charges adopted by this resolution shall become effective as of July 1, 2026.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this action is determined to be exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Section 15273 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines based on the findings stated herein.

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA June 2, 2026.

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
192
Effective July 1, 2026
Adopted Master Fee Schedule
Fiscal Year 2026-2027
Director of Finance: DeAnna Hilbrants
Attachment III
193
2 Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3 Proposition 26 Review and Compliance ............................................................................. 3 All City Departments ................................................................................................................... 4 City Clerk.......................................................................................................................................... 6 City Manager................................................................................................................................... 8 Development Services Department...................................................................................... 9 Engineering and Transportation Services .......................................................................27 Finance............................................................................................................................................34 Fire Department..........................................................................................................................35 Information Technology..........................................................................................................47 Library and Community Services ........................................................................................48 Maintenance Services Department.....................................................................................51 Police Department......................................................................................................................54 Utilities & Environmental Services .....................................................................................62 Glossary of Terms.......................................................................................................................75 194
3 Introduction
The Master Fee Schedule Resolution reports fees for services that are provided to our citizens. Fees that do not recover the full cost of providing the service result in a subsidy which shifts funds away from the critical, high priority needs of job creation, public safety initiatives, utility services, and neighborhood programs.

Before a fee increase was considered the Department responsible for the service demonstrated that the services are being provided as efficiently and effectively as possible. There are a minimal number of fees that were considered for an increase in this year’s amendment. For these fees, each respective department demonstrated that services are provided in a best practice manner, and that all reasonable opportunities for savings have been exhausted. As a result of this critical analysis, only fees for new programs or services have been added. Additionally, other fees have been lowered, deleted, or to clarify actual fees charged for services.

Proposition 26 Review and Compliance
In November 2010, California voters approved Proposition 26, which amended Article’s XIIIA and XIIIC of the state constitution regarding the adoption of fees and taxes. Proposition 26 seeks to assure that taxes, which must be approved by the voters, are not disguised as fees, which can be approved by legislative bodies, such as a city council. The proposed Master Fee Schedule (MFS) was reviewed for compliance with Proposition 26, and in the City Attorney’s opinion, the MFS is compliant.
195
4 All City Departments
A. ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS – Authorized by Hayward Municipal Code (HMC) Article 7 – Administrative Citations have fines set pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 53069 and 36900. Unless otherwise specified by Ordinance, Fee Schedule or Code, the fine amount for any violation of any section of the Municipal Code shall be:

1. First Violation $100.00

2. Second Violation $200.00

3. Third and Subsequent Violations $500.00
B. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FEE $1,500.00
C. USBFLASH DRIVE $20.00 Each
D. DISHONORED OR RETURNED PAYMENT FROM BANK OR CREDIT CARD

1. If paid within 30 days of notification $25.00 + check amount

2. If paid after 30 days of notification, subject to
forgiveness of all or a portion of the fee by the
Director of Finance
As authorized by California
Civil Code 1719, but notless
than $25.00
E. GROSS HOUSEHOLD INCOME
The State of California annually publishes an Official State Income Limits guideline for each county. This document is available through the California Department of Housing and Community Development website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/ . Municipal programs offering income-based discounts will use the ‘Alameda County – Very Low Income’ figures to determine eligibility.

F. LATE AND DELINQUENT PAYMENTS
Unless specifically provided otherwise, the manner of payment, delinquency status, and assessment and collection of penalties for delinquent payment of the fees imposed or reflected by this master fee schedule shall be as follows:

DAILY FEE: Due on its effective date and delinquent at 5:00 PM on due date.

MONTHLY FEE: Due on the first day of each month for which licenses, permits, fees are sought and delinquent at 5:00 PM on
the tenth day of the month.

QUARTERLY FEE: Due on the first day of the yearly quarter period and delinquent at 5:00 PM on the tenth day of the first month in which the quarterly fee is due.

ANNUAL FEES: Due on the first day of the established annual period and delinquent at 5:00 PM on the tenth day of the first month in which the annual fee is due.

A late payment fee of $5.00 per month shall be applied to all accounts paid after the established due date.
196
5 The delinquent account(s) shall be assessed an interest charge of one percent(1%) per month of the unpaid delinquent balance and related interest charge. The interest charge shall be applied to all accounts delinquent for any calendar month or portion of such month and shall not be prorated.

If the delinquent payment is paid within 30 days of notification, the interest fee may be subject to forgiveness based on hardship. The Director of Finance shall review and document all interest fees not collected.

G. PHOTOCOPYING OF FILE MATERIALS

1. Black and White Copy – 8½ x 11 inches or 8½ x 14
inches
$0.50 per page for first ten (10)
pages of each document
$0.10 each additional page of same
document

2. Black and White Copy – 11 x 17 inch $1.00 per page for first ten (10) pages of each document
$0.20 per page each additional
page of same document

3. Color Copy – 8½ x 11 inches or 8½ x 14 inches $0.75 per page

4. Color Copy – 11 x 17 inches $1.50 per page
H. RESEARCH OR ANALYSIS OF RECORDS (involving more than 15 minutes)

1. $76.00 per hour (minimum charge of $20.00)
I. SMOKING ORDINANCE

1. Smokers Violating the Ordinance $50.00 per violation

2. Fines for businesses that fail to enforce the smoking ordinance (1) First Offense $1,000.00
(2) Second Offense $1,500.00
(3) Third Offense $2,000.00
J. TOBACCO ORDINANCE

1. Offense Fees
(1) First Offense $1,500.00 Penalty/30-dayTRL suspension (2) Second Offense $3,000.00 Penalty/30-dayTRL suspension (3) Third Offense $5,000.00 Penalty/30-dayTRL suspension or revocation

2. Reinspection Fee $784.00 per visit
197
6 City Clerk
A. GENERAL SCHEDULE OF CHARGES

1. Certification of Documents $15.00 for first page
$8.00 Each succeeding page

2. Certificate of Residency $15.00 per issuance

3. Photocopying of Public Records
a. Black and White Copy $0.50 per page for the first ten pages
8½ x 11 inches or 8½ x 14 inches $0.10 per page for each additional page of the same document
b. Black and White Copy $1.00 per page for the first ten pages
11 x 17 inches $0.20 per page for each additional
page of same document
c. Color Copy– 8½ x 11 inches or 8½ x 14 inches $0.75 per page d. Color Copy – 11 x 17 inches $1.50 per page
e. Photocopying of FPPC Forms/Statements of
Government Code 81008
$0.10 per page, plus $5 retrieval fee
for reports & statements 5 or more
years old

4. Reproduction of Meetings on USB Flash Drive $20.00 per USB flash drive a. City Council
b. Planning Commission

5. Fee to File “Notice of Intent to Circulate a Petition for Municipal Initiative” (refundable if a sufficient petition is filed within one year) Elections Code 9202 (b)
$200.00

6. Candidate Statement (Election Year)
a. Publication cost of the candidate’s statement in
Sample Ballot Pamphlet set by Alameda County
Registrar of Voters
Cost of printing, handling

7. Notary Service – Government Code 8211 $15.00 per signature

8. Passport Service $130.00 (age 16 and over)
a. Passport Book Fee set by and payable to US
Department of State
$100.00 (under 16)
(note: additional $60.00 for
expedited service)
b. Passport Card Fee set by and payable to US
Department of State
$30.00 (age 16 and over)
$15.00 (under 16)
c. Passport Execution Fee set by US Department of
State, payable to City of Hayward
$35.00
d. Priority Mail Express service from City of
Hayward to US Department of State. (Rate set by
USPS and is subject to federal adjustment.)
Current Rate $33.25, subject to
federal adjustment.
198
7 Payable to City of Hayward.
e. Expedited delivery from US Department of State
to Customer. Rate set by and payable to US
Department of State, and subject to federal
adjustment.

Current Rate $22.05, subject to
federal adjustment.
199
8 City Manager
A. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
a. Annual Bonds Issue Fees 1/8 of 1% of bond amount
b. Low Income Mortgage Credit 2% of first year’s credit payable as part of State Fee
200
9 Development Services Department
A. BUILDING PERMIT FEES

BUILDING PERMIT FEES CALCULATED BY VALUATION
This includes all new buildings, facilities, additions, tenant improvements and residential remodels. • Valuation is defined as the fair market value of materials and labor for the work. • Valuation shall be the higher of the stated valuation or the figure from the current International Code Council valuation table below. • The current ICC Valuation data table below is adjusted with a regional construction cost modifier for the San Francisco Bay Area of 16%*. * Source: The local modifier is

1.16 times the cost per square foot as published in the Building Standards Journal, April 2002 edition.
• The valuation for tenant improvements, residential remodels or other projects that do not involve new square footage, shall be a minimum of 60% of the cost per square foot in the valuation table below.

Construction Type and Minimum Cost Per Square Foot
International Building Code Group
Building Division staff will help determine the
valuation for occupancies or construction
types not listed in this table. The values below
are based on the August 2025 ICC Building
Valuation Data with the Building Standards
Journal 16% local cost modifier included.

IA IB IIA IIB IIIA IIIB VA VB
A‐1 Assembly, theaters, with stage 395.36 381.29 370.04 355.45 332.14 322.52 309.51 297.67 A‐1 Assembly, theaters, without
stage
362.98 348.91 337.65 323.07 300.04 290.42 277.41 265.57 A‐2 Assembly, nightclubs 315.62 306.37 296.75 285.43 267.34 260.08 243.11 233.89 A‐2 Assembly, restaurants, bars,
banquet
314.46 305.21 294.43 284.27 265.02 258.92 240.79 232.73 A‐3 Assembly, churches 368.42 354.35 343.10 328.51 305.63 296.01 282.99 271.15 A‐3 Assembly, general, community
halls
309.39 295.32 282.91 269.48 245.30 236.83 222.66 211.98 A‐4 Assembly, arenas 361.82 347.75 335.33 321.91 297.72 289.26 275.09 264.41 B Business 349.63 337.21 325.11 311.35 284.35 274.21 254.12 242.46 E Educational 336.53 324.54 313.59 300.41 278.92 264.71 244.13 236.23 F‐1 Factory and industrial 192.35 183.07 171.55 165.08 146.99 139.84 121.89 113.49 F‐2 Factory and industrial, low
hazard
191.19 181.91 171.55 163.92 146.99 138.68 121.89 112.33 H‐1 high Hazard, explosives 179.44 170.16 159.81 152.17 135.61 127.30 110.51 N.P.

H‐2 H‐3 H‐4 High Hazard 179.44 170.16 159.81 152.17 135.61 127.30 110.51 100.95 H‐5 HPM 349.63 337.21 325.10 311.35 284.35 274.21 254.12 242.46 I‐1 Institutional 322.17 310.63 299.54 288.22 263.81 256.73 237.60 229.12 I‐2 Institutional, hospitals 549.67 537.25 525.15 511.39 483.03 N.P. 451.80 N.P.

I‐2 Institutional, nursing homes 319.20 366.78 354.68 340.92 315.66 N.P. 285.44 N.P.

I‐3 Institutional restrained 368.96 356.54 344.44 330.68 306.60 295.30 299.39 262.39 I‐4 Institutional, day care facilities 322.17 310.63 299.54 288.22 263.81 256.73 237.60 229.12 M Mercantile 235.57 226.31 215.53 205.38 186.89 180.78 162.66 154.60 R‐1 Residential, hotels 325.88 314.34 303.25 291.93 266.95 259.86 240.73 232.25 R‐2 Residential, multiple family 272.12 260.58 249.49 238.17 214.63 207.54 188.41 179.93 R‐3 residential, one- and two-family 252.97 246.24 240.33 235.20 227.34 219.24 211.39 198.13 R‐4 Residential, care/assisted living 322.17 310.63 299.54 288.22 263.81 256.73 237.60 229.12 S‐1 Storage, moderate hazard 178.28 169.00 157.49 151.01 133.29 126.14 108.19 99.79 S‐2 Storage, low hazard 177.12 167.84 157.49 149.85 133.29 124.98 108.19 98.63 U Utility, miscellaneous 142.27 134.17 124.26 119.24 106.22 99.50 84.54 80.78 201
10 BUILDING PERMIT FEES CALCULATED BY VALUATION
This includes all new buildings, facilities, additions,tenant improvements and residential remodels
*Allsub‐permits(plumbing, mechanical and electrical) are included in the plan check and inspection feesfor valuation based projects.
• Once the valuation for the project is established, use the table below to determine the Building Inspection Fee. Several other fees are based on the Building Inspection Fee and this is outlined on the next page.

TOTAL VALUATION
(Materials and Labor) BUILDING INSPECTION FEE
$1 to $500 $50
$501 to $2,000 $50 for the first $500 plus $3.33 for each additional $100 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000
$2,001 to $50,000 $100 for the first $2,000 plus $18.75 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000
$50,001 to $200,000 $1,000 for the first $50,000 plus $10 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof,to and including $200,000
$200,001 to $500,000 $2,500 for the first $200,000 plus $8.33 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000
$500,001 to $1,000,000 $5,000 for the first $500,000 plus $7.00 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000
$1,000,001 and up $8,500 for the first $1,000,000 plus $5 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof 202
11 BUILDING PERMIT FEES CALCULATED BY VALUATION
Thisincludes all new buildings, facilities, additions, tenant improvements and residential remodels.

Please Note: Allsub‐permits(plumbing, mechanical and electrical) are included in the plan check and inspection feesfor valuation‐ based projects. This worksheet includes fees specific to building permit applications from multiple departments.

INSPECTION FEES
* For projects that require
landscape or planning
inspections a minimum of 1
hour will be charged.

Additional hours may be
charged depending on the
scope of work.

BUILDING INSPECTION FEE From valuation table on previous page. $ FIRE INSPECTION FEE Flat Rate $398
HAZ‐MAT INSPECTION FEE Flat Rate $397
LANDSCAPE INSPECTION FEE* Flat Rate $498

PLAN REVIEW FEES
* For building permit master
plan reviews, the formula is
calculated at 1.25% of the
Building Inspection Fee. Flat
rate reviewssuch as Solid
Waste, Housing also apply to
master plan reviews.
** Plot plan review fees only
apply to production homes.

Additional fees will apply.

Note: Additional impact fees
and/or taxes will apply.

BUILDING INSPECTIONFEE x 1.0 = BUILDING PLAN CHECKFEE* $ BUILDING INSPECTIONFEE x .35 = PLANNING REVIEW FEE $
BUILDING INSPECTIONFEE x .35 = FIRE REVIEW FEE $
HAZ‐MAT REVIEW FEE – See Haz-Mat fees in master fee schedule $ SOLID WASTE REVIEW FEE Flat Rate Depending on Scope ‐ Single‐ Family or Remodel: $77, Tract Development: $250, Commercial TI with trash enclosure: $187, Commercial TI without trash enclosure: $125 $
HOUSING REVIEW FEE Flat Rate Depending on Scope ‐ Buildings with 1 to 4 dwelling units: $474. Buildings with 5 or more dwelling units: $790 ADUs: $158
$
BUILDING PLOT PLAN REVIEW FEE** Flat Rate $454381
HOUSING PLOT PLAN REVIEW FEE** Flat Rate $474
MASTER PLAN REVIEW* For residential tracts, see note on left $ PLANNING PLOT PLAN REVIEW FEE** Flat Rate $747
ADMINISTRATIVE FEES BUILDING INSPECTIONFEE x .09 = TECHNOLOGY FEE $ BUILDING INSPECTIONFEE x .16 = POLICY PLANNING FEE $
BUILDING INSPECTIONFEE x .35 = PERMIT ISSUANCE FEE $
CALIFORNIA STATE FEES SMIP FEE RESIDENTIAL: .00013% OFVALUATION $ SMIP FEE COMMERCIAL: .00028% OFVALUATION $
CABUILDING STANDARDS FEE $
$1.00 (Valuation $1-25k)
$2.00 (Valuation $25-50k)
$3.00 (Valuation $50-75k)
$4.00 (Valuation $75-100k) Add $1 per every 25k over 100k BUILDING PERMIT FEE $
This total only reflects plan review fees, administrative fees and inspection fees for a building permit. Most projects will have other fees and taxes in addition to the total shown here. Please contact each reviewing group for a full assessment of these additional costs.
203
12 FLAT RATE PERMIT FEES
These items will also have administrative fees added to the permit. In some cases, hourly plan review fees will also be required.

Miscellaneous Permit Fees – Not Calculated by Valuation Unit Fee

1. Standard Hourly Rate (or fraction thereof) for plan check, inspections or other administrative services
Hourly $227
a. Overtime Rate for Plan Check or Inspection Services Hourly $340

2. Revision (permit issuance fee and hourly plan check will also be charged)
Hourly
$227

3. Flat Rate Permit Issuance Fee (for projects that are not valuation based)
Hourly $227

4. Miscellaneous Items (for items that do not have a set fee) Each $227

5. Plot Plan Review
a. Planning Division Plot Plan Review Each Plot $747
b. Building Division Plot Plan Review and processing Each Plot $454

6. Address Assignment (including apartments, units, suites, ADUs, meters, etc.)
Each $340

7. Demolition *Hourly plan check fees may apply depending on scope Inspection Fee a. Complete Building Demolition (Commercial/Residential) Each $454 b. Minor Residential Demo (removal of patio covers, accessory structure or similar exterior elements. Removal of interior walls requires a residential remodel permit.

Each $114
c. Pool Demo Each $454

8. Equipment Installation
a. First Pieces First Piece $454
b. Additional Equipment at Same Site Each $227
c. Equipment Pad Each $340

9. Voluntary Residential Seismic Retrofit Using “Plan Set A” - Only applies to single family homes with a crawlspace less than or equal to 4 feet high
Each $340

10. Damaged Building Survey Fire, flood, vehicle, or similar damage $908

11. Patio Covers
a. Patio Cover (requires drawings and hourly plan check) Each $340 b. Enclosed Patio (requires drawings and hourly plan check) Each $681

12. Photovoltaic Systems
Residential – Up to 15kW (for systems that are not flush mounted, hourly plan check fees apply)
Each System $454
a. Commercial, up to 50 kilowatts (hourly plan check fees) Each System $1,220 b. Commercial, each additional kilowatt 51KW-250kW (hourly plan check fees apply)
Each System $9
c. Commercial, each additional kilowatt over 250kW (hourly Each System $6 204
13 plan check fees apply)

13. Residential Package Permits
a. Tub/Shower Enclosure (includes trades) $227
b. Remodel – Complete Bathroom (includes trades) $340
c. Remodel – Kitchen (includes trades) $681

14. Storage Racks
a. Up to 100 linear feet First 100 lf. $681
b. Each additional 100 linear feet Each 100 lf. $227

15. Deferred Submittal (may require additional hourly plan review fees)
Each $908

16. Phased Approval Permits (additional valuation - based fees apply)
Each $908

FLAT RATE PERMIT FEES
These items will also have administrative fees added to the permit. In some cases, hourly plan review fees will also be required.

Plumbing Mechanical & Electrical Fees – Not Calculated by Valuation

17. Plumbing Permits – Residential (single‐family and duplexes) a. Water Heater/Gas Each $113
b. Heat Pump Water Heater Each $227
c. Fixtures – covers 2 Inspections for any type or number of fixtures
Each $227
d. Water Service Repair / Replacement Each $113
e. Water Pipe (Repair or Replacement) Each $227
f. Sewer on private property or Cleanout Installation Each $227 g. Sewer Ejector System Each $227
h. Solar Water Heating System - Hourly plan check fees may apply for systems that are not flush mounted or have other structural issues.

Each $227
i. Residential Gas Piping Each $227
j. Residential Gas Test or Meter Reset Each $227

18. Plumbing Permits – Commercial + Multi‐Family
a. Water Heater (Repair or Replacement) Each $227
b. Water Service (Repair or Replacement) Each $227
c. Sewer Ejector System Each $227
d. Industrial / Commercial Process Piping System Each $454 e. Gas Piping Each 100 linear
feet or fraction
thereof
$227/100 feet
f. Gas Test/Meter Reset Each $227
205
14 g. Sewer on private property or Cleanout Installation Each $227 h. Grease Trap Each $227
i. Grease Interceptor Each $454
j. Vacuum Breaker, Backflow Preventer or Pressure Regulator Each $227

19. Mechanical Permits – Residential (single‐family and duplexes) a. Heating and/or Cooling Equipment (including ducts) Each $340 b. Wall Furnace Each $227
c. Kitchen Hood and Bathroom Vents Each $113

20. Mechanical Permits – Commercial + Multi‐Family
*For units over 400 pounds or for replacements that are not in the same location, hourly plan review fees apply.
a. *HVAC unit (includes all associated sub-permits) Each $340 b. *Air Handler Unit Each $227
c. Vent System Each $227
d. Exhaust Hood Replacement (additional hourly plan check may apply)
Each $227

21. Electrical Permits – Residential (single‐family and duplexes) a. General Electrical Permit – Residential (rough and final) Each $340 b. Residential E.V. Charger Each $113
c. Service Upgrade – Residential Each $113
d. Meter Rest Each $113
e. Temporary Power Installation Each $227
f. Minor Residential Electrical Permit (final only – no rough) Each $227

FLAT RATE PERMIT FEES
These items will also have administrative fees added to the permit. In some cases, hourly plan review fees will also be required.

Inspection Fee

22. Electrical Permits – Commercial + Multi-Family
a. General Electrical Permit – Commercial + Multi-Family (rough and final)
Each $681
b. Commercial E.V. Charger (may require additional hourly plan review)
Each $454
c. Commercial Service Upgrade Each $227
d. Commercial Meter Reset Each $227
e. Minor Commercial Electrical Permit (final only – no rough) Each $340 f. Signs (illuminated exterior signage) Each $227
206
15 Additional Services and Violations – Not Calculated by Valuation

23. Special Review Services
a. Expedited Hourly Plan Review Hourly $340
b. Expedited Plan Review Each 200% of plan
review
c. Phased Approval Permits Each $908
d. Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Each $1,816
e. Alternate Materials and Methods Review Each $908

24. Copies, Re‐Print + Change of Contractor
a. Printing Scanned/Archived Drawing Each $10 per sheet b. Job Card/Permit Re-Print Each $113
c. Change of Contractor Each $227

25. Special Inspector Qualification Review
a. Initial Review for Approved Inspector List Each $908 b. Renewal Review (after 3 years) Each $454

26. Violation Fees
a. Investigation Fee for work done without Permits (in
addition to the regular permit fees)
Each project 205% of the
Building Permit
b. Filing of Notice of Substandard or Hazardous Structure Hourly $227 c. Removal of Notice of Substandard or Hazardous Structure Hourly $227 d. Placards for Condemnation Hourly $227
e. Notice and Order Hourly $227
f. Stop Work Order/Red Tag Hourly $227

27. Permit Extension Fees
a. First Extension Each $227
b. Second Extension Each $454
c. Third Extension and Beyond Each $908

28. Completion Permits
*Based on percentage of work that passed inspection prior to the expiration of the renewed permit (Ordinance 105.5.2 – Fees for Completion Permits)
Completed Inspections % of Updated Valuation
a. None 60
b. Foundation 55
c. Under-floor 50
d. Shear Wall 40
e. Rough Frame 30
f. Lath of Gypsum Board 20
g. All, except Final 10
207
16 B. PLANNING

1. Conceptual Development Review Meeting1
**Subsequent meetings related to same project/project site UNIT
a. Residential No Charge for
1st review
$1,245 Per
subsequent
review (starting
2nd review)
b. Commercial & Mixed Use $ 1,245 per review

2. SB330 Preliminary Application $ 2,000 Time &
Material; Initial
deposit2

3. Code Assistance Meeting3 No Charge

4. Review of Business License Application $ 124 Per License

5. Annexation Proceedings
Costs shall also include, but not be limited to, current annexation filing fees established by the Board of Equalization in manner provided by the State Government Code Section 54902.5.
$ 15,000 Time &
Material, Initial
Deposit2

6. LAFCO Utility Service Agreement
(Preparation and processing of documents in connection with utility service to property outside of the City limits) $ 5,000 Time &
Material, Initial
Deposit2

7. Environmental/Technical Analysis (Contract) Consultant $ 5,000 Time & Material, Initial
Deposit2

8. General Plan Amendment1 $ 15,000 Time &
Material, Initial
Deposit2

9. Text Change to Zoning Ordinance1 $ 15,000 Time &
Material, Initial
Deposit2

10. Rezoning and Pre-zoning (including new or major modification to a Planned Development)
$ 15,000 Time &
Material, Initial
Deposit2
1 It is recommended that major projects be reviewed at a Pre-Application Meeting prior to submittal of a Development Review Application. A Code Assistance Meeting is also recommended involving project design to allow professionals to address technical code questions.
2 This is an initial deposit only to cover staff labor hours and materials. The hourly rate may vary by department; the hourly rate of Planning staff is $249. Materials being deducted from deposits may include costs associated with he distribution of required public noticing, such as legal ads and post cards; an overhead charge of $0.10 per post card (in addition to applicable postage costs) will be applied to cover material and administrative costs. If during the review of the project the Planning Director estimates that the charges will exceed the deposit, additional deposit(s) will be required. Also, the Planning Director may authorize a lesser initial deposit than shown if he/she determines that processing of an application will not entail need for the full initial deposit. Prompt payments of deposits or outstanding fees owed in association with the application will assure continued staff review of the project.

Any surplus deposit remaining shall be refunded promptly upon project completion. 3 It is recommended that major projects be reviewed at a Pre-Application Meeting prior to submittal of a Development Review Application. A Code Assistance Meeting is also recommended involving project design to allow professionals to address technical code questions.
208
17 11. Rezoning (Planned Development Precise Plan or Preliminary Plan Minor Modification)
$ 4,000 Time &
Material, Initial
Deposit2

12. Conditional Use Permit1 $ 8, 000 Time &
Material, Initial
Deposit2

13. Major Conditional Use Permit $ 15,000 Time &
Material, Initial
Deposit2

14. Administrative Use Permit1
a. Livestock $ 500 Per
Application
b. Food Vendors $ 700 Per
Application
c. All Others $ 4,000 Time &
Material, Initial
Deposit2

15. Site Plan Review1
a. Processed Administratively $ 4,000 Time &
Material, Initial
Deposit2
b. Involving Public Hearing $ 6,000 Time &
Material, Initial
Deposit2

16. Major Site Plan Review $ 8,000 Time &
Material, Initial
Deposit2

17. Variances, Including Warrants & Exceptions
a. Processed Administratively $ 6,000 Time &
Material, Initial
Deposit2
b. Involving Public Hearing $ 8,000 Time &
Material, Initial
Deposit2

18. Minor Modification – Processed Administratively $ 6,000 Time & Material, Initial
Deposit2

19. Major Modification – Involving Public Hearing $ 8,000 Time & Material; Initial
Deposit2

20. Extension of Approved Development Plan/Applications $ 1,000 Time & Material; Initial
Deposit2

21. Designation of Historical or Architectural Significance1 $ 6,000 Time & Material; Initial
209
18 Deposit2

22. Development Agreement
a. Review of application, negotiation of agreements,
processing through Planning Commission and City Council $ 15,000 Time &
Material; Initial
Deposit2
b. Amendment Processing $ 6,000 Time &
Material; Initial
Deposit2
c. Annual Review $ 1,000 Time &
Material; Initial
Deposit2

23. Zoning Verification Letter or Similar Request $ 747 Flat Fee

24. Research, Meetings, & Hourly Rate $ 249 Flat Fee

25. Zoning Conformance Permit
a. Apiaries/Unattended Collection Boxes $ 373 Fixed Fee b. Household Pets (when required) $ 124 Fixed Fee
c. Accessory Dwelling Units $ 498 Fixed Fee
d. Outdoor dining $ 747 Fixed Fee
e. Accessory Commercial Unit $ 498 Fixed Fee

26. Sign Permits
a. Sign Permit (one business) $ 498
b. Sign Permit (each additional business – same application) $ 498 c. Temporary Sign Permit (Banners, Flags, Streamers,
Pennants, Buntin, Searchlights, Inflatable Signs, Human Signs) *Temporary sign deposits to be refunded upon
removal of signage
$ 498
d. Portable/A-Frame Signs $ 100
e. Mural Art $ 100
*Note: Revocable Encroachment Permit also applies to Human signs in the public right of way, see Engineering and Transportation section for applicable fee(s).

27. Sign Program $ 1,000 Time &
Material; Initial
Deposit2

28. Appeal Fee – For Applicant $ 6,000 Time &
Material; Initial
Deposit2

29. Appeal Fee – Other Than Applicant $ 747

30. Tentative Tract or Tentative Parcel Map, Including Vesting $ a. Processed Administratively $ 6,000 Time &
Material; Initial
Deposit2
210
19 b. Involving Public Hearing $ 8,000 Time &
Material; Initial
Deposit2

31. Landscape Lighting Assessment District Benefit Zone Annexation & Formation
$ 15,000 Time &
Material; Initial
Deposit2

32. Lot Line Adjustment $ 4,000 Time &
Material; Initial
Deposit2

33. Certificate of Merger or Certificate of Compliance $ 4,000 Time & Material; Initial
Deposit2

34. Security Gate Application $ 2,000 Time &
Material; Initial
Deposit2

35. Street/Special Event Permit $ 4,113
The Development Services Director or designee may reduce or waive this fee for certain events. (See Fee Reduction, Waiver, and Sponsorship for Special Events Policy)

36. Tree Removal Permit
a. Annual Pruning Certification $ 817 Fixed Fee
b. Tree Removal Permit*
A Minor Encroachment Permit may also be required – See
Engineering Services Section
i. ≤ 2 trees $ 498 Fixed Fee
ii. 3 to 5 trees $ 996 Fixed Fee
iii. 6 to 8 trees $ 1,245 Fixed Fee
iv. ≥9 $ 1,000 Deposit
v. Heritage Tree $ 1,000 Deposit
c. Tree Pruning Permit
i. ≤ 2 trees $ 249 Fixed Fee
ii. ≥ 3 trees $ 747 Fixed Fee
iii. Heritage Tree 498 Fixed Fee
d. Investigation and Violation Fee – Work done without
Permits (in addition to the regular permit fees)
200% of Tree
Permit Fee

37. Mobile Home Park Closure / Change of Use $ 11,748

38. Inspections – Planning and Landscape
a. Code Enforcement Compliance Inspection Fee $ 424
b. Planning, Landscaping Inspection and Reinspection Fee $ 249 Fixed Fee

39. Review of Ministerial Planning Applications
a. Applications that do not Include a Tentative Map $ 4,000 Deposit 211
20 b. Applications that Involve a Tentative Map $ 6,000 Deposit

40. Limited Entertainment Permit $ 249

41. Minor Temporary Use Permit $ 747

42. Policy Planning Fee 16% of Building
Permit Fee

43. Park Impact Fee – Residential
a. ADU that is 750+ s.f. $ 3,379
b. Studio/0-bedroom Unit $ 3,789
c. 1 Bedroom Unit $ 5,931
d. 2 Bedroom Unit $ 10,699
e. 3 Bedroom Unit $ 18,685
f. 4+ Bedroom Unit
Industrial Development (Industrial us in IL, IP, or IG zoning district)
$ 25,991
g. Gross Floor Area $ 0.95 per s.f.

Notes:

1. Bedroom”, “dwelling unit”, “gross floor area”, as defined by HMC Sec. 10-1.3500.

2. Projects receiving all discretionary approvals by the effective date of this Resolution shall be subject to the parkland dedication and in- lieu fee requirements in effect immediately prior to the effective date of Resolution 19-245.

44. Affordable Housing In‐Lieu Fees

1. Residential Development Projects – Ten Units or More a. High-Density Condominiums (35 units per acre or more. $ 19.22/Square Foot of Habitable
Space*
b. Lower Density Ownership Housing (Less than 35 units per acre)
$ 25.82/Square Foot
of Habitable
Space*
c. All other Dwelling Unit Types $ 23.30/Square Foot
of Habitable
Space*
*Notes:

Affordable housing in-lieu fees shall be paid either prior to issuance of a building permit or prior to approval of a final inspection or issuance of an occupancy permit. Fees paid at occupancy shall be increased by 10 percent (10%).
"Habitable Space" means floor area within a Dwelling Unit designed, used, or intended to be used exclusively for living and sleeping purposes and exclusive of vent shafts, eaves, overhangs, atriums, covered entries and courts and any portion of a structure above ground used for parking, parking aisles, loading areas, or accessory uses.
212
21 2. Residential Development Projects – Less Than Ten
Fee calculated pursuant to Section 44.1 above:

Residential Development Projects Percentage of Calculated Fee <10 50%

3. Fractional Units
If an applicant provides on-site Affordable Units under Chapter 10, Article 17 of the Hayward Municipal Code and elects to pay affordable housing in-lieu fees for a fractional unit, the fractional in-lieu fee payment shall be calculated as follows:

Fractional Unit/Total Affordable Unit Requirement x Per Square Foot Fee x Total Habitable Square Footage in the Project

4. Applications for Residential Development Projects of Two or More Units Deemed Complete as of December 20, 2017
a. Projects receiving all discretionary approvals by February 1, 2018: Affordable housing impact fees in effect on December 20, 2017.

Projects not receiving all discretionary approvals by February 1, 2018, provided that all discretionary approvals and building permit(s) are obtained within two (2) years of December 20, 2017: 50% of the affordable housing in-lieu fee calculated under either Section 3.1 or Section 3.2 of RES 17-167, and as amended, as applicable, depending on the size of the project.

45. Mills Act/Williamson Act Program
a. Mills Act/Williamson Act Program $ 2,000 Time &
Material Initial
Deposit
b. Mills Act Annual Compliance Inspection $ 498 Fixed Fee C. CODE ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY PRESERVATION PROGRAM

1. General Administration Fees (Applicable to all Code
Enforcement Programs/Cases
a. Code Enforcement Re-inspection Fee $ 784
b. Code Enforcement Request for Postponement Fee $ 423
c. Impound Fee (Un-permitted Mobile Vending) $ 573
d. Monthly Storage Fee (Mobile Vending Equipment) $ 218 e. No Show on Inspection Fee $ 667
f. Impound Fee (includes 3 hours of Code Enforcement Staff Time)
$ 573
g. Storage Fee (flat rate pallet and handling fee) $ 218 h. Request for Postponement of Inspection
(1) First Request $ 423 Flat Rate
(2) Second Request for postponement penalty $ 423 Flat Rate 213
22 (3) Third & Subsequent request for postponement
penalty
$ 423 Flat Rate
(4) “No Show” for Inspection Appointment Penalty $ 667 Flat Rate

2. Violation of Community Preservation, Sign, Vehicle, Weed Abatement, Building, Public Nuisance, Zoning Ordinances, and HMC Code violations
a. First Violation
(1) Initial inspection Fee (upon violations found) No Violationsfree of charge$773 (2) Penalty for initial violation (upon first failed reinspection)$400 (3) Penalty for second violation (upon second failed reinspection)Penalty $800 (4) Penalty for third and Subsequent violations Penalty $1,600 b. Subsequent violation(s) within 1 year
(1) Subsequent Case Initial inspection Fee $743
(2) Subsequent Case Initial Inspection Penalty Penalty $800 (3) Subsequent Case Re-inspection Fee $784
(4) Subsequent Case Re-inspection Penalty Penalty $1,600

3. Egregious Violation(s) Penalties
On-going health and safety violations, public nuisances and illegal uses, including but not limited to: garage conversion, room additions, unauthorized short-term rentals, accessory structures, construction without permits, home occupation, use permits or site plan review, unpermitted uses related to environmental hazards.
a. Tier 1 for first verified violation(s) Penalty $1,500 b. Tier 2 for second verified violation(s) Penalty $3,000 c. Tier 3 for third and subsequent verified violation(s) Penalty $5,000

4. Tobacco Retailer License, Initial or Renewal Fee Annual Fee $722 Initial Inspection No Charge
a. First Offense Penalty/30-
day TRL
suspension
$1,500
b. Second Offense Penalty/30-
day TRL
suspension
$3,000
c. Third Offense Penalty/30-
day TRL
suspension
$5,000

5. Cannabis Licensing Program, License Renewal, Inspection, Penalties Fees
a. Preliminary Determination of Eligibility/Screening
Application
$2,500
b. Initial Commercial Cannabis Business Permit Application $15,000 214
23 *Covers cost of consultant review of business and operating plan, initial site inspections to verify compliance by applicable City staff, administrative costs, and program management, including HPD decoy operations.
c. Annual Cannabis Permit Renewal Fee, Per License Type *Covers cost of follow-up site inspections to verify compliance and related administrative costs
Delivery $5,000
Distribution $5,000
Cultivation $8,000
Manufacturing $8,000
Retail Dispensaries (Storefront) $10,000
Microbusiness (includes all activities) $20,000
Testing Labs $3,000
d. Temporary Cannabis Permit Activity Deposit/
Hourly
$2,500
e. Modification to Existing Commercial Cannabis Permit
*Does not include revisions to Planning Entitlements
Deposit/
Hourly
$2,000
f. Employee Work Permit Application Fee
(1) Initial Application Fee
(Including, but not limited to: Fingerprints, Live
Scan, and Badge)
$299
(2) Renewal Fee w/o Live Scan $160
g. Inspection Fees
(1) Initial Inspection $0
(2) Code Enforcement-Reinspection $784
h. Penalties for Non-Cultivation Related Violations
(1) First Violation $5,000
(2) Second Violation $10,000
(3) Third Violation $15,000
(4) Selling Cannabis Product to a Minor /Incident $2,500 i. Penalties for Cultivation Violations
(1) First Violation Per Plant $5,000
(2) Second Violation within 2 years Per Plant $2,500
(3) Third Violation within 2 years Per Plant $5,000

6. Grading or Encroachment Permit
a. Code Enforcement Investigation fees, for permit not
obtained
Fee $2,000

7. Building Violation Fees
a. Investigation Fee for work done without Permits (in Fee $2,300 215
24 addition to the regular permit fees)
b. Filing of Notice of Substandard or Hazardous Structure Per Hour $305 c. Removal of Notice Substandard or Hazardous Structure Per Hour $305 d. Placards for Condemnation Per Hour $305
e. Notice and Order Per Hour $305

8. Vacant Property Monitoring
Annual Vacant Property Registration and Monitoring Fee $2,371 (Minimum of one inspection
per year)
Program Fees:

Initial Inspection, No Violation Found $1,048 (If a
violation found)
Reinspection Fee $784
Initial Inspection, Violation Found Penalty $1,500
2nd Re-Inspection, Violation Found Penalty $3,000
3rd and Subsequent Re-inspection, Violations Found Penalty $5,000 D. CODE ENFORCEMENT – RENTAL HOUSING & HOTEL INSPECTION PROGRAM

1. Annual Fee for Rental Housing, Hotel or Motel
a. Single-family, Duplex, Triplex, or Fourplex $125
b. Five or more units Per Unit $35

2. First Request for Postponement of Initial Inspection or Progress Check
No Charge

3. Inspection, Report, and Enforcement Actions Pursuant to HMC, Ch. 9, Art. 5, Rental Unit Parce
a. Initial Inspection, No Violation Found No Charge (Included in annual fee)
b. Code Enforcement-Re-inspection Fee (single unit) $784 c. Code Enforcement-Multi-family Re-inspection Fee (per unit)
$180
d. First Progress Check, Violations not corrected Penalty $400 e. Second Progress Check Penalty $800
f. Third and Subsequent Progress Checks Penalty $1,600

4. Initial Inspection or Progress Check, No Access or Reschedule a. First Site Visit $512
b. Second Site Visit Penalty $512
c. Third and Subsequent Visit Penalty $512
216
25 E. CODE ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION

1. Lien/Special Assessment (per parcel): Unpaid Annual Program Fees
$921

2. Lien/Special Assessment (per parcel): Code Violations $2,134

3. Hearing Fee: Administrative, Special Assessment,
Administrative Citation, and Lien Hearings)
$1,500

4. Abatement costs (per parcel) $1,555+
Contractor Costs

5. Hourly Code Enforcement Inspection Fee (Applicable to all Code case Types above initial 2 hours with continuing
violations)
$525

6. Police Standby Safety Fee $346

7. Legal Consultation $530
F. HOUSING

1. Rent Stabilization Administration
a. Annual Fee per Rental Unit $32
b. Annual Fee per Covered Rental Unit $66
c. Annual Fee per Mobile-home Space $5
d. Special Assessment (per parcel): Unpaid Annual Program Fees
Per Parcel $921
The fees set forth herein shall be payable immediately and shall be delinquent if not received by the Housing Division on or before 5 p.m., October 31.

2. Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance Hearings
a. Hearing Fee: Administrative, Special Assessment,
Administrative Citation, and Lien Hearings
Per Hearing $1,500
b. Administrative Citation Per Citation $1,000

3. Loan Servicing and Monitoring
General
a. Title Report Per Report Actual Costs
b. Property Appraisal Report Per Report Actual Costs
c. Recording Fee Per Document Actual Costs or
$50 minimum
d. Document Preparation Fee Per Document $100
e. Notary Service - Government Code 8211 Per Signature $15 Homeownership Loan Programs
a. Refinance/Subordination Fee (does not apply to CDBG
and HOME)
Per
Transaction
$600
217
26 b. Late Payment Fee Payment after
15 days
The greater of
6% Monthly Loan
or $5 minimum
Below Market Rate Program Fee
a. Refinance/Subordination Fee Per
Transaction
$600
b. Modification/Transfer Fee Actual Costs/
Time and
Materials1
c. Resale Fee 0.5% Purchase
Price
d. Exercise City Option to Purchase 3% Maximum
restricted resale
price
Affordable Housing
a. Loan and Agreement Modification Fee Actual Costs/
Time and
Materials1
b. Subordination Fee Actual Costs/
Time and
Materials1
c. Monitoring Fee Per Unit $50
d. Resale Fee Actual Costs/
Time and
Materials1
e. Legal Fee Per
Transaction
Actual Costs
1Costs may include but are not limited to: hourly rate for staff time, recording fees, title reports, appraisals, and public noticing costs. Hourly rate may vary by department, but the hourly rate for Housing staff is $199.
218
27 Engineering and Transportation Services
A. AIRPORT SERVICES

1. Monthly and Daily Fees for Aircraft Parking and Storage.

Waiting List Application Refundable Deposit of $300.00
a. Hangar Space Monthly Charges
(1) Small T-Hangars $319.00
(2) Standard T-Hangars $494.00
(3) Large T-Hangars $614.00
(4) Small Executive Hangar $1,065.00
(5) Standard Executive Hangars $1,475.00
(6) Large Executive Hangars $1,609.00
b. Hanger Storage Rooms Monthly Charges
(1) Small $79.00
(2) Medium $110.00
(3) Large $213.00
(4) Extra Large $271.00
(5) Office Spaces $706.00
c. Tie Downs (Aircraft Gross Weight/Wing Span)
(1) Single Engine 3,500 lb. and Single Engine Helicopters $65.00 (2) Twin Engine 12,500 lb. less than 50 ft and Twin Engine Helicopters
$75.00
(3) 12,501 - 25,000 lb. more than 50 ft $108.00
(4) 25,001 - 75,000 lb. $161.00
(5) Excess of 75,000 lbs. $216.00
d. Transient Overnight Tie Downs (Aircraft Gross Weight/Wing Span) First Four (4) Hours Free
Single Engine 3,500 lb. and Single Engine Helicopters
Daily Charge
(1) Single Engine 3,500 lb. less than 40 ft% $6.00
(2) Twin Engine 12,500 lb. less than 50 ft and all Helicopters $8.00 (3) 12,501 - 25,000 lb. more than 50 ft $12.00
(4) 25,001 - 75,000 lb. $23.00
(5) Excess of 75,000 lbs. $29.00
(6) Lighter-than air Airships $20.00
e. Effective July 1, 1997, a late charge of $15.00 or 5% of the monthly rent per month, 219
28 whichever is greater, shall be assessed if rent is not paid within ten (10) days of its due date (does not apply to daily rent).
f. Effective July 1, 1997, if the service of a member firm of the California Association of Photocopies and Process Servers must be utilized, a $50 fee shall be charged to the individual or business necessitating said process service. g. The City shall charge a fee equal to the sum of the following: Five cents for each gallon of petroleum products delivered during the previous calendar month from the Leased Premises, or an amount equal to 3 percent of the gross receipts (including fuel and gasoline taxes for which Lessee sold fuel products during the previous calendar month on or from the Airport, whichever amount is greater.
h. All month-to-month Airport leases shall include a security deposit equal to one month’s rent.

2. Permits
Monthly Charges
a. Airport Annual Business Permit $150.00
b. Taxiway Access Permit $786.00

3. Airport Land Values
Airport Land Value is on file in the Airport Administration Office and available for review

4. Gate Access Cards
a. Initial Issue for Airport Tenants Free
b. Initial Issue for non-direct Airport Tenants $47.00
c. Replacement $47.00

5. Hangar Padlock Keys
a. Duplicate Key $21.00
b. Padlock Replacement $133.00

6. Chocks and Chains Replacement $79.00

7. Landing Fee
Commercial aircraft operations (shall include landings of all non-based general aviation aircraft that conduct air taxi, charter, or cargo operations under FAR Part 121 or Part 135) based on maximum certificated gross landing weight:

Per Landing Daily Monthly
0 – 3,500 pounds $2 $5 $13
3,501 – 6,250 pounds $4 $10 $26
6,251 – 12,500 pounds $8 $20 $52
12,501 – 25,000 pounds $16 $40 $104
25,001 – 50,000 pounds $32 $80 $208
50,001 pounds and above $64 $160 $416

8. Hangar Exchange
a. Administration Fee for Exchange between Tenants (each Tenant) $100.00 220
29 b. Administration Fee for Exchange into Vacant Hangar $100.00

9. Tie Down Exchange
a. Administration Fee to Exchange tie-down spaces $70.00

10. Vacated Hangar Cleanup
a. Cleanup and disposal of items, minimum charge of 2 hours (per person) $250.00 b. Additional hours, hourly rate $100.00

11. Ramp Sweeping Services, hourly rate $238.00/hour
*Ramp Sweeping Services do not include staff time

12. Maintenance Staff Service Charge per hour $100.00 plus materials

13. Airport Administration Building Meeting Room
a. Non-profit Aviation organization charging no fee to the public No Charge b. For-profit Aviation organization charging a fee to the public $200.00/day

14. Airport Project Administration Fee $5,000.00

15. Commercial Operator/Fixed Base Operator Waste Oil Fee $1.00/per qt.

B. ENGINEERING SERVICES

1. Publication
a. Standard Detail $20.00
b. “No Parking” Signs $29.00
c. Copy and print full size prints (24x36) first 10 pages (fee is per page) $10.00 d. Copy and print full size prints (24x36) first 11+ pages (fee is per page) $8.00

2. Sidewalk Rehabilitation Program
a. Single Family Residential lots $550.00
b. Multi-family with 1 or 2 damaged locations $550.00
c. Additional locations
Varies – shall be charged for the exact square footage of the damaged sidewalk repair at the actual Construction Contract bid price

3. Encroachment Permit Application – Minor Work $374.00 plus Public Works
inspection fee
a. Concrete
(1) Curb, gutter, and/or sidewalk (including driveway) First 100 linear ft.
$595.00
(2) Each additional 100 linear feet or fraction thereof $465.00 (3) Driveway, handicapped ramp, curb return $430.00
(4) Planter strip fill (each property) $215.00
b. Drainage
221
30 (1) Drainage system and appurtenance, first 100 linear ft. $975.00 (2) Each additional 100 linear ft. or fraction thereof, up to a maximum total of 500 linear ft.
$765.00
(3) Drainage tie-in to existing structures $765.00
(4) Non-standard structures (other than above) $975.00
(5) Manholes, vaults, area drains, storm water inlets other standard structures
$975.00
(6) Storm Water Interceptors $975.00
c. Street Work & Miscellaneous
(1) Street trenches up to 100 linear ft. $765.00
(2) Each additional 100 linear ft. or fraction thereof, up to a maximum total of 500 linear ft.
$555.00
(3) Street cuts, other, up to 100 square ft. $765.00
(4) Each additional 100 sq. ft. or fraction thereof $555.00 (5) Temporary placement of Debris Box or Storage Container within public right-of-way. (cost per month)
$196.00
(6) Street micro trench up to 500 linear ft. $4,875.00
(7) Street bores or any trenchless work up to 500 linear ft. $4,875.00 (8) Sidewalk area obstruction fee, first week only $1,040.00 a. Sidewalk area obstruction fee, each additional week or fraction thereof
$205.00
(9) Temporary lane closure only (no construction), first week only $380.00 a. Temporary lane closure only (no construction), each additional week or fraction thereof
$205.00
d. Monitoring well inspection and plan review
(1) First well
a. Inspection $537.00
b. Plan review $374.00
(2) Each additional well within the same general location a. Inspection $250.00
e. Utility Services – New or Repaired
(1) Each new or replaced utility pole location, guy wire, etc. $555.00 (2) Each utility service connection in sidewalk or street (gas electric, telephone, etc.)
$635.00
f. Sanitary Sewers
(1) Sanitary Sewer Laterals
a. From main in street to easement to building up to 100 linear ft. $975.00 b. Each additional 100 linear ft. or fraction thereof $555.00 222
31 c. Add for monitoring structure if required $975.00
d. From existing stub at right-of-way to building up to 100 linear ft.
$765.00
e. Each additional 100 linear feet or fraction thereof $555.00 f. Each building sewer repair or replacement
(i) In public right-of-way, complete $975.00
(ii) In private property (no street evacuation) $765.00 (2) Sanitary Sewer Building Court Mains
a. Each building court main when plan, profile, and cut sheet are required, initial
$975.00
b. Each additional 100 ft. or fraction thereof $555.00
c. Each building court main when plan only is required for Initial 100 ft. or less
$725.00
d. Each additional 100 feet or fraction thereof $465.00 g. Additional Inspections $405.00
For any public works encroachment permit on which an unreasonable number of inspections are required, an additional fee per inspection will be charged for each inspection over and above the number deemed reasonable by the City Engineer.
h. Additional Inspections After Hours $215.00
i. Permit Amendment Fee (extensions for expired permit, additional permits not originally obtained, etc.)
$187.00 (per
occurrence)
j. Traffic Control Plan Review $216.00
a. For additional sheets over 6 pages $108.00
k. Survey
a. Curb and gutter skating; after 100 linear ft. $889.00 b. Curb and gutter skating; after 100 linear ft. – each additional 50 linear ft.
$431.00
c. Grade calculations and cut sheets per location $431.00 d. Form checking up to 100 linear ft. $863.00
e. Form checking: after 100 linear ft. – each additional 50 linear ft.
$215.00
f. Survey Monument Preservation Review $50.00

4. Encroachment Permit Application – Major Work (road closures, traffic control, more than 500 linear ft. of work, etc.) $4,000.00
(Deposit – T&M)
a. Construction Inspection, Technical Support, & Project Closeout for Trenchless Construction
5% of
construction cost
prior to permit
issuance.

5. Development Plan Review
223
32 a. Parcel Map Application $5,000.00
(Deposit – T&M)
b. Final Map Application $15,000.00
(Deposit – T&M)
c. Grading Permit Application $4,000.00
(Deposit – T&M)
d. Geological Investigation and Report Peer Review $4,000.00 (Deposit – T&M)
e. Floodplain (Special Flood Hazard Area - SFHA) Development (Fill/Grading) – Hydrologic & Hydraulic (H&H) Engineering Peer Review $4,000.00
(Deposit – T&M)
f. Construction Inspection 5% on any amt
below $500,000
4% on any amt
above $500,000

6. Penalties
Failure to comply with this notice will result in further enforcement action by the Code Enforcement Division including, but not limited to; additional permit, inspection and penalty fees, and/or other available legal remedies. a. Public Works penalty for work in public right-of-way or grading without a permit
$2,000.00
b. Code violation illegal project, penalty fee may be applied daily $125.00 c. Code Enforcement Investigation fees for permit not yet obtained $2,000.00

7. Dig-Once Policy
a. Engineering Plan Review $2,500.00
(Deposit – T&M)
b. Moratorium Override Request Fee $5,000.00
(Deposit – T&M)

8. Section 7‐4 Wireless Communication Facilities
a. Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Right of Way (WCF PROW)
(1) WCF PROW Permit Application Fee $2,000.00
(Deposit – T&M)
(2) Renewal Fee 100% of
Application Fee
(3) Appeal Fee $400.00
(4) Application Pre-Submittal Review Fee No Charge
b. Small Cell Master License Agreement (MLA)
(1) MLA Processing $4,000.00
(2) Pole License Administrative Fee $2,500.00
(3) Annual Lease Charge for Use of City Poles $295.04*
$303.89**
224
33 *$295.04 Effective January 14, 2026
**$303.89 Effective January 14, 2027

9. Traffic Impact Fee
a. Residential
(1) Single-Family Resident/Unit $3,922/unit
(2) Townhome/Unit $3,922/unit
(3) Multi-Family/Unit $0/unit
b. Non-Residential
(1) Retail/KSF $0/KSF
(2) Office/KSF $0/KFS
(3) General Industrial/KSF $3,661/KSF
(4) Distribution or e-commerce/KSF $6,499/KSF
c. Appeal Fee. $451.00
d. Annual Adjustment
The traffic impact fees listed above shall be automatically adjusted on the first of the fiscal year based on the preceding calendar year average California Cost Index (CCI) for the San Francisco Bay Area as produced by the Engineering News Record (ENR).
225
34 Finance
A. OPERATING PERMITS

1. Bingo Permit (Reference HMC 4-3)
a. Initial or Renewal Fee $69.00

2. Card Club Permit (Reference HMC 4-3)
a. Application Fee $122.00
b. Annual Table Fee $18,467
Per Table

3. Closeout Sale Permit (Reference HMC 6-4)
a. Initial Fee $45.00
b. Renewal $45.00

4. Cabarets and Dance Licenses and Permits (Reference HMC 6-2) a. Annual License (payable quarterly in advance) $692.00 Per Year
b. Single Event Permit $4614.00

5. Preferential Parking Permit (Reference Hayward Traffic Regulations Section 3.95 and Hayward Traffic Code 6.36)
a. Initial Fee and Biennial Renewal Fee (for first residential or visitor permit)
$60.00
b. Each additional residential permit $30.00
c. Each additional visitor permit $30.00
d. Permit Replacement fee $30.00

6. Peep Show Permit (Reference HMC 6-9)
a. Peep Show Device Time & Material
b. Investigation Fee Time & Material
B. MISCELLANEOUS FEES

1. Monthly Listing of New Hayward Based Businesses $18.00 Per Month

2. Business Verification/Ownership Research $30.00
Per Business

3. Parking Tax Offset Fee $2.50

4. Online Credit/Debit Card Payment Transaction Fee $3.95

5. Business License Application Fee $29.00
Per Application

6. Business License Technology Fee $10.00
Per Business

7. Chargeback/Returned Payment Fee $25.00 for
first/$35.00 after
226
35 Fire Department
A. FIRE PREVENTION
Standard Hourly Rate Per Hour $318.00
OVERTIME (AFTERHOUR INSPECTION 2 hour minimum) Per Hour $478.00 Expedited Plan Review (2 hour minimum) Per Hour $478.00 New Fire Sprinkler Systems PLUS Hydraulic Calculation Fee* (See Below) 1-29 Heads Per Floor or System $2,232.00
30-100 Heads Per Floor or System $2,710 .00
101-200 Heads Per Floor or System $3,029.00
201-350 Heads Per Floor or System $3,508.00
351+ Heads Per Floor or System $4,305.00
Fire Sprinkler —Tenant Improvements (PLUS Hydraulic Calculation Fee*, if applicable) LESS THAN 30 HEADS W/ NO HYDRO - Minor plan check
required – only one inspection
$956.00
LESS THAN 30 HEADS WITH HYDRO - Minor plan check
required – only one inspection
$1,275.00
Minor plan check required-only one inspection
30-100 Heads Per Floor or System $2,391.00
101-200 Heads Per Floor or System $3,029
201-350 Heads Per Floor or System $3,508.00
351+ Heads Per Floor or System $4,305.00
Tract Review – Fire Sprinkler Master Plan Check PLUS Hydraulic Calculation Fee* Duplicate TRACT Plan Check 13D SYSTEM
(SFD/TOWNHOUSE)
Per Floor or System $1,275.00
Duplicate TRACT Plan Check 13 SYSTEM (BUILDING) - 200
Heads and Below
Per Floor or System $1,594.00
Duplicate TRACT Plan Check 13 SYSTEM (BUILDING) - 201
– 350 Heads
Per Floor or System $1,913.00
Duplicate TRACT Plan Check 13 SYSTEM (BUILDING) - 351+
Heads
Per Floor or System $2,232.00
Additional Fire Sprinkler Review Items
Hydraulic Calculation* Per Remote Area $1,275 .00
Antifreeze System Per System $2,391.00
227
36 Dry Pipe Valve Per Valve $2,551.00
Deluge/Pre Action Per Valve $3,029.00
Pressure Reducing Station Per Valve $3,508.00
Fire Pump Per Pump $4,145.00
Water Storage Tank
Gravity Per Tank $2,391.00
Pressure Per Tank $2,391.00
Fire Standpipe System
Class I, II, III & Article 81 Per Standpipe $2,870.00
Fire Alarm System ‐New
0-15 Devices* Per System $1,594.00
16-50 Devices Per System $2,232.00
51-100 Devices Per System $2,870.00
101-500 Devices Per System $3,508.00
Each additional 25 devices up to 1,000 Per System $1,594.00 1001+ Per System $6,378.00
Each additional 100 devices Per System $3,189.00
*Devices=All Initiating and indicating appliances, including Dampers Existing system under 8 devices $956.00
Additional Fire Alarm Review Items
Hi/Lo Alarms Each $1,754.00
Low Air/Temp Alarms Each $1,754.00
Graphic Annunciator Review Each $1,754.00
Hazardous Activities or Uses
Installation Permits
Clean Agent Gas Systems $1,754.00
Dry Chemical Systems $1,754.00
Wet Chemical/Kitchen Hood $1,754.00
Foam Systems $1,754.00
Paint Spray Booth $1,754.00
Vehicle Access Gate $797.00
Monitoring $956.00
228
37 Aboveground—Flammable/Combustible Liquid Tank
and/or Pipe
$1,594.00
Underground—Flammable/Combustible Liquid Tank
and/or Pipe
$1,594.00
Fuel Dispensing System Complete $1,754.00
High Piled/Rack/Shelf Storage $2,072.00
Smoke Control CFC $2,072.00
Medical Gas Alarms $1,754.00
Refrigerant System $1,594 .00
Refrigerant Monitoring System $1,754.00
AMMR Review
Activity Permits (Single Event/One-Time) Each $956.00
Open Flames and Candles Per Permit $1,275.00
Carnivals and Fairs Per Permit $1,594 .00
Seasonal Lots (Christmas Tree/Pumpkin Lot) Per Permit $318.00 Special Events (Haunted House/Camps) Per Permit $318.00 Explosives Per Permit $1,594.00
Fireworks; Displays Per Permit $1,594.00
Hot-Works Operations Per Permit $1,275 .00
LP-Gas Per Permit $1,594.00
Liquid or Gas-Fueled Vehicles or Equipment in Per Permit $1,594.00 Assembly Buildings
(1) Covered Mall Buildings Per Permit $1,594.00
(2) Open Burning Per Permit $1,594.00
Pyrotechnical Special Effects Material Per Permit $1,594.00 Temporary Membrane Structures, Tents and Canopies (105.5.49) (1) Small Tent Structure (750 Sq. Ft. or less) Per Permit $797.00 (2) Large Tent Structure (751 Sq. Ft. or above) Per Permit $956.00 (3) Fire Safety Inspections Per Application $1,275.00
(4) Non-Compliance Inspections Per Inspection $1,275.00 (5) Outside Agency Per Inspection $1,275.00
Facility Inspections
Annual State-Mandated Pre-Inspections (6 or less
Occupants)
Per Facility $262.82
229
38 Annual State-Mandated Pre-Inspections (7 or more
Occupants)
Per Facility $394.23
Apartments
Small Apartments (3-15 units) Per Facility $262.82
Medium Apartments (16-100) units More Per Facility $1,275.00 Large Apartments ( >100 units) Per Facility $1,594.00
24 Hour Community Care Facilities Per Facility
7 to 49 Per Facility 525.64
50 or more Per Facility $1,275.00
Day Care Centers
Residential 9-14 Per Facility $318.00
Commercial 15+ Per Facility $637.00
High Rise Building Per Facility $1,913.00
Homes for the Mentally Impaired (7 or more Occupants) Per Facility $1,275.00 Hospital and Jail Per Facility $2,870.00
Hotels/Motels Per Facility $1,275.00
School Per Facility $1,435.00
Reports Per Facility
Life Safety Report Per Report $0.50/page for
first ten (10)
pages of Each
document $0.10
Each additional
page of same
document
Life Safety Report Photographs Per Photograph Direct cost of duplication
Subpoenaed Reports Per Report $0.50/page for
first ten (10)
pages of Each
document $0.10
Each additional
page of same
document
Other Fire Fees
Underground Fire Service Plan Check Each $2,870.00
Emergency Underground Repair Each $956.00
Hydrant Flow Test (existing Hydrants) Each $1,116.00
Fire Plans Examiner Miscellaneous Each $478.00
Re-Inspection Fee Per Hour $558.00
230
39 Fire Prevention Office “No Show” for Inspection
Appointment Fee
Each $318.00
False Alarm Response* Per Billed Incident $1,435.00
Fire Hydrants Per Hydrant $318.00
Re-roofing Permits /Siding/Windows (Applicable only in
Wildland/Urban Interface)
Per Application $159.00
Fire Permit Extension Fee Per 6-Month
Extension
$159.00
Cannabis Facilities Per Year $1,275.00
Pre-Application/General Plan Review/Code Assistance Per Meeting $1,594.00 Planning/Engineering Referrals (HWD) Per Application $1,275.00 Business License Reviews Each $1,116.00
Fairview Planning Referrals Each $478.00
Fairview New Construction Per Application $1,435.00
Annual Permits
Additive Manufacturing (3D Printing) (105.5.1) Per Year $1,275.00 Aerosol Products (105.5.2)) Per Year $1,594.00
Amusement Buildings (105.5.3) Per Year $1,275.00
Aviation Facilities (105.5.4) Per Year $1,275.00
Carnivals and Fairs (105.5.5) Per Year $1,275.00
Cellulose Nitrate Film (105.5.6) Per Year $1,275.00
Combustible Dust-Producing Operations (105.5.7) Per Year $1,275.00 Combustible Fibers (105.5.8) Per Year $1,275.00
Compressed Gases (105.5.9) Per Year $1,275.00
Covered Mall Buildings (105.5.10) Per Year $3,508.00
Cryogenic Fluids (105.5.11) Per Year $1,275.00
Cutting and Welding (105.5.12) Per Year $1,275.00
Dry Cleaning Plants (105.5.13) Per Year $1,275.00
Energy Storage Systems (105.5.14) Per Year $1,275.00
Exhibits and Trade Shows (105.5.15) Per Year $1,275.00
Explosives (105.5.16) Per Year $1,275.00
Fire Hydrants and Valves (105.5.17) Per Year $1,275.00
Flammable and Combustible Liquids (105.5.18) Per Year $1,275.00 Fruit and Crop Ripening (105.5.20) Per Year $1,275.00
Fumigation or Thermal Insecticide Fogging (105.5.21) Per Year $1,275.00 Hazardous Materials (105.5.22) Per Year $1,275.00
231
40 HPM facilities (105.5.23) Per Year $1,594.00
High-Piled Storage < 12000 SF (105.5.24) Per Year $1,275.00 High-Piled Storage > 12000 SF (105.5.24) Per Year $1,594.00 Hot-Works Operations (105.5.25) Per Year $1,275.00
Industrial Ovens (105.5.26) Per Year $1,275.00
Lumber Yards and Woodworking Plants (105.5.27) Per Year $1,275.00 Liquid or Gas-Fueled Vehicles or Equipment in Assembly
Buildings (105.5.28)
Per Year $1,275.00
LP-Gas (105.5.29) Per Year $1,275.00
Magnesium (105.5.30) Per Year $1,275.00
Miscellaneous Combustible Storage (105.5.31) Per Year $1,275.00 Mobile Fueling of Hydrogen-Fueled Vehicles (105.5.32) Per Year $1,275.00 Motor fuel-dispensing facilities (105.5.33) Per Year $1,275.00 Open Burning (105.5.34) Per Year $1,275.00
Open Flames and Torches (105.5.35) Per Year $1,275.00
Open Flames and Candles (105.5.36) Per Year $1,275.00
Organic Coatings (105.5.37) Per Year $1,275.00
Outdoor assembly event (105.5.38) Per Year $1,275.00
Places of Assembly < 300 (105.5.39) Per Year $1,275.00
Places of Assembly > 300 (1055.39) Per Year $1,594.00
Plant extraction systems (105.5.40) Per Year $1,275.00
Private Fire Hydrants (105.5.41) Per Year $1,275.00
Pyrotechnical Special Effects Material (105.5.42) Per Year $1,275.00 Pyroxylin Plastics (105.5.43) Per Year $1,275.00
Refrigeration Equipment (105.5.44) Per Year $1,275.00
Repair Garages and Motor Fuel-Dispensing Facilities
(105.5.45)
Per Year $1,275.00
Rooftop Heliports (105.5.46) Per Year $1,275.00
Spraying or Dipping (105.5.47) Per Year $1,275.00
Storage of Scrap Tires and Tire Byproducts (105.5.48) Per Year $1,275.00 Technology Fee Per Year 6% of annual
permit fee
Tire-Rebuilding Plants (105.5.50) Per Year $1,275.00
Waste Handling (105.5.51) Per Year $1,275.00
Wood Products (105.5.52) Per Year $1,275.00
Lithium Batteries (105.5.53) Per Year $1,275.00
Additional Permits (105.5.54) Per Year $1,275.00
232
41 Essential City Facilities Per Year $1,275.00
Miscellaneous Fees ‐ Building Permits
Minor Tenant Improvement Per Permit $956.00
Revision-minor changes to (E) permit Per Permit $478.00 Cellular Sites
Existing Site Per Permit $956.00
New Site Per Square
Footage

VARIABLE- SEE
CHART
Equipment Installations Per Permit $956.00
HVAC/air units
If over 2,000 cfm Per Permit $318.00
B. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OFFICE
Annual Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) Program Permit and Registration Fees

1. Hazardous Materials Storage Permit
Annual permit per facility for storage and/or handling of hazardous materials as defined in Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 3, Article 8. 1A Storage of one (1) or more types $381.00 Per Year
Solid - up to 500 pounds
Liquid - up to 55 gallons
Gaseous - up to 2,000 cubic feet at STP
2A Storage of one (1) or more types $397.00 Per Year
Solid - over 500 & up to 5,000 pounds
Liquid - over 55 & up to 550 gallons
Gaseous - over 200 & up to 2,000 cubic feet at STP
3A Storage of one (1) to five 5) types $413.00 Per Year Solid - over 5,000 & up to 25,000
pounds Liquid - over
550 & up to 2,750 gallons
Gaseous - over 2,000 & up to 10,000 cubic feet at STP
3B Storage of six (6) or more types $447.00 Per Year
Solid - over 5,000 & up to 25,000
pounds
Liquid - over 550 & up to 2,750 gallons
Gaseous - over 2,000 & up to 10,000 cubic feet at STP
4A Storage of one (1) to five (5) types $462.00 Per Year Solid - over 25,000 & up to 50,000
pounds
233
42 Liquid - over 2,750 & up to 5,000
gallons
Gaseous - over 10,000 & up to 20,000 cubic feet at
STP
4B Storage of six (6) or more types $480.00 Per Year
Solid - over 25,000 & up to 50,000
pounds
Liquid - over 2,750 & up to 5,000
gallons
Gaseous - over 10,000 & up to 20,000 cubic feet at
STP
5A Storage of one (1) to five (5) types $530.00 Per Year Solid - over 50,000 pounds Liquid -
over 5,000 gallons
Gaseous - over 20,000 cubic feet at STP
5B Storage of six (6) to ten (10) types $580.00 Per Year Solid - over 50,000 pounds Liquid -
over 5,000 gallons
Gaseous - over 20,000 cubic feet at STP
5C Storage of eleven (11) or more types $596.00 Per Year Solid - over 50,000 pounds Liquid -
over 5,000 gallons
Gaseous - over 20,000 cubic feet at STP

2. Hazardous Waste Generator Program
a. Small Quantity Generator (SQG) – Less than 1000
kilograms (approximately 270 gallons or 2200
pounds) per month. Less than 1 kilogram of
acutely/extremely hazardous waste per month
$397.00 Per Year
b. Large Quantity Generator (LQG) – 1000 kilograms
or more per month (approximately 270 gallons or
2200 pounds) or 1 kilogram or more of
acutely/extremely hazardous waste per month
$529.00 Per Year

3. Hazardous Waste Treatment (Tiered Permit) Program
a. Permit by Rule (Fixed Units) Per Year $529.00 Per
Facility
b. Permit by Rule (Transportable units) Per Year $529.00 Per Facility
c. Conditional Authorization Per Year $298.00 Per
Facility
d. Conditional Exemption, Specified Waste Per Year $264.00 Per Facility
e. Conditional Exemption, Small Quantity Treatment Per Year $264.00 Per Facility
f. Conditional Exemption, Commercial Laundry Per Year $264.00 Per 234
43 Facility
g. Conditional Exemption, Limited Per Year $264.00 Per
Facility

4. Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) Per Year $397.00 Per Facility

5. Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program Per Year $1,490.00

6. Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program per
Additional UST
$645.00
Per Facility

7. Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Program (APSA) –
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan
(SPCC) – Qualified: Greater than 1,320 gallons but not
more than 10,000 gallons stored at facility per year.

Per Year $365.00 Per
Facility

8. Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Program (APSA) -
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan
(SPCC) - Non-Qualified: 10,000 gallons or greater stored at the facility per year.

Per Year $463.00 Per
Facility

9. California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP)
Program
a. Small CalARP facility Per Year $3,079.00 Per
Facility
b. Large CalARP facility Per Year $3,179.00 Per
Facility

10. Annual State Surcharges*
a. CUPA Program Oversight Current State Fee*
b. Underground Storage Tanks (UST) Program
Current State Fee*
Current State Fee*
c. CalARP Program Fee* Current State Fee*
d. California Electronic Reporting System (CERS)
Fee*
Current State Fee*
e. Above-ground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA) Fee Current State Fee* *These fees are established through a regular fee adoption process by the State of California and are required to be collected at the current State of California rate by the Hayward Fire Department’s Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The fees are then required to be remitted by the City of Hayward Fire Department to the State of California on a quarterly basis. The fees are set by the State of California per Title 27 California Code of Regulations Section 15240.

11. Technology Fee 6% of annual
permit fee
New Construction Permits and Fees

1. New Construction
a. Large, Tenant Improvement – New Facility $4,768.00
b. Medium, Tenant Improvement – New Facility $3,129.00
235
44 c. Small, Tenant Improvement – New Facility $1,589.00 d. Extra Small, Tenant Improvement – New Facility $794.00

2. New Facility – No Construction
a. Medium to Large $2,384.00
b. Small $1,192.00

3. Underground Storage Tank
a. System Installation – VPH* up to 3 tanks $5,017.00
System Installation – VPH” each tank over 3 tanks $1,672.00 b. Piping Installation $1,738.00
c. Piping Installation – VPH* $2,136.00
d. UDC/Sump Installation $1,738.00
e. UDC/Sump Installation – VPH* $2,136.00
f. System Removal up to 3 tanks $2,185.00
System Removal each tank over 3 tanks $728.00
g. Piping Removal $1,390.00
h. UDC/Sump Removal $1,390.00
i. EVR Phase I Installation or Upgrade $794.00
j. EVR Phase II Installation or Upgrade $1,440.00
k. Monitoring System Installation or Upgrade $1,291.00
l. System Tank/Piping Repair $2,285.00
m. System Tank/Piping Repair – VPH* $2,682.00
n. System Miscellaneous Component Repair - Major $2,285.00 o. System Miscellaneous Component Repair – Major–
VPH*
$2,682.00
p. System Miscellaneous Component Repair – Minor
(Including Monitoring System (“Cold Starts”)
$943.00
q. System Miscellaneous Component Repair – Minor –
VPH* (Including Monitoring System (“Cold Starts”)
$1,341.00
r. Spill Bucket/Overfill Protection Replacement $1,589.00 s. Temporary Closure
*VPH – Vacuum, Pressure, and Hydrostatic
Continuously Monitored Systems
$1,788.00

4. Aboveground Storage Tanks
a. System Installation $1,490.00
b. System Removal $1,291.00
c. System Repair or Modification $1,142.00

5. California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP)
Program
236
45 a. Large - Risk Management Plan Review $8,544.00
b. Small - Risk Management Plan Review $5,364.00
c. Other costs incurred, including but not limited to
third- party review, laboratory work, public notice,
communication and correspondence
$198.00 per hour
or cost

6. Meetings
a. Code Assistance Meeting $496.00
b. Pre-Application Meeting $397.00

7. Request for Alternate Means of Protection (AMP)
a. Review $794.00
Miscellaneous Fees

1. Annual Permit Fee

2. Operational Permits - Mobile Fueling Operations
Per Year $198
a. Initial Permit and Verification Inspection Per Site $794.00 b. Annual Permit Fee Per Year $198.00

3. Facility Closures
a. 3A and above – full facility closure $2,185.00
b. 3A and above – partial facility closure $1,241.00
c. Below 3A – full facility closure $745.00
d. Below 3A – partial facility closure $496.00

4. Contamination
a. Staff oversight Per Hour $198.00

5. Site Clearance
a. New construction/use – large $496.00
b. New construction/use – small $298.00
c. Property transfer – large $496.00
d. Property transfer – small $298.00

6. Other Inspections and Compliance Verification
a. Re-inspection (CUPA and non-CUPA) Per Hour $198.00
b. Re-inspection beyond allowed by permit Per Insp. $397.00 c. After-hours inspection Per Hour $298.00
d. Miscellaneous Inspections and Activities Per Hour $198.00 e. Compliance verification Per Notice $99.00
f. HazMat Office “No Show” for Inspection
Appointment Fee
Each $198.00
237
46 7. Plan Review/Checking Fees – General
a. Planning Review Fee Per Hour $198.00
b. Plan Checking Fee Per Insp. $198.00
c. Expedited Plan Checking Fee (two hours minimum) Per Hour $298.00

8. California Environmental Reporting System
a. Assistance Fee Per Hour $198.00
b. Assistance Fee (after hours) Per Hour $298.00

9. Non-Compliance Fine Per Hour $596.00
C. FIRE STATION 6 REGIONAL TRAINING CENTER RENTAL FEES
a. Classroom – EMS (Capacity #) Per Day $350.00
b. Classroom - Fire2 (Capacity 24) Per Day $350.00
c. Classroom – Fire Simulator (Capacity #) Per Day $650.00 d. HazMat Simulator Per Day $480.00
e. Pump Pit Per Day $250.00
f. Class A Victorian Per Day $480.00
g. Outdoor Classroom Per Day $350.00
h. BART Rescue Prop Per Day $500.00
i. Fire Tower (Full Building) Per Day $1,500.00
j. Full Facility Rental Per Day $1,800.00
k. Transportation Training Prop Per Day $500.00
l. Vehicle Extrication Per Day $480.00
238
47 Information Technology
Video Technician
Video services, including editing and duplication, provided for events
Per Hour $184.00
GIS Map Printing Per Hour $244.00
239
48 Library and Community Services
A. GENERAL SCHEDULE OF CHARGES:

1. Item Replacement Fees
a. Print material, videotapes and sound recordings Original cost of item plus processing fee b. DVD’s Original cost of item plus processing fee
c. Reference materials (return within 7 days) Original cost of item plus processing fee d. Processing fee $9.00
e. Board Games Up to $54.99 Each

2. Printing/Copying Fees (per page
a. Printing (B&W) $0.15
b. Printing (Color) $0.30
c. Copying (B&W) $0.15
d. Copying (Color) $0.30

3. Replacement of lost library cards (1 free per year) $2.00

4. Replacement lost/damaged bar code or RFID tag $1.00

5. Agenda & Minutes Library Commission $30.00

6. Mailing of library materials Cost of mailing
B. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

1. Community Services Commission Agenda $15.00 Per Year

2. Community Services Commission Minutes $15.00 Per Year C. MAKERSPACE MATERIALS FEES (21ST CENTURY LIBRARY)

1. Carvey Materials
a. Birch material $3.15 Each
b. 2-color ABS $3.15 Each
c. HDPE $2.50 Each
d. Linoleum $3.00 Each

2. Laser Cutter Materials
a. Birch material $3.75 Each
b. Clear acrylic $3.75 Each

3. Cricut & Scan N Cut Materials
a. Iron-on vinyl $1.25 Per sq. ft.
b. Perm adhesive vinyl $1.25 Each
c. 12” x 12 Cardstock $0.65 Each
d. Transfer tape $0.65 Each
240
49 e. Craft Paper $0.50 Each

4. Wide-format Printer Paper (per page)
a. 11” x 17” matte $0.85
b. 11” x 17” photo $1.35
c. 13” x 19” matte $1.75
d. 13” x 19” photo $3.50
e. 4” x 6” ink only $0.05
f. 5” x 7” ink only $0.07
g. 8.5” x 11” ink only $0.20
h. 11” x 17” ink only $0.35
i. 13” x 19” ink only $0.50

5. 3D Printing
a. Filament $0.05 Per Gram

6. Sublimation
a. 8.5” by 11” Paper + Printed ink or marker $1.25 Each b. Mug blank $3.00 Each
c. Mouse Pad blank $1.50 Each
d. Hat blank $3.00 Each
e. Puzzle blank $1.50 Each
f. Bag-small $1.00 Each
g. Bag-large $1.50 Each

7. Xyron (Create-a-Sticker)
a. Sticker paper $0.10 Per Linear Inch
b. Magnet $0.30 Per Linear Inch

8. Sewing
a. 12” x 12” Fabric $0.75 Each
b. 18” x 22” Fat Quarter $2.50 Each
c. Fusible Interfacing $1.00 Per Linear Foot

9. Button Maker
a. 1.25” button kit $0.10 Each
b. 2.25” button kit $0.20 Each

10. Embroidery
a. Thread $0.10 Per 1000 stitches
b. Stabilizer $0.25 Per sheet

11. Miscellaneous
a. Shrinky Dink $0.50 Per sheet
241
50 b. Perler Project $0.50 per project board
c. Laminate Pouch $0.25 Each
D. LIBRARY OF THINGS
Item LOT Category Actual Cost Fee Schedule
Puzzles LOT Game $16.99 Original cost of item plus processing fee Ukuleles LOT Music $50.00 Original cost of item plus processing fee Binoculars LOT Recreation $59.99 Original cost of item plus processing fee Backpacks (Hiking) LOT Recreation $112.86 Original cost of item plus processing fee Stargazing Kits LOT Recreation $504.38 Original cost of item plus processing fee Trekking Poles LOT Recreation $34.99 Original cost of item plus processing fee SunJack Solar Chargers LOT Technology $79.95 Original cost of item plus processing fee IFixIt Pro Tech Kits LOT Technology $94.94 Original cost of item plus processing fee E. TECH LENDING LIBRARY FEES
a. Processing Fee $20.00
b. Wifi Connected Chrome Book up to $500
c. Wifi Connected Tablet up to $250
d. Hot Spot up to $400
e. Peripherals up to $25 Each
242
51 Maintenance Services Department
A. CITY HALLRENTALS

USER GROUPS
Users are classified into the following groups for determining scheduling priority and the applicable fees and charges.
a. Individuals living in Hayward
b. Individuals living outside ofHayward
c. Non-profits [501(c) 3,4, or 6] and other public or private civic, cultural, educational, or charitable groups
d. Businesses and other commercial groups
RENTAL RATES:

FEE RATES BY USER GROUP **ALL RATES HOURLY**
Individual Organization
City Hall Facilities Seating Deposit A.

Hayward Resident
B.

Non‐ Hayward
Resident
C.

Non‐ Profit
D.

Commercial
CityHall –Rotunda
(4 hr. min) 160 $300* $121($920daily max) $152 $131($920daily max) $183 CityHall – Council
Chambers (4 hr. min) 166 $300* $68($546 daily max) $99 $78($546 daily max) $131 City Hall – Pre- function
Area 2nd floor (4 hr. min)
100 $300* $57
($462 daily max) $89 $68
($462 daily max) $121
CityHall – Plaza
(4 hr. min) - $500* $73($588 daily max) $105 $84($588 daily max) $137 *Non-refundable processing fee of $75 (up to $225 / $425 refundable)

OTHER CITY HALL FEES
Note: All equipment fees are for one setup and per day
Facility Fee Rate (All User Groups)
Room Setup Fee $158
Security Admin Fee $60
Janitorial Admin Fee $60
Insurance Admin Fee $90
B. LIBRARY MEETING ROOM RENTALS

RENTAL RATES
FEE RATES BY USER GROUP **ALL RATES HOURLY**
Individual Organization Government
Library Meeting
Room and Event
Spaces
A.

Hayward
Resident
B.

Non‐
Hayward
Resident
C.

Non-Profit
D.

Commercial
E.

Government
Agency
Fremont Bank
FoundationRoom A
(Half)
$60.00 $80.00 $50.00 $150.00 $0.00
Fremont Bank
FoundationRoom B
(Half)
$60.00 $80.00 $50.00 $150.00 $0.00
Fremont Bank
FoundationRoom
(Full)
$100.00 $140.00 $75.00 $250.00 $0.00
Meeting Room C $30.00 $40.00 $25.00* $50.00 $0.00
Prep Area** $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $100.00 $0.00
Weekes Library
Legacy Room*** $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
*Two (2) meetings each month in Meeting Room C will be free if the following criteria are met:
i. Meeting sponsored by a Group C user that is based in Hayward and serves primarily Hayward residents
ii. Meeting is open to the public
**Prep Area is a room next to Fremont Bank Foundation Room A with refrigerator, oven, and sink ***All events held in the Legacy Room are required to be open to the public

OTHER LIBRARY MEETING ROOM FEES
MeetingRoom Fee Rate (All User Groups)
Room Setup Fee (If Requested) $50.00-$100.00
Janitorial Service Fee (WhenNeeded) $57.00 Per Event, plus janitorial hourly service fee Attendant On Duty (When Needed) $75.00 Per Hour
Processing Fee $50 Per Reservation
Notes:

All meeting room applications must be submitted via the online scheduling system at least 30 days in advance. Paper applications will not be accepted.

Minimum rental is two (2) hours. Hourly rates are not pro-rated for parts of an hour.

Partial- hour reservations will be rounded up to the nearest hour.

Any setup and tear-down time required must be included in the time requested and will be billed at the same rental rate.

Payments must be made at least 14 days prior to the event. Events are not considered approved until payment is received in full.

Other service fees (when needed) may also be applicable. These may be assessed prior-to 244
53 or immediately following the reservation.

C. STREET MAINTENANCE

1. Cart Retrieval Fee $142.19

2. Sign Fabricated & Installed by City Crew $868.75

3. Illegal Dumping on Public Right-of-Way Fee Penalty
a. First Violation
Initial Inspection and noticing No Charge No Penalty
Reinspection shows violation
eliminated
No Charge No Penalty
Reinspection shows violation still
exists; City abates
$1,845.31 $400.00
b. Subsequent Violation within 12
Months (same property owner)
Initial Inspection and noticing $1,845.31 $800.00
Reinspection shows violation
eliminated
No Charge No Penalty
Reinspection show violation still
exists; City abates
$1,845.31 $1,600.00
Lien/Special Assessment Per Parcel $2,134.00
Hearing Fee; Administrative, Special
Assessment, Administrative Citation,
and Lien Hearings
$1,500.00

4. Special Events Per Hour $179.69
245
54 Police Department

ANIMAL CONTROL
(Ref. Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 4, Article 4)
For those fees designated to RTO (Refer To Office), the Animal Services Manager shall determine a reasonable fee or charge, basing that determination on the nature of the service; time spent; consistency with fees and charges specified for other services; actual costs incurred, including overhead and other indirect cost; and any other relevant factors.

1. Impounding Charges
a. For each dog and cat
(1) 1st impoundment $50.00
(2) 2nd impoundment within one year $75.00
(3) 3rd impoundment within one year $150.00
(4) Impound dangerous animal $190.00
(5) Field Impound $150.00
b. For any unsterilized dog or cat impounded, an additional fee is assessed as mandated by the State of California Food & Agricultural Code. (1) 1st Impoundment $35.00 Penalty
(2) 2nd Impoundment $50.00 Penalty
(3) 3rd Impoundment $100.00 Penalty
c. For each horse, bull, cow, steer, calf, colt, sheep, lamb goat or hog (1) 1st impoundment RTO (minimum field
impound) Charge
will be total direct
cost
(2) 2nd impoundment within one year RTO (minimum field
impound) Charge
will be total direct
cost
(3) 3rd impoundment within one year RTO (minimum field
impound) Charge
will be total direct
cost
d. For each non-specified animal (rabbit, monkey, rat, etc.) RTO (minimum 1st impound)

2. Feeding and Boarding Charges Per Day. Boarding charges shall be levied as of the first day of impoundment. Charges shall be waived where the animal is redeemed “off the truck.”
a. For each dog, cat or small domestic pet $15.00
b. Special needs animal (medications given, treatment) $37.00 per day c. For each horse, bull, cow, hog, steer, lamb, sheep, goat, colt, or calf RTO. Charge will be 246
55 total direct cost
d. For lamb, sheep, goat, other small livestock maintained at shelter $24.00 e. For each non-specified animal RTO (minimum $15
board fee)

3. Special Services
a. Owner surrender of adult unlicensed animals (boarding fees for the State mandated period additional)
$40.00 Per Animal
b. Owner surrender of additional animals less than ten weeks of age.

Boarding fees for the State mandated holding period will also be charged $9.00 Per Animal
c. Owner surrenders - small animals/bird
Boarding fees for the state mandated holding period will also be charged $34.00 Per Animal
d. Owner brings dead animal to shelter for disposal
(1) Under 50 lbs. $50.00 Per Animal
(2) Over 50 lbs. $75.00 Per Animal
(3) Transportation of disposal $145.00 Per Animal
e. Transportation of injured or sick-owned animal to a veterinarian $130.00 f. Veterinary treatment provided to an animal housed in the Shelter where the owner is later identified
Actual Vet Costs
g. Rabies vaccination Actual Vet Costs
h. In-house cat, dog, or rabbit vaccines $10.00
i. Deworm & Flea Preventative
(1) Cat $10.00
(2) Dog – under 25lbs. $15.00
(3) Dog – 25.1-50lbs. $30.00
(4) Dog – 50.1-100lbs. $45.00
j. Felv/FIV combo test – in-house $45.00
k. Microchip
(1) Animal adopted from the Shelter $15.00
(2) Animals not adopted from the Shelter $30.00

4. Animal License and Permit Fees
a. Dog License
(1) Flat fee is for 1, 2 or 3 years depending on Rabies Vaccination Certificate (not to exceed 3 years)
$17.00
(2) Unsterilized animal (flat license or license renewal fee additional) $35.00 (3) License renewal – replacement tag additional if needed $17.00 The Animal Services Manager is authorized to reduce dog license fees by one half of the amount set forth above
b. Late Penalty $5.00
247
56 c. Replacement license tag issued at time of renewal $4.00 d. Replacement license tag issued not at time of renewal $12.00 e. Seeing or hearing dog No Charge
f. Fancier's Permit $395.00

5. Observation Fees
All observation fees are assessed at the full rate and are not refundable, either in part or in full.
a. For each dog, cat or small domestic pet for quarantine, evidence and protective custody. Boarding fees for the State mandated holding period will also be charged.
$5.00 Per Day
b. Other Animals Actual Costs per
inspection
c. Property inspections (required prior to home quarantines and for the private retention of all animals declared dangerous outside City of Hayward hearing)
$75.00

6. Adoption Fees RTO (minimum
$5.00)
a. The fees charged for dogs and cats offered for adoption shall be set by the Animal Services Manager. In no case shall this amount be less than $5.00. In no case shall animals listed as "Owner Surrendered" be adopted by the previous owner without payment of all fees and charges (as specified in the schedule) for shelter service in impounding and caring for the animal
$20.00
b. All Other Animals Market Value
c. Spaying and neutering (mandated for dogs and cats prior to adoption) Veterinary contract cost
d. Administrative processing fee for the return of animals adopted from the shelter
$15.00

7. Hearing Fee: Hearing and inspection of property of owners of animals declared dangerous or potentially dangerous
$200.00

POLICE ADMINISTRATION

1. Photocopying of Reports
a. Traffic Accident Reports $25.00 Per Report
b. Other Reports $25.00 Per Report

2. Photographs $40.00 Each

3. Citation Sign off-Outside Agencies $33.00 Per Citation

4. Fingerprinting
(Fingerprint processing fees established by Federal or State agencies shall be additional charge.)
$42.00 Each

5. Traffic Police Security Services
248
57 a. Traffic control and police security services for pre-planned, non-city sponsored events
Time & Motion
b. Planned traffic control for contractors and utilities Time & Motion

6. Permit Processing
(Fees are for processing only, fingerprint and Department of Justice fees are not included)
a. Taxi Drivers
(1) Initial Permit $923.00
(2) Annual Renewal$ 461.00
(3) Annual taxi operating sticker $230.00
(4) Lost permit replacement $42.00
b. Tow Permits
(1) Company 1st License $461.00
(2) Company Annual Renewal $64.00
(3) Driver 1st License $461.00
(4) Driver Annual Renewal $64.00
(5) Lost Permit Replacement $64.00
c. Massage Establishments
(1) Initial Inspection/application and processing of new massage establishment
$1,154.00
(2) Annual Renewal fee for massage establishment $384.00 (3) Badge Replacement $128.00
(4) Massage Out-Call initial inspection/application $1,154.00 (5) Massage Out-Call renewal $241.00
d. Card Clubs Employee Permit
(1) Initial permit $241.00
(2) Annual renewal $256.00
(3) Lost permit replacement $128.00
e. Firearms
(1) Background Investigation Time & Motion
(2) Firearm dealers annual permit $1,965.00
f. Employees Working at a Cannabis Establishment
(1) Employee Work Permit Application Fee
a. Employee background check (live scan + fingerprint/photograph processing fee)
$82.00 Vice
Any charges not specified below shall be established by State and/or Federal Statutes
(2) Other Permit processing Time & Motion
249
58 7. Alarm Permit Fee
a. New and annual renewal: $25.00
b. For Low income or persons in a temporary or permanent disabled status who:
$10.00
(1) meet the City income guidelines as defined in the All City Department section of the Master Fee Schedule and
(2) file with the Revenue Division of the Finance Department a discount application and adequate documentary evidence showing that the Permit applicant comes within the provision of subparagraph (a).

8. False Alarm Fees (for instances of false alarms within any one-year period):
a. First False Alarm Fee $0.00 Records
b. Second False Alarm Fee $185.00
c. Third False Alarm Fee
Penalty
$185.00
$50.00
d. Fourth False Alarm Fee
Penalty
$185.00
$200.00
e. Fifth and Each Fee $185.00
Subsequent False Alarm Penalty $400.00

9. Vehicle Release Fee $278.00

10. Vehicle Verification or Administrative Fee
a. Onsite verification $114.00
b. Offsite verification $229.00

11. Communication Tapes $119.00 Per Tape

12. Clearance Letters $25.00 Per Letter

13. Auto Sales/Repair Permit $254.00

14. Vehicle Abatement $254.00 Per Vehicle
Any charges not specified below shall be established by State and/or Federal statutes.
a. Cite & Release $89.00
b. Hold for Court $180.00
c. Transfer to Santa Rita $199.00

15. Social Host Accountability Ordinance
The following penalties and/or cost recovery are authorized by Chapter 4, Article 11 of the HMC. Penalties for violations and cost recovery are separate and distinct charges. Penalties for Violation – The following is authorized by sec 4-11.20 HMC.
a. First Violation $750.00
b. Second Violation $1,500.00
c. Third & Subsequent Violations $2,500.00
250
59 Public Safety Services/Response Cost - The following is authorized by sec 4-

11.25 HMC
d. Recovery of the cost of the public safety response to a “Social Host” ordinance violation using the fully burdened cost allocation rate.

Time & Motion

16. Firearms Range Maintenance Fees – apportions the upkeep of the firearms range among user law enforcement agencies over a fiscal year period $2,000.00

17. Alcohol
a. Level I – Alcoholic Beverage Establishment Retail License Fee – Full service restaurants, wine shops, breweries, distilleries; and retail stores using no more than 5% of their floor area for alcohol sales, storage and display.
$280.00
b. Level II – Alcoholic Beverage Establishment Retail License Fee – All alcoholic beverage outlets other than Level I.
$1,120.00
c. Critical Incident Fee Time & Motion
d. Violation of Alcoholic Beverage Outlets Ordinance
(1) First Offense $750.00
(2) Second Offense $1,500.00
(3) Third and subsequent Offenses $2,500.00
e. Reinspection Fee Time & Motion
f. Alcohol Sales – Special Event Permit $304.00
Tow Operation Fee
Fees to be charged for tow operations shall not be in excess of the following schedule:

1. Towing
a. Towing of vehicles of others
(From public and private property)
$281.25
b. All other towing:

1. Passenger vehicles $281.25

2. Motorcycles $281.25

3. Trucks to 10,000 lbs. (unloaded) $281.25

4. Trucks 10,000 to 26,000 lbs. $312.50

5. Trucks over 26,000 lbs. $468.75
c. Extra labor charges on disabled vehicles
Applicable 1/2 hours after arrival of tow truck
(Per hour or portion thereof, at 15-minute increments)
$237.50/hr.
d. Gate fee request between 5:00 PM and 8:00 AM
On weekdays and all day Saturday, Sunday and Holidays
$150.00

2. Storage (Storage charges applicable after 8 hours)
a. Passenger vehicles, motorcycles and trucks (To 8,000 lbs., outside per 24- hour period)
$112.50
251
60 b. Passenger vehicles, motorcycles and trucks (To 8,000 lbs., inside per 24- hour period)
$112.50
c. Trucks over 8,000 lbs., buses, and trailers over 20 feet long $156.25

3. Miscellaneous Service to the Public
a. Service charges on disabled vehicles where no tow is made $125.00 b. Release of vehicle from hook-up after authorization to tow $112.50

4. Complicated Tow
a. Trailer con gear (big rig dolly) $187.50
b. Air cushion, includes operator for 3 hours $1,875.00 c. Lumper, or extra personnel 6am to 6pm $62.50/hr. (2hr. min)

5. City Owned Vehicles
a. Removal or tow of vehicle $60.00
b. Service charge on disabled vehicle (no tow) $60.00
c. Tow from outside of City of Hayward $60.00/hr. + $1.00 Per Mile
**$362.50 if 2 axle to portal** plus for Air cushion Towing, add $213.75 for first three hours then $500 after
**$567.50 if 3 axle to portal** plus for Air cushion Towing, add $213.75 for first three hours then $500 after
Concealed Carry Weapons Permit
Fees below do not include State or other applicable fees:

1. New Permit Fee
a. Standard - 2 Years $430.00
b. Judicial - 3 Years $430.00
c. Reserve - 4 Years $430.00
d. Employment - 90 Days $430.00

2. Renewal Fee
a. Standard - 2 Years $95.00
b. Judicial - 3 Years $95.00
c. Reserve - 4 Years $95.00
d. Employment - 90 Days $95.00
Hayward Film Permit

1. Film Permit applications $125.00 Per Day

2. Expedited Film Permit (3-5 days) $250.00 (excludes
larger productions)
252
61 3. Film Permit (TV series, movies, feature films, pilots) $175.00 Per Day Minor Encroachment Permit (filming) Dependent on
encroachment type.

Refer to Engineering
Section B(5)

4. Police clearance (filming) $346.00 Hourly

5. Fire Permit (filming) $318.00 flat fee
(does not include
cost if presence is
required at event)

6. Filming on City Property/Facilities/Hangars (varies) Airport Property and Hangars – filming and Photography requests will be authorized at the discretion of the Airport Manager provided that the requested activity will in no way interfere with the safe, orderly, and uninterrupted use of Airport facilities by Airport users or portrays the Airport in a negative manner $1,500.00 daily fee
(extra labor,
security engineering
or comparable cost
are not included)

7. Filming at City Hall $575.00 daily fee
(does not Include
cost of guard,
janitorial and
insurance)
253
62 Utilities & Environmental Services

1. SANITARY SEWER SERVICE CHARGES AND FEES
Sewer System Connection Charge (Reference Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 11, Article 3, Section 11-

3.255).

Sep 1, 2025 Sep 1, 2026
(1) Single family, duplex, triplex,
and fourplex residential units,
townhouses, and planned
developments
$13,235 $14,559
(2) Multi family, high density
residential, and mobile homes,
each residential unit
$11,781 $12,960
(3) Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs, where applicable), each
unit
$5,295 $5,825
(4) Commercial, industrial,
institutional and all other
connections:

Per gallon of daily capacity
required to serve the user
$32.98 $36.28
Per pound per year of
biochemical oxygen demand
(cBOD)
$34.11 $37.53
Per pound per year of
suspended solids (SS)
$22.34 $24.58
Minimum charge $13,235 $14,559
a. For the purposes of calculating non-residential sewer connection fees, carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) and suspended solids (SS) will be reduced by 50% of the estimated values in the actual discharge, but not lower than the CBOD and SS for domestic wastewater, that is, 371 milligrams per liter and 297 milligrams per liter respectively. The property will be entitled to discharge CBOD and SS concentrations commensurate with the estimated actual concentrations.

The volume component will not be reduced and will be calculated at 100% of the estimated discharge. The CBOD and SS reduction is applicable only to estimated daily discharge of 25,000 gallons or less. Discharge in excess of 50,000 gallons per day from a facility will be subject to a sewer connection fee based on full CBOD and SS concentrations. This provision will be in effect through June 30, 2027. Interest Rates on Sewer Connection Fee Payment Agreements (Reference Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 11, Article 3, Section 11-3.255) 12-month agreement – 4%
24-month agreement – 5%
36-month agreement – 6%
48-month (and longer) agreement – 7%
b. Sewer Service Charges (Reference Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 11, Article 3, Section 11-

3.450)
254
63 Residential Service Eff. Jul 1, 2026 Eff. Jul 1, 2027 (1) Standard (over 8 units of metered water
usage)
$53.57 $60.00 Per Month
(2) Economy (5 to 8 units of metered water
usage)*
$25.23 $28.26 Per Month
(3) Lifeline (0 to 4 units of metered water
usage)*
$13.01 $14.58 Per Month
(4) Duplex, Triplex, Fourplex (per unit) $53.57 $60.00 Per Month (5) Multi-Family (per unit) $48.71 $54.56 Per Month
(6) Mobile Home (per unit) $36.23 $40.58 Per Month
*Economy and Lifeline rates are only applicable for
City water customers
Non‐Residential Service – Critical Users
Sewer Service Charge
Constituent/Unit Jul. 1, 2026 Jul. 1, 2027
Flow – Cost per 100 cubic feet (ccf) $6.15020 $6.88830
Biochemical Oxygen Demand – Cost Per Pound $0.57890 $0.64840 Suspended Solids – Cost Per Pound $2.00060 $2.24070
Non‐Residential Service – Coded Users
Sewer Service Charge Per ccf
With Irrigation Meter Without Irrigation Meter
Customer Classification Eff. Jul 1, 2026 Eff. Jul 1, 2027 Eff. Jul 1, 2026 Eff. Jul 1, 2027 All Other Domestic Use $8.91 $9.98 $8.02 $8.99
Restaurant w/ Grease
Interceptor $11.80 $13.22 $10.61 $11.89
Restaurant w/o Grease $14.52 $16.27 $13.06 $14.63
Interceptor
Commercial Laundry $10.13 $11.35 $8.73 $9.78
Bakeries $16.12 $18.06 $15.54 $17.41
Industrial Laundry $15.73 $17.62 $14.15 $15.85
Beverage Bottling $10.23 $11.46 $9.20 $10.31
Food Manufacturing $28.81 $32.27 $34.25 $38.36
Meat Products $19.29 $21.61 $14.73 $16.50
Slaughterhouse $22.20 $24.87 $20.00 $22.40
Dairy Product Processors $15.92 $17.84 $14.32 $16.04
Canning and Packing $11.35 $12.72 $10.21 $11.44
Grain Mills $14.93 $16.73 $13.46 $15.08
Fats and Oils $10.77 $12.07 $9.69 $10.86
Pulp and Paper $11.28 $12.64 $9.96 $11.16
255
64 Manufacturing
Inorganic Chemicals $18.22 $20.41 $16.40 $18.37
Paint Manufacturing $28.39 $31.80 $25.56 $28.63
Leather Tanning $37.38 $41.87 $33.63 $37.67
Fabricated Metal $6.58 $7.37 $5.92 $6.64
All non-critical commercial and industrial users will be included in the above UCC classification that most closely represents the wastewater discharge strength and characteristics in comparison with domestic wastewater definition in the Regulations, as determined by the Director of Public Works. The UCC designation of a particular industry may not necessarily correspond to the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) which may be assigned for other purposes.

Unclassified and Critical Users
(1) “Critical Users” and those whose discharge does not respond to any UCC because of variations in wastewater constituents or treatment costs shall pay an amount calculated in accordance with the following formula where,
C = V/M (160 Cv + CB x BOD + CS x SS)
C = Sewer service charge during period for which billing is calculated.

V= Volume of water consumed per hundred cubic feet (CCF) during period for which the billing is calculated (total of public water service, metered flow and all private sources, except those meters or services specifically identified for irrigation purposes only).

BOD= Average Biochemical Oxygen Demand, in milligrams per liter, from user during period for which the billing is calculated.

SS= Average Suspended Solids, in milligrams per liter, from user during period for which the billing is calculated.

Cv = Treatment cost per hundred cubic feet of water
CB = Treatment cost per pound of BOD
CS = Treatment cost per pound of SS
M = 160 for users with separate irrigation meters; and 178 for users without separate irrigation meters.
(1) The minimum fee for each non-residential user shall be that established for one (1) Service Unit per month.

Per Hayward Municipal Code Chapter 11, Article 3, Sec. 11-3.450 and Sec 11-3.455, the basis for determining the cost for treating and collecting wastewater will be the “service unit” which will be considered to be the basic charge for each premises computed on the basis of treating wastewater. The service units for commercial and industrial premises shall be based on categories of usage with similar treatment costs and grouped into User Classification Codes. The categories of usage, user classification codes, and service units to be applied per month for the purpose of determining the applicable sewer service charges shall be those as determined from time to time by resolution of the Hayward City Council.

Wastewater Discharge Permit Fees and Miscellaneous Charges (1) Wastewater Discharge Permit Fees
256
65 Type of Permit New Permit Permit Renewal Amendment
Categorical $6,450.00 $4,430.00 $1,575.00
Non-Categorical Significant $4,740.00 $3,170.00 $1,230.00 Groundwater $2,300.00 $1,230.00 $760.00
Non-Sewered Credit $280.00 $280.00 N/A
Special Purpose (one-time discharge) $1,245.00 N/A N/A
(2) Compliance Schedule (for Correction of Violations) $950.00 (3) Wastewater Sampling
(a) Composite Sample with Lab Costs $1,065.00
(b) Composite Sample without Lab Costs $490.00
(c) Grab Sample $505.00
(d) Violation Follow-Up Sample with Lab Cost $1,065.00
(e) Violation Follow-Up Sample without Lab Cost $490.00 (f) Sampling Equipment Fee $25.00
(4) Compliance Schedule (for Correction of Violations) $1,095.00 (5) Violation follow-up inspection $925.00
(6) Development Plan Review
(a) Industrial $680.00
(b) Commercial $680.00
(c) Residential $420.00

2. WATER SERVICE CHARGES AND INSTALLATION FEES
a. Water Services charges for labor and materials (Reference: Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 11, Article 2, Section 11-2.02 and 11-2.04)
(a) Single Services.(Also see (4) below)
Meter Size and Service Size Fee
a. 5/8” x 3/4” $7,545.00
b. 3/4” x 3/4” $7,545.00
c. 3/4” x 1” $7,545.00
d. 1” x 1” $7,870.00
e. 1” x 1-1/2” $9,300.00
f. 1-1/2 x 1-1/2 $10,290.00
g. 1-1/2 x 2” $10,290.00
h. 2” x 2” $10,560.00
257
66 i. Larger than 2” x 2” Deposit – T&M
Initial Deposit = $10,000
(b) Manifold Service.(Also see (4) below) Service Size Fee Meter Size and Service Size Fee
a. 5/8” x 5/8” 1” $9,590.00
b. 3/4” x 3/4” 1” $9,590.00
c. 1” x 1” 1 1/2” $10,010.00
d. 1” x 1-1/2” 2” $10,650.00
e. 1-1/2” x 1-1/2” 2” $11,280.00
f. 1-1/2” x 2” 2” $11,520.00
g. 2” x 2” 2” $11,760.00
h. More than two meters or larger than 2" service
line
Deposit – T&M
Initial Deposit = $10,000
**Per Hayward Municipal Code Sec. 11-2.05, actual costs can be charged for services larger than two inches and unusually long or difficult service connections of any size. (c) Meters Set on Existing Service. (Also see (4) below) Meter Size Fee
a. 5/8” $610.00
b. 3/4” $680.00
c. 1” $745.00
d. 1-1/2” $975.00
e. 2” $1,080.00
f. Larger than 2” Deposit – T&M
Initial Deposit = $1,000
(d) All meters in new developments shall have remote radio read capability. The cost for remote read capability is $200 per meter, which is in addition to the fees listed above. b. Water Service, Construction Work, Temporary Service (Reference:Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 11, Article 2, Section 11-2.22)
(1) WaterHydrant Meter Deposit
Water Hydrant Meter Deposit Fees
(for a 3/4” hydrant meter)
$1,800
Water Hydrant Meter Deposit Fees
(for a 3” hydrant meter)
$3,000
Water Hydrant Meter Deposit Fees
(for a 4” hydrant meter)
$3,000
258
67 Water Hydrant Meter Deposit Fees
(for a 6” hydrant meter)
$5,300
(2) The monthly meter service charge on all hydrant and construction meters shall be as follows:
a) 3/4” meter $16.00 Per Month
b) 3" meter $120.00 Per Month
c) 4" meter $210.00 Per Month
d) 6" meter $650.00 Per Month
(3) All hydrant and construction meter accounts will accrue charges for minimum monthly consumption on the following amounts. However, customers who report water consumption data during the reporting period of the first 5 working days of each month and provide proof they have consumed less than the proposed minimum charges in the table below shall only be billed for the amount consumed.
a) 3/4" meter 1,600 cu ft.
b) 3" meter 12,700 cu ft.
c) 4" meter 28,000 cu ft.
d) 6" meter 50,000 cu ft.
(4) Failure to Report Hydrant or Construction Meter Reading shall cause a $150.00 charge for each month that a reading is not reported (Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 11, Article 2, Section 11- 2.22). This charge is in addition to service charges and water usage charges. (5) Unauthorized Connection to a Fire Hydrant – Water theft committed via the unauthorized connection to a fire hydrant in violation of an ordinance (Reference Hayward Municipal Code Chapter 11, Article 2, Section 11-2.24) adopted under this section is punishable as follows:

1. A fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) for a first violation.

2. A fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000) for a second violation of the same ordinance.

3. A fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the third violation and each additional violation of the same ordinance.
c. WaterSystem Facilities Fee (Reference Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 11, Article 2, Section 11-

2.35)
Water Connection (or Facilities) Fee:
(a) Residential
The facilities fee will be based on the water meter size required to meet the indoor demand (excluding fire service demand) and outdoor demand of the residence as determined by the City, based on fixture unit count. The meter that is installed may be larger than the meter facilities fee that is charged if the service is combined with a private fire service. For multi-family complexes, the facilities fee will be based on the water meter size required to meet the indoor demand for each 259
68 dwelling unit, as determined by the City, regardless of the arrangement of water meters or meter sizes at the premises.

Size Sep 1, 2025 Sep 1, 2026
a. 5/8" meter $7,846.00 $8,631.00
b. 3/4" meter $11,773.00 $12,950.00
c. 1" meter $19,614.00 $21,575.00
(b) Non-residential, each separate irrigation service, and each residential unit with meter size larger than 1”
Size Sep 1, 2025 Sep 1, 2026
a. 5/8" meter $7,846.00 $8,631.00
b. 3/4" meter $11,773.00 $12,950.00
c. 1" meter $19,614.00 $21,575.00
d. 1 ½" meter $39,228.00 $43,151.00
e. 2" meter $62,763.00 $69,039.00
f. 3" meter $124,425.00 $136,868.00
g. 4" meter $196,141.00 $215,755.00
h. 6" meter $392,282.00 $431,510.00
i. 8" meter $627,651.00 $690,416.00
j. 10" meter $902,249.00 $992,474.00
(c) Fire Service, per service regardless of size $7,846.00 For reference, below is the fixture unit count and its corresponding equivalent meter size:

Equivalent Meter Size Calculation
Total Fixture Unit Count Corresponding Equivalent
Meter Size
Maximum Flow Capacity
(GPM)
0-23 5/8” 15

23.5-40 ¾” 25

40.5-85 1” 40

85.5-150 1 ½” 80
260
69 Meter Services Charges:

The bimonthly standard meter service charge for all meters (except temporary service for construction work), based on size of meter, shall be as follows:

Oct 1, 2025 Oct 1, 2026
a. 5/8" meter $41.34 $43.82
b. 3/4" meter $57.67 $61.14
c. 1" meter $90.37 $95.79
d. 1 ½" meter $172.08 $182.40
e. 2" meter $270.14 $286.35
f. 3" meter $580.64 $615.48
g. 4" meter $1,038.23 $1,100.52
h. 6" meter $2,133.15 $2,261.14
i. 8" meter $4,584.48 $4,859.55
j. 10" meter $6,872.40 $7,284.74
(1) Exemption for Low Income:

Notwithstanding any other provision of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 11, Article 2, the low income meter service charge shall be imposed by this subsection upon any customer that:
(a) meets the City income guidelines as defined in the All City Department section of the Master Fee Schedule and
(b) files with the Revenue Division of the Finance Department a discount application and adequate documentary evidence showing that the applicant comes within the provision of subparagraph (a). (2) The bimonthly low-income meter service charge for 5/8”, 3/4", and 1” meters, shall be as follows:

Oct 1, 2025 Oct 1, 2026
a. 5/8” meter, low income $14.48 $15.35
b. 3/4” meter, low income $20.20 $21.42
c. 1” meter, low income $31.64 $33.54
(3) The water usage charge based on the number of cubic feet of water supplied during each billing period shall be as follows:
261
70 Water Usage Rates:

The water usage tiers and rates, based on consumption per hundred cubic feet (ccf), shall be as follows:

Usage Rate/ccf Rate/ccf
Residential: Oct 1, 2025 Oct 1, 2026
Single Family 1 – 8 ccf $8.01 $8.50
Multifamily (based on average
usage per dwelling unit)
9 – 18 ccf $9.49 $10.06
Over 18 ccf $11.66 $12.36
Non-Residential 1 – 110 ccf $8.69 $9.22
Over 110 ccf $10.20 $10.82
Irrigation 1 – 170 ccf $10.27 $10.89
Over 170 ccf $13.06 $13.85
Hydrant All Usage $9.67 $10.26
*Note: hundred cubic feet = approximately 748 gallons of water d. Fire Service Connections Inside City (Reference: Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 11, Article 2, Section 11-2.39)
The fire service charge per each billing period shall be as follows:

Oct 1, 2025 Oct 1, 2026
a. 1” meter $9.17 $9.72
b. 1-1/2” meter $10.12 $10.73
c. 2” meter $11.81 $12.52
d. 3” meter $17.83 $18.90
e. 4” meter $28.21 $29.90
f. 6” meter $65.44 $69.37
g. 8” meter $129.65 $137.43
h. 10” meter $226.25 $239.83
e. Fire Flow Test. A charge of $407 shall be applied for each fire flow test. f. A 50% surcharge on water usage shall be applied in the event that a fire service connection is used for any purpose other than those specifically identified in the Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 11, Article 2, Section 11-2.20, that is, for extinguishing fires or authorized testing of the fire protection system(s).

Customers with appropriate documentation may qualify for a full or partial refund in specific circumstances such as:
• Authorized water usage (e.g., for extinguishing fires or planned test of fire protection systems). Fire service connections are not intended for day-to-day 262
71 water consumption but may occasionally be authorized for specific uses. In instances where customers can provide documentation for authorized water usage, customers will only be billed for consumption and will be refunded if a 50% surcharge has been applied to their account.
• False usage volume (e.g., due to a faulty check valves). In instances where customers can provide proof that water consumption was due to an inaccurate meter reading, refunds can be issued for any false consumption, inclusive of the 50% surcharge.
g. Other Water System Fees and Charges
Account Establishment Fee $87.00
After-Hours Meter Activation Fee $120.00
Meter Lock Fee $150.00
Meter Removal Fee $145.00
Meter Test Fee (up to 1-inch meter) $365.00
Meter Test Fee (1 1/2-inch to 2-inch meter) $485.00
Meter Test Fee (3-inch meter and larger) $605.00
Noticing Fee $6.00
Service Restoration/Unlock Fee $117.00
Capping and uncapping of 2” meter and below $625.00
Water Hydrant Meter Site Visit fee $125.00
Additional visits for backflow inspection/test fee $70.00 Meter Lock Fee due to Non-Compliant Backflow $150.00
Backflow Service Restoration/Unlock Fee $117.00
On-site visits requested by customers $50.00
h. Meter Tampering Fine – Water theft committed via meter tampering in violation of an ordinance (Reference Hayward Municipal Code Chapter 1, Article 3, Section 1-3.00) adopted under this section, is punishable as follows:
(a) A fine not exceeding one hundred thirty dollars ($130) for a first violation. (b) A fine not exceeding seven hundred dollars ($700) for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation.
(c) A fine not exceeding one thousand three hundred dollars ($1,300) for the third violation and each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation ordinance.
i. Special Billings
Special Requests for Water Billing
(a) Base Rate Services $26.00
(b) Each Additional Meter $9.00
j. Development Plan Review
Residential $200.00
263
72 Commercial $300.00
Industrial $300.00
Additional Development Plan Review $205.00
(After three rounds of plan review, additional review time will be billed in hourly increments.) k. Water Service Connection Plan Review (Outside City ofHayward’s Jurisdiction) (a) From main in street or easement to water meter up to 100 linear feet $528.00 (b) Each additional 100 linear feet or fraction thereof(up to 400 linear feet) $396.00 l. Water System Impact Evaluation $10,000 Deposit
m. Sanitary Sewer System Impact Evaluation $10,000 Deposit

3. STORMWATER
a. Stormwater Treatment Measure Inspection $635.00
b. Stormwater Facility Inspection
Industrial(under State Permit) $545.00
Industrial(not under State Permit) $545.00
Restaurant $350.00
Commercial $295.00
The stormwater facility inspection fee will be waived if the inspection does not result in an adverse finding for the property and the potential for pollutant discharge is nonexistent.

Land Use Category Description Minimum Parcel
Size
Runoff Factor Service Charge/Runoff
Acre/Year
Commercial/Industrial 0.25 0.80 $338.32
Parking Lots 0.25 0.80 $285.60
Utilities 0.25 0.80 $285.60
Institutional/Apartments 0.25 0.60 $285.60
Condominium # 0.60 $285.60
Single Family up to 4 -Plex 0.25 0.40 $285.60
Single Family Ranches 0.25 0.40 $285.60
Vacant Land (Utilized) 10 0.01 $285.60
Vacant Land (Non-utilized) 17 0.00 $285.60
Owned by Government
Parcels w/o Valuation
Utilities on Leased Land
Cemeteries
Common Area

0.25 0.40* $285.60
NOTES:
(1) LUF = Land Use Factor coding system utilized by Alameda County Flood Control (2) Minimum Parcel Size is the minimum size on which charges are calculated (3) Runoff Factor is the ratio between impervious surface area and total surface area as determined by the Alameda County Flood Control District 264
73 #Condominium parcel size is determined by dividing the parcel size by the total number of units. *Or as determined
Rate Formula: Service Charge per year =
PARCEL SIZE x RUNOFF FACTOR x SERVICE CHARGE/RUNOFF ACRE/YEAR

4. RECYCLED WATER
(1) Recycled Water Connection Fee
The recycled water connection fee will be based on the recycled water meter size required to meet the recycled water demand of the property as determined by the City. a. Size Sep 1, 2025 Sep 1, 2026
b. 5/8" meter $7,846.00 $8,631.00
c. 3/4" meter $11,773.00 $12,950.00
d.
e. 1" meter $19,614.00 $21,575.00
f. 1 ½" meter $39,228.00 $43,151.00
g. 2" meter $62,763.00 $69,039.00
h. 3" meter $124,425.00 $136,868.00
i. 4" meter $196,141.00 $215,755.00
j. 6" meter $392,282.00 $431,510.00
k. 8" meter $627,651.00 $690,416.00
l. 10" meter $902,249.00 $992,474.00
(2) The bimonthly standard recycled water meter service charge for all recycled water meters, based on size of meter, shall be as follows:

Oct 1, 2025 Oct 1, 2026
a. 5/8" meter $41.34 $43.82
b. 3/4" meter $57.67 $61.13
c. 1" meter $90.37 $95.79
d. 1 ½" meter $172.08 $182.40
e. 2" meter $270.14 $286.35
f. 3" meter $580.64 $615.48
g. 4" meter $1,038.23 $1,100.52
h. 6" meter $2,133.15 $2,261.14
i. 8" meter $4,584.48 $4,859.55
j. 10" meter $6,872.40 $7,284.75
Recycled Water usage charge based on the number of cubic feet of water supplied during each billing period shall be as follows:
265
74 Usage Rate/ccf
Oct. 1, 2025
Rate/ccf
Oct. 1, 2026
Tier 1 1 - 170 CCF $7.70 $8.16
Tier 2 > 170 CCF $8.70 $10.39
Cost Per CCF of Metered Water Consumption
Note: hundred cubic feet = approximately 748 gallons of water

5. LOW INCOME REFUSE SERVICE RATES
A residential subscriber shall receive a discount in the amount of $8.22 per month for refuse service for a single-unit dwelling based on the following:
a. The subscriber meets the City income guidelines as defined in the All City Department section of the Master Fee Schedule and
b. The subscriber files with the Revenue Division of the Department of Finance a discount application and adequate documentary evidence showing that the subscriber comes within the provision of subparagraph (a).

6. SOLID WASTE PLAN REVIEW FEES
Development Plan Review
Single Family or Remodel $77.00
TractDevelopment $250.00
Commercial/Industrial
Tenant Improvement w/ Trash Enclosure
$187.00
Tenant Improvement w/o Trash Enclosure $125.00
Mixed Use (Commercial & Residential) Actual cost
266
75 Glossary of Terms
The following description of fee charges has been prepared for your convenience. If you have any questions regarding fee charges, please feel free to discuss them with a member of the City staff.

Annexation Fees:

Charges for time and material costs involved in processing applications for the annexation of property to the City.

Compliance Services Fees:

Charges imposed to defray the City’s labor and materials cost of assuring compliance with specific City ordinances such as weed abatement.

Inspection Fees:

Charges related to the physical inspection of facilities, buildings, sites, equipment, etc.

Licenses and Permit Fees:

Charges imposed to defray the cost incurred in processing applications for licenses and permits which authorize the holder to engage in a specific function or activity and include the costs of assuring compliance with related conditions and regulations.

Penalty Fees and Fines:

Charges imposed for non-compliance with specific City requirements.

Plan Check Fees:

Charges for time and materials costs for the detailed inspection of plans submitted to the City for review.

Rental Fees:

Charges for use of City facilities and services.

Service Fees:

Charges for time and materials costs incurred by the City in the course of providing those services for which fees or charges are not otherwise specifically set forth.

Special Services Fees:

Charges for time and materials costs incurred by the City in the course of providing extraordinary services. 267
CITY OF HAYWARD Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: CONS 26-223
DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works

SUBJECT
Adopt a Resolution Approving the Corridor Alternatives for Safe Streets Hayward Phase 1 (A Street, B Street, and Tennyson Road)

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) approving the recommended alternatives for each corridor for the Safe Streets Hayward Project Phase 1 (A Street, B Street, and Tennyson Road).

SUMMARY
The Safe Streets Hayward Plan Phase 1 has the goal of improving traffic safety on A Street, B Street, and Tennyson Road. The federal grant-funded project started in February 2025 and gathered feedback throughout Summer 2025. Using results from outreach, the project team developed a Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative, Connected Corridor Alternative, and Reimagined Corridor Alternative for each corridor, reflecting the preferences of the communities from each corridor. These alternatives provide a spectrum of choices and tradeoffs to consider, with the Reimagined Corridor Alternative providing the most traffic safety benefit, but also typically the highest parking and congestion impacts.

These alternatives were presented to CIAC on November 13, 2025. After receiving feedback and approval from CIAC to study the alternatives further, the second round of outreach started on January 5, 2026. The purpose of the additional outreach was to receive feedback from the community and stakeholders on their preferences for the alternatives and to understand the perceived benefits and challenges of each alternative. Outreach activities focused around gathering in person feedback or directing users to a survey hosted on the project website and were structured to reduce barriers for Hayward’s residents and stakeholders by bringing engagement through pop-up events and facilitating community workshops near the project corridors. In total, outreach efforts yielded 497 surveys taken with 27% received in Spanish and 51% identifying as low-income. With all feedback considered, a total of 742 people and 1,027 public comments were received at the conclusion of the outreach phase.

The project team recommends the following alternatives to move forward to the next phase of the project. A summary of the recommended alternatives with exhibits is included as Attachment III.

CITY OF HAYWARD Page 1 of 2 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™268
File #: CONS 26-223
Corridor Limits Recommended Alternative
A Street Hesperian to Meekland Connected
Corridor/Reimagined
Corridor
Meekland to Watkins Reimagined Corridor
B Street Martin Luther King to Montgomery Reimagined Corridor Montgomery to Watkins Reimagined Corridor
Tennyson Road Hesperian to Mission Reimagined Corridor
City staff presented the recommended alternatives to April 22, 2026 CIAC meeting and received approval to have them on the City Council agenda for formal approval. CIAC members gave feedback on the recommended alternatives. Most of the feedback was focused on the anticipated impacts of parking removal for the Tennyson Road recommended alternative. More specifically, of the 158 parking spaces proposed to be removed, 35 of the parking spots adjacent to the Lord Tennyson Apartments between Calaroga Avenue and Sleepy Hollow Avenue were of particular concern due to their known high use. Staff responded by looking at utilizing the next round of outreach to approach the apartment community directly and work on solutions to mitigate the parking impact. The few community members who attended the CIAC meeting were generally supportive of staff’s recommended alternatives and encouraged the implementation of safer infrastructure over parking impacts.

Approval from City Council of the recommended alternatives will allow the project to progress to the next phase to develop conceptual plans and cost estimates of each corridor and engage in the last round of public outreach. This third round of public outreach will focus on seeking solutions to mitigate parking impacts and gather public feedback on the conceptual plans. The project team is anticipated to complete the conceptual design and estimates for final approval in November 2026.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Recommendations
Attachment IV First Round Outreach Summary
Attachment V Illustrative Concepts
Attachment VI Existing Conditions Summary
Attachment VII Second Round Outreach Summary
Attachment VIII Evaluation Report
CITY OF HAYWARD Page 2 of 2 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™269

Page 1 of 13 ends

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Approving the Corridor Alternatives for Safe Streets Hayward Phase 1 (A Street, B Street, and Tennyson Road)

SUMMARY
The Safe Streets Hayward Plan Phase 1 has the goal of improving traffic safety on A Street, B Street, and Tennyson Road. The federal grant-funded project started in February 2025 and the City gathered feedback throughout Summer 2025. Using results from outreach, the project team developed a Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative, Connected Corridor Alternative, and Reimagined Corridor Alternative for each corridor, reflecting the preferences of the communities from each corridor. These alternatives provide a spectrum of choices and tradeoffs to consider, with the Reimagined Corridor Alternative providing the most traffic safety benefit, but also typically the highest parking and congestion impacts.

These alternatives were presented to CIAC on November 13, 2025. After receiving feedback and approval from CIAC to study the alternatives further, staff started the second round of outreach on January 5, 2026. The purpose of the additional outreach was to receive feedback from the community and stakeholders on their preferences for the alternatives and to understand the perceived benefits and challenges of each alternative. Outreach activities focused around gathering in person feedback or directing users to a survey hosted on the project website and were structured to reduce barriers for Hayward’s residents and stakeholders by bringing engagement through pop-up events and facilitating community workshops near the project corridors. In total, outreach efforts yielded 497 surveys taken with 27% received in Spanish and 51% identifying as low-income. With all feedback considered, a total of 742 people and 1,027 public comments were received at the conclusion of the outreach phase.
270

Page 2 of 13 ends

The project team recommends the following alternatives to move forward to the next phase of the project. A summary of the recommended alternatives with exhibits is included as Attachment III.

Corridor Limits Recommended
Alternative
A Street
Hesperian to Meekland Connected
Corridor/Reimagined
Corridor
Meekland to Watkins Reimagined Corridor
B Street Martin Luther King to Montgomery Reimagined Corridor Montgomery to Watkins Reimagined Corridor
Tennyson Road Hesperian to Mission Reimagined Corridor
City staff presented the recommended alternatives to CIAC at their April 22, 2026 meeting and received approval to have them on the City Council agenda for formal approval. CIAC members gave feedback on the recommended alternatives. Most of the feedback was focused on the anticipated impacts of parking removal for the Tennyson Road recommended alternative. More specifically, of the 158 parking spaces proposed to be removed, 35 of the parking spots adjacent to the Lord Tennyson Apartments between Calaroga Avenue and Sleepy Hollow Avenue were of particular concern due to their known high use. Staff responded by looking at using the next round of outreach to approach the apartment community directly and work on solutions to mitigate the parking impact. The few community members who attended the CIAC meeting were generally supportive of staff’s recommended alternatives and encouraged the implementation of safer infrastructure over parking impacts.

FISCAL IMPACT
This item has no General Fund or Measure C impact.

This Project is largely funded by federal grant funds. The matching portion of the grant in the amount of $814,000 is provided by three separate funding sources: Fund 213 Measure BB (Pedestrian and Bicycle) and Fund 215 Measure B (Local Transportation). 271

Page 3 of 13 ends

BACKGROUND
Launched in 2022, the purpose of the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) federal grant program is to improve roadway safety by significantly reducing or eliminating roadway fatalities and serious injuries through safety action plan development, refinement, and implementation focused on all users. The program provides funding to develop tools to help strengthen the community’s approach to roadway safety and save lives while meeting the needs of diverse local, tribal, and regional communities.

The City adopted its first Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) on June 27, 2023, which assesses and identifies locations and strategies to improve road safety throughout the City. Along with identifying the City’s High Injury Network, the LRSP recommends a set of strategies and countermeasures to address and prevent severe injury and fatal collisions. In addition, the City also adopted its Vision Zero by 2050 policy, which is the goal of achieving zero fatalities and severe injury collisions on the City’s roadways by 2050.

On July 7, 2023, Staff applied for a U.S. Department of Transportation SS4A grant to develop a Speed Management Plan and a High Injury Network Safety Plan. Linking the grant application to the City’s existing LRSP and Vision Zero policy, staff proposed a comprehensive safety evaluation and development of conceptual plans to improve traffic safety for many of the City’s main arterials. The arterials proposed in the High Injury Network Safety Plan include A Street, B Street, Tennyson Road, Mission Boulevard, Hesperian Boulevard, Jackson Street, and the Downtown Area (The Loop). On October 27, 2023, the City was awarded $3,252,000 in funding with a requirement of $813,000 in City matching funds to fully develop a Speed Management Plan and High Injury Network Safety Plan. A Street, B Street, and Tennyson Road consist of the first phase of the High Injury Network Safety Plan.

On October 18, 2024, Staff published a request for proposals for the first set of corridors to be studied for the High Injury Network Plan. After a review of the proposals received, staff recommended Kimley-Horn as the City’s consultant to develop the A Street, B Street, and Tennyson Road portions of the High Injury Network Safety Plan. On January 21, 2025, Council authorized the City Manager to execute a contract with Kimley-Horn with a maximum compensation not-to-exceed amount of $1,600,000. The contract was executed on February 20, 2025.

Project Activities
Development of project activities began in February 2025. The project team researched existing City policies and plans, which includes the City’s General Plan, LRSP, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Traffic safety and volume data were gathered for various locations in the project area and advanced data analytics were procured for intersections identified in the LRSP’s High Injury Network. To establish consistency with other safety projects, the Project was renamed to Safe Streets Hayward.
272

Page 4 of 13 ends

On May 14, 2025 and May 27, 2025, the project team performed Road Safety Audits (RSA).

RSAs are a world-recognized best practice safety performance examination of existing conditions of the project area. It requires a field review with a multidisciplinary team made up of various stakeholders focused on documenting safety issues that would be relevant to the project. The project team and participants walked through the three project corridors and documented observations. In addition, on July 9, 2025, a separate meeting was held with the Hayward Police Department to gather observations and feedback from patrol staff on the three project corridors. Police staff shared their experiences patrolling the corridors, responding to the collisions, and filing incident reports. Results of the RSA and the meeting with the police department was used to help inform outreach efforts and the proposed alternatives.

The first round of outreach for the Project started in March 2025. The project outreach team consisted of City of Hayward staff, Kimley-Horn (consultant), Alta Planning + Design (subconsultant), and Eden Youth (vendor). Alta Planning + Design led the outreach of this project and submitted to the City a Community and Stakeholder Outreach Plan that was approved by City staff. The project team employed multiple methods to gather community and stakeholder feedback. A project website was created to allow participation through an electronic survey and interactive map. The survey was available through a paper version distributed during pop-up events and canvassing. By the time the survey closed in July 2025, 432 total surveys were collected. A total of 97 unique map comments with 303 follow-up comments and votes on those comments where gathered on the interactive maps of the three corridors.

The project team staffed nine existing pop-up engagement events with the intention of meeting the community where they were to gather additional project feedback throughout the study areas. Example events were the Asian American Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander (AANHPI) Night at Burbank Elementary School, Reaching for a Better Community at Sorensdale Park, and the Hayward Night Market. Participants were invited to learn more about the project as well as provide feedback on specific points of interest or concern on a map.

Eden Youth also conducted canvassing across the study areas with the focus on bringing engagement directly to the residents using intercept surveys and direct interviews. They canvased six locations on A Street, four locations on B Street, and four locations on Tennyson Road.

There were four key findings from the first round of outreach activities:
• Safety concerns at highway crossings
• Mixed opinions about removing travel lanes
• Concern about unsafe driving behavior, with higher frequency on Tennyson Road • Non-transportation related social/environmental concern, including interactions with and feeling unsafe near unhoused people, especially close to encampments. 273

Page 5 of 13 ends

Attachment IV contains a more detailed summary of the first round of outreach activities, including a breakdown of findings by corridor, text of survey responses plus demographics, and total interactions for each event.

Proposed Alternatives for Each Corridor
The project team reviewed the ideas generated from the RSA and the results of the Phase 1 outreach. Each corridor has a Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative, Connected Corridor Alternative, and a Reimagined Corridor Alternative. By having three alternatives for each corridor, the community and stakeholders will have a balanced choice of alternatives to consider and select from. These alternatives provide a spectrum of tradeoffs to consider, with the Reimagined Corridor Alternative providing the most traffic safety benefit, but also highest parking and congestion impacts. Below is a general description of each alternative type:

Base Corridor Enhancements: Spot improvements with no changes to the cross section of the road. Minimal parking or congestion impacts.

Connected Corridor: A medium impact alternative with geometric and cross section changes for a continuous bicycle facility and
increased safety. Some parking or congestion impacts.

Reimagined Corridor: Major geometric and cross section changes for maximum safety benefit. Substantial parking and/or congestion
impacts.

Corridor alternatives were presented to CIAC on November 13, 2025, with the recommendation to study them further and gather additional public feedback. CIAC approved the recommendation. The proposed alternatives are summarized below.

Attachment V includes a detailed illustrative concept of the proposed alternatives along with corridor-wide and location specific recommendations.

A Street Proposed Alternatives
Existing
Conditions
• Two travel lanes in each direction.
• Striped bike lanes in each direction, not continuous. • Median west of Grand Street.

Base Corridor
Enhancements
Alternative
• Maintain striped bike lanes as they exist.
• Spot improvements such as curb bulb outs, pedestrian-scale lighting, protected traffic signal phasing, and rapid
rectangular flashing beacons.
274

Page 6 of 13 ends

Connected
Corridor
Alternative
• Narrow travel lanes to provide buffered striped bike lanes and protected bike lanes.
• Spot improvements such as curb bulb outs, pedestrian-scale lighting, protected traffic signal phasing, and rapid
rectangular flashing beacons.
• Small section and spot parking removal
Reimagined
Corridor
Alternative
• Remove a travel lane in each direction west of Santa Clara Street and east of Grand Street to provide protected bike lanes or shared use path.
• Remove a parking lane between Meekland Avenue and
Montgomery Avenue to provide protected bike lanes or
shared use path.
• Protected intersections and spot improvements such as curb bulb outs, pedestrian-scale lighting, protected traffic signal phasing, and rapid rectangular flashing beacons.

B Street Proposed Alternatives
Existing
Conditions
• One travel lane in each direction west of Grand Street. • Two westbound travel lanes and one eastbound travel lane east of Grand Street.
• Striped bike lanes west of Grand Street.
• Parking lane on both sides of street.

Base Corridor
Enhancements
Alternative
• Maintain striped bike lanes as they exist, east of Grand Street. • Spot improvements such as traffic circles, speed humps, and curb bulb outs.

Connected
Corridor
Alternative
• Narrow travel lanes to 10 feet to provide buffered striped bike lanes west of Montgomery Avenue.
• Remove parking on one side of the street or a westbound travel lane to provide striped bike lanes east of Montgomery Avenue.
• Option to assess feasibility of traffic diverters along B Street west of Grand St.

Reimagined
Corridor
Alternative
• Narrow travel lanes to 10 feet west of Myrtle Street to provide a protected two-way cycle track on the south side of the street west of Myrtle Street and buffered striped bike lanes east of Myrtle Street.
• Remove parking east of Montgomery Avenue on one side of the street to provide striped bike lanes or remove a
westbound travel lane..
275

Page 7 of 13 ends

Tennyson Road Proposed Alternatives
Existing
Conditions
• Two travel lanes in each direction with median.
• Striped bike lane in each direction, except at I-880
interchange.
• Parking lanes with designated sections of “no parking.” Base
Investment
Alternative
• Maintain striped bike lanes where they currently exist. • Two-way cycle track on south side of street from Whitman to Dixon (in alignment with East Bay Greenway design).
• Spot improvements such as curb bulb outs, pedestrian scale lighting, and protected traffic signal phasing.
• Recommend separate project for I-880 interchange
improvements in partnership with Caltrans.

Connected
Corridor
Alternative
• Narrow travel lanes to provide buffered bike lanes on street segments while preserving existing parking.
• Protected bike where current “no parking” exists.
• Two-way cycle track on south side of street from Whitman to Dixon (in alignment with East Bay Greenway design).
• Spot improvements such as curb bulb outs, pedestrian scale lighting, and protected traffic signal phasing.
• Recommend separate project for I-880 Interchange
Improvements in partnership with Caltrans.

Reimagined
Corridor
Alternative
• One-way continuous protected bike lane on each side west of Whitman Street.
• Two-way cycle track on south side of street from Whitman to Dixon (in alignment with East Bay Greenway design).
• Removal of parking (large portions of corridor already signed as “no parking” and reduction of median width.
• Protected intersection improvements, pedestrian scale lighting, and protected traffic signal phasing.
• Recommend separate project for I-880 Interchange
Improvements in partnership with Caltrans.

DISCUSSION
The next round of outreach started on January 5, 2026 and ended on March 20, 2026. The purpose of the second round of outreach was to receive feedback from the community and stakeholders on their preferences of alternatives and to understand the perceived benefits and challenges of each alternative. The project team prepared for this round of outreach by scheduling outreach events, updating the project website, uploading the Existing Conditions Summary (Attachment VI) to the website, and creating a new survey (paper and online) to gather feedback.
276

Page 8 of 13 ends

The second round of outreach consisted of multiple outreach activities centered around gathering in person feedback or directing users to a survey hosted on the project website.

Outreach activities were structured to reduce barriers for Hayward’s residents and stakeholders by bringing engagement to them through pop-up events and facilitating community workshops near the project corridors. Mailers were sent to residents and businesses within a five-hundred feet radius of each project corridor. Community workshops were held at the Eden Youth and Family Center on March 2, 2026 and at the Hayward Public Library on March 10, 2026. Pop-ups were held in partnership with the Hayward Rides team or at the Hayward Farmers Market on January 30, February 7, and February 21. In addition, the project team coordinated with the City’s Communications Team to complete email blasts, social media posts, and an article publication in the City’s official newsletter, The Stack.

Outreach efforts yielded 497 surveys taken with 27% received in Spanish and 51% identifying as annual household income under $75,000. In total, 770 people and 1,042 public comments were received from all outreach methods.

The public was given an opportunity to score the alternatives for each corridor during the outreach process. Participants ranked the alternatives for each corridor 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, with 1st equaling three points, 2nd equaling two points, and 3rd as one point. Below is a summary of the scoring for the corridor alternatives. Full details of the second round of outreach are included as Attachment VII.

A Street Outreach Results
Limits Alternative Online
Survey
In-Person /
Paper Survey
Total
Score
Hesperian to
Meekland
Base Corridor
Enhancements
107 63 170
Connected
Corridor
132 102 234
Reimagined
Corridor
103 81 184
Meekland to
Watkins
Base Investment 98 163 261
Connected
Corridor
117 188 305
High Investment 103 250 353
Common themes for the A Street from Hesperian Boulevard to Meekland Avenue segment were that many intersections felt dangerous and motorists drove at high speeds. The Connected Corridor alternative received the most support and participants cited the need for increased safety, reduced travel speeds, and curtailing red-light running. The Reimagined Corridor alternative was not favored due to the strong concern of congestion impacts from removing travel lanes.

For the Meekland Avenue to Watkins Street segment, there was support for increased pedestrian safety and improving the crosswalk yield rates for drivers. Although the 277

Page 9 of 13 ends

Reimagined Corridor Alternative received the most support, there were some concerns for the parking loss that comes associated with it.

Overall, participants considered the retention of travel lanes more important than the retention of parking and overwhelmingly preferred a project that significantly increases safety compared to a project that could be built quickly.

B Street Outreach Results
Limits Alternative Online
Survey
In-Person /
Paper Survey
Total
Score
MLK to
Montgomery
Base Corridor
Enhancements
84 129 213
Connected
Corridor
115 129 251
Reimagined
Corridor
114 242 356
Montgomery
to Watkins
Base Corridor
Enhancements
71 N/A 71
Connected
Corridor
107 N/A 107
Reimagined
Corridor
110 N/A 110
Common themes for B Street from Martin Luther King Drive to Montgomery Avenue included concerns of poor lighting, lack of pedestrian safety and comfort, and speeding near schools.

Participants showed strong support for the Reimagined Corridor Alternative which includes a sidewalk-level separated bikeway on the south side of the street.

For the Montgomery Avenue to Watkins Street segment, participants mentioned a desire to improve visibility at intersections. There were no clear preferred alternatives. The Connected Corridor alternative nearly equaled the Reimagined Corridor alternative (scoring of 107 vs. 110). Compared to the Martin Luther King Drive to Montgomery Avenue, this segment received less engagement overall from the public and stakeholders.

Overall, responses strongly favored the retention of travel lanes rather than parking. Similar to A Street, participants overwhelmingly preferred a solution that maximized safety over one that could be built quickly.
278

Page 10 of 13 ends

Tennyson Road Outreach Results
Limits Alternative Online
Survey
In-Person /
Paper Survey
Total
Score
Hesperian
to Mission
Base
Enhancements
Corridor
91 180 271
Connected
Corridor
96 199 295
Reimagined
Corridor
106 336 442
Common themes for Tennyson Road from Hesperian Boulevard to Mission Boulevard highlighted the need to prioritize pedestrian safety and that high vehicle speeds, red-light running, lack of lighting, unsafe freeway ramps, and failure of vehicles to yield were a concern. Many comments expressed strong concerns about parking loss, especially relating to how it would impact local businesses, street vendors, and low-income households with multiple vehicles. Conversely, the Reimagined Corridor alternative scored the highest, which would also have the highest parking loss impacts. Responses for Tennyson favored retaining travel lanes compared to retaining parking, but there was less agreement compared to A Street and B Street. Like the other corridors, participants for Tennyson Road also favored maximizing safety over building something quickly.

The project team reviewed the results of the outreach and is recommending to City Council the following alternatives to progress to the next stage of the project. The next stage of the project includes concept and cost estimate development and the final round of outreach.

Page 11 of 13 ends

The major parking impacts for each recommended alternative are summarized below.

A Street: Removal of a travel lane in each direction from I-880 interchange to Santa Clara Street (existing section has three lanes in each direction).

Removal of the south side parking lane between Meekland Avenue to Watkins St/Lucky’s Driveway, a total of approximately 32 parking spaces.

B Street: For the segment east of Montgomery Avenue, removal of a westbound travel lane or the south side parking lane.

Tennyson Road: Removal of on-street parking between Hesperian Boulevard to Ruus Road and Dixon Street to Mission Boulevard. Removal of on-street parking on the south side of Huntwood Avenue and Dixon Street. Total of approximately 158 parking spaces proposed to be removed.

Removal of eastbound travel lane between Dixon Street and Mission Boulevard (existing section has three eastbound travel lanes).

Congestion impacts are not expected on a large scale due to the decision to retain existing through travel lanes, but intersection-level congestion impacts can be expected to occur due to changes of intersection geometry, signal phasing, or number of turn lanes at the intersection. Below are the major impacts expected at the intersection level, reported using standard Level of Service (LOS) metric, due to proposed safety improvements.

A Street: A Street/Montgomery Avenue changes from LOS B to LOS D in the AM peak hour.

B Street: B Street/Watkins Street changes from LOS B to LOS D in the PM peak hour.

Tennyson Road: No major impacts expected.

According to the City’s General Plan Mobility Element Goal M-4.3 Level of Service, the City shall maintain a minimum vehicle LOS E at signalized intersections during peak commute periods. None of the expected impacts are inconsistent with the City’s General Plan.

Full details of the corridor alternatives, traffic operations analysis, and parking impacts can be found in Attachment VIII, Evaluation Report.

City staff presented the recommended alternatives to April 22, 2026 CIAC meeting and received approval to have them on the City Council agenda for formal approval. CIAC members gave feedback on the recommended alternatives. Most of the feedback was focused on the anticipated impacts of parking removal for the Tennyson Road recommended alternative. More specifically, of the 158 parking spaces proposed to be removed, 35 of the parking spaces adjacent to the Lord Tennyson Apartments between Calaroga Avenue and Sleepy Hollow Avenue were of particular concern due to their known high use. The few 280

Page 12 of 13 ends

community members who attended the CIAC meeting were generally supportive of staff’s recommended alternatives and encouraged the implementation of safer infrastructure over parking impacts.

To address this concern with parking adjacent to the Lord Tennyson Apartments, staff will use the next round of outreach to approach the apartment community directly and work on solutions to mitigate the parking impact. This will be done by shifting outreach resources to focus less on large workshops and more on targeted focus/small group outreach.

ECONOMIC IMPACT
The Safe Streets Hayward Project will include development and design concepts and cost estimates for the A Street, B Street, and Tennyson Road corridors, which when implemented, will help reduce the likelihood of serious injuries and fatalities. Vehicle crashes have a significant economic cost, both to those directly impacted and to other users of the transportation system. The increased safety and access will support local businesses and the local economy.

STRATEGIC ROADMAP
This agenda item supports the Strategic Priority of Invest in Infrastructure. Specifically, this item relates to the implementation of the following project:

Project N1: Continue to implement major corridor traffic calming initiatives

SUSTAINABILITY FEATURES
This project includes safety improvements that would increase multimodal connectivity in Hayward’s roadway network. The improvement of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure will help encourage more sustainable modes of travel throughout the City, reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

PUBLIC CONTACT
The first round of public outreach for this project was conducted through various outreach events from March 2025 to July 2025. This includes tabling at City events, canvassing in neighborhoods, and an electronic survey and interactive map accessible through the project website. The second round of public outreach started in January 2026 and ended in March 2026. It included mailers to residents and businesses, tabling at pop-up events, and hosting community workshops near project corridors.
281

Page 13 of 13 ends

NEXT STEPS
If City Council approves the recommended alternatives for each corridor, the project team will develop conceptual plans, cost estimates, and gather additional public feedback with a third and last round of outreach. Final concept designs and estimates are expected to be brought to City Council for adoption in November 2026.

Table 1. Safe Streets Hayward (A St, B St, Tennyson) Timeline Expected Completion Date
Phase 3 Outreach July 2026
Conceptual Plan & Cost Estimates September 2026
Adopt Selected Designs November 2026
During the March 24th Traffic Safety Work Session, Transportation Division staff recommended Tennyson Road to be prioritized over A Street and B Street. This direction would have staff immediately seek funds for future project phases for Tennyson Road. City Council approved staff’s recommendation. Staff are now in the process of concurrently applying for grant funds while this project moves forward.

Prepared by: Byron Tang, Deputy Director of Public Works - Transportation Recommended by: Alex Ameri, Director of Public Works
Approved by:
______________________________
Jennifer Ott, City Manager
282

ATTACHMENT II

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 26-____
Introduced by Council Member _________

RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES FOR SAFE STREETS HAYWARD PHASE 1 (A STREET, B STREET, AND TENNYSON ROAD) WHEREAS, from 2017 to 2021, 35 people died and 138 suffered severe, life-changing injuries on streets with the City of Hayward, an average of 7 deaths and 28 severe injuries per year; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted its Local Road Safety Plan in 2023, seeking to address safety concerns on its highest collision streets by identifying the High Injury Network, a group of streets that comprises 14% of the City’s roadways while accounting for over 75% serious and fatal collisions; and
WHEREAS, the corridors of A Street, B Street, and Tennyson Road are identified in the High Injury Network; and
WHEREAS, between 2019-2024 on A Street, B Street, and Tennyson Road, a total of 385 collisions were reported, 31 which resulted in severe injuries or fatalities, and 46% of severe injury or fatal crashes involved someone walking or biking; and WHEREAS, the City adopted its Vision Zero Policy in 2023 to plan and design its transportation system with the goal of eliminating fatal and severe injuries among all system users by 2050; and
WHEREAS, the City was awarded Safe Streets and Roads for All federal grant funding to develop a High Injury Network Plan, alternatively named Safe Streets Hayward, which would include conceptual plans for A Street, B Street, and Tennyson Road; and WHEREAS, after conducting technical analyses and outreach, staff have recommended corridor alternatives to maximize safety in alignment with the results from community outreach; and
WHEREAS, approval of corridor alternatives will allow the project to progress to the next phase to develop conceptual plans and cost estimates for each corridor. 283

ATTACHMENT II

Page 2 of 2 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds and determines as follows:

A Street. Approval of the Connected Corridor Alternative from Hesperian Boulevard to the I-880 Interchange and the Reimagined Corridor Alternative from I-880 Interchange to Watkins Street
B Street. Approval of the Reimagined Corridor Alternative from Martin Luther King Drive to Watkins Street
Tennyson Road. Approval of the Reimagined Corridor Alternative from Hesperian Boulevard to Mission Boulevard
IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA _______________________, 2026 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
284
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
1 Corridor
Recommendations

ATTACHMENT III
285
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
2 Tennyson Road Intersection
Recommendations
2 ATTACHMENT III
286
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
3 Tennyson Road: Hesperian Blvd to Mission Blvd
Reimagined Corridor
Narrows the median and removes most
street parking for maximum safety &
comfort improvements.

Benefits & Impacts
Bicyclist Safety
Pedestrian Safety
Speed Reduction
Effect on Parking
Effect on
Congestion
Cost & Schedule

ATTACHMENT III
287
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
4 A Street Intersection Recommendations
Details at SafeStreetsHayward.org

ATTACHMENT III
288
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
5 A Street: Hesperian Blvd to Meekland Ave
Connected Corridor /
Reimagined Corridor
Narrows travel lanes to make continuous
safety improvements on the corridor.

Reduce travel lanes from I-880
interchange to Santa Clara Street
Benefits & Impacts
Bicyclist Safety
Pedestrian Safety
Speed Reduction
Effect on Parking
Effect on
Congestion
Cost & Schedule
N/A

ATTACHMENT III
289
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
6 A Street: Meekland Ave to Watkins St
Reimagined Corridor
Removes parking on the south side of the
street and reduces travel lanes east of
Grand St for maximum safety & comfort
improvements.

Benefits & Impacts
Bicyclist Safety
Pedestrian Safety
Speed Reduction
Effect on Parking
Effect on
Congestion
Cost & Schedule

ATTACHMENT III
290
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
7 B Street Intersection Recommendations
Details at SafeStreetsHayward.org

ATTACHMENT III
291
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
8 B Street: MLK Dr to Montgomery Ave
Reimagined Corridor
Narrows roadway for maximum safety &
comfort improvements. Includes a 2-way
cycle track.

Benefits & Impacts
Bicyclist Safety
Pedestrian Safety
Speed Reduction
Effect on Parking
Effect on
Congestion
Cost & Schedule
N/A

ATTACHMENT III
292
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
9 Reimagined Corridor
Removes one westbound travel
lane to make continuous safety
improvements on the corridor.

B Street: Montgomery Ave to Watkins St
Benefits & Impacts
Bicyclist Safety
Pedestrian Safety
Speed Reduction
Effect on Parking
Effect on
Congestion
Cost & Schedule

ATTACHMENT III
293
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
10 Recommendations
10 Street Segment Limits Recommendation
Tennyson
Road Hesperian to Mission
Reimagined Corridor - Spot improvements at intersections/crossings and add Class IV protected bike lanes by narrowing median and lanes, remove most parking where it exists (approximately 158 parking spaces, of which 43 are mostly unused BART on-street permit parking) A Street
Hesperian to Meekland
Connected Corridor/Reimagined Corridor - Spot improvements at intersections/crossings and add Class IV protected bike lanes by narrowing travel lanes. Reduce from 6 lanes to 4 lanes between I-880 and Santa Clara Street/Hathaway Avenue.

Meekland to Watkins
Reimagined Corridor - Spot improvements at intersections/crossings and add Class IV protected bike lanes or shared-use path by removing parking on the south side of the street west of Grand Street and reducing travel lanes east of Grand St (approximately 32 parking spaces) B Street
Martin Luther King to
Montgomery
Reimagined Corridor - Spot improvements at intersections/crossings, including traffic circles and/or diverters. Add two-way Class IV cycle track on the south side of the roadway west of Myrtle Street by narrowing lanes.

Montgomery to Watkins
Reimagined Corridor - Spot improvements at intersections/crossings, including traffic circles and/or diverters, and add Class IIB buffered bike lanes and sidewalk improvements by removing one westbound travel lane.

ATTACHMENT III
294
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 1 City of Cupertino
To:

From:

Date:

Re:

Byron Tang, City of Hayward, CA
Christopher Kidd, Alta Planning + Design
August 5, 2025
Hayward HIN Safety Plan: Phase 1 Public Participation Summary Introduction
Phase 1 of the Hayward High Injury Network (HIN) Safety Plan involved a range of engagement activities throughout the spring/summer of 2025. Outreach activities were structured to reduce barriers for Haywards’s residents and visitors by bringing engagement to them at pop-ups at nine existing community gatherings and canvasing at 14 locations. In-person outreach was supported by a project website, an interactive web map, an online survey, and social media promotion on the city’s channels. Summaries of key outreach initiatives are provided in this memo.

Phase 1 outreach consisted of a joint effort between staff from Alta, Kimley-Horn, City of Hayward, and Eden Youth & Family Center.

The first phase of public outreach ran from March 19 through July 18, 2025. This phase consisted of 23 events, engaging almost 2,000 residents and soliciting over 900 comments or interactions from the public.

Summary of Engagement
Event/Input Type Number of Events Participants Total Comments/Interactions Pop-up events 9 1,310 129
Canvassing 14 5 5
Interactive webmap -- 97 400
Online and intercept surveys -- 432 432
Emails -- 5 5
Total 23 1,849 971

ATTACHMENT IV
295
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 2 City of Cupertino
Summary of Findings
The following are key findings from public outreach:
• Safety Concerns at Highway Crossings – Most comments/interactions submitted online and collected at inperson pop ups regarding safety concerns were concentrated at interchanges with I-880, both at A Street and at Tennyson Road. People expressed concerns about speeding drivers and a lack of safe crossing for pedestrians at these locations.
• Mixed Opinions About Removing Travel Lanes – Some people voiced support for separated bike facilities, while others expressed concern about the impact of removing travel lanes. • Concern About Unsafe Driving Behavior on Tennyson Road – People highlighted unsafe driving in both study areas, but more frequently on Tennyson Road.
• Other Social/Environmental Concerns - People shared other concerns that they have when navigating the study areas, including interactions with unhoused people and encampments.

Phase 1 Outreach Materials
The first phase of outreach for the Hayward HIN Safety Plan included the following outreach and engagement materials. All materials were translated into Spanish and Farsi. • A set of three poster boards, used during pop-up events (Appendix A). These boards included:
o One board displaying the purpose of the project, a map of all high injury streets in Hayward, and the project schedule.
o Two boards displaying maps of Hayward - one zoomed into the Tennyson Road study area and one zoomed into the A Street and B Street study area. These boards solicited input on safety concerns/barriers, places people go, and ideas from residents. • A flyer promoting the project and directing people to the project website (Appendix A). The flyer was handed out during pop-up events and canvassing.
• A survey asking people about their travel preferences and an optional demographic questionnaire. A paper survey was used during pop-up events and canvassing, and the survey was also available online on the project website.
• A project website, hosting an interactive webmap and a survey:
o The interactive webmap solicited the same input as the poster boards used during in-person pop-up events. Users could input points that were safety concerns, places people go, and ideas for how to improve safety within the study area. For each point, users could also include a description with further written details. Users could like, dislike or comment on what other users submitted. The webmap also asked users to report what zip code they lived in. o The online survey included the same questions as the paper survey used during in-person pop-up events

ATTACHMENT IV
296
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 3 City of Cupertino
Summary of Promotion
The City of Hayward, Alta, and Eden Youth & Family Center conducted promotion for the first phase of public outreach. Promotion included:
• City posts to Facebook and Instagram, targeting a 1-mile buffer along A Street from Hesperian Blvd to Mission Blvd, B Street from MLK Jr Dr to Mission Blvd, and Tennyson Road from Hesperian Blvd to Mission Blvd. The ads also targeted people who are specifically interested in walking, road cycling or cycling, traffic/road safety, volunteering, and civic engagement.
• Postcard mailers sent out to all households within 500 feet of each project corridor. • A presentation at the Neighborhood Health Empowerment Network by City staff. • Project notices included in newsletter submissions for Eden Youth & Family Center, Hayward Neighborhood Promise, Hayward Unified School District, the Alameda County Safe Routes to Schools Program, Glad Tidings Church of God in Christ, La Familia, South Hayward Parish, and Original Pacific Islander Task Force. • Business canvassing at 14 locations on Tennyson Road, A Street, and B Street by Eden Youth & Family Center In total, the project team reached over 6,000 residents within the project areas through promotional work.

Figure 1. Social media graphics

ATTACHMENT IV
297
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 4 City of Cupertino
Summary of In-Person Engagement
Pop-Up Events
Alta Planning + Design, city staff, Eden Youth, and Kimley-Horn staffed pop-up engagement events at existing community events, such as festivals, school activities, and markets. These pop-up events met the community where they were and gathered additional project feedback throughout the study area. Staff engaged with people on an array of poster boards, where participants were invited to learn more about the project, timeline, as well as provide feedback on specific points of interest or conflicts on maps.

At pop-up events, residents were encouraged to provide direct feedback with sticky notes and color-coded dots:
• Yellow dots – Destinations where people travel frequently (On the Map: “Show us the places you frequently travel to on this street or nearby.”)
• Red dots – Safety concerns or barriers (On the Map: “Includes difficult intersections, lack of lighting, difficult crossings, missing sidewalks, speeding drivers, or missing bicycle facilities.”) • Sticky notes - Ideas for how to improve the study area Table 1: Summary of pop-up participation
Event Date Staffed By Interactions Poster Board
Engagement
AANHPI Night at Burbank Elementary School May 15, 2025 Alta, City staff, & Kimley-Horn 15 34 Reaching for a Better Community May 31, 2025 Alta & City staff 40 31 Juneteenth Festival June 21, 2025 Eden Youth 70
South Hayward Market June 26, 2025 Eden Youth 200
Hayward Night Market June 28, 2025 Alta, City staff, & Kimley-Horn 70 64 All-America Festival June 28, 2025 Eden Youth 300
South Hayward Market July 10, 2025 Eden Youth 190
Downtown Hayward S.P. July 17, 2025 Eden Youth 250
South Hayward Market July 24, 2025 Eden Youth 175
Eden Youth & Family Center staff found it difficult to engage with residents using the project poster boards and instead opted for using paper surveys as an input tool during outreach events.

ATTACHMENT IV ATTACHMENT I
298
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 5 City of Cupertino
AANHPI Night at Burbank Elementary School
On Thursday, May 15, 2025 from 6:15 to 7:30 pm, Burbank Elementary School hosted its first Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) night. This was a family-friendly event filled with activities and performances which celebrated a variety of cultures. At least 15 families engaged with the High Injury Network Safety Plan staff and materials.

Barriers & Destinations: Participants placed 30 sticker dots on the map to identify destinations and barriers and added sticky-notes with further details. Four participants left general comments without a sticker dot – adding up to a combined 34 points of engagement. Engagement was
concentrated on the A/B Streets posterboard, as opposed to the Tennyson Road posterboard, as Burbank Elementary School is located off of B Street. Other locations that were concentrated with engagement include:
• Hayward BART Station (Barrier & Destination)
• I-880 @ A Street (Barrier)
• B Street @ Grand (Barrier)
Figure 2: Staff speaking with a family at the AANHPI Night

ATTACHMENT IV
299
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 6 City of Cupertino
Reach For a Better Community
On Saturday, May 31, 2025 from 10:30 am to 2:30 pm, Eden Youth hosted Reach for a Better Community (RFBC) at
Sorensdale Park. The event included activities, community resources, and was dedicated to empowering families in
Hayward. At least 40 individuals or families engaged with the High Injury Network Safety Plan staff and materials.

About 60% of individuals or families preferred to speak with staff in Spanish. There were also two requests for the
materials to be made available in Chinese.

Barriers & Destinations: Participants placed 30 sticker dots on the map to identify destinations and barriers and added sticky-notes with further details. One participant placed a general comment without a sticky dot - adding up to a
combined 31 points of engagement. Locations that were
concentrated with engagement include:
• Tennyson Road @ Huntwood (Barrier & Destination)
• Russ Road @ Tennyson School (Barrier & Destination)
• Tennyson Road @ Mission Boulevard (Barrier)
• Tennyson Road @ Sleepy Hallow Avenue (Barrier)
Hayward Night Market
On Saturday June 28, 2025 from 4:00pm to 7:30 pm,
Hayward HIN Safety Plan staff attended the Hayward
Night Market. This was a family-friendly event with food, vendors, life entertainment. Seventy people engaged with the High Injury Network Safety Plan staff and materials.

Barriers & Destinations: Participants placed 41 sticker dots on the map to identify destinations and barriers and some added sticky-notes with further details. Participants placed 23 general comments on stick-notes (64 total
forms of engagement). Locations that were concentrated
with engagement include:
• A Street @ Victory Drive (Barrier & Destination)
• I-880 @ A Street (Barrier)
• I-880 @ Tennyson Road (Barrier)
Figure 3: Staff speaking with participants at the RFBC event Figure 4: Staff speaking with residents at the Hayward Night Market

ATTACHMENT IV
300
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 7 City of Cupertino
Canvassing
Eden Youth also conducted canvassing across the study areas, bringing engagement directly to residents. They canvassed at:
• Six locations on A Street
• Four locations on B Street
• Four locations on Tennyson Road
During canvassing, Eden Youth collected intercept surveys and conducted five interviews with residents about their experience on the corridors.

Figure 5. Eden Youth canvassing in the study area

ATTACHMENT IV
301
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 8 City of Cupertino
Summary of Public Input
The Hayward HIN Safety Plan sought three types of public input throughout the first phase:
• Map-based input on safety concerns or barriers, destinations, barriers, and ideas – this was collected through outreach board exercises and an online webmap.
• Survey on travel preferences and an optional demographic questionnaire • Emails submitted to [email protected]
Summary of Map Input
At all pop-up and events, residents were asked to identify locations on maps for the following information:
• Safety concerns or barriers
• Destinations in Hayward
• Ideas for how to improve safety within the study area The project website hosted an online webmap where residents could similarly provide input on the three options listed above. The webmap also allowed users to view the input of other residents, comment on other users’ input, or like/dislike other users’ input. All phase 1 map input (from pop-ups and the online webmap) are visualized in Figure 8 and Figure 9.

Online Webmap
In addition to the three categories of information collected at pop-up events, the online webmap included the following sub-categories:
• Safety Concerns or barriers
o Drivers running red lights
o Bus stop improvements needed
o Lack of safe crossings
o Speeding drivers
o Lack of street lighting
o Missing/uncomfortable sidewalks
o Other
• Destinations
o Via driving
o Via bus
o Via biking
o Via waking
• Ideas for improving the conditions of
o Driving
o Biking
o Walking

ATTACHMENT IV
302
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 9 City of Cupertino
The WebMap was open for comments from May 15, 2025 to July 18, 2025. Overall, we received 400 WebMap interactions from participants. There were 97 unique comments, and 303 follow-up comments and votes on those comments. In total, there were only 8 dislikes across all comments, which primarily pertained to requests for separate bikeways and additional bike parking along both corridors. Most comments pertained to safety (62 comments), specifically drivers speeding on nearby roads and a lack of safe crossings across the high-injury corridors.

Figure 7. Interactive Webmap Screenshot of the Tennyson Road Study Area Figure 6. Interactive Webmap Screenshot of the A Street and B Street Study Area

ATTACHMENT IV
303
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 10 City of Cupertino
Tennyson Road
There were 24 comments pertaining to safety concerns along and near Tennyson Road. Most safety concerns (12) were concentrated near the I-880 intersection, with specified issues including speeding drivers (4) and a lack of safe crossings (3). As seen in Figure 8, safety concerns were also identified near the schools along and near Tennyson Road – Cesar Chavez School, Lorin Eden School and Impact Academy of Arts and Technology. The popular destinations along the corridor include Weekes Park, Rose Hospital, and Mount Eden Park. Some of the ideas for improving the roadway conditions along Tennyson Road include installing traffic cameras to catch red light violations, implementing traffic calming interventions to slow down drivers, adding left turn signals, and providing additional bike parking.

Table 2 provides an overview of the number of comments and likes by category for the Tennyson Road corridor.

Table 2. Webmap Comments for Tennyson Road
Comment
Category
Total
Comments Comment Sub-Category
Total
Comments Total Likes
Destinations 6
Destination - Biking 3 1
Destination – Bus 0 0
Destination – Drive 2 2
Destination - Walking 1 0
Improvement
Ideas 8
Idea - Biking 3 3
Idea - Driving 4 6
Idea - Walking 1 1
Safety
Concerns 23
Safety - Bus stop improvements needed 2 1
Safety - Drivers running red lights 2 3
Safety - Lack of safe crossing for people
walking or biking 6 15
Safety - Lack of street lighting 0 0
Safety - Missing/uncomfortable bicycle
facilities 0 0
Safety - Missing/uncomfortable sidewalks 0 0
Safety - Other 3 14
Safety - Speeding drivers 10 32
The webmap comments highlighted issues with drivers running red lights at the intersections of Tennyson Road and Patrick Avenue, and at Sleepy Hollow Avenue. Participants identified issues with people crossing at unmarked crossings near Cesar Chavez School. Also noted were the broken pedestrian buttons at the I-880 crossings and a need for a leading pedestrian interval at Sleepy Hollow Avenue. Safety issues related to speeding drivers were concentrated around I-880, and people expressed concern that they did not have enough time to cross the street safely. Additionally, speeding drivers exiting the freeway were perceived as often dangerously cut across multiple lanes to make left turns onto adjacent streets, such as Patrick Avenue. There were also requests for more bicycle parking near shopping centers, libraries, and grocery stores, as well as support for protected bike lanes and bus islands on Tennyson Road. Along Pompano Avenue and Harvey Avenue, participants requested traffic calming measures to reduce instances of speeding. Figure 8 combines the web map comments and in-person comments for Tennyson Road from Phase 1 and proportionally clusters them based on proximity and likes.

ATTACHMENT IV
304
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 11 City of Cupertino
Figure 8. Phase 1 Outreach Comments for Tennyson Road

ATTACHMENT IV
305
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 12 City of Cupertino
A & B Streets
There were 38 safety concerns identified along and near A & B Streets, with common concerns including unsafe crossings and speeding drivers. Along A Street, the most common safety concerns were a lack of safe crossings, uncomfortable walking and biking facilities, speeding drivers, and drivers not yielding to pedestrians. The identified destinations along A Street include the shopping centers near Mission Boulevard and Costco. Some participants voiced support for separated bike facilities, while others expressed concern over the traffic impacts of removing travel lanes.

Along B Street, the common safety concerns were unsafe crossings near the Hayward BART station and at Grand Street. Participants also expressed concern over speeding drivers while kids are going to and from school. The ideas for improvement included speed bumps, raised medians, and longer crossing times at traffic signals. Table 3 provides an overview of the number of comments and likes by category for the A & B Streets corridors.

Table 3. Webmap Comments for A & B Streets
Comment
Category
Total
Comments Comment Sub-Category
Total
Comments Total Likes
Destinations 7
Destination - Biking 0 0
Destination - Bus 1 4
Destination - Drive 4 12
Destination - Walking 2 1
Improvement
Ideas 14
Idea - Biking 0 0
Idea - Driving 11 18
Idea - Walking 3 9
Safety
Concerns 38
Safety - Bus stop improvements needed 0 0
Safety - Drivers running red lights 2 13
Safety - Lack of safe crossing for people walking
or biking 8 46
Safety - Lack of street lighting 1 4
Safety - Missing/uncomfortable bicycle facilities 1 1
Safety - Missing/uncomfortable sidewalks 1 3
Safety - Other 15 66
Safety - Speeding drivers 10 25
The comments on A Street highlighted unsafe crossings due to speeding drivers and unprotected crossings.

Specifically, at the intersections of A Street and Watkins Street and at Mission Boulevard, it is perceived that drivers making fast turns pose a danger to pedestrians crossing to the shopping center. At Flagg Street, participants expressed a need for a pedestrian beacon to enhance crossing safety. Additionally, they raised concerns about drivers speeding through the slip lane on Santa Clara Street. At Hesperian Way, participants suggested adding signage to alert drivers of right-turn-only lanes, giving them enough time to merge.

Safety issues regarding speeding drivers were identified along B Street, particularly near Burbank Elementary. At B Street and Grand Street, the webmap comments specified issues with turning vehicles, crossing times for pedestrians and a lack of separation between vehicles and bikes. Improvement ideas for this intersection include left-turn signals

ATTACHMENT IV
306
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 13 City of Cupertino
and longer crossing times. At B Street and Montgomery Street, crosswalk visibility issues were cited. Near Foothill Boulevard, participants noted pedestrian visibility issues due to double-parked vehicles. Figure 9 combines the web map comments and in-person comments for A and B Streets from Phase 1 and proportionally clusters them based on proximity and likes.

ATTACHMENT IV
307
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 14 City of Cupertino
Figure 9. Phase 1 Outreach Comments for A & B Streets

ATTACHMENT IV
308
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 15 City of Cupertino
Zip Codes
The webmap also had a survey component that asked participants to share their home zip code. This helps the project team understand what communities are participating and what communities still need to be reached. Table 4 provides a list of the top three zip codes representing the webmap participants. Most responses came from the 94541 zip code, which accounts for 44% of the survey responses and encompasses the areas around A and B Streets.

Tennyson Road stretches across two zip codes, 94544 and 94545. When combined, these two zip codes account for 46% of the survey responses. Overall, most webmap comments were received from residents living in the zip codes that contain the Tennyson Road corridor.

Table 4. Zip Codes from Webmap Participants
Zip Code Total
94541 185
94544 156
94545 44
Other 27
Figure 10: Zip code locations in Hayward

ATTACHMENT IV
309
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 16 City of Cupertino
Summary of Survey
The online survey was hosted on the project website and a paper version was used during pop-up events and canvassing. Eden Youth & Family Center conducted intercept surveys along each corridor, collecting more than 100 surveys per-corridor from this in-person work. This summary includes results from both the online and intercept surveys.

The survey collected a total of 432 responses from individuals who visit, live in, attend school in, or work in Hayward.

The survey included multiple-choice and an open-ended comment question. The multiple-choice questions captured travel preferences and an optional demographic questionnaire. The open-ended comment questions provided an opportunity for respondents to share more specific concerns.

Key findings from these questions are summarized below, and all multiple-choice survey results are presented in Phase 1 Survey Summaries, organized by study area.
• 64% of respondents completed the survey regarding A Street and/or B Street, and 36% of respondents completed it for Tennyson Road. Less than 1% (n=4) did not indicate a study area. • Approximately 67% of respondents completed the survey in Spanish, 33% in English, and no surveys were completed in Farsi.
• Most respondents either live or shop in the study area (50%). • The majority of respondents either drive (69%) and/or walk (55%) in/across the study area. When comparing the study areas, slightly more people drive on Tennyson Road (74%) than A Street and/or B Street (67%). • The majority of respondents either feel neutral (31%), or unsafe (25%) when traveling in the study area. • The top priorities for both study areas are:
o New or safer crossings at intersections for people walking or biking ▪ 72% Tennyson Rd
▪ 66% A Street and/or B Street
o Slow drivers down
▪ 69% Tennyson Rd
▪ 65% A Street and/or B Street
o Better street lighting
▪ 56% Tennyson Rd
▪ 52% A Street and/or B Street
• The majority of respondents live in either 94541 (46%) or 94544 (32%). • The majority of respondents were women (65%) and many were either age 35-44 (27%) or 45-64 (21%). • 82% of respondents were Hispanic or Latino.
• 53% have a household income of under $50,000.
• The majority of respondents do not identify as someone with a permanent disability (88%).

ATTACHMENT IV
310
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 17 City of Cupertino
Key themes from the open-ended text response questions, organized by study area, include:

A Street and/or B Street
• Homelessness & Safety Concerns: Many respondents expressed feeling unsafe due to the presence of homeless individuals, especially near parks, BART stations, and at night. • Lighting & Visibility: Respondents requested better street lighting and clearer traffic signals. • Traffic & Speed Control: Respondents shared frequent experiences observing perceived speeding, lack of respect for traffic signs. Requests for speed bumps were common. • Cleanliness & Maintenance: Respondents shared concerns about trash, potholes, and general street maintenance.
• Police Presence: Respondents called for more police patrols and quicker response times. • Pedestrian Safety: Respondents shared the need for safer crosswalks, especially for children and the elderly. • Bike & Bus Infrastructure: There was mixed feedback among respondents regarding support for bike lanes.

There were several requests for better bus service and stops.

Tennyson Road
• Traffic Safety: There were many comments about speeding, unsafe intersections, and the need for better enforcement.
• Lighting & Infrastructure: Respondents requested more lighting, especially near crosswalks and parks. • Homelessness & Cleanliness: Respondents shared concerns about aggressive behavior, trash, and the need for shelters.
• Police & Surveillance: Many respondents requested increased police presence and surveillance. • Pedestrian & Cyclist Safety: Respondents shared issues with crosswalks not being respected, and conflicts between cyclists, scooters, and pedestrians.
• Community Environment: Respondents wrote about about violence, vandalism, and the need for a safer, cleaner, and more family-friendly environment.

Key differences in the common themes between A Street and/or B Street and Tennyson Road were:
• A Street and/or B Street respondents shared more frequent concern about people’s safety and homelessness. • A Street and/or B Street also more frequently emphasized the need for general street improvements. • Tennyson respondents focused more on driver behavior, traffic flow, and congestion.

Summary of Emails
Key themes from the five emails submitted as public input are summarized below:
• One person wrote about their opposition to road diets and concerns about emergency response times. • One person wrote about their concern with pedestrian jaywalking and homelessness. • One person wrote about their concern with unsafe driving and racing on Tennyson Road. • Two personal accounts of close calls or collisions between pedestrians and vehicles.

ATTACHMENT IV
311
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 18 City of Cupertino
Appendix A: Outreach Materials
Figure 11. Project Overview Outreach Board

ATTACHMENT IV
312
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 19 City of Cupertino
Figure 12. A Street and B Street Outreach Board

ATTACHMENT IV
313
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 20 City of Cupertino
Figure 13. Tennyson Road Outreach Board

ATTACHMENT IV
314
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 21 City of Cupertino
Figure 14. Promotional Flyer, version 1

ATTACHMENT IV
315
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 22 City of Cupertino
Figure 15. Promotional Flyer, version 2

ATTACHMENT IV
316
1 Appendix B. Tennyson Road Survey Summary
A total of 432 surveys were collected between May 15-July 25, 2025. Of that total, 156 surveys were completed for Tennyson Road. Four surveys were not completed for a specific corridor. Questions 1, 7, and 8 are summarized in Appendix D.

Q2 - How I relate to the corridor Field Choice Count
I live on the corridor 47
I live 1 to 3 blocks away from the corridor 44
I shop on the corridor 38
I work on the corridor 23
I live elsewhere in Hayward 23
I go to school on the corridor 12
I live outside of Hayward 10
Total 143
Q3 - How I travel on/across this street - Selected Choice 156 Responses
Field Percentage of Responses
I drive 74%
I walk 58%
I take transit 9%
I ride a bike or scooter 6%
Other* 1%
*Other text responses indicated "NA"

ATTACHMENT IV
317
2 Q4 - How often I travel on this street
Field Choice Count
Every day 96
Once a week or more 41
A few times a month 15
A few times a year 4
I don't travel on this street 0
Total 156
Q5 - How safe I feel when traveling on this corridor
154 Responses
Very unsafe Unsafe Neutral Safe Very Safe
39 35
48 18
14 10
20 30
40 50
Choice Count

ATTACHMENT IV
318
3 Q6 - These barriers and safety challenges affect me the most (choose your top three priorities for this corridor, leaving the remaining barriers blank)
156 Responses
Field Percentage of Responses
New or safer crossings at intersections for people walking or biking 72% Slow drivers down 69%
Better street lighting 56%
Safer or more comfortable sidewalks 36%
Safer or more comfortable bike lanes 33%
Improvements for people with a disability 17%
Better/safer bus stops 13%

ATTACHMENT IV
319
4 Q9 - What is your ZIP code of residence? - Selected Choice Field Choice Count
94541 14
94544 104
94545* 20
94545* 3
Another zip code 9
Prefer not to respond 5
Total 155
*94545 has combined total of 23
Q9_5_TEXT - Another zip code - Text
Another zip code - Text
94546
94587
94601
94605
94546
94542
94560
94603
94601

ATTACHMENT IV
320
5 Q10 - How do you describe your gender? - Selected Choice 153 Responses
2 96
55 Prefer not to respond Other Non-binary Woman Male
Q11 - How old are you?
155 Responses
Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 and older Prefer not to respond
6 13
27 44
31 21
12 1
20 40
60 Choice Count

ATTACHMENT IV
321
6 Q12 - With which racial or ethnic group(s) do you identify? - Selected Choice
154 Responses
Hispanic or Latino(a) White or Caucasian
Black or African American
Asian or Pacific Islander
Prefer not to respond
Multiracial
American Indian or Native ...

Middle Eastern
Afghani
Other (please specify)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
120
3 8
20 6
1 0
0 0
0 Choice Count
Q13 - What is your household income?
154 Responses
Under $50,000
$50,000-$74,999
$75,000-$99,999
$100,000-$200,000
Over $200,000
Prefer not to respond
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Choice Count

ATTACHMENT IV
322
7 Q14 - What language(s) do you speak at home? - Selected Choice 152 Responses
Spanish
English
Prefer not to respond
Tagalog
Other (please specify)
Mandarin
Vietnamese
0 20 40 60 80 100
111
87 2
6 4
2 0
Choice Count
Q14_6_TEXT - Other (please specify) - Text
Other (please specify) - Text

CANTONES
arabic
Burmese
Q15 - Do you identify as someone who has a permanent disability? 154 Responses
4 134
16 Prefer not to respond No Yes

ATTACHMENT IV
323
1 Appendix C. A Street & B Street Survey Summary
A total of 432 surveys were collected between May 15-July 25, 2025. Of that total, 272 surveys were completed for A and B Street. Four surveys were not completed for a specific corridor. Questions 1, 7, and 8 are summarized in Appendix D.

Q2 - How I relate to the corridor Field Choice Count
I live on the corridor 88
I shop on the corridor 70
I live 1 to 3 blocks away from the corridor 49
I live elsewhere in Hayward 34
I work on the corridor 21
I live outside of Hayward 20
I go to school on the corridor 13
Total 233
Q3 - How I travel on/across this street - Selected Choice 272 Responses
Field Percentage of Responses
I drive 67%
I walk 53%
I take transit 8%
I ride a bike or scooter 6%
Other 1%
Q3_5_TEXT - Other - Text
Other - Text
I walk my dog

ATTACHMENT IV
324
2 Q4 - How often I travel on this street
Field Choice Count
Every day 166
Once a week or more 81
A few times a month 13
A few times a year 11
I don't travel on this street 0
Total 271
Q5 - How safe I feel when traveling on this corridor
272 Responses
Very unsafe Unsafe Neutral Safe Very Safe
41 70
81 55
25 20
40 60
80 100
Choice Count

ATTACHMENT IV
325
3 Q6 - These barriers and safety challenges affect me the most (choose your top three priorities for this corridor, leaving the remaining barriers blank)
270 Responses
Field Percentage of Responses
New or safer crossings at intersections for people walking or biking 66% Slow drivers down 65%
Better street lighting 52%
Safer or more comfortable bike lanes 36%
Safer or more comfortable sidewalks 32%
Improvements for people with a disability 25%
Better/safer bus stops 17%

ATTACHMENT IV
326
4 Q9 - What is your ZIP code of residence? - Selected Choice Field Choice Count
94541 185
94544 29
94545* 15
94545* 4
Another zip code 28
Prefer not to respond 11
Total 272
*94545 has combined total of 19
Summary of the 28 "Another zip code responses":
94580 (7)
94578 (5)
94542 (3)
94546 (2)
94577 (2)
94603 (2)
04603
94554
94601
94607
94610
94804
NA

ATTACHMENT IV
327
5 Q10 - How do you describe your gender? - Selected Choice 270 Responses
1 1
178
90 Prefer not to respond Other Non-binary Woman Male
Q11 - How old are you?
272 Responses
Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 and older Prefer not to respond
9 21
48 74
60 29 29
2 20
40 60
80 Choice Count

ATTACHMENT IV
328
6 Q12 - With which racial or ethnic group(s) do you identify? - Selected Choice
271 Responses
Hispanic or Latino(a) White or Caucasian
Black or African American
Asian or Pacific Islander
Prefer not to respond
Multiracial
American Indian or Native ...

Middle Eastern
Afghani
Other (please specify)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
231
20 12
11 3
1 1
1 1
0 Choice Count
Q13 - What is your household income?
271 Responses
Under $50,000
$50,000-$74,999
$75,000-$99,999
$100,000-$200,000
Over $200,000
Prefer not to respond
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Choice Count

ATTACHMENT IV
329
7 Q14 - What language(s) do you speak at home? - Selected Choice 272 Responses
Spanish
English
Prefer not to respond
Tagalog
Other (please specify)
Mandarin
Vietnamese
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
205
181
4 4
3 2
0 Choice Count
Q14_6_TEXT - Other (please specify) - Text
Other (please specify) - Text
cantonese
Portugues
Cantonese
Q15 - Do you identify as someone who has a permanent disability? 271 Responses
4 242
25 Prefer not to respond No Yes

ATTACHMENT IV
330
Q1: Select if this is for
Q7: What is the single most important improvement you would like to see to make these streets safer?
Q8: Do you have anything else to share?
1 A Street and/or B Street More light at night, less homeless people. Less traffic. 2 A Street and/or B Street
Safer crossings at intersections for people walking. Way too many drivers speeding & not yielding to pedestrians. I would like to see more of the yellow signage with flashing lights just link the ones in front of McDonalds on West A St.

Some of your bus drivers don't pick up passengers after dark, or after 6 to 7pm. Monitor them and fire them for not pick up passengers 3 A Street and/or B Street
police presence during rush hour. My family lived in this corridor for 50+ yrs & we walk daily to grocery stores/farmers market, restaurants/fast foods, cannery park for Little League/picnics, banks, library, Copy Pacific, city hall to pay bills/visit art gallery, library, All Saints church, Century theatre & BART. Some of us drive to Business Costco, Target, Southland, Home Depot, gas station & BofA (since they closed A St office) using this corridor, Hesperian Blvd & Mission Blvd.
4 A Street and/or B Street
Speed control
Street lights
5 A Street and/or B Street safe walking sidwalks
6 A Street and/or B Street More street lighting No
7 A Street and/or B Street
More traffic lights That homeless people have places to go, because I feel unsafe with their presence.
8 A Street and/or B Street
Cameras at traffic lights, but not the kind that sends photos, but rather to catch those who are going at high speed.
9 A Street and/or B Street
Outdoor activities for young people and families to spend time together no 10 A Street and/or B Street More security, police officers watching the area. Better street lighting. 11 A Street and/or B Street
Wider streets
Safe crossings
Speed control
12 A Street and/or B Street
more streetlights Drivers need to be more respectful towards the school bus. Please 13 A Street and/or B Street less homeless, for security be more police presence. the cars need to slow down speed 14 A Street and/or B Street
more lighting at night. at parking on the street, there are too much for industrial, but we need more for the community residents.
15 A Street and/or B Street more public lighting, more bus stops. cars to slow down 16 A Street and/or B Street in my opinion I think this is good. we need help to be safer. 17 A Street and/or B Street
More surveillance, police care
More police presence
Light signals at intersections.
18 A Street and/or B Street better street lighting bike lines affect the traffic. 19 A Street and/or B Street Better lighting Security
20 A Street and/or B Street More traffic lights on the streets no no 21 A Street and/or B Street The most is the light. on the streets. no 22 A Street and/or B Street In my opinion, I think it's better to improve in the speed bumps 23 A Street and/or B Street speed bumps stop signs
24 A Street and/or B Street Lights and people to respect. 25 A Street and/or B Street More surveillance so that students feel safer walking on A St. More speed bumps to reduce speed. 26 A Street and/or B Street They should put speed meters To reduce the speed limit. 27 A Street and/or B Street
put more speed bumps to reduce the speed of cars. more security, police monitoring, especially during school hours. 28 A Street and/or B Street Crosswalk signals Bike lanes. 29 A Street and/or B Street
They should put up more speed bumps and thus reduce the speed. no 30 A Street and/or B Street
More security during school hours. I would like more police presence to ensure that the rules are followed. 31 A Street and/or B Street Safe and visible crossings. More surveillance because there is vandalism. 32 A Street and/or B Street speed bumps
33 A Street and/or B Street more police presence. fix streetlights 34 A Street and/or B Street Better signs, more traffic lights. homeless help! 35 A Street and/or B Street
reduce the speed limit for the school zone and add more speed bumps. people drive very fast, down A St. 36 A Street and/or B Street fix potholes. not really.
37 A Street and/or B Street
More police or surveillance
Many homeless and they are often very aggressive.
38 A Street and/or B Street slow driving. N/A
39 A Street and/or B Street
making a way to keep drivers alerted of their surroundings at all times.

Appendix D. Survey Written Responses

ATTACHMENT IV
331
Q1: Select if this is for
Q7: What is the single most important improvement you would like to see to make these streets safer?
Q8: Do you have anything else to share?
40 A Street and/or B Street better street lighting no
41 A Street and/or B Street More surveillance. There are many homeless people. 42 A Street and/or B Street
More lighting near bart They should do something to reduce the number of homeless people. 43 A Street and/or B Street speed bumps at each corner do something to avoid car donuts 44 A Street and/or B Street speed bump in every corner do something to avoid donuts in the street 45 A Street and/or B Street put bumpers at every corner they should control the number of turns or girls on street corners 46 A Street and/or B Street more speed bump find the way how to estop donuts 47 A Street and/or B Street more street lights for people could feel more safe no 48 A Street and/or B Street less homeless during downtown event more traffic control 49 A Street and/or B Street more surveillance for more security insecurity is felt with the presence of homeless people 50 A Street and/or B Street
more street lights I believe to make a street saver the people lives there should take the iniciative like help the pedatrians obey the rule
51 A Street and/or B Street
more police surveillance streets without much light are very unsafe and the presence of so many homeless people causes a lot of insecurity.
52 A Street and/or B Street I feel safe
53 A Street and/or B Street lights and police people do not respect traffic signals 54 A Street and/or B Street security cars go by too fast 55 A Street and/or B Street
more cleaning
too many homeless people
more lighting
56 A Street and/or B Street leaser traffic along with traffic flow I feel as if there's to many traffic light 57 A Street and/or B Street
more crossing signs
more lights
more security
58 A Street and/or B Street more police officers more lights on the streets 59 A Street and/or B Street
more lights
security
60 A Street and/or B Street
flashing lights
more attention at crossings
61 A Street and/or B Street less intolerance W/the business owner/employees 62 A Street and/or B Street This person was in a laundry and was attacked by an armed man. More police attention for the community 63 A Street and/or B Street Help old people no
64 A Street and/or B Street More traffic signs Many homeless people leaving trash everywhere. 65 A Street and/or B Street Drivers to reduce speed More security and police surveillance. 66 A Street and/or B Street slowers cars trash pick up
67 A Street and/or B Street
his son was beaten nearly to death by delinquents when he left Chavez School.

Police surveillance is not very efficient; when they are called, they arrive up to 40 minutes later.
68 A Street and/or B Street More lights to feel safer fix bus stop better 69 A Street and/or B Street
Provide accessible and continuous sidewalks The number of homeles seen to lower but they sleep at bus stations. 70 A Street and/or B Street more police presence, please more crosswalks 71 A Street and/or B Street
Cleaner streets sometimes homeless people are very aggressive and disturb the community
72 A Street and/or B Street More traffic lights.
73 A Street and/or B Street More safe pedestrian crossings/ more lighting 74 A Street and/or B Street More security in shopping centers, especially in parking lots. no 75 A Street and/or B Street New paint/bike lanes Maintained street cleaning Ness of landscape & big difference 76 A Street and/or B Street More security, more police presence. Streets are dirty. 77 A Street and/or B Street Better street lighting. Pruning of trees to improve street lighting. traffic signals that work all the time. 78 A Street and/or B Street
Better keep up,
make if cleaner.

Lots of crime in area
79 A Street and/or B Street Clean streets.
80 A Street and/or B Street
Help for the homeless
safety for pedestrians
81 A Street and/or B Street On A St near McDonald's they don't respect the pedestrian light more flashing pedestrian crossings are needed 82 A Street and/or B Street Repair of pedestrian crossings safer pedestrian crossings. 83 A Street and/or B Street
Repair the pavement on A St St. passing Santa Clara St. there are many holes.

A St is dangerous for bicyclists.
84 A Street and/or B Street
Homeless Cleanup Better street lighting
85 A Street and/or B Street
improve the pavement on A St. and pay more attention to fixing the camera lights.
many drug addicts are seen and vandalize cars a lot

ATTACHMENT IV
332
Q1: Select if this is for
Q7: What is the single most important improvement you would like to see to make these streets safer?
Q8: Do you have anything else to share?
86 A Street and/or B Street
Improve street lighting I see many people on the streets under the influence of substances, I would like the city to do something about it to eliminate this because it is a bad example for the community.
87 A Street and/or B Street more crossings for people put speed bumps to slow down the cars 88 A Street and/or B Street
Fine people who throw a lot of garbage on the streets the avenue looks very ugly with a lot of garbage 89 A Street and/or B Street A St. passing the Costco needs pavement repair a lot of garbage and a lot of homeles 90 A Street and/or B Street a lot of drug addicts
91 A Street and/or B Street Street improvements and repairs 92 A Street and/or B Street The cars need slow down
93 A Street and/or B Street Put speed bumps to reduce speed more signs for pedestrians 94 A Street and/or B Street The intersection of A St and Mission Blvd is very dangerous 95 A Street and/or B Street
A St is a very unsafe street due to the high number of homeless people. more speed limit sings 96 A Street and/or B Street there are many homeless people on the street pay more attention to make more shelters for the homeless 97 A Street and/or B Street
Drivers slow down. Safety for students, because drivers do not respect when they are crossing the street.
98 A Street and/or B Street More police surveillance of the homeless. repair the streets of the holes and traffic lights. 99 A Street and/or B Street Speed bumps Put more electric lighting on the streets. 100 A Street and/or B Street More police presence, especially at night. 101 A Street and/or B Street
Many homeless people living and sleeping on the streets and doing their business without caring who can see them, that causes a lot of insecurity.

A Street has many potholes in the pavement
102 A Street and/or B Street
keep more cleanliness and put more light bulbs so that it is not too dark more help for the elderly 103 A Street and/or B Street more police patrol. trafic lights 104 A Street and/or B Street more cleanliness in the sidewalks of the street more garbage cans and respect for pedestrians. 105 A Street and/or B Street More traffic lights.
106 A Street and/or B Street More cleanliness Help for the homeless. 107 A Street and/or B Street
The bus pass more often, the bus less expence. More bus going to the Mall. 108 A Street and/or B Street
The bus should go to Sunset Adult School, and Bart, and Southland Mall. 109 A Street and/or B Street more traffic signal, traffic control. no 110 A Street and/or B Street
a delay when the light change- in case strangers or people quick to go. 111 A Street and/or B Street
Traffic is always backed up. I feel unsafe on A Street, especially when I have to turn into Mission.

I hate the lop still kind
112 A Street and/or B Street
more lighting. Traffic signals should be timed, It takes forever to drive around down town.

I avoid going there when possible.
113 A Street and/or B Street Respect crosswalks, speed, homeless 114 A Street and/or B Street clean up garbage
115 A Street and/or B Street Changing one-way streets.
116 A Street and/or B Street lighting
117 A Street and/or B Street tratic, improvements, repair of streets 118 A Street and/or B Street put more traffic signals
119 A Street and/or B Street No homeless people
120 A Street and/or B Street more securty, more police prepuce N/A 121 A Street and/or B Street lower the speed limit
122 A Street and/or B Street police patrol hayward is a beautiful place keep it safe 123 A Street and/or B Street shining lights
124 A Street and/or B Street safer sidewalks
125 A Street and/or B Street no druks drivers
126 A Street and/or B Street slow down traffic and more better traffic flow 127 A Street and/or B Street bickers not to be an umpadiment 128 A Street and/or B Street keep the bus schedule on time

ATTACHMENT IV
333
Q1: Select if this is for
Q7: What is the single most important improvement you would like to see to make these streets safer?
Q8: Do you have anything else to share?
129 A Street and/or B Street
The second of A by Second is a crooked disaster; I saw someone hit in a crosswalk the other day (the one with flashing lights) on the lead up to it.

The lanes don't go straight, people go straight from the left hand turn lane on Second, and I've already been hit there on my way home from work by someone doing so. The lanes are faded, the road is pitted, and the entire area when you come down through Castro Valley towards Second and beyond is simply a mess. Everything worked better before the loop was created...I remember it clearly.
130 A Street and/or B Street
Help with congestion. Lots of people get stuck at the intersections and sometimes block crosswalks.
131 A Street and/or B Street
Move food vendors from the sidewalks so they don't obstruct traffic or the bike lane.

More shelter for the homeless
132 A Street and/or B Street
Mental health/ homeless
133 A Street and/or B Street More lighting like to see more patrols 134 A Street and/or B Street
more space is needed in the streets for walking in the streets, especially for those sellers with so little space to pass.
135 A Street and/or B Street More safety in the evenings 136 A Street and/or B Street law enforcement I'll add comments to the map. 137 A Street and/or B Street
Slow cars down with more enforcement. It is only a matter of time before a person gets hurt or killed on A Street, again.
138 A Street and/or B Street better tratfic lights pedestrian and bike streets would be more friendly 139 A Street and/or B Street more bumps in neighborhoods to slow down need drivers to slow down 140 A Street and/or B Street more lighting safety
141 A Street and/or B Street more supporting and safe for people 142 A Street and/or B Street More marking of bike lanes to make the division more visible 143 A Street and/or B Street SLOW DOWN TRAFFIC CARS ARE GOIN TO WRONG 144 A Street and/or B Street safe drivers to prohibit making donuts on the streets 145 A Street and/or B Street MORE SURVEILLANCE FOR STREET SIGNS PEOPLE ARE DRIVING TOO FAST 146 A Street and/or B Street there are many holes in the streets crossings for people 147 A Street and/or B Street MAKE THE MORE ACCESSIBLE AND SAFER FOR DISABLED PEOPLE NOT AT THE MOMENT 148 A Street and/or B Street SPEED BUMPS A LOT A PEOPLE DRIVE FAST NO 149 A Street and/or B Street make speed limet 30 mph fix the pot hayes and makie bike lames 150 A Street and/or B Street more safety
151 A Street and/or B Street

FIX THE POTHOLES AND MAKE THE CROSSING LANES FOR PEDESTRIANS BETTER
152 A Street and/or B Street more lighting more safety more security 153 A Street and/or B Street SLOW TRAFFIC
154 A Street and/or B Street Slowing down drivers Cleaner A street, better road conditions 155 A Street and/or B Street More lighting and control of homeless people More control with people at bart station. 156 A Street and/or B Street Better street lighting no
157 A Street and/or B Street
more lights/visibility for walkers something needs to be done to reduce garbage/ misuse of open spaces/ encampments
158 A Street and/or B Street
street lighting with clearer lighting on poles more police surveillance cleaning of the streets so that you do not see a lot of garbage 159 A Street and/or B Street Street markings, streetlights, police surveillance, street cleaning There is a lot of homeless, cleaning of parks and streets. 160 A Street and/or B Street
Make the streets safer to ensure that they make the necessary improvements, especially for people with disabilities
161 A Street and/or B Street
More patrols at all hours please provide more security near B Street where Bart is taken and around Luckys stire.
162 A Street and/or B Street Fix uneven Streets I would like A St to go back ways street 163 A Street and/or B Street
Street markings, streetlights, police surveillance, and truck cleaning Cleanup of the park next to the schools, more cleanup, safe flashlights for pedestrians, additional streets for bicycles with security. 164 A Street and/or B Street
The Hayward bookstore has been beautifully renovated and even has a security guard inside.

However, outside at the entrance of the bookstore there are young people doing drugs and that is very unsafe and the security guard should be placed there for the safety of the community.
165 A Street and/or B Street Repairing pedestrian crossings. 166 A Street and/or B Street
Safe bicycle crossings and dismissal surveillance at Burbank High School. On B Street there is a lot of insecurity, there are people living in their cars and at night they go out and do bad things, I personally do not feel safe and I have heard that people have died at the end of B Street, please more surveillance and more light at night.

ATTACHMENT IV
334
Q1: Select if this is for
Q7: What is the single most important improvement you would like to see to make these streets safer?
Q8: Do you have anything else to share?
167 A Street and/or B Street better street lighting.
168 A Street and/or B Street Street improvements.
169 A Street and/or B Street
THE PARK ON B ST. YOU SEE A LOT OF GANG MEMBERS AND A LOT OF

VIOLENCE AMONG THEM

THIS CAUSES INSECURITY FOR THOSE WHO LIVE NEAR THE PARK ALONG B STREET.
170 A Street and/or B Street

THE CARS OR DRIVERS DO NOT RESPECT THE STOP SIGNS A LOT OF FEAR OF HOMELESS PEOPLE BECAUSE SOME OF THEM ARE VERY AGGRESSIVE.
171 A Street and/or B Street
NEAR GRANT STREET AND B "ST STREET THEY FIGHT AND SHOUT A LOT THE HOMELESS PEOPLE.

IT DOES NOT FEEL VERY SAFE TO WALK ALONG B "ST STREET AND THE GRANT, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT GETS DARK.
172 A Street and/or B Street

IN CANNERY PARK IN THE AFTERNOONS SEVERAL DRUG ADDICTS GATHER THERE

THE DRIVERS DRIVE VERY HARD, IT IS WORRYING BECAUSE I TAKE CARE OF

AN ELDERLY PERSON AND IT IS SCARY THAT THEY DO NOT RESPECT THE CROSSING.
173 A Street and/or B Street

IN ADDITION TO DRIVING VERY HARD AND NOT RESPECTING THE CROSSWALKS THEY PASS BY BURNING TIRES.

I HOPE THAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE MADE ON THESE STREETS, A AND B

STREETS, TO LIVE IN A HEALTHIER ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR FAMILIES 174 A Street and/or B Street
Please clean up more. I'm very concerned about the trash. I feel unsafe around homeless people walking down the street, because they look like they are on drugs.

On B Street and Filbert, I haveve noticed cars reaching girls most of the time. There is also a lot of dog poop on the streets. My neighbors have told me that their packages of things they order online are often stolen. There is a lot of crime on B Street. My husband feels very unsafe when he goes out at night to walk my dog.
175 A Street and/or B Street
There should be more security, that the lines of traffic on the streets be repainted.

The sidewalks should be kept cleaner, because they look bad. 176 A Street and/or B Street Crossing guards, street signs, more pathways. Streets are a bit compact for safe biking. 177 A Street and/or B Street

PUT FLASHING LIGHTS AT CROSSINGS FOR PEOPLE IF BUMPS WERE PLACED WHEN APPROACHING A CROSSWALK, DRIVERS WOULD SLOW DOWN AND MANY ACCIDENTS COULD BE AVOIDED.
178 A Street and/or B Street Better lighting, police patrol. N/A 179 A Street and/or B Street

MORE SAFE CROSSINGS FOR ELDERLY PEOPLE WHO CAN'T WALK VERY FAST, PLEASE THINK ABOUT OUR ELDERLY.

TO BE STRICTER WITH DRIVERS WHO DO NOT RESPECT SPEED SIGNS. 180 A Street and/or B Street N/A IDK
181 A Street and/or B Street If people would drive a little slower. no 182 A Street and/or B Street The walking and stopping lights. 183 A Street and/or B Street wider lanes with clear/ safer crossing 184 A Street and/or B Street
Cannery Park is a family park, but there are a lot of homeless people and kids smoking marijuana, which looks very bad.

It is a danger for children to play there.
185 A Street and/or B Street safer crossings for elderly people lanes for electric skates; they are needed 186 A Street and/or B Street BETTER STREET LIGHT NO
187 A Street and/or B Street SAFER CROSSWALK MORE LIGHTING BETWEEN ALICE ST AND BST 188 A Street and/or B Street SLOWDOWN DRIVERS NO
189 A Street and/or B Street SLOW DOWN DRIVERS MANY ACCIDENTS ARE SEEN ALONG ALICE ST. AND B ST. 190 A Street and/or B Street
I LIVE ON B ST STREET PEOPLE HAVE HAD THEIR CAR WINDOWS BROKEN AND TOOLS STOLEN. 191 A Street and/or B Street more lights and more cops. none 192 A Street and/or B Street better lights on the streets more cops patrolling, especially at night. 193 A Street and/or B Street
more lighting speed bumps, more neighborhood meetings/neighborhood watch 194 A Street and/or B Street I would like to see the street more cleaner. no 195 A Street and/or B Street Clean streets and better protection. 196 A Street and/or B Street more protection and need to be more clean areas. none 197 A Street and/or B Street more people to be watching over the street to keep us safe not at the moment 198 A Street and/or B Street More security for people who are walking, and respect for people. I would like them to comply and make changes. 199 A Street and/or B Street
to have more security with the presence of the police, more vigilance in the park.
200 A Street and/or B Street
that there be more vigilance in the park, because sometimes they are selling drugs.
201 A Street and/or B Street
Find housing and support for the homeless, mental services for them. 202 A Street and/or B Street
They need to have more control over people going on street, especially with the homeless.

I feel not safe with so many people living on streets.
203 A Street and/or B Street there is too much insecurity going to the park, especially at night. we need more police patrol. 204 A Street and/or B Street that there be speed bumps, so that drivers reduce their speed. 205 A Street and/or B Street
Surveillance for cars to make them stop, to put speed bumps to slow them down.

ATTACHMENT IV
335
Q1: Select if this is for
Q7: What is the single most important improvement you would like to see to make these streets safer?
Q8: Do you have anything else to share?
206 A Street and/or B Street pediastrisars crossing for people to be safe 207 A Street and/or B Street
more vigilance from the police because there are aggressive homeless people.

More lighting at night.
208 A Street and/or B Street clean the street there is a lot of garbage 209 A Street and/or B Street street cleaning mostly around the bart station. 210 A Street and/or B Street more lighting
211 A Street and/or B Street [ared] dogs
212 A Street and/or B Street I don't feel safe because of the people living on the streets 213 A Street and/or B Street girls in the evenings
214 A Street and/or B Street eliminate homeless people
215 A Street and/or B Street better street lighting i would like a safer bus stop because a lot of them are very unsafe 216 A Street and/or B Street Street repairs
217 A Street and/or B Street
more lighting more security at the intersection where people walk 218 A Street and/or B Street MORE STOP SING NO
219 A Street and/or B Street STOP SING/SLOWER LIMIT MORE PARKS 220 A Street and/or B Street STOP SING/SLOWING DOWN
221 A Street and/or B Street
that something be done to reduce the large number of homeless people there are so many homeless people that it is not even possible to tell if they are drug addicts among them
222 A Street and/or B Street SAFETY NO
223 A Street and/or B Street MORE POLICE SURVEILLANCE IS URGENTLY NEEDED POST SIGNS TO LOOK OUT FOR EACH OTHER AS NEIGHBORS 224 A Street and/or B Street

TO HELP PREVENT CAR THEFT AND VANDALISM IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS.

SIGNS IN NEIGHBORHOODS TO LOOK OUT FOR EACH OTHER AS

NEIGHBORS
225 A Street and/or B Street

ADD SPEED BUMPS TO REDUCE DRIVERS' SPEED BETTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHTS, ESPECIALLY WHEN TURNING INTO A STREET.
226 A Street and/or B Street INSTALL SPEED BUMPS TO REDUCE SPEED ADD MORE TRAFFIC LIGHTS 227 A Street and/or B Street MORE SAFETY ON THE STREETS 228 A Street and/or B Street MORE PUBLICITY ON SAFETY BETTER SIGNAL FOR PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS 229 A Street and/or B Street
TRAFFIC LIGHTS AND STOP SIGNS ARE TOO FAR APART AND DRIVERS DO NOT RESPECT THE SIGNALS AND DRIVE TOO FAST. 230 A Street and/or B Street

TO PUT UP SLOWER DRIVING SIGNS, TO MAKE IT SAFER FOR CHILDREN WALKING HOME FROM SCHOOL.

MORE SPEED BUMPS NEAR SCHOOLS TO MAKE DRIVERS RESPECT SPEED

LIMITS AND CHILDREN'S CROSSINGS
231 A Street and/or B Street

THERE ARE MANY HOMELESS PEOPLE ON A STREET, SO THEY DO
NOT FEEL SAFE.

PLEASE PUT MORE CROSSWALKS WITH FLASHING LIGHTS WHEN PEOPLE CROSS
232 A Street and/or B Street Better bicycle signage. Better street lighting. 233 A Street and/or B Street Pedestrian crossing lights. Let the lanes be divided, so that the bicycle lanes are safer. 234 A Street and/or B Street More police surveillance.
235 A Street and/or B Street
More police presence.

They should put speed bumps so drivers slow down.
236 Tennyson Road Fewer homeless people and reduced speed limits for drivers. Traffic signs in pedestrian zones. 237 Tennyson Road More lighting
238 Tennyson Road more surveillance
239 Tennyson Road more surveillance
240 Tennyson Road Better lights and cross walks no
241 Tennyson Road Slowing down drivers
242 Tennyson Road
find a way to slow drivers down and make them be aware of their surroundings.

No
243 Tennyson Road more police patrol for street racing. no 244 Tennyson Road more traffic lights. no
245 Tennyson Road more lighting and more visible signage. 246 Tennyson Road
more lighting for pedestrians and a traffic light to warn them to cross the street.
more lighting.
247 Tennyson Road to make the streets safer no
248 Tennyson Road Driving more carefully no
249 Tennyson Road
pedestrian crosswalks plus lighting. The bus stops are very unsafe.

Listen to the residents, really listen to their needs.
250 Tennyson Road better street lighting. no
251 Tennyson Road that there be more police presence.
252 Tennyson Road
to improve street lighting. Cyclists should not use the sidewalks. People using scooters (electric scooters) have knocked down pedestrians while using the sidewalks. 253 Tennyson Road traffic safety, and that drivers respect traffic signs and signals. no

ATTACHMENT IV
336
Q1: Select if this is for
Q7: What is the single most important improvement you would like to see to make these streets safer?
Q8: Do you have anything else to share?
254 Tennyson Road
more pedestrian crossings To pay more attention because the only pedestrian crossing on W Tennyson has not been fixed.
255 Tennyson Road
In the nearby shops there are many men drinking and there is a lot of violence between them.
the crosswalk is useless and cars do not respect pedestrians 256 Tennyson Road The cars do not respect the traffic light do something to stop the violence on the street 257 Tennyson Road
More surveillance
Faster response when the police are called
please more crosswalk signs along W Tennyson Rd.
258 Tennyson Road
the pedestrian crossing is not being respected more policemen watching, since there is a lot of insecurity due to the many homeless people who fight in the streets.
259 Tennyson Road
More proper enforcement on loiters, and those who disturb the peace.

I am concerned about the needs that homeless people may have. 260 Tennyson Road
more lighting and less homeless. These streets are unsafe and at times very dangerous! We need to clean up and enforce Tennyson Rd.
261 Tennyson Road more police, better street lights, cleaner streets. no 262 Tennyson Road more police patrol and presence, cleaner streets. 263 Tennyson Road more speed enforcement. none
264 Tennyson Road monitoring the speed. cleaner streets specially near parks. 265 Tennyson Road more public light, more police presence. 266 Tennyson Road
Drivers to reduce and respect speed. Signals should work when pedestrians want to cross.

I like that they have fixed the bike lanes, it gives security. I see that the bus stops have been fixed.
267 Tennyson Road
Crosswalks should be in operation at all times and drivers should respect the signals.

Pedestrian crosswalks only work in summer.
268 Tennyson Road More traffic lights, more lights. Near the schools there are not enough traffic lights. 269 Tennyson Road Drivers to reduce their speed. no.
270 Tennyson Road More police presence.
271 Tennyson Road
There should be more police surveillance, drivers should reduce their speed, and respect pedestrians.

I have seen that drivers do not respect pedestrians.
272 Tennyson Road More surveillance, let the patrols be on watch. there should be more crosswalks. 273 Tennyson Road More police surveillance.
274 Tennyson Road
install speed limit meters They should work on creating homes for the homeless, as there are many on the streets.
275 Tennyson Road to repair the only pedestrian crosswalk More crossings for pedestrians are needed. 276 Tennyson Road more police officers watching/passing by W Tennyson Rd. There is too much vandalism on W Tennyson Rd. 277 Tennyson Road
there is a lot of homeless people urinating in the street. I think it's a very unsafe avenue for teens and adults. Some homeless people are aggressive.
278 Tennyson Road do not respect the pedestrian crosswalk light Please, put in more pedestrian crossings. 279 Tennyson Road the cars to slow down and respect when crossing the lights 280 Tennyson Road
safety yellow light every pedestrian thank you for caring about making good changes for the entire community 281 Tennyson Road more speed meters, because they go at high speed. Drivers do not respect the cyclists' lane. 282 Tennyson Road Security guards monitoring the streets 283 Tennyson Road more security They should put in more police surveillance. 284 Tennyson Road more surveillance
285 Tennyson Road more surveillance we want more security 286 Tennyson Road Speed bumps More surveillance
287 Tennyson Road more pedestrian crossings with lights more police security 288 Tennyson Road
police take too long to arrive when an incident or accident happens more public security and homeless shelters 289 Tennyson Road police a lot of crime in W Tennyson Rd 290 Tennyson Road traffic lights are not respected more police surveillance 291 Tennyson Road More civil security (surveillance) Pedestrian crossing signs. 292 Tennyson Road Speed meters would help a lot The cars pass by at high speed. 293 Tennyson Road
I want to safer place here because lot of homeless people was fighting and we aren't feel safe when we are walking with children
Lot of shooting happened here please more police take a time to help people around
294 Tennyson Road bicycle and e-scooter lanes Food vendors obstruct the bicycle lane 295 Tennyson Road more police surveillance do something to reduce the number of homeless 296 Tennyson Road
Cleaner streets, no homeless, more trashcans, more police officers, partaking traffic cameras to make it safer.

Convert underused/ inactive spaces into pedestrian plazas 297 Tennyson Road more crossings to turn on the lights for pedestrians to pass more public safety surveillance 298 Tennyson Road more police surveillance more street lighting please 299 Tennyson Road More light at cress walks especially at big intersections Add more streetlights, navigability at night very unsafe.

ATTACHMENT IV
337
Q1: Select if this is for
Q7: What is the single most important improvement you would like to see to make these streets safer?
Q8: Do you have anything else to share?
300 Tennyson Road
There are many homeless people on the street and they leave a lot of garbage on the sidewalks.
cars drive by very fast and do not respect motorcyclists 301 Tennyson Road
control of homeless people because when there are too many, there is a feeling of insecurity.
safer crossings for pedestrians
302 Tennyson Road
More security, because there are many car thefts (car parts), cleaner streets because there is a lot of garbage.
lane lines to be more visible (need to be painted).
303 Tennyson Road more lighting, cops need to more present. 304 Tennyson Road less traffic
305 Tennyson Road Better lighting, more speed signs.
306 Tennyson Road Security in the streets.
307 Tennyson Road Try not to have too many cars during rush hour. 308 Tennyson Road better streetlights
309 Tennyson Road
In the space from Huntwood to where it kicks up to 35mph as you head to Patrick, start slowing people down to the 25mph they are supposed to be going. I see drivers each day not stopping at the flashing crosswalk by the ice cream shop, and people constantly speed at 35mph+. The area has too much going on for people to be going that fast. Past Huntwood to Mission, however, the 25mph zone is odd and useless. It was fine as it was. It's also a shame the police substation left this area.
310 Tennyson Road Potosless fixed N/A
311 Tennyson Road NOT AS MUCH DRUNKS DRIVER
312 Tennyson Road LESS HOMELES ON THE STREERS
313 Tennyson Road CLEAN UP NEIBORHOOD CLEAN UO STREET
314 Tennyson Road SAFETY AT CROSSWALKS
315 Tennyson Road MORE SPEED BUMPS SAFER SIDEWALKS FOR PEDESTRIANS 316 Tennyson Road SAFE,CLEAN AND WALKABLE FOR STUDENTS MANY FAMILIES AND STUDENTS WALK THIS AREA AND IT BE SAFER 317 Tennyson Road CLEANER STREET
318 Tennyson Road CLEAN MORE
319 Tennyson Road

SURVEILLANCE OUTSIDE CHAVEZ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND TENNYSON

HIGH SCHOOL
320 Tennyson Road MORE LIGHTING AND ALSO MORE CROSSWALKS FOR PEOPLE THERE IS VERY LITTLE SECURITY AS THERE ARE MANY PEDESTRIANS 321 Tennyson Road MORE SURVEILLANCE WE WANT MORE SECURITY 322 Tennyson Road slow drivers down, better crosswalk lighting love that improvement are being made 323 Tennyson Road safe streets, lights on crosswalk parenent the car on huntwood continue to be hit becasue of bikelines 324 Tennyson Road safe streets cars are always being hit on huntwood 325 Tennyson Road

TENNYSON TURNS ISLANDS CAUSE WIDE TURNS AND PRONE TO

ACCIDENTS
326 Tennyson Road more supporting more safety for people be nice to each other because life is short. 327 Tennyson Road slowdown trafic because their are crazy drivers 328 Tennyson Road SPEED CONTROL
329 Tennyson Road

TENNYSON TURNS ISLANDS CAUSE WIDE TURNS AND PRONE TO

ACCIDENTS
330 Tennyson Road Better/clearer/safe bike lane/ walkways 331 Tennyson Road SPEED CONTROL
332 Tennyson Road MORE PUBLIC SAFETY SAFE CROSSINGS FOR PEOPLE 333 Tennyson Road traffic enforcement
334 Tennyson Road BETTER TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT
335 Tennyson Road SLOW DRIVERS
336 Tennyson Road Bike lanes and crossing of cars We normaly drive through its not safe when change lanes 337 Tennyson Road

THIS BIKE LINE BARRIERSON TENNYSON & HESPERIAN CAUSE TOO MUCH

TRAFFIC & ACCIDENTS
338 Tennyson Road The eticks that protect like lanes
339 Tennyson Road Better sidewalks
340 Tennyson Road MAKE MORE LIGHT POST NO
341 Tennyson Road Lighting with bike signals
342 Tennyson Road safe streets not at the moments
343 Tennyson Road to put speed meters more police surveillance 344 Tennyson Road at night you feel more insecure
345 Tennyson Road MORE POLICE CONTROL. THERE ARE DRIVERS SPEEDING. SAFER STREETS 346 Tennyson Road

CLEAN THE STREETS AND ENSURE THERE ARE NO DRUG ADDICTS
CIRCULATING THE STREETS. THEY ARE A DANGER.

TENNYSON STREET AND HUNTWOOD STREET ARE VERY DANGEROUS
347 Tennyson Road MANY ACCIDENTS ON TENNYSON STREET. THEY DRIVE VERY FAST ON THAT STREET.

ATTACHMENT IV
338
Q1: Select if this is for
Q7: What is the single most important improvement you would like to see to make these streets safer?
Q8: Do you have anything else to share?
348 Tennyson Road More order with street vendors Parked vehicles 349 Tennyson Road
Speed control on streets and avenues. That in Tennyson area shopping centers some informal businesses block the view or block bus stops.
350 Tennyson Road Fewer homeless people and drug addicts on the streets. 351 Tennyson Road Safer intersections and cross walks for pedestrians. 352 Tennyson Road more lights. more safe parking areas. 353 Tennyson Road
a little more sign to walk and the entrance or exists from the freeway to the streets.
354 Tennyson Road Yes, more security for the homeless. nothing, thank you. 355 Tennyson Road Security N/A
356 Tennyson Road Idk Idk
357 Tennyson Road N/A N/A
358 Tennyson Road people slowing down when they see a pedestrian. no 359 Tennyson Road add more IDK IDk
360 Tennyson Road Crosswalk and sidewalk improvements around the 880 overpass. 361 Tennyson Road more street lighting especially after South Hayward Point. The city should look into Silva St. 362 Tennyson Road more lighting
363 Tennyson Road Lamps, trash cans.
364 Tennyson Road
Walking safety. remove from the streets people who are dedicated to drinking alcohol and making groups.
365 Tennyson Road Homeless cleanup
366 Tennyson Road
MORE POLICE PATROL THEY PARK ON HARVEY ST. AND PEOPLE DRIVE TO FAST,AND THAT LOOK

SUSPECTS
367 Tennyson Road nme nme
368 Tennyson Road There should be more shelters for homeless people. 369 Tennyson Road
More police surveillance.

Drivers should slow down.
370 Tennyson Road
Provide more security, more police.

Make the sidewalks wider.
371 Tennyson Road flashing lights for pedestrians on crosswalks. 372 Tennyson Road Put up speed bumps to reduce speed, put up more traffic signs. Drivers should slow down. 373 Tennyson Road They should clearly mark the traffic signs. 374 Tennyson Road
More traffic signs. Drivers, please respect pedestrians. There should be more security, because there are many homeless people and they are not respectful.
375 Tennyson Road Streets maintenance. No
376 Tennyson Road More lighting during the night. No
377 Tennyson Road To put more speed limit. To clean more the streets. 378 Tennyson Road no no
379
bring back the 91 bus or 31 bus, that used to travel on Whitman street, in front of Tennyson High School
380 MORE POLICE WATCHING

ATTACHMENT IV
339
Key Map (Not to Scale)
Traffic Calming Recommendations

1. Coordinate traffic signals to align with City goals (improve traffic operational performance, limit traffic speeds, etc.).

2. Install retroreflective backplates on all traffic signals.

3. Refresh or add roadway markings, including crosswalks and bicycle lane markings, using thermoplastic.

4. Add advanced stop bars at all intersections.

Pedestrian Recommendations

1. Install pedestrian-scale lighting throughout the entire corridor.

2. Upgrade curb ramps to comply with current ADA standards.

3. Modify median noses that intrude into marked crosswalks.

4. Add red curb for daylighting in accordance with AB 413.

Bicycle/Transit Recommendations

1. Avoid bicycle/transit conflicts at bus stops by implementing transit islands, shared cycle track stops, or other treatments.

2. Provide curb markings and signage at bus stops to indicate for transit use only and facilitate bus pull-in/pull-out maneuvers.

Key Map (Not to Scale)
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8 9
10 PTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg

HESPERIAN BLVD
A ST

ROYAL AVE

VICTORY DR

S GARDEN AVE

HAPPYLAND AVE

FULLER AVE

AMADOR ST

ARBOR AVE
I-880

GARDEN AVE

SANTA CLARA ST

MEEKLAND AVE

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

PRINCETON ST

MYRTLE ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

FLAGG ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

MISSION BLVD
NORTH
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8 9
10 HESPERIAN BLVD
A ST

ROYAL AVE

VICTORY DR

S GARDEN AVE

HAPPYLAND AVE

FULLER AVE

AMADOR ST

ARBOR AVE
I-880

GARDEN AVE

SANTA CLARA ST

MEEKLAND AVE

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

PRINCETON ST

MYRTLE ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

FLAGG ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

MISSION BLVD
NORTH
2 3 4 6 8
9 11
12 14
16 Hayward HIN Safety Plan A STREET
November 2025
A Street Illustrative Concepts

CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS

ATTACHMENT V
340
1 A STREET BETWEEN HESPERIAN BOULEVARD AND I-880 INTERCHANGE He
s
peria
n
Blvd
Royal Ave
G
a
rd
e
n
Ave
Victo
ry
Dr
S Garde
n Ave
Arb
o
r Ave
Happyla
n
d Ave
Fu
lle
r Ave
Hathaway Ave
Meekland Ave
Walnut
St
Filbert
St
Pri
nceton
St
Myrtle
St
Fla
gg
St
Alice St
Western Blvd
Pe
ralta St
Montgomery
Ave
Watkins
St
Gra
nd
St
1 2
3 4
5 6
¥880
Cross Section # Location
Legend
Signalized
Intersection
Railroad
Class II bike lanes in both directions.

Narrow travel lanes to upgrade bike
lanes to Class IV separated bike
lanes in both directions.

Implement a road diet to upgrade
bike lanes to sidewalk level Class IV
separated bike lanes in both
directions.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
CONTINUOUS BIKE FACILITY:

Lane Narrowing and Flex Post Separated Bike Facility
HIGH INVESTMENT OPTION 1:

Road Diet and Raised Separated Bike Facility
HIGH INVESTMENT OPTION 2:

Road Diet and Shared Use Paths
Implement a road diet to create
Class I shared use paths in both
directions.

Existing conditions with spot
improvements such as pedestrian
scale lighting, protected traffic
signal phasing, RRFBs, etc.

LOW IMPACT OPTION:

Existing Conditions with Spot Improvements
Segment 1 — Hesperian Boulevard to I-880 Interchange
1 A STR
Royal Ave
Victo
ry
Dr
S Garde
n Ave
¥
Cross Section # Location
Legend
Signalized
Intersection
Railroad
Hayward HIN Safety Plan A STREET
November 2025
SHEET 1

ATTACHMENT V
341
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8 9
10 HAYWARD HIGH INJURY
097003039
Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:Keymap October 01, 2025 04:00:57pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®

KHA PROJECT

DRAWING NUMBER

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS
NORTH

HESPERIAN BLVD
A ST

ROYAL AVE

VICTORY DR

S GARDEN AVE

HAPPYLAND AVE

FULLER AVE

AMADOR ST

ARBOR AVE
I-880

GARDEN AVE

SANTA CLARA ST

MEEKLAND AVE

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

PRINCETON ST

MYRTLE ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

FLAGG ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

MISSION BLVD
NORTH
Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:L-01 October 01, 2025 04:01:09pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg 1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8 9
10 HESPERIAN BLVD
A ST

ROYAL AVE

VICTORY DR

S GARDEN AVE

HAPPYLAND AVE

FULLER AVE

AMADOR ST

ARBOR AVE
I-880

GARDEN AVE

SANTA CLARA ST

MEEKLAND AVE

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

PRINCETON ST

MYRTLE ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

FLAGG ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

MISSION BLVD
NORTH
2 3 4 6 8
9 11
12 14
16 Key Map (Not to Scale)

HESPERIAN BLVD

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY
097003039
Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:L-01 October 01, 2025 04:01:09pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®
DATE

KHA PROJECT

DRAWING NUMBER

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 2
NORTH
NORTH
Add midblock crossing.

Modify stop for reduced
bicycle conflict and
improved waiting area.

Dependent on cross-section
selected.

1. Implement a road diet to provide
Class IV protected bike lanes
between Hesperian Boulevard and
Hathaway Avenue/Santa Clara
Street.

SEGMENT IMPROVEMENT
Add Midblock\Corner
Bulb-Out
Upgrade Curb Ramp to
meet ADA standards
Trac Calming
Recommendation
Pedestrian
Recommendation
Bicycle
Recommendation
Cross Section # Location
Legend
Implement Protected
Intersection
Add High Visibility
Crosswalk
Add Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons (RRFB)
Add Other Signage
Add Right-Turn Only
Signage
Signalized Intersection
Bus Stop
Add Pedestrian
Refuge Island
Parcel Line

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
1 MATCHLINE - SHEET 2
9 10

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
OF 6

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

SAFETY PLAN
KEYMAP
NORTH

ALICE S

GRAND ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

MISSION BLVD
1 NORTH

HESPERIAN BLVD

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY

NETWORK SAFETY PLAN

ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
097003039
Plotted By:Esquivel, Zachary Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:L-01 October 01, 2025 04:01:09pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®

CHECKED BY

DRAWN BY

SCALE AS SHOWN
DATE

KHA PROJECT
No. REVISIONS DATE BY

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
OF 6

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

SAFETY PLAN
© 2024 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DRIVE, STE 300 PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 2
L-01
A ST
2 NORTH
NORTH
Plotted By:Esquivel, Zachary Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:L-02 October 01, 2025 04:01:24pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg N
Add midblock crossing.

Modify stop for reduced
bicycle conflict and
improved waiting area.

Dependent on cross-section
selected.

1. Implement a road diet to provide
Class IV protected bike lanes
between Hesperian Boulevard and
Hathaway Avenue/Santa Clara
Street.

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
1 Hayward HIN Safety Plan A STREET
November 2025
SHEET 2
See SHEET 1 for existing cross section and proposed alternatives.

Typical Cross Sections
Segment 1 — Hesperian Boulevard to I-880 Interchange

ATTACHMENT V
342
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8 9
10 HAYWARD HIGH INJURY
097003039
Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:Keymap October 01, 2025 04:00:57pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®

KHA PROJECT

DRAWING NUMBER

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS
NORTH

HESPERIAN BLVD
A ST

ROYAL AVE

VICTORY DR

S GARDEN AVE

HAPPYLAND AVE

FULLER AVE

AMADOR ST

ARBOR AVE
I-880

GARDEN AVE

SANTA CLARA ST

MEEKLAND AVE

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

PRINCETON ST

MYRTLE ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

FLAGG ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

ROYAL AVE

VICTORY DR

S GARDEN AVE

HAPPYLAND AVE

FULLER AVE

AMADOR ST

ARBOR AVE
I-880

GARDEN AVE

SANTA CLARA ST

MEEKLAND AVE

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

PRINCETON ST

MYRTLE ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

FLAGG ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

MISSION BLVD
NORTH
2 3 4 6 8
9 11
12 14
16 Key Map (Not to Scale)
A ST

ROYAL AVE

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY

NETWORK SAFETY PLAN
097003039
, Zachary Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:L-02 October 01, 2025 04:01:24pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®

SCALE AS SHOWN
DATE

KHA PROJECT

DRAWING NUMBER

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS
L-02
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 1
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 3
NORTH
NORTH
Implement protected
left-turn phasing.

Modify stop for reduced
bicycle conflict and
improved waiting area.

Dependent on cross-section
selected.

Increase bike facility separation
from vehicle trac to increase
safety at intersection.

To be evaluated in preliminary
design.

1. Implement a road diet to provide
Class IV protected bike lanes
between Hesperian Boulevard and
Hathaway Avenue/Santa Clara
Street.

SEGMENT IMPROVEMENT
Remove Parking
Add Midblock\Corner
Bulb-Out
Upgrade Curb Ramp
to meet ADA standards
Proposed Class II
Bike Lane
Trac Calming
Recommendation
Pedestrian
Recommendation
Bicycle
Recommendation
Cross Section
Location
Legend
Proposed Class IV
Bike Lane
Implement Protected
Intersection
Add High Visibility
Crosswalk
Add Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons (RRFB)
Add Other Signage
Add Right-Turn Only
Signage
Signalized Intersection
Bus Stop

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
1 MATCHLINE - SHEET 1
MATCHLINE - SHEET 3
9 10

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
OF 6

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

SAFETY PLAN
KEYMAP
NORTH

ALICE S

GRAND ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

MISSION BLVD
1 NORTH

HESPERIAN BLVD

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY

NETWORK SAFETY PLAN

CHECKED BY

DRAWN BY

SCALE AS SHOWN
DATE

KHA PROJECT
No. REVISIONS DATE BY

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
OF 6

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

Modify stop for reduced
bicycle conflict and
improved waiting area.

Dependent on cross-section
selected.

1. Implement a road diet to provide
Class IV protected bike lanes
between Hesperian Boulevard and
Hathaway Avenue/Santa Clara
Street.

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
1 Hayward HIN Safety Plan A STREET
November 2025
SHEET 3
Typical Cross Sections
Segment 1 — Hesperian Boulevard to I-880 Interchange
See SHEET 1 for existing cross section and proposed alternatives.

ATTACHMENT V
343
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8 9
10 HAYWARD HIGH INJURY
097003039
Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:Keymap October 01, 2025 04:00:57pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®

KHA PROJECT

DRAWING NUMBER

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS
NORTH

HESPERIAN BLVD
A ST

ROYAL AVE

VICTORY DR

S GARDEN AVE

HAPPYLAND AVE

FULLER AVE

AMADOR ST

ARBOR AVE
I-880

GARDEN AVE

SANTA CLARA ST

MEEKLAND AVE

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

PRINCETON ST

MYRTLE ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

FLAGG ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

ROYAL AVE

VICTORY DR

S GARDEN AVE

HAPPYLAND AVE

FULLER AVE

AMADOR ST

ARBOR AVE
I-880

GARDEN AVE

SANTA CLARA ST

MEEKLAND AVE

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

PRINCETON ST

MYRTLE ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

FLAGG ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

MISSION BLVD
NORTH
2 3 4 6 8
9 11
12 14
16 Key Map (Not to Scale)
A ST

VICTORY DR

GARDEN AVE

S GARDEN AVE
SB I-880
NB I-880

SB ON-RAMP

SB OFF-RAMP

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY

NETWORK SAFETY PLAN
097003039
vel, Zachary Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:L-03 October 01, 2025 04:01:38pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®

SCALE AS SHOWN
DATE

KHA PROJECT

DRAWING NUMBER

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK
© 2024 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATESINC
L-03
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 2MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 4
NORTH
NORTH
vel, Zachary Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:L-04 October 01, 2025 04:01:48pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 3

SB ON-RAMP

SB OFF-RAMP
Other improvements will be addressed in the
ongoing I-880 Interchange Improvements
Project.

Add signal pole/mast arm and
indicators for southbound
driveway movement
Reduce lane width to
accommodate curb
extension.

Replace TWLTL with a raised
median between Victory Drive
and Garden Ave to eliminate
conflicting turns.

Close left turn to
S Garden Ave.

Add red light
camera.

Add midblock crossing.

Modify stop for reduced
bicycle conflict and
improved waiting area.

Dependent on cross-section
selected.

1. Implement a road diet to provide
Class IV protected bike lanes
between Hesperian Boulevard and
Hathaway Avenue/Santa Clara
Street.

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
1 MATCHLINE - SHEET 2
MATCHLINE - SHEET 4
9 10

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
OF 6

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

SAFETY PLAN
KEYMAP
NORTH

ALICE S

GRAND ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

MISSION BLVD
1 NORTH

HESPERIAN BLVD

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY

NETWORK SAFETY PLAN

CHECKED BY

DRAWN BY

SCALE AS SHOWN
DATE

KHA PROJECT
No. REVISIONS DATE BY

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
OF 6

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

Modify stop for reduced
bicycle conflict and
improved waiting area.

Dependent on cross-section
selected.

1. Implement a road diet to provide
Class IV protected bike lanes
between Hesperian Boulevard and
Hathaway Avenue/Santa Clara
Street.

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
1 Hayward HIN Safety Plan A STREET
November 2025
SHEET 4
Typical Cross Sections
Segment 1 — Hesperian Boulevard to I-880 Interchange
See SHEET 1 for existing cross section and proposed alternatives.

ATTACHMENT V
344
He
s
peria
n
Blvd
Royal Ave
G
a
rd
e
n
Ave
Victo
ry
Dr
S Garde
n Ave
Arb
o
r Ave
Happyla
n
d Ave
Fu
lle
r Ave
Hathaway Ave
Meekland Ave
Walnut
St
Filbert
St
Pri
nceton
St
Myrtle
St
Fla
gg
St
Alice St
Western Blvd
Pe
ralta St
Watkins
St
Gra
nd
St
Montgomery
Av
1 e
2 3
4 5
6 ¥880
Cross Section # Location
Legend
Signalized
Intersection
Segment 2 — I-880 Interchange to Hathaway Avenue
Class II bike lanes in both directions.

Narrow travel lanes to upgrade
bike lanes to Class IV separated
bike lanes in both directions.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
CONTINUOUS BIKE FACILITY:

Lane Narrowing and Separated Bike Facility
HIGH INVESTMENT OPTION 1:

Road Diet and Raised Separated Bike Facility
Implement a road diet to create
Class I shared use paths in both
directions.

HIGH INVESTMENT OPTION 2:

Road Diet and Shared Use Paths
LOW IMPACT OPTION:

Existing Conditions with Spot Improvements
Existing conditions with spot
improvements such as improved
roadway markings, a median refuge
island, etc.

Implement a road diet to upgrade
bike lanes to sidewalk level Class IV
separated bike lanes in both
directions.
1 A STR
Royal Ave
Victo
ry
Dr
S Garde
n Ave
¥
Cross Section # Location
Legend
Signalized
Intersection
Railroad
Hayward HIN Safety Plan A STREET
November 2025
SHEET 5

ATTACHMENT V
345
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8 9
10 HAYWARD HIGH INJURY
097003039
Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:Keymap October 01, 2025 04:00:57pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®

KHA PROJECT

DRAWING NUMBER

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS
NORTH

HESPERIAN BLVD
A ST

ROYAL AVE

VICTORY DR

S GARDEN AVE

HAPPYLAND AVE

FULLER AVE

AMADOR ST

ARBOR AVE
I-880

GARDEN AVE

SANTA CLARA ST

MEEKLAND AVE

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

PRINCETON ST

MYRTLE ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

FLAGG ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

ROYAL AVE

VICTORY DR

S GARDEN AVE

HAPPYLAND AVE

FULLER AVE

AMADOR ST

ARBOR AVE
I-880

GARDEN AVE

SANTA CLARA ST

MEEKLAND AVE

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

PRINCETON ST

MYRTLE ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

FLAGG ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

MISSION BLVD
NORTH
2 3 4 6 8
9 11
12 14
16 Key Map (Not to Scale)
ER
A ST NB I-880

ARBOR AVE

HAPPYLAND AVE

FULLER AVE

NB ON-RAMP

NB OFF-RAMP

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY

NETWORK SAFETY PLAN
097003039
l, Zachary Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:L-04 October 01, 2025 04:01:48pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®

SCALE AS SHOWN
DATE

KHA PROJECT

DRAWING NUMBER

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS
© 2024 KIMLEYHORN AND ASSOCIATESINC
L-04
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 3MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 5
NORTH
NORTH
HATH
l, Zachary Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:L-05 October 01, 2025 04:02:05pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 4

NB ON-RAMP

ARBOR AVE

NB OFF-RAMP
Other improvements will be
addressed in the ongoing I-880
Interchange Improvements
Project.

Add additional roadway markings and
overhead guide signage to direct drivers
to proper northbound and southbound
I-880 lanes.

Prohibit left turns
from Happyland Ave.

Relocate AC Transit bus stop
and provide transit island or
shared cycle track stop
depending on roadway
configuration.

Modify curb around the
ramps to provide curb
height protection at
intersection corner.

Median refuge for
uncontrolled crossing.

Evaluate bus stop removal
due to proximity to Santa
Clara St stops.

1. Implement a road diet to provide
Class IV protected bike lanes
between Hesperian Boulevard and
Hathaway Avenue/Santa Clara
Street.

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
2 Segment 2 — I-880 Interchange to Hathaway Avenue
SHEET 6
MATCHLINE - SHEET 3
MATCHLINE - SHEET 5
9 10

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
OF 6

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

SAFETY PLAN
KEYMAP
NORTH

ALICE S

GRAND ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

MISSION BLVD
1 NORTH

HESPERIAN BLVD

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY

NETWORK SAFETY PLAN

CHECKED BY

DRAWN BY

SCALE AS SHOWN
DATE

KHA PROJECT
No. REVISIONS DATE BY

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
OF 6

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

Modify stop for reduced
bicycle conflict and
improved waiting area.

Dependent on cross-section
selected.

1. Implement a road diet to provide
Class IV protected bike lanes
between Hesperian Boulevard and
Hathaway Avenue/Santa Clara
Street.

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
1 Hayward HIN Safety Plan A STREET
November 2025
See SHEET 5 for existing cross section and proposed alternatives.

Typical Cross Sections

ATTACHMENT V
346
He
s
peria
n
Blvd
Royal Ave
G
a
rd
e
n
Ave
Victo
ry
Dr
S Garde
n Ave
Arb
o
r Ave
Happyla
n
d Ave
Fu
lle
r Ave
Hathaway Ave
Meekland Ave
Walnut
St
Filbert
St
Pri
nceton
St
Myrtle
St
Fla
gg
St
Alice St
Western Blvd
Pe
ralta St
Watkins
St
Gra
nd
St
Montgomery
Av
1 e
2 3
4 5
6 ¥880
Cross Section # Location
Legend
Signalized
Intersection
Segment 3 — Hathaway Avenue to Meekland Avenue
Class II bike lanes in both directions.

Narrow travel lanes to upgrade bike
lanes to Class IV separated bike
lanes in both directions.

Narrow travel lanes to upgrade
bike lanes to sidewalk level Class
IV separated bike lanes in both
directions.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
CONTINUOUS BIKE FACILITY:

Lane Narrowing and Separated Bike Facility
HIGH INVESTMENT OPTION:

Lane Narrowing and Raised Separated Bike Facility
Existing conditions with spot
improvements such as pedestrian
scale lighting, speed feedback signs,
etc.

LOW IMPACT OPTION:

Existing Conditions with Spot Improvements
1 A STR
Royal Ave
Victo
ry
Dr
S Garde
n Ave
¥
Cross Section # Location
Legend
Signalized
Intersection
Railroad
Hayward HIN Safety Plan A STREET
November 2025
SHEET 7

ATTACHMENT V
347
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8 9
10 HAYWARD HIGH INJURY
097003039
Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:Keymap October 01, 2025 04:00:57pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®

KHA PROJECT

DRAWING NUMBER

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS
NORTH

HESPERIAN BLVD
A ST

ROYAL AVE

VICTORY DR

S GARDEN AVE

HAPPYLAND AVE

FULLER AVE

AMADOR ST

ARBOR AVE
I-880

GARDEN AVE

SANTA CLARA ST

MEEKLAND AVE

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

PRINCETON ST

MYRTLE ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

FLAGG ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

ROYAL AVE

VICTORY DR

S GARDEN AVE

HAPPYLAND AVE

FULLER AVE

AMADOR ST

ARBOR AVE
I-880

GARDEN AVE

SANTA CLARA ST

MEEKLAND AVE

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

PRINCETON ST

MYRTLE ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

FLAGG ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

MISSION BLVD
NORTH
2 3 4 6 8
9 11
12 14
16 Key Map (Not to Scale)
A ST

HATHAWAY AVE

SANTA CLARA ST

AMADOR ST

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY
097003039
Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:L-05 October 01, 2025 04:02:05pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®

KHA PROJECT

DRAWING NUMBER

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 6
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 4
NORTH
NORTH
Tighten turn radii and
signalize yield-controlled
right turns.

Install speed limit sign and
speed feedback sign.

Implement protected intersection. Realign
crosswalks to be perpendicular to roadway.

Implement APS at all crossings.

Relocate bus stop farside and
remove bus stop pull-out.

Remove bus stop pull-out.

Provide transit island or shared
cycle track stop depending on
roadway configuration.

1. Implement a road diet to provide
Class IV protected bike lanes
between Hesperian Boulevard and
Hathaway Avenue/Santa Clara
Street.

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
3 Segment 3 — Hathaway Avenue to Meekland Avenue
SHEET 8
MATCHLINE - SHEET 6
MATCHLINE - SHEET 4
9 10

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
OF 6

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

SAFETY PLAN
KEYMAP
NORTH

ALICE S

GRAND ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

MISSION BLVD
1 NORTH

HESPERIAN BLVD

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY

NETWORK SAFETY PLAN

CHECKED BY

DRAWN BY

SCALE AS SHOWN
DATE

KHA PROJECT
No. REVISIONS DATE BY

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
OF 6

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

Modify stop for reduced
bicycle conflict and
improved waiting area.

Dependent on cross-section
selected.

1. Implement a road diet to provide
Class IV protected bike lanes
between Hesperian Boulevard and
Hathaway Avenue/Santa Clara
Street.

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
1 Hayward HIN Safety Plan A STREET
November 2025
Typical Cross Sections
See SHEET 7 for existing cross section and proposed alternatives.

ATTACHMENT V
348
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8 9
10 HAYWARD HIGH INJURY
097003039
Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:Keymap October 01, 2025 04:00:57pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®

KHA PROJECT

DRAWING NUMBER

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS
NORTH

HESPERIAN BLVD
A ST

ROYAL AVE

VICTORY DR

S GARDEN AVE

HAPPYLAND AVE

FULLER AVE

AMADOR ST

ARBOR AVE
I-880

GARDEN AVE

SANTA CLARA ST

MEEKLAND AVE

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

PRINCETON ST

MYRTLE ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

FLAGG ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

ROYAL AVE

VICTORY DR

S GARDEN AVE

HAPPYLAND AVE

FULLER AVE

AMADOR ST

ARBOR AVE
I-880

GARDEN AVE

SANTA CLARA ST

MEEKLAND AVE

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

PRINCETON ST

MYRTLE ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

FLAGG ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

MISSION BLVD
NORTH
2 3 4 6 8
9 11
12 14
16 Key Map (Not to Scale)
A ST

MEEKLAND AVE
A ST

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY
t Set:Google Manila Layout:L-06 October 01, 2025 04:02:33pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®

KHA PROJECT

DRAWING NUMBER
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 5
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 7
NORTH
NORTH
Install speed limit sign and
speed feedback sign.

Implement a right-turn
pocket.

Evaluate opportunity for
bus stop consolidation at
Princeton St.

1. Reconfigure roadway space to
provide improved bicycle facilities
and trac calming.

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
3 SHEET 9
Segment 3 — Hathaway Avenue to Meekland Avenue
MATCHLINE - SHEET 5
MATCHLINE - SHEET 7
9 10

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
OF 6

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

SAFETY PLAN
KEYMAP
NORTH

ALICE S

GRAND ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

MISSION BLVD
1 NORTH

HESPERIAN BLVD

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY

NETWORK SAFETY PLAN

CHECKED BY

DRAWN BY

SCALE AS SHOWN
DATE

KHA PROJECT
No. REVISIONS DATE BY

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
OF 6

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

Modify stop for reduced
bicycle conflict and
improved waiting area.

Dependent on cross-section
selected.

1. Implement a road diet to provide
Class IV protected bike lanes
between Hesperian Boulevard and
Hathaway Avenue/Santa Clara
Street.

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
1 Hayward HIN Safety Plan A STREET
November 2025
Typical Cross Sections
See SHEET 7 for existing cross section and proposed alternatives.

ATTACHMENT V
349
1 A STREET BETWEEN HESPERIAN BOULEVARD AND I-880 INTERCHANGE He
s
peria
n
Blvd
Royal Ave
G
a
rd
e
n
Ave
Victo
ry
Dr
S Garde
n Ave
Arb
o
r Ave
Happyla
n
d Ave
Fu
lle
r Ave
Hathaway Ave
Meekland Ave
Walnut
St
Filbert
St
Pri
nceton
St
Myrtle
St
Fla
gg
St
Alice St
Western Blvd
Pe
ralta St
Watkins
St
Gra
nd
St
Montgomery
Av
1 e
2 3
4 5
6 ¥880
Cross Section # Location
Legend
Signalized
Intersection
Segment 4 — Meekland Avenue to Grand Street
Class II bike lanes in both directions.

Narrow travel lanes to upgrade
bike lanes to a Class IV parking
protected bike lane in
eastbound direction and a
Class IIB buffered bike lane in
westbound direction.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
CONTINUOUS BIKE FACILITIES:

Lane Narrowing and Separated Bike Facility
HIGH INVESTMENT OPTION 1:

Lane Narrowing, Targeted Parking Removal and Partially Raised Bike Facility Existing conditions with spot
improvements such as pedestrian
scale lighting, protected signal
phasing, RRFBs, etc.

LOW IMPACT OPTION:

Existing Conditions with Spot Improvements
Remove parking on the south
side of the street and narrow
travel lanes to create Class I
shared use paths on both sides
of the street.

Remove parking on the south
side of the street and narrow
travel lanes to upgrade bike
lanes to a sidewalk level Class
IV separated bike lane in the
eastbound direction and a Class
IIB buffered bike lane in the
westbound direction.

HIGH INVESTMENT OPTION 2:

Lane Narrowing, Targeted Parking Removal, and Shared Use Paths 1 A STR
Royal Ave
Victo
ry
Dr
S Garde
n Ave
¥
Cross Section # Location
Legend
Signalized
Intersection
Railroad
Hayward HIN Safety Plan A STREET
November 2025
SHEET 10

ATTACHMENT V
350
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8 9
10 HAYWARD HIGH INJURY
097003039
Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:Keymap October 01, 2025 04:00:57pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®

KHA PROJECT

DRAWING NUMBER

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS
NORTH

HESPERIAN BLVD
A ST

ROYAL AVE

VICTORY DR

S GARDEN AVE

HAPPYLAND AVE

FULLER AVE

AMADOR ST

ARBOR AVE
I-880

GARDEN AVE

SANTA CLARA ST

MEEKLAND AVE

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

PRINCETON ST

MYRTLE ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

FLAGG ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

ROYAL AVE

VICTORY DR

S GARDEN AVE

HAPPYLAND AVE

FULLER AVE

AMADOR ST

ARBOR AVE
I-880

GARDEN AVE

SANTA CLARA ST

MEEKLAND AVE

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

PRINCETON ST

MYRTLE ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

FLAGG ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

MISSION BLVD
NORTH
2 3 4 6 8
9 11
12 14
16 Key Map (Not to Scale)

WALNUT ST

PRINCETON ST

FILBERT ST
A ST

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY

NETWORK SAFETY PLAN
097003039
ary Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:L-07 October 01, 2025 04:02:57pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®
DATE

KHA PROJECT

DRAWING NUMBER

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS
L-07
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 6MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 8
NORTH
NORTH
Upgrade signal infrastructure
to provide one signal head
per through lane.

Upgrade signal infrastructure
to provide one signal head
per through lane.

Enhance intersection
lighting and implement
leading pedestrian interval.

Evaluate opportunity for bus
stop consolidation at Princeton
St. Remove bus stop pullout.

Remove bus
stop pullout.

Potential location for relocated
bus stop. Modify stop for
reduced bicycle conflict and
improved waiting area.

Dependent on cross-section
selected.

Increase bike facility separation
from vehicle trac to increase
safety at intersection.

To be evaluated in preliminary
design.

Modify stop for reduced
bicycle conflict and improved
waiting area.

Dependent on cross-section
selected.

1. Reconfigure roadway space to
provide improved bicycle facilities
and trac calming.

2. Install missing object markers
between Princeton Street and
Grand Street/Western Boulevard,
including signage for median
islands.

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
4 Segment 4 — Meekland Avenue to Grand Street
SHEET 11
See SHEET 10 for existing cross section and proposed alternatives.

Typical Cross Sections
MATCHLINE - SHEET 6
MATCHLINE - SHEET 8
9 10

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
OF 6

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

SAFETY PLAN
KEYMAP
NORTH

ALICE S

GRAND ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

MISSION BLVD
1 NORTH

HESPERIAN BLVD

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY

NETWORK SAFETY PLAN

CHECKED BY

DRAWN BY

SCALE AS SHOWN
DATE

KHA PROJECT
No. REVISIONS DATE BY

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
OF 6

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

Modify stop for reduced
bicycle conflict and
improved waiting area.

Dependent on cross-section
selected.

1. Implement a road diet to provide
Class IV protected bike lanes
between Hesperian Boulevard and
Hathaway Avenue/Santa Clara
Street.

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
1 Hayward HIN Safety Plan A STREET
November 2025

ATTACHMENT V
351
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8 9
10 HAYWARD HIGH INJURY
097003039
Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:Keymap October 01, 2025 04:00:57pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®

KHA PROJECT

DRAWING NUMBER

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS
NORTH

HESPERIAN BLVD
A ST

ROYAL AVE

VICTORY DR

S GARDEN AVE

HAPPYLAND AVE

FULLER AVE

AMADOR ST

ARBOR AVE
I-880

GARDEN AVE

SANTA CLARA ST

MEEKLAND AVE

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

PRINCETON ST

MYRTLE ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

FLAGG ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

ROYAL AVE

VICTORY DR

S GARDEN AVE

HAPPYLAND AVE

FULLER AVE

AMADOR ST

ARBOR AVE
I-880

GARDEN AVE

SANTA CLARA ST

MEEKLAND AVE

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

PRINCETON ST

MYRTLE ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

FLAGG ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

MISSION BLVD
NORTH
2 3 4 6 8
9 11
12 14
16 Key Map (Not to Scale)
R

MYRTLE ST
A ST

FLAGG ST

ALICE ST

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY

NETWORK SAFETY PLAN
097003039
y:Esquivel, Zachary Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:L-08 October 01, 2025 04:03:24pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®

SCALE AS SHOWN
DATE

KHA PROJECT

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

SAFETY PLAN
© 2024 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DRIVE, STE 300 PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 9
L-08
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 7
A ST
NORTH
NORTH
y:Esquivel, Zachary Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:L-09 October 01, 2025 04:03:56pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 8
Close left turn
out of Myrtle St.

Install median refuge
islands and RRFBs.

Paint red curb and install
no stopping/parking signs
at bus stop.

Install median refuge
islands and RRFBs.

Modify bus pullout to
transit island or shared
cycle track stop.

Evaluate opportunity for
bus stop consolidation.

Remove bus stop pullout.

Evaluate side street
stop-controlled intersections
for a trac signal.

1. Reconfigure roadway space to
provide improved bicycle facilities
and trac calming.

2. Install missing object markers
between Princeton Street and
Grand Street/Western Boulevard,
including signage for median
islands.

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
4 SHEET 12
See SHEET 10 for existing cross section and proposed alternatives.

Typical Cross Sections
Segment 4 — Meekland Avenue to Grand Street
MATCHLINE - SHEET 7
MATCHLINE - SHEET 9
9 10

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
OF 6

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

SAFETY PLAN
KEYMAP
NORTH

ALICE S

GRAND ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

MISSION BLVD
1 NORTH

HESPERIAN BLVD

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY

NETWORK SAFETY PLAN

CHECKED BY

DRAWN BY

SCALE AS SHOWN
DATE

KHA PROJECT
No. REVISIONS DATE BY

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
OF 6

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

Modify stop for reduced
bicycle conflict and
improved waiting area.

Dependent on cross-section
selected.

1. Implement a road diet to provide
Class IV protected bike lanes
between Hesperian Boulevard and
Hathaway Avenue/Santa Clara
Street.

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
1 Hayward HIN Safety Plan A STREET
November 2025

ATTACHMENT V
352
1 A STREET BETWEEN HESPERIAN BOULEVARD AND I-880 INTERCHANGE He
s
peria
n
Blvd
Royal Ave
G
a
rd
e
n
Ave
Victo
ry
Dr
S Garde
n Ave
Arb
o
r Ave
Happyla
n
d Ave
Fu
lle
r Ave
Hathaway Ave
Meekland Ave
Walnut
St
Filbert
St
Pri
nceton
St
Myrtle
St
Fla
gg
St
Alice St
Western Blvd
Pe
ralta St
Watkins
St
Gra
nd
St
Montgomery
Av
1 e
2 3
4 5
6 ¥880
Cross Section # Location
Legend
Signalized
Intersection
Segment 5 — Grand Street to Montgomery Avenue
Class II bike lanes in both directions.

Narrow travel lanes to upgrade bike
lanes to Class IIB buffered bike lanes in
both directions.

Implement a road diet to provide
sidewalk level Class IV separated
bike lanes and landscaping in both
directions. The sidewalk on the south
side of the street is widened and a
center turn lane is provided.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
CONTINUOUS BIKE FACILITIES:

Lane Narrowing and Buffered Bike Lanes
HIGH INVESTMENT OPTION 1:

Road Diet and Raised Separated Bike Facility
LOW IMPACT OPTION:

Existing Conditions with Spot Improvements
Existing conditions with spot
improvements such as pedestrian scale
lighting, protected signal phasing, etc.

Implement a road diet to create Class
I shared use paths and landscaping on
both sides of the street. A center turn
lane is also provided.

HIGH INVESTMENT OPTION 2:

Road Diet and Shared Use Paths
1 A STR
Royal Ave
Victo
ry
Dr
S Garde
n Ave
¥
Cross Section # Location
Legend
Signalized
Intersection
Railroad
Hayward HIN Safety Plan A STREET
November 2025
SHEET 13

ATTACHMENT V
353
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY
097003039
Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:Keymap October 01, 2025 04:00:57pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®

KHA PROJECT

DRAWING NUMBER

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS
NORTH

HESPERIAN BLVD A ST

ROYAL AVE

VICTORY DR

S GARDEN AVE

HAPPYLAND AVE

FULLER AVE

AMADOR ST
ARBOR AVE I-880

GARDEN AVE

SANTA CLARA ST

MEEKLAND AVE

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

PRINCETON ST

MYRTLE ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

FLAGG ST

WESTERN BLVD PERALTA ST MONTGOMERY AVE

MISSION BLVD
NORTH
Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:L-01 October 01, 2025 04:01:09pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10

HESPERIAN BLVD A ST

ROYAL AVE

VICTORY DR

S GARDEN AVE

HAPPYLAND AVE

FULLER AVE

AMADOR ST
ARBOR AVE I-880

GARDEN AVE

SANTA CLARA ST

MEEKLAND AVE

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

PRINCETON ST

MYRTLE ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

FLAGG ST

WESTERN BLVD PERALTA ST MONTGOMERY AVE

MISSION BLVD
NORTH
2 3
4 6
8 9
11 12
14 16
Key Map (Not to Scale)
A ST

GRAND ST

WESTERN BLVD

PERALTA ST

MONTGOMERY AVE
ogle Manila Layout:L-09 October 01, 2025 04:03:56pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 8
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 10
NORTH
NORTH
Restrict right
turns on red. Implement protected
left turn phasing.

Add red light camera.

Add red light
camera. Implement leading
pedestrian interval.

Implement leading
pedestrian interval.

Increase bike facility separation
from vehicle trac to increase
safety at intersection.

To be evaluated in preliminary
design.

1. Narrow travel lane widths to
provide improved bicycle facilities
and trac calming.

2. Install missing object markers
between Princeton Street and
Grand Street/Western Boulevard,
including signage for median
islands.

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
5 Segment 5 — Grand Street to Montgomery Avenue
SHEET 14
See SHEET 13 for existing cross section and proposed alternatives.

Typical Cross Sections
MATCHLINE - SHEET 8
MATCHLINE - SHEET 10
9 10

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
OF
6 ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

SAFETY PLAN
KEYMAP
NORTH

ALICE S

GRAND ST

WESTERN BLVD PERALTA ST MONTGOMERY AVE
MISSION BLVD 1
NORTH

HESPERIAN BLVD

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY

NETWORK SAFETY PLAN

CHECKED BY

DRAWN BY

SCALE AS SHOWN
DATE

KHA PROJECT
No. REVISIONS DATE BY

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
OF
6 ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

Modify stop for reduced
bicycle conflict and
improved waiting area.

Dependent on cross-section
selected.

1. Implement a road diet to provide
Class IV protected bike lanes
between Hesperian Boulevard and
Hathaway Avenue/Santa Clara
Street.

SEGMENT IMPROVEMENT
Add Midblock\Corner
Bulb-Out
Upgrade Curb Ramp to
meet ADA standards
Trac Calming
Recommendation
Pedestrian
Recommendation
Bicycle
Recommendation
Cross Section
# Location
Legend
Implement Protected
Intersection
Add High Visibility
Crosswalk
Add Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons (RRFB)
Add Other Signage
Add Right-Turn Only
Signage
Signalized Intersection
Bus Stop
Add Pedestrian
Refuge Island
Parcel Line

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
1 Hayward HIN Safety Plan A STREET
November 2025

ATTACHMENT V
354
1 A STREET BETWEEN HESPERIAN BOULEVARD AND I-880 INTERCHANGE He
s
peria
n
Blvd
Royal Ave
G
a
rd
e
n
Ave
Victo
ry
Dr
S Garde
n Ave
Arb
o
r Ave
Happyla
n
d Ave
Fu
lle
r Ave
Hathaway Ave
Meekland Ave
Walnut
St
Filbert
St
Pri
nceton
St
Myrtle
St
Fla
gg
St
Alice St
Western Blvd
Pe
ralta St
Watkins
St
Gra
nd
St
Montgomery
Av
1 e
2 3
4 5
6 ¥880
Cross Section # Location
Legend
Signalized
Intersection
Segment 6 — Montgomery Avenue to Watkins Street
No existing bike facilities.

Remove parking on the south side
of the street and narrow travel
lanes to implement Class II bike
lanes.

Implement a road diet to provide
sidewalk level Class IV separated bike
lanes and landscaping in both directions.

The sidewalk on the south side of the
street is widened, and a
center turn lane is provided.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
CONTINUOUS BIKE FACILITIES:

Lane Narrowing, Targeted Parking Removal, and Bike Lanes HIGH INVESTMENT OPTION 1:

Road Diet, Targeted Parking Removal, and Separated Bike Facility Implement a road diet to provide
Class I shared use paths and
landscaping on both sides of
the street. A center turn lane is
provided.

HIGH INVESTMENT OPTION 2:

Road Diet, Targeted Parking Removal, and Shared-Use Paths LOW IMPACT OPTION:

Existing Conditions with Spot Improvements
Existing conditions with spot
improvements such as pedestrian scale
lighting and crosswalk improvements
1 A STR
Royal Ave
Victo
ry
Dr
S Garde
n Ave
¥
Cross Section # Location
Legend
Signalized
Intersection
Railroad
Hayward HIN Safety Plan A STREET
November 2025
SHEET 15

ATTACHMENT V
355
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY
097003039
Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:Keymap October 01, 2025 04:00:57pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®

KHA PROJECT

DRAWING NUMBER

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS
NORTH

HESPERIAN BLVD A ST

ROYAL AVE

VICTORY DR

S GARDEN AVE

HAPPYLAND AVE

FULLER AVE

AMADOR ST
ARBOR AVE I-880

GARDEN AVE

SANTA CLARA ST

MEEKLAND AVE

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

PRINCETON ST

MYRTLE ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

FLAGG ST

WESTERN BLVD PERALTA ST MONTGOMERY AVE

MISSION BLVD
NORTH
Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:L-01 October 01, 2025 04:01:09pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10

HESPERIAN BLVD A ST

ROYAL AVE

VICTORY DR

S GARDEN AVE

HAPPYLAND AVE

FULLER AVE

AMADOR ST
ARBOR AVE I-880

GARDEN AVE

SANTA CLARA ST

MEEKLAND AVE

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

PRINCETON ST

MYRTLE ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

FLAGG ST

WESTERN BLVD PERALTA ST MONTGOMERY AVE

MISSION BLVD
NORTH
2 3
4 6
8 9
11 12
14 16
Key Map (Not to Scale)
A ST
LUCKY

GROCERY
STORE

MISSION BLVD
la Layout:L-10 October 01, 2025 04:04:13pm K:\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - A St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 9
NOR
NORTH

MISSION BLVD
Add crosswalk striping
over northern driveway
approach to enhance
pedestrian safety.

Implement leading
pedestrian interval.

Increase bike facility separation
from vehicle trac to increase
safety at intersection.

To be evaluated in preliminary
design.

Remove Parking
Add Midblock\Corner
Bulb-Out
Upgrade Curb Ramp
to meet ADA standards
Proposed Class II
Bike Lane
Trac Calming
Recommendation
Pedestrian
Recommendation
Bicycle
Recommendation
Cross Section
Location
Legend
Proposed Class IV
Bike Lane
Implement Protected
Intersection
Add High Visibility
Crosswalk
Add Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons (RRFB)
Add Other Signage
Add Right-Turn Only
Signage
Signalized Intersection
Bus Stop

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

1. Reconfigure roadway space to
provide improved bicycle facilities
and trac calming.

SEGMENT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
6 Segment 6 — Montgomery Avenue to Watkins Street
SHEET 16
Project extent ends at Watkins
St. A Street east of Watkins is
included in the Downtown
Loop Study.

See SHEET 15 for existing cross section and proposed alternatives.

Typical Cross Sections
MATCHLINE - SHEET 9
9 10

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
OF
6 ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

SAFETY PLAN
KEYMAP
NORTH

ALICE S

GRAND ST

WESTERN BLVD PERALTA ST MONTGOMERY AVE
MISSION BLVD 1
NORTH

HESPERIAN BLVD

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY

NETWORK SAFETY PLAN

CHECKED BY

DRAWN BY

SCALE AS SHOWN
DATE

KHA PROJECT
No. REVISIONS DATE BY

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
OF
6 ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

Modify stop for reduced
bicycle conflict and
improved waiting area.

Dependent on cross-section
selected.

1. Implement a road diet to provide
Class IV protected bike lanes
between Hesperian Boulevard and
Hathaway Avenue/Santa Clara
Street.

SEGMENT IMPROVEMENT
Add Midblock\Corner
Bulb-Out
Upgrade Curb Ramp to
meet ADA standards
Trac Calming
Recommendation
Pedestrian
Recommendation
Bicycle
Recommendation
Cross Section
# Location
Legend
Implement Protected
Intersection
Add High Visibility
Crosswalk
Add Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons (RRFB)
Add Other Signage
Add Right-Turn Only
Signage
Signalized Intersection
Bus Stop
Add Pedestrian
Refuge Island
Parcel Line

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
1 Hayward HIN Safety Plan A STREET
November 2025

ATTACHMENT V
356
1 2
3 4
5 MARTIN LUTHER KING DR

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

MYRTLE ST
B
ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

MONTGOMERY AVE
B ST

WATKINS ST

MISSION BLVD
NORTH
JURY NETWORK PHASE 1 STUDY

ATIVE CONCEPTS
mendations
backplates on all trac signals.
g to stop sign posts.
card below all stop signs.
dations
to comply with current ADA standards.
mes where missing.
le lighitng throughout the corridor.
lighting in accordance with AB 413.

Traffic Calming Recommendations

1. Install retroreflective backplates on all traffic signals.

2. Add reflective striping to stop sign posts.

3. Add the “all way” placard below all stop signs.

Pedestrian Recommendations

1. Upgrade curb ramps to comply with current ADA standards.

2. Install truncated domes where missing.

3. Install pedestrian scale lighitng throughout the corridor.

4. Add red curb for daylighting in accordance with AB 413.

Key Map (Not to Scale)
Hayward HIN Safety Plan B STREET
November 2025
B Street Illustrative Concepts

CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS
Install pedestrian scale lighitng throughout the corridor.

Add red curb for daylighting in accordance with AB 413.

ATTACHMENT V
357
:Keymap September 02, 2025 03:32:57pm \\kimley-horn.com\ca_oak\Project\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - B St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg 1 2
3 4
5 MARTIN LUTHER KING DR

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

MYRTLE ST
B ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

MONTGOMERY AVE
B ST

WATKINS ST

MISSION BLVD
NORTH
HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK PHASE 1 STUDY

B STREET ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS
Trac Calming Recommendations

1. Install retroreflective backplates on all trac signals.

2. Add reflective striping to stop sign posts.

3. Add the “all way” placard below all stop signs.

Pedestrian Recommendations

1. Upgrade curb ramps to comply with current ADA standards.

2. Install truncated domes where missing.

3. Install pedestrian scale lighitng throughout the corridor.

4. Add red curb for daylighting in accordance with AB 413.

MARTIN LUTHER KING DR
B ST

WALNUT ST

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY

NETWORK SAFETY PLAN
097003039
Suemin Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:L-01 September 02, 2025 03:04:47pm \\kimley-horn.com\ca_oak\Project\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - B St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®

SCALE AS SHOWN
DATE

KHA PROJECT

DRAWING NUMBER

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK
© 2024 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

L-01
B ST
NORTH
NORTH

B STREET BETWEEN MARTIN LUTHER KING DRIVE AND MYRTLE STREET Existing Conditions
• Class II bike lanes in both directions
Parking Protected Proposed Alternative
• Narrow Travel Lanes and reconfigure roadway
space on the south side of the corridor to
implement Class IV parking protected bike
lanes.

Two-way Cycle Track Proposed Alternative
• Remove parking on the south side of the corridor to implement a two-way cycle track.

Add Midblock\Corner
Bulb-Out
Upgrade Curb Ramp to
meet ADA standards
Trac Calming
Recommendation
Pedestrian
Recommendation
Bicycle
Recommendation
Cross Section
# Location
Legend
Implement Neighborhood
Trac Circle or Diverters
Add Other Signage
Signalized Intersection
Bus Stop
Parcel Line
All-Way Stop Controlled
Intersection
Add Speed Hump
Add High Visibility
Crosswalk

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING

CAPITOL CORRIDOR

HAYWARD STATION
Replace non-standard speed
signs with regulatory speed
signs.

Install speed limit sign.

Add speed humps midblock
from MLK Boulevard to
Grand Street.
1 1
MATCHLINE - SHEET 2
Key Map (Not to Scale)

EXISTING CONDITIONS / LOW IMPACT OPTION
Class II bike lanes in both directions.

Option to add spot improvements such as traffic circles, speed humps, and curb bulb outs.

CONTINUOUS BIKE FACILITY
Narrow travel lanes to implement Class IIB buffered
bike lanes. Option to assess feasibility of traffic
diverters.

HIGH INVESTMENT OPTION
Narrow travel lanes to implement a two-way cycle track
on the south side of the corridor.

MARTIN LUTHER KING DR
B ST

WALNUT ST

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY

NETWORK SAFETY PLAN

ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
097003039
Plotted By:Lee, Suemin Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:L-01 September 02, 2025 03:04:47pm \\kimley-horn.com\ca_oak\Project\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - B St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®

CHECKED BY

DRAWN BY

SCALE AS SHOWN
DATE

KHA PROJECT
No. REVISIONS DATE BY

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
OF 6

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

SAFETY PLAN
© 2024 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DRIVE, STE 300 PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM
L-01
B ST
NORTH
2 NORTH

Two-way Cycle Track Proposed Alternative
• Remove parking on the south side of the corridor to implement a two-way cycle track.

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING

CAPITOL CORRIDOR

HAYWARD STATION
Replace non-standard speed
signs with regulatory speed
signs.

Install speed limit sign.

Add speed humps midblock
from MLK Boulevard to
Grand Street.
1 1
Hayward HIN Safety Plan B STREET
November 2025
Segment 1 — Martin Luther King Drive to Myrtle Street
Typical Cross Sections
SHEET 1
1 ATTACHMENT V
358
:Keymap September 02, 2025 03:32:57pm \\kimley-horn.com\ca_oak\Project\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - B St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg 1 2
3 4
5 MARTIN LUTHER KING DR

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

MYRTLE ST
B ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

MONTGOMERY AVE
B ST

WATKINS ST

MISSION BLVD
NORTH
HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK PHASE 1 STUDY

B STREET ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS
Trac Calming Recommendations

1. Install retroreflective backplates on all trac signals.

2. Add reflective striping to stop sign posts.

3. Add the “all way” placard below all stop signs.

Pedestrian Recommendations

1. Upgrade curb ramps to comply with current ADA standards.

2. Install truncated domes where missing.

3. Install pedestrian scale lighitng throughout the corridor.

4. Add red curb for daylighting in accordance with AB 413.

B ST

FILBERT ST

MYRTLE ST
L-01

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY

NETWORK SAFETY PLAN
097003039
Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:L-02 September 02, 2025 03:05:16pm \\kimley-horn.com\ca_oak\Project\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - B St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®
DATE

KHA PROJECT

DRAWING NUMBER

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS
NORTH
NORTH
Add Midblock\Corner
Bulb-Out
Upgrade Curb Ramp
to meet ADA standards
Trac Calming
Recommendation
Pedestrian
Recommendation
Bicycle
Recommendation
Cross Section
Location
Legend
Speed Bump
Implement Neighborhood Trac Circle
Add Other Signage
Signalized Intersection
Bus Stop
All-Way Stop Controlled Intersection

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
Add High Visibility
Crosswalk
Existing Conditions
• Class II bike lanes in both directions
Parking Protected Proposed Alternative
• Narrow Travel Lanes and reconfigure roadway
space on the south side of the corridor to
implement Class IV parking protected bike
lanes.

Two-way Cycle Track Proposed Alternative
• Remove parking on the south side of the corridor to implement a two-way cycle track.

B STREET BETWEEN MARTIN LUTHER KING DRIVE AND MYRTLE STREET Relocate stop signs to curb
extensions to increase stop
sign visibility.

Ongoing Safe Routes to School
project will add bulb-outs in the
northeast and southwest corners.

Add speed humps midblock
from MLK Boulevard to
Grand Street.

Implement Neighborhood
Trac Circle.
1 1
MATCHLINE - SHEET 1
MATCHLINE - SHEET 3
Key Map (Not to Scale)

EXISTING CONDITIONS / LOW IMPACT OPTION
Class II bike lanes in both directions.

Option to add spot improvements such as traffic circles, speed humps, and curb bulb outs.

CONTINUOUS BIKE FACILITY
Narrow travel lanes to implement Class IIB buffered
bike lanes. Option to assess feasibility of traffic
diverters.

HIGH INVESTMENT OPTION
Narrow travel lanes to implement a two-way cycle track
on the south side of the corridor.

MARTIN LUTHER KING DR
B ST

WALNUT ST

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY

NETWORK SAFETY PLAN

CHECKED BY

DRAWN BY

SCALE AS SHOWN
DATE

KHA PROJECT
No. REVISIONS DATE BY

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
OF 6

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

SAFETY PLAN
© 2024 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DRIVE, STE 300 PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM
L-01
B ST
NORTH
2 NORTH

Two-way Cycle Track Proposed Alternative
• Remove parking on the south side of the corridor to implement a two-way cycle track.

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING

CAPITOL CORRIDOR

HAYWARD STATION
Replace non-standard speed
signs with regulatory speed
signs.

Install speed limit sign.

Add speed humps midblock
from MLK Boulevard to
Grand Street.
1 1
Hayward HIN Safety Plan B STREET
November 2025
Segment 1 — Martin Luther King Drive to Myrtle Street
SHEET 2
1 Typical Cross Sections

ATTACHMENT V
359
:Keymap September 02, 2025 03:32:57pm \\kimley-horn.com\ca_oak\Project\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - B St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg 1 2
3 4
5 MARTIN LUTHER KING DR

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

MYRTLE ST
B ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

MONTGOMERY AVE
B ST

WATKINS ST

MISSION BLVD
NORTH
HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK PHASE 1 STUDY

B STREET ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS
Trac Calming Recommendations

1. Install retroreflective backplates on all trac signals.

2. Add reflective striping to stop sign posts.

3. Add the “all way” placard below all stop signs.

Pedestrian Recommendations

1. Upgrade curb ramps to comply with current ADA standards.

2. Install truncated domes where missing.

3. Install pedestrian scale lighitng throughout the corridor.

4. Add red curb for daylighting in accordance with AB 413.

B ST

ALICE ST

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY

NETWORK SAFETY PLAN
097003039
n Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:L-03 September 02, 2025 03:05:43pm \\kimley-horn.com\ca_oak\Project\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - B St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®
DATE

KHA PROJECT

DRAWING NUMBER

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS
L-02
NORTH
NORTH
Add Midblock\Corner
Bulb-Out
Upgrade Curb Ramp
to meet ADA standards
Trac Calming
Recommendation
Pedestrian
Recommendation
Bicycle
Recommendation
Cross Section
Location
Legend
Speed Bump
Implement Neighborhood Trac Circle
Add Other Signage
Signalized Intersection
Bus Stop
All-Way Stop Controlled Intersection

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
Add High Visibility
Crosswalk
Implement high-visibility crosswalks
at all intersection legs.

Remove eastbound turn
lane to extend Class II bike
lanes to intersection.

Existing Conditions
• Class II bike lanes in both directions
Buered Bike Lanes Proposed Alternative
• Narrow Travel Lanes and parking to implement
Class IIB buered bike lanes.

B STREET BETWEEN MYRTLE STREET AND GRAND STREET
Implement Neighborhood
Trac Circle.

Add speed humps midblock
from MLK Boulevard to
Grand Street.
2 2
MATCHLINE - SHEET 2
MATCHLINE - SHEET 4
Key Map (Not to Scale)

EXISTING CONDITIONS / LOW IMPACT OPTION
Class II bike lanes in both directions.

Option to add spot improvements such as traffic circles, speed humps, and curb bulb outs.

CONTINUOUS BIKE FACILITY
Narrow travel lanes to implement Class IIB buffered
bike lanes. Option to assess feasibility of traffic
diverters.

MARTIN LUTHER KING DR
B ST

WALNUT ST

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY

NETWORK SAFETY PLAN

CHECKED BY

DRAWN BY

SCALE AS SHOWN
DATE

KHA PROJECT
No. REVISIONS DATE BY

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
OF 6

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

SAFETY PLAN
© 2024 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DRIVE, STE 300 PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM
L-01
B ST
NORTH
2 NORTH

Two-way Cycle Track Proposed Alternative
• Remove parking on the south side of the corridor to implement a two-way cycle track.

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING

CAPITOL CORRIDOR

HAYWARD STATION
Replace non-standard speed
signs with regulatory speed
signs.

Install speed limit sign.

Add speed humps midblock
from MLK Boulevard to
Grand Street.
1 1
Hayward HIN Safety Plan B STREET
November 2025
Segment 2 — Myrtle Street to Grand Street
SHEET 3
2 Typical Cross Sections

ATTACHMENT V
360
:Keymap September 02, 2025 03:32:57pm \\kimley-horn.com\ca_oak\Project\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - B St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg 1 2
3 4
5 MARTIN LUTHER KING DR

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

MYRTLE ST
B ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

MONTGOMERY AVE
B ST

WATKINS ST

MISSION BLVD
NORTH
HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK PHASE 1 STUDY

B STREET ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS
Trac Calming Recommendations

1. Install retroreflective backplates on all trac signals.

2. Add reflective striping to stop sign posts.

3. Add the “all way” placard below all stop signs.

Pedestrian Recommendations

1. Upgrade curb ramps to comply with current ADA standards.

2. Install truncated domes where missing.

3. Install pedestrian scale lighitng throughout the corridor.

4. Add red curb for daylighting in accordance with AB 413.

B ST

GRAND ST

MONTGOMERY AVE
Manila Layout:L-04 September 02, 2025 03:06:08pm \\kimley-horn.com\ca_oak\Project\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - B St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®
NORTH
NORTH
Add Midblock\Corner
Bulb-Out
Upgrade Curb Ramp
to meet ADA standards
Trac Calming
Recommendation
Pedestrian
Recommendation
Bicycle
Recommendation
Cross Section
Location
Legend
Speed Bump
Implement Neighborhood Trac Circle
Add Other Signage
Signalized Intersection
Bus Stop
All-Way Stop Controlled Intersection

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
Add High Visibility
Crosswalk

B STREET BETWEEN GRAND STREET AND WATKINS STREET
Existing Conditions
• Class II bike lanes in both directions
Bike Lane Proposed Alternative
• Remove parking on the south side of the street
and narrow eastbound travel lane to install
Class II bike lanes.

Install Audible Pedestrian Signal (APS).

Redesign the drainage structure
to minimize footprint and close
gap in existing bike facility.

Increase bike facility separation from
vehicle trac to increase safety at
intersection.

To be evaluated in preliminary design.

Buered and Protected Bike Lane Proposed Alternative
• Remove parking on the south side of the street to
install a Class IV protected bike lane and remove a
westbound travel lane to install a Class IIB buered
bike lane.

HAYWARD BART

STATION
Install new mast arms and
implement protected left
turn phasing for northbound
and southbound movements.
3 3
MATCHLINE - SHEET 3
MATCHLINE - SHEET 5
Key Map (Not to Scale)

EXISTING CONDITIONS / LOW IMPACT OPTION
No existing bikeways.

Option to add spot improvements such as curb bulb outs
and protected signal phasing.

CONTINUOUS BIKE FACILITY
Narrow eastbound travel lane to provide center turn
lane and Class II bike lanes in both directions.

MARTIN LUTHER KING DR
B ST

WALNUT ST

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY

NETWORK SAFETY PLAN

CHECKED BY

DRAWN BY

SCALE AS SHOWN
DATE

KHA PROJECT
No. REVISIONS DATE BY

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
OF 6

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

SAFETY PLAN
© 2024 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DRIVE, STE 300 PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM
L-01
B ST
NORTH
2 NORTH

Two-way Cycle Track Proposed Alternative
• Remove parking on the south side of the corridor to implement a two-way cycle track.

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING

CAPITOL CORRIDOR

HAYWARD STATION
Replace non-standard speed
signs with regulatory speed
signs.

Install speed limit sign.

Add speed humps midblock
from MLK Boulevard to
Grand Street.
1 1
Hayward HIN Safety Plan B STREET
November 2025
Segment 3 — Grand Street to Montgomery Avenue
SHEET 4
3 Typical Cross Sections

ATTACHMENT V
361
:Keymap September 02, 2025 03:32:57pm \\kimley-horn.com\ca_oak\Project\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - B St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg 1 2
3 4
5 MARTIN LUTHER KING DR

WALNUT ST

FILBERT ST

MYRTLE ST
B ST

ALICE ST

GRAND ST

MONTGOMERY AVE
B ST

WATKINS ST

MISSION BLVD
NORTH
HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK PHASE 1 STUDY

B STREET ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS
Trac Calming Recommendations

1. Install retroreflective backplates on all trac signals.

2. Add reflective striping to stop sign posts.

3. Add the “all way” placard below all stop signs.

Pedestrian Recommendations

1. Upgrade curb ramps to comply with current ADA standards.

2. Install truncated domes where missing.

3. Install pedestrian scale lighitng throughout the corridor.

4. Add red curb for daylighting in accordance with AB 413.

B ST

WATKINS ST

MISSION BLVD

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY

NETWORK SAFETY PLAN
097003039
n Sheet Set:Google Manila Layout:L-05 September 03, 2025 01:23:58pm \\kimley-horn.com\ca_oak\Project\OAK_TPTO\097003039 - Hayward HIN PH 1\Design\PlanSheets\L-01 - B St 1 VP Per Sheet.dwg ®
DATE

KHA PROJECT

DRAWING NUMBER

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS
L-03
NORTH
NORTH
Add Midblock\Corner
Bulb-Out
Upgrade Curb Ramp
to meet ADA standards
Trac Calming
Recommendation
Pedestrian
Recommendation
Bicycle
Recommendation
Cross Section
Location
Legend
Speed Bump
Implement Neighborhood Trac Circle
Add Other Signage
Signalized Intersection
Bus Stop
All-Way Stop Controlled Intersection

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
Add High Visibility
Crosswalk
B ST

MISSION BLVD
Implement a pedestrian scramble
phase.

Implement pedestrain comfort
amenities such as benches,
shade, etc.

HAYWARD CITY HALL
4 3
MATCHLINE - SHEET 4
Key Map (Not to Scale)

EXISTING CONDITIONS / LOW IMPACT OPTION
Class II bike lanes in both directions.

Option to add spot improvements such as a pedestrian
scramble and pedestrian comfort amenities.

CONTINUOUS BIKE FACILITY OPTION 1
Implement a road diet to install Class IIB buffered bike lanes.

CONTINUOUS BIKE FACILITY OPTION 2
Remove parking on the south side of the corridor to install Class II bike lanes.

MARTIN LUTHER KING DR
B ST

WALNUT ST

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY

NETWORK SAFETY PLAN

CHECKED BY

DRAWN BY

SCALE AS SHOWN
DATE

KHA PROJECT
No. REVISIONS DATE BY

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
OF 6

ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTS

HAYWARD HIGH INJURY NETWORK

SAFETY PLAN
© 2024 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4637 CHABOT DRIVE, STE 300 PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: 925-398-4840
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM
L-01
B ST
NORTH
2 NORTH

Two-way Cycle Track Proposed Alternative
• Remove parking on the south side of the corridor to implement a two-way cycle track.

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING

CAPITOL CORRIDOR

HAYWARD STATION
Replace non-standard speed
signs with regulatory speed
signs.

Install speed limit sign.

Add speed humps midblock
from MLK Boulevard to
Grand Street.
1 1
Hayward HIN Safety Plan B STREET
November 2025
Segment 4 — Montgomery Avenue to Watkins Street
SHEET 5
4 Typical Cross Sections
Project extent ends at Watkins
St. B Street east of Watkins is
included in the Downtown
Loop Study.

ATTACHMENT V
362
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10
11 12
13 HIGHWAY I-880

HESPERIAN BLVD

MISSION BLVD

UPRR TRACKS

BART TRACKS

TENNYSON
ROAD

CALAROGA AVE

PATRICK AVE

TYRRELL AVE

TAMPA AVE

RUUS ROAD

HUNTWOOD AVE

DIXON ST
12TH ST

WHITMAN ST
SLEEPY

HOLLOW AVE
HTRON
Traffic Calming Recommendations

1. Coordinate traffic signals to align with City goals (improve traffic operational performance, limit traffic speeds, etc.).

2. Install retroreflective backplates on all traffic signals.

3. Refresh or add roadway markings, including crosswalks and bicycle lane markings, using thermoplastic.

4. Add advanced stop bars at all intersections.

5. Narrow travel lanes to 11 feet wide.

Pedestrian Recommendations

1. Install pedestrian-scale lighting throughout the entire corridor.

2. Upgrade curb ramps to comply with current ADA standards.

3. Install truncated domes where missing.

4. Modify median noses that intrude into marked crosswalks.

5. Implement Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) at top conflict intersections.

6. Maintain mature trees for shade, especially alongside sidewalks.

7. Propose additional planting areas to cool and shade sidewalks.

Bicycle/Transit Recommendations

1. Avoid bicycle/transit conflicts at bus stops by implementing transit islands, shared cycle track stops, or other treatments.

2. Provide curb markings and signage at bus stops to indicate for transit use only and facilitate bus pull-in/pull-out maneuvers.

3. Propose additional planting areas to cool and shade bike lanes.

CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS
Note: “Mature tree” refers to a tree with a
Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) of 24” or more.

Hayward HIN Safety Plan TENNYSON ROAD
November 2025
Tennyson Road Illustrative Concepts

ATTACHMENT V
363
# Cross Section Location
Legend
Signalized Intersection

HESPERIAN BLVD

MISSION BLVD

TENNYSON
ROAD

CALAROGA AVE

PATRICK AVE

TYRRELL AVE

POMPANO AVE

TAMPA AVE

RUUS ROAD

HUNTWOOD AVE

DIXON ST

WHITMAN ST
12TH ST
SLEEPY

HOLLOW AVE
HTRON
2 1
4 3
5 6
880
Segment 1 — Hesperian Boulevard to Calaroga Avenue

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Existing conditions with
spot improvements
such as pedestrian
scale lighting, bulb outs,
protected signal phasing,
etc.

Implement Class IV
separated bikeways +
wider sidewalks on both
sides of the street by
modifying the median and
removing street parking
on the north side of the
street
Class II bike lanes in both
directions

HIGH INVESTMENT OPTION
Separated Bikeways + Wider Sidewalks

LOW IMPACT OPTION
Existing Conditions + Spot Improvements

CONTINUOUS BIKE FACILITY
Lane Narrowing + Flex Posts
Upgrade bike lanes
to Class IV separated
bikeways where “no
parking” lane exists;
narrow travel lanes to
provide wider bike lane
where street parking
exists
Hayward HIN Safety Plan TENNYSON ROAD
November 2025
SHEET 1

ATTACHMENT V
364
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10
11 12
13 HIGHWAY I-880

HESPERIAN BLVD

MISSION BLVD

UPRR TRACKS

BART TRACKS

TENNYSON
ROAD

CALAROGA AVE

PATRICK AVE

TYRRELL AVE

TAMPA AVE

RUUS ROAD

HUNTWOOD AVE

DIXON ST
12TH ST

WHITMAN ST
SLEEPY

HOLLOW AVE
HTRON
East Bay Greenway
alignment
Add Midblock\
Corner Bulb-Out
Upgrade Curb Ramp to
meet ADA standards
Trac Calming
Recommendation
Pedestrian
Recommendation
Bicycle
Recommendation
# Cross Section Location
Legend
Add High Visibility
Crosswalk
Add Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons (RRFB)
Add Other Signage
Add Right-Turn Only
Signage
Signalized Intersection
Right of Way (ROW)
Bus Stop

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
Implement Protected
Intersection
Pedestrian Refuge Island
NORTH

TENNYSON ROAD

HESPERIAN

BOULELVARD

MOUNT EDEN PARK SHOPPING CENTER
No right on red Reconfigure driveway
entrance to reduce speeds
No right on red
1 Proposed Class IV
on Hesperian Blvd
MATCHLINE - SHEET 2
1 NORTH

TENNYSON ROAD

HESPERIAN

BOULELVARD
No right on red Reconfigure driveway
entrance to reduce speeds
No right on red
1 on Hesperian Blvd
MATCHLINE - SHEET 2
Typical Cross Sections
Segment 1 — Hesperian Boulevard to Calaroga Avenue
SHEET 2
Hayward HIN Safety Plan TENNYSON ROAD
November 2025
See SHEET 1 for existing cross section and proposed alternatives.

ATTACHMENT V
365
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 HIGHWAY I-880

HESPERIAN BLVD

MISSION BLVD

UPRR TRACKS

BART TRACKS

TENNYSON ROAD

CALAROGA AVE

PATRICK AVE

TYRRELL AVE

TAMPA AVE

RUUS ROAD HUNTWOOD AVE

DIXON ST
12TH ST

WHITMAN ST
SLEEPY

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
Implement Protected
Intersection
Pedestrian Refuge Island
NORTH

TENNYSON ROAD

SLEEPY HOLLOW
AVENUE
No right on red
Relocate pedestrian push
buttons to ensure access
1 MATCHLINE - SHEET 1
MATCHLINE - SHEET 3
2 NORTH

TENNYSON ROAD

SLEEPY HOLLOW
AVENUE
No right on red
Relocate pedestrian push
buttons to ensure access
1 MATCHLINE - SHEET 3
Typical Cross Sections
Segment 1 — Hesperian Boulevard to Calaroga Avenue
SHEET 3
Hayward HIN Safety Plan TENNYSON ROAD
November 2025
See SHEET 1 for existing cross section and proposed alternatives.

ATTACHMENT V
366
# Cross Section Location
Legend
Signalized Intersection

HESPERIAN BLVD

MISSION BLVD

TENNYSON
ROAD

CALAROGA AVE

PATRICK AVE

TYRRELL AVE

POMPANO AVE

TAMPA AVE

RUUS ROAD

HUNTWOOD AVE

DIXON ST

WHITMAN ST
12TH ST
SLEEPY

HOLLOW AVE
HTRON
2 1
4 3
5 6
880
6’ 10’ 6’
14’ 13’ 13’ 14’ 14’ 13’ 13’ 14’
10’
Narrow vehicular lanes
and add bike lanes
alongside existing
sidewalks
Sidewalks in both
directions
Segment 2 — Calaroga Avenue to Patrick Avenue
SHEET 4
Remove center median
to allow for Class IV curb
protected bike lanes
Note: Overcrossing bridge may be two structures. This may require structural analysis to confirm feasibility.

Although planting is not feasible on the structure, it should be studied for inclusion on approaches to enhance the pedestrian/ cyclist experience.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

HIGH INVESTMENT OPTION
Raised Curb Separated Bikeways

LOW IMPACT OPTION
Existing Conditions + Spot Improvements

CONTINUOUS BIKE FACILITY
Lane Narrowing + Bike Lanes
Existing conditions with
spot improvements
such as pedestrian
scale lighting, bulb outs,
protected signal phasing,
etc.

Hayward HIN Safety Plan TENNYSON ROAD
November 2025

ATTACHMENT V
367
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10
11 12
13 HIGHWAY I-880

HESPERIAN BLVD

MISSION BLVD

UPRR TRACKS

BART TRACKS

TENNYSON
ROAD

CALAROGA AVE

PATRICK AVE

TYRRELL AVE

TAMPA AVE

RUUS ROAD

HUNTWOOD AVE

DIXON ST
12TH ST

WHITMAN ST
SLEEPY

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
Implement Protected
Intersection
Pedestrian Refuge Island
NORTH

CALAROGA
AVENUE

TENNYSON ROAD
ST. ROSE HOSPITAL
Install tra
c signal mast arms for
north- and south-bound tra
c
Bike Lane Symbology
Class II
Class IV
Other Symbology
Remove Parking
Medians/Pedestrian Refuge Islands
Black Shading
Crosswalk
For wider crosswalk, just increase the stroke thickness.

Tra
c calming recommendation
Bicycle recommendation
Pedestrian recommendation
Callouts
Alternative to Protected Intersection:
- Median refuge across Tennyson
- No Right on Red at all corners
- Convert NB Calaroga thru-right lane to
thru-only lane to reduce turn conflicts
- Install bike turn boxes on Calaroga
#
2 Proposed Class IIB
on Calaroga Ave
+LPI
MATCHLINE - SHEET 2
MATCHLINE - SHEET 4
3 NORTH

CALAROGA
AVENUE

TENNYSON ROAD
ST. ROSE HOSPITAL
Install tra
c signal mast arms for
north- and south-bound tra
c
Other Symbology
Remove Parking
Medians/Pedestrian Refuge Islands
Black Shading
Crosswalk
For wider crosswalk, just increase the stroke thickness.

ATTACHMENT V
368
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 HIGHWAY I-880

HESPERIAN BLVD

MISSION BLVD

UPRR TRACKS

BART TRACKS

TENNYSON ROAD

CALAROGA AVE

PATRICK AVE

TYRRELL AVE

TAMPA AVE

RUUS ROAD HUNTWOOD AVE

DIXON ST
12TH ST

WHITMAN ST
SLEEPY

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
Implement Protected
Intersection
Pedestrian Refuge Island
NORTH
UNDERCROSSING HIGHWAY I-880

TENNYSON ROAD
I-880 SOUTHBOUND ONRAMP

SOUTHBOUND OFFRAMP

SOUTHBOUND OFFRAMP
I
-880

SOUTHBOUND ONRAMP
Add Midblock\Corner Bulb-Out
Upgrade Curb Ramp to meet
ADA standards
Add High Visibility Crosswalk
Add Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons (RRFB)
Add Other Signage
Add Right-Turn Only Signage
Signalized Intersection
Bus Stop

EXISTING
Implement Protected Intersection
Any improvements require
coordination with Caltrans
Long term: Consider diamond interchange
configuration of on/o ramps to reduce
uncontrolled crossings with pedestrians.

See Sheet 21
Widen sidewalks +
narrow vehicle lanes
2 MATCHLINE - SHEET 3
MATCHLINE - SHEET 5
4 NORTH
UNDERCROSSING HIGHWAY I-880

TENNYSON ROAD
I-880 SOUTHBOUND ONRAMP

SOUTHBOUND OFFRAMP

SOUTHBOUND OFFRAMP
I
-880

See Sheet 21
Widen sidewalks +
narrow vehicle lanes
2 MATCHLINE - SHEET 5
Typical Cross Sections
Segment 2 — Calaroga Avenue to Patrick Avenue
SHEET 6
Hayward HIN Safety Plan TENNYSON ROAD
November 2025
See SHEET 4 for existing cross section and proposed alternatives.

ATTACHMENT V
369
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 HIGHWAY I-880

HESPERIAN BLVD

MISSION BLVD

UPRR TRACKS

BART TRACKS

TENNYSON ROAD

CALAROGA AVE

PATRICK AVE

TYRRELL AVE

TAMPA AVE

RUUS ROAD HUNTWOOD AVE

DIXON ST
12TH ST

WHITMAN ST
SLEEPY

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
Implement Protected
Intersection
Pedestrian Refuge Island
NORTH

PATRICK AVENUE

TENNYSON ROAD

NORTHBOUND OFFRAMP
I-880 NORTHBOUND ONRAMP
I-880 NORTHBOUND
ONRAMP

NORTHBOUND OFFRAMP
Add signal or Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon (PHB) at on/o ramps
Add signal or Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon (PHB) at
on/o ramps
2 Proposed Class IV
on Patrick Ave
Long term: Consider diamond interchange
configuration of on/o ramps to reduce
uncontrolled crossings with pedestrians.

See Sheet 21
MATCHLINE - SHEET 4
MATCHLINE - SHEET 6
5 NORTH

TRICK AVENUE

TENNYSON ROAD

NORTHBOUND O
I-880 NORTHBOUND ONRAMP
I-880 NORTHBOUND
ONRAMP

See Sheet 21
MATCHLINE - SHEET 4
MATCHLINE - SHEET 6
Typical Cross Sections
Segment 2 — Calaroga Avenue to Patrick Avenue
SHEET 7
Hayward HIN Safety Plan TENNYSON ROAD
November 2025
See SHEET 4 for existing cross section and proposed alternatives.

ATTACHMENT V
370
# Cross Section Location
Legend
Signalized Intersection

HESPERIAN BLVD

MISSION BLVD

TENNYSON
ROAD

CALAROGA AVE

PATRICK AVE

TYRRELL AVE

POMPANO AVE

TAMPA AVE

RUUS ROAD

HUNTWOOD AVE

DIXON ST

WHITMAN ST
12TH ST
SLEEPY

HOLLOW AVE
HTRON
2 1
4 3
5 6
880
Class II bike lanes in
both directions
Segment 3 — Patrick Avenue to Ruus Road
SHEET 8
Replace “No Parking
Lanes” on both sides
of the road to upgrade
bike lanes to Class IV
flex post-protected bike
lanes
Replace Parking Lanes
on both sides of the
road to upgrade bike
lanes to Class IV curbprotected bike lanes
Note: Sidewalk may diverge to avoid disrupting mature trees

EXISTING CONDITIONS

HIGH INVESTMENT OPTION
Lane Narrowing + Curb Separated Bikeways

LOW IMPACT OPTION
Existing Conditions + Spot Improvements

CONTINUOUS BIKE FACILITY
Lane Narrowing + Flex Post Buffer
Existing conditions with
spot improvements
such as pedestrian
scale lighting, bulb
outs, protected signal
phasing, etc.

Hayward HIN Safety Plan TENNYSON ROAD
November 2025

ATTACHMENT V
371
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10
11 12
13 HIGHWAY I-880

HESPERIAN BLVD

MISSION BLVD

UPRR TRACKS

BART TRACKS

TENNYSON
ROAD

CALAROGA AVE

PATRICK AVE

TYRRELL AVE

TAMPA AVE

RUUS ROAD

HUNTWOOD AVE

DIXON ST
12TH ST

WHITMAN ST
SLEEPY

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
Implement Protected
Intersection
Pedestrian Refuge Island
NORTH

TENNYSON ROAD

PATRICK AVENUE

POMPANO AVENUE

TAMPA AVENUE

TENNYSON ROAD

PATRICK AVENUE

POMPANO AVENUE

TAMPA AVENUE

WEEKES PARK
Add “Do Not Block
Intersection” markings
No Right
turn on Red
Eliminate right turn lane as
part of separated bikeways
Protected left turn signal phase
Raise the median height to a standard 6”
curb + add median crossing island
Realign crosswalk + add
high visibility restriping
3 Proposed Class IV
on Patrick Ave
Proposed Class IIB
on Tampa Ave
MATCHLINE - SHEET 5
MATCHLINE - SHEET 7
Typical Cross Sections
Segment 3 — Patrick Avenue to Ruus Road
SHEET 9
Hayward HIN Safety Plan TENNYSON ROAD
November 2025
See SHEET 8 for existing cross section and proposed alternatives.

ATTACHMENT V
372
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 HIGHWAY I-880

HESPERIAN BLVD

MISSION BLVD

UPRR TRACKS

BART TRACKS

TENNYSON ROAD

CALAROGA AVE

PATRICK AVE

TYRRELL AVE

TAMPA AVE

RUUS ROAD HUNTWOOD AVE

DIXON ST
12TH ST

WHITMAN ST
SLEEPY

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
Implement Protected
Intersection
Pedestrian Refuge Island
NORTH

TAMPA AVENUE

DICKENS AVENUE

TENNYSON ROAD DRAINAGE CHANNEL
RUUS PARK +

ELEMENTARY
MATCHLINE - SHEET 6
MATCHLINE - SHEET 8
Add pedestrian
median island
4 7
NORTH

AMPA AVENUE

DICKENS AVENUE

TENNYSON ROAD DRAINAGE CHANNEL
RUUS PARK +

ELEMENTARY
MATCHLINE - SHEET 6
MATCHLINE - SHEET 8
Add pedestrian
median island
4 Typical Cross Sections
Segment 3 — Patrick Avenue to Ruus Road
SHEET 10
Hayward HIN Safety Plan TENNYSON ROAD
November 2025
See SHEET 8 for existing cross section and proposed alternatives.

ATTACHMENT V
373
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10
11 12
13 HIGHWAY I-880

HESPERIAN BLVD

MISSION BLVD

UPRR TRACKS

BART TRACKS

TENNYSON
ROAD

CALAROGA AVE

PATRICK AVE

TYRRELL AVE

TAMPA AVE

RUUS ROAD

HUNTWOOD AVE

DIXON ST
12TH ST

WHITMAN ST
SLEEPY

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
Implement Protected
Intersection
Pedestrian Refuge Island
NORTH

HARVEY AVENUE

TENNYSON ROAD

RUUS ROAD

TYRRELL AVENUE

HARVEY AVENUE

TENNYSON ROAD

RUUS ROAD

TYRRELL AVENUE

HALDANE COURT
MATCHLINE - SHEET 7
MATCHLINE - SHEET 9
No right on red
Straighten crosswalk + add
pedestrian median island
Straighten crosswalk +
coordinate crossing with left turn
light onto Ruus from Tennyson
Eliminate right turn lane as
part of separated bikeways
4 Proposed Class IV
on Ruus Road
Consolidate driveways to
reduce ped conflict potential
+LPI
Typical Cross Sections
Segment 3 — Patrick Avenue to Ruus Road
SHEET 11
Hayward HIN Safety Plan TENNYSON ROAD
November 2025
See SHEET 8 for existing cross section and proposed alternatives.

ATTACHMENT V
374
# Cross Section Location
Legend
Signalized Intersection

HESPERIAN BLVD

MISSION BLVD

TENNYSON
ROAD

CALAROGA AVE

PATRICK AVE

TYRRELL AVE

POMPANO AVE

TAMPA AVE

RUUS ROAD

HUNTWOOD AVE

DIXON ST

WHITMAN ST
12TH ST
SLEEPY

HOLLOW AVE
HTRON
2 1
4 3
5 6
880
Class II bike lanes in
both directions
Segment 4 — Ruus Road to Whitman Street
SHEET 12
Narrow center median
and turn lane to allow
for buffer-protected
bike lanes on both sides
of the street

EXISTING CONDITIONS

HIGH INVESTMENT OPTION
Buffered Bikeways in Both Directions

LOW IMPACT OPTION
Existing Conditions + Spot Improvements

CONTINUOUS BIKE FACILITY
Lane Narrowing + Striped Buffer
Existing conditions with
spot improvements
such as pedestrian
scale lighting, bulb
outs, protected signal
phasing, etc.

Narrow travel lanes to
provide wider bike lanes
and/or striped buffer
where street parking
exists
Hayward HIN Safety Plan TENNYSON ROAD
November 2025

ATTACHMENT V
375
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 HIGHWAY I-880

HESPERIAN BLVD

MISSION BLVD

UPRR TRACKS

BART TRACKS

TENNYSON ROAD

CALAROGA AVE

PATRICK AVE

TYRRELL AVE

TAMPA AVE

RUUS ROAD HUNTWOOD AVE

DIXON ST
12TH ST

WHITMAN ST
SLEEPY

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
Implement Protected
Intersection
Pedestrian Refuge Island
NORTH

TENNYSON ROAD

BRUNO STREET

ANDREA STREET

BALDWIN STREET

MANON AVENUE
TENNYSON YOUTH +

COMMUNITY CENTER

TENNYSON PARK

VENDORS UTILIZE THIS

TENNYSON ROAD

BRUNO STREET

ANDREA STREET

ALDWIN STREET

MANON AVENUE
TENNYSON YOUTH +

COMMUNITY CENTER

TENNYSON PARK

VENDORS UTILIZE THIS

PARKING LANE
MATCHLINE - SHEET 8
MATCHLINE - SHEET 10
Right turn only
restriction
Consider + accommodate
local vendors
- Signal or Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
(PHB), further study needed
- Advance stop bars - Daylight intersection - Remove left turn lane - Add pedestrian refuge island 5 Relocate bus stop
Typical Cross Sections
Segment 4 — Ruus Road to Whitman Street
SHEET 13
Hayward HIN Safety Plan TENNYSON ROAD
November 2025
See SHEET 12 for existing cross section and proposed alternatives.

ATTACHMENT V
376
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10
11 12
13 HIGHWAY I-880

HESPERIAN BLVD

MISSION BLVD

UPRR TRACKS

BART TRACKS

TENNYSON
ROAD

CALAROGA AVE

PATRICK AVE

TYRRELL AVE

TAMPA AVE

RUUS ROAD

HUNTWOOD AVE

DIXON ST
12TH ST

WHITMAN ST
SLEEPY

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
Implement Protected
Intersection
Pedestrian Refuge Island
NORTH

TENNYSON ROAD

HUNTWOOD
AVENUE

LEIDIG COURT

UPRR CROSSING

LUSTIG COURT

CESAR CHAVEZ

TENNYSON ROAD

HUNTWOOD
AVENUE

LEIDIG COURT

UPRR CROSSING

LUSTIG COURT

CESAR CHAVEZ

MIDDLE SCHOOL
MATCHLINE - SHEET 9
MATCHLINE - SHEET 11
- Add left turn signals
- Add Median refuge
- Coordinate crossing with left turn
light onto Huntwood and Tennyson
Coordinate improvements with ongoing
Tennyson Road crossing project
6 Proposed Class IV
on Huntwood Ave
Straighten crosswalk +
coordinate crossing with left turn
light onto Ruus from Tennyson
+LPI
Typical Cross Sections
SHEET 14
Segment 4 — Ruus Road to Whitman Street
Hayward HIN Safety Plan TENNYSON ROAD
November 2025
See SHEET 12 for existing cross section and proposed alternatives.

ATTACHMENT V
377
# Cross Section Location
Legend
Signalized Intersection

HESPERIAN BLVD

MISSION BLVD

TENNYSON
ROAD

CALAROGA AVE

PATRICK AVE

TYRRELL AVE

POMPANO AVE

TAMPA AVE

RUUS ROAD

HUNTWOOD AVE

DIXON ST

WHITMAN ST
12TH ST
SLEEPY

HOLLOW AVE
HTRON
2 1
4 3
5 6
880
Class II bike lanes in
both directions
SHEET 15
Replace Parking Lane
on south side of road
with a flex postprotected two-way
Class IV cycle track
Narrow median +
replace Parking Lane
on south side of road
with a curb-height twoway Class IV cycle track
Segment 5 — Whitman Street to 12th Street/Dixon Street

EXISTING CONDITIONS

HIGH INVESTMENT OPTION
Striped Buffer + Raised Separated Bikeways

LOW IMPACT OPTION
Existing Conditions + Spot Improvements

CONTINUOUS BIKE FACILITY
Lane Narrowing + Flex Post Buffer
Existing conditions with
spot improvements
such as pedestrian
scale lighting, bulb
outs, protected signal
phasing, etc.

Hayward HIN Safety Plan TENNYSON ROAD
November 2025

ATTACHMENT V
378
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10
11 12
13 HIGHWAY I-880

HESPERIAN BLVD

MISSION BLVD

UPRR TRACKS

BART TRACKS

TENNYSON
ROAD

CALAROGA AVE

PATRICK AVE

TYRRELL AVE

TAMPA AVE

RUUS ROAD

HUNTWOOD AVE

DIXON ST
12TH ST

WHITMAN ST
SLEEPY

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
Implement Protected
Intersection
Pedestrian Refuge Island
NORTH

TENNYSON ROAD

BEATRON WAY

WHITMAN STREET

OHARRON

COLE PLACE
DRIVE
ST. TROPEZ PL
PACIFI
C
ST

CESAR CHAVEZ

MIDDLE SCHOOL
MATCHLINE - SHEET 10
MATCHLINE - SHEET 12
Reconstruct sidewalks
+ curb ramps
Improve intersection geometry to
enhance pedestrian + cyclist safety
Right turn only restriction + add partial
splitter island for exiting vehicles
Add crosswalk + stop bar
6 Increase bike facility separation from
vehicle trac to increase safety at
intersection. To be evaluated in
preliminary design.
11 NORTH

TENNYSON ROAD

HUNTWOOD
AVENUE

LEIDIG COURT

UPRR CROSSING

LUSTIG COURT

CESAR CHAVEZ

MIDDLE SCHOOL
MATCHLINE - SHEET 9
MATCHLINE - SHEET 11
- Add left turn signals
- Add Median refuge
- Coordinate crossing with left turn
light onto Huntwood and Tennyson
Coordinate improvements with ongoing
Tennyson Road crossing project
6 Proposed Class IV
on Huntwood Ave
Straighten crosswalk +
coordinate crossing with left turn
light onto Ruus from Tennyson
+LPI
Typical Cross Sections
Segment 5 — Whitman Street to 12th Street/Dixon Street
SHEET 16
Hayward HIN Safety Plan TENNYSON ROAD
November 2025
See SHEET 15 for existing cross section and proposed alternatives.

ATTACHMENT V
379
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10
11 12
13 HIGHWAY I-880

HESPERIAN BLVD

MISSION BLVD

UPRR TRACKS

BART TRACKS

TENNYSON
ROAD

CALAROGA AVE

PATRICK AVE

TYRRELL AVE

TAMPA AVE

RUUS ROAD

HUNTWOOD AVE

DIXON ST
12TH ST

WHITMAN ST
SLEEPY

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
Implement Protected
Intersection
Pedestrian Refuge Island
NORTH

TENNYSON ROAD
E 12TH ST
E 13TH ST
E 10TH ST
E 11TH ST

DIXON STREET

RAIL OVERCROSSING

BART OVERCROSSING

SOUTH HAYWARD

BART STATION
MATCHLINE - SHEET 11
MATCHLINE - SHEET 13
Eliminate right turn lane as
part of separated bikeways
Increase bike facility separation
from vehicle tra c to increase
safety at intersection. To be
evaluated in preliminary design.

Consider median change btwn Dixon +
Mission for roadway reconfiguration
Add median refuge islands
Expand sidewalks
btwn Dixon + Mission Switchback ramp entry
to access BART station
Expand sidewalks into Class I shared use
path that connects into BART station
Adjust northbound stop bars to
accommodate wider turning movements
Add speed feedback sign on
this portion of the corridor
underneath rail crossing
Add red light camera
6 Proposed Class IIB
on Dixon Street
12 NORTH

TENNYSON ROAD
E 12TH ST
E 13TH ST
10TH ST
E 11TH ST

DIXON STREET

AIL OVERCROSSING

ART OVERCROSSING

SOUTH HAYWARD

Consider median change btwn Dixon +
Mission for roadway reconfiguration
Expand sidewalks
btwn Dixon + Mission Switchback ramp entry
to access BART station
Expand sidewalks into Class I shared use
path that connects into BART station
Adjust northbound stop bars to
accommodate wider turning movements
Add speed feedback sign on
this portion of the corridor
underneath rail crossing
Add red light camera
6 Proposed Class IIB
on Dixon Street
Typical Cross Sections
SHEET 17
Segment 5 — Whitman Street to 12th Street/Dixon Street
Hayward HIN Safety Plan TENNYSON ROAD
November 2025
See SHEET 15 for existing cross section and proposed alternatives.

ATTACHMENT V
380
# Cross Section Location
Legend
Signalized Intersection

HESPERIAN BLVD

MISSION BLVD

TENNYSON
ROAD

CALAROGA AVE

PATRICK AVE

TYRRELL AVE

POMPANO AVE

TAMPA AVE

RUUS ROAD

HUNTWOOD AVE

DIXON ST

WHITMAN ST
12TH ST
SLEEPY

HOLLOW AVE
HTRON
2 1
4 3
5 6
880
Replace turn lane
on south side of road
with a planter-protected
one-way Class IV cycle
track
Class II bike lanes in
both directions
Replace Parking Lanes
on both sides of the
road to upgrade bike
lanes to Class IV curbprotected bike lanes
Segment 6 — 12th Street/Dixon Street to Mission Boulevard SHEET 18
Note: Existing south sidewalk has numerous utilities
which create barriers for pedestrians.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

HIGH INVESTMENT OPTION
Raised Separated Bikeways

LOW IMPACT OPTION
Existing Conditions + Spot Improvements

CONTINUOUS BIKE FACILITY
Lane Narrowing + Striped Buffer
Existing conditions with
spot improvements
such as pedestrian
scale lighting, bulb
outs, protected signal
phasing, etc.

Hayward HIN Safety Plan TENNYSON ROAD
November 2025

ATTACHMENT V
381
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 HIGHWAY I-880

HESPERIAN BLVD

MISSION BLVD

UPRR TRACKS

BART TRACKS

TENNYSON ROAD

CALAROGA AVE

PATRICK AVE

TYRRELL AVE

TAMPA AVE

RUUS ROAD HUNTWOOD AVE

DIXON ST
12TH ST

WHITMAN ST
SLEEPY

SPOT IMPROVEMENT

EXISTING
Implement Protected
Intersection
Pedestrian Refuge Island
NORTH

MISSION BOULEVARD

TENNYSON ROAD
MATCHLINE - SHEET 12
- No Right on Red - Pedestrian refugues - Bulbouts
Expand sidewalks between
Dixon + Mission
7 Proposed Class IV
on Mission Blvd
13 NORTH

MISSION BOULEVARD

TENNYSON ROAD
MATCHLINE - SHEET 12
- No Right on Red - Pedestrian refugues - Bulbouts
Expand sidewalks between
Dixon + Mission
7 Proposed Class IV
on Mission Blvd
Typical Cross Sections
Segment 6 — 12th Street/Dixon Street to Mission Boulevard SHEET 19
Hayward HIN Safety Plan TENNYSON ROAD
November 2025
See SHEET 18 for existing cross section and proposed alternatives.

ATTACHMENT V
382
In order to retain flex-post protected separated bikeways on Tennyson Road, a temporary bus boarding island may
be required at bus stops.

CONTINUOUS BIKE FACILITY:

TRANSIT INTEGRATION
Bus Platform Compatibility
SHEET 20
Diagrammatic On- and Off-Ramp for I-880
SHEET 20
Changing on- and off-ramps to perpendicular
intersections allows for safer crossing for pedestrians and cyclists. This also frees up public land to be used for other purposes. Rough square footage is shown for each
quadrant, but specific planning and zoning changes would be studied further if this change were implemented.

LONG-TERM PROPOSED RAMP CHANGE
Hayward HIN Safety Plan TENNYSON ROAD
November 2025

ATTACHMENT V
383
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
Hayward High Injury Network Safety Plan:

A Street, B Street, and Tennyson Road
Corridors
Existing Conditions Summary
August 2025

ATTACHMENT VI
384
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report Table of Contents 1 Project Introduction
3 Background Research
4 Safety Analysis
5 Advanced Data Analytics
2 2 Existing Conditions

ATTACHMENT VI
385
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
Project Introduction
3 ATTACHMENT VI
386
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report Project Background The City of Hayward (City) adopted its first
Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) in 2023 and
is looking to address safety concerns on its
streets. This study is phase one of the City’s
effort to improve safety conditions on its
High Injury Network (HIN). The HIN
comprises just 14% of City streets while
accounting for over 75% of serious and
deadly crashes in the City. The study is
federally funded through the Safe Streets
and Roads for All (SS4A) grant program and
will include identification and evaluation of
safety countermeasures, conceptual plans,
and cost estimates for each of the study
corridors.

A Map of the City’s High Injury Network
4 ATTACHMENT VI
387
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report A Street and B Street Project Extents
Project Extents Include:
• A Street from Hesperian
Boulevard to Watkins
Street/Lucky Driveway.
• B Street from Martin Luther
King Drive to Watkins
Street/Lucky Driveway.
5 ATTACHMENT VI
388
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report Tennyson Road Project Extents
6 Project Extents Include:
• Tennyson Road from
Hesperian Boulevard
to Mission Boulevard.

ATTACHMENT VI
389
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report Project Timeline 7 2025 Feb May Jun Jul Aug Sep Nov
Project Start
Feb
Round 1 Outreach
May - July
Analysis &
Concept Development
2026 Jan Feb Mar Jun Jul Sep Nov
Round 2 Outreach
Jan - Feb
Refine Design
Alternatives
Round 3 Outreach
Jun - Jul
Finalize Design
Alternatives
City Council Approval
Nov

ATTACHMENT VI
390
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report Project Outcomes and Objectives
• Project goals include:
• The development, analysis, and
design of community supported
project alternatives to improve
safety on each of the study
corridors.
• The completion of Roadway
Safety Audits (RSAs) for each
study corridor.
• Final design concepts, which will
include cost estimates and
implementation plans.
8 Project team during Tennyson Road RSA

ATTACHMENT VI
391
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
Existing Conditions
9 ATTACHMENT VI
392
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report A St and B St Land Use
10 West of Meekland Avenue,
A Street primarily consists
of general commercial or
mixed-use commercial/high
density residential land
uses. Between Meekland
Avenue and Grand Street, A
Street and B Street
primarily consists of medium
density residential. East of
Grand Street the land use is
primarily central city-retail
and office commercial

ATTACHMENT VI
393
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report A Street and B Street Existing Conditions
11 A Street primarily has two through lanes in each
direction. Segments immediately east of I-880
have three through lanes in each direction. The
corridor has a 30 MPH speed limit west of Grand
Street and a 25 MPH speed limit east of Grand
Street.

B Street primarily has one through lane in either
direction. There is a second westbound lane from
Watkins Street to the BART/UPRR railroad
crossing. B Street has a 25 MPH speed limit for
the entirety of the corridor.
1 2
3 4
1 2

ATTACHMENT VI
394
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
12 1
A Street between Hesperian Blvd
and I-880 interchange (~92 ft
ROW)
2 A Street between I-880
Interchange and Hathaway Ave
(~113.5 ft ROW)
A Street Cross-sections
*Cross sections face westbound

ATTACHMENT VI
395
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
13 3
A Street between Hathaway
Avenue and Meekland Avenue
(~79 feet ROW)
4 A Street between Meekland
Avenue and Watkins Street (~113
feet ROW)
A Street Cross-sections Cont.
*Cross sections face westbound

ATTACHMENT VI
396
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
14 1
B Street between Hesperian Boulevard
and Grand Street (~79’ ROW)
B Street Cross-sections
*Cross sections face westbound
2 B Street between Hesperian Boulevard
and Grand Street (~81’ ROW)

ATTACHMENT VI
397
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report A Street and B Street Existing Conditions
15 A Street primarily includes bicycle lanes (Class II), with gaps, designated as a bicycle route (Class III), at the I-880 underpass and east of Montgomery Avenue. The gap at the I-880 interchange is expected to be upgraded to bicycle lanes (Class II) as a part of the ongoing I-880 Interchange Improvements project. A Street has no sidewalk gaps, but sidewalks become narrow underneath the I-880 bridge and east of the UPRR railroad tracks on the south side of the street. A Street has three uncontrolled crossings; each located at a three-leg T-intersection. Of the three midblock crossings, one has a Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB). Most of the corridor’s intersections are signalized with a few side street stop-controlled intersections.

B Street has bicycle lanes (Class II) from Martin Luther King Drive to Grand Street. The bicycle lanes pick up again for a short segment between the BART/UPRR crossing and Montgomery Avenue. B Street has no sidewalk gaps, but the existing sidewalks west of the Alice Street are less than 5’ in some areas. Other than the signalized intersections at Grand Street and Watkins Street, B Street has exclusively all-way stop controlled intersections.

ATTACHMENT VI
398
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report Tennyson Road Land Use
16 Tennyson Road’s primary
land uses are retail and
office commercial
concentrated between Ruus
Road and the UPRR
Railroad tracks, sustainable
mixed-use on the eastern
end of the corridor, and low
to medium density
residential for the remainder
of the corridor.

ATTACHMENT VI
399
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report Tennyson Road Existing Conditions Cont.
17 Tennyson Road has two through lanes in each
direction. The corridor has a 35 MPH speed limit
west of Ruus Road, and a 25 MPH speed limit
between Ruus Road and Mission Boulevard.

Roughly 1/3 includes a curb lane where parking is
prohibited. This curb lane currently provides no
functional use for roadway users and represents an
opportunity for improved non-motorized facilities or
other safety improvements.
1 2
3 ATTACHMENT VI
400
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
18 1
Tennyson Road between Hesperian
Boulevard and I-880 Interchange (~109 feet
ROW)
2 Tennyson Road between I-880 Interchange
and Leidig Court (~110 feet ROW)
Tennyson Road Cross-sections
*Cross sections face westbound

ATTACHMENT VI
401
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
19 3
Tennyson Road between Leidig Court and
Mission Boulevard (~103 feet ROW)
Tennyson Road Cross-sections (Cont.)
*Cross sections face westbound

ATTACHMENT VI
402
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report Tennyson Road Existing Conditions
20 Tennyson Road primarily includes bicycle lanes (Class II) with gaps, designated as a bicycle route (Class III), at the I880 overpass and eastbound east of Dixon Street. Tennyson Road has a missing sidewalk connection on the south side of the corridor just east of I-880 and narrow sidewalks on various areas of the corridor including between Sleepy
Hollow Avenue S and Caloraga Avenue, over I-880, and just west of Tyrell Avenue on the north side of the street. There are two uncontrolled crossings on the corridor, one of which has an RRFB (Baldwin Street). The corridor includes a
combination of side-street stop-controlled intersections and signalized intersections.

ATTACHMENT VI
403
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report Site Visits
• Two project team site visits were
conducted, one for the A & B Street
study area and one for the Tennyson
Road study area.
• The A & B Streets site visit occurred in
the afternoon of March 24th, 2025.
• The Tennyson Road site visit occurred
in the morning of April 1st, 2025.

Biker rides on the sidewalk on West A Street
21 ATTACHMENT VI
404
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report A Street: Key Findings 22 • Those rolling on the corridor (bike, scooter, and
skateboard users) often used the sidewalks
instead of bike facilities. Those that did use the
bike facilities often rode in the opposing direction
of the bike lane.
• Pedestrian crossings at the I-880 interchange felt
uncomfortable due to low visibility at the offramps.
• Pedestrians were observed crossing A Street
outside of crosswalks, specifically near Walnut
Street and east of Hesperian Boulevard.
• Large eastbound left-turn queuing was observed
at Santa Clara Street/ Hathaway Avenue that
backed up to I-880.
• The eastern portion of the corridor has many
driveways.

ATTACHMENT VI
405
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report B Street: Key Findings • There are narrow sidewalks on the
western end of the corridor near
Cannery Park.
• Parking on B Street Near Cannery
Park was underutilized in the early
afternoon hours.
• B Street east of Grand Street is
missing bicycle facilities.
• Pedestrian scale lighting is missing
from the majority of the north side of
the corridor.
23 ATTACHMENT VI
406
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report Tennyson Road: Key Findings 24 • Micromobility users use narrow sidewalks
and crosswalks, creating
bicycle/pedestrian conflicts.
• Several crosswalks were obstructed with
median noses.
• Sidewalk gaps and obstructions exist
throughout the corridor.
• High vehicle speeds were observed west
of Patrick Avenue.
• Many of the three-leg T-intersections
allow permissive left turning movements
while the pedestrians are given a walk
signal.
• Long stretches of Tennyson Road have
eight-foot-wide curb-adjacent roadway
space with “No Parking” signage.

ATTACHMENT VI
407
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
Background
Research
25 ATTACHMENT VI
408
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 2020
• Overarching goals include safety,
complete streets, access & mobility, and
funding & implementation.
• The study identifies portions of A Street, B
Street, and Tennyson Road as priority
corridors for safety improvements.
• The plan also outlines infrastructure
recommendations for pedestrian
improvements and future bicycle network.
26 ATTACHMENT VI
409
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 2020 Recommendations
• A Street
• Class IV Separated Bikeway between
Skywest Drive and 4th Street
• B Street
• Class II Bicycle Lane between Grand
Street and Watkins Street
• Class III Bicycle Boulevard between
Watkins Street and Foothill Boulevard
• Tennyson Road
• Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane
between Industrial Boulevard and
Hesperian Boulevard
• Class IV Separated Bikeway between
Hesperian Boulevard and Mission
Boulevard
27 City of Hayward BPMP - Bicycle and Pedestrian Bicycle Facilities Map

ATTACHMENT VI
410
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report 2023 Local Roadway Safety Plan • Crashes were analyzed from 2017-2021.
• The study used crash data to identify a High
Injury Network (HIN):
• 9 intersections within the study area were
identified as high injury network
intersections.
• A Street, B Street, and Tennyson Road
between Pompano and Ruus Road were
ranked Tier 1 priority roadway segments
• Tennyson Road between Hesperian
Boulevard and Mission Boulevard was
ranked Tier 2 priority roadway segment
• The study also identified a set of
countermeasures and strategies to address
safety challenges in the City. City of Hayward - High Injury Network Map 28 ATTACHMENT VI
411
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report 2023 Local Roadway Safety Plan Cont.

High Injury Network Intersections
29 Rank Location Location Type
1 Tennyson Rd & Baldwin St Unsignalized
3 Tennyson Rd & Calaroga Ave Signalized
4 A St & Victory Dr Signalized
8 A St & Foothill Blvd Signalized
9 Tennyson Rd & Huntwood Ave Signalized
11 A St & Western Blvd Signalized
13 CA-185 & B St Signalized
15 A St & Montgomery St Signalized
16 Tennyson Rd & 12 St/Dixon St Signalized
17 A St & Hesperian Blvd Signalized
20 Tennyson Rd & Ruus Rd Signalized

ATTACHMENT VI
412
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report 2023 Local Roadway Safety Plan Location-Specific Recommendations
Tennyson & Baldwin
Unsignalized Intersection
Tennyson & Calaroga
Signalized Intersection
30 ATTACHMENT VI
413
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report Recommendations to Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety of the City of Hayward: Tennyson Road Corridor
2018
• A Community Pedestrian and Bicycle
Safety Training (CPBST) workshop
identified pedestrian and bike priorities
and improvements.
• Attendees included representatives from
transit agencies, organizations,
businesses, and community members.
31 ATTACHMENT VI
414
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
Identified Issues
• Narrow and obstructed sidewalks
• High vehicle speeds
• Unsafe crossings
• Inadequate bike lanes
Community Priorities and
Recommendations
• Enhance pedestrian and bicyclist
safety
• Improve access to schools and
community centers
• Address infrastructure deficiencies
• Repair sidewalks
• Create continuous and protected
bike lanes
• Implement traffic calming measures
Recommendations to Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle
Safety of the City of Hayward: Tennyson Road Corridor
2018
32 ATTACHMENT VI
415
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report Tennyson Thrives Vision Plan • The study was a collaboration between
community members, City staff, and the
Chabot College Student Initiative Center.
• It included the development of a Vision
Plan focused on highlighting stories,
histories, assets, and aspirations of
communities along Tennyson Road.
33 ATTACHMENT VI
416
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
Safety Analysis
34 ATTACHMENT VI
417
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report SWITRS Data and Locations 35 A Street B Street Tennyson Road
Bike-Involved Collisions 5 5 9
Pedestrian-Involved
Collisions 16 3 28
Auto-Only Collisions 98 27 194
0 50
100
150
200
250
Chart Title
Study Period: 2019-2024 (6 years)
• A Street Total Collisions: 119
• B Street Total Collisions: 35
• Tennyson Road Total Collisions: 231
Study Area Wide Collisions by Mode

ATTACHMENT VI
418
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
385 crashes
on A/B Streets and
Tennyson Road since
2019
31 severe injuries or
fatalities
since 2019
46% of severe injury or
fatal crashes
involved someone
walking or biking
36 Key Analysis Findings

ATTACHMENT VI
419
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report Vulnerable Road User Injuries 37 Corridor Fatality Severe Injury
A St 2 3
B St 0 0
Tennyson Rd 1 4
Total 3 7
Pedestrian Collisions Bicycle Collisions
Corridor Fatality Severe Injury
A St 0 1
B St 0 1
Tennyson Rd 0 1
Total 0 3

ATTACHMENT VI
420
Hayward Police Department Year Vulnerable Road User -End Report Sever and Fatal Collisions
38 Location Severity Vulnerable Road
User
Crash Cause
A St and Walnut St Severe Pedestrian Pedestrian Violation A St and Princeton St* Fatal / Severe Pedestrian Pedestrian Violation A St and Princeton St Fatal Pedestrian Pedestrian Violation A St and Western Blvd Severe Bicyclist
Wrong Side of the
Road
A St and Montgomery Ave Severe Pedestrian Pedestrian ROW B St and Western Blvd Severe Bicyclist
Traffic Signals and
Signs
Tennyson and Hesperian Blvd Severe Pedestrian Unsafe Speed Tennyson and Patrick Ave Severe Bicyclist
Wrong Side of the
Road
Tennyson and Ruus Rd Severe Pedestrian Pedestrian Violation Tennyson and Ruus Rd Severe Pedestrian Pedestrian Violation Tennyson and Baldwin St Fatal Pedestrian Pedestrian ROW Tennyson and Baldwin St Severe Pedestrian Pedestrian Violation *This collision occurring at Princeton Street resulted in both a fatality and severe injury.

ATTACHMENT VI
421
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report A Street and B Street Collision Analysis
2 7
19 56
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Fatal Injuries Severe Injuries Minor or Visible
Injuries
Complaints of
Pain
A Street Injuries
0 2
7 9
0 2
4 6
8 10
Fatal Injuries Severe Injuries Minor or Visible
Injuries
Complaints of
Pain
B Street Injuries
39 ATTACHMENT VI
422
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report A Street and B Street Collision Analysis
40 • The collision hotspot near A Street and
Princeton Street had eight crashes, half of which
resulted in either a fatality or severe injury.

Based on the collision data, six of the eight
crashes (including all four of the crashes that
resulted in a sever or fatal injury) occurred at
night.
• In 2019, A Street had six severe or fatal
collisions. Since then, there have only been two
severe or fatal collisions on the corridor.
• B Street had one severe or fatal collision in
2019 and has only had one since.

Collision
Hotspot

ATTACHMENT VI
423
Hayward Police Department Year A -End Report Street
Intersection Collisions by Type
41 Intersection Head On Sideswipe Rear End Broadside Hit Object Overturned Vehicle/Pedestrian Other Total A St and Hesperian Blvd 3 1 1 5 1 3 14
A St and Royal Ave 1 1 2 4
A St and Victory Dr 1 1 2
A St and Garden Ave 1 1 2
A St and S Garden Ave 2 5 2 1 2 12
A St and I-880 On Ramp 2 1 3
A St and I-880 Overpass 1 1 1 3
A St and Happyland Ave 1 1 2
A St and Hathaway Ave 2 3 5 4 4 18
A St and Walnut St 1 1
A St and Princeton St 1 1 1 2 5
A St and Filbert St 1 1 2
A St and Myrtle St 2 2
A St and Flagg St 1 1 1 3
A St and Western Blvd 2 2 2 3 2 1 12
A St and Montgomery St 1 3 1 5
Total 7 20 15 15 14 2 14 3 90

ATTACHMENT VI
424
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report B Street
Intersection Collisions by Type
42 Intersection Head On Sideswipe Rear End Broadside Hit Object Overturned Vehicle/Pedestrian Other Total B St and Meekland Ave 1 1 2
B St and Walnut St 1 1 1 3
B St and Filbert St 1 1
B St and Alice St 2 2
B St and Western Blvd 1 1 2 2 2 8
B St and Montgomery St 1 1 1 2 5
B St and Watkins St 2 1 2 5
Total 1 5 4 4 5 0 3 4 26

ATTACHMENT VI
425
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report A and B Street Collision Types 43 8%
23%
18%
17%
14%
3%
14%
3% 3%
14%
20%
26%
17%
9%
11%
A Street B Street
• A Street’s most frequent type of
collision was sideswipe, followed
by rear end and broadside
collisions.
• B Street’s most frequent type of
collision was broadside, followed
by rear end collisions and hit
objects.
• 4 of the 6 hit objects on B
Street occurred between
Grand Street and Montgomery
Avenue.

ATTACHMENT VI
426
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
10%
22%
11%
27%
7%
11%
12%
A Street Top Collision Causes
44 A Street
• The two highest crash violation categories on A
Street were improper turning maneuvers (27)
followed by unsafe speeds (22). The next highest
category, traffic signals and signs, had 12 crashes.

ATTACHMENT VI
427
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
14%
28%
7% 17%
17%
10%
7%
B Street Top Collision Causes
45 B Street
• The highest crash violation categories on B
Street were unsafe speeds (8) followed by
pedestrian ROW and traffic signals/signs (5
each).

ATTACHMENT VI
428
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report Tennyson Road Collision Analysis
2 18
40 110
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
Fatal Injuries Severe Injuries Minor or Visible
Injuries
Complaints of Pain
Tennyson Road Injuries
46 ATTACHMENT VI
429
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report Tennyson Road Collision Analysis
47 • The collision hotspot near the “downtown”
area of Tennyson Road between Ruus
Road and Huntwood Avenue (boxed in red
to the left) had 56 crashes, over half of
which occurred at night. This area also saw
high levels of collisions involving unsafe
speeds and alcohol/drug related driving.
• Tennyson Road consistently had between
two and six severe or fatal collisions each
year between 2019 and 2023. 2024 was
the only year during the study period with
fewer than two severe or fatal collisions.

Collision
Hotspot

ATTACHMENT VI
430
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report Tennyson Road Intersection Collisions by Type
48 Intersection Head On Sideswipe Rear End Broadside Hit Object Overturned Vehicle/Pedestrian Other Total Tennyson Rd and Hesperian Blvd 3 7 8 7 1 1 27
Tennyson Rd and Calaroga Ave 6 4 1 1 1 1 14
Tennyson Rd and I-880 Overpass 1 1
Tennyson Rd and Patrick Ave 1 2 11 5 1 20
Tennyson Rd and Pompano Ave 1 2 3 1 1 8
Tennyson Rd and Tampa Ave 1 5 5 1 1 4 17
Tennyson Rd and Dickens Ave 2 1 3
Tennyson Rd and Tyrell Ave 1 1 1 1 1 5
Tennyson Rd and Haldane Ct 1 1
Tennyson Rd and Harvey Ave 1 1 2
Tennyson Rd and Ruus Rd 1 2 5 3 6 1 1 19
Tennyson Rd and Andrea St 2 2
Tennyson Rd and Baldwin St 1 3 4
Tennyson Rd and Manon Ave 1 1
Tennyson Rd and Huntwood Ave 4 1 6 6 2 1 1 21
Tennyson Rd and Leidig Ct 1 2 3
Tennyson Rd and Beatron Way 3 2 1 1 2 9
Tennyson Rd and Pacific St 1 1 5 1 8
Tennyson Rd and E 12th St 1 6 2 1 1 1 12
Tennyson Rd and Mission Blvd 3 3 8 4 4 2 24
Total 13 20 55 54 28 5 21 5 201

ATTACHMENT VI
431
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report Tennyson Road Collision Types 49 6%
13%
25%
25%
14%
2%
13%
2%
Tennyson Rd
• Tennyson Road’s most frequent types
of collision were broadside and rear
end, followed by hit object, pedestrian
and sideswipe collisions.
• There were hit object collisions
spaced throughout the corridor on
Tennyson Road; however,
hotspots with seven or more of
these collisions were observed at
Ruus Road and Hesperian
Boulevard.

ATTACHMENT VI
432
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
7%
19%
27%
11%
9%
9%
18%
Tennyson Road Top Collision Causes
50 Tennyson Rd
• The three highest crash violation
categories on Tennyson Road were
unsafe speeds (51) driving while under
the influence (35), and traffic
signs/signals (34). The next highest
category, improper turning, had 21
crashes.

ATTACHMENT VI
433
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
Advanced Data
Analytics
51 ATTACHMENT VI
434
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report Data Collection • Conflict data by post-encroachment time (PET), modes involved, and movement type (including video recordings, and vehicle volumes)
• Red-light running counts
• Bicycle and pedestrian path of travel data
• All data was collected for one weekday and one weekend at 9 intersections across the study area • A Street and Hesperian Boulevard
• A Street and Victory Drive
• A Street and Western Boulevard/Grant Street
• A Street and Montgomery Street
• Tennyson Road and Calaroga Avenue
• Tennyson Road and Ruus Road
• Tennyson Road and Baldwin Street
• Tennyson Road and Huntwood Avenue
• Tennyson Road and 12th Street/Dixon Avenue
• Additional details broken down by intersection as well as an in-depth methodology are provided in Appendix A 52 ATTACHMENT VI
435
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report Analysis Categories and Terms • Analysis Categories
• Vehicle-Vehicle Conflicts and Red-Light Running Analysis • Vulnerable Road User (VRU) Conflict Analysis
• Video Observations
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Path of Travel
• Terms
• Post Encroachment Time (PET) is defined as the time between one road user crossing a certain point in space and the second road user crossing that same point.

A lower PET indicates a higher risk.
• High Risk: events with a PET less than 1.5 seconds
• Moderate Risk: events with a PET between 1.5 and 3 seconds • Moderate risk events generally pose more significant threats to VRUs than to vehicles 53 ATTACHMENT VI
436
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report Vehicle-Vehicle Conflict Findings • No intersection was found to have more
than one high-risk conflict between
vehicles.
• Western Blvd/Grand St & A St was found
to have the highest total number of
vehicle-vehicle conflicts, which were
primarily related to northbound left-turn
movements.
• Additionally, as seen in the table to the
right, Western Blvd/Grand St & A St had
the highest rate of red-light running
occurrences.
54 Intersection Weekday Weekend
Average for all 8 signalized intersections 1.95 2.15
Hesperian Blvd and West A St 1.23 0.42
Victory Dr and West A St 3.29 4.37
Western Blvd/Grand St and A St 5.47 4.83
Montgomery Ave and A St 3.40 2.94
Calaroga Ave and Tennyson Rd 0.73 1.28
Ruus Rd and Tennyson Rd 1.03 0.86
Huntwood Ave and Tennyson Rd 0.94 1.22
E 12th Street/Dixon Street and Tennyson Road 0.91 2.84
Red Light Runs per 1,000 Vehicles

ATTACHMENT VI
437
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report VRU Conflict Findings • Significantly higher pedestrian activity was observed than bicycle activity.
• More conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians
were observed, though there was often a higher
conflict rate at intersections with bicyclists.
• VRU conflicts were predominantly from right turning
vehicles
• Hesperian Blvd & West A St had the highest number of
high-risk conflicts between bicyclists/pedestrians and
vehicles.
• Over the weekend period alone there were 13
high-risk pedestrian conflicts with vehicles.
• The intersection at Huntwood Avenue and Tennyson
Road showed a broad distribution of vehicle-VRU
conflicts for multiple movements in multiple legs of the intersection.
• This intersection may consequently be a good
candidate for a protected intersection.
55 Intersection Weekday Weekend
Pedestrian Bicyclist Pedestrian Bicyclist
Hesperian Blvd and
West A St 8.99 14.63 9.88 18.80
Victory Dr and West A
St 3.44 1.85 1.60 6.12
Western Blvd/Grand St
and A St 6.14 17.50 7.77 14.41
Montgomery Ave and
A St 5.56 7.46 4.37 4.46
Calaroga Ave and
Tennyson Rd 9.48 3.85 9.92 4.61
Ruus Rd and
Tennyson Rd 7.43 7.05 10.87 5.71
Baldwin St and
Tennyson Rd 4.71 4.50 2.95 7.28
Huntwood Ave and
Tennyson Rd 6.09 8.46 5.41 9.80
E 12th Street/Dixon
Street and Tennyson
Road

10.63 15.85 4.73 4.7
Conflicts per 100 Bikes/Pedestrians

ATTACHMENT VI
438
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report Bike and Pedestrian Findings • The bicycle and pedestrian path of travel analysis revealed that, at most intersections, pedestrians typically cross via the crosswalk while paths of travel of bicyclists were more varied.
56 Weekday bicycle path of travel at 12th/Dixon & Tennyson Road Weekend pedestrian paths of travel, Ruus Rd & Tennyson Rd

ATTACHMENT VI
439
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report Bike and Pedestrian Findings Cont. • At some intersections bikers appear to be comfortable making left turns, whereas at other intersections there are relatively few observed left turns. One of such streets where few left turning movements were observed is the intersection at Hesperian Boulevard and A Street. 57 Weekday bicycle path of travel at 12th/Dixon & Tennyson Road Weekday bicycle path of travel at Hesperian Blvd & West A St.

ATTACHMENT VI
440
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
Appendix A –
Advanced Data
Analytics Analysis
Methodology

ATTACHMENT VI
441
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 1 Hayward, CA High Injury Network Safety Plan To: Byron Tang, City of Hayward, CA
Adam Dankberg, Kimley-Horn
From: Kelly Dunn, Alta Planning + Design
Date: August 12, 2025
Re: Advanced Analytics Methodology and Findings (Task 2) Introduction
This memo provides details on Alta’s methodology and findings for Task 2: Advanced Analytics. This task involved accessing data from video analytics at nine intersections along two High Injury Network corridors: Tennyson Road and A Street/West A Street. The data detects behavior by pedestrians and bicyclists, collectively referred to as Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs), as well as motor vehicles.

Alta conducted the analysis using four types of data from video analytics:
• Conflicts between motor vehicles or motor vehicles and VRUs, including tabular summaries and raw video footage • Red light running events by motor vehicles
• Path of travel diagrams for bikes and pedestrians
• Total counts of bikes, pedestrians, and vehicles through the intersection This analysis was conducted at nine intersections:
• Hesperian Blvd and West A St
• Victory Dr and W A St
• Western Blvd and A St
• Montgomery Ave and A St
• Calaroga Ave and Tennyson Rd
• Ruus Rd and Tennyson Rd
• Baldwin St and Tennyson Rd1
• Huntwood Ave and Tennyson Rd
• 12th St/Dixon St and Tennyson Rd
Conflicts offer a different perspective on safety issues faced by drivers and VRUs. Alta’s analysis details the occurrences of these conflicts by vehicle turning type, time of day, and more. While crash data can shed light on crashes that have already occurred, conflict data highlights potentially risky conditions that affect real and perceived safety for all road users, while video footage allows for a deeper understanding of driver behavior. Taking action 1 Baldwin and Tennyson is an unsignalized intersection, so red light running data was not collected there.

MEMORANDM ATTACHMENT VI
442
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 2 Hayward, CA High Injury Network Safety Plan based on these findings may help prevent crashes and improve perceived safety for future road users, though, as we will explain, the extent to which conflicts can be used to predict future crashes is unclear.

Methodology
Data Sources
Kimley-Horn provided Alta staff with raw data in Excel format from Quality Counts, a vendor supplying video analytics data from traffic cameras at intersections. The data contained the following data points for conflict events for both weekend and weekday observations at the nine intersections.2 A conflict event is defined as any encounter between a vehicle and another vehicle or VRU with a Post Encroachment Time of three seconds or less. Post Encroachment Time (PET) is defined as the time between one road user crossing a certain point in space and the second road user crossing that same point. A lower PET indicates a higher risk. The raw data contained the following information:

Conflicts
• Counts of conflicts by Post-Encroachment Time (PET) and modes involved (vehicle-vehicle, vehicle-pedestrian, and vehicle-bike)
• Counts of all conflicts by movement type of each vehicle or vulnerable road user (such as northbound left or eastbound right)
• PET, time of day, pedestrian and vehicle movement type of each vehicle-pedestrian conflict occurrence • PET, time of day, bicyclist, and vehicle movement type of each vehicle-bicyclist conflict occurrence • PET, time of day, and vehicle movement type of each vehicle-vehicle conflict occurrence • Links to videos of conflict occurrences
• Images of bicycle and pedestrian trajectories at each intersection Volumes
• Count of vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle volumes by movement and time of day in 5-minute increments • Count of peak-hour volumes by mode and direction of travel or turning movement • Red Light Counts
• Movement type, time of day, and seconds into red phase of red light running occurrences. Data was collected from a minimum of two cameras at each intersection in order to capture all approaches.

While the data that Alta obtained classified VRUs as either bicyclists or pedestrians, Alta noted that users of scooters and other micromobility were generally included among bicyclists. 2 Each intersection was studied either on March 20 & 22, 2025, or April 3 & 5, 2025. Each pair of dates comprised a Thursday and a Saturday.

ATTACHMENT VI
443
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 3 Hayward, CA High Injury Network Safety Plan Data Cleaning
Alta applied the following steps to clean the data:
• Extracted every individual table from Excel and imported into R Studio for further analysis • Removed red light running events where any special circumstances were noted, such as an ambulance or a traffic officer waving someone into the intersection.
• Categorized time stamps into time bins of night (midnight – 6 am), morning (6 – 10 am), midday (10 am – 3 pm), afternoon (3 – 7 pm), and evening (7 pm – midnight)
• Summarized data into formats that could be used to create tables and charts.

Assumptions
• Alta classified events with a PET of between 1.5 and 3 seconds as “moderate risk” and less than 1.5 seconds as “high risk.” This was based on a review of a sample of videos provided by Quality Counts, with the threshold applied to both vehicle-VRU conflicts and vehicle-vehicle conflicts. • In many vehicle-vehicle “moderate risk” events, a left-turning vehicle waited for a through vehicle to pass before turning left in a controlled manner less than three seconds later. Alta assumes that this is not a high-risk situation but kept the moderate risk data in the analysis because, in most cases, no or few high-risk conflicts occurred between vehicles.

Metrics Calculated
Alta calculated the following metrics for each of the nine intersections studied:

Vehicle-Vehicle Metrics
• Total vehicles is the total number of vehicles recorded passing through that intersection during the 24-hour study period for either the weekday or weekend day reported.
• Total conflicts is the total number of encounters between two vehicles with a PET of less than 3 seconds • Total red light running events counts the number of events where a vehicle entered the intersection during the red-light phase (excluded at non-signalized intersections). • Total high-risk conflicts is the total number of encounters between two vehicles with a PET of less than 1.5 seconds.
• Conflicts per 1,000 vehicles is the total conflicts divided by total vehicles, multiplied by 1,000.

Bicycle & Pedestrian Metrics
These metrics were calculated separately for bicyclists and pedestrians at each intersection:
• Total counts reports the total number of pedestrians or cyclists recorded at that intersection during the study period.
• High-risk conflicts with vehicles is the total number of encounters between a pedestrian or cyclist and a vehicle with a PET of less than 1.5 seconds.
• Total conflicts with vehicles is the total number of encounters between a pedestrian or cyclist and a vehicle with a PET of less than 3 seconds.
• Conflicts per 100 bikes/pedestrians is the total conflicts with vehicles divided by the total counts for that VRU mode, multiplied by 100. We used 100, rather than 1000, because the incidence rate involving VRUs was much higher than that involving only vehicles.

ATTACHMENT VI
444
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 4 Hayward, CA High Injury Network Safety Plan Findings
Overall Trends from the Data
Vehicle-Vehicle Conflicts
The vehicle-vehicle conflict analysis analyzed conflicts between two motor vehicles, shown in Table 1. The analysis found that no intersection had more than one high-risk conflict between vehicles on either a weekend or weekday.

When comparing intersections, Western Boulevard/Grand Street & A Street had the highest total number of vehiclevehicle conflicts, which were primarily concentrated in northbound left turn movements. Two intersections on Tennyson Road, Baldwin Street and Huntwood Ave, also saw much higher numbers of vehicle-vehicle conflicts than the other study intersections. Both of these intersections also had conflicts concentrated around left turn movements.

Table 1: Vehicle-vehicle conflicts by day type and by risk level Intersection Weekday Weekend Moderate Risk High Risk
Hesperian Blvd and West A St 8 7 15 0
Victory Dr and West A St 0 1 1 0
Western Blvd/Grand St and A St 75 83 157 1
Montgomery Ave and A St 1 4 5 0
Calaroga Ave and Tennyson Rd 9 1 10 0
Ruus Rd and Tennyson Rd 3 4 6 1
Baldwin St and Tennyson Rd 17 24 40 1
Huntwood Ave and Tennyson Rd 56 44 99 11
E 12
th St/Dixon St and Tennyson Rd 0 3 3 0
Red Light Running
Western Boulevard/Grand Street & A Street had the highest rate of red light running, with 5.47 runs per 1,000 vehicles during a weekday, and 4.83 on a weekend (Table 2). The second-highest rate was at Victory Drive & West A Street, with 3.29 runs per 1,000 vehicles during a weekday, and 4.37 on a weekend. As demonstrated here, some intersections had higher red light running rates on weekdays, while others had higher rates on weekends. The predominant time period for red light running at each intersection is also shown here as well as in the infographic.

ATTACHMENT VI
445
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 5 Hayward, CA High Injury Network Safety Plan Table 2. Red Light Runs per 1,000 Vehicles
Intersection
Total Events Per 1,000 Vehicles Predominant Time
Period Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend
All 9 intersections 484 477 1.95 2.15 Midday
Hesperian Blvd and West A St 55 16 1.23 0.42 Afternoon
Victory Dr and West A St 88 122 3.29 4.37 Midday
Western Blvd/Grand St and A
St
156 123 5.47 4.83 Midday & Afternoon
Montgomery Ave and A St 72 55 3.40 2.94 Midday & Afternoon Calaroga Ave and Tennyson
Rd 29 39 0.73 1.28 Morning, Midday & Evening
Ruus Rd and Tennyson Rd 33 26 1.03 0.86 Midday & Evening Huntwood Ave and Tennyson
Rd 31 37 0.94 1.22 Evening
E 12
th St/Dixon St and
Tennyson Rd 20 59 0.91 2.84 Midday
Table 2 shows that intersections also differed in the time of day when red light running occurred most frequently (not adjusting for volumes). Along Tennyson Road, incidents occurred more in the evening (7 pm – midnight) and sometimes midday (10 am – 3 pm), whereas along West A Street they tended more toward the midday and afternoon (3 pm – 7 pm). Mornings (6 am – 10 am) were not the predominant time at any intersection, despite being one of the peak commute times. This suggests that exposure alone does not account for increases in red light running.

The infographic also shows red light runs by vehicle turning movement. Across the study area, most red light runs were by vehicles traveling straight through the intersection, and primarily along either Tennyson Road or West A Street rather than the cross-street. For example, at Calaroga Avenue & Tennyson Road, almost all red light runs were eastbound or westbound through traffic, traveling along Tennyson Road. There were two notable exceptions: At Huntwood Avenue and Tennyson Road there were several red light runs by left-turning vehicles turning northbound, eastbound, and southbound, and the number of straight red light runs was lower here than for many other intersections. Meanwhile, at Hesperian Boulevard & West A Street, there were about as many westbound left red light runs as there were southbound straight red light runs.

ATTACHMENT VI
446
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 6 Hayward, CA High Injury Network Safety Plan Vulnerable Road User Conflict Analysis
The Vulnerable Road User (VRU) conflict analysis analyzed all moderate and high-risk conflicts between a VRU and a motor vehicle. Table 3 summarizes rates of all conflicts by mode and intersection, normalized by bicycle and pedestrian volume. Across intersections, there were significantly more pedestrians than bicyclists counted, and the total number of conflicts with vehicles was higher among pedestrians than bicyclists. However, due to lower volumes, there were often higher conflict rates among bicyclists than pedestrians. The highest rate of conflicts per volume for bicyclists was at Hesperian Boulevard & West A Street on weekends, with a rate of 18.8 conflicts per 100 bicycles. For pedestrians, it was a rate of 10.87 conflicts per 100 pedestrians at Tennyson Road & Russ Road. This intersection also had the highest numbers of conflicts when not normalizing for volumes.

Table 4 and Table 5 summarize the pedestrian and bicycle conflicts by vehicle movement type across the nine intersections, combining the weekday and weekend counts. While conflicts with right-turning vehicles were the most common type overall, almost all conflicts at Baldwin Street & Tennyson Road were with vehicles going straight, partly because this is a 3-legged intersection with fewer turning movements. Left-turn conflicts were very prevalent at Huntwood Avenue & Tennyson Road. U-Turn and unknown turning movements have been excluded from these tables.

Table 3: All Conflicts per 100 Bikes/Pedestrians
Intersection
Weekday Weekend
Pedestrian Bicyclist Pedestrian Bicyclist
Hesperian Blvd and West A St 8.99 14.63 9.88 18.80
Victory Dr and West A St 3.44 1.85 1.60 6.12
Western Blvd/Grand St and A St 6.14 17.50 7.77 14.41
Montgomery Ave and A St 5.56 7.46 4.37 4.46
Calaroga Ave and Tennyson Rd 9.48 3.85 9.92 4.61
Ruus Rd and Tennyson Rd 7.43 7.05 10.87 5.71
Baldwin St and Tennyson Rd 4.71 4.50 2.95 7.28
Huntwood Ave and Tennyson Rd 6.09 8.46 5.41 9.80
E 12
th St/Dixon St and Tennyson Rd 10.63 15.85 4.73 4.70

ATTACHMENT VI
447
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 7 Hayward, CA High Injury Network Safety Plan Table 4: All Pedestrian Conflicts by Vehicle Turning Movements (Both observed days) Intersection
Vehicle Turning Movement
Northbound Eastbound Southbound Westbound
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Hesperian Blvd and West A St 4 4 42 -- 1 5 7 1 4 7 -- 40 115 Victory Dr and West A St 1 -- 10 -- 11 1 -- -- -- 3 4 1 31 Western Blvd/Grand St and A St 11 4 11 1 1 14 -- 2 8 -- -- 6 58 Montgomery Ave and A St -- 3 2 7 6 4 -- 3 17 3 9 2 56
Calaroga Ave and Tennyson Rd -- 1 25 1 -- -- 2 -- 1 1 1 5 37 Ruus Rd and Tennyson Rd 1 -- 25 -- 17 32 -- -- -- 5 16 -- 96 Baldwin St and Tennyson Rd -- -- -- 2 37 -- 2 -- -- -- 36 3 80 Huntwood Ave and Tennyson Rd 19 2 14 17 6 4 5 1 20 5 7 1 101 E 12th St/Dixon St and Tennyson Rd 1 1 -- -- 4 14 -- -- 5 -- 4 3 32 Total 37 15 129 28 83 74 16 7 55 24 77 61 606
Note: U-turns and unknown turning movements have been excluded from this table.

ATTACHMENT VI
448
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 8 Hayward, CA High Injury Network Safety Plan Table 5: All Bicycle Conflicts by Vehicle Turning Movements (Both observed days) Intersection
Vehicle Turning Movement
Northbound Eastbound Southbound Westbound
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Hesperian Blvd and West A St 1 2 18 -- -- 2 8 2 1 3 1 10 48 Victory Dr and West A St 1 1 -- 2 1 -- -- -- 2 -- -- 7
Western Blvd/Grand St and A St 2 4 12 2 1 -- -- 3 2 2 1 1 18 Montgomery Ave and A St -- 4 -- 3 3 1 2 6 -- 3 2 24
Calaroga Ave and Tennyson Rd -- -- 2 -- -- 1 1 -- -- 2 2 4 12 Ruus Rd and Tennyson Rd 5 -- 6 -- 4 9 -- -- -- -- 2 -- 26 Baldwin St and Tennyson Rd -- -- 1 11 -- -- -- -- -- -- 19 3 34 Huntwood Ave and Tennyson Rd 9 2 5 3 4 8 4 1 17 1 3 7 64 E 12th St/Dixon St and Tennyson Rd 1 3 -- 2 1 3 1 -- 2 -- 3 16 Total 19 15 45 21 15 25 14 8 26 12 31 30 249
Note: U-turns and unknown turning movements have been excluded from this table.

The infographics further break down these numbers by high-risk and total conflicts. The highest number of high-risk conflicts between bicyclists/pedestrians and vehicles again occurred at Hesperian Boulevard & West A Street. This includes 13 high-risk pedestrian conflicts with vehicles over the weekend alone, which is much higher than other intersections and higher than any weekday count. While at least part of this is attributable to higher volumes of pedestrians at this location, several other intersections had higher pedestrian volumes on weekends, but none had more than four high-risk conflicts. Some intersections such as E 12th Street/Dixon Street and Tennyson Road had stark differences between weekend and weekday rates, with higher rates on weekdays, while others such as Calaroga Avenue & Tennyson Road had little variation by day.

Observations from Videos
Alta reviewed a selection of video footage for different conflict types. Most moderate risk conflicts between vehicles, as noted above, only appeared to happen in a controlled manner where a left-turning vehicle turned before or after a through vehicle passed.

High risk conflicts were more complicated. At most intersections, the number of high-risk conflicts between vehicles and VRUs exceeded the number of high-risk conflicts between vehicles. In many cases, a vehicle turned just after a pedestrian crossed, leaving very little buffer in time or space. In other cases, a vehicle turned in front of a pedestrian, even causing the pedestrian to step back in fear of being hit. Several other cases involved pedestrians or cyclists appearing to enter the intersection against the signal.

ATTACHMENT VI
449
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 9 Hayward, CA High Injury Network Safety Plan The Alta team conducted in-depth video review for the two intersections with the highest VRU conflicts: Hesperian Boulevard & West A Street, and Huntwood Avenue & Tennyson Road.

Hesperian Blvd & West A St
Alta reviewed raw video footage for all high-risk VRU conflicts at this intersection on both the weekday and weekend counts, which included 18 pedestrian and 5 bicycle conflicts. The most common scenario (seven during the day, one at night), was a vehicle making a right turn that passed the conflict point just after a pedestrian in the crosswalk. This typically occurred with vehicles making a northbound right onto Hesperian Boulevard or a westbound right onto West A Street. These types of conflicts can feel intimidating to pedestrians even if the driver is in control because there is typically very little space between the pedestrian and vehicle, and the pedestrian often cannot verify that the driver sees them. A representative example of this conflict type can be seen at timestamp 0:18.

Another two conflicts with right-turning vehicles occurred with people on bikes rather than pedestrians. In one case, the person on the bike was crossing in the marked bicycle area and in the other, they were at the crosswalk.

Five conflicts occurred when a VRU appeared to be traveling against a signal, either pedestrians crossing without a signal (4) or a person on a (likely motorized) bicycle doing wheelies and running a red light (1). In these cases, vehicles passed both in front and behind the VRU and did not seem to regard the VRU’s presence.

Huntwood Avenue & Tennyson Road
Alta also reviewed raw video footage for all high-risk VRU conflicts at Huntwood Avenue & Tennyson Road, which included six pedestrian and five bicycle conflicts. Situations at this intersection were much more varied. In three instances, a left turning vehicle passed the conflict point just after a pedestrian in the crosswalk. In these cases, the vehicle waited in the intersection for the pedestrian but left very little room between them. In other cases, turning traffic turned just before a pedestrian who was already in the crosswalk.

Several of the bike conflicts involved what appeared to be a cyclist traveling against the signal or misunderstanding how to use the bike lane. In one instance, a cyclist waiting in the bike lane on Huntwood Avenue crossed in front of through traffic on their left once the light turned green to make a westbound left turn onto Tennyson, which put them at risk of being hit by through traffic.

Other incidents appear to stem from the inevitable conflict between drivers with permitted left turns at the same time that a pedestrian or bicyclist has a crosswalk signal. In one near miss, a bicyclist entered the crosswalk while a vehicle was in the process of executing a left turn.

This intersection appeared much darker on camera at night than Hesperian Boulevard & West A Street, making it difficult at times to discern what was happening. If this is reflective of actual nighttime visibility here, interventions for greater visibility at this intersection should be considered at night.

ATTACHMENT VI
450
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 10 Hayward, CA High Injury Network Safety Plan Bicycle & Pedestrian Path of Travel
The bicycle and pedestrian path of travel analysis reviewed diagrams showing the actual paths of travel of VRUs through the intersections. Figure 1 shows the bicycle path of travel at Hesperian Boulevard & West A Street, looking southeast, as traffic moves along Hesperian Boulevard. The blue lines represent trajectories between a starting point (green dot) and end point (red dot)3. The analysis revealed that at most intersections, pedestrians typically cross via the crosswalk, paths of travel of bicyclists were much more varied. The diagram shows that while some southbound bicyclists use the crosswalk or green bike lane, many also use the travel lane. This is possibly because there is no southbound bike facility south of the intersection. On the westbound route, however, more cyclists appear to be using the bike facilities because they can continue westbound in the bike lane past the intersection. More consistent infrastructure may lead to more consistent choices about which facility to use. 3 As shown in the diagram, occasionally trajectories are mistakenly shown as starting or ending in the middle of the street or are too short to represent an actual path of travel. The data provider, QualityCounts, states that these are either false hits that got excluded from final data, or they represent trajectories that got interrupted and got reconnected before exporting final data.

Figure 1: Weekday bicycle path of travel at Hesperian Blvd & West A St (looking southeast).

ATTACHMENT VI
451
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 11 Hayward, CA High Injury Network Safety Plan In addition, a number of bicycle travel paths can be seen through the intersection that do not appear to be valid turning movements. These types of movements are less predictable for drivers and can contribute to conflicts as well.

Finally, it is notable that there do not appear to be many bicyclists at Hesperian Blvd & West A Street making left turns compared with 12th Street/Dixon Street & Tennyson Road, shown below in Figure 2. It could be that fewer people at Hesperian Boulevard & A Street desire to make left turns or that they prefer to cross via the crosswalk there because it does not feel safe to turn left in traffic.

For pedestrians, certain paths of travel were detected that would have placed a pedestrian in an unsafe position in the middle of the intersection, such as the weekend paths of travel at Ruus Road & Tennyson Road shown in Figure 3.

While some of these may indicate a pedestrian cutting a corner or other unsafe behavior, others could have been misclassifications of bicyclists or scooter users making valid left turns.

Figure 2: Weekday bicycle path of travel at 12th/Dixon & Tennyson Road Figure 3: Weekend pedestrian paths of travel, Ruus Rd & Tennyson Rd

ATTACHMENT VI
452
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 12 Hayward, CA High Injury Network Safety Plan Limitations
The ability to automatically detect conflicts based on PET is a powerful tool to improve real and perceived safety.

However, there are limitations when applying conflict data to improving safety in Hayward.

A study of conflicts in Reno, Nevada, acknowledged that PET alone does not reveal how a VRU would have perceived the risk to themselves during the event (Kelley et al., 2024). A VRU may feel completely safe and be taking a calculated risk to cross against a signal just after a vehicle has passed, for example. However, this could still indicate risk for a less-vigilant pedestrian. Conversely, events detected from traffic cameras may miss situations where a VRU feels at risk despite the event being over the PET threshold or situations where no actual conflict is detected, such as a close pass event. There are other factors that could impact how a VRU feels during an event, but that cannot be evaluated at scale using this data alone. These include:
• Whether the vehicle turned in front of or behind the VRU • Whether the vehicle is waiting very close to the crosswalk or inching forward as they wait for the VRU • The size of the vehicle
• Whether the VRU makes eye contact with the vehicle
• How close the vehicle is to the pedestrian while waiting for them to cross • Vehicle speed before crossing the path of travel and whether they braked or not to avoid hitting the VRU In addition, while conflicts indicate areas of concern for roadway users, there is limited evidence on how much they correlate with crash rates in Hayward because conflict data is not available for every intersection in the city, although previous research elsewhere has suggested a strong correlation (Kelley et al., 2024). Where conflicts do not correlate strongly with crash rates, it may indicate an intersection that VRUs avoid because it does not feel safe. Addressing perceived safety risks in these areas can encourage more biking and walking trips.

It is also unclear to what extent these events involve drivers disobeying the law. The California Driver Handbook, Section 7 says that drivers must reduce their speed or stop to allow the pedestrian to safely finish crossing, but does not specify if this means that a vehicle cannot enter an intersection at all while a pedestrian is crossing or how long they should wait (California DMV, n.d.). Even if such guidance existed, PET would not be a perfect measure of compliance. The data also does not indicate if a right-turning vehicle had a red or green light.

Finally, this data does not distinguish between instances where a VRU may have crossed the intersection against a signal. A review of a sample of videos revealed that while most VRUs appeared to be crossing with a signal, there were several conflict events where a pedestrian appeared to cross against the signal, as well as some instances where bicyclists or scooter users (who may have been detected as bicyclists here) ran red lights.

ATTACHMENT VI
453
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 13 Hayward, CA High Injury Network Safety Plan Conclusion
The advanced video analytics in this memo will supplement crash data, field observations, and public input in the development of countermeasures and concept designs for A Street, B Street, and Tennyson Road.

This supplemental analysis is critical to creating streets that are not only functionally safe, but also feel safe to all types of roadway users. Near-miss collisions can be a major cause of stress for people walking or biking along a street and can have a deterrent effect on people choosing to walk or bike in the future. Furthermore, documenting nearmiss collisions and red-light running allows for predictive analysis of where serious and fatal collisions may be more likely to occur in the future due to high-risk behaviors.

Key takeaways from this analysis include:
• The majority of vehicle-VRU conflicts were from drivers making right-turning movements in conflict with a crosswalk user. This could be mitigated by “No-Right-on-Red” designations at intersections or the introduction of Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) at signals.
• Some intersections also showed high numbers of vehicle-VRU conflicts where drivers were making left turns. This could be mitigated by eliminating permissive lefts during signal phases and installing dedicated left turn signal phases separate from crosswalk walk phases. Hesperian Blvd at A Street, Western/Grand at A Street, and Huntwood Avenue at Tennyson Road all showed higher counts of vehicle-VRU left turn conflicts. • Huntwood Avenue at Tennyson Road was the one intersection that showed a broad distribution of vehicle-VRU conflicts for multiple vehicle movements in multiple legs of the intersection. A protected intersection should be considered for this intersection, creating greater separation between vehicles and VRUs at the intersection and improving sight-lines and visibility for people walking or biking. • Intersections varied substantially in red light running, even when normalized for volumes. Western Blvd/Grand Street at A Street led with 5.5 red light running incidents per 1,000 vehicles. Risks from red-light running could be mitigated by the introduction of all-way red phases at intersections and/or exploring automated red-light running enforcement.
• Baldwin Street at Tennyson Road, the one unsignalized intersection, showed a high count of vehicle-VRU conflicts for through movements – drivers failing to yield to bicyclists or pedestrians at the crosswalk. Additional measures should be considered for this unsignalized crossing to improve VRU visibility and encourage yielding by drivers. • Path of travel analysis showed a high percentage of bicyclists using the sidewalk, which may contribute to higher rates of VRU-vehicle conflicts at intersections in the project area. The implementation of more robust and separated bike network infrastructure may help encourage people riding bicycles to not use the sidewalk and become more visible and expected for drivers at intersections. Raised cycle paths may also be worth exploring. • On Western/Grand and A Street and other intersections along A Street/West A Street, the most red light runs occurred in the midday and afternoon. Along Tennyson Road, the most red light runs occurred in the midday and evening.
• Hesperian Blvd & West A Street had both the highest rate and the highest number of VRU-vehicle conflicts, both moderate and high risk. Rates were highest on the weekend. • There was not a clear trend as to what day of the week most VRU-vehicle conflicts occurred. At some, conflicts were higher on weekdays and at others there was little difference. • Research on pedestrian safety at night suggests that while lighting is a necessary factor, lighting alone is not sufficient to improve safety (Sanders, 2023). To be effective, lighting should provide high contrast and illuminate the front of a person crossing, not the side or back. Other important strategies to pair with lighting include lower speeds to decrease stopping distance.

ATTACHMENT VI
454
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 14 Hayward, CA High Injury Network Safety Plan References
California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). (n.d.). Laws and rules of the road: Right-of-way. California Driver Handbook. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/handbook/california-driver-handbook/laws-and-rules-of-theroad/#rightofway Kelley, S., Peiffer, C., Guan, F., Xu, H., Okorocha, J., Dunn, K., & Cardillo, C. (2024). A geographic assessment of nearmiss events involving vehicles and vulnerable road users in Reno and Sparks, Nevada (Unpublished manuscript).

University of Nevada, Reno.

Sanders, R. (2023, June 28). NCHRP 17-97: Strategies to Improve Safety at Night. Presentation at TRB Safety Performance Mid-Year Meeting. Available at https://trbacs20.org/wpcontent/uploads/2023/06/2023MidyearWed_07_Sanders_NCHRP17-97_Update_Sanders_20230626.pdf.

ATTACHMENT VI
455
Hayward Police Department Year-End Report
Appendix B –
Advanced Data
Analytics Analysis
Sheets

ATTACHMENT VI
456
High Injury Network Safety Plan | Advanced Analytics
Hesperian Blvd & West A St
VEHICLE-VEHICLE CONFLICT ANALYSIS / MARCH 20 & 22, 2025 Notes

1. A high‑risk conflict is any situation with a post‑encroachment time (PET) < 1.5 seconds, with PET representing the gap between the first road user passing the conflict point and the second crossing the same point.

2. Some redlight running events had notes indicating that the event occurred but it was done because someone was waved into the intersection, or it was an emergency vehicle. These records were excluded from analysis.

Indicators Weekday Weekend
Total Vehicles 44,594 37,969
Total Conflicts 8 7
High Risk Conflicts 0 0
Conflicts per 1,000 vehicles 0.18 0.18
Total Red Light Running
Events
55 16
Red Light Runs per 1,000
Vehicles

1.23 0.42
Of the eight signalized intersections studied, the average red light running rate was 1.95 events per 1,000 vehicles on weekdays and 2.15 events per 1,000 vehicles on
weekends.

RED LIGHT RUNS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day By Vehicle Movement

VEHICLE CONFLICTS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day By First Vehicle Movement

ATTACHMENT VI
457
High Injury Network Safety Plan | Advanced Analytics
Hesperian Blvd & West A St
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN CONFLICT ANALYSIS / MARCH 20 & 22, 2025

LOOKING SOUTHEAST
Indicators
Weekday Weekend
Pedestrian Bicyclist Pedestrian Bicyclist
Total Counts 601 164 678 133
High Risk Conflicts with Vehicles 4 3 13 2
Total Conflicts with Vehicles 54 24 67 25
Conflicts per 100 Bikes/Pedestrians 8.99 14.63 9.88 18.80  High Risk – Bicycle
 High Risk – Pedestrian
 Moderate Risk – Bicycle
 Moderate Risk – Pedestrian
16831001 - Hesperian Blvd & W A St
3/20/25

BIKE PED
16831002 - Hesperian Blvd & W A St
3/22/25

BIKE PED
WEEKDAY WEEKEND Notes:

BIKE/PED CONFLICTS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day
By First Vehicle Movement

ATTACHMENT VI
458
High Injury Network Safety Plan | Advanced Analytics
Victory Dr & W A St
VEHICLE-VEHICLE CONFLICT ANALYSIS / APRIL 3 & 5, 2025
Notes

Indicators Weekday Weekend
Total Vehicles 26,728 27,943
Total Conflicts 0 1
High Risk Conflicts 0 0
Conflicts per 1,000 vehicles 0 0.04
Total Red Light Running
Events
88 122
Red Light Runs per 1,000
Vehicles

3.29 4.37
Of the eight signalized intersections studied, the average red light running rate was 1.95 events per 1,000 vehicles on weekdays and 2.15 events per 1,000 vehicles on
weekends.

RED LIGHT RUNS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day By Vehicle Movement

VEHICLE CONFLICTS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day By First Vehicle Movement

ATTACHMENT VI
459
High Injury Network Safety Plan | Advanced Analytics
Victory Dr & W A St
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN CONFLICT ANALYSIS / APRIL 3 & 5, 2025

LOOKING NORTHWEST
Indicators
Weekday Weekend
Pedestrian Bicyclist Pedestrian Bicyclist
Total Counts 523 182 1,371 98
High Risk Conflicts with Vehicles 0 0 1 0
Total Conflicts with Vehicles 18 3 22 6
Conflicts per 100 Bikes/Pedestrians 3.44 1.85 1.60 6.12 16831003 - Victory Dr & W A St
4/3/25

BIKE PED
16831004 - Victory Dr & W A St
4/5/25

BIKE PED
WEEKDAY WEEKEND Notes:

A high‑risk conflict is any situation with a post‑encroachment time (PET) < 1.5 seconds, with PET representing the gap between the first road user passing the conflict point and the second crossing the same point.  High Risk – Bicycle
 High Risk – Pedestrian
 Moderate Risk – Bicycle
 Moderate Risk – Pedestrian

BIKE/PED CONFLICTS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day
By First Vehicle Movement

ATTACHMENT VI
460
High Injury Network Safety Plan | Advanced Analytics
Western Blvd/Grand St & A St
VEHICLE-VEHICLE CONFLICT ANALYSIS / APRIL 3 & 5, 2025
Notes

Indicators Weekday Weekend
Total Vehicles 28,538 25,467
Total Conflicts 75 83
High Risk Conflicts 1 0
Conflicts per 1,000 vehicles 2.63 3.26
Total Red Light Running
Events
156 123
Red Light Runs per 1,000
Vehicles

5.47 4.83
Of the eight signalized intersections studied, the average red light running rate was 1.95 events per 1,000 vehicles on weekdays and 2.15 events per 1,000 vehicles on
weekends.

RED LIGHT RUNS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day By Vehicle Movement

VEHICLE CONFLICTS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day By First Vehicle Movement

ATTACHMENT VI
461
High Injury Network Safety Plan | Advanced Analytics
Western Blvd/Grand St & A St
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN CONFLICT ANALYSIS / APRIL 3 & 5, 2025

LOOKING NORTH
Indicators
Weekday Weekend
Pedestrian Bicyclist Pedestrian Bicyclist
Total Counts 456 80 386 111
High Risk Conflicts with Vehicles 1 1 2 1
Total Conflicts with Vehicles 28 14 30 16
Conflicts per 100 Bikes/Pedestrians 6.14 17.50 7.77 14.41 16831005 - Western Blvd/Grand St & A St
4/3/2025

BIKE PED
16831006 - Western Blvd/Grand St & A St
4/5/2025

BIKE PED
WEEKDAY WEEKEND Notes:

BIKE/PED CONFLICTS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day
By First Vehicle Movement

ATTACHMENT VI
462
High Injury Network Safety Plan | Advanced Analytics
Montgomery Ave & A St
VEHICLE-VEHICLE CONFLICT ANALYSIS / MARCH 20 & 22, 2025 Notes

Indicators Weekday Weekend
Total Vehicles 21,160 18,686
Total Conflicts 1 4
High Risk Conflicts 0 0
Conflicts per 1,000 vehicles 0.05 0.21
Total Red Light Running
Events
72 55
Red Light Runs per 1,000
Vehicles

3.40 2.94
Of the eight signalized intersections studied, the average red light running rate was 1.95 events per 1,000 vehicles on weekdays and 2.15 events per 1,000 vehicles on
weekends.

RED LIGHT RUNS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day By Vehicle Movement

VEHICLE CONFLICTS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day By First Vehicle Movement

ATTACHMENT VI
463
High Injury Network Safety Plan | Advanced Analytics
Montgomery Ave & A St
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN CONFLICT ANALYSIS / MARCH 20 & 22, 2025

LOOKING EAST
Indicators
Weekday Weekend
Pedestrian Bicyclist Pedestrian Bicyclist
Total Counts 630 201 481 202
High Risk Conflicts with Vehicles 1 0 2 2
Total Conflicts with Vehicles 35 15 21 9
Conflicts per 100 Bikes/Pedestrians 5.56 7.46 4.37 4.46  High Risk – Bicycle
 High Risk – Pedestrian
 Moderate Risk – Bicycle
 Moderate Risk – Pedestrian
16831007 - Montgomery Ave & A St
3/20/25

BIKE PED
16831008 - Montgomery Ave & A St
3/22/25

BIKE PED
WEEKDAY WEEKEND Notes:

BIKE/PED CONFLICTS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day
By First Vehicle Movement

ATTACHMENT VI
464
High Injury Network Safety Plan | Advanced Analytics
Calaroga Ave & Tennyson Rd
VEHICLE-VEHICLE CONFLICT ANALYSIS / MARCH 20 & 22, 2025 Notes

Indicators Weekday Weekend
Total Vehicles 39,623 30,412
Total Conflicts 9 1
High Risk Conflicts 0 0
Conflicts per 1,000 vehicles 0.23 0.03
Total Red Light Running
Events
29 39
Red Light Runs per 1,000
Vehicles

0.73 1.28
Of the eight signalized intersections studied, the average red light running rate was 1.95 events per 1,000 vehicles on weekdays and 2.15 events per 1,000 vehicles on
weekends.

RED LIGHT RUNS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day By Vehicle Movement

VEHICLE CONFLICTS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day By First Vehicle Movement

ATTACHMENT VI
465
High Injury Network Safety Plan | Advanced Analytics
Calaroga Ave & Tennyson Rd
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN CONFLICT ANALYSIS / MARCH 20 & 22, 2025

LOOKING NORTHEAST
Indicators
Weekday Weekend
Pedestrian Bicyclist Pedestrian Bicyclist
Total Counts 306 130 121 152
High Risk Conflicts with Vehicles 2 0 1 2
Total Conflicts with Vehicles 29 5 12 7
Conflicts per 100 Bikes/Pedestrians 9.48 3.85 9.92 4.61  High Risk – Bicycle
 High Risk – Pedestrian
 Moderate Risk – Bicycle
 Moderate Risk – Pedestrian
16831015 - Calaroga Ave & Tennyson Rd
3/20/25

BIKE PED
16831016 - Calaroga Ave & Tennyson Rd
3/22/25

BIKE PED
WEEKDAY WEEKEND Notes:

BIKE/PED CONFLICTS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day
By First Vehicle Movement

ATTACHMENT VI
466
High Injury Network Safety Plan | Advanced Analytics
Ruus Rd & Tennyson Rd
VEHICLE-VEHICLE CONFLICT ANALYSIS / MARCH 20 & 22, 2025 Notes

Indicators Weekday Weekend
Total Vehicles 32,001 30,088
Total Conflicts 3 4
High Risk Conflicts 0 1
Conflicts per 1,000 vehicles 0.09 0.13
Total Red Light Running
Events
33 26
Red Light Runs per 1,000
Vehicles

1.03 0.86
Of the eight signalized intersections studied, the average red light running rate was 1.95 events per 1,000 vehicles on weekdays and 2.15 events per 1,000 vehicles on
weekends.

RED LIGHT RUNS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day By Vehicle Movement

VEHICLE CONFLICTS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day By First Vehicle Movement

ATTACHMENT VI
467
High Injury Network Safety Plan | Advanced Analytics
Ruus Rd & Tennyson Rd
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN CONFLICT ANALYSIS / MARCH 20 & 22, 2025

LOOKING EAST
Indicators
Weekday Weekend
Pedestrian Bicyclist Pedestrian Bicyclist
Total Counts 579 227 497 175
High Risk Conflicts with Vehicles 1 2 4 1
Total Conflicts with Vehicles 43 16 54 10
Conflicts per 100 Bikes/Pedestrians 7.43 7.05 10.87 5.71  High Risk – Bicycle
 High Risk – Pedestrian
 Moderate Risk – Bicycle
 Moderate Risk – Pedestrian
16831017 - Ruus Rd & Tennyson Rd
3/20/25

BIKE PED
16831018 - Ruus Rd & Tennyson Rd
3/22/25

BIKE PED
WEEKDAY WEEKEND Notes:

BIKE/PED CONFLICTS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day
By First Vehicle Movement

ATTACHMENT VI
468
High Injury Network Safety Plan | Advanced Analytics
Baldwin St & Tennyson Rd
VEHICLE-VEHICLE CONFLICT ANALYSIS / MARCH 20 & 22, 2025 Notes

Indicators Weekday Weekend
Total Vehicles 25,612 25,178
Total Conflicts 17 24
High Risk Conflicts 1 0
Conflicts per 1,000 vehicles 0.66 0.95
Total Red Light Running
Events
NA NA
Red Light Runs per 1,000
Vehicles
NA NA
Of the eight signalized intersections studied, the average red light running rate was 1.95 events per 1,000 vehicles on weekdays and 2.15 events per 1,000 vehicles on
weekends.

This location does not have a traffic signal so red light running data is not applicable.

RED LIGHT RUNS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day By Vehicle Movement

VEHICLE CONFLICTS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day By First Vehicle Movement

ATTACHMENT VI
469
High Injury Network Safety Plan | Advanced Analytics
Baldwin St & Tennyson Rd
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN CONFLICT ANALYSIS / MARCH 20 & 22, 2025

LOOKING EAST
Indicators
Weekday Weekend
Pedestrian Bicyclist Pedestrian Bicyclist
Total Counts 1,061 289 1,085 316
High Risk Conflicts with Vehicles 2 0 3 2
Total Conflicts with Vehicles 50 13 32 23
Conflicts per 100 Bikes/Pedestrians 4.71 4.50 2.95 7.28  High Risk – Bicycle
 High Risk – Pedestrian
 Moderate Risk – Bicycle
 Moderate Risk – Pedestrian
16831019 - Baldwin St & Tennyson Rd
3/20/25

BIKE PED
16831020 - Baldwin St & Tennyson Rd
3/22/25

BIKE PED
WEEKDAY WEEKEND Notes:

BIKE/PED CONFLICTS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day
By First Vehicle Movement

ATTACHMENT VI
470
High Injury Network Safety Plan | Advanced Analytics
Huntwood Ave & Tennyson Rd
VEHICLE-VEHICLE CONFLICT ANALYSIS / MARCH 20 & 22, 2025 Notes

Indicators Weekday Weekend
Total Vehicles 32,967 30,433
Total Conflicts 56 44
High Risk Conflicts 1 0
Conflicts per 1,000 vehicles 1.70 1.45
Total Red Light Running
Events
31 37
Red Light Runs per 1,000
Vehicles

0.94 1.22
Of the eight signalized intersections studied, the average red light running rate was 1.95 events per 1,000 vehicles on weekdays and 2.15 events per 1,000 vehicles on
weekends.

RED LIGHT RUNS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day By Vehicle Movement

VEHICLE CONFLICTS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day By First Vehicle Movement

ATTACHMENT VI
471
High Injury Network Safety Plan | Advanced Analytics
Huntwood Ave & Tennyson Rd
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN CONFLICT ANALYSIS / MARCH 20 & 22, 2025

LOOKING SOUTHEAST
Indicators
Weekday Weekend
Pedestrian Bicyclist Pedestrian Bicyclist
Total Counts 887 390 942 347
High Risk Conflicts with Vehicles 3 3 3 2
Total Conflicts with Vehicles 54 33 51 34
Conflicts per 100 Bikes/Pedestrians 6.09 8.46 5.41 9.80  High Risk – Bicycle
 High Risk – Pedestrian
 Moderate Risk – Bicycle
 Moderate Risk – Pedestrian
16831021 - Huntwood Ave & Tennyson Rd
3/20/25

BIKE PED
16831022 - Huntwood Ave & Tennyson Rd
3/22/25

BIKE PED
WEEKDAY WEEKEND Notes:

BIKE/PED CONFLICTS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day
By First Vehicle Movement

ATTACHMENT VI
472
High Injury Network Safety Plan | Advanced Analytics
12th St/Dixon St & Tennyson Rd
VEHICLE-VEHICLE CONFLICT ANALYSIS / APRIL 3 & 5, 2025
Notes

Indicators Weekday Weekend
Total Vehicles 21,899 20,767
Total Conflicts 0 3
High Risk Conflicts 0 0
Conflicts per 1,000 vehicles 0 0.14
Total Red Light Running
Events
20 59
Red Light Runs per 1,000
Vehicles

0.91 2.84
Of the eight signalized intersections studied, the average red light running rate was 1.95 events per 1,000 vehicles on weekdays and 2.15 events per 1,000 vehicles on
weekends.

RED LIGHT RUNS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day By Vehicle Movement

VEHICLE CONFLICTS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day By First Vehicle Movement

ATTACHMENT VI
473
High Injury Network Safety Plan | Advanced Analytics
12th St/Dixon St & Tennyson Rd
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN CONFLICT ANALYSIS / APRIL 3 & 5, 2025

LOOKING EAST
Indicators
Weekday Weekend
Pedestrian Bicyclist Pedestrian Bicyclist
Total Counts 254 82 338 149
High Risk Conflicts with Vehicles 3 1 0 0
Total Conflicts with Vehicles 27 13 16 7
Conflicts per 100 Bikes/Pedestrians 10.63 15.85 4.73 4.70  High Risk – Bicycle
 High Risk – Pedestrian
 Moderate Risk – Bicycle
 Moderate Risk – Pedestrian
16831023 - 12th St/Dixon St & Tennyson Rd
4/3/25

BIKE PED
16831024 - 12th St/Dixon St & Tennyson Rd
4/5/25

BIKE PED
WEEKDAY WEEKEND Notes:

BIKE/PED CONFLICTS (ALL DAYS)
By Time of Day
By First Vehicle Movement

ATTACHMENT VI
474
Safe Streets Hayward – Round 2 Outreach Summary
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 1 City of Hayward
To: Byron Tang, City of Hayward, CA
From: Christopher Kidd, Alta Planning + Design
Date: April 2, 2026
Re: Hayward HIN Safety Plan: Round 2 Outreach Summary
Introduction
Round two of the Safe Streets Hayward Plan involved a range of engagement activities from January 5, 2026 through March 20, 2026. Outreach was a joint effort between staff from Alta, Kimley-Horn, City of Hayward, and Eden Youth & Family Center (project staff).

Outreach during Round 2 focused on sharing concept design alternatives for A Street, B Street, and Tennyson Road, and soliciting from the public their preferences for which concept design alternative to advance to 35% design. During this period, the project staff attended ten (10) events, reached seven hundred seventy (770) participants, and received one thousand forty two (1,042) comments/interactions.

Outreach activities were structured to reduce barriers for Haywards’s residents and visitors by:
• Bringing engagement to them at four pop-ups at existing community events or markets. Project staff also conducted a stakeholder meeting at an existing monthly meeting of local community based organizations. • Project staff facilitated two in-person community workshops - each focused on one of the project corridors (A/B Street and Tennyson Road).
• Eden Youth conducted community canvassing during two events held in their community space. They also conducted business canvassing along the project corridors.

In-person outreach was supported by a project website, an online survey, and promotion via email, phone, text, and social media. Summaries of key outreach initiatives are provided in this memo. All project materials and communications were provided in English, Spanish, and Farsi. Spanish interpretation was present at all events.

Summary of Engagement
Event/Input Type Number of Events Participants Total Comments/Interactions Pop-up Events 4 537 282
Stakeholder Meeting 2 32 26
Community Workshops 2 44 76
Community Canvassing 2 157 157
Online and Paper Surveys - - 497
Emails - - 4
Total 10 770 1,042

ATTACHMENT VII
475
Safe Streets Hayward – Round 2 Outreach Summary
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 2 City of Hayward
Summary of Findings
The public was asked to rank three concepts for the following streets and segments. Each set of concepts presented a no-change scenario (Concept 1), improvements through travel lane narrowing (Concept 2), and a high-investment scenario that would involve either travel lane or parking removal (Concept 3).

A Street – Hesperian Blvd to Meekland Ave
Across surveys and in-person events, participants voted most for Concept 2. This concept would narrow travel lanes in order to implement separated bikeways. Comments for this section of A Street reflected strong concern for congestion impacts from removing travel lanes (Concept 3), but paired with strong support for measures to increase safety, reduce travel speeds, and curtail red-light running.

A Street – Meekland Ave to Watkins Street
Respondents for this section overall expressed preference for Concept 3, which would involve removal of parking on the south side of the street to implement separated bikeways. The online survey responses, however, had a slight preference for Concept 2 over Concept 3, which would have retained street parking. Comments for this section of A Street focused on concerns about pedestrian safety and improving rates of crosswalk yielding by drivers. Concerns were raised about the impacts of parking removal on adjacent low-income residents or multi-generational housing.

A Street – Additional Input
Overall, residents considered the retention of travel lanes more important than retention of parking. Residents overwhelmingly preferred a project that maximized safety versus a project that could be built quickly.

B Street – MLK Dr to Montgomery St
Responses overall favored Concept 3, which would narrow the curb-to-curb roadway and construct a sidewalk-level Class IV separated bikeway on the south side of the street. In-person event responses most heavily favored Concept 3, while online and paper survey results showed near-equal support for Concept 2 and Concept 3. Comments for this sections focused on a greater appetite for traffic calming, improved lighting, and prioritizing pedestrian safety & comfort.

B Street – Montgomery St to Watkins St
Responses for this section, which were only captured through the online survey, show an almost equal split between support for Concept 2 (which would remove parking) and Concept 3 (which would remove a travel lane). Comments noted that this segment is of lesser importance than other areas of the Safe Streets Hayward project.

B Street – Additional Input
Responses strongly favored the retention of travel lanes rather than parking for this corridor. Similarly, responses overwhelmingly preferred a solution that maximized safety over one that could be built quickly.

Tennyson Road – Hesperian Blvd to Mission Blvd
Responses across surveys and in-person events for Tennyson Road favored Concept 3, which would involve parking removal to implement separated bikeways. Concept 2 scored close behind Concept 3 in online and paper surveys.

Comments focused on the safety concerns of driver speeds, red-light running, lack of lighting, unsafe freeway ramps, and failure of drivers to yield for pedestrians. A large number of comments expressed strong concerns about parking loss on Tennyson Road, with concern about harm to local businesses, street vendors, and low-income households with multiple vehicles.

Tennyson Road – Additional Input
While responses favored retaining travel lanes to retaining parking, there was less agreement compared to the other corridors. Responses for Tennyson also favored maximizing safety over building something quickly.

ATTACHMENT VII
476
Safe Streets Hayward – Round 2 Outreach Summary
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 3 City of Hayward
Round 2 Outreach Materials
The second round of outreach for the Hayward HIN Safety Plan included the following outreach and engagement materials. All materials were translated into Spanish and Farsi. • A set of six poster boards, used during pop-up events (Appendix A). These boards included:
o One board displaying the purpose of the project, a map of all high injury streets in Hayward, what we learned from round one analysis and outreach, and the project schedule. o One visual glossary board with descriptions and images of recommended improvements. Icons in the bottom left of each improvement photo correspond to icons on the improvement maps for reach corridor.
o Four concept boards - two boards for segments of A Street, one board for B Street, and one board for Tennyson Road. Each board has proposed intersection improvements at the top of the board and 3 concept options below. Participants are prompted to add a sticky note if we forgot an improvement on the corridor and/or place a sticky dot on the preferred concept for each corridor. • A flyer promoting the project and directing people to the project website (Appendix A). The flyer was handed out during pop-up events and canvassing.
• Three paper surveys – one for A Street, one for B Street and one for Tennyson Road. The survey had three components. First, participants are prompted to share if there are intersection improvements missing from the proposed safety improvement recommendations. Second, they are asked to rank and provide feedback on three concept designs. Lastly, participants are prompted to fill out an optional demographic survey. • A project website with information about the project, draft recommendations, and the project schedule. The project website also hosts the online survey. The online survey mirrors the paper survey, except that A Street and B Street are split up into two different sections.

Due to space constraints for in-person materials, the project team and City consolidated input space for printed materials. The project team included all project segments in the online survey and combined project components in the paper survey and outreach boards.

Table 1: Round 2 input space by medium
Paper survey Online Survey Outreach Boards
A Street (Hesperian Blvd to
Meekland Ave)
Excluded Included Included
A Street (Meekland Ave to
Watkins St)
Included Included Included
B Street (MLK to Montgomery) Included Included Included B Street (Montgomery to Watkins Excluded Included Excluded Tennyson Road Included Included Included

ATTACHMENT VII
477
Safe Streets Hayward – Round 2 Outreach Summary
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 4 City of Hayward
Summary of Promotion
The City of Hayward, Alta, and Eden Youth & Family Center conducted promotion for the second round of public outreach. Promotion included:
• Two rounds of city posts to LinkedIn, Facebook and Instagram. • Over 3,200 postcard mailers sent out to all households within 500 feet of each project corridor. • Four email blasts sent to the City, Alta, and Eden Youth’s contact lists. • Six text blasts sent to participants who shared their contact information during the first phase of outreach for the project (over 100 recipients).
• Emails and phone calls to 10 key organizational stakeholders. • Eden Youth conducted business canvassing, reaching eleven (11) businesses on A/B Streets and eleven (11) businesses along Tennyson Road.
• Canvassing and flyering at Burbank Elementary School during morning drop-off. • Eden Youth conducted community canvassing during two events held at Eden Youth & Family Center.

Figure 1. Social Media Graphics

ATTACHMENT VII
478
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 5 City of Cupertino
Summary of In-Person Engagement
Alta Planning + Design, city staff, Eden Youth, and Kimley-Horn staffed seven in-person engagement events during phase 2 of outreach. These pop-up events met the community where they were and gathered project feedback throughout the study area. Table 2 summarizes the number of interactions and engagement at each event.

Table 2: Summary of In-Person Engagement
Event Date Staffed By Interactions Engagement1 Paper Surveys Administered
Hayward Rides 1/30 Alta, Eden Youth, & City staff 75 23 31 Hayward Farmer’s Market 2/7 Alta, Eden Youth, & Kimley-Horn 190 128 48 Eden Hot Meals 2/14 Eden Youth 82 82 20
Hayward Farmer’s Market 2/21 Alta, Eden Youth, & Kimley-Horn 152 32 39 Tennyson Road Workshop 3/2 Alta, Eden Youth, Kimley-Horn, & City Staff
15 35 4
A/B Street Workshop 3/10 Alta, Eden Youth, Kimley-Horn, & City Staff
29 41 25
Hayward 150th Birthday
Celebration
3/11 Alta, Kimley-Horn, & City Staff 120 94 2
Eden Hot Meals 3/17 Eden Youth 75 75 16
Neighborhood Health &
Empowerment Network
Meeting
3/27 Alta & City Staff 10 11 -
EngGAGE Resident meeting 4/7 Alta & City Staff 22 15
Total 770 537 185
1 Engagement includes either an outreach board dot vote or a verbal comment/question. Sticky notes are excluded from this count, as most accompanied a dot vote.

ATTACHMENT VII
479
Safe Streets Hayward – Round 2 Outreach Summary
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 6 City of Hayward
Pop-Up Events
Alta Planning + Design, city staff, Eden Youth, and Kimley-Horn staffed four pop-up engagement events at existing community events and markets.

Translation/interpretation was provided in Spanish at all pop-up events, and Farsi interpretation was available when requested in advance. Staff engaged with people on an array of poster boards, where participants were invited to learn more about the project, timeline, as well as provide feedback on concept designs.

At pop-up events, participants were encouraged to provide direct feedback on four concept design outreach boards:
• Dot vote – Participants used sticky dots to vote for their preferred concept design. • Sticky notes – Using sticky notes, participants wrote ideas for additional intersection improvements that are missing from the proposed safety improvement recommendations.

Hayward Rides
On Friday, January 30, 2026, from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., as part of their bike giveaway program “Hayward Rides”, the City of Hayward distributed free bikes to Hayward residents. During the bike giveaway, seventy five (75) individuals engaged with the Safe Streets Hayward Plan staff and placed twenty-three (23) dot votes.

Participants did not place any ideas via sticky notes. During the event, Eden Youth administered thirty-one (31) paper surveys.

Hayward Farmer’s Market
On Saturday, February 2, 2026, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., the City of Hayward held its weekly farmer’s market. During the market, one hundred ninety (190) individuals engaged with the Safe Streets Hayward Plan staff and placed one hundred and twenty-eight (128) dot votes. Among the seven sticky note ideas placed, a key theme was ensuring sufficient vehicle traffic flow and visibility for drivers. During the market, Eden Youth administered forty eight (48) paper surveys.

Hayward Farmer’s Market
On Saturday, February 21, 2026, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., the City of Hayward held its weekly farmer’s market. During the market, one hundred fifty two (152) individuals engaged with the Safe Streets Hayward Plan staff and placed thirty-two (32) dot votes.

Among the six sticky note ideas placed, a key theme was prioritizing pedestrian safety improvements. During the Market, Eden Youth administered thirty nine (39) paper surveys.

Figure 2: Project staff speaking with
participants at the Hayward Rides event.

Figure 3: Project staff speaking with participants
at the Hayward Farmer’s Market
Figure 4: Participant engaging
with the outreach materials at
the Hayward Farmer’s Market

ATTACHMENT VII
480
Safe Streets Hayward – Round 2 Outreach Summary
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 7 City of Hayward
Hayward 150th Birthday Celebration
On Wednesday, March 11, 2026, from 4:30 p.m. to 7 p.m., the City of Hayward marked the 150th anniversary of when Hayward was incorporated as a city. During the celebratory event, one hundred and twenty (120) individuals engaged with the Safe Streets Hayward Plan staff and placed ninety-four (94) dot votes. Among the two sticky notes placed, one was a question and one was a statement in support of concept three on B Street. During the Market, project staff administered two paper surveys.

Stakeholder Meetings
Alta Planning + Design attended two stakeholder meetings during round 2 of outreach. During the stakeholder meeting, participants provided feedback via verbal questions or comments.

Neighborhood Health & Empowerment Network
On Friday, March 27, 2026, the city held its monthly Neighborhood Health & Empowerment Network meeting where Community Based Organizations convene, share resources and network with each other. During the meeting, Alta gave a presentation to ten (10) individuals who shared eleven (11) questions or comments about the concept designs.

Among the feedback, key themes included:
• Desire for crossing improvements
• Interest in the number of bicyclists in Hayward and how collisions compare with other communities • Interest in future outreach opportunities
EngAGE Resident Meeting
The organization EngAGE facilitates resident services for an affordable housing complex for seniors at 808 A Street.

The project team attended a lunch-time resident meeting to provide an update on the project and solicit input on A Street concepts. Twenty two (22) residents attended, five of whom used powerchairs due to mobility disabilities.

Themes from the discussion included:
• Drivers on A Street speeding, failing to yield at crosswalks, and running red lights • Requests for quick-build improvements that could be implemented before the main project • Requests for signal timing changes and signal phase changes at the intersection of Watkins St at A St. Drivers leaving the Lucky’s at Watkins Street often fail to yield to senior pedestrians in the crosswalk while making left turns onto A Street. Almost every resident shared having a near-miss experience and one resident in a powerchair was hit by a turning driver in the crosswalk. • Requests for more enforcement and measures to reduce traffic speeds. • Note that more affordable housing is being built along A Street near Western St, so more safety improvements are needed in the eastern area of the corridor.

Figure 5: Participant engaging
with the outreach materials at
the Hayward 150th Birthday
Celebration

ATTACHMENT VII
481
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 8 City of Cupertino
Community Workshops
The City of Hayward hosted two in-person workshops during phase 2 of outreach. These were stand-alone events created specifically for the project and hosted by community spaces proximate to the project corridors. Each workshop consisted of a 30-minute presentation followed by interactive posterboard activity. During the interactive posterboard activity, residents were encouraged to provide direct feedback with sticky notes and color dots on a map of the city regarding their preferred concept designs. Translation interpretation and children’s activities were provided for each workshop.

Tennyson Road Community Workshop
On Monday, March 2, 2026, from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., project staff held a Tennyson Road focused workshop at Eden Youth. Fifteen (15) members of the public attended, placing thirty-five (35) dot votes and fourteen (14) notes with ideas. Four paper surveys were also filled out during the workshop.

Below is a summary of the Q&A session, overall themes, and general comment on the poster boards.

Overall Themes from Outreach Boards
• Concept 1 was most favorable for Tennyson Road. The
community members liked the fact that there were
protected intersection improvements recommended
across the corridor.
• Concept 1 and 2 were most favorable for B St.
• Concept 1 was most favorable for A St. between
Hesperian and Meekland.
• Concept 3 was most favorable for A St. between
Meekland to Watkins. The recommendation for redlight
cameras was preferred along this corridor.

General Comments on Outreach Boards and Paper Surveys
The community members overall wanted safer streets for crossing, while also ensuring that lanes were not reduced.

Members are concerned with speeding vehicles, the lack of lighting, and need for more enforcement along these corridors. Community members expressed concerns about how long the project would take to implement, sometimes choosing Concept 2 over Concept 3 for fear that Concept 3 would be too expensive to ever get built.

With the recent fatality at Tennyson Road and Balwin, the community was concerned that it would happen again and wanted to know what improvements could be made quickly. The City of Hayward has installed quick-build measures at this intersection, and the public hopes additional pedestrian crossing improvements can be installed to make this intersection safer.

Figure 6. Staff presenting to and speaking with residents during the Tennyson Road Community Workshop.

ATTACHMENT VII
482
Safe Streets Hayward – Round 2 Outreach Summary
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 9 City of Hayward
A/B Street Community Workshop
On Tuesday, March 10, 2026, from 4:30 p,m. to 6 p.m.,
project staff held an A/B Street focused workshop at the Hayward Central Library. Twenty nine (29) members of the public attended, placing forty one (41) dot votes and fourteen (14) notes with ideas. Twenty five (25) paper surveys were also filled out during the workshop.

Below is a summary of the Q&A session, overall themes, and general comment on the poster boards.

Overall Themes from Outreach Boards
• Concept 3 was most favorable for A St. between
Hesperian and Meekland.
• Concept 3 was most favorable for A St. between
Meekland to Watkins.
• Concept 3 was most favorable for B St.
• Concept 3 was most favorable for Tennyson Road.

General Comments on Outreach Boards and Paper Surveys
The community members wanted safer streets, and traffic calming measures that would slow vehicles down. Feedback included wanting a protected left turn signal on Grand at A Street, wanting a traffic circle at Aloe and B street, liked the idea of traffic diverters at Myrtle on B Street for a bike boulevard, and support for protected bike lanes on B Street to get to BART.

Figure 7. Staff presenting to and speaking with residents during the A/B Street Community Workshop.

ATTACHMENT VII
483
Safe Streets Hayward – Round 2 Outreach Summary
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 10 City of Hayward
Summary of Input
Participants provided input through the online survey, paper survey, or in-person activity board. For the online and paper survey, participants were asked to rank three concepts in order of preference. For the in-person activity board, participants were asked to use sticker dots to vote for their preferred concept and place sticky-notes.

For both paper surveys and online surveys, participants were asked to identify any missing corridor improvements, give comments on the concepts provided, rank preference for travel lane removal vs parking lane removal, rank preference for building a project quickly vs maximizing safety, and to provide optional demographic responses.

Table 3: Surveys taken by language
Language Online Survey Paper Survey Total
English 284 77 361
Spanish 27 108 135
Farsi 1 1
Concept voting
Due to space constraints, some project segments were not included in paper surveys and in-person activity boards.

The table below shows concept voting results, organized by corridor and input type. Cells grayed-out indicate input not collected through that medium. Because activity-boards used dot-voting, all votes are considered the first rank.

Scores represent weighted scoring based on ranking provided (1st rank = 3 points, 2nd rank = 2 points, 3rd rank = 1 point). Cells shaded in green show the leading vote in each category.

Table 4: Concept Voting results by Corridor and Input Type Street Corridor Concept Total Online Paper Boards
A Street
Hesperian Blvd to Meekland Ave
Concept 1 170 107 63
Concept 2 234 132 102
Concept 3 184 103 81
Meekland Ave to Watkins St
Concept 1 261 98 109 54
Concept 2 311 117 107 87
Concept 3 353 103 121 129
B Street
MLK Dr to Montgomery St
Concept 1 213 84 78 51
Concept 2 251 115 79 57
Concept 3 356 114 89 153
Montgomery St to Watkins St
Concept 1 71 71
Concept 2 107 107
Concept 3 110 110
Tennyson Road Hesperian Blvd to Mission Blvd
Concept 1 271 91 123 57
Concept 2 295 96 148 51
Concept 3 442 106 156 180

ATTACHMENT VII
484
Safe Streets Hayward – Round 2 Outreach Summary
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 11 City of Hayward
Parking vs Travel Lanes
Participants for online and paper surveys were asked to vote on a scale for their preference between removing parking to improve a corridor or to remove travel lanes to improve a corridor. The charts below show the distribution of votes for A Street, B Street, and Tennyson Road, divided between online surveys and paper surveys. Responses on the far left prioritize retaining parking while responses to the far right prioritize retaining travel lanes.

Figure 8: Parking vs Travel Lanes - A Street
Figure 9: Parking vs Travel Lanes - B Street
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Parking Lanes vs Travel Lanes - A Street
A Street - online A Street - paper Retain Parking Retain Lanes 0 5
10 15
20 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Parking Lanes vs Travel Lanes - B Stret
B Street - online B Street - paper Retain Parking Retain Lanes

ATTACHMENT VII
485
Safe Streets Hayward – Round 2 Outreach Summary
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 12 City of Hayward
Figure 10: Parking vs Travel Lanes - Tennyson Road
Quick-Build vs Safety
Participants for online and paper surveys were asked to vote on a scale for their preference between building project improvements quickly versus taking longer to maximize safety improvements. The charts below show the distribution of votes for A Street, B Street, and Tennyson Road, divided between online surveys and paper surveys. Responses on the far left prioritize building a project quickly while responses to the far right prioritize maximizing safety.

Figure 11: Quick-Build vs Maximizing Safety - A Street
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Parking Lanes vs Travel Lanes - Tennsyon Road
Tennyson Road - online Tennyson Road - paper Retain Parking Retain Lanes 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Quick-Build vs Maximizing Safety - A Street
Build Quickly A Street - online A Street - paper Maximize Safety

ATTACHMENT VII
486
Safe Streets Hayward – Round 2 Outreach Summary
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 13 City of Hayward
Figure 12: Quick-Build vs Maximizing Safety - B Street
Figure 13: Quick-Build vs Maximizing Safety - Tennyson Road 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Quick-Build vs Maximizing Safety - B Street
Build Quickly B Street - online B Street - paper Maximize Safety 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Quick-Build vs Maximizing Safety - Tennyson
Road
Build Quickly Tennyson Road - online Tennyson Road - paper Maximize Safety

ATTACHMENT VII
487
Safe Streets Hayward – Round 2 Outreach Summary
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 14 City of Hayward
Corridor Comments
Participants also provided comments in online surveys and through sticky-notes on activity boards. Areas of input were:
- Is there anything missing from intersection improvements along the corridor? - What comments do you have about each concept provided? - Are there any other comments you want to share?
The following table shows the volume of comments by corridor and by category:

Table 5: Round 2 comments by corridor
Corridor Total Missing project
comment
Concept
comment
General
comment
A Street 181 59 91 31
B Street 137 48 61 28
Tennyson Road 200 65 71 64
A Street Comments
Hesperian Blvd to Meekland Avenue
Comments on this segment show a sharp tension between safety improvements and congestion concerns. Many respondents describe this stretch as already heavily congested and express strong opposition to lane reductions, frequently stating that reducing travel lanes would “invite disaster,” worsen backups, and undermine A Street’s role as a major crosstown connector. These respondents tend to favor Concept 1 or Concept 2, framing them as more realistic and less disruptive to traffic flow.

At the same time, there is a clear and persistent safety narrative, especially around:
• Dangerous intersections (notably A & Mission, A & Grand, and left turns from Grand into B Street), • Senior pedestrian safety, including insufficient crossing time and red-light running, • High vehicle speeds and aggressive driving behavior.

Many commenters call for speed cameras, red-light cameras, increased police presence, and better signal timing as either supplements to or substitutes for physical redesigns. Several commenters explicitly argue that enforcementbased solutions should be implemented first, before major capital changes.

Supporters of Concept 3 frame it as the only alternative that meaningfully prioritizes human life and long-term safety, highlighting protected facilities, trees, and climate benefits. However, even some Concept 3 supporters acknowledge that congestion impacts are a real political and functional concern on this segment.

ATTACHMENT VII
488
Safe Streets Hayward – Round 2 Outreach Summary
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 15 City of Hayward
Meekland Ave to Watkins St
This segment generates more safety-forward and pedestrian-focused commentary than the western portion of A Street. While congestion and parking loss are still mentioned, respondents also highlight the high number of residential and senior-serving uses and the unsuitability of the current street for bicyclist and pedestrian safety.

A dominant theme is severe pedestrian risk near Lucky’s, Watkins St, and senior housing, with multiple comments referencing:
• People being struck in crosswalks,
• Drivers failing to yield or speeding through intersections, • Insufficient crossing time for seniors and people using mobility devices.

Requests that respondents feel are missing or under-emphasized include:
• Mid-block crossings on long blocks,
• Raised or signalized crosswalks, not just RRFBs,
• Protected left-turn phases at Watkins St, Western Blvd/Grand St, and Hathaway Ave/Santa Clara St, • Physical protection for bike facilities (barriers instead of paint).

There is strong support for Concept 3 on this segment, often justified by the need to slow traffic, protect seniors, and improve neighborhood livability. Supporters frequently describe Concept 1 as insufficient and Concept 2 as better but still limited by painted or partially protected facilities.

Opposition tends to focus on parking loss, especially for lower-income residents and multi-generational households.

Some respondents argue that removing on-street parking without providing alternatives would disproportionately harm vulnerable residents and small businesses.

B Street Comments
MLK Dr to Montgomery St
Comments reinforce B Street as a neighborhood street and not a major vehicle corridor, with respondents generally more positive towards traffic calming than on A Street.

Key safety themes include:
• Speeding concerns, especially near schools,
• Poor visibility and lighting, particularly near Filbert St and Walnut St, • Dooring risks between parked cars and bicyclists,
• Left turn conflicts, especially at Grand St/B St and Montgomery St/B St.

ATTACHMENT VII
489
Safe Streets Hayward – Round 2 Outreach Summary
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 16 City of Hayward
There is strong support for Concept 3, often described as the only option that truly protects cyclists and pedestrians.

Some commenters characterize bike lanes between moving traffic and parked cars as “fatally dangerous,” rejecting Concepts 1 and 2 on that basis alone.

At the same time, a smaller but vocal group argues that:
• B Street already functions acceptably as is,
• Excessive speed humps or bulb-outs could inconvenience drivers or school traffic, • Traffic circles are preferable to speed bumps or additional signals.

Montgomery Street to Watkins Street
Feedback on this shorter segment is more mixed and lower-priority in tone. Several respondents note that this section is only one block, and that many people biking already bypass it or ride on the sidewalk.

Supporters emphasize:
• The need to slow traffic entering downtown,
• The importance of protected bike facilities, especially near City Hall, • Visibility and safety at intersections.

Opposition is more common here than on the southern segment of B Street. When preferences are stated, Concept 3 again emerges as the most supported, primarily for its separation and clarity, while Concept 2 is often framed as an acceptable compromise.

Tennyson Road
Hesperian Blvd to Mission Blvd
Across Tennyson Road comments, the dominant theme is perceived danger combined with deep disagreement about the solution. There was broad agreement among comments about safety concerns, which included:
• High vehicle speeds, red-light running, and drivers failing to yield at crosswalks with RRFBs • Poor nighttime lighting,
• Unsafe freeway ramp crossings
• Overly-wide intersections (notably Calaroga Ave, Patrick Ave, Tampa Ave, and Ruus Rd), Many commenters describe Tennyson as “scary” for walking and biking, with several referencing recent pedestrian injuries or fatalities.

A defining feature of Tennyson feedback is the split between infrastructure solutions and enforcement-first approaches:

ATTACHMENT VII
490
Safe Streets Hayward – Round 2 Outreach Summary
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 17 City of Hayward
• Many respondents advocate strongly for speed cameras, red-light cameras, police presence, and strict enforcement, sometimes explicitly opposing physical changes. • Others argue that infrastructure is necessary because enforcement alone has failed, and that protected facilities are required to change driver behavior.

Parking loss is a central and emotionally charged issue. Respondents frequently mention:
• Multi-generational households with multiple vehicles, • Safety concerns about walking farther at night in a corridor perceived as unsafe, • Potential harm to local businesses and street vendors.

These concerns drive support for Concept 2, which was several times described as the “best balance” between safety and community impacts. Concept 3 is supported by those prioritizing maximum safety and long-term transformation but also saw the strongest resistance due to parking removal. Concept 1 is favored by respondents focused on congestion, transit operations, and minimizing disruption.

Demographic survey
At the end of the survey, respondents were prompted to complete an optional demographic survey. Each question was optional, and thus the total number of responses varies by question. In some questions respondents selected that they “prefer not to respond” or did not answer the question at all.

Hayward City CouncilJune 2, 2026

Hayward City Council
June 2, 2026