Hayward City Council
June 2, 2026

Below are key themes from the demographic survey results:
• In total, 276 survey respondents completed the optional demographic survey, with 36% from online surveys and 64% from in-paper surveys.
• The two most common zip codes among survey respondents were from the immediate project area. The 94544 and 94541 zip codes represented 80% of all surveys completed. • For online surveys, the largest ethnic groups represented were Asian (28%), Latinx (28%), and White (23%).

For paper surveys, Latinx were the overwhelming majority (73%), with Asian and White represented at 10% and 6%, respectively. Black respondents represented between 3-4.5% of surveys. • Survey responses online were balanced between men and women, but 59% of paper surveys were completed by women.
• A majority (51%) of paper survey responses had annual household income under $75,000, while a majority (50%) of online survey responders reported an annual household income of over $100,000. • Online survey responses skewed younger (59% between the ages of 25-44), while paper surveys had the largest responses by people over the age of 65 (14%).
• Among survey respondents, 64% report speaking English at home and 52% report speaking Spanish at home. 11 other languages were represented in survey responses.

ATTACHMENT VII
491
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 18 City of Cupertino
Appendix A: Outreach Materials
Figure 14. Project Overview Outreach Board

ATTACHMENT VII
492
Safe Streets Hayward – Round 2 Outreach Summary
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 19 City of Hayward
Figure 15. A Street and B Street Outreach Board

ATTACHMENT VII
493
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 20 City of Cupertino
Figure 16. Activity Outreach Board (A St – one of two boards)

ATTACHMENT VII
494
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 21 City of Cupertino
Figure 17. Activity Outreach Board (A St – two of two boards)

ATTACHMENT VII
495
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 22 City of Cupertino
Figure 18. Activity Outreach Board (B Street)

ATTACHMENT VII
496
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 23 City of Cupertino
Figure 19. Activity Outreach Board (Tennyson Rd)

ATTACHMENT VII
497
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page |
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Evaluation Report
DRAFT
April 2026

ATTACHMENT VIII
498
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | I
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Report Purpose ................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Study Area........................................................................................................................................1 2 Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................................4

2.1 Speed Analysis.................................................................................................................................4

2.2 Traffic Analysis .................................................................................................................................4

2.3 Parking Analysis...............................................................................................................................4

2.4 Safety Analysis.................................................................................................................................5

2.5 Signal Warrant Analysis ...................................................................................................................5 3 A & B Street Analysis .............................................................................................................................7

3.1 Existing Conditions...........................................................................................................................7

3.2 Project Alternatives ........................................................................................................................13

3.3 Analysis Findings ...........................................................................................................................27 4 Tennyson Road ....................................................................................................................................48

4.1 Existing Conditions.........................................................................................................................48

4.2 Project Alternatives ........................................................................................................................53

4.3 Analysis Findings ...........................................................................................................................56

ATTACHMENT VIII
499
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | II
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: A and B Street Study Area Map ..................................................................................................2 Figure 1-2: Tennyson Road Study Area Map ................................................................................................3 Figure 3-1: A Street and B Street Existing Parking Inventory .....................................................................10 Figure 3-2: A Street and B Street Existing Weekday Daytime Peak Parking Utilization............................. 11 Figure 3-3: A Street Spot Improvement Locations ......................................................................................13 Figure 3-4: B Street Spot Improvement Locations......................................................................................14 Figure 3-5: A Street West of Meekland Avenue Existing Conditions/Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative Cross-Section............................................................................................................................15 Figure 3-6: A Street East of Meekland Avenue Existing Conditions/Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative Cross-Section............................................................................................................................16 Figure 3-7: B Street West of Montgomery Avenue Existing Conditions/Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative Cross-Section............................................................................................................................17 Figure 3-8: B Street East of Montgomery Avenue Existing Conditions/Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative Cross-Section............................................................................................................................18 Figure 3-9: A Street West of Meekland Avenue Connected Corridor Alternative Cross-Section................19 Figure 3-10: A Street East of Meekland Avenue Connected Corridor Alternative Cross-Section...............20 Figure 3-11: B Street West of Montgomery Avenue Connected Corridor Alternative Cross-Section .........21 Figure 3-12: B Street East of Montgomery Avenue Connected Corridor Alternative Cross-Section ..........23 Figure 3-14: A Street West of Meekland Avenue Reimagined Corridor Alternative Cross-Section ............24 Figure 3-15: A Street East of Meekland Avenue Reimagined Corridor Alternative Cross-Section .............25 Figure 3-16: B Street West of Montgomery Avenue Reimagined Corridor Cross-Section .........................26 Figure 3-13: B Street East of Montgomery Avenue Reminagined Corridor Alternative Cross-Section ......27 Figure 3-17: A Street and B Street Project Alternatives Traffic Analysis Summary (AM Peak Hour) .........28 Figure 3-18: A Street and B Street Project Alternatives Traffic Analysis Summary (PM Peak Hour) .........29 Figure 3-21: A Street and B Street Connected Corridor Alternative – Parking Inventory ...........................31 Figure 3-22: A Street and B Street Connected Corridor Alternative – Weekday Daytime Peak Parking Occupancy ..................................................................................................................................................32 Figure 3-23: A Street Reimagined Corridor Alternative – Parking Inventory...............................................33 Figure 3-24: A Street Reimagined Corridor Alternative – Weekday Daytime Peak Parking Occupancy....34 Figure 3-25: A and B Street Proposed Safety Spot Improvements at High-Collision Locations.................38 Figure 4-1: Tennyson Road Existing Parking Inventory ..............................................................................51 Figure 4-2: Tennyson Road Existing Weekday Nighttime Parking Occupancy ..........................................52 Figure 4-3: Tennyson Road Spot Improvement Locations..........................................................................53 Figure 4-4: Tennyson Road Existing Conditions/Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative Cross-Section ....................................................................................................................................................................54 Figure 4-5: Tennyson Road Connected Corridor Alternative Cross-Section ..............................................55 Figure 4-6: Tennyson Road Reimagined Corridor Alternative Cross-Section.............................................56 Figure 4-7: Tennyson Road Project Alternative Traffic Analysis Results (AM Peak Hour) .........................57 Figure 4-8: Tennyson Road Project Alternative Traffic Analysis Results (PM Peak Hour) .........................58 Figure 4-9: Tennyson Road Connected Corridor Alternative Parking Inventory .........................................59 Figure 4-10: Tennyson Road Connected Corridor Alternative Weekday Nighttime Peak Parking Occupancy ..................................................................................................................................................60 Figure 4-11: Tennyson Road Reimagined Corridor Alternative Parking Inventory .....................................61 Figure 4-12: Tennyson Road Reimagined Corridor Alternative Weekday Nighttime Peak Parking Occupancy ..................................................................................................................................................62 Figure 4-13: Tennyson Road Proposed Safety Spot Improvements at High-Collision Locations...............65

ATTACHMENT VIII
500
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | III
List of Tables
Table 3-1: A and B Street Speed Analysis Results .......................................................................................7 Table 3-2: A and B Street Existing Traffic LOS..............................................................................................8 Table 3-3: A Street and B Street Existing Parking Utilization Summary .......................................................9 Table 3-4: A Street and Myrtle Street Traffic Signal Warrant Summary ......................................................12 Table 3-5: A Street and Flagg Street Traffic Signal Warrant Summary .......................................................12 Table 4-6: Parking Inventory and Impacts by A Street Alternative ..............................................................35 Table 4-7: Weekday Daytime Peak Parking Occupancy by A Street Alternative ........................................35 Table 4-8: Combined Parking Inventory by A Street and B Street Alternative ............................................35 Table 4-9: Combined Weekday Daytime Peak Parking Occupancy by A Street and B Street Alternative .36 Table 3-10: A Street Project Alternative Safety Analysis (Hesperian Boulevard to Meekland Avenue) ......39 Table 3-11: A Street Project Alternative Safety Analysis (Meekland Avenue to Watkins Street).................42 Table 3-12: B Street Project Alternative Safety Analysis (Martin Luther King Drive to Montgomery Avenue) ....................................................................................................................................................................45 Table 3-13: B Street Project Alternative Safety Analysis (Montgomery Avenue to Watkins Street)............46 Table 4-1: Tennyson Road Speed Analysis Results....................................................................................48 Table 4-2: Tennyson Road Existing Traffic LOS..........................................................................................49 Table 4-3: Tennyson Road Existing Parking Utilization...............................................................................50 Table 4-4: Tennyson Road and Baldwin Street Traffic Signal Warrant Summary .......................................52 Table 4-5: Parking Inventory by Tennyson Road Alternative ......................................................................62 Table 4-6: Weekend Nighttime Peak Parking Occupancy by Tennyson Road Alternative .........................63 Table 4-7: Tennyson Road Project Alternative Safety Analysis...................................................................66 List of Appendices
Appendix A: Raw Speed Data
Appendix B: Raw Turning Movement Count Data
Appendix C: Raw Parking Count Data
Appendix D: A and B Street Traffic Analysis Sheets
Appendix E: A and B Street Parking Figures
Appendix F: A Street Signal Warrant Analysis Sheets
Appendix G: A and B Street Illustrative Concepts
Appendix H: Spot Improvement Safety Analysis Tables
Appendix I: Tennyson Road Traffic Analysis Sheets
Appendix J: Tennyson Road Parking Figures
Appendix K: Tennyson Road Signal Warrant Analysis Sheets Appendix L: Tennyson Road Illustrative Concepts

ATTACHMENT VIII
501
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 1
1 Introduction
The Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study (“Study”) investigates safety improvements on three corridors: A Street, B Street, and Tennyson Road. These three streets were previously identified in the City of Hayward’s (“City”) 2023 Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) as high priorities within the High Injury Network (HIN). The Study identifies and evaluates community-supported safety improvements on the three corridors and prepares conceptual plans and cost estimates that can be used to secure funding and advance detailed design at later project stages. This Study is the first of two phases by the City to improve safety conditions on its HIN.

1.1 Report Purpose
This report analyzes the potential effects on parking, traffic, and safety for proposed improvement alternatives on A Street, B Street, and Tennyson Road. The project team conducted a study of existing conditions, public outreach, and formal safety performance studies called Road Safety Audits to develop planned project alternatives and safety countermeasures. This report documents likely impacts on traffic flow, parking utilization, and safety in order to inform the selection of a preferred alternative and safety countermeasures.

The project team is sharing key findings from this report with the public through various outreach activities. After consultation with the public, a preferred alternative will be selected and preliminary engineering advanced, at which time analysis results will be updated.

1.2 Study Area
The Study Area encompasses three corridors:
• A Street from Hesperian Boulevard to Watkins Street/Lucky’s Driveway • B Street from Martin Luther King Drive to Watkins Street/Lucky’s Driveway • Tennyson Road from Hesperian Boulevard to Mission Boulevard A Street and Tennyson Road serve as major east-west thoroughfares. All three corridors are adjacent to commercial and residential uses. A Street and B Street connect into downtown Hayward, which is undergoing similar HIN planning in a separate study. Figure 1-1 illustrates the A Street and B Street Study Area, and Figure 1-2 illustrates the Tennyson Road Study Area.

ATTACHMENT VIII
502
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 2
Figure 1-1: A and B Street Study Area Map

ATTACHMENT VIII
503
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 3
Figure 1-2: Tennyson Road Study Area Map

ATTACHMENT VIII
504
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 4
2 Analysis Methodology
The data collection and analysis methodology are detailed below.

2.1 Speed Analysis
The City provided historical speed data for five locations within the Study Area:
• A Street between Myrtle Street and Flagg Street (2023) • B Street between Filbert Street and Myrtle Street (2018) • Tennyson Road between Sleepy Hollow Avenue and Calaroga Avenue (2024) • Tennyson Road between Tampa Avenue and Tyrrell Avenue (2024) • Tennyson Road between Whitman Street and Dixon Street (2024) Metrics include average speed, the 85th percentile speed, the top speed, and the percentage of drivers found to be driving 10 miles per hour or more over the speed limit. Raw speed data is available in Appendix A.

2.2 Traffic Analysis
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies were performed in Synchro 12 software to compare the Level of Service (LOS) and queue length between the existing conditions and proposed project conditions for each corridor. Existing and project conditions are described in more detail in each corridor’s respective sections of this report.

2.2.1 Existing Conditions
Traffic counts were collected on each study corridor for morning and afternoon peak periods: 7 AM to 9 AM and 4 PM to 6 PM. Data were collected on weekdays in March, April, September, and October of 2025. Raw traffic count data can be found in Appendix B. Traffic analysis determined the existing LOS for each Study intersection. Per the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, projects should maintain a minimum vehicle LOS E at signalized intersections except when existing LOS is F and cannot feasibly be improved. No specific LOS metrics apply for unsignalized intersections, but average delay should not increase by more than five seconds for unsignalized intersections already at LOS F.

2.2.2 Project Conditions
The project proposes operational and geometric changes for each corridor. Potential changes to signal operations, traffic control, and roadway geometry are evaluated in Synchro.

2.3 Parking Analysis

2.3.1 Existing Conditions
The project team performed field observations to determine parking occupancy along each project street and adjacent side streets within 500 feet. Parking counts were collected on three weekdays (Tuesday through Thursday) and Saturday, in September and October of 2025. Data was collected hourly from 11 AM to 2PM, 5 PM to 8PM, and 2 AM to 3 AM. Raw parking count data can be found in Appendix C.

Parking inventories, or the number of available parking spaces on a street, were counted from stall markings or estimated where unmarked, assuming 20’ for the average car length. The project team also

ATTACHMENT VIII
505
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 5
noted restrictions including parking prohibitions, spaces reserved for people with disabilities, short-term parking (less than or equal to 30 minutes), and permit parking.

To identify the peak daytime and nighttime parking hours for weekdays, parking occupancy was averaged across the three weekdays for each hour, and the hour with the highest average occupancy was chosen as the peak hour. Peak hours were determined for both daytime (11 AM to 2 PM, 5 PM to 8 PM) and nighttime periods (2 AM to 3 AM). The same process was used to determine weekend peak hour occupancy for the Saturday data. This analysis was performed separately for A/B Streets and Tennyson Road.

2.3.2 Project Conditions
For each corridor, project alternatives may include parking lane removal, parking-protected bike lanes, or spot removal of parking spaces to improve sight distance or modify bus stops. Cars parked in these spaces under existing conditions might be relocated to available parking spaces elsewhere on the corridor or on side streets. Estimates for parking diversion are detailed in the respective corridor analysis sections. For this analysis, “Nearby side streets” are assumed to be those within 500 feet of the impacted parking segment. Where cars may not find parking within 500 feet due to limited availability are noted on the parking diversion maps.

Many locations have off-street surface parking lots or residential driveways where cars may be parked if on-street spaces are removed. These alternatives are noted but not included in the quantitative analysis.

2.4 Safety Analysis
A safety analysis was conducted to assess the anticipated effects of the proposed safety countermeasures on each corridor. Using the Caltrans Local Road Safety Manual, the reduction of crashes was estimated by using the crash reduction factors (CRFs). To visualize which CRFs are relevant, the recommended safety countermeasures were overlaid with the collision analysis maps presented in the existing conditions analysis. This safety analysis was conducted for both intersection spot improvements and the corridor-wide project alternatives. Tables identifying the project alternative safety analysis, as well as safety analysis graphics can be found in the respective corridor analysis sections.

2.5 Signal Warrant Analysis
Traffic signal warrants were completed at three existing unsignalized locations per Chapter 4C of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to assess whether the installation of a traffic signal is warranted. If one or more warrants are met, a traffic signal is justified and subject to further study. The MUTCD identifies nine different warrants, each of which were evaluated for this project:
• Warrant #1 (Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume) includes two conditions, if either condition is met, the warrant is satisfied:
o Condition A is intended for locations where a large volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason for a traffic control signal.
o Condition B is intended for locations where Condition A is not satisfied and where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict when entering or crossing the major street.

ATTACHMENT VIII
506
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 6
• Warrant #2 (Four-Hour Vehicular Volume) is intended for locations where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason for a traffic signal. This warrant is satisfied if each of any 4 hours of any average day meets the volume conditions. • Warrant #3 (Peak Hour) is intended for locations where minor-street traffic experiences undue delay when entering or crossing the major street.
• Warrant #4 (Pedestrian Volume) is intended for locations where pedestrians experience excessive delay when crossing a major street due to traffic volumes on the major street. • Warrant #5 (School Crossing) is intended for application where the fact that school children cross the major street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. • Warrant #6 (Coordinated Signal System) is intended for locations where a traffic signal is necessary to maintain progressive movement in a wider coordinated signal system. • Warrant #7 (Crash Experience) is intended for locations where the severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons for a traffic signal. • Warrant #8 (Roadway Network) is intended for locations where a traffic signal would encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network. • Warrant #9 (Intersection Near a Grade Crossing) is intended for locations where none of the other eight traffic signal warrants are met, but the intersection’s proximity to a grade crossing on an intersection approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign is the principal reason for a traffic signal.

ATTACHMENT VIII
507
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 7
3 A & B Street Analysis

3.1 Existing Conditions

3.1.1 Speed Analysis
A Street has a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour west of Grand Street/Western Boulevard and a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour east of Grand Street/Western Boulevard. B Street has a speed limit of 25 miles per hour corridor-wide. Existing auto speeds are shown below in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: A and B Street Speed Analysis Results
Street Location Speed
Limit
Average
Speed
85th
Percentile
Speed
Top Speed
Percentage
Speeding
over 10
mph
A Street
Between
Myrtle
Street and
Flagg Street
30 mph 36 mph 42 mph 70-75 mph 25%
B Street
Between
Filbert
Street and
Myrtle
Street
25 mph 27 mph 33 mph 45-49 mph 4%
The 85th percentile speed is a metric commonly used for the purposes of speed management, representing the speed that 15 percent of drivers exceed. For A Street the 85th percentile speed was 12 miles per hour over the speed limit. Twenty-five percent of drivers were found to be speeding between Myrtle and Flagg Street by over 10 miles per hour. The fastest speed recorded over the speed survey was 70-75 miles per hour. For B Street the 85th percentile speed was eight miles per hour over the speed limit, and four percent of drivers were found to be driving 10 miles per hour over the posted speed limit.

3.1.2 Traffic Analysis
Each of the 10 study intersections operate at the City’s LOS standard of E or better during AM and PM peak hours. The signalized intersection with the highest existing delay is Santa Clara Street/Hathaway Avenue which operates at a LOS D in both time periods.

The side-street stop-controlled intersection with the most delay is A Street and Happyland Avenue/McDonald’s Driveway, which operates at LOS D, specifically for the left-turn movement from Happyland Avenue to A Street during the AM peak hour. All other movements at this intersection operate at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Intersection level results are shown in Table 3-2.

Detailed Synchro analysis sheets for A and B Street are included in Appendix D.

ATTACHMENT VIII
508
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 8
Table 3-2: A and B Street Existing Traffic LOS

3.1.3 Parking Analysis
On A Street and B Street, the weekday daytime peak hour was 12 PM to 1 PM, and the weekend daytime peak hour was 11 AM to 12 PM. The weekday daytime peak hour had the highest parking occupancy of all hours with an occupancy of 79% on A Street and B Street, leaving 21% of available parking spaces unused. The nighttime peak hour for both the weekday and the weekend was 2 AM to 3 AM. Overall, parking utilization was higher during the daytime than the nighttime. Table 3-3 summarizes parking utilization for all peak hours for A Street, B Street, and adjacent side streets.

ATTACHMENT VIII
509
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 9
Table 3-3: A Street and B Street Existing Parking Utilization Summary On-Street
Parking Location
Parking
Inventory
Weekday
Daytime
Peak Hour
Parking
Occupancy
(12PM-1PM)
Weekday
Nighttime
Peak Hour
Parking
Occupancy
(2AM-3AM)
Weekend
Daytime
Peak Hour
Parking
Occupancy
(11AM-12PM)
Weekend
Nighttime
Peak Hour
Parking
Occupancy
(2AM-3AM)
A Street 89 72% 39% 64% 27%
B Street* 21 100% 48% 100% 33%
A Street and B
Street Side
Streets
184 75% 56% 60% 51%
Total 263 76% 50% 64% 43%
*B Street parking data was collected between Montgomery Avenue and Watkins Street. No data was collected for B Street west of Montgomery Avenue as minimal parking impact is expected in that area.

Figure 3-1 shows the existing parking inventory on A Street and B Street and adjacent side streets. On A Street, parking stalls are concentrated between Walnut Street and Grand Street/Western Boulevard, and Montgomery Ave and Watkins Street. There is no existing on-street parking on A Street west of Meekland Avenue. On-street parking exists on B Street west of Montgomery Avenue, but the project alternatives have minimal parking impact, so data were not collected. Figure 3-2 shows the existing weekday parking occupancy in the A Street and B Street Study Area.

ATTACHMENT VIII
510
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 10
Figure 3-1: A Street and B Street Existing Parking Inventory

ATTACHMENT VIII
511
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 11
Figure 3-2: A Street and B Street Existing Weekday Daytime Peak Parking Utilization During the weekday daytime peak hour, there are only two segments on Study Area streets with parking utilization that is considered at capacity (above 95% utilization): A Street between Alice Street and Grand Street (south side) and B Street between Montgomery Avenue and Watkins Street (south side). All other Study Area segments have available capacity during the weekday daytime peak hour. See Appendix E for all parking figures for A and B Street.

3.1.4 Signal Warrant Analysis
The two intersections with uncontrolled pedestrian crossings across A Street were analyzed for signal warrants. If the signal warrants are met, a traffic signal may be indicated to enhance the crossing for pedestrians.

Table 3-4 summarizes the signal warrant analysis results for the intersection of A Street and Myrtle Street.

As shown in the table, no warrants were satisfied, meaning that a traffic signal is not justified for this location. Full signal warrant worksheets are included in Appendix F.

ATTACHMENT VIII
512
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 12
Table 3-4: A Street and Myrtle Street Traffic Signal Warrant Summary Signal Warrant Carmel Valley Road and
Valley Greens Drive
Warrant #1 (8-hour Vehicular
Volume)
Condition A Not Satisfied
Condition B Not Satisfied
Warrant #2 (4-hour Vehicular Volume) Not Satisfied
Warrant #3 (Peak Hour) Not Satisfied
Warrant #4 (Pedestrian Volume) Not Satisfied
Warrant #5 (School Crossing) Not Satisfied
Warrant #6 (Coordinate Signal System) Not Satisfied
Warrant #7 (Crash Experience) Not Satisfied
Warrant #8 (Roadway Network) Not Satisfied
Warrant #9 (Intersection Near a Grade Crossing) Not Satisfied Table 3-5 summarizes the signal warrant analysis results for the intersection of A Street and Flagg Street.

As shown in the table, no warrants were satisfied, meaning that a traffic signal is not justified for this location.

Table 3-5: A Street and Flagg Street Traffic Signal Warrant Summary Signal Warrant Carmel Valley Road and
Valley Greens Drive
Warrant #1 (8-hour Vehicular
Volume)
Condition A Not Satisfied
Condition B Not Satisfied
Warrant #2 (4-hour Vehicular Volume) Not Satisfied
Warrant #3 (Peak Hour) Not Satisfied
Warrant #4 (Pedestrian Volume) Not Satisfied
Warrant #5 (School Crossing) Not Satisfied
Warrant #6 (Coordinate Signal System) Not Satisfied
Warrant #7 (Crash Experience) Not Satisfied
Warrant #8 (Roadway Network) Not Satisfied
Warrant #9 (Intersection Near a Grade Crossing) Not Satisfied

ATTACHMENT VIII
513
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 13

3.2 Project Alternatives
After completing the existing conditions analysis, the first round of outreach, and the road safety audits, project alternatives and safety countermeasures were identified for each of the three project corridors.

Potential alternatives are characterized as “Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative”, "Connected Corridor Alternative”, or "Reimagined Corridor Alternative.” Detailed concepts illustrating proposed cross sections and safety countermeasure locations on A Street and B Street can be found in Appendix G.

The East Bay Greenway Multimodal Project is a long-term effort to provide a continuous high-quality walking and bicycling route between Lake Merritt and South Hayward. The project proposes a two-way cycle track on the south side of B Street between Montgomery Street and Grand Street. This aligns with the Reimagined Corridor Alternative.

3.2.1 Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative
In this alternative, the existing roadway configuration is maintained with improvements consisting of spot improvements only, such as pedestrian bulb-outs, protected traffic signal phasing, and rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs). An overview of the spot improvement locations for A Street can be seen in Figure 3-3 and for B Street in Figure 3-4. Other corridor wide recommendations such as pedestrian scale lighting, high-visibility crosswalks, and advance stop bars are not included in these graphics.

Figure 3-3: A Street Spot Improvement Locations

ATTACHMENT VIII
514
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 14
Figure 3-4: B Street Spot Improvement Locations

3.2.1.1.1 A Street West of Meekland Avenue
West of Meekland Avenue, A Street primarily has two travel lanes in both directions and a center median that opens into a turning lane at intersection approaches. There are also Class II bike lanes. A typical cross section for this segment is shown in Figure 3-5.

ATTACHMENT VIII
515
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 15
Figure 3-5: A Street West of Meekland Avenue Existing Conditions/Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative Cross-Section

ATTACHMENT VIII
516
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 16

3.2.1.1.2 A Street East of Meekland Avenue
East of Meekland Avenue, A Street typically has two travel lanes in both directions, a center median that opens to a turning lane at intersection approaches, and on-street parking. A Street has Class II bike lanes between Meekland Avenue and Montgomery Avenue, and no bike facilities east of Montgomery Avenue. A typical cross-section for this segment of A Street is shown in Figure 3-6.

Figure 3-6: A Street East of Meekland Avenue Existing Conditions/Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative Cross-Section

ATTACHMENT VIII
517
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 17

3.2.1.1.3 B Street West of Montgomery Avenue
B Street west of Montgomery Avenue typically has one travel lane in either direction, Class II bike lanes west of Grand Street/Western Boulevard, and parking lanes on both sides of the corridor. A typical crosssection of this segment is shown in Figure 3-7.

Figure 3-7: B Street West of Montgomery Avenue Existing Conditions/Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative Cross-Section

ATTACHMENT VIII
518
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 18

3.2.1.1.4 B Street East of Montgomery Avenue
East of Montgomery Avenue, B Street has one travel lane in the eastbound direction, two travel lanes in the westbound direction, and parking lanes on both sides. No bike facilities are present for this segment of B Street. A typical section for B Street east of Montgomery Avenue is shown in Figure 3-8.

Figure 3-8: B Street East of Montgomery Avenue Existing Conditions/Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative Cross-Section

ATTACHMENT VIII
519
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 19

3.2.2 Connected Corridor Alternative
In this alternative, travel lanes would be narrowed, and parking lane or travel lane removal would be recommended in key areas. These recommendations allow for continuous bike facilities on A Street and B Street. Existing Class II bike lanes are upgraded to Class IIB buffered bike lanes, Class IV separated bike lanes, or Class IV parking-protected bike lanes. In segments without existing bike lanes, new Class II bike lanes are provided. Spot improvements noted in the Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative are included for this alternative as well, with an additional option to assess neighborhood traffic circles or diverters on B Street.

3.2.2.1.1 A Street West of Meekland Avenue
West of Meekland Avenue, travel lanes would be narrowed to upgrade Class II bike lanes to Class IV separated bike lanes. Bike facility separation can consist of flex posts, concrete curbs, or another form of vertical separation. Figure 3-9 shows a typical section for A Street west of Meekland Avenue, with flex posts shown on the south side of the street and concrete curbs on the north side of the street.

Figure 3-9: A Street West of Meekland Avenue Connected Corridor Alternative Cross-Section

ATTACHMENT VIII
520
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 20

3.2.2.1.2 A Street East of Meekland Avenue
Between Meekland Avenue and Montgomery Avenue, travel lanes would be narrowed to upgrade the eastbound Class II bike lane to a Class IV parking-protected bike lane and the westbound Class II bike lane will be upgraded to a Class IIB buffered bike lane. East of Montgomery Avenue, travel lanes are narrowed and parking is removed from the south side of the corridor to provide new Class II bike lanes on both sides of the corridor. A typical section for A Street east of Meekland Avenue is shown in Figure 3-10.

Figure 3-10: A Street East of Meekland Avenue Connected Corridor Alternative Cross-Section

ATTACHMENT VIII
521
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 21

3.2.2.1.3 B Street West of Montgomery Avenue
On B Street west of Montgomery Avenue, travel lanes would be narrowed to upgrade the Class II bike lanes to Class IIB buffered bike lanes in both directions. Where there are no existing bike lanes between Grand Street and Montgomery Avenue, travel lanes would be narrowed to provide Class II bike lanes and a two way left turn lane. A typical section for B Street west of Montgomery Avenue is shown in Figure 3-11.

Figure 3-11: B Street West of Montgomery Avenue Connected Corridor Alternative Cross-Section

ATTACHMENT VIII
522
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 22

3.2.2.1.4 B Street East of Montgomery Avenue
East of Montgomery Avenue, the Connected Corridor Alternative, shown in Figure 3-12: B Street East of Montgomery Avenue Connected Corridor Alternative Cross-Section , would remove the parking lane on the south side of the corridor to provide Class II bike lanes on both sides of the corridor.

ATTACHMENT VIII
523
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 23
Figure 3-12: B Street East of Montgomery Avenue Connected Corridor Alternative Cross-Section

ATTACHMENT VIII
524
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 24

3.2.3 Reimagined Corridor Alternative
In this alternative, larger geometric changes are recommended, including a road diet and/or large segments of parking removal. For A Street, the Reimagined Corridor Alternative includes two options, either providing sidewalk level Class IV separated bike lanes or Class I shared use paths on both sides of the street. These alternatives would separate people biking from vehicles both horizontally and vertically, greatly increasing safety for all road users. However, this alternative may reduce traffic or parking capacity and carries a higher construction cost. This alternative also includes all spot improvements noted in the Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative and allows for protected intersections where feasible.

3.2.3.1.1 A Street West of Meekland Avenue
For A Street west of Meekland Avenue, a road diet would remove a travel lane in both directions and provide a center two-way left turn lane. Existing Class II bike lanes would be upgraded to either sidewalk level Class IV separated bike lanes or Class I shared-use paths in both directions. The Class IV facilities are shown on the north side of Figure 3-13, and the Class I shared up paths are shown on the south side of the street for visual purposes only.

Figure 3-13: A Street West of Meekland Avenue Reimagined Corridor Alternative Cross-Section

ATTACHMENT VIII
525
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 25

3.2.3.1.2 A Street East of Meekland Avenue
East of Meekland Avenue, this alternative would remove parking on the south side of the corridor and narrow travel lanes to provide either a sidewalk level Class IV separated bike lane or a bidirectional Class I shared use path on the south side of the street. In the westbound direction the existing Class II bike lanes would be upgraded to either a Class IIB buffered bike lane or a Class I shared use path. Where Class II facilities don’t currently exist east of Montgomery Avenue, a sidewalk level Class IV separated bike lane or a Class I shared use path would be provided on both sides of the street. For illustration purposes, Figure 3-14 shows the Class IIB facility on the north side of the street, the Class I facility on the south side of the street.

Figure 3-14: A Street East of Meekland Avenue Reimagined Corridor Alternative Cross-Section

ATTACHMENT VIII
526
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 26

3.2.3.1.3 B Street between Martin Luther King Drive and Myrtle Street This alternative would narrow travel lanes to implement a two-way Class IV cycle track on the south side of the corridor, as shown in Figure 3-15. This cycle track would run from Martin Luther King Drive to Myrtle Street and transition to either B Street Connected Corridor Alternative east of Myrtle Street.

Figure 3-15: B Street West of Montgomery Avenue Reimagined Corridor Cross-Section

3.2.3.1.4 B Street East of Montgomery Avenue
East of Montgomery Avenue, the Reiminaged Corridor Alternative, shown in , would remove the westbound travel lane to provide Class II buffered bike lane on both sides of the corridor.

ATTACHMENT VIII
527
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 27
Figure 3-16: B Street East of Montgomery Avenue Reminagined Corridor Alternative CrossSection

3.3 Analysis Findings

3.3.1 Traffic
One traffic model was built to reflect both the Base Corridor Enhancements and Connected Corridor Alternatives, as the two alternatives have no operational or lane assignment differences. The Reimagined Corridor Alternative was modeled separately and includes a road diet and protected intersection improvements.

Traffic analysis finds that all 10 signalized intersections operate at a LOS E or better for both A and B Streets for each alternative, remaining within the City’s LOS standard. Additionally, in all project alternatives, the three side-street stop-controlled intersections operate at a LOS D or better. Traffic analysis results for the AM peak hour are shown in Figure 3-17 and for the PM peak hour in Figure 3-18.

The Synchro worksheets for the A and B Street traffic analysis results can be found in Appendix D.

ATTACHMENT VIII
528
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 28
Figure 3-17: A Street and B Street Project Alternatives Traffic Analysis Summary (AM Peak Hour) Traffic Reimagined Corridor
Int. # Intersection Control Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 A St and Hesperian Blvd S 36.0 D 36.0 D 33.8 C
2 A St and Royal Ave S 15.1 B 25.8 C 29.4 C
3 A St and Victory Dr S 8.7 A 12.5 B 13.4 B
4 A St and S Garden Ave SSSC 11.0 B 11.4 B 28.6 D
5 A St and Happyland Ave/McDonald's Dwy SSSC 29.8 D 11.0 B 13.0 B 6 A St and Santa Clara St/Hathaway Ave S 44.6 D 52.0 D 48.3 D 7 A St and Princeton St S 15.7 B 16.9 B 19.0 B
8 A St and Filbert St S 13.7 B 17.3 B 16.1 B
9 A St and Grand St/Western Blvd S 31.3 C 42.0 D 43.8 D 10 A St and Montgomery Ave S 18.4 B 26.9 C 36.8 D
11 B St and Grand St S 20.9 C 20.6 C 20.6 C
12 B St and Montgomery Ave SSSC 11.0 B 11.3 B 11.9 B
13 B St and Watkins St S 15.8 B 34.9 C 34.9 C
S = Signalized; SSSC = Side Street Stop Controlled

SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATION

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES (AM)
Notes:
- Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service - Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection approach.

Base Corridor
Enhancements Connected Corridor

ATTACHMENT VIII
529
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 29
Figure 3-18: A Street and B Street Project Alternatives Traffic Analysis Summary (PM Peak Hour) In the Base Corridor Enhancements and Connected Corridor Alternatives, there is a nominal increase in delay at most signalized intersections due to the inclusion of intersection spot improvements such as leading pedestrian intervals (LPI), additional turning movement control, and other operational changes.

For these alternatives, one intersection would drop from an LOS D to LOS E: the intersection of A Street and Santa Clara Street/Hathaway Avenue during the PM peak hour. At this intersection, the proposal to signalize the yield-controlled slip lanes increases delay from 50 seconds under existing conditions to 66 seconds in the project alternatives.

In the Reimagined Corridor Alternative, there is increased delay at most signalized intersections, associated with the road diet implemented between Hesperian Boulevard and Santa Clara Street/Hathaway Avenue, and between Grand Street/Western Boulevard and Watkins Street, as well as additional intersection improvements such as protected intersections. For this alternative, one intersection would drop from LOS D to LOS E: A Street and Grand Street/Western Boulevard during the PM peak hour. With this alternative, the northbound and southbound movements would be split-phased to allow for each approach to have protected left-turn movements. This change increases delay from 44 seconds to 69 seconds. Also the LOS at A Street and Santa Clara Street/Hathaway Avenue would improve from LOS E in the Base Corridor Enhancements and Connected Corridor Alternatives to LOS D in the Reimagined Traffic Reimagined Corridor
Int. # Intersection Control Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 A St and Hesperian Blvd S 35.5 D 36.4 D 34.7 C
2 A St and Royal Ave S 13.5 B 20.3 C 28.8 C
3 A St and Victory Dr S 11.0 B 18.8 B 23.4 C
4 A St and S Garden Ave SSSC 10.0 A 10.5 B 30.3 D
5 A St and Happyland Ave/McDonald's Dwy SSSC 18.0 C 10.8 B 12.5 B 6 A St and Santa Clara St/Hathaway Ave S 50.3 D 66.3 E 54.9 D 7 A St and Princeton St S 10.7 B 15.6 B 10.8 B
8 A St and Filbert St S 11.2 B 8.3 A 11.0 B
9 A St and Grand St/Western Blvd S 43.7 D 53.6 D 68.7 E 10 A St and Montgomery Ave S 16.8 B 29.8 C 29.4 C
11 B St and Grand St S 16.4 B 16.2 B 16.2 B
12 B St and Montgomery Ave SSSC 10.0 A 10.2 B 10.6 B
13 B St and Watkins St S 16.0 B 36.5 D 36.5 D
- Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection approach.

S = Signalized; SSSC = Side Street Stop Controlled

SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATION

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES (PM)
Base Corridor
Enhancements Connected Corridor
Notes:
- Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service

ATTACHMENT VIII
530
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 30
Corridor Alternative. Though the alternative would remove a travel lane in each direction west of the intersection, the additional roadway space facilitates the addition of a dual eastbound left turn lane, mirroring the westbound approach, allowing for increased capacity for that high volume movement.

The LOS at A Street and Happyland Avenue improves from LOS D to LOS B in the AM peak hour in all project alternatives. This improved LOS is associated with the restriction of the left-turn movements out of Happyland Avenue.

3.3.2 Parking
A parking diversion analysis was performed for each alternative where parking removal is proposed.

While this analysis focuses on parking removal to facilitate corridor-wide alternatives, additional parking removal is likely needed to implement the spot improvements and comply with current laws and safety best practices, such as Assembly Bill 413, which requires daylighting in front of crosswalks. Parking change quantities will be refined after conceptual design.

3.3.2.1.1 Existing Conditions/Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative Parking impact is expected to be limited to spot locations for daylighting, bus stop modifications, and other safety improvements. No larger-scale parking modifications are anticipated.

3.3.2.1.2 Connected Corridor Alternative – Parking Removal on Both A Street and B Street In this alternative, parking-protected bike lanes would be implemented on the south side of A Street between Meekland Avenue and Grand Street, and parking would be removed on the south side of A Street between Montgomery Ave and Watkins Street, totaling 29 spaces. While the parking-protected bike lanes would preserve some parking in that segment, the number of available spaces will decrease due to increased sight distance setbacks near driveways with parking-protected bike lanes. Within the 29 removed parking spaces, the current demand is 10 cars during the weekday peak daytime period. For each peak period, all 10 cars could be relocated to available side-street parking, however, up to eight cars may need to be relocated to parking spaces across the street. This alternative also included parking removal on the south side of B Street between Montgomery Avenue and Watkins Street, representing the loss of an additional 11 spaces. Within that area of removal, 21 vehicles currently park during the weekday daytime peak hour and would need to relocate. Due to nearby on-street parking being at capacity, and a lack of nearby side street parking, the 11 relocated vehicles on B Street would not have readily available parking nearby or on side streets. Excluding these 11 cars, the weekday daytime peak hour parking occupancy would increase to 93% on A Street, B Street remains at 100%, and adjacent side streets have an occupancy of 95%. Additionally, eight cars would need to park across the street from their existing parking space. Figure 3-19 shows the parking inventory for this alternative, and Figure 3-20 shows the parking occupancy with relocated vehicles. A small number of additional parking spaces may be removed for daylighting, bus stop modifications, and other safety improvements.

ATTACHMENT VIII
531
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 31
Figure 3-19: A Street and B Street Connected Corridor Alternative – Parking Inventory

ATTACHMENT VIII
532
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 32
Figure 3-20: A Street and B Street Connected Corridor Alternative – Weekday Daytime Peak Parking Occupancy

ATTACHMENT VIII
533
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 33

3.3.2.1.3 Reimagined Corridor Alternatives – Parking Removal on A Street Only In the Reimagined Corridor Alternative, parking would be removed on the south side of A Street between Meekland Avenue and Watkins Street, totaling 32 parking spaces. Eleven currently parked vehicles would likely need to park across the street to find an available nearby parking space. The occupancy during the weekday daytime peak hour would be 96% on A Street as well as on adjacent side streets. The parking inventory for this alternative is shown in Figure 3-21, and the weekday daytime peak parking occupancy is shown in Figure 3-22.

Figure 3-21: A Street Reimagined Corridor Alternative – Parking Inventory

ATTACHMENT VIII
534
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 34
Figure 3-22: A Street Reimagined Corridor Alternative – Weekday Daytime Peak Parking Occupancy

3.3.2.1.4 A and B Street Parking Summary Tables
Table 4-6 summarizes the parking inventory of A Street and adjacent side streets within 500 feet of the study corridors for each alternative. The table also notes the quantity of parking spaces removed in each project alternative, as well as the estimated number of cars relocated to new parking spaces. Additionally, Table 4-7 summarizes the weekday daytime peak parking occupancy of A Street for each project alternative. This does not assume concurrent parking removal on B Street. This occupancy notes the conditions after parking is removed and any cars have been relocated to side streets where available.

Both tables identify where parked cars would have no nearby available side street location to park.

ATTACHMENT VIII
535
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 35
Table 4-6: Parking Inventory and Impacts by A Street Alternative Weekday Daytime Peak Parking Hour
On-Street Parking Location
Existing
Parking
Inventory
Existing
Conditions/
Base Corridor
Enhancements
Alternative
Connected
Corridor
Alternative
Reimagined
Corridor
Alternative
Parking Inventory 273 273 242 239
Number of Spaces Removed - 0 31 34
Number of Existing Parked Cars
Impacted - 0 10 11
Table 4-7: Weekday Daytime Peak Parking Occupancy by A Street Alternative Weekday Daytime Peak Parking Occupancy
On-Street Parking Location
Existing Parking
Inventory
Existing
Conditions/
Base Corridor
Enhancements
Alternative
Connected
Corridor
Alternative
Reimagined
Corridor
Alternative
A Street 89 72% 93% 96%
A Street and B Street Side Streets 188 75% 80% 81%
Total 273 74% 83% 85%
Given the proximity of A Street and B Street, the parking impacts of improvements on B Street are being considered in conjunction with the modifications to A Street. Table 4-8 shows the combined parking inventory of A Street and B Street for alternatives where parking removal occurs on B Street, and Table 4- 9 summarizes the weekday daytime peak parking occupancy of these alternatives.

Table 4-8: Combined Parking Inventory by A Street and B Street Alternative Weekday Daytime Peak Parking Occupancy
On-Street Parking Location
Existing
Parking
Inventory
Existing
Conditions/
Base Corridor
Enhancements
Alternative
Connected
Corridor
Alternative
Reimagined
Corridor
Alternative
Parking Inventory 294 294 252 260
Number of Spaces Removed - 0 42 34
Number of Existing Parked Cars Impacted - 0 21* 32
*Up to 11 diverted vehicles would not have a nearby available parking space to relocate to.

ATTACHMENT VIII
536
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 36
Table 4-9: Combined Weekday Daytime Peak Parking Occupancy by A Street and B Street Alternative
Weekday Daytime Peak Parking Occupancy
On-Street Parking Location
Existing
Parking
Inventory
Existing
Conditions/
Base Corridor
Enhancements
Alternative
Connected
Corridor
Alternative
(A and B St
Parking
Removal)
Reimagined
Corridor
Alternative (A
Street Parking
Removal Only)
A Street 89 72% 93%* 96%
B Street 21 100% 100% 100%
A Street and B Street Side Streets 184 75% 80%* 81%
Total 294 76% 85%* 86%
*Up to 11 diverted vehicles would not have a nearby and available parking space to relocate to.

ATTACHMENT VIII
537
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 37

3.3.3 Safety Analysis

3.3.3.1.1 A Street
A safety analysis was conducted for project alternatives and spot improvements on A Street. Each of the proposed intersection spot improvements were mapped over the previously created collision graphic to visualize where safety improvements are in relation to the historically high collision areas. This safety analysis graphic represents safety improvements proposed at the highest collision locations between A and B Street. This visualization is shown in Figure 3-23. As shown in the figure, spot safety improvements are proposed at nearly all locations with a history of multiple bicycle and pedestrianinvolved collisions, in addition to the corridor-wide safety improvements.

Additionally, an analysis of each of the spot improvements proposed on A Street was conducted using the California Local Road Safety Manual (LRSM). For each intersection, improvements are identified and their corresponding crash reduction factors (CRFs) are included where applicable to the LRSM. These additional safety sheets are included in Appendix H.

ATTACHMENT VIII
538
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 38
Figure 3-23: A and B Street Proposed Safety Spot Improvements at High-Collision Locations

ATTACHMENT VIII
539
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 39
For the analysis of the project alternatives, a description of the safety improvements, benefits, and challenges for each alternative is provided for each of the two segments of A Street in Table 3-10 and Table 3-11.

Table 3-10: A Street Project Alternative Safety Analysis (Hesperian Boulevard to Meekland Avenue) Alt. Description Benefits Challenges Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative • Existing roadway configuration with
spot improvements only, such as curb
bulb-outs, protected traffic signal
phasing, and RRFBs.
• Quicker implementation
• Improved intersection safety for
vehicles, pedestrians, and people
biking
• No protection or separation for people
biking and bike lanes remain fairly
narrow (~5 feet)
• Minimal effect on vehicle speeds
Connected Corridor
Alternative
• Narrow travel lanes
• Includes same intersection spot
improvements noted in the Base
Corridor Enhancements Alternative
• Upgrade bike lanes to Class IV
protected bike lanes. Bike lane
protection can either be plastic flex
post for lower costs, or raised
concrete islands for increased safety
• Quicker implementation
• Improved intersection safety for
vehicles, pedestrians, and people
biking
• Separates people biking from vehicle
traffic horizontally and vertically
• Increases separation between
pedestrians and vehicle traffic
• Narrows travel lanes for increased
traffic calming
• Installing a separated bike lane has a
crash reduction of 45% for bicycle
and pedestrian crashes
• Bicycle facilities remain fairly narrow
(~5 feet) and maintain conflict points
at intersections

ATTACHMENT VIII
540
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 40
Alt. Description Benefits Challenges Reimagined Corridor (Sidewalk-Level Protected Bike Lanes) • Road diet removes one travel lane in
each direction
• Includes same intersection spot
improvements as the Base Corridor
Enhancements Alternative as well as
allows for protected intersections
• Upgrade bike lanes to Class IV
sidewalk level protected bike lanes
• Improved intersection safety for
vehicles, pedestrians, and people
biking
• Separates people biking from vehicle
traffic horizontally and vertically
• Further increases separation between
pedestrians and vehicle traffic with
planting strip
• Reducing curb to curb roadway width
has inherent traffic calming effect on
vehicle speeds
• Protected intersection improvements
allow for reduced conflict points for
people biking and vehicle traffic
• Installing a separated bike lane has a
crash reduction of 45% for bicycle
and pedestrian crashes
• Implementing a road diet and adding
a TWLTL has a crash reduction of
35% for all crashes
• Longer term to implementation

ATTACHMENT VIII
541
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 41
Alt. Description Benefits Challenges Reimagined Corridor (Class I Shared Use Paths) • Road diet removes one travel lane in
each direction
• Includes same intersection spot
improvements as the Base Corridor
Enhancements Alternative as well as
allows for protected intersections
• Upgrade bike lanes to Class I shareduse paths in both directions • Improved intersection safety for
vehicles, pedestrians, and people
biking
• Separates people biking and
pedestrians from vehicle traffic with
planting strip
• Further increases separation between
pedestrians and vehicle traffic
• Reducing curb to curb roadway width
has inherent traffic calming effect on
vehicle speeds
• Protected intersection improvements
allow for reduced conflict points for
people biking and vehicle traffic
• Provides two-way bicycle paths on
both sides, increasing connectivity
• Installing a separated bike lane has a
crash reduction of 45% for bicycle
and pedestrian crashes
• Implementing a road diet and adding
a TWLTL has a crash reduction of
35% for all crashes
• Longer term to implementation
• Increased conflict between
pedestrians and people biking

ATTACHMENT VIII
542
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 42
Table 3-11: A Street Project Alternative Safety Analysis (Meekland Avenue to Watkins Street) Alt. Description Benefits Challenges Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative • Existing roadway configuration with
spot improvements only, such as curb
bulb-outs, protected traffic signal
phasing, and RRFBs.
• Quicker implementation
• Improved intersection safety for
vehicles, pedestrians, and people
biking
• Gap in bicycle lanes remains east of
Montgomery Avenue
• No protection or separation for people
biking
• Conflict remains between parking
vehicles and people biking
• Minimal effect on vehicle speeds
Connected Corridor Alternative
• Narrow travel lanes
• Includes same intersection spot
improvements noted in Base Corridor
Enhancements Alternative
• Upgrade bike lane on the south side
of the street to Class IV parking
protected bike lane. Bike lane
protection can either be plastic flex
post for lower costs, or raised
concrete islands for increased safety/
• Upgrade the bike lane on the north
side of the street to Class IIB buffered
bike lane
• Improved intersection safety for
vehicles, pedestrians, and people
biking
• Quicker implementation
• Continuous bike facility on A Street
• Separates people biking from vehicle
traffic
• Increases separation between
pedestrians and vehicle traffic
• Bike lanes are relatively spacious
(~6.5 feet)
• Parking protected bike lane reduces
conflicts between people biking and
vehicles
• Narrows travel lanes for increased
traffic calming
• Maintains current travel lane
configuration
• Installing a separated bike lane has a
crash reduction of 45% for bicycle
and pedestrian crashes
• Bicycle facilities maintain conflict
points at intersections
• Conflict between car parking and
people biking remains on the north
side of the street
• No protection for bike lane on the
north side of the street

ATTACHMENT VIII
543
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 43
Alt. Description Benefits Challenges Reimagined Corridor (Sidewalk-Level Protected Bike Lanes) • Parking lane removal on the south
side of the corridor
• Includes same intersection spot
improvements as Base Corridor
Enhancements Alternative as well as
allows additional separation between
people biking and vehicles at
intersections
• Upgrade bike lane on the south side
of the street to sidewalk level Class IV
separated bike lane
• Separated bike lane includes planting
strip between people biking and
vehicle traffic
• Upgrade bike lane on the north side
of the street to Class IIB buffered bike
lane
• Improved intersection safety for
vehicles, pedestrians, and people
biking
• Separates people biking from vehicle
traffic horizontally and vertically on
the south side of the street
• Further increases separation between
pedestrians and vehicle traffic
• Landscape protection in between
non-motorized and vehicle traffic
• Continuous bike facility on A Street
• Reducing curb to curb roadway width
has inherent traffic calming effect on
vehicle speeds
• Reduced conflict between people
biking and vehicles at intersections
• Installing a separated bike lane has a
crash reduction of 45% for bicycle
and pedestrian crashes
• Implementing a road diet and adding
a TWLTL has a crash reduction of
35% for all crashes
• Conflict between car parking and
people biking remains on the north
side of the street
• No protection for bike lane on the
north side of the street
• Longer term implementation

ATTACHMENT VIII
544
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 44
Alt. Description Benefits Challenges Reimagined Corridor (Class I Shared Use Paths) • Parking lane removal on the south
side of the corridor
• Includes same intersection spot
improvements as Base Corridor
Enhancements Alternative as well as
allows additional separation between
people biking and vehicles at
intersections
• Upgrade bike lanes to Class I shareduse paths in both directions • Improved intersection safety for
vehicles, pedestrians, and people
biking
• Separates people biking and
pedestrians from vehicle traffic
horizontally and vertically with
planting strip
• Protection for bike lanes on both
sides of the street
• Continuous bike facility on A Street
• No conflict between parking vehicles
and people biking
• Reducing curb to curb roadway width
has inherent traffic calming effect on
vehicle speeds
• Reduced conflict points for people
biking and vehicle traffic at
intersections
• Provides two-way bicycle paths on
both sides, increasing connectivity
• Installing a separated bike lane has a
crash reduction of 45% for bicycle
and pedestrian crashes
• Longer term implementation
• Increased conflict between
pedestrians and people biking

3.3.3.1.2 B Street
The B Street project alternative safety analysis is provided in Table 3-12 and Table 3-13. An additional analysis with crash reduction factors for spot improvements on B Street is included in Appendix H.

ATTACHMENT VIII
545
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 45
Table 3-12: B Street Project Alternative Safety Analysis (Martin Luther King Drive to Montgomery Avenue) Alt. Description Benefits Challenges Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative • Existing roadway configuration with
spot improvements only, such as
traffic circles, speed humps, and curb
bulb outs
• Quicker implementation
• Improved intersection safety for
vehicles, pedestrians, and people
biking
• No protection or separation for people
biking
• Conflict remains between parking
vehicles and people biking
Connected Corridor
Alternative
• Narrow travel lanes
• Includes same intersection spot
improvements noted in Base Corridor
Enhancements Alternative as well as
includes the option to assess the
feasibility of diverters
• Upgrade bike lanes to Class IIB
buffered bike lanes
• Quicker implementation
• Improved intersection safety for
vehicles, pedestrians, and people
biking
• Increases separation between nonmotorized and vehicle traffic • Narrows travel lanes for increased
traffic calming
• No protection for people biking
• Bike lane width narrows with the
addition of buffer space (~5 feet)
• Conflict remains between parking
vehicles and people biking

ATTACHMENT VIII
546
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 46
Alt. Description Benefits Challenges Reimagined Corridor Alternative • Narrow travel lanes
• Includes same intersection spot
improvements noted in Base Corridor
Enhancements Alternative as well as
includes the option to assess the
feasibility of diverters
• Upgrade bike lanes to a two-way,
sidewalk level Class IV cycle track on
the south side of the street
• Separates the cycle track from
vehicles with planting strip
• Improved intersection safety for
vehicles, pedestrians, and people
biking
• Separates people biking from vehicle
traffic horizontally and vertically
• Further increases separation between
pedestrians and vehicle traffic on the
south side of the street
• Landscape protection in between
non-motorized and vehicle traffic
• Removes conflict between people
biking and parking vehicles
• Reducing curb to curb roadway width
has inherent traffic calming effect on
vehicle speeds
• Installing a separated bike lane has a
crash reduction of 45% for bicycle
and pedestrian crashes
• Narrow bike facilities (5’ in either
direction)
• No bike connection on the north side
of the street
• Bikes must cross street to stay on
facility at Myrtle Street
• Longer term implementation
Table 3-13: B Street Project Alternative Safety Analysis (Montgomery Avenue to Watkins Street) Alt. Description Benefits Challenges Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative • Existing roadway configuration with
spot improvements only, such as a
pedestrian scramble and curb bulb
outs
• Quicker implementation
• Improved intersection safety for
vehicles, pedestrians, and people
biking
• No bicycle lanes present
• Conflict remains between parking
vehicles and people biking

ATTACHMENT VIII
547
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 47
Alt. Description Benefits Challenges Connected Corridor Alternative • Removes parking lane on the south
side of the street
• Includes same intersection spot
improvements noted in Base Corridor
Enhancements Alternative
• Add Class II bike lanes
• Quicker implementation
• Improved intersection safety for
vehicles, pedestrians, and people
biking
• Continuous bike facility connection on
B Street
• Increases separation between nonmotorized and vehicle traffic • Narrows travel lanes for increased
traffic calming
• No protection or buffered separation
for bike lanes
• Bike lane width is relatively narrow
(~5 feet)
• Conflict exists between parking
vehicles and people biking on north
side
Reimagine
d Corridor
Alternative
• Removes second westbound travel
lane
• Includes same intersection spot
improvements noted in Base Corridor
Enhancements Alternative
• Add Class IIB buffered bike lanes
• Quicker implementation
• Improved intersection safety for
vehicles, pedestrians, and people
biking
• Continuous bike facility connection on
B Street
• Increases separation between nonmotorized and vehicle traffic • Narrows travel lanes for increased
traffic calming
• No protection for people biking
• Bike lane width is relatively narrow
(~5 feet)
• Conflict exists between parking
vehicles and people biking

ATTACHMENT VIII
548
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 48
4 Tennyson Road

4.1 Existing Conditions

4.1.1 Speed Analysis
Tennyson Road has a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour west of Ruus Road, and 25 miles per hour between Ruus Road and Mission Boulevard. Existing auto speeds are shown below in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: Tennyson Road Speed Analysis Results
Location Speed
Limit
Average
Speed
85th
Percentile
Speed
Top Speed
Percentage
Speeding
over 10 mph
Between Sleepy Hollow
Avenue and Calaroga
Avenue
35 mph 33 mph 40 mph 75-80 mph 4%
Between Tampa Avenue
and Tyrell Avenue 35 mph 32 mph 38 mph 75-80 mph 2%
Between Whitman Street
and Dixon Street 25 mph 41 mph 46 mph 75-80 mph 90%
For the two westernmost segments on Tennyson Road, the 85th percentile speeds were found to be within five miles per hour of the speed limit. However, for the eastern segment, despite the posted speed limit being lower, the average and 85th percentile speeds were substantially higher. The average speed was 16 miles per hour over the posted speed limit and 90% of all vehicles recorded during the study were found to be speeding by over 10 miles per hour. The highest speed recorded on Tennyson Road was between 75 and 80 miles per hour and was observed at each of the three study locations.

4.1.2 Traffic Analysis
Each of the 10 study intersections operate at the City’s LOS standard of E or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. The signalized intersection with the highest existing delay is Tennyson Road and Calaroga Avenue which operates at a LOS E in the AM peak hour and a LOS D in the PM peak hour.

Notably for the westbound left turning movement it is estimated that the 50th and 95th percentile queues exceed the storage capacity. The 50th percentile queue reflects the average queue length during the peak hour, and the 95th percentile queue represents a queue length that is only exceeded five percent of the time during the peak hour. Intersection level results are shown in Table 4-2. Synchro analysis sheets are included for Tennyson Road in Appendix I.

ATTACHMENT VIII
549
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 49
Table 4-2: Tennyson Road Existing Traffic LOS

4.1.3 Parking Analysis
On Tennyson Road, the weekday daytime peak hour was 6 PM to 7 PM, and the weekend daytime peak hour was 7 PM to 8 PM. The highest parking utilization recorded on Tennyson Road occurred during the weekday daytime peak hour with 30% of all available spaces occupied; however, when including side streets, the highest utilization recorded within the study area occurred during the weekday nighttime peak hour, with 63% of all corridor and side street parking utilized. Parking utilization of adjacent side streets was significantly higher than the parking utilization on Tennyson Road for all peak hours. Table 4-3 summarizes the parking utilization on Tennyson Road and adjacent side streets for all peak hours.

ATTACHMENT VIII
550
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 50
Table 4-3: Tennyson Road Existing Parking Utilization
On-Street Parking Location Parking
Inventory
Weekday
Daytime Peak
Hour Parking
Occupancy
(6PM- 7PM)
Weekday
Nighttime
Peak Hour
Parking
Occupancy
(2AM-3 AM)
Weekend
Daytime
Peak Hour
Parking
Occupancy
(7PM-8PM)
Weekend
Nighttime
Peak Hour
Parking
Occupancy
(2AM-3AM)
Tennyson Road 264 30% 28% 26% 23%
Tennyson Road Side Streets 611 68% 79% 71% 71%
Total 875 57% 63% 57% 56%
Figure 4-1 shows the existing parking inventory on Tennyson Road and side streets within 500 feet of the corridor. Tennyson Road has 264 total parking spaces, including ADA parking spaces, permitted parking spaces, and short-term parking spaces. No on-street parking is available on the corridor between Calaroga Avenue and Harvey Avenue except on the south side between Pompano Avenue and Tampa Avenue. The segments on the corridor with the greatest number of spaces are adjacent to Tennyson Park, Cesar Chavez Middle School, and the South Hayward BART Station. Parking figures for all time periods can be found for A and B Street in Appendix J.

ATTACHMENT VIII
551
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 51
Figure 4-1: Tennyson Road Existing Parking Inventory
Figure 4-2 shows the existing weekday nighttime peak parking utilization along Tennyson Road and adjacent side streets, as that hour has the highest collective parking utilization inclusive of both Tennyson Road and adjacent side streets. Between Ruus Road and Mission Boulevard, most segments have occupancies of 50% or less. In general, parking utilization is higher on adjacent side streets, like between Ruus Road and Huntwood Avenue where most side street parking utilization exceeds 51%.

ATTACHMENT VIII
552
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 52
Figure 4-2: Tennyson Road Existing Weekday Nighttime Parking Occupancy

4.1.4 Signal Warrant Analysis
The intersection at Tennyson Road and Baldwin Street was identified as a high-priority, high injury network intersection in the City’s 2023 LRSP. A traffic signal warrant was conducted to assess the feasibility of a traffic signal as a safety countermeasure for the intersection and uncontrolled pedestrian crossing.

Table 4-4 summarizes this signal warrant analysis. As shown in the table, no warrants were satisfied, meaning that a traffic signal is not justified for this location. Full signal warrant worksheets for Tennyson Road are included in Appendix K.

Table 4-4: Tennyson Road and Baldwin Street Traffic Signal Warrant Summary Signal Warrant Carmel Valley Road and
Valley Greens Drive
Warrant #1 (8-hour Vehicular
Volume)
Condition A Not Satisfied
Condition B Not Satisfied
Warrant #2 (4-hour Vehicular Volume) Not Satisfied
Warrant #3 (Peak Hour) Not Satisfied

ATTACHMENT VIII
553
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 53
Warrant #4 (Pedestrian Volume) Not Satisfied
Warrant #5 (School Crossing) Not Satisfied
Warrant #6 (Coordinate Signal System) Not Satisfied
Warrant #7 (Crash Experience) Not Satisfied
Warrant #8 (Roadway Network) Not Satisfied
Warrant #9 (Intersection Near a Grade Crossing) Not Satisfied

4.2 Project Alternatives
Like A and B Street, project alternatives and safety countermeasures were identified for Tennyson Road based on the existing conditions analysis, public outreach, and the Road Safety Audits. Detailed concepts illustrating proposed cross sections and safety countermeasures for each of the Tennyson Road alternatives can be found in Appendix L.

Tennyson Road between Whitman Street and Dixon Street/E. 12th Street is also included in the East Bay Greenway Multimodal Project, which currently proposes a two-way cycle track on the south side of the street and a one-way protected bike lane on the north side of the street, consistent with the Reimagined Corridor Alternative.

4.2.1 Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative
In this alternative, the existing roadway configuration would be maintained, with improvements consisting of spot improvements such as pedestrian bulb-outs, protected traffic signal phasing, and rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs). An overview of the spot improvements for Tennyson Road can be seen in Figure 4-3. Other corridor wide recommendations, such as pedestrian scale lighting, high-visibility crosswalks, and advance stop bars, are not included in these graphics.

Figure 4-3: Tennyson Road Spot Improvement Locations

ATTACHMENT VIII
554
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 54
Tennyson Road has two travel lanes, a Class II bike lane between Hesperian Boulevard and Calaroga Avenue and between Patrick Street and E 12th Street/Dixon Street, and a curb lane where parking may or may not be permitted in both directions, as shown in Figure 4-4.

Figure 4-4: Tennyson Road Existing Conditions/Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative CrossSection

ATTACHMENT VIII
555
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 55

4.2.2 Connected Corridor Alternative
This alternative, represented in Figure 4-5, would narrow travel lanes and include parking removal between Whitman Street and E 12th Street/Dixon Street to widen the Class II bike lane on the north side of the street, upgrade to a Class IV separated bike lane on the south side of the street west of Whitman Street, and upgrade to a two way Class IV cycle track between Whitman Street and E 12th Street/Dixon Street. Protection for the separated bike lane can consist of plastic flex posts, a raised concrete curb, or other vertical separation. Where no bike lanes exist, this alternative narrows lanes to add them. This alternative includes the intersection spot improvements noted in the Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative.

Figure 4-5: Tennyson Road Connected Corridor Alternative Cross-Section

ATTACHMENT VIII
556
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 56

4.2.3 Reimagined Corridor Alternative
In this alternative, on-street parking would be removed on both sides of the street between Hesperian Boulevard and Ruus Road and between E 12th Street and Mission Boulevard, and on the south side between Huntwood Avenue and E 12th Street. Travel lanes and medians are narrowed to upgrade Class II bike lanes to Class IV separated bike lanes west of Whitman Street, and a two-way Class IV cycle track between Whitman Street and E 12th Street/Dixon Street. An eastbound travel lane is also removed between E 12th Street and Mission Boulevard to provide improved bicycle facilities. In addition to the spot improvements noted in the Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative, this alternative includes the implementation of protected intersections. The Reimagined Corridor Alternative is shown in Figure 4-6.

Figure 4-6: Tennyson Road Reimagined Corridor Alternative Cross-Section

4.3 Analysis Findings

4.3.1 Traffic
One traffic model was built to reflect both the Base Corridor Enhancements and Connected Corridor Alternatives as the two alternatives have no operational or lane assignment differences. The Reimagined Corridor Alternative was modeled separately and includes protected intersection improvements and other capacity reductions.

ATTACHMENT VIII
557
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 57
Traffic analysis finds that all 10 study intersections operate at a LOS D or better with each alternative, an improvement from the existing conditions where Tennyson Road and Calaroga Avenue operates at a LOS E. Traffic analysis results for the AM peak hour are shown in Figure 4-7 and for the PM peak hour in Figure 4-8.

Figure 4-7: Tennyson Road Project Alternative Traffic Analysis Results (AM Peak Hour) Traffic Reimagined Corridor
Int. # Intersection Control Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 Tennyson Rd and Hesperian Blvd S 48.5 D 48.7 D 48.7 D 2 Tennyson Rd and Calaroga Ave S 60.0 E 47.9 D 50.8 D
3 Tennyson Rd and Patrick Ave S 37.3 D 37.3 D 54.7 D
4 Tennyson Rd and Tampa Ave S 31.6 C 31.6 C 31.7 C
5 Tennyson Rd and Ruus Rd S 27.5 C 28.2 C 28.5 C
6 Tennyson Rd and Baldwin St SSSC 13.0 B 9.6 A 9.6 A
7 Tennyson Rd and Huntwood Ave S 37.3 D 49.5 D 47.2 D
8 Tennyson Rd and Whitman St S 37.5 D 38.4 D 46.1 D
9 Tennyson Rd and 12th St/Dixon St S 29.2 C 31.5 C 31.1 C 10 Tennyson Rd and Mission Blvd S 32.7 C 40.2 D 41.6 D
S = Signalized; SSSC = Side Street Stop Controlled

SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATION

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES (AM)
Notes:
- Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service - Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection approach.

Base Corridor
Enhancements Connected Corridor

ATTACHMENT VIII
558
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 58
Figure 4-8: Tennyson Road Project Alternative Traffic Analysis Results (PM Peak Hour) In each of the three alternatives, delay marginally increases at most signalized intersections due to the inclusion of intersection spot improvements. Tennyson Road and Calaroga Avenue would see decreased delay and improved LOS due to signal phasing changes. Each Build alternative proposes to change the existing northbound through-right lane into a through only movement with a right-turn overlap phase. In addition to providing significant safety benefits by eliminating the dual right-turn threat to pedestrians and people biking, this is a more efficient intersection operation. This change does require restricting westbound U-turns.

The LOS at Tennyson and Baldwin Street improves from B to A in both project alternatives due to the restriction of the left turn movements from Baldwin Street.

4.3.2 Parking
A parking diversion analysis was performed for each alternative where parking removal is proposed.

While this analysis focuses on parking removal to facilitate corridor-wide alternatives, additional parking removal is likely needed to implement the spot improvements and comply with current laws and safety best practices, such as Assembly Bill 413, which requires daylighting in front of crosswalks. Parking change quantities will be refined after conceptual design.

Traffic Reimagined Corridor
Int. # Intersection Control Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 Tennyson Rd and Hesperian Blvd S 47.4 D 47.7 D 47.7 D 2 Tennyson Rd and Calaroga Ave S 50.8 D 46.6 D 47.7 D
3 Tennyson Rd and Patrick Ave S 25.8 C 25.8 C 31.8 C
4 Tennyson Rd and Tampa Ave S 28.2 C 28.2 C 28.4 C
5 Tennyson Rd and Ruus Rd S 28.0 C 30.2 C 32.3 C
6 Tennyson Rd and Baldwin St SSSC 13.9 B 10.0 A 10.0 A
7 Tennyson Rd and Huntwood Ave S 36.4 D 44.7 D 45.1 D
8 Tennyson Rd and Whitman St S 28.9 C 27.9 C 38.8 D
9 Tennyson Rd and 12th St/Dixon St S 34.7 C 32.8 C 32.7 C 10 Tennyson Rd and Mission Blvd S 32.9 C 38.7 D 39.8 D
S = Signalized; SSSC = Side Street Stop Controlled

SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATION

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES (PM)
Notes:
- Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service - Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection approach.

Base Corridor
Enhancements Connected Corridor

ATTACHMENT VIII
559
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 59

4.3.2.1.1 Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative
Parking impact would be limited to spot locations for daylighting, bus stop modifications, and other safety improvements. No larger-scale parking modifications are anticipated.

4.3.2.1.2 Connected Corridor Alternative
Parking removal is proposed on the south side of Tennyson Road between Whitman Street and E 12th Street/Dixon Street. A total of 43 parking spaces would be removed. Within that segment the observed current demand of seven cars would need to be relocated to nearby parking spaces during the weekday peak nighttime period. In all peak hour periods, parking would be available on adjacent side streets. After parking removal, the weekday nighttime peak hour parking occupancy is 30% on Tennyson Road, and 80% on adjacent side streets. The parking inventory for this alternative is shown in Figure 4-9, and the weekday nighttime peak parking occupancy after parking relocation is shown in Figure 4-10. Additional parking impact is anticipated in other segments, not shown, for basic safety improvements such as daylighting and bus stop modifications.

Figure 4-9: Tennyson Road Connected Corridor Alternative Parking Inventory

ATTACHMENT VIII
560
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 60
Figure 4-10: Tennyson Road Connected Corridor Alternative Weekday Nighttime Peak Parking Occupancy

4.3.2.1.3 Reimagined Corridor Alternative
This alternative would remove parking on Tennyson Road from Hesperian Boulevard to Ruus Road, on the south side of Tennyson Road between Whitman Street and E 12th Street/Dixon Street, and on both sides of Tennyson Road between E 12th Street/Dixon Street and Mission Boulevard, totaling 158 parking spaces. Within those areas, an average of 52 cars would need to be relocated to other parking spaces.

Due to nearby street parking being at capacity, it is expected that eight of the 52 relocated cars could not be relocated to a nearby available parking space. An additional 27 relocated cars would need to park across the corridor from their existing parking space. Discounting the eight vehicles that are without nearby and available parking, the occupancy during the weekday nighttime peak hour would be 21% on Tennyson Road and 86% on adjacent side streets. In this alternative, the parking occupancy on Tennyson Road would decrease because many of the cars currently parked along Tennyson Road would instead find parking on nearby side streets. This is seen in the 7% increase in occupancy of nearby side streets between existing and the Reimagined Corridor Alternative. Figure 4-11 shows the parking inventory for this alternative, and Figure 4-12 shows the weekday nighttime peak parking occupancy after relocation.

Additional parking impact is anticipated in other segments, not shown, for daylighting, bus stop modifications, and other safety improvements.

ATTACHMENT VIII
561
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 61
Figure 4-11: Tennyson Road Reimagined Corridor Alternative Parking Inventory

ATTACHMENT VIII
562
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 62
Figure 4-12: Tennyson Road Reimagined Corridor Alternative Weekday Nighttime Peak Parking Occupancy

4.3.2.1.4 Tennyson Road Parking Summary Tables
Table 4-5 notes the quantity of parking spaces removed in each project alternative and the estimated number of cars needing to be relocated to new parking spaces. It identifies where parked cars would have no nearby available side street location to park. Table 4-6 summarizes the weekday nighttime peak parking occupancy on Tennyson Road and adjacent side streets as a result of parking removal associated with the alternatives.

Table 4-5: Parking Inventory by Tennyson Road Alternative Weekday Nighttime Peak Parking Occupancy
On-Street Parking Location
Existing
Parking
Inventory
Existing
Conditions/
Base Corridor
Enhancements
Alternative
Connected
Corridor
Alternative
Reimagined
Corridor
Alternative
Parking Inventory 875 875 832 717
Number of Spaces Removed - 0 43 158
Number of Existing Parked Cars
Impacted - 0 7 52*
*Up to 8 diverted vehicles did not have a nearby and available parking space to relocate to.

ATTACHMENT VIII
563
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 63
Table 4-6: Weekend Nighttime Peak Parking Occupancy by Tennyson Road Alternative Weekday Nighttime Peak Parking Occupancy
On-Street Parking Location Existing Parking
Inventory
Existing
Conditions/
Base Corridor
Enhancements
Alternative
Connected
Corridor
Alternative
Reimagined
Corridor
Alternative
Tennyson Road 264 28% 30% 21%*
Tennyson Road Side Streets 611 79% 80% 86%*
Total 875 63% 67% 76%*
*Up to 8 diverted vehicles did not have a nearby and available parking space to relocate to.

ATTACHMENT VIII
564
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 64

4.3.3 Safety Analysis
A safety analysis was conducted for each of the proposed project alternatives and spot improvements for Tennyson Road. Each of the intersection spot improvements proposed were mapped over the previously created collision graphic to visualize where safety improvements are being proposed in relation to the historically high collision areas. This safety analysis graphic represents safety improvements proposed at the highest collision locations on Tennyson Road. This visualization is shown in Figure 4-13. As shown in the figure, spot safety improvements are proposed at nearly all locations with a history of multiple bicycle and pedestrian-involved collisions, in addition to the corridor-wide safety improvements. Additionally, an analysis of each of the spot improvements using the California Local Road Safety Manual (LRSM) is included in Appendix H for Tennyson Road.

ATTACHMENT VIII
565
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 65
Figure 4-13: Tennyson Road Proposed Safety Spot Improvements at High-Collision Locations

ATTACHMENT VIII
566
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 66
For the analysis of the project alternatives, descriptions of the safety improvements, benefits, and challenges for each project alternative are provided in Table 4-7.

Table 4-7: Tennyson Road Project Alternative Safety Analysis Alt. Description Benefits Challenges Base Corridor Enhancements Alternative • Existing roadway configuration with
spot improvements only, such as curb
bulb-outs, protected traffic signal
phasing, and RRFBs.
• Quicker implementation
• Intersection safety improvements for
vehicles, pedestrians, and people
biking
• Gap in bike lanes on corridor still
exists
• Minimal impacts to reduce vehicle
speeds or separate bicycles and
autos
Connected Corridor Alternative
• Narrow travel lanes
• Upgrades existing Class II bike lanes
to Class IV separated bike lanes or
Class IV two-way cycle tracks on the
south side of the street
• Bike lane protection can either be
plastic flex post for lower costs, or
raised concrete islands for increased
safety
• Widens existing bike lane on the north
side of the street
• Adds Class II bike lanes where no
bike lane facilities exist
• Includes same intersection spot
improvements noted in the Base
Corridor Enhancements Alternative
• Quicker implementation
• Continuous bike facility on Tennyson
Road
• Separates people biking from vehicle
traffic horizontally and vertically from
vehicle traffic where possible
• Increases separation between
pedestrians and vehicle traffic
• Narrows travel lanes for increased
traffic calming
• Installing a separated bike lane (south
side) has a crash reduction of 45% for
bicycle and pedestrian crashes
• Bicycle facilities remain fairly narrow
and maintains conflict points at
intersections

ATTACHMENT VIII
567
Hayward High Injury Network Phase 1 Study
Draft Evaluation Report
Page | 67 Reimagined Corridor Alternative
• Removes parking lanes on both sides
of the street between Hesperian
Boulevard and Ruus Road and E 12th
Street and Mission Boulevard, and on
the south side of the street between
Huntwood Avenue and E 12th Street
• Narrows center median
• Upgrades bike lanes to Class IV
separated cycle tracks
• Separates people biking from vehicle
traffic with landscape strips
• Includes same intersection spot
improvements noted in the Base
Corridor Enhancements Alternative as
well as allows for protected
intersection improvements
• Separates people biking from vehicle
traffic horizontally and vertically with
concrete protection
• Further increases separation between
pedestrians and vehicle traffic
• Continuous bike facility on Tennyson
Road
• Protected intersection improvements
allow for reduced conflict points for
people biking and vehicle traffic
• Reducing curb to curb roadway width
has inherent traffic calming effect on
vehicle speeds
• Installing a separated bike lane has a
crash reduction of 45% for bicycle
and pedestrian crashes
• Longer term implementation

ATTACHMENT VIII
568
CITY OF HAYWARD Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: CONS 26-231
DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Maintenance Services

SUBJECT
Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Preliminarily Approve the Engineer’s Report and Assessments for Fiscal Year 2026; and Set June 16, 2026, as the Public Hearing Date for Such Actions for Consolidated Landscaping and Lighting District No. 96-1, Zones 1 through 18

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopts a resolution of intention (Attachment II) to preliminarily approve the Engineer’s report (Attachment III) and assessments for Landscaping and Lighting District No. 96-1 for FY 2026 and sets June 16th as the public hearing date.

SUMMARY
The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 requires an annual review and update of the Engineer’s Report to set annual assessment rates for each benefit zone. Assessment rate recommendations are made based on annual expenses, required cash flow, and capital replacement requirements. Recommended annual assessment rates cannot exceed the Maximum Base Assessment (MBA) Rate established when a zone was originally formed. The annual engineer’s report is included as Attachment III and includes a detailed summary for each of the eighteen benefit zones.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Preliminary Engineer’s Report
CITY OF HAYWARD Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™569

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Maintenance Services Director
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Preliminarily Approve the Engineer’s Report and Assessments for Fiscal Year 2026; and Set June 16, 2026, as the Public Hearing Date forSuch Actions for Consolidated Landscaping and LightingDistrictNo. 96-1, Zones 1 through 18

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopts a resolution of intention (Attachment II) to preliminarily approve the Engineer’s report (Attachment III) and assessments for Landscaping and Lighting District No. 96-1 for FY 2026 and sets June 16th as the public hearing date.

SUMMARY
The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 requires an annual review and update of the Engineer’s Reportto set annual assessment rates for each benefit zone.Assessment rate recommendations are made based on annual expenses, required cash flow, and capital replacement requirements.

Recommendedannual assessment rates cannot exceedthe Maximum BaseAssessment(MBA) Rate established when a zone was originally formed. The annual engineer’s report is included as Attachment III and includes a detailed summary for each of the eighteen benefit zones.

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund from this recommendation. All expenditures are paid by assessment rates in each respective zone. All zones have adequate cash balances for annual expenses, cash flow, and capital replacement at this time.

BACKGROUND
The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code §22500) is a flexible tool used by local government agencies to form Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts to finance the cost and expense of operating, maintaining, and servicing landscaping (including parks), and lighting improvements in public areas. In 1996, six separate Landscaping and Lighting Districts, Benefit Zones 1-6, were consolidated into one district, Consolidated Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 96-1, “the District,” by the adoption of Resolution No. 96-63. In 570

subsequent years, zones 7-18 were individually created and annexed into the District. This staff report and attached engineer’s report provide assessment, benefit, and budget details for each of the established eighteen zones. Table 1 on the following page provides a summary of the benefit zones, including the year in which each zone was formed and the number of assessable parcels within each zone.

TABLE 1: DESCRIPTION OF BENEFIT ZONES

A B C D E
Zone Name/Location Year Formed Type of
Development
Number of Assessed
Parcels/SFE
1 Huntwood Ave. and Panjon St. 1990 Residential 30
2 Harder Rd. and Mocine Ave. 1991 Residential 85
3 Prominence 1992 Residential 155
4 Stratford Village 1995 Residential 174
5 Soto Rd. and Plum Tree St. 1995 Residential 38
6 Pepper Tree Park 1982 Industrial 11
7 Twin Bridges 1998 Residential 348
8 Capitola St. 1999 Residential 24
9 Orchard Ave. 2000 Residential 74
10 Eden Shores 2003 Residential 534
11 Stonebrae 2006, 2018, 2020 Residential 644
12 Eden Shores East (Spindrift) 2007, 2016 Residential 379 13 Cannery Place 2008 Residential 599
14 La Vista 2016 Residential 179
15 Cadence 2017 Residential 206
16 Blackstone 2016 Residential 157
17 Parkside Heights 2019 Residential 97
18 SoHay 2019 Residential 433
Total Assessed Parcels: 4,167
Self-Maintained.

DISCUSSION
Recommended changes to a zone’s annual assessment rate are based on annual expenses, required cash flow, and capital replacement requirements. When determining the annual assessment rate, staff looks at two things:
(1) Maximum Base Assessment (MBA) – The MBA is the maximum assessment rate that a parcel can be charged annually. This amount is established during the original formation of the zone.

The annual MBA can only be increased if an inflation factor was included in the original formation document.
(2) Assessment Revenue – The assessment revenue is the annual amount of revenue collected by charging each parcel an assessment rate. The assessment rate recommendation depends on 571

review of the following three items:
a. Annual Expenses – Annual operating and maintenance expenses are estimated based on past years’ experience and future years’ estimates. Expenses include staff administration, noticing, and annual reporting.
b. Cash Flow – This is the amount of “cash” needed to pay monthly invoices when revenue is not received monthly (assessment rates are received through property tax revenues collected by Alameda County, which are transmitted to the City three times a year (January, May, and June).
c. Capital Replacement – This is the “savings account” where funds are collected and reserved each year to fund future capital replacement items. Future capital expenses are estimated based on an inventory of capital items, their useful life, and future replacement cost.

Table 2 on the following page summarizes assessment information by zone. The table provides assessment details for each zone by describing the number of parcels, if there is an annual inflation adjustment included in the MBA rate, the FY 2027 assessment rate, and the change between last year’s adopted assessment and this year’s recommended assessment.

For FY 2027, staff recommends no change to five zones (Zones: 5, 6, 7, 15, and 18), two decreases (Zones: 2 and 17) and eleven increases (Zones: 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16), based on annual expenses, required cash flow, and future capital replacement. 572

Proposition 218 Compliance
For FY 2027, all assessments are proposed to be levied in compliance with Proposition 218 and do not require the noticing and balloting of property owners to obtain their approval. Any future increases in the assessment amounts that would exceed the MBA amount would require noticing and balloting of property owners.

STRATEGIC ROADMAP
This agenda item is not directly related to the Council’sStrategic Roadmap.

PUBLIC CONTACT
City staff: 1) mailed a postcard notice to property owners to let them know of their recommended FY 2027 assessment rate, and to alert them to three Public meetings where they could provide input (June 2, June 3, and June 16); 2) held a virtual community meeting via Zoom on June 10; and 3) will publish a legal notice in the East Bay Times on or before June 6, 2026.

A B C D E F G H I J
Zone Name/Location # Parcels CPI Adj FY 2027 Max Base
Assessment
FY 2027
Rate
FY 2026
Assessment
1 Huntwood Ave. and Panjon St. 30 No 295.83 270.03 247.73 Incr 22.30 9% 2 Harder Rd. and Mocine Ave. 85 No 193.39 152.08 139.52 Incr 12.56 9% 3 Prominence 155 Yes 1,204.78 1,167.45 1,101.36 Incr 66.09 6% 4 Stratford Village 174 No 180.00 137.27 133.27 Incr 4.00 3% 5 Soto Rd. and Plum Tree St. 38 No 258.67 258.67 258.67 None - 0% 6 Pepper Tree Park 11 No 2.61 2.61 2.61 None - 0%
7 Twin Bridges 348 Yes 1,260.16 700.00 698.08 None 1.92 0% 8 Capitola St. 24 Yes 901.26 226.77 215.97 Incr 10.80 5% 9 Orchard Ave. 74 Yes 240.64 42.76 40.34 Incr 2.42 6%
10 Eden Shores 534 Yes 1,434.96 398.02 365.16 Incr 32.86 9% 11a Stonebrae (Developed) 617 Yes 2,035.28 471.45 449.00 Incr 22.45 5% 11b Stonebrae (Undeveloped) 27 Yes 249.87 249.87 237.97 Incr 11.90 5% 12a Eden Shores - East 261 Yes 269.68 100.00 110.41 Dcr (10.41) -9% 12b Eden Shores East (Spindrift) 118 Yes 262.02 100.00 110.41 Dcr (10.41) -9% 13 Cannery Place 599 Yes 1,530.46 469.41 442.84 Incr 26.57 6% 14 La Vista 179 Yes 792.54 725.28 704.16 Incr 21.12 3%
15 Cadence 206 Yes 768.56 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
16a Blackstone (Zone A) 133 Yes 548.12 542.49 516.66 Incr 25.83 5% 16b Blackstone (Zone B) 24 Yes 558.76 569.60 542.48 Incr 27.12 5% 17 Parkside Heights 97 Yes 640.72 300.00 600.37 Dcr (300.37) -50% 18a SoHay Zone A (Developed) 192 Yes 488.68 300.00 300.00 None - 0% 18b SoHay Zone B (Developed) 79 Yes 464.26 285.00 285.00 None - 0% TABLE 2: ASSESSMENT AMOUNTS BY BENEFIT ZONE
Change from last year
573

NEXT STEPS
Following this Council meeting, the City is proposing to hold a public hearing on June 16, 2026, to provide an opportunity for any interested person to be heard. After the public hearing, the Council may adopt a resolution setting the annual assessment amounts as originally proposed or as modified. Following the adoption of this resolution, the final assessor’s roll will be prepared and filed with the County Auditor’s office to be included on the FY 2027 tax roll. Payment of the assessmentfor each parcel will be made in the same manner and at the same time as payments are made for property taxes. All funds collected through the assessment must be placed in a special fund and can only be used for the purposes stated within this report.

If Council adopts the attached resolution of intention, a noticed public hearing on June 16, 2026, to consider approving the Engineer’s Report and ordering the levy of assessments for FY 2027 will be scheduled.

Prepared by: Manny Grewal, Management Analyst
Recommended by: Todd Rullman, Maintenance Services Director Approved by:

Jennifer Ott , City Manager
574

ATTACHMENT II

HAYWARDCITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 26-____
Introduced by Council Member __________

RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO PRELIMINARILY APPROVE THE

ENGINEER'S REPORT, DECLARING INTENTION TO LEVY ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027 FOR CONSOLIDATED LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 96-1, ZONES 1-18, AND SETTING JUNE 16, 2026, AS THE

PUBLIC HEARING DATE
WHEREAS, On May 7, 1996, the Consolidated Landscaping and Lighting District No. 96-1, Zones 1-6 (the “District”) was established by the adoption of Resolution No. 96-93 and, subsequently, Zones 7-18 were respectively annexed to the District, and WHEREAS, the District consists of properties as shown on the Assessment Roll which will be available on file in the Office of the Hayward City Clerk on June 16, 2026; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council to order the levy and collection of assessments for the maintenance of the storm drainage pumping station and storm drain conduit pursuant to Part 3, Chapter 26 of Division 7 of the California Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 5820 thereof).

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

1. SCI Consulting Group is hereby designated as Engineer of Work for purposes of these proceedings and is hereby ordered to prepare a Final Engineer’s Report in accordance with Article XIIID of the California Constitution.

2. The Engineer of Work has prepared a Preliminary Engineer’s Report in accordance with the provisions of Article XIIID, Section 4, of the California Constitution, provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Section 22500 et seq. of the California Streets and Highways Code. Said report has been made, filed, and duly considered by this City Council and is hereby deemed sufficient and intended to be preliminarily approved. Said report shall stand as the report for all subsequent proceedings relating to the proposed levy of District assessments for Fiscal Year 2027.

3. It is the intention of the City Council to order the levy and collection of assessments within the District for Fiscal Year 2027.
575

ATTACHMENT II

4. The improvements consist of the construction, operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, and servicing of landscaping, street lighting, open space facilities, parks, trails, and appurtenant (pertaining to something that attaches) facilities including but not limited to; personnel, electrical energy, utilities such as water, materials, contractual services, and other items necessary for the satisfactory operation of these services and facilities.

5. Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual operation, maintenance and servicing of the landscaping, public lighting facilities and appurtenant facilities, including repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the landscaping, public lighting facilities or appurtenant facilities; providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping improvements, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing and treating for disease or injury; and the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste; the cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of street lights and other improvements to remove graffiti.

6. The proposed assessments for Zones 5, 6, 15 and 18 are unchanged from the previous year’s assessments.

7. The proposed assessments for Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16 are more than the previous year’s assessments.

8. The proposed assessments for Zones 12 and 17 are less than the previous year’s assessments.

9. Reference is hereby made to the aforementioned report on file with the City Clerk for a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the proposed District, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots within said District.

10. On June 16, 2026, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., in the regular meeting place of this City Council, City Council Chambers, 777 B Street, Hayward, California, a public hearing will be held on the levy of the proposed assessments. Prior to the conclusion of said public hearing, any interested person may file a written protest with the City Clerk, or having previously filed a protest, may file a written withdrawal of that protest. A written protest by a property owner shall contain a description sufficient to identify the property owned by such owner.

11. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of said meeting and hearing to be made in the form and manner provided by applicable laws. 576

ATTACHMENT II

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
577
Page i
Fiscal Year 2027 ENGINEER’S REPORT
City of Hayward
Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District 96-1
May 2026
Preliminary Report

ATTACHMENT III
578
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027
Page i
City of Hayward
City Council
Mark Salinas, Mayor
George Syrop, Mayor Pro Tempore
Angela Andrews, Council Member
Ray Bonilla Jr., Council Member
Dan Goldstein, Council Member
Julie Roche, Council Member
Francisco Zermeño, Council Member
Clerk of the Council
Miriam Lens
City Manager
Jennifer Ott
Maintenance Service Director
Todd Rullman
City Attorney
Michael Lawson
Engineer of Work
SCI Consulting Group
579
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027
Page ii
Table of Contents
Introduction............................................................................................................... 1 Overview.................................................................................................................................... 1 Background................................................................................................................................ 1 Method of Apportionment........................................................................................................ 4 Zone Classification..................................................................................................................... 5 Assessment Roll......................................................................................................................... 6 Estimate of Costs....................................................................................................................... 6 Legislative Analysis.................................................................................................................... 7 Inflation Factor Allowance Overview ........................................................................................ 7 Noticing, Public Comment, and Public Hearing......................................................................... 8 Plans and Specifications ............................................................................................. 9 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 9 Description of District................................................................................................................ 9 Description of Improvements ................................................................................................... 9 Zone 1 (Huntwood Ave.& Panjon St.)......................................................................................11 Zone 2 (Harder Rd. & Mocine Ave.) ........................................................................................14 Zone 3 (Prominence)...............................................................................................................17 Zone 4 (Stratford Village) ........................................................................................................21 Zone 5 (Soto Rd. & Plum Tree St.)...........................................................................................25 Zone 6 (Peppertree Park) ........................................................................................................28 Zone 7 (Twin Bridges)..............................................................................................................31 Zone 8 (Capitola Street)...........................................................................................................34 Zone 9 (Orchard Ave.) .............................................................................................................37 Zone 10 (Eden Shores Residential)..........................................................................................40 Zone 11 (Stonebrae Country Club)..........................................................................................43 Zone 12 (Spindrift - Eden Shore East)......................................................................................47 Zone 13 (Cannery Place)..........................................................................................................51 Zone 14 (La Vista)....................................................................................................................54 Zone 15 (Cadence)...................................................................................................................57 Zone 16 (Blackstone)...............................................................................................................59 Zone 17 (Parkside Heights)......................................................................................................62 Zone 18 (SoHay) ......................................................................................................................65 Assessment.............................................................................................................. 69 Vicinity Map............................................................................................................. 71 Assessment Diagram ................................................................................................ 72 580
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027
Page iii
List of Tables
Table 1- Description Of Benefit Zones............................................................................................. 2 Table 2- Assessment Amounts By Benefit Zone .............................................................................. 3 Table 3: Estimated Cash Balance Changes Per Benefit Zone........................................................... 4 581
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Introduction
Overview
Each fiscal year an Engineer's Report (the "Report") is prepared and presented to the City of Hayward City Council (the "Council") describing the City’s Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 96-1 (the "District"). The Report details changes to the District or improvements, an estimate of the costs of the maintenance, operations, and servicing of the improvements, and the proposed budget and assessments for that fiscal year.

Through a professional service agreement with SCI Consulting Group (the “Consultant”), the City of Hayward (the “City”) has requested the Consultant prepare and file the Report for the referenced fiscal year. This is the detailed Report for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2027 regarding the District and the proposed assessments to be levied on the properties therein to provide ongoing funding for the costs and expenses required to service and maintain landscape and lighting improvements associated with and resulting from development of properties within the District, in accordance with the proportional special benefits the properties receive from the improvements.

Following the preparation of the annual Report, a public hearing is held before the Council to allow the public an opportunity to hear and be heard regarding the District. Following consideration of all public comments and written protests at the noticed public hearing, and review of the Report, the Council may order amendments to the Report or confirm the Report as submitted. Following final approval of the Report, and confirmation of the assessments, the Council shall order the levy and collection of assessments for FY 2027. In such case, the levy information will be submitted to the Alameda County Auditor/Controller and included as assessments on the property tax roll for the various services provided in FY 2027.

Background
In November 1996, the voters of California adopted Proposition 218 (the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act"), which has been codified as Articles XIII C and XIII D of the California Constitution. The 1972 Act permits the creation of benefit zones within any individual assessment district if "by reasons or variations in the nature, location, and extent of the improvements, the various areas will receive different degrees of benefit from the improvement" (Sec. 22547). If, in any year, the proposed annual assessments for the District exceed the maximum assessments previously approved in a Proposition 218 proceeding (or grandfathered under Proposition 218), such an assessment would be considered a new or increased assessment and be confirmed through a mailed property owner protest ballot proceeding before that new or increased assessment could be imposed.
582
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

The District originally contained six benefit zones when initially formed in 1996, however, now totals eighteen benefit zones which are presented in this Report. This Report and the information contained herein reflect the proposed budget for each of the various services provided by the District and the rates and assessments applicable to those, as required by Proposition 218.

Table 1 - Description Of Benefit Zones

A B C D E
Zone Name/Location Year Formed Type of
Development
Number of Assessed
Parcels/SFE
1 Huntwood Ave. and Panjon St. 1990 Residential 30
2 Harder Rd. and Mocine Ave. 1991 Residential 85
3 Prominence 1992 Residential 155
4 Stratford Village 1995 Residential 174
5 Soto Rd. and Plum Tree St. 1995 Residential 38
6 Pepper Tree Park 1982 Industrial 11
7 Twin Bridges 1998 Residential 348
8 Capitola St. 1999 Residential 24
9 Orchard Ave. 2000 Residential 74
10 Eden Shores 2003 Residential 534
11 Stonebrae 2006, 2018, 2020 Residential 644
12 Eden Shores East (Spindrift) 2007, 2016 Residential 379 13 Cannery Place 2008 Residential 599
14 La Vista 2016 Residential 179
15 Cadence 2017 Residential 206
16 Blackstone 2016 Residential 157
17 Parkside Heights 2019 Residential 97
18 SoHay 2019 Residential 433
4,167
Self-Maintained.

TABLE 1: DESCRIPTION OF BENEFIT ZONES
Total Assessed Parcels:
583
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

The following table summarizes the FY 2027 assessment rates per benefit zone.

Table 2 - Assessment Amounts By Benefit Zone

A B C D E F G H I J
Zone Name/Location # Parcels CPI Adj FY 2027 Max Base
Assessment
FY 2027
Rate
FY 2026
Assessment
1 Huntwood Ave. and Panjon St. 30 No 295.83 270.03 247.73 Incr 22.30 9% 2 Harder Rd. and Mocine Ave. 85 No 193.39 152.08 139.52 Incr 12.56 9% 3 Prominence 155 Yes 1,204.78 1,167.45 1,101.36 Incr 66.09 6% 4 Stratford Village 174 No 180.00 137.27 133.27 Incr 4.00 3% 5 Soto Rd. and Plum Tree St. 38 No 258.67 258.67 258.67 None - 0% 6 Pepper Tree Park 11 No 2.61 2.61 2.61 None - 0%
7 Twin Bridges 348 Yes 1,260.16 700.00 698.08 None 1.92 0% 8 Capitola St. 24 Yes 901.26 226.77 215.97 Incr 10.80 5% 9 Orchard Ave. 74 Yes 240.64 42.76 40.34 Incr 2.42 6%
10 Eden Shores 534 Yes 1,434.96 398.02 365.16 Incr 32.86 9% 11a Stonebrae (Developed) 617 Yes 2,035.28 471.45 449.00 Incr 22.45 5% 11b Stonebrae (Undeveloped) 27 Yes 249.87 249.87 237.97 Incr 11.90 5% 12a Eden Shores - East 261 Yes 269.68 100.00 110.41 Dcr (10.41) -9% 12b Eden Shores East (Spindrift) 118 Yes 262.02 100.00 110.41 Dcr (10.41) -9% 13 Cannery Place 599 Yes 1,530.46 469.41 442.84 Incr 26.57 6% 14 La Vista 179 Yes 792.54 725.28 704.16 Incr 21.12 3%
15 Cadence 206 Yes 768.56 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
16a Blackstone (Zone A) 133 Yes 548.12 542.49 516.66 Incr 25.83 5% 16b Blackstone (Zone B) 24 Yes 558.76 569.60 542.48 Incr 27.12 5% 17 Parkside Heights 97 Yes 640.72 300.00 600.37 Dcr (300.37) -50% 18a SoHay Zone A (Developed) 192 Yes 488.68 300.00 300.00 None - 0% 18b SoHay Zone B (Developed) 79 Yes 464.26 285.00 285.00 None - 0% TABLE 2: ASSESSMENT AMOUNTS BY BENEFIT ZONE
Change from last year
584
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

The following table summarizes the revenue, expenditures, and account balance by benefit zone.

Table 3 - Estimated Cash Balance Changes Per Benefit Zone Method of Apportionment
Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, permits the establishment of assessment districts by agencies for the purpose of providing certain public improvements which include the operation, maintenance and servicing of landscaping and street lighting improvements.

Section 22573 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 requires that maintenance assessments must be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. This Section states:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all Zone Name/Location
Est FY 2026
Ending Cash
Balance
FY 2027
Revenue
FY 2027
Expenditures Change
Est FY 2027
Ending Cash
Balance
1 Huntwood Ave. and Panjon St. 12,809 9,086 8,876 211 13,019 2 Harder Rd. and Mocine Ave. 18,159 13,931 16,607 (2,676) 15,484 3 Prominence 332,904 196,365 272,052 (75,687) 257,217
4 Stratford Village 84,475 29,750 37,083 (7,334) 77,142 5 Soto Rd. and Plum Tree St. 25,534 11,339 11,611 (273) 25,261 6 Pepper Tree Park 108,137 13,188 13,499 (311) 107,826
7 Twin Bridges 903,693 242,459 292,922 (50,464) 853,229 8 Capitola St. 46,130 5,750 7,993 (2,243) 43,887
9 Orchard Ave. 10,351 3,150 3,213 (63) 10,288
10 Eden Shores 103,432 211,729 228,054 (16,325) 87,107
11 Stonebrae 511,074 298,862 369,358 (70,497) 440,577
12 Eden Shores East (Spindrift) 61,813 37,406 28,297 9,109 70,922 13 Cannery Place 954,005 278,897 375,587 (96,690) 857,314 14 La Vista 280,663 127,968 130,149 (2,181) 278,482
15 Cadence - - - - -
16 Blackstone 282,691 84,488 114,053 (29,565) 253,126
17 Parkside Heights 281,097 30,105 21,673 8,432 289,530 18 SoHay 417,070 125,256 85,806 39,450 456,519
4,434,036 1,719,728 2,016,834 (297,106) 4,136,930
Self-Maintained.

TABLE 3: ESTIMATED CASH BALANCE CHANGES PER BENEFIT ZONE Cash Balance:
585
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements."
The determination of whether or not a lot or parcel will benefit from the improvements shall be made pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911 (Division 7 (commencing with Section 5000)) [of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California]."
Proposition 218 also requires that maintenance assessments must be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. In addition, Article XIIID, Section 4(a) of the California Constitution limits the amount of any assessment to the proportional special benefit conferred on the property. Because assessments are levied based on benefit, they are not considered a tax, and, therefore, are not governed by Article XIIIA of the California Constitution.

The 1972 Act permits the designation of zones of benefit within any individual assessment district if "by reasons or variations in the nature, location, and extent of the improvements, the various areas will receive different degrees of benefit from the improvement" (Sec. 22547). Thus, the 1972 Act requires the levy of a true "assessment" rather than a "special tax." Article XIIID of the California Constitution provides that publicly owned properties must be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit from the assessment. Exempted from the assessment would be the areas of public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, public easements, and rights-of-ways.

Zone Classification
Each benefit zone is unique and distinguishable from other benefit zones located within the District. Each benefit zone is evaluated to determine which improvements are of a specific and direct benefit to the parcels in that benefit zone. Once the improvements have been identified, a method of spreading those costs to the benefiting parcels was developed.

As certain subdivisions develop throughout the City of Hayward, they may be annexed into an existing zone or there may be a new zone formed. Each new subdivision is evaluated to determine which improvements are of a specific and direct benefit to the parcels within the subdivision and then a determination is made whether to annex them into an existing zone or whether to form a new zone. The parcels, which benefit from the improvements, are identified and a benefit assessment spread methodology is developed to spread the costs of the improvements to the benefiting parcels.

Details of the various zones in the District, their corresponding number of parcels in each benefit zone, and the method of apportioning the costs of the improvements are in the zone description section.
586
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Assessment Roll
A list of names and addresses of the owners of all parcels, and the description of each lot or parcel within the City’s Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District No. 96-1 is shown on the last equalized Property Tax Roll of the Assessor of the County of Alameda, which by reference is hereby made a part of this report.

This list is keyed to the Assessor's Parcel Numbers as shown on the Assessment Roll, which includes the proposed assessment amount for FY 2027 apportioned to each lot or parcel. The Assessment Roll is on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Hayward.

Estimate of Costs
The 1972 Act provides that the total cost of construction, operation, maintenance and servicing of the public landscaping, street lighting, open space facilities, parks, trails, etc. can be recovered by the District. Incidental expenses including administration of the district, engineering fees, legal fees and all other costs associated with the construction, operation, maintenance, and servicing of the district can also be included.

The 1972 Act requires that a special fund be set up for the revenues and expenditures for the District. Funds raised by the assessments shall be used only for the purposes as stated herein. Any balance remaining on July 1 at the end of the fiscal year must be carried over to the next fiscal year.

The estimated FY 2027 revenues and expenditures for the proposed District are itemized by zone below. For a detailed breakdown of the operation, maintenance, and servicing costs for each benefit zone, please refer to the budget page following each zone’s description. 587
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Legislative Analysis
Proposition 218 Compliance 1
On November 5, 1996, California voters approved Proposition 218 entitled "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," which added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the California Constitution. While its title refers only to taxes, Proposition 218 establishes new procedural requirements for the formation and administration of assessment districts. These new procedures stipulate that even if assessments are initially exempt from Proposition 218, future increases in assessments must comply with the provisions of Proposition 218. However, if an increase in the assessment was anticipated in the assessment formula (for example, to reflect the CPI or an assessment cap) then the City would be following the provisions of Proposition 218 if the assessments did not exceed the assessment formula.

All the assessments proposed within the FY 2027 Engineer’s Report are equal to or less than the Maximum Base Assessment Rate authorized; therefore, Article XIIID, Section 4 vote requirements do not apply to these proceedings.

Inflation Factor Allowance Overview
No Allowance - Five of the eighteen benefit zones (1, 2, 4, 5, 6) do not have an inflation factor allowance within their respective assessment formula to increase their Maximum Base Assessment.

Allowance - Thirteen of eighteen benefit zones (3, 7-18) have an inflation factor allowance within their respective assessment formula to increase their Maximum Base Assessment Rate annually based upon the change in the prior year’s CPI. Their inflation factor is described below.

Benefit zones 3, 7-13, 17-18 apply the February CPI-U for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA MSA2 inflation factor. The CPI-U increase from February 2025 to February 2026 was 2.477%; therefore, a 2.477% increase was applied to the FY 2027 Maximum Base Assessment Rate for zones 3, 7-13, 17-18.

Benefit zones 12 annexation, 14-16 apply the December CPI-U for the San Francisco-OaklandHayward, CA MSA3 inflation factor, capped at 3.00% per fiscal year. Any change in the CPI in excess of 3.00% shall be cumulatively reserved as the “Unused CPI” and shall be used to increase the maximum authorized assessment rate in years in which the CPI is less than 3%. 1 http://www.lao.ca.gov/1996/120196_prop_218/understanding_prop218_1296.html 2 https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost (Feb 2025 to Feb 2026) 3 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUURS49BSA0 588
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

The CPI-U increase from December 2024 to December 2025 was 3.037% and the unused CPI from previous years varies by zone; therefore, the Maximum Base Assessment Rate for zones 12 annexation, 14-16 have been increased by 3.00%.

Noticing, Public Comment, and Public Hearing
Noticing and information regarding this report were provided via the following methods: 1) mailed a notice to all affected property owners to provide detail of their recommended FY 2027 assessment rate and to alert them to three public meetings where they could provide input (May 27, June 2, June 16), and published a legal notice in the East Bay Times on or before June 5, 2026.

On June 16, 2026, the City is proposing to hold a public hearing to provide an opportunity for any interested person to be heard. After the public hearing, the Council may adopt a resolution setting the annual assessment amounts as originally proposed or as modified. Following the adoption of this resolution, the final assessor’s roll will be prepared and filed with the Alameda County Auditor’s Office to be included on the FY 2027 tax roll. Payment of the assessment for each parcel will be made in the same manner and at the same time as payments are made for property taxes.

All funds collected through the assessment must be placed in a special fund and can only be used for the purposes stated within this report.
589
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Plans and Specifications
Introduction
As required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, the annual Engineer's Report includes:
(1) a listing of the proposed assessment amount for each assessable lot or parcel; (2) a description of the improvements to be operated, maintained, and serviced; and (3) an estimated budget.

Description of District
The territory within the District consists of all lots and APNs of land that receive special benefits from the landscape and lighting improvements funded by the District assessments. The boundaries of the District are comprised of eighteen benefit Zones. APNs within the District are identified and grouped into one of the eighteen designated Zones based on the special benefits properties receive from the District improvements and the authorized Maximum Base Assessments established. The eighteen Zones within the District and the benefits associated with the properties therein are described in more detail in the following pages of this Report. In addition, the individual zone diagrams (maps) are presented in the Assessment Diagram Section of the Report and provide a visual representation of the District showing the boundaries of each benefit zone.

Description of Improvements
The facilities which have been constructed within the District and those which may be subsequently constructed, will be operated, maintained, and serviced as generally described as follows:

The improvements consist of the construction, operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, and servicing of landscaping, street lighting, open space facilities, parks, trails, and appurtenant (pertaining to something that attaches) facilities including but not limited to; personnel, electrical energy, utilities such as water, materials, contractual services, and other items necessary for the satisfactory operation of these services and facilities as described below:

Landscaping Facilities
Landscaping facilities consist of, but are not limited to operation, maintenance and servicing of landscaping, irrigation, planting, shrubbery, ground cover, trees, pathways, hardscapes, decorative masonry and concrete walls, fountains, bus shelters, entry gate structures, graffiti removal, fences, and other appurtenant facilities required to provide landscaping within the public rights-of-way and easements within the boundaries of the Assessment District. 590
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Street Lighting Facilities
Street lighting facilities consist of, but are not limited to operation, maintenance and servicing of poles, fixtures, bulbs, conduits, equipment including guys, anchors, posts and pedestals, metering devices and other appurtenant facilities within the public rights-of-way and easements within the boundaries of the Assessment District.

Open Space Facilities
Open space facilities consist of, but are not limited to operation, maintenance and servicing of drainage areas, creeks, ponds, etc. including the removal of trash and debris, sediment, natural and planted vegetation and other appurtenant facilities within the public rights-of-way and easements within the boundaries of the Assessment District.

Park/Trail Facilities
Park/Trail facilities consist of, but are not limited to: operation, maintenance and servicing of landscaping, irrigation systems, pedestrian access, asphalt bike pathways, parkways, and the removal of trash and debris, rodent control, used for the support of recreational programs and other appurtenant facilities within the public rights-of-way and easements within the boundaries of the Assessment Districts.

Maintenance
Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual operation, maintenance and servicing of the landscaping, public lighting facilities and appurtenant facilities, including repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the landscaping, public lighting facilities or appurtenant facilities; providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping improvements, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing and treating for disease or injury; and the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste; the cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of street lights and other improvements to remove graffiti.
591
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Zone 1 (Huntwood Ave.& Panjon St.)
Tract No. 06041
Formed: November 13, 1990
Resolution Number: 90-256
FY 2027
Maximum Base Assessment Rate: $295.83
Assessment Amount per Parcel: $270.03
Number of Parcels: 30
Assessment Income: $8,101
FY 2027 Maximum Base Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment (highest rate that can be charged per parcel). • Originally set when the zone was created in 1990.
• Is at the maximum, unchanged from the previous year at $295.83 per parcel. • Includes an annual inflation increase: No.
• Can be increased later: Future increases above the Maximum Base Assessment would require the noticing and balloting of property owners per the requirements of Proposition 218.
592
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

FY 2027 Assessment and Income
FY 2027 Services
Services provided to this assessment zone include:
• Landscaping and irrigation: Including an 8-foot-wide landscaped strip along Huntwood Ave. within a landscape easement; and
• Surface maintenance of the street side: Including a 600-foot masonry wall along Huntwood Ave. The maintenance includes painting, cleaning, graffiti removal, and minor surface repair.
• One-time maintenance: A budget of $1,000 is allocated for additional maintenance, as required.

Note: the ownership and responsibility of the masonry wall as a structure remains with the individual property owners.

Assessment Rate (annual charge per parcel) and Income
• The per parcel charge will increase from the previous year from $247.73 to $270.03. • The total annual assessment income will equal $8,101. • The recommended assessment rate will generate revenues that are adequate to pay for the expected level of maintenance and to maintain a prudent capital reserve balance.
• Each of the parcels shall be apportioned an equal share of the total assessment for this zone as the special benefit derived by an individual parcel is indistinguishable from each other.
• The current assessment rate is below the Maximum Base Assessment and is sufficient for maintaining levels of service and for keeping a prudent capital reserve balance. • In future years, if there is a need for additional funds, the assessment may be increased up to the Maximum Base Assessment Rate.
593
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

City of Hayward
LLAD 1 - Huntwood Ave. & Panjon St.

Fund 266, Project 03740
Established 1990 - 30 Parcels
FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
Actual Estimated Proposed Projected
Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment 295.83 295.83 295.83 295.83
Annual Per Parcel Assessment 235.94 247.73 270.03 295.83 # of Parcels 30 30 30 30
Total Assessment 7,078 7,432 8,101 8,875
Revenue
41210 - Annual Assessment Revenue 6,986 7,432 8,101 8,875 County Tax Collection Fee (1.7%) (120) (126) (138) (151) 44110 - Other (Interest) 1,123 1,123 1,123 1,123
Total Revenue 7,989 8,429 9,086 9,847
Expenditure
61160 - One-Time Project/Maintenance - 2,000 1,000 1,000 61170 - Landscape Maintenance 3,996 4,244 4,371 4,502
61510 - Utilities: PGE 304 429 472 486
61530 - Utilites: Water 895 950 1,064 1,096
62210 - Property Owner Noticing 310 3 20 20
62242 - Annual Reporting 1,112 1,699 140 140
City Administration 2,251 2,319 1,809 1,809
Total Expenditure 8,869 11,643 8,876 9,053
Account Balance
Beginning Account Balance 16,904 16,023 12,809 13,019
Net Change (Revenue - Expenditures) (880) (3,214) 211 794 Ending Account Balance 16,023 12,809 13,019 13,813
594
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Zone 2 (Harder Rd. & Mocine Ave.)
Tract No. 6042
Formed: July 25, 1991
Resolution Number: 91-137
FY 2027
Maximum Base Assessment Rate: $193.39
Assessment Amount per Parcel: $152.08
Number of Parcels: 85
Assessment Income: $12,927
FY 2027 Maximum Base Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment (highest rate that can be charged per parcel). • Originally set when the zone was created in 1991.
• Is at the maximum, unchanged from the previous year at $193.39 per parcel. • Includes an annual inflation increase: No.
• Can be increased later: Future increases above the Maximum Base Assessment would require the noticing and balloting of property owners per the requirements of Proposition 218.
595
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

FY 2027 Assessment and Income
FY 2027 Services
Assessment Rate (annual charge per parcel) and Income
• The per parcel charge will increase from the previous year from $139.52 to $152.08. • The total annual assessment income will equal $12,927 • The recommended assessment rate will generate revenues that are adequate to pay for the expected level of maintenance and to maintain a prudent capital reserve balance.
• Each of the parcels shall be apportioned an equal share of the total assessment for this zone as the special benefit derived by an individual parcel is indistinguishable from each other.
• The current assessment rate is below the Maximum Base Assessment and is sufficient for maintaining levels of service and for keeping a prudent capital reserve balance. • In future years, if there is a need for additional funds, the assessment may be increased up to the Maximum Base Assessment Rate.

Services provided to this assessment zone include:
• Landscaping and irrigation: Including the area between the sidewalk and wall along Harder Road and Mocine Ave. within a landscape easement. • Surface maintenance of the street side: Including maintenance of a 1,000-foot-long masonry wall along Harder Road, Mocine Ave., and a segment of Sunburst Drive. This maintenance includes painting, cleaning, graffiti removal, and minor surface repair; and
• Surface maintenance of wall: Includes maintenance of an 800-foot-long masonry wall adjacent to the railroad tracks located on the southwest side of Tract No. 6042. This maintenance includes painting, cleaning, graffiti removal, and minor surface repair. • One-time maintenance: A budget of $2,000 is allocated for additional maintenance, as required.

Note: the ownership and responsibility of the masonry wall as a structure remains with the individual property owners.
596
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

City of Hayward
LLAD 2 - Harder Rd. & Mocine Ave.

Fund 267, Project 03741
Established 1991 - 85 Parcels
FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
Actual Estimated Proposed Projected
Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment 193.39 193.39 193.39 193.39
Annual Per Parcel Assessment 135.45 139.52 152.08 165.76 # of Parcels 85 85 85 85
Total Assessment 11,514 11,859 12,927 14,090
Revenue
41210 - Annual Assessment Revenue 11,337 11,859 12,927 14,090 County Tax Collection Fee (1.7%) (196) (202) (220) (240) 44110 - Other (Interest) 1,154 1,189 1,224 1,261
Total Revenue 12,296 12,846 13,931 15,111
Expenditure
61160 - One-Time Project/Maintenance - 2,000 2,000 2,000 61170 - Landscape Maintenance 7,044 8,487 8,742 9,004
61510 - Utilities: PGE 134 164 200 200
61530 - Utilites: Water 1,779 2,981 3,339 3,439
62210 - Property Owner Noticing 310 7 55 55
62242 - Annual Reporting 1,152 1,659 400 400
City Administration 2,251 2,319 1,871 1,871
Total Expenditure 12,670 17,618 16,607 16,969
Account Balance
Beginning Account Balance 23,305 22,931 18,159 15,483
Net Change (Revenue - Expenditures) (374) (4,772) (2,676) (1,858) Ending Account Balance 22,931 18,159 15,484 13,625
597
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Zone 3 (Prominence)
Tract No. 4007
Formed: June 23, 1992
Resolution Number: 92-174
FY 2027
Maximum Base Assessment Rate: $1,204.78
Assessment Amount per Parcel: $1,167.45
Number of Parcels: 155
Assessment Income: $180,955
FY 2027 Maximum Base Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment (highest rate that can be charged per parcel). • Originally set when the zone was created in 1992.
• Increased from the previous year from $1,175.66 to $1,204.78 per parcel by CPI. • Includes an annual inflation increase: Yes, includes the February CPI-U for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward MSA (2.477% for the period February 2025 to February 2026).
598
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

FY 2027 Assessment and Income
FY 2027 Services
Services provided to this assessment zone include:
• Landscaping and irrigation: Include approximately one mile of landscaped frontage along Hayward Blvd. and Fairview Ave., with significant slope areas along the street; • Surface maintenance of the sound wall (street side): of a mile-long masonry wall along Hayward Blvd. and Fairview Ave. This maintenance includes painting, cleaning, graffiti removal, and minor surface repair; and
• Maintenance of several open space areas: many are maintained within the tract; however, there are no funds budgeted for maintenance of the non-irrigated, nonlandscaped open space areas. • One-time projects: A budget of $90,000 is included for additional maintenance, as required.

Note: the ownership and responsibility of the masonry wall as a structure remains with the individual property owners.

Assessment Rate (annual charge per parcel) and Income
• The per parcel charge will increase from the previous year from $1,101.36 to $1,167.45.
• The total annual assessment income will equal $180,955. • The recommended assessment rate will generate revenues that are adequate to pay for the expected level of maintenance and to maintain a prudent capital reserve balance.
• Each of the parcels shall be apportioned an equal share of the total assessment for this zone as the special benefit derived by an individual parcel is indistinguishable from each other.
• The current assessment rate is below the Maximum Base Assessment and is sufficient for maintaining levels of service and for keeping a prudent capital reserve balance. • In future years, if there is a need for additional funds, the assessment may be increased up to the Maximum Base Assessment Rate.
• Can be increased later: Future increases above the Maximum Base Assessment would require the noticing and balloting of property owners per the requirements of Proposition 218.
599
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Notes:
• In FY 2004, a group of property owners within Zone 3 formed a Landscape Committee. • In FY 2006, a Proposition 218 Election was held to increase the base assessment amount from $328.82 to $1,023.56 per parcel for the first three years to fund the cost of a comprehensive landscape plan (capital plan). The $694.74 increase was made up of two parts. One, an increase of $365.70 per year for maintenance; and two, an increase of $329.04 per year for capital. The three-year capital plan included 1) Bus Stop and Open Area Across Street on Fox Hollow Drive; 2) Open Area South of 28525 Fox Hollow Drive; 3) Hayward Blvd., Fairview Drive, and Barn Rock Drive.
• In FY 2009, the rate returned to $694.52 per year, which may be increased each year by inflation
600
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

City of Hayward
LLAD 3 - Prominence
Fund 268, Project 03742
Established 1992 - 155 Parcels
FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
Budget Detail Actual Estimated Proposed Projected
Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment 1,144.88 1,175.66 1,204.78 1,232.08 Annual Per Parcel Assessment 1,069.29 1,101.36 1,167.45 1,232.08 # of Parcels 155 155 155 155
Total Assessment 165,739 170,711 180,955 190,973
Revenue
41210 - Annual Assessment Revenue 163,244 170,711 180,955 190,973 County Tax Collection Fee (1.7%) (2,818) (2,902) (3,076) (3,247) 44110 - Other (Interest) 17,425 17,948 18,486 19,041
Total Revenue 177,851 185,757 196,365 206,767
Expenditure
61160 - One-Time Project/Maintenance 19,464 85,490 90,000 90,000 61170 - Landscape Maintenance 99,554 115,617 119,085 122,658 61510 - Utilities: PGE 2,234 2,493 2,742 2,824
61530 - Utilites: Water 43,969 40,607 45,480 46,844
62210 - Property Owner Noticing 1,370 13 100 100
62242 - Annual Reporting 310 603 720 720
City Administration 4,727 4,869 13,925 14,326
Total Expenditure 171,628 249,691 272,052 277,472
Account Balance
Beginning Account Balance 390,614 396,838 332,904 257,216 Net Change (Revenue - Expenditures) 6,223 (63,934) (75,687) (70,705) Ending Account Balance 396,838 332,904 257,217 186,511
601
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Zone 4 (Stratford Village)
Tract Nos. 6472, 6560, 6682 & 6683
Formed: May 23, 1995
Resolution Number: 95-96
Annexed Tract No. 6682: January 23, 1996
FY 2027
Maximum Base Assessment Rate: $180.00
Assessment Amount per Parcel: $137.27
Number of Parcels: 174
Assessment Income: $23,885
FY 2027 Maximum Base Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment (highest rate that can be charged per parcel). • Originally set when the zone was created in 1995.
• Is at the maximum, unchanged from the previous year at $180.00 per parcel. • Includes an annual inflation increase: No
• Can be increased later: Future increases above the Maximum Base Assessment would require the noticing and balloting of property owners per the requirements of Proposition 218.
602
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

FY 2027 Assessment and Income
FY 2027 Services
Services provided to this assessment zone include:
• Landscaping and irrigation: Include approximately 21,000 square feet adjacent to the Ward Creek Bike Pathway, including an irrigation system with electrical controllers; • Median landscaping: Includes approximately 2,100 square feet along Stratford Rd. and Ruus Lane;
• Landscaping: Includes approximately 7,500 square feet along Pacheco Way; • Landscaping, irrigation, and appurtenances: on the median island on Ruus Lane; • Surface maintenance of the street side of a masonry wall along Pacheco Way and along the southern and eastern property boundaries. This maintenance includes painting, cleaning, graffiti removal, and minor surface repair; • Asphalt bike pathway: Includes approximately 2,100 linear feet adjacent to Ward Creek between Pacheco Way and Folsom Ave., and bike path striping on pathway; • Chain link fencing: Includes approximately 50 linear feet of 4-foot-high black vinyl clad fencing at two locations between Ward Creek and the asphalt pathway; Assessment Rate (annual charge per parcel) and Income
• The per parcel charge will increase from the previous year from $133.27 to $137.27. • The total annual assessment income will equal $23,885. • The recommended assessment rate will generate revenues that are adequate to pay for the expected level of maintenance and to maintain a prudent capital reserve balance.
• Each of the parcels shall be apportioned an equal share of the total assessment for this zone as the special benefit derived by an individual parcel is indistinguishable from each other.
• The current assessment rate is below the Maximum Base Assessment and is sufficient for maintaining levels of service and for keeping a prudent capital reserve balance. • In future years, if there is a need for additional funds, the assessment may be increased up to the Maximum Base Assessment rate.
603
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

• Gate: Includes a 14-foot-wide entry gate structure, an 8-foot-wide swing gate, and a 12-foot-wide swing gate;
• Bridge: Includes 32 linear feet of 8-foot-wide prefabricated steel bridge with wood deck; and
• Pedestrian access: Between Rosecliff Lane and Ward Creek Pathway. • One-time maintenance: A budget of $3,000 is allocated for additional maintenance, as required.

Note: the ownership and responsibility of the masonry wall as a structure remains with the individual property owners.
604
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

City of Hayward
LLAD 4 - Stratford Village
Fund 269, Project 03743
Established 1995 - 174 Parcels
FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
Actual Estimated Proposed Projected
Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment 180.00 180.00 180.00 180.00
Annual Per Parcel Assessment 126.93 133.27 137.27 144.13 # of Parcels 174 174 174 174
Total Assessment 22,085 23,189 23,885 25,079
Revenue
41210 - Annual Assessment Revenue 21,932 23,189 23,885 25,079 County Tax Collection Fee (1.7%) (375) (394) (406) (426) 44110 - Other (Interest) 5,911 6,088 6,271 6,459
Total Revenue 27,467 28,883 29,750 31,111
Expenditure
61160 - One-Time Project/Maintenance - 3,000 3,000 3,000 61170 - Landscape Maintenance 11,928 13,261 13,659 14,069 61510 - Utilities: PGE 1,403 1,980 2,178 2,243
61530 - Utilites: Water 5,499 13,552 15,178 15,634
62210 - Property Owner Noticing 310 8 115 115
62242 - Annual Reporting 1,153 524 810 810
City Administration 2,251 2,319 2,143 2,167
Total Expenditure 22,545 34,644 37,083 38,037
Account Balance
Beginning Account Balance 85,314 90,236 84,475 77,142
Net Change (Revenue - Expenditures) 4,922 (5,761) (7,334) (6,483) Ending Account Balance 90,236 84,475 77,142 63,733
605
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Zone 5 (Soto Rd. & Plum Tree St.)
Tract Nos. 6641 & 6754
Formed: May 23, 1995
Resolution Number: 95-97
Annexed Tract No. 6754: October 17, 1995
FY 2027
Maximum Base Assessment Rate: $258.67
Assessment Amount per Parcel: $258.67
Number of Parcels: 38
Assessment Income: $9,829
FY 2027 Maximum Base Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment (highest rate that can be charged per parcel). • Originally set when the zone was created in 1995.
• Is at the maximum, unchanged from the previous year at $258.67 per parcel. • Includes an annual inflation increase : No
• Can be increased later: Future increases above the Maximum Base Assessment would require the noticing and balloting of property owners per the requirements of Proposition 218.
606
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

FY 2027 Assessment and Income
FY 2027 Services
Services provided to this assessment zone include:
• Landscaping: within the 10-foot-wide setback area between the masonry wall and the sidewalk (approximately 360 lineal feet);
• Landscaping and appurtenances: within the 5.5-foot-wide planter strip between the sidewalk and the curb return areas across the frontage of Tract 6641; located within the 10-foot-wide setback area between the masonry wall and the sidewalk (approximately 440 lineal feet); and within the 5.5-foot-wide planter strip between the sidewalk and the curb across the Soto Road frontage of Final Map Tract 6754. • Surface maintenance of the masonry wall (street side): of a masonry wall along Soto Road. This maintenance includes painting, cleaning, graffiti removal, and minor surface repair; and
• The curb return areas: at the intersection of Soto Road and Plum Tree Street. • One-time maintenance: A budget of $2,500 is allocated for additional maintenance, as required.

Note: the ownership and responsibility of the masonry wall as a structure remains with the individual property owners.

Assessment Rate (annual charge per parcel) and Income
• The per parcel charge will remain the same as the previous year at $258.67. • The total annual assessment income will equal $9,829. • The recommended assessment rate will generate revenues that are adequate to pay for the expected level of maintenance and to maintain a prudent capital reserve balance.
• Each of the parcels shall be apportioned an equal share of the total assessment for this zone as the special benefit derived by an individual parcel is indistinguishable from each other.
• The current assessment rate is at the Maximum Base Assessment. 607
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

City of Hayward
LLAD 5 - Plum Tree St. & Soto Rd.

Fund 272, Project 03744
Established 1995 - 38 Parcels
FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
Budget Detail Actual Estimated Proposed Projected
Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment 258.67 258.67 258.67 258.67
Annual Per Parcel Assessment 258.67 258.67 258.67 258.67 # of Parcels 38 38 38 38
Total Assessment 9,829 9,829 9,829 9,829
Revenue
41210 - Annual Assessment Revenue 9,878 9,829 9,829 9,829 County Tax Collection Fee (1.7%) (167) (167) (167) (167) 44110 - Other (Interest) 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,676
Total Revenue 11,388 11,339 11,339 11,339
Expenditure
61160 - One-Time Project/Maintenance - 2,500 2,500 2,500 61170 - Landscape Maintenance 4,884 5,305 5,464 5,628
61510 - Utilities: PGE 304 396 436 449
61530 - Utilites: Water 900 1,084 1,214 1,251
62210 - Property Owner Noticing 310 127 25 25
62242 - Annual Reporting 573 637 175 175
City Administration 1,739 1,739 1,798 1,798
Total Expenditure 8,710 11,788 11,611 11,825
Account Balance
Beginning Account Balance 23,305 25,983 25,534 25,261
Net Change (Revenue - Expenditures) 2,678 (449) (273) (486) Ending Account Balance 25,983 25,534 25,261 24,775
608
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Zone 6 (Peppertree Park)
Tract Nos. 4420 & 3337 (Lot 2)
Formed: May 11, 1982
Resolution Number: 82-160
FY 2027
Maximum Base Assessment Rate: $2.61 per linear foot
Assessment Amount per Parcel: $2.61 per linear foot
Number of Parcels: 11
Assessment Income: $13,034
FY 2027 Maximum Base Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment (highest rate that can be charged per parcel). • Originally set when the zone was created in 1982.
• Is at the maximum, unchanged from the previous year at $2.61 per linear foot. • Includes an annual inflation increase : No
• Can be increased later: Future increases above the Maximum Base Assessment would require the noticing and balloting of property owners per the requirements of Proposition 218.
609
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

FY 2027 Assessment and Income
FY 2027 Services
Services provided to this assessment zone include:
• Landscaping and decorative paving: within the median islands in San Clemente Street between Zephyr Avenue and San Antonio Street;
• Landscaping: in the fountain area; and
• Various: the identification sign, lighting, and landscaping in the main entrance median at San Clemente Street and San Antonio Street.
• One-time maintenance: A budget of $4,000 is allocated for additional maintenance, as required.

Assessment Rate (annual charge per parcel) and Income
• The per linear foot charge will remain the same from the previous year at $2.61. • The total annual assessment income will equal $13,034. • The recommended assessment rate will generate revenues that are adequate to pay for the expected level of maintenance and to maintain a prudent capital reserve balance.
• Each of the parcels shall be apportioned an equal share of the total assessment for this zone as the special benefit derived by an individual parcel is indistinguishable from each other.
• The current assessment rate is at the Maximum Base Assessment. 610
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

City of Hayward
LLAD 6 - Peppertree Business Park
Fund 273, Project 03730
Established 1982 - 11 Parcels
FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
Budget Detail Actual Estimated Proposed Projected
Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment 2.61 2.61 2.61 2.61
Annual Per Parcel Assessment 2.61 2.61 2.61 2.61
# of Parcels 11 11 11 11
Length of Assessable Street Frontage 4,994 4,994 4,994 4,994 Total Assessment 13,034 13,034 13,034 13,034
Revenue
41210 - Annual Assessment Revenue 13,038 13,034 13,034 13,034 County Tax Collection Fee (1.7%) (222) (222) (222) (222) 44110 - Other (Interest) 7,152 375 375 375
Total Revenue 19,968 13,188 13,188 13,188
Expenditure
61160 - One-Time Project/Maintenance - 4,500 4,000 4,000 61170 - Landscape Maintenance 4,188 4,188 4,188 4,188
61510 - Utilities: PGE 121 264 290 300
61530 - Utilites: Water 5,171 3,388 3,795 3,908
62210 - Property Owner Noticing 310 1 7 7
62242 - Annual Reporting 1,097 524 50 50
City Administration 2,251 2,319 1,169 1,169
Total Expenditure 13,138 15,184 13,499 13,622
Account Balance
Beginning Account Balance 103,303 110,133 108,137 107,826 Net Change (Revenue - Expenditures) 6,830 (1,996) (311) (435) Ending Account Balance 110,133 108,137 107,826 107,392
611
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Zone 7 (Twin Bridges)
Tract Nos. 7015
Formed: July 28, 1998
Resolution Number: 98-153
FY 2027
Maximum Base Assessment Rate: $1,260.16
Assessment Amount per Parcel: $700.00
Number of Parcels: 348
Assessment Income: $243,600
FY 2027 Maximum Base Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment (highest rate that can be charged per parcel). • Originally set when the zone was created in 1998.
• Increased from the previous year from $1,229.68 to $1,260.16 per parcel by CPI. • Includes an annual inflation increase: Yes, includes CPI-U for the San FranciscoOakland-Hayward MSA 2.477% for the period February 2025 to February 2026). • Can be increased later: Future increases above the Maximum Base Assessment would require the noticing and balloting of property owners per the requirements of Proposition 218.
612
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

FY 2027 Assessment and Income
FY 2027 Services
Services for this assessment zone include:
• Park: Includes a two-acre neighborhood park, maintained by the Hayward Area Recreation District through a Memorandum of Understanding with the City; • Landscaping: Includes: planting, irrigation, the multi-use pathway, landscape lighting and other associated improvements located within the landscape easements and street right-of-way along Mission Boulevard and Industrial Parkway; • Medians: Includes medians and abutting landscaping along the Arrowhead Way entrance roads and traffic circles, including the bridge structure, signs, and decorative entry paving;
• Bus shelters;
• Walls and fences that face Mission Blvd., Industrial Parkway, the Arrowhead Way entrance roads, the golf course and along the Line N drainage channel (including graffiti removal);
• Specialty street lighting; and
• One-time maintenance: A budget of $15,000 is allocated for additional maintenance, as required.

Assessment Rate (annual charge per parcel) and Income
• The per parcel charge will increase from the previous year from $698.08 to $700.00. • The total annual assessment income will equal $243,600. • The recommended assessment rate will generate revenues that are adequate to pay for the expected level of maintenance and to maintain a prudent capital reserve balance.
• Each of the parcels shall be apportioned an equal share of the total assessment for this zone as the special benefit derived by an individual parcel is indistinguishable from each other.
• The current assessment rate is below the Maximum Base Assessment and is sufficient for maintaining levels of service and for keeping a prudent capital reserve balance. • In future years, if there is a need for additional funds, the assessment may be increased up to the Maximum Base Assessment Rate.
613
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

City of Hayward
LLAD 7 - Twin Bridges
Fund 274, Project 03746
Established 1998 - 348 Parcels
FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
Budget Detail Actual Estimated Proposed Projected
Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment 1,144.27 1,229.68 1,260.16 1,304.57 Annual Per Parcel Assessment 664.83 698.08 700.00 700.00 # of Parcels 348 348 348 348
Total Assessment 231,362 242,930 243,600 243,600
Revenue
41210 - Annual Assessment Revenue 229,430 242,930 243,600 243,600 County Tax Collection Fee (1.7%) (3,933) (4,130) (4,141) (4,141) 44110 - Other (Interest) 44,702 3,000 3,000 3,000
Total Revenue 270,199 241,801 242,459 242,459
Expenditure
61160 - One-Time Project/Maintenance 300,599 17,000 15,000 15,000 61170 - Landscape Maintenance 36,000 50,000 67,000 69,010 61510 - Utilities: PGE 232 2,640 2,904 2,991
61530 - Utilites: Water 57,271 94,864 106,248 109,435
61560 - HARD: Park Maintenance Utilities 18,240 33,990 35,010 36,060 62210 - Property Owner Noticing 30 225 225
62242 - Annual Reporting 1,501 603 1,610 1,610
62260 - HARD: Park Maintenance 76,500 51,000 52,530 52,530 City Administration 4,727 4,869 12,396 12,396
Total Expenditure 194,471 237,996 292,922 284,257
Account Balance
Beginning Account Balance 824,160 899,888 903,693 868,229 Net Change (Revenue - Expenditures) 75,728 3,805 (50,464) (41,798) Ending Account Balance 899,888 903,693 853,229 826,229
614
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Zone 8 (Capitola Street)
Tract Nos. 7033
Formed: March 2, 1999
Resolution Number: 99-030
FY 2027
Maximum Base Assessment Rate: $901.26
Assessment Amount per Parcel: $226.77
Number of Parcels: 24
Assessment Income: $5,442
FY 2027 Maximum Base Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment (highest rate that can be charged per parcel). • Originally set when the zone was created in 1999.
• Increased from the previous year from $879.48 to $901.26 per parcel by CPI. • Includes an annual inflation increase: Yes, includes CPI-U for the San FranciscoOakland-Hayward MSA 2.477% for the period February 2025 to February 2026). 615
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

FY 2027 Assessment and Income
FY 2027 Services
Services for this assessment zone include:
• Landscaping: a 10-foot-wide landscaped area, between the wall and the Hesperian Blvd. frontage, to be improved with landscaping, irrigation, and other associated improvements located within the landscaped area.
• Surface maintenance: of the 8-foot-high decorative concrete wall along the tract's Hesperian Blvd. frontage. This maintenance includes painting, cleaning, graffiti removal, and minor surface repair; and
• One-time maintenance: A budget of $2,500 is allocated for additional maintenance as required.

Note: the ownership and responsibility of the masonry wall as a structure remains with the individual property owners.

Assessment Rate (annual charge per parcel) and Income
• The per parcel charge will increase from the previous year from $215.97 to $226.77. • The total annual assessment income will equal $5,442. • The recommended assessment rate will generate revenues that are adequate to pay for the expected level of maintenance and to maintain a prudent capital reserve balance.
• Each of the parcels shall be apportioned an equal share of the total assessment for this zone as the special benefit derived by an individual parcel is indistinguishable from each other.
• The current assessment rate is below the Maximum Base Assessment and is sufficient for maintaining levels of service and for keeping a prudent capital reserve balance. • In future years, if there is a need for additional funds, the assessment may be increased up to the Maximum Base Assessment Rate.
• Can be increased later: Future increases above the Maximum Base Assessment would require the noticing and balloting of property owners per the requirements of Proposition 218.
616
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

City of Hayward
LLAD 8 - Capitola St.

Fund 275, Project 03748
Established 1999 - 24 Parcels
FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
Budget Detail Actual Estimated Proposed Projected
Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment 818.38 879.48 901.26 933.04
Annual Per Parcel Assessment 205.68 215.97 226.77 238.11 # of Parcels 24 24 24 24
Total Assessment 4,936 5,183 5,442 5,715
Revenue
41210 - Annual Assessment Revenue 4,938 5,183 5,442 5,715 County Tax Collection Fee (1.7%) (84) (88) (93) (97)
44110 - Other (Interest) 3,198 400 400 400
Total Revenue 8,052 5,495 5,750 6,017
Expenditure
61160 - One-Time Project/Maintenance 2,500 2,500
61170 - Landscape Maintenance 3,996 4,000 4,000 4,000
61530 - Utilites: Water 495 678 759 800
62210 - Property Owner Noticing 310 81 15 15
62242 - Annual Reporting 563 858 111 111
City Administration 2,144 2,144 608 608
Total Expenditure 7,508 7,761 7,993 8,034
Account Balance
Beginning Account Balance 47,852 48,396 46,130 43,887
Net Change (Revenue - Expenditures) 544 (2,266) (2,243) (2,017) Ending Account Balance 48,396 46,130 43,887 41,870
617
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Zone 9 (Orchard Ave.)
Tract Nos. 7063
Formed: April 25, 2000
Resolution Number: 00-050
FY 2027
Maximum Base Assessment Rate: $240.64
Assessment Amount per Parcel: $42.76
Number of Parcels: 74
Assessment Income: $3,164
FY 2027 Maximum Base Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment (highest rate that can be charged per parcel). • Originally set when the zone was created in 2000.
• Increased from the previous year from $234.82 to $240.64 per parcel by CPI. • Includes an annual inflation increase: Yes, includes CPI-U for the San FranciscoOakland-Hayward MSA (2.477% for the period February 2025 to February 2026). • Can be increased later: Future increases above the Maximum Base Assessment would require the noticing and balloting of property owners per the requirements of Proposition 218.
618
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

FY 2027 Assessment and Income
FY 2027 Services
Services for this assessment zone include:
• Surface maintenance: of the 10-foot-high decorative concrete wall along the railroad and along the south property line abutting Lot 40. This maintenance includes painting, cleaning, graffiti removal, and minor surface repair. To minimize this maintenance work, Boston Ivy is planted and maintained along most of the surface of the wall. • One-time maintenance: A budget of $2,500 is included for additional maintenance, as required.

Note: the ownership and responsibility of the masonry wall as a structure remains with the individual property owners.

Assessment Rate (annual charge per parcel) and Income
• The per parcel charge will increase from the previous year from $40.34 to $42.76. • The total annual assessment income will equal $3,164. • The recommended assessment rate will generate revenues that are adequate to pay for the expected level of maintenance and to maintain a prudent capital reserve balance.
• Each of the parcels shall be apportioned an equal share of the total assessment for this zone as the special benefit derived by an individual parcel is indistinguishable from each other.
• The current assessment rate is below the Maximum Base Assessment and is sufficient for maintaining levels of service and for keeping a prudent capital reserve balance. • In future years, if there is a need for additional funds, the assessment may be increased up to the Maximum Base Assessment Rate.
619
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

City of Hayward
LLAD 9 - Orchard Ave.

Fund 276, Project 03749
Established 2000 - 74 Parcels
FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
Budget Detail Actual Estimated Proposed Projected
Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment 212.14 234.82 240.64 246.60
Annual Per Parcel Assessment 38.41 40.34 42.76 44.90
# of Parcels 74 74 74 74
Total Assessment 2,843 2,985 3,164 3,322
Revenue
41210 - Annual Assessment Revenue 2,843 2,985 3,164 3,322 County Tax Collection Fee (1.7%) (48) (51) (54) (56)
44110 - Other (Interest) 40 40 40 40
Total Revenue 2,834 2,974 3,150 3,306
Expenditure
61160 - One-Time Project/Maintenance 310 2,500 2,500 2,500 62210 - Property Owner Noticing - - 50 50
62242 - Annual Reporting 598 648 340 340
City Administration 1,402 1,444 323 323
Total Expenditure 2,311 4,593 3,213 3,213
Account Balance
Beginning Account Balance 11,445 11,969 10,351 10,288
Net Change (Revenue - Expenditures) 524 (1,618) (63) 93 Ending Account Balance 11,969 10,351 10,288 10,381
620
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Zone 10 (Eden Shores Residential)
Tract Nos. 7317, 7360 & 7361
Formed: June 24, 2003
Resolution Number: 03-083
FY 2027
Maximum Base Assessment Rate: $1,434.96
Assessment Amount per Parcel: $398.02
Number of Parcels: 534
Assessment Income: $212,543
FY 2027 Maximum Base Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment (highest rate that can be charged per parcel). • Originally set when the zone was created in 2003.
• Increased from the previous year from $1,400.28 to $1,434.96 per parcel by CPI. • Includes an annual inflation increase: Yes, includes CPI-U for the San FranciscoOakland-Hayward MSA (2.477% for the period February 2025 to February 2026). • Can be increased later: Future increases above the Maximum Base Assessment would require the noticing and balloting of property owners per the requirements of Proposition 218.
621
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

FY 2027 Assessment and Income
FY 2027 Services
The Eden Shores Homeowners Association (HOA) administers the landscape maintenance contract for the zone. The HOA invoices the City quarterly for reimbursement of expenses authorized through the assessment zone budget. The City manages the park maintenance contract, through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Hayward Area Recreation District.

Services for this assessment zone include:
• Park: A 5.58-acre park within the development which includes landscaping and irrigation and playground equipment. The City of Hayward has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Hayward Area Recreation Department (HARD) to maintain the park;
• Landscaping and irrigation: of medians, park strips, and parkway within the development; and
• Surface maintenance: of the decorative concrete and masonry walls along the perimeter and within the tract. This maintenance includes painting, cleaning, graffiti removal, and minor surface repair.
• One-time maintenance: A budget of $16,000 is allocated for additional maintenance, as required.

Note: the ownership and responsibility of the masonry wall as a structure remains with the individual property owners.

Assessment Rate (annual charge per parcel) and Income
• The per parcel charge will increase from the previous year from $365.16 to $398.02. • The total annual assessment income will equal $212,543. • The recommended assessment rate will generate revenues that are adequate to pay for the expected level of maintenance and to maintain a prudent capital reserve balance.
• Each of the parcels shall be apportioned an equal share of the total assessment for this zone as the special benefit derived by an individual parcel is indistinguishable from each other.
• The current assessment rate is below the Maximum Base Assessment and is sufficient for maintaining levels of service and for keeping a prudent capital reserve balance. • In future years, if there is a need for additional funds, the assessment may be increased up to the Maximum Base Assessment Rate.
622
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

City of Hayward
LLAD 10 - Eden Shores
Fund 277, Project 03750
Established 2003 - 534 Parcels
FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
Budget Detail Actual Estimated Proposed Projected
Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment 1,265.04 1,400.28 1,434.96 1,470.50 Annual Per Parcel Assessment 344.49 365.16 398.02 433.85 # of Parcels 534 534 534 534
Total Assessment 183,960 194,995 212,543 231,674
Revenue
41210 - Annual Assessment Revenue 182,926 194,995 212,543 231,674 County Tax Collection Fee (1.7%) (3,127) (3,315) (3,613) (3,938) 44110 - Other (Interest) 9,394 2,800 2,800 2,800
Total Revenue 189,193 194,481 211,729 230,536
Expenditure
61160 - One-Time Project/Maintenance 463,281 6,000 16,000 6,000 61170 - ES HOA: Landscape Maintenance 30,680 33,525 34,531 35,567 61510 - Utilities: PGE 326 660 726 410
61530 - Utilites: Water 56,117 51,856 58,079 59,821
61560 - HARD: Park Maintenance Utilities 28,367 46,350 47,741 49,173 62210 - Property Owner Noticing 23 345 345
62242 - Annual Reporting 1,447 603 2,470 2,470
62260 - HARD: Park Maintenance 121,214 56,652 58,352 58,352 City Administration 4,727 4,869 9,812 10,290
Total Expenditure 706,160 200,538 228,054 222,426
Account Balance
Beginning Account Balance 626,456 109,489 103,432 87,109 Net Change (Revenue - Expenditures) (516,967) (6,057) (16,325) 8,109 Ending Account Balance 109,489 103,432 87,107 95,219
623
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Zone 11 (Stonebrae Country Club)
Tract Nos. 5354, 8356
Formed: July 18, 2006
Resolution Number: 06-096
FY 2027
Maximum Base Assessment Rate: $2,035.28
Assessment Amount per Parcel (Developed): $471.45
Assessment Amount per Parcel (Future Development): $249.87 Number of Parcels: 644
Assessment Income: $300,512
Note: Ten new parcels were added in FY 2022. Fourteen parcels of the Stonebrae Country Club development are scheduled for future development. Future development parcels are assessed at 53% of the developed parcel rate.

FY 2027 Maximum Base Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment (highest rate that can be charged per parcel). • Originally set when the zone was created in 2006.
• Increased from the previous year from $1,986.08 to $2,035.28 per parcel by CPI. 624
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

• Includes an annual inflation increase: Yes, includes CPI-U for the San FranciscoOakland-Hayward MSA (2.477% for the period February 2025 to February 2026). • Can be increased later: Future increases above the Maximum Base Assessment would require the noticing and balloting of property owners per the requirements of Proposition 218.

FY 2027 Assessment and Income
Assessment Rate (annual charge per parcel) and Income
• The annual assessment rate is recommended to be increased based on the City’s analysis of the financial stability of the zone.
• The per parcel charge for Developed parcels will increase from the previous year from $449.00 to $471.45.
• The per parcel charge for Future Developed parcels will increase from the previous year from $237.97 to $249.87.
• In FY 2017, the assessment rate was reduced 58% from $379 to $156, as expenses were stable, and the account balance was healthy. However, since that time, expenses have increased, to include water, general maintenance, and ongoing upkeep of the district.

The increase in costs, along with use of the account balance has necessitated the need to increase rates annually since the initial decrease in FY 2017. • The total annual assessment income will equal $300,512. • The recommended assessment rate will generate revenues that are adequate to pay for the expected level of maintenance and to maintain a prudent capital reserve balance.
• Each of the parcels shall be apportioned an equal share of the total assessment for this zone as the special benefit derived by an individual parcel is indistinguishable from each other.
• The current assessment rate is below the Maximum Base Assessment and is sufficient for maintaining levels of service and for keeping a prudent capital reserve balance. • In future years, if there is a need for additional funds, the assessment may be increased up to the Maximum Base Assessment Rate.
625
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

FY 2027 Services
The Stonebrae Homeowners Association (HOA) administers the landscape maintenance contract for the zone. The HOA invoices the City quarterly for reimbursement of expenses authorized in the benefit district zone budget.

Services for this assessment zone include:
• Landscaping and irrigation: of median, park strips, parkway improvements, and multiuse pathway improvements along Fairview Ave., Carden Lane, Hayward Blvd., Stonebrae Country Club Dr., and the access road to the City water tank; • Slope maintenance: along Carden Lane, Fairview Ave., Hayward Blvd., and Stone Country Club Dr.;
• Wall maintenance: of decorative walls facing Fairview Ave. and Hayward Blvd. but not including the view fence of the lots along Fairview Ave. This maintenance includes painting, cleaning, graffiti removal, and replacement of the improvements if needed; • Street and landscape lighting: along Fairview Ave., Carden Lane, Hayward Blvd.; and along the frontage of the school at the intersection of Hayward Blvd./Stonebrae Country;
• Club Drive and Carden Lane: this maintenance includes electrical costs, and replacement of the improvements if needed;
• One-time maintenance: A budget of $110,000 is allocated to finish the streetlight replacement/repair initiative.

Note: The Stonebrae Project is proposed to be developed in multiple phases (Villages A-E).

Pursuant to the original 2002 Vesting Tentative Map for Stonebrae, Village C was anticipated to have 71 single-family lots. On July 5, 2017, the Final Map for Village C was recorded, which updated the number of single-family lots to 96. It should be noted that the Stonebrae development was originally approved for 650 total units. A total of 538 lots have been previously created. With the addition of the 96 Village C lots and the existing 538 lots in the other Villages, the total number of lots increased to 634. On October 6, 2020, City Council approved a Final Map of Tract 8518, subdividing a 20-acre site into 10 single family lots, increasing the total number of lots to 644. The current development phase consists of 630 single-family parcels (increased from 617 in FY 2022). The future development phases will consist of the remaining 13 single-family parcels (decreased from 15 in FY 2023). 626
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

City of Hayward
LLAD 11 - Stonebrae Country Club
Fund 279, Project 03731
Established 2006 - 644 Parcels (10 Parcels added in 2021) FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
Budget Detail Actual Estimated Proposed Projected
Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment 1,794.28 1,986.08 2,035.28 2,085.69 Annual Per Parcel Assessment (Developed) 408.18 449.00 471.45 495.02 # of Developed Parcels 630 630 630 641
Annual Per Parcel Assessment (Future - 53% Developed
Rate) 216.34 237.97 249.87 262.36
# of Future Parcels 14 14 14 3
Total Assessment 260,184 286,202 300,512 318,097
Revenue
41210 - Annual Assessment Revenue 259,737 286,202 300,512 318,097 County Tax Collection Fee (1.7%) (4,423) (4,865) (5,150) (5,408) 44110 - Other (Interest) 34,453 3,500 3,500 3,500
Total Revenue 289,768 284,836 298,862 316,189
Expenditure
61530 - Utilites: Water 153,780 149,072 170,000 175,000 61510 - Utilities: PGE 9,064 12,323 14,000 14,000
61170 - Landscape Maintenance 69,229 59,949 61,747 63,600 61160 - One-Time Project/Maintenance 43,092 76,915 110,000 80,000 62210 - Property Owner Noticing 56 415 415
62242 - Annual Reporting 1,372 524 2,980 2,980
City Administration 3,377 3,478 10,216 10,519
Total Expenditure 279,913 302,317 369,358 342,357
Account Balance
Beginning Account Balance 518,700 528,554 511,074 473,014 Net Change (Revenue - Expenditures) 9,855 (17,481) (70,497) (30,325) Ending Account Balance 528,554 511,074 440,577 442,689
627
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Zone 12 (Spindrift - Eden Shore East)
Tract Nos. 7489, 7708 & 8148
Formed: May 15, 2007
Annexed Tract No. 8148: June 21, 2016
Resolution Number: 07-031 & 16-065
FY 2027
Maximum Base Assessment Rate: $269.68
Assessment Amount per Parcel: $100.00
Number of Parcels: 379
Assessment Income: $37,900
Annexation to Zone 12 – Spindrift at Eden Shores (Tract 8148) On June 21, 2016, the City Council approved the annexation of the Spindrift at Eden Shores Project into existing Zone 12 of LLAD 96-1. A total of 118 new lots were created and added to existing Zone 12. The new additions to Zone 12 will be assessed in a manner similar to the existing 261 lots in Zone 12 once developed, which currently pay for the maintenance of improvements at the Alden E. Oliver Sports Park.
628
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

FY 2027 Maximum Base Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment (highest rate that can be charged per parcel).

Eden Shores East:
• Originally set when the zone was created in 2007.
• Increased from the previous year from $263.16 to $269.68 per parcel by CPI. • Includes an annual inflation increase: Yes, includes CPI-U for the San FranciscoOakland-Hayward MSA, (2.477% for the period February 2025 to February 2026). • Can be increased later: Future increases above the Maximum Base Assessment would require the noticing and balloting of property owners per the requirements of Proposition 218.

Spindrift Annexation:
• Originally set when the zone was created in 2016.
• Increased from the previous year from $254.40 to $262.02 per parcel by CPI. • Includes an annual inflation increase: Yes, includes CPI-U for the San FranciscoOakland-Hayward MSA, (3.036% for the period December 2024 to December 2025) and the unused CPI carried over from previous fiscal years is 2.53%. Therefore, the Maximum Base Assessment Rate has been increased by 3.00%. • Can be increased later: Future increases above the Maximum Base Assessment would require the noticing and balloting of property owners per the requirements of Proposition 218.
629
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

FY 2027 Assessment and Income
FY 2027 Services
Services for this assessment zone include:

Minor Portion of Sports Park: The City of Hayward has an agreement with the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District (HARD) to maintain the Alden E. Oliver Sports Park which benefits parcels within this benefit zone. The annual assessment pays for a minor portion of the Sports Park maintenance expense and City administrative costs associated with managing the benefit assessment program for this benefit zone. Maintenance of the neighborhood serving features of the Alden E. Oliver Sports Park include picnic tables, basketball courts, barbeque areas, soccer fields, etc. HARD is responsible for capital replacement of the park’s capital items.

Assessment Rate (annual charge per parcel) and Income
• The annual assessment rate is recommended to be decreased based on the City’s analysis of the financial stability of the zone.
• The per parcel charge for Developed parcels will decrease from the previous year from $110.41 to $100.00.
• The total annual assessment income will equal $37,900. • The recommended assessment rate will generate revenues that are adequate to pay for the expected level of maintenance and to maintain a prudent capital reserve balance.
• Each of the parcels shall be apportioned an equal share of the total assessment for this zone as the special benefit derived by an individual parcel is indistinguishable from each other.
• The current assessment rate is below the Maximum Base Assessment and is sufficient for maintaining levels of service and for keeping a prudent capital reserve balance. • In future years, if there is a need for additional funds, the assessment may be increased up to the Maximum Base Assessment Rate.
630
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

City of Hayward
LLAD 12 - Spindrift (Eden Shores East)
Fund 278, Project 03732
Established 2007, 2016 - 379 Parcels
FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
Budget Detail Actual Estimated Proposed Projected
Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment 256.16 263.16 269.68 242.81
Annual Per Parcel Assessment (Original) 104.16 110.41 100.00 100.00 # of Parcels (Original) 261 261 261 261
Maximum Base Assessment 246.98 254.40 262.02 262.04
Annual Per Parcel Assessment (Annexation) 104.16 110.41 100.00 100.00 # of Parcels (Annexation) 118 118 118 118
Total Assessment 39,476 41,845 37,900 37,900
Revenue
41210 - Annual Assessment Revenue 39,560 41,845 37,900 37,900 County Tax Collection Fee (1.7%) (671) (711) (644) (644) 44110 - Other (Interest) 3,039 150 150 150
Total Revenue 41,928 41,284 37,406 37,406
Expenditure
62210 - Property Owner Noticing 33 245 245
62242 - Annual Reporting 1,709 603 1,750 1,750
62260 - HARD: Contribution to Park
Maintenance 46,333 24,666 25,406 25,406
City Administration 1,351 1,391 896 896
Total Expenditure 49,393 26,693 28,297 28,297
Account Balance
Beginning Account Balance 54,687 47,222 61,813 70,922
Net Change (Revenue - Expenditures) (7,465) 14,591 9,109 9,109 Ending Account Balance 47,222 61,813 70,922 80,031
631
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Zone 13 (Cannery Place)
Tract Nos. 7613, 7625, 7748 & 7749
Formed: June 17, 2008
Resolution Number: 08-0901
FY 2027
Maximum Base Assessment Rate: $1,530.46
Assessment Amount per Parcel: $469.41
582 Condominium Style Units, 16 Duets, and One Commercial Retail Parcel Assessment Income: $281,177
FY 2027 Maximum Base Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment (highest rate that can be charged per parcel). • Originally set when the zone was created in 2008.
• Increased from the previous year from $1,493.46 to $1,530.46 per parcel by CPI. • Includes an annual inflation increase: Yes, includes CPI-U for the San FranciscoOakland-Hayward MSA (2.477% for the period February 2025 to February 2026). • Can be increased later: Future increases above the Maximum Base Assessment would require the noticing and balloting of property owners per the requirements of Proposition 218.
632
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

FY 2027 Assessment and Income
FY 2027 Services
Services for this assessment zone include:
• Park Maintenance: includes approximately five (5) acres of park area encompassing landscaping and irrigation, and playground equipment, and maintenance of a historic water tower within the development;
• Landscaping and irrigation: includes park strips and parkway within the development; • Surface maintenance: of the decorative concrete walls within the tract. This maintenance includes painting, cleaning, graffiti removal, and minor surface repair; and
• Maintenance: of street trees;
• Maintenance: of paved walkways;
• One-time maintenance: A budget of $100,000 is allocated for additional maintenance to update bioretention, tree trimming, and pest control for box elderbug and to finish the streetlight replacement/repair initiative
• Additionally, the City is preparing to replace four play structures, two sand-based pits, a volleyball court, and picnic tables from FY28-FY30.

Assessment Rate (annual charge per parcel) and Income
• The per parcel charge for Developed parcels will increase from the previous year from $442.84 to $469.41.
• The total annual assessment income will equal $281,177. • The recommended assessment rate will generate revenues that are adequate to pay for the expected level of maintenance and to maintain a prudent capital reserve balance.
• Each of the parcels shall be apportioned an equal share of the total assessment for this zone as the special benefit derived by an individual parcel is indistinguishable from each other.
• The current assessment rate is below the Maximum Base Assessment and is sufficient for maintaining levels of service and for keeping a prudent capital reserve balance. • In future years, if there is a need for additional funds, the assessment may be increased up to the Maximum Base Assessment Rate.
633
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Note: the ownership and responsibility of the masonry wall as a structure remains with the individual property owners.

City of Hayward
LLAD 13 - Cannery Place
Fund 281, Project 03733
Established 2008 - 599 Parcels
FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
Budget Detail Actual Estimated Proposed Projected
Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment 1,454.34 1,493.46 1,530.46 1,568.36 Annual Per Parcel Assessment 417.78 442.84 469.41 483.49 # of Parcels 599 599 599 599
Total Assessment 250,248 265,261 281,177 289,612
Revenue
41210 - Annual Assessment Revenue 250,953 265,261 281,177 289,612 County Tax Collection Fee (1.7%) (4,254) (4,509) (4,780) (4,923) 44110 - Other (Interest) 44,000 2,500 2,500 2,500
Total Revenue 290,699 263,252 278,897 287,189
Expenditure
61160 - One-Time Project/Maintenance 3,970 6,000 100,000 506,000 61160 - CalSense 50,000
61170 - Landscape Maintenance 73,440 46,102 88,784 91,448 61510 - Utilities: PGE 10,703 12,540 13,794 4,289
61530 - Utilites: Water 83,875 98,560 110,000 110,000
62210 - Property Owner Noticing 51 53 385 385
62242 - Annual Reporting 1,512 524 2,770 2,770
City Administration 4,727 4,869 9,854 9,980
Total Expenditure 178,278 168,647 375,587 724,871
Account Balance
Beginning Account Balance 746,980 859,400 954,005 886,315 Net Change (Revenue - Expenditures) 112,421 94,604 (96,690) (437,683) Ending Account Balance 859,400 954,005 857,314 448,632
634
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Zone 14 (La Vista)
Tract Nos. 7620
Formed: June 14, 2016
Resolution Number: 16-044
FY 2027
Maximum Base Assessment Rate: $792.54
Assessment Amount per Developed Parcel: $725.28
Number of Parcels: 179
Assessment Income: $129,825
FY 2027 Maximum Base Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment (highest rate that can be charged per parcel). • Originally set when the zone was created in 2016.
• Increased from the previous year from $769.46 to $792.54 per parcel by CPI-U. • Includes an annual inflation increase: Yes, includes CPI-U for the San FranciscoOakland-Hayward MSA, (2.037% for the period December 2024 to December 2025) and the unused CPI carried over from previous fiscal years is 2.53%. Therefore, the Maximum Base Assessment Rate has been increased by 3.00%. • Can be increased later: Future increases above the Maximum Base Assessment would require the noticing and balloting of property owners per the requirements of Proposition 218.
635
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

FY 2027 Assessment and Income
FY 2027 Services
Services for this assessment zone include:
• Landscaping and irrigation: of the public right of ways of Tennyson Rd., Vista Grande Dr., Cantera Dr., Mountain View Dr., Fortuna Way, and Alquire Pkwy, and firebreak landscaping along the perimeter of the backside of the development. Such landscaping consists of the care for groundcover, shrubs, trees, weed abatement in planted areas, upkeep and servicing of the irrigation system, and utility costs to service the landscaping;
• Surface maintenance: of the decorative concrete walls within the tract. This maintenance includes painting, cleaning, graffiti removal, and minor surface repair; • Maintenance: of street trees;
• Maintenance: of bioswales and tree filters;
• Maintenance: of street lighting;
• Maintenance: of private paved trails east of Alquire Parkway.

Assessment Rate (annual charge per parcel) and Income
• The per parcel charge will increase from $704.16 to $725.28. • The total annual assessment income will equal $129,825. • The recommended assessment rate will generate revenues that are adequate to pay for the expected level of maintenance and to maintain a prudent capital reserve balance.
• Each of the parcels shall be apportioned an equal share of the total assessment for this zone as the special benefit derived by an individual parcel is indistinguishable from each other.
• The current assessment rate is below the Maximum Base Assessment and is sufficient for maintaining levels of service and for keeping a prudent capital reserve balance. • In future years, if there is a need for additional funds, the assessment may be increased up to the Maximum Base Assessment Rate.
636
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

City of Hayward
LLAD 14 - La Vista
Fund 282, Project 03751
Established 2016 - 179 Parcels
FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
Budget Detail Actual Estimated Proposed Projected
Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment 747.04 769.46 792.54 816.32
Annual Per Parcel Assessment 683.65 704.16 725.28 747.04 # of Parcels 179 179 179 179
Total Assessment 122,373 126,045 129,825 133,721
Revenue
41210 - Annual Assessment Revenue 121,632 126,045 129,825 133,721 County Tax Collection Fee (1.7%) (2,080) (2,143) (2,207) (2,273) 44110 - Other (Interest) 20,158 350 350 350
Total Revenue 139,709 124,252 127,968 131,798
Expenditure
61160 - One-Time Project/Maintenance 39,074 30,000 30,000 30,000 61170 - Landscape Maintenance 42,240 75,353 58,387 60,139 61510 - Utilities: PGE 1,609 3,850 4,235 4,362
61530 - Utilites: Water 52,404 26,351 29,513 30,398
62210 - Property Owner Noticing - 115 115 115
62242 - Annual Reporting 1,220 830 830 830
City Administration 4,727 4,869 7,069 7,186
Total Expenditure 141,274 141,367 130,149 133,029
Account Balance
Beginning Account Balance 299,343 297,779 280,663 278,484 Net Change (Revenue - Expenditures) (1,564) (17,116) (2,181) (1,232) Ending Account Balance 297,779 280,663 278,482 277,252
637
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Zone 15 (Cadence)
Tract No. 8032
Formed: January 17, 2017
Resolution Number: 17-001
FY 2027
Maximum Base Assessment Rate: $768.56
Assessment Amount per Parcel: $0.00
Number of Parcels: 206
Assessment Income: $0.00
This benefit zone is self-maintained by the property owner. If the park is maintained, no assessment amount will be charged.

FY 2027 Maximum Base Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment (highest rate that can be charged per parcel). • Originally set when the zone was created in 2017.
• Increased from the previous year from $746.18 to $768.56 per parcel by CPI-U. • Includes an annual inflation increase: Yes, includes CPI-U for the San FranciscoOakland-Hayward MSA, (2.037% for the period December 2024 to December 2025) and the unused CPI carried over from previous fiscal years is 2.12%. Therefore, the Maximum Base Assessment Rate has been increased by 3.00%. 638
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

FY 2027 Assessment and Income
Assessment Rate (annual charge per parcel) and Income
• The annual assessment rate is recommended to remain the same based on the City’s analysis of the financial stability of the zone.
• The per parcel charge will remain the same at zero. AMCAL has entered in contract with Bella Vista Landscape Services, Inc. (CCL # 805462) to maintain the Park in good repair and working order, and in a neat, clean, and orderly condition. AMCAL is responsible for the annual payment of the District Management cost and reimbursement to the City for the Engineer’s Report. Thus, each of the 206 parcels will be assessed at $0.00 per parcel. The Assessment District ensures adequate funding is available for the maintenance of the Park should the Developer default, not meet the maintenance standards, or if the property is sold, and the City assumes maintenance of the park
• The total annual assessment income will equal zero pursuant to the Owners Participation Agreement (OPA) for the Cadence Development. Per the OPA, AMCAL Hayward LLC (AMCAL) is responsible for the maintenance Cadence Public Park in perpetuity or for the life of the agreement. As required in Section 8.12 of the OPA, AMCAL submitted their annual Park Maintenance Plan to the City for review and approval.
• The current assessment rate is below the Maximum Base Assessment and is sufficient for maintaining levels of service and for keeping a prudent capital reserve balance. • In future years, if there is a need for additional funds, the assessment may be increased up to the Maximum Base Assessment Rate.
• Future increases above the Maximum Base Assessment would require the noticing and balloting of property owners per the requirements of Proposition 218.

FY 2027 Services
Services provided to this assessment zone include:
• Maintenance: of the Park in good repair and working order; and in a neat, clean, and orderly condition.
639
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Zone 16 (Blackstone)
Tract Nos. 7894
Formed: May 17, 2016
Resolution Number: 16-044
FY 2027
Maximum Base Assessment Rate: Zone A: $548.12, Zone B: $575.52 Assessment Amount per Parcel – Zone A: $542.49 Zone B: $569.60 Number of Parcels: 157
Assessment Income: $85,822
FY 2027 Maximum Base Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment (highest rate that can be charged per parcel). • Originally set when the zone was created in 2016.
• Zone A: Increased from the previous year from $532.16 to $548.12 per parcel by CPI. • Zone B: Increased from the previous year from $558.76 to $575.52 per parcel by CPI. • Includes an annual inflation increase: Yes, includes CPI-U for the San FranciscoOakland-Hayward MSA, (2.037% for the period December 2024 to December 2025) and the unused CPI carried over from previous fiscal years is 2.53%. Therefore, the Maximum Base Assessment Rate has been increased by 3.00%. • Can be increased later: Future increases above the Maximum Base Assessment would require the noticing and balloting of property owners per the requirements of Proposition 218.
640
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

FY 2027 Assessment and Income
FY 2027 Services
Services provided to this assessment zone include:
• Landscaping and irrigation: of park strips and setback landscaping along frontages of Burbank Street and Palmer Avenue;
• Surface maintenance: of the decorative concrete walls within the tract. This maintenance includes painting, cleaning, graffiti removal, and minor surface repair; • Park Maintenance: approximately two (2) acres of park area which includes landscaping and irrigation, exercise equipment, bocce ball courts, faux bridge, storm water basins and all other park amenities.
• Maintenance: of street trees, streetlights, paved walkways, and cobblestone pathways • One-time maintenance: A budget of $65,000 has been allocated for the replacement of the shaded canopies. In addition, the City’s capital plan for this district includes a broader initiative to replace park amenities throughout the district. • The per parcel rate (Zone A) will increase from $516.66 to 542.49. • The per parcel rate (Zone B) will increase from $542.48 to 569.60. • The total annual assessment income will equal $85,822. • The recommended assessment rate will generate revenues that are adequate to pay for the expected level of maintenance and to maintain a prudent capital reserve balance.
• Each of the parcels shall be apportioned an equal share of the total assessment for this zone as the special benefit derived by an individual parcel is indistinguishable from each other.
• The current assessment rate is below the Maximum Base Assessment. 641
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

City of Hayward
LLAD 16 - Blackstone
Fund 284, Project 03753
Established 2016, 157 Parcels
FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
Budget Detail Actual Estimated Proposed Projected
Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment 516.66 532.16 548.12 564.57
Annual Per Parcel Assessment (Zone A) 516.66 516.66 542.49 564.19 # of Parcels (Zone A) 133 133 133 133
Maximum Base Assessment 542.48 558.76 575.52 592.79
Annual Per Parcel Assessment (Zone B) 542.48 542.48 569.60 592.39 # of Parcels (Zone B) 24 24 24 24
Total Assessment 81,735 81,735 85,822 89,255
Revenue
41210 - Annual Assessment Revenue 81,477 81,735 85,822 89,255 County Tax Collection Fee (1.7%) (1,390) (1,390) (1,459) (1,517) 44110 - Other (Interest) 15,832 125 125 125
Total Revenue 95,920 80,471 84,488 87,863
Expenditure
61160 - One-Time Project/Maintenance - 10,000 65,000 -
61170 - Landscape Maintenance 24,000 26,225 27,012 27,823 61510 - Utilities: PGE 2,676 3,708 4,078 4,201
61530 - Utilites: Water 12,338 11,654 13,052 13,444
62210 - Property Owner Noticing 122 100 100
62242 - Annual Reporting 1,204 1,333 730 730
City Administration 3,377 3,478 4,080 4,149
Total Expenditure 43,595 56,519 114,053 50,446
Account Balance
Beginning Account Balance 206,415 258,740 282,691 253,126 Net Change (Revenue - Expenditures) 52,325 23,951 (29,565) 37,416 Ending Account Balance 258,740 282,691 253,126 290,543
642
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Zone 17 (Parkside Heights)
Tract Nos. 8233
Formed: June 11, 2019
Resolution Number: 19-128
FY 2027
Maximum Base Assessment Rate: $640.72
Assessment Amount per Parcel (Developed): $300.00
Number of Parcels: 97
Assessment Income: $29,100
FY 2027 Maximum Base Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment (highest rate that can be charged per parcel). • Originally set when the zone was created in 2019.
• Increased from the previous year from $625.24 to $640.72 per parcel by CPI. • Includes an annual inflation increase: Yes, includes February CPI-U for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward MSA 2.477% for the period February 2025 to February 2026).
• Can be increased later: Future increases above the Maximum Base Assessment would require the noticing and balloting of property owners per the requirements of Proposition 218.
643
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

FY 2027 Assessment and Income
FY 2027 Services
Assessment Rate (annual charge per parcel) and Income
• The annual assessment rate is recommended to decrease based on the City’s analysis of the financial stability of the zone.
• The per parcel charge will decrease from the previous year from $600.37 to $300.00. • The total annual assessment income will equal $29,100. • The recommended assessment rate will generate revenues that are adequate to pay for the expected level of maintenance and to maintain a prudent capital reserve balance.
• Each of the parcels shall be apportioned an equal share of the total assessment for this zone as the special benefit derived by an individual parcel is indistinguishable from each other.
• The current assessment rate is below the Maximum Base Assessment.

Services provided to this assessment zone include:
• Landscaping and irrigation: of groundcover, trees, and other landscaped areas along the public trail and undeveloped public open space along Ward Creek. • Surface maintenance: This maintenance includes painting, cleaning, graffiti removal, and minor surface repair;
• Maintenance: of public trail trees;
• Maintenance: of trail signage;
• Maintenance: of paved public trail and permeable pavers; • One-time maintenance: A budget of $2,500 is allocated for additional maintenance, as required.
644
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

City of Hayward
LLAD 17 - Parkside Heights
Fund 290, Project 03754
Established 2019 - 97 Parcels
FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
Budget Detail Actual Estimated Proposed Projected
Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment 608.86 625.24 640.72 656.60
Annual Per Parcel Assessment 582.88 600.37 300.00 300.00 # of Parcels 97 97 97 97
Total Assessment 56,539 58,236 29,100 29,100
Revenue
41210 - Annual Assessment Revenue 56,539 58,236 29,100 29,100 County Tax Collection Fee (1.7%) (961) (990) (495) (495) 44110 - Other (Interest) 12,996 3,000 1,500 1,500
Total Revenue 68,574 60,246 30,105 30,105
Expenditure
61160 - One-Time Project/Maintenance 2,500 2,500 2,500
61170 - Landscape Maintenance 4,600 17,000 17,510 18,035 62210 - Property Owner Noticing 9 63 63
62242 - Annual Reporting 1,161 524 450 450
City Administration 3,377 3,478 1,150 1,150
Total Expenditure 9,137 23,510 21,673 22,198
Account Balance
Beginning Account Balance 184,925 244,362 281,097 289,530 Net Change (Revenue - Expenditures) 59,437 36,735 8,432 7,907 Ending Account Balance 244,362 281,097 289,530 297,437
645
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Zone 18 (SoHay)
Tract Nos. 8428, 8444, 8445, 8446, 8447
Formed: June 11, 2019
Resolution Number: 19-130
FY 2027
Maximum Base Assessment Rate: Zone A: $488.68, Zone B: $464.26 Assessment Amount per SFE (Developed): Zone A: $300.00, Zone B: $285.00 Number of SFEs: 433 SFE
Assessment Income: $127,320.00
FY 2027 Maximum Base Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment (highest rate that can be charged per parcel). • Originally set when the zone was created in 2019.
• Zone A: Increased from the previous year from $476.88 to $488.68 per parcel by CPI. • Zone B: Increased from the previous year from $453.04 to $464.26 per parcel by CPI. • Includes an annual inflation increase: Yes, includes February CPI-U for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward MSA (2.477% for the period February 2025 to February 2026).
• Can be increased later: Future increases above the Maximum Base Assessment would require the noticing and balloting of property owners per the requirements of Proposition 218.
646
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

FY 2027 Assessment and Income
Assessment Rate (annual charge per parcel) and Income
• The rate per SFE (Zone A - Developed) will remain the same as the previous year at $300.00.
• The rate per SFE (Zone A - Undeveloped) will remain the same as the previous year at $90.00.
• The rate per SFE (Zone B - Developed) will remain the same as the previous year at $285.00.
• The rate per SFE (Zone B - Undeveloped) will remain the same as the previous year at $85.50.
• The total annual assessment income will equal $127,320. • The recommended assessment rate will generate revenues that are adequate to pay for the expected level of maintenance and to maintain a prudent capital reserve balance.
• The assessments are apportioned among all lots and parcels within the Assessment Area based on Single-Family Equivalent (SFE). Townhomes are assigned 1.0 SFE, apartments are assigned 0.43 SFE per apartment unit, and commercial is assigned 0.50 SFE per 0.20 acres.
• The current assessment rate is below the Maximum Base Assessment and is sufficient for maintaining levels of service and for keeping a prudent capital reserve balance. 647
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

FY 2027 Services
Services provided to this assessment zone include:
• Landscaping and irrigation: of park groundcover, trees, and other landscaped areas; • Surface maintenance: of the masonry walls within the tract. This maintenance includes painting, cleaning, graffiti removal, and minor surface repair; • Park Maintenance: approximately two (2) acres of park area which includes landscaping and irrigation, play structures, basketball court, bike racks, fencing and all other park amenities. The City of Hayward has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Hayward Area Recreation Department (HARD) to maintain the park; • Maintenance: of park lighting and signage;
• Maintenance: of concrete sidewalks and other paved or concrete surface within the park;
• One-time Maintenance: A budget of $5,000 has been allocated for additional maintenance, as needed. In addition, the City’s capital plan for this district includes a broader initiative to replace park amenities throughout the area. 648
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

City of Hayward
LLAD 18 - SoHay
Fund 291, Project 03755
Established 2019 - 433 SFE (Incl 2 Commercial parcels and 1 apt complex) FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
Budget Detail Actual Estimated Proposed Projected
Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment (Zone A) 464.38 476.88 488.68 505.92 Annual Assessment per SFE 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00
# of SFE 261 261 261 261
Maximum Base Assessment (Zone B - 95% of A) 441.16 453.04 464.26 480.63 Annual Assessment per SFE 285.00 285.00 285.00 285.00
# of SFE 172 172 172 172
Total Assessment 127,320 127,320 127,320 127,320
Revenue
41210 - Annual Assessment Revenue 127,029 127,320 127,320 127,320 County Tax Collection Fee (1.7%) (2,164) (2,164) (2,164) (2,164) 44110 - Other (Interest) 24,239 100 100 100
Total Revenue 149,104 125,256 125,256 125,256
Expenditure
61160 - One-Time Project/Maintenance 5,000 5,000 5,000
61510 - Utilities: PGE 5,150 5,000 5,000
61530 - Utilites: Water 743 41,200 20,000 20,000
61560 - HARD: Park Maintenance Utilities 2,060 3,000 3,000 62210 - Property Owner Noticing 31 280 280
62242 - Annual Reporting 1,380 1,427 2,000 2,000
62260 - HARD: Park Maintenance 98,500 47,000 48,410 48,410 City Administration 1,748 1,870 2,116 2,116
Total Expenditure 102,371 103,738 85,806 85,806
Account Balance
Beginning Account Balance 348,819 395,552 417,070 458,135 Net Change (Revenue - Expenditures) 46,733 21,518 39,450 39,450 Ending Account Balance 395,552 417,070 456,519 495,969
649
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Assessment
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hayward, County of Alameda, California, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Article XIIID of the California Constitution (collectively “the Act”), and in accordance with the Resolution of Intention, being Resolution No. 26-XXX, preliminarily approving the Engineer’s Report, as adopted by the City Council of the City of Hayward, on June 2, 2026.

WHEREAS, said Resolution directed the undersigned Engineer of Work to prepare and file a report presenting an estimate of costs, a diagram for the Assessment District, and an assessment of the estimated costs of the improvements upon all assessable parcels within the Assessment District, to which Resolution and the description of said proposed improvements therein contained, reference is hereby made for further particulars;
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, by virtue of the power vested in me under said Act and the order of the City Council of the City of Hayward, hereby make the following assessments to cover the portion of the estimated cost of Improvements, and the costs and expenses incidental thereto to be paid by the Assessment District.

As required by the Act, an Assessment Diagram is hereto attached and made a part hereof showing the exterior boundaries of the Assessment District. The distinctive number of each parcel or lot of land in the Assessment District is its Assessor Parcel Number appearing on the Assessment Roll.

I do hereby assess and apportion said net amount of the cost and expenses of the Improvements, including the costs and expenses incident thereto, upon the parcels and lots of land within said Assessment District, in accordance with the special benefits to be received by each parcel or lot from the improvements, and more particularly set forth in the Estimate of Costs and Method of Assessment hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof.

The assessments are made upon the parcels or lots of land within Assessment District, in proportion to the special benefits to be received by the parcels or lots of land, from the Improvements.

Each parcel or lot of land is described in the Assessment Roll by reference to its parcel number as shown on the Assessor's Maps of the County of Alameda for FY 2027. For a more particular description of said property, reference is hereby made to the deeds and maps on file and of record in the Alameda County Recorder Office.

I hereby place opposite the Assessor Parcel Number for each parcel or lot within the Assessment Roll, the amount of the assessment for the FY 2027 for each parcel or lot of land within said Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 96-1.
650
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Dated: May 21, 2026
Engineer of Work
By
John W. Bliss, License No. C52091
651
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Vicinity Map
652
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

Assessment Diagram
The boundary of the City of Hayward’s Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District No. 96-1 is completely within the boundaries of the City of Hayward. The Assessment Diagram which shows the eighteen (18) zones is on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Hayward. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Assessor of the County of Alameda, for the year when this report was prepared, and are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this report. 653
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

654
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

655
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

656
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

657
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

658
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

659
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

660
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

661
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

662
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

663
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

664
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

665
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

666
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

667
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

668
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

669
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

670
City of Hayward
LLAD No. 96-1
Engineer’s Report, FY 2027

671
CITY OF HAYWARD Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: CONS 26-232
DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Maintenance Services

SUBJECT
Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Preliminarily Approve the Engineer's Report and Levy Assessments for Fiscal Year 2026-27 for Maintenance District No. 1 - Storm Drainage Pumping Station and Storm Drain Conduit Located at Pacheco Way, Stratford Road and Ruus Lane, and Set June 16, 2026, as the Public Hearing Date

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) to preliminary approve the Engineer’s Report and levy assessments for Fiscal Year 2026-27 for Maintenance District No. 1 - Storm Drainage Pumping Station and Storm Drain Conduit located at Pacheco Way, Stratford Road, and Ruus Lane, and set June 16, 2026 as the public hearing date.

SUMMARY
This report is being provided, as required by the Hayward Municipal Code, to preliminarily approve the Engineer’s Report, to include the FY 2026-27 annual assessment and budget for Maintenance District No. 1 (MD 1).

MD 1 was formed in 1995 as a financial funding mechanism to fund the ongoing operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of a Storm Water Lift Station (SWLS) in perpetuity. The SWLS was built by the developer as a condition of development for construction of the Stratford Village neighborhood. The SWLS is the only privately built SWLS in the City, built only to service the Stratford Village neighborhood.

Following construction of the facility, the Alameda County Flood Control District (County) was asked to take over ownership and maintenance of the facility since the County operated similar facilities within the City and the County. The agreement signed by both parties calls for the City to act as an intermediary, using District funds to reimburse the County for annual expenses and supply District funds annually for a capital replacement fund.

For Fiscal Year 2026-27, the proposed combined assessment is $341.74 per parcel. This amount consists of the original Maintenance District No. 1 assessment of $243.92 per parcel and the supplemental MD1- 2026 assessment of $97.82 per parcel. The combined assessment applies equally to the 174 parcels CITY OF HAYWARD Page 1 of 2 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™672
File #: CONS 26-232
within the district and is projected to generate approximately $59,463 in assessment revenue.

The proposed assessment will fund ongoing operations and maintenance, annual administration, reporting, property owner noticing, utilities, and contributions to reserves and the dedicated 2030 Pump Replacement capital fund. The Engineer’s Report finds that each parcel within the district receives similar special benefit from the flood control and drainage facilities and that the assessment is apportioned on a per-parcel basis.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Preliminary Engineer’s Report
CITY OF HAYWARD Page 2 of 2 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™673

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Maintenance Services Director
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Preliminarily Approve the Engineer's Report and Levy Assessments for Fiscal Year 2027 for Maintenance District No. 1 – Storm Drainage Pumping Station and Storm Drain Conduit Located at Pacheco Way, Stratford Road and Ruus Lane, and Set June 16, 2026, as the Public Hearing Date

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) to preliminary approve the Engineer’s Report and levy assessments for Fiscal Year (FY)2026-27 for MaintenanceDistrict No. 1 – Storm Drainage Pumping Station and Storm Drain Conduit located at Pacheco Way, Stratford Road, and Ruus Lane, and set June 16, 2026 as the public hearing date.

SUMMARY
This report is being provided, as required by the Hayward Municipal Code, to preliminarily approve the Engineer’s Report, to include the FY 2026-27 annual assessment and budget for Maintenance District No. 1 (MD 1).

MD 1 was formed in 1995 as a financial funding mechanism to fund the ongoing operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of a Storm Water Lift Station (SWLS) in perpetuity. The SWLS was built by the developer as a condition of development for construction of the Stratford Village neighborhood. The SWLS is the only privately built SWLS in the City, built only to service the Stratford Village neighborhood. Following construction of the facility, the Alameda County Flood Control District (County) was asked to take over ownership and maintenance of the facility since the County operated similar facilitieswithin the City and the County. The agreement signed by both parties calls for the City to act as an intermediary, using District funds to reimburse the County for annual expenses and supply District funds annually for a capital replacement fund.

For Fiscal Year 2027, the proposed combined assessment is $341.74 per parcel. This amount consists of the original Maintenance District No. 1 assessment of $243.92 per parcel and the supplemental MD1-2026 assessment of $97.82 per parcel. The combined assessment applies 674

equally to the 174 parcels within the district and is projected to generate approximately $59,463 in assessment revenue.

The proposed assessment will fund ongoing operations and maintenance, annual administration, reporting, property owner noticing, utilities, and contributions to reserves and the dedicated 2030 Pump Replacement capital fund. The Engineer’s Report finds that each parcel within the district receives similar special benefit from the flood control and drainage facilities and that the assessment is apportioned on a per-parcel basis.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no anticipated fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund associated with this action, as all expenses will be paid using funds held in reserve for MD1.

Staff has evaluated the District’s fund balance and concurs that funds are adequate for FY 2026-

27. BACKGROUND
On January 5, 1993, the City Council approved the vesting tentative map for Tract 6472, which authorized the subdivision of land on both sides of Stratford Road. Conditions of approval for the development included storm drainage improvements and construction of an approved stormwater pumping facility. The drainage basin includes approximately 29.1 acres, consisting of residential lots, parkland, and collector streets associated with Stratford Road and Ruus Lane.

On June 6, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 95-103 ordering the formation of Maintenance District No. 1. The district was established to fund the operation and maintenance of storm drainage improvements and the stormwater pumping facility serving the drainage basin. The Stratford Village Storm Water Lift Station was constructed to pump stormwater runoff from the developed area into the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s Line B, Zone No. 3A.

Ownership of the lift station was transferred to the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District under an agreement requiring the City to provide funding for operation, maintenance, capital equipment replacement, and necessary modifications for the optimal performance of the facility. Each year, the City evaluates the funding needs of the district to ensure that sufficient funds are available for continued operation, maintenance, and capital replacement.

The facilities are approximately 30 years old. Recent evaluation of the flood control facilities identified repair, replacement, and rehabilitation needs, including evaluation and design, SCADA upgrades, pump rehabilitation, and other improvements. The total estimated capital improvement need identified in the Engineer’s Report is $379,049.

On April 21, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 26-057 ordering the formation of the 675

Stratford Village Flood Control Facilities Improvement Assessment District, referred to as MD1- 2026, following a successful property-owner ballot proceeding conducted pursuant to Article XIIID of the California Constitution. MD1-2026 levies a supplemental assessment on the same 174 parcels within Maintenance District No. 1 to fund an annual operations budget augmentation and a dedicated 2030 Pump Replacement capital fund. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2027, the original 1995 Maintenance District No. 1 assessment and the MD1-2026 supplemental assessment are administered together as a combined annual levy.

DISCUSSION
In compliance with Section 10-10.25 oftheHayward Municipal Code, an annual Engineer’s Report is required to be submitted to the Council. The report is attached (Attachment III), and includes:
(1) Description of the improvements to be operated, maintained, serviced, and replaced; (2) FY 2026-27 recommended budget;
(3) FY 2026-27 recommended assessment rate; and
(4) Map ofthe benefit zone (assessment diagram).

The Fiscal Year 2027 Engineer’s Report includes the required description of improvements, estimated costs, assessment methodology, assessment diagram, and assessment roll. The improvements funded by the district include the Stratford Village Storm Water Lift Station and related facilities, including pumps, generator, SCADA system, masonry building, and related storm drainage infrastructure.

The operation and servicing of the facilities include personnel, electricity, materials, diesel fuel and oil, hazardous materials cleanup, and other appurtenant facilities necessary to provide adequate stormwater runoff capacity. Maintenance includes the ordinary and usual operations, maintenance, repair, removal, and replacement of all or part of the stormwater lift station.

The original Maintenance District No. 1 assessment remains fixed at $243.92 per parcel and does not include a CPI adjustment mechanism. The MD1-2026 component includes an annual CPI-U adjustment based on the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area, capped at 3 percent per year. The Engineer’s Report states that the February-to-February CPI is used, any CPI above 3 percent may be banked for future years when CPI is below 3 percent, and a negative CPI is treated as 0.0 percent.

The Engineer’s Report concludes that the annual Fiscal Year 2027 operating expenses are estimated at $5,758. The remaining assessment revenue will support reserves and an annual contribution of $9,476.23 to the 2030 Pump Replacement dedicated capital fund.

PUBLIC CONTACT
City staff: 1) mailed a postcard notice to property owners to letthem know oftheir recommended FY 2026-27 assessment rate, and to alert them to three Public meetings where they could provide input (June 2, June 10, and June 16); 2) held a virtual community meeting via Zoom on June 3; and 676

3) will publish a legal notice in the East Bay Times on or before June 6, 2026.

NEXT STEPS
Following this Council meeting, the City is proposing to hold a public hearing on June 16, 2026, to provide an opportunity for any interested person to be heard. After the public hearing, the Council may adopt a resolution setting the annual assessment amount as originally proposed or as modified. Following the adoption of this resolution, the final assessor’s roll will be prepared and filed with the County Auditor’s office to be included on the FY 2026-27 tax roll. Payment of the assessment for each parcel will be made in the same manner and at the same time as payments are made for property taxes. All funds collected through the assessment must be placed in a special fund and can only be used for the purposes stated within this report. If the Council adopts the attached resolution of intention, it will hold a noticed public hearing on June 16, 2026, to consider approving the Engineer’s Report and ordering the levy of assessments for FY 2026-27.

Prepared by: Manny Grewal, Management Analyst
Recommended by: Todd Rullman, Maintenance Services Director Approved by:
____________________________
Jennifer Ott, City Manager
677

ATTACHMENT II

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 26___
Introduced by Council Member___________

RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO PRELIMINARILY APPROVE THE ENGINEER'S REPORT; DECLARING INTENTION TO LEVY ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27; AND SETTING JUNE 16, 2026, AS THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE CONCERNING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 - STORM DRAINAGE PUMPING

STATION AND STORM DRAIN CONDUIT - PACHECO WAY, STRATFORD ROAD,

AND RUUS LANE
WHEREAS, Maintenance District No. 1- Storm Drainage Pumping Station and Storm Drain Conduit –Pacheco Way, Stratford Road, and Ruus Lane (the District) was established by the adoption of Resolution No. 95-103 to provide funds to operate, maintain, and service a storm drainage pumping station and storm drain conduit constructed to provide a means of handling storm water runoff for Tracts 6472, 6560, 6682, and 6683; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 2026, by Resolution No. 26-057, following a successful property-owner ballot proceeding conducted pursuant to Article XIIID of the California Constitution, the City Council ordered the formation of the Stratford Village Flood Control Facilities Improvement Assessment District (MD1-2026), which levies a supplemental assessment on the same parcels comprising the District to fund operations augmentation and the “2030 Pump Replacement” dedicated capital fund, and which is administered together with the District as a combined annual levy beginning with Fiscal Year 2026-27; and WHEREAS, the District consists of properties as shown on the Assessment Roll which will be available on file in the Office of the Hayward City Clerk on June 16, 2026; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council to order the levy and collection of assessments for the maintenance of the storm drainage pumping station and storm drain conduit pursuant to Part 3, Chapter 26 of Division 7 of the California Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 5820 thereof).

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

1. SCI Consulting Group is hereby designated as the Engineer of Work for purposes of these proceedings and is hereby ordered to prepare a final Engineer’s Report in accordance with Section 10-10.25 of the Hayward Municipal Code.

2. The Engineer’s Report has been made, filed with the City Clerk, and duly considered 678

ATTACHMENT II

by this City Council and is hereby deemed sufficient and intended to be preliminarily approved. Said report shall stand as the report for all subsequent proceedings relating to the proposed levy of the District assessments for Fiscal Year 2026-27.

3. The proposed assessment for Fiscal Year 2026-27 is a combined per-parcel charge of $341.74, comprising the original 1995 Maintenance District No. 1 maximum base assessment of $243.92 per parcel (unchanged) and the supplemental MD1-2026 base-year assessment of $97.82 per parcel. Each component is levied at its maximum authorized rate.

4. Reference is hereby made to the aforementioned Engineer’s Report on file with the City Clerk for a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the proposed District, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots within said District.

5. Public property owned by any public agency and in use in the performance of a public function within said District shall not be assessed, except for Stratford Park, owned by the City of Hayward, which is the only publicly owned property, which will receive a special benefit from the maintenance of the pumping station and storm drains financed by the District.

6. On June 16, 2026, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be held on the levy of the proposed assessment. Prior to the conclusion of said public hearing, any interested person may file a written protest with the City Clerk, or having previously filed a protest, may file a written withdrawal of that protest. A written protest by a property owner shall contain a description sufficient to identify the property owned by such owner.

7. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of said meeting and hearing to be made in the form and manner provided by applicable laws. 679

ATTACHMENT II

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
680
Fiscal Year 2027 ENGINEER’S REPORT
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 1
May 2026
Preliminary Report

ATTACHMENT III
681
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 1
Engineer’s Report FY 2027
Page i
City of Hayward
City Council
Mark Salinas, Mayor
George Syrop, Mayor Pro Tempore
Angela Andrews, Council Member
Ray Bonilla Jr., Council Member
Dan Goldstein, Council Member
Julie Roche, Council Member
Francisco Zermeño, Council Member
Clerk of the Council
Miriam Lens
City Manager
Jennifer Ott
Maintenance Service Director
Todd Rullman
City Attorney
Michael Lawson
Engineer of Work
SCI Consulting Group
682
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 1
Engineer’s Report FY 2027
Page ii
Table of Contents
Introduction............................................................................................................... 1 Overview.................................................................................................................................... 1 Legislative Analysis.................................................................................................................... 3 Plans and Specifications ............................................................................................. 4 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 4 Description of Improvements ................................................................................................... 4 Fiscal Year 2027 Estimate of Cost and Budget ............................................................. 6 Estimate of Costs....................................................................................................................... 6 Method of Apportionment......................................................................................... 9 Assessment.............................................................................................................. 10 Vicinity Map............................................................................................................. 12 Assessment Diagram ................................................................................................ 13 Appendix A - Assessment Roll................................................................................... 15 683
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 1
Engineer’s Report FY 2027
Page iii
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Capital Improvements..................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2 – 2027 Estimate of Cost..................................................................................................... 8 684
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 1
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

Introduction
Overview
On January 5, 1993, by Resolution No. 93-010, the City Council approved the vesting tentative map of Tract 6472, which authorized the subdivision of land on both sides of Stratford Road into 148 single-family home lots. Conditions of approval for Tentative Map Tract 6472, which included Final Tract Maps 6472, 6560, 6682 and 6683, included provisions for storm drainage improvements and construction of an approved stormwater pumping facility. The drainage area and the stormwater pumping facility were analyzed in documents prepared by Wilsey & Ham, Civil Engineers. These documents indicated the following: the drainage basin includes 29.1 acres, of which 24.7 acres are residential, 1.9 acres are for a park site, and 2.5 acres are for the collector streets associated with Stratford Road and Ruus Lane. Pacheco Way does not drain into this drainage basin system nor does the industrial property to the south.

In addition to the 143 lots identified above, final Tract Map 6682, with a total of 31 lots located immediately to the east of Chutney Road, was also approved. Therefore, the total number of residential lots in the drainage basin is 174. In addition to the residential lots, there is a park located on one parcel of land.

On April 18, 1995, the City Council approve the preliminary Engineer’s report, and on May 23, 1995, a public meeting was held to allow affected property owners an opportunity to speak. On June 6, 1995, by Resolution No. 95-103, the City Council ordered the formation of Maintenance District No. 1 to provide for the operation and maintenance of the storm drainage improvements and the stormwater pumping facility to serve the drainage basin. The FY 1996 Engineer’s Report (formation report) included a FY 1996 Engineer’s Cost Estimate of $42,686.37.

A Storm Water Lift Station (SWLS) was constructed to pump storm water run-off for the developed area which is adjacent to the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's (“Flood Control District”) Line B, Zone No. 3A. The plans for the lift station were approved by the City and the Flood Control District. The SWLS was designed with capacity for only the development of the area encompassing the 174 parcels. No added capacity was constructed for run-off from other areas such as the Georgian Manor and Spanish Ranch Mobile Home Parks, which are presently served by a privately owned and operated pumping facility located within each park. 685
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 1
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

An agreement between the City and the Flood Control District transferred ownership of the SWLS to the Flood Control District. The agreement states that the Flood Control District concurred with the SWLS transfer subject to the City providing the Flood Control District with the funds to operate, maintain, and provide for capital equipment replacement and for modifications that may become necessary for the optimal performance of the SWLS.

Each year the City evaluates the need to increase the annual assessment to ensure there are adequate funds to continue to provide proper operation, maintenance, and capital replacement of the storm water pumping facilities within Maintenance District No. 1. As part of this effort, no later than December 1, the Flood Control District is required to furnish the City with an itemized estimate of the cost to operate, maintain, and supplement the capital equipment replacement fund for the fiscal year commencing on the next July 1.

Should the capital equipment replacement fund be inadequate to cover unscheduled/emergency repairs, equipment replacement or modifications that are found to be necessary for the normal and safe performance of the Storm Water Lift Station (SWLS), the Flood Control District will provide the City with written notice of the need for additional funding.

In past years, there has not been sufficient funds to replace the Maintenance District No. 1 capital facilities when they reach the end of their useful lives.

On April 21, 2026, by Resolution No. 26-0571
, the City Council ordered the formation of the
Stratford Village Flood Control Facilities Improvement Assessment District (MD1-2026) following a successful property-owner ballot proceeding conducted pursuant to Article XIIID of the California Constitution. MD1-2026 levies a supplemental assessment in the amount of $97.82 on the same 174 parcels in Maintenance District No. 1 to fund an annual operations budget augmentation and the “2030 Pump Replacement” dedicated capital fund. Beginning with FY 2027, the original 1995 Maintenance District No. 1 assessment and the MD1-2026 assessment are administered together as a combined annual levy on each parcel under this Engineer’s Report.

The original 1995 maximum base assessment of $243.92 per parcel remains fixed and has no CPI mechanism; the MD1-2026 component carries an annual CPI-U (San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA MSA) adjustment, capped at 3% per year, applied to the sum of the two assessments. The methodology, benefit findings, and assessment apportionment for the MD1-2026 component are documented in the parallel MD1-2026 Engineer’s Report dated April 2026 and are incorporated herein by reference.
1 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7987059&GUID=695376BE-CF60-4A88-8184- 0DFF75ADF81A&Options=&Search=
686
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 1
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

Legislative Analysis
Proposition 218 Compliance
On November 5, 1996, California voters approved Proposition 218 entitled "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," which added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the California Constitution. While its title refers only to taxes, Proposition 218 established new procedural requirements for the formation and administration of assessment districts.

Proposition 218 stated that any existing assessment imposed exclusively to finance the capital costs or maintenance and operation expenses for sidewalks, streets, sewers, water, flood control, drainage systems, or vector control on or before November 6, 1996, shall be exempt from the procedures and approval process of Proposition 218, unless the assessments are increased.

Maintenance District No. 1 imposes an assessment exclusively for flood control and drainage improvements. Proposition 218 defines increased, when applied to an assessment, as a decision by an agency that does either of the following:
 Increases any applicable rate used to calculate the assessment.  Revises the methodology by which the assessment is calculated, if that revision results in an increased amount being levied on any person or parcel.

The formation methodology used to calculate the MBA that could be levied in any given year allows the MBA from the prior year to be increased by the prior year’s change in the Consumer Price Index. Therefore, based upon the review of the City Attorney, imposing the assessment adjustment each year based upon the prior year’s increase in the Consumer Price Index does not require Proposition 218 proceedings.

Noticing, Public Comment, and Public Hearing
Noticing and information regarding this report were provided via the following methods: 1) a notice was mailed to all affected property owners to provide detail of their recommended FY 2027 assessment rate and to alert them to three community meetings where they could provide input (May 27, June 2, June 16); and 2) published a legal notice in the East Bay Times on or before June 6, 2026.

On June 16, 2026, the City is proposing to hold a public hearing to provide an opportunity for any interested person to be heard. After the public hearing, the Council may adopt a resolution setting the annual assessment amounts as originally proposed or as modified. Following the adoption of this resolution, the final assessor’s roll will be prepared and filed with the Alameda County Auditor’s Office to be included on the FY 2027 tax roll. Payment of the assessment for each parcel will be made in the same manner and at the same time as payments are made for property taxes.

All funds collected through the assessment must be placed in a special fund and can only be used for the purposes stated within this report.
687
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 1
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

Plans and Specifications
Introduction
The annual Engineer’s Report includes: (1) a description of the improvements to be operated, maintained, and serviced; (2) an estimated budget, (3) the maximum base assessment rate, and (4) a listing of the proposed collection rate to be levied upon each assessable lot or parcel.

Description of Improvements
The facilities, which have been constructed within the City of Hayward's Maintenance District No. 1 boundaries, and those which may be subsequently constructed, will be operated, maintained, and serviced and are generally described as follows:

The Stratford Village Storm Water Lift Station (SWLS):
 2 - 15 H.P. Pumps
 1 - 5 H.P. Pump
 1 - 3 H.P. Dewatering Pump
 1 - Generator
 1 - Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System  1 - Masonry Building to House the SCADA System and Generator The operation and servicing of these facilities include but are not limited to personnel; electrical energy; materials, including diesel fuel and oil; hazardous materials clean up; and appurtenant facilities as required to provide sufficient run-off capacity.

These existing facilities are approximately 30 years old. A recent evaluation of the flood control facilities shows that various elements of the facility need repair, replacement, or rehabilitation.

Those improvements are detailed below in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Capital Improvements
Element Cost Estimate
Evaluation / Design $ 41,560.00
SCADA Upgrades 255,000.00
Pump Rehabilitation 49,248.00
Other Improvements 33,241.00
TOTAL $ 379,049.00
688
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 1
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

The Improvements will include the installation and maintenance of the Stratford Village Storm Water Lift Station as referenced above, as well as financing costs and other expenses associated with the financing for the improvements, and incidental expenses. “Installation” means the construction or installation of improvements, including, but not limited to, land preparation, such as grading, leveling, cutting, and filling.

Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual operations, maintenance, and servicing of the SWLS, including repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the SWLS.
689
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 1
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

Fiscal Year 2027 Estimate of Cost and Budget
Estimate of Costs
Chapter 10, Article 10, Section 10-10.25 of the Hayward Municipal Code and as supplemented by the provisions of Chapter 26 of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California provides that the total cost of operation, maintenance and servicing of the storm drainage improvements and storm water pumping station can be recovered by the District.

Incidental expenses including administration of the District, engineering fees, legal fees and all other costs associated with these improvements can also be included.

MD1 Assessment
Tract No. 6472, 6560, 6682, 6683
Formed: June 6, 1995
Resolution Number: 95-103
FY 2027
MD1-2026 Assessment
Formed: April 21, 2026
Resolution Number: 26-057
FY 2027 (Base Year)
MD1 Maximum Base Assessment Rate: $243.92
Assessment Amount per Parcel: $243.92
Number of Parcels: 174
Assessment Income: $42,442.08
MD1-2026 Maximum Base Assessment Rate: $97.82
Assessment Amount per Parcel: $97.82
Number of Parcels: 174
Assessment Income: $17,020.23
Combined FY 2027 Levy (per parcel)
Combined Assessment per Parcel ($243.92 + $97.82): $341.74 Combined Assessment Income (174 parcels): $59,462.31
The following is an overview of the FY 2027 assessment district:
 Maximum Base Assessment (MBA) Rate: is unchanged from the original amount of $243.92 per parcel, set when the District was created. The supplemental MD1-2026 assessment adds a FY 2027 base-year maximum of $97.82 per parcel, bringing the combined maximum to $341.74 per parcel for FY 2027.
690
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 1
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

 Annual CPI increase: the maximum base assessment amount cannot be increased annually based upon the prior year’s change in the CPI. However, the supplemental MD1-2026 component does carry an annual CPI-U (San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA MSA) adjustment, capped at 3% per year, applied to the sum of the existing 1995 assessment and the MD1-2026 assessment. The February-to-February CPI is used, with any CPI in excess of 3% banked for application in subsequent years when CPI is below 3%. A negative CPI is treated as 0.0%.
 Assessment revenue: the FY 2027 amount needed to operate and maintain the facilities and contribute to the capital reserve is: $59,462.31, comprising $42,442.08 from the 1995 MD1 assessment and $17,020.23 from the MD1-2026 supplemental assessment.  Annual assessment charge: each of the 174 parcels shall be apportioned an equal share of the total assessment for this zone as the special benefit derived by the individual parcels is indistinguishable from each other. The FY 2027 combined per-parcel charge is $341.74, comprising the 1995 MD1 charge of $243.92 (unchanged from the FY 2026 amount and at the maximum base assessment) and the MD1-2026 base-year charge of $97.82. Each component is at its maximum authorized rate and is sufficient for maintaining levels of service, contributing to the capital reserve, and funding the 2030 Pump Replacement program.
 Proposition 218: Future increases in the assessment amount above the MBA amount would require the noticing and balloting of property owners per the requirements of Proposition 218.
691
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 1
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

Figure 2 – 2027 Estimate of Cost
City of Hayward
MD1 - Stratford Pump Station (Pacheco Wy., Stratford Rd., Russ Ln., & Ward Crk.) Fund 270, Project 03745
MD1 Established 1993 - 174 Parcels
MD1-2026 Established 2026 - 174 Parcels
FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
Budget Detail Actual Estimated Proposed Projected
Assessment (MD1)
Maximum Base Assessment 243.92 243.92 243.92 251.24
Annual Per Parcel Assessment 243.92 243.92 243.92 251.24 # of Parcels 174 174 174 174
Total MD1 Assessment 42,442 42,442 42,442 43,715
Assessment (MD1-2026)
Maximum Base Assessment - - 97.82 100.75
Annual Per Parcel Assessment - - 97.82 100.75
# of Parcels - - 174 174
Total MD1-2026 Assessment - - 17,021 17,531
Total Combined Assessment - - 59,463 3,050,446
Revenue
41210 - Annual Assessment Revenue 42,149 42,442 59,463 61,247 County Tax Collection Fee (1.7%) (722) (722) (1,011) (1,041) 44110 - Other (Interest) 3,787 3,787 3,787 3,787
Total Revenue ` 45,508 62,239 63,993
Expenditure
61510 - Utilities: PGE 2,921 3,574 4,000 4,000
62210 - Property Owner Noticing 359 - 110 110
62242 - Annual Reporting 768 1,253 805 805
Pump Station O&M - ACFCD 20,923 - - -
Proposition 218 7,500 - - -
City Administration 3,658 - 843 843
Total Expenditure 36,130 4,827 5,758 5,758
Account Balance
Beginning Account Balance 52,231 61,316 101,997 158,478 Net Change (Revenue - Expenditures) 9,085 40,681 56,481 58,235 Ending Account Balance 61,316 101,997 158,478 216,712
692
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 1
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

Method of Apportionment
Chapter 10, Article 10, Section 10-10.25 of the Hayward Municipal Code and as supplemented by the provisions of Chapter 26 of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California permits the establishment of assessment districts by agencies to finance the maintenance and operation of drainage and flood control services, which include the operation, maintenance, and servicing of pump stations.

Proposition 218 requires that maintenance assessments must be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. In addition, Article XIIID, Section 4(a) of the California Constitution limits the amount of any assessment to the proportional special benefit conferred on the property.

Because assessments are levied on the basis of benefit, they are not considered a tax, and, therefore, are not governed by Article XIIIA of the California Constitution.

Article XIIID of the California Constitution provides that publicly owned properties must be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit from the assessment. Exempted from the assessment would be the areas of public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, public easements, and rights-of-ways.

The land uses within Maintenance District No. 1 consist of 174 residential parcels and one park parcel. These parcels receive a special benefit in that the pumping station and the storm drains protect the residential parcels and park parcel from storm water flooding. Even though there are only minor structures located on the park parcel it does receive special benefit from flood control improvements and services.

It is estimated that all residential and park parcels derive similar benefits from the flood control improvements and services, therefore the method for spreading the annual costs is on a per parcel basis.

The projected Fiscal Year 2027 maintenance and operation for MD1 are estimated to be $59,463.

The annual FY 2027 operating expenses are estimated to be $5,758, with an annual contribution of $9,476.23 to the 2030 Pump Replacement dedicated capital fund and remaining fund allocated to reserves. The combined collection rate for Fiscal Year 2027 will be at the maximum authorized rate for each component, totaling $341.74 per parcel ($243.92 for the 1995 MD1 component and $97.82 for the MD1-2026 component).
693
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 1
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

Assessment
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hayward, County of Alameda, California, Pursuant to Chapter 26 of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, and Chapter 10, Article 10, Section 10-10.25 of the Hayward Municipal Code, and in accordance with Resolution No. 26-XXX, preliminarily approving the Engineer’s Report, as adopted by the City Council of the City of Hayward, on June 2, 2026, and in connection with the proceedings for; WHEREAS,said Resolution directed the undersigned Engineer of Work to prepare and file a report presenting an estimate of costs, a diagram for the Assessment District and an assessment of the estimated costs of the improvements upon all assessable parcels within the Assessment District, to which Resolution and the description of said proposed improvements therein contained, reference is hereby made for further particulars;
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, by virtue of the power vested in me and the order of the City Council of the City of Hayward, hereby make the following assessments to cover the portion of the estimated cost of Improvements, and the costs and expenses incidental thereto to be paid by the Assessment District.

As required, an Assessment Diagram is hereto attached and made a part hereof showing the exterior boundaries of the Assessment District. The distinctive number of each parcel or lot of land in the Assessment District is its Assessor Parcel Number appearing on the Assessment Roll.

I do hereby assess and apportion said net amount of the cost and expenses of the Improvements, including the costs and expenses incident thereto, upon the parcels and lots of land within said Assessment District, in accordance with the special benefits to be received by each parcel or lot from the improvements, and more particularly set forth in the Estimate of Costs and Method of Assessment hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof.

The assessments are made upon the parcels or lots of land within Assessment District, in proportion to the special benefits to be received by the parcels or lots of land, from the Improvements.

Each parcel or lot of land is described in the Assessment Roll by reference to its parcel number as shown on the Assessor's Maps of the County of Alameda for the fiscal year 2027. For a more particular description of said property, reference is hereby made to the deeds and maps on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder of the County. 694
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 1
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

I hereby place opposite the Assessor Parcel Number for each parcel or lot within the Assessment Roll, the amount of the assessment for the fiscal year 2027 for each parcel or lot of land within said Maintenance District No. 1.

Dated: May 15, 2026
Engineer of Work
By ____________________________
John W. Bliss, License No. C052091
695
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 1
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

Vicinity Map
696
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 1
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

Assessment Diagram
The boundary of the City of Hayward's Maintenance District No. 1 is on file in the Office of the Hayward City Clerk and is incorporated in this report on page 13.

A detailed description of the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the Assessment District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Assessor of the County of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2027.

For additional information as to the bearings, distances, monuments, easements, etc. of subject subdivisions, reference is hereby made to Final Tract Maps No. 6472, 6560, 6682 and 6683 filed in the Office of the Recorder of Alameda County.
697
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 1
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

698
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 1
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

Appendix A - Assessment Roll
A list of names and addresses of the owners of all parcels within the City of Hayward's Maintenance District No. 1 are shown on the last equalized Property Tax Roll of the Assessor of the County of Alameda. This list is keyed to the Assessor's Parcel Numbers as shown on the Assessment Roll on file in the Office of the Hayward City Clerk. 699
CITY OF HAYWARD Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: CONS 26-233
DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Maintenance Services

SUBJECT
Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Preliminarily Approve the Engineer's Report and Levy Assessments for Fiscal Year 2027 for Maintenance District No. 2 - Eden Shores Storm Water Facilities and Water Buffer, and Set June 16, 2026, as the Public Hearing Date

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) of intention to preliminarily approve the Engineer's Report (Attachment III), levy assessments for FY 2027, and set June 16, 2026 as the public hearing date.

SUMMARY
Maintenance District No. 2 (MD 2) was formed in 2003 to fund the ongoing operation, maintenance, administration, and capital replacement of the water buffer and storm water facilities that border the Eden Shores residential community. This annual report is being provided, as required by the Hayward Municipal Code, to approve the annual assessment rate and expenditure budget.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Preliminary Engineer’s Report
CITY OF HAYWARD Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™700

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Maintenance Services Director
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Preliminarily Approve the Engineer's Report and Levy Assessments for Fiscal Year 2027 for Maintenance District No. 2 – Eden ShoresStorm Water Facilities and Water Buffer, and Set June 16, 2026, as the Public Hearing Date

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) of intention to preliminarily approve the Engineer'sReport(AttachmentIII), levy assessments for FY 2027, and setJune 16, 2026 as the public hearing date.

SUMMARY
MaintenanceDistrictNo. 2 (MD2)was formed in 2003 to fund the ongoing operation, maintenance, administration, and capital replacement of the water buffer and storm water facilities that border the Eden Shores residential community. This annual report is being provided, as required by the Hayward Municipal Code, to approve the annual assessment rate and expenditure budget.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no anticipated fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund associated with this action, as all expenses will be paid using funds held in reserve for MD2. Staffhas evaluated theDistrict’s fund balance and concurs that funds are adequate for FY 2027.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On June 24, 2003, the Council ordered the formation of MD 2 to provide for the maintenance, operation, administration, and capital replacement of a water buffer and storm water pre-treatment facility. The water buffer consists of landscaping, recirculating pumps and filters, maintenance roads, pedestrian bridge, and anti-predator and perimeter fencing. The Eden Shores Maintenance District includes three residential tracts (7317, 7360, 7361)totaling 534 homes. The funds collected from the property owners within MD 2 pay for the ongoing annual operation, maintenance, administration, and capital contribution to operate and maintain this important infrastructure.

Capital funds are collected and maintained so that the district has the financial resources available 701

to utilize to repair or replace sections of fencing, pumps, or bridge components in the future.

In compliance with Section 10-10.25 of the Hayward Municipal Code, an annual Engineer’s Report is required to be submitted to the Council. The report is attached (Attachment III), and includes:
(1) Description of the improvements to be operated, maintained, serviced, and replaced; (2) FY 2027 recommended budget;
(3) FY 2027 recommended assessment rate; and
(4) Map ofthe benefit zone (assessment diagram).

Based upon revenues required to fund operations and maintenance, and maintain a capital replacement fund, staff is recommending a FY 2027 per parcel charge of $308.36, which is an increase the assessment rate from FY 2026 ($280.33).

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
City staff: 1) mailed a postcard notice to property owners to let them know of their recommended FY 2027 assessment rate, and to alert them to three Public meetings where they could provide input (June 2, June 10, and June 16); 2) held a virtual community meeting via Zoom on June 3; and 3) will publish a legal notice in the East Bay Times on or before June 6, 2026.

NEXT STEPS
Following this Council meeting, the City is proposing to hold a public hearing on June 16, 2026, to provide an opportunity for any interested person to be heard. After the public hearing,the Council may adopt a resolution setting the annual assessment amount as originally proposed or as modified. Following the adoption of this resolution, the final assessor’s roll will be prepared and filed with the County Auditor’s office to be included on the FY 2027 tax roll. Payment of the assessment for each parcel will be made in the same manner and at the same time as payments are made forproperty taxes.Allfunds collected through the assessmentmust be placed in a special fund and can only be used for the purposes stated within this report. If the Council adopts the attached resolution of intention, it will hold a noticed public hearing on June 16, 2026, to consider approving the Engineer’s Report and ordering the levy of assessments for FY 2027.

Prepared by: Manny Grewal, Management Analyst
702

Recommended by: Todd Rullman, MaintenanceServices Director Approved by:
_____________________________
Jennifer Ott, City Manager
703

ATTACHMENT II

HAYWARDCITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 26-____
Introduced by Council Member _____

RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO PRELIMINARILY APPROVE ENGINEER'S

REPORT, DECLARING INTENTION TO LEVY ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027, AND SETTING JUNE 16, 2026, AS THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE CONCERNING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 - EDEN SHORES STORM

WATER FACILITIES AND WATER BUFFER
WHEREAS, Maintenance District No. 2 - Eden Shores Storm Water Facilities and Water Buffer (the “District”) was established by the adoption of Resolution No. 03-102 to provide funds to operate, maintain, and service a storm water facility and the water buffer bordering the residential portion of Eden Shores, which encompasses the three residential tracts 7316, 7360, and 7361 in the Eden Shores development, totaling 534 homes.

WHEREAS, the District consists of properties as shown on the Assessment Roll which will be available on file in the Office of the Hayward City Clerk on June 16, 2026.

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

1. SCI Consulting Group is hereby designated as Engineer of Work for purposes of these proceedings and is hereby ordered to prepare a Final Engineer’s Report in accordance with Article XIIID of the California Constitution.

2. The Engineer of Work has prepared a Preliminary Engineer’s Report in accordance with Section 10-10.25 of the Hayward Municipal Code. Said report has been made, filed, and duly considered by this City Council and is hereby deemed sufficient and intended to be preliminarily approved. Said report shall stand as the report for all subsequent proceedings related to the proposed levy of District assessments for Fiscal Year 2027.

3. It is the intention of the City Council to order the levy and collection of assessments for the maintenance of the storm water facility and water buffer pursuant to Part 3, Chapter 26 of Division 7 of the California Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 5820 thereof).

4. The proposed assessment for the District for Fiscal Year 2027 is $308.36, which is an increase from the previous fiscal year’s assessment of $280.33. The maximum base assessment amount for the District is subject to an annual adjustment equal to the 704

ATTACHMENT II

change in the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) from the previous year. The maximum base assessment amount for the District for Fiscal Year 2027 has been increased from the previous year’s maximum base assessment amount of $1,183.42 by 2.477%, which is equal to the percentage increase in CPIU from February 2025 to February 2026. The maximum base assessment amount for the District for Fiscal Year 2027 is $1,212.74.

5. Reference is hereby made to the aforementioned report on file with the City Clerk for a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the proposed District, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots within said District.

6. On June 16, 2026, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be held on the levy of the proposed assessment.

7. Prior to the conclusion of said public hearing, any interested person may file awritten protest with the City Clerk, or having previously filed a protest, may file a written withdrawal of that protest. A written protest by a property owner shall contain a description sufficientto identify the property owned by such owner. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of said meeting and hearing to be made in the form and manner provided by applicable laws.

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
705
Fiscal Year 2027 ENGINEER’S REPORT
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 2
May 2026
Preliminary Report

ATTACHMENT III
706
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 2
Engineer’s Report FY 2027
Page i
City of Hayward
City Council
Mark Salinas, Mayor
George Syrop, Mayor Pro Tempore
Angela Andrews, Council Member
Ray Bonilla Jr., Council Member
Dan Goldstein, Council Member
Julie Roche, Council Member
Francisco Zermeño, Council Member
Clerk of the Council
Miriam Lens
City Manager
Jennifer Ott
Maintenance Service Director
Todd Rullman
City Attorney
Michael Lawson
Engineer of Work
SCI Consulting Group
707
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 2
Engineer’s Report FY 2027
Page ii
Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................. 1 Overview.................................................................................................................................... 1 Legislative Analysis.................................................................................................................... 1 Plans and Specifications............................................................................................... 3 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 3 Description of Improvements.................................................................................................... 3 Fiscal Year 2027 Estimate of Cost and Budget .............................................................. 4 Estimate of Costs....................................................................................................................... 4 Method of Apportionment........................................................................................... 6 Assessment.................................................................................................................. 7 Vicinity Map................................................................................................................. 9 Assessment Diagram.................................................................................................. 10 Appendix A - Assessment Roll .................................................................................... 12 708
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 2
Engineer’s Report FY 2027
Page iii
List of Figures
Figure 1 – 2027 Estimate of Cost ..................................................................................................... 5 709
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 2
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

Introduction
Overview
On April 16, 2002, by Resolution No. 02‐043, the City Council approved the Final Map of Tract 7317 for a 114-lot residential subdivision, with 109 single‐family homes, located on the northerly side of Eden Shores Boulevard and westerly of the Union Pacific Railroad.

On November 26, 2002, by Resolution No. 02‐171, the City Council approved the Final Map of Tract 7361 for a 120 lot residential subdivision, with 116 single‐family homes, located on the southerly side of Eden Shores Boulevard and westerly of the Union Pacific Railroad.

On June 3, 2003, by Resolution No. 03‐083, the City Council approved the Final Map for Tract 7360, for a 318-lot residential subdivision, with 309 single‐family homes located on the southwesterly side of Eden Shores Drive and westerly of the Union Pacific Railroad. The additional lots in each subdivision, 27 in total, will be landscaped areas, parks, wetlands or buffer areas.

Conditions of approval for Tracts No. 7317, 7360 and 7361, included provisions for construction of a water buffer channel and storm‐water pretreatment pond, masonry walls, anti‐predator fences, and landscaping within the proposed development area. Maintenance District No. 2 provides a funding source to operate and maintain these improvements, including the furnishing of water and electrical energy along with debris removal, weeding, trimming, and pest control spraying.

On June 24, 2003, by Resolution No. 03‐102, the City Council ordered the formation of Maintenance District No. 2 to provide the funding for the operation and maintenance of these facilities. The FY 2004 Final Engineer’s Report (formation report) included a FY 2004 budget which proposed $343,875.00 in expenditures at buildout for an anticipated 525 assessable parcels which equated to Maximum Base Assessment (MBA) Rate of $655.00 per parcel. This MBA rate which may be levied is increased each fiscal year by the prior year’s change in the Consumer Price Index.

Legislative Analysis
Proposition 218 Compliance
On November 5, 1996, California voters approved Proposition 218 entitled "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," which added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the California Constitution. While its title 710
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 2
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

refers only to taxes, Proposition 218 established new procedural requirements for the formation and administration of assessment districts.

Proposition 218 stated that any existing assessment imposed exclusively to finance the capital costs or maintenance and operation expenses for sidewalks, streets, sewers, water, flood control, drainage systems, or vector control on or before November 6, 1996, shall be exempt from the procedures and approval process of Proposition 218, unless the assessments are increased.

Proposition 218 defines increased, when applied to an assessment, as a decision by an agency that does either of the following:
 Increases any applicable rate used to calculate the assessment.  Revises the methodology by which the assessment is calculated, if that revision results in an increased amount being levied on any person or parcel.

The formation methodology used to calculate the MBA that could be levied in any given year allows the MBA from the prior year to be increased by the prior year’s change in the Consumer Price Index. Therefore, based upon the review of the City Attorney, imposing the assessment adjustment each year based upon the prior year’s increase in the Consumer Price Index does not require Proposition 218 proceedings.

Noticing, Public Comment, and Public Hearing
Noticing and information regarding this report were provided via the following methods: 1) a notice was mailed to all affected property owners to provide detail of their recommended FY 2027 assessment rate and to alert them to three community meetings where they could provide input (May 27, June 2, June 16); and 2) published a legal notice in the East Bay Times on or before June 6, 2026.

On June 16, 2026, the City is proposing to hold a public hearing to provide an opportunity for any interested person to be heard. After the public hearing, the Council may adopt a resolution setting the annual assessment amounts as originally proposed or as modified. Following the adoption of this resolution, the final assessor’s roll will be prepared and filed with the Alameda County Auditor’s Office to be included on the FY 2027 tax roll. Payment of the assessment for each parcel will be made in the same manner and at the same time as payments are made for property taxes.

All funds collected through the assessment must be placed in a special fund and can only be used for the purposes stated within this report.
711
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 2
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

Plans and Specifications
Introduction
The annual Engineer’s Report includes: (1) a description of the improvements to be operated, maintained, and serviced; (2) a listing of the proposed collection rate to be levied upon each assessable lot or parcel; and (3) an estimated budget.

Description of Improvements
The facilities, which have been constructed within the City of Hayward's Maintenance District No. 2 boundaries, and those which may be subsequently constructed, will be operated, maintained, and serviced and are generally described as follows:
• Water Buffer Channel;
• Storm‐water Pre‐Treatment Pond;
• Masonry Walls;
• Anti‐predator Fences; and
• Miscellaneous Landscaping
The operation, maintenance and servicing of these improvements include, but are not limited to personnel, water (for irrigation and buffer replenishment), electrical energy, materials (including diesel fuel and oil), debris removal, weeding, trimming, pest control spraying, etc. 712
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 2
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

Fiscal Year 2027 Estimate of Cost and Budget
Estimate of Costs
Chapter 10, Article 10, Section 10‐10.25 of the Hayward Municipal Code and as supplemented by the provisions of Chapter 26 of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California provides that the total cost of operation, maintenance and servicing of the water buffer channel, water treatment pond, masonry walls, anti‐predator fences and landscaping can be recovered by the District. Incidental expenses including administration of the District, engineering fees, legal fees and all other costs associated with these improvements can also be included.

Tract No. 7317, 7360 & 7361
Formed: June 24, 2003
Resolution Number: 03‐102
FY 2027
Maximum Base Assessment Rate: $1,212.74
Assessment Amount per Parcel: $308.36
Number of Parcels: 534
Assessment Income: $164,664
The following is an overview of the FY 2027 assessment district:
• Maximum Base Assessment (MBA) Rate: was increased from the prior year’s MBA rate of $1,183.42 to $1,212.74 by applying CPI-U for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward MSA (2.477% for the period February 2025 to February 2026). • Annual CPI increase: the MBA amount can increase annually based upon the prior year’s change in the CPI.
• Assessment revenue: the FY 2027 amount needed to operate and maintain the facilities and contribute to the capital reserve is: $164,664.
• Annual assessment charge: each of the 534 parcels shall be apportioned an equal share of the total assessment for this zone as the special benefit derived by the individual parcels is indistinguishable from each other. The FY 2027 per parcel charge will increase from the previous year from $280.33 to $308.36. This amount is below the MBA and is sufficient for maintaining levels of service and for keeping a reserve balance. In future years, if there is a need for additional funds, the assessment amount may be increased up to the MBA amount.
713
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 2
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

• Proposition 218: Future increases in the assessment amount above the MBA amount would require the noticing and balloting of property owners per the requirements of Proposition 218.

Figure 1 – 2027 Estimate of Cost
City of Hayward
MD 2 - Eden Shores Water Buffer
Fund 271, Project 03718
Established 2003 - 534 Parcels
FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
Estimated Proposed Projected Projected
Assessment
Maximum Base Assessment 1,152.44 1,183.42 1,212.74 1,242.77 Annual Per Parcel Assessment 272.17 280.33 308.36 370.04 # of Parcels 534 534 534 534
Total Assessment 145,338 149,696 164,664 197,599
Revenue
41210 - Annual Assessment Revenue 144,564 149,696 164,664 197,599 County Tax Collection Fee (1.7%) (2,471) (2,545) (2,799) (3,359) 44110 - Other (Interest) 25,143 3,700 3,700 3,700
Total Revenue 167,237 150,851 165,565 197,940
Expenditure
61160 - One-Time Project/Maintenance 8,700 35,000 95,000 30,000 61160 - Fire Hazard Mitigation (Goats) 9,000 9,000 9,000 61170 - Landscape Maintenance 28,320 60,000 60,000 60,000 61170 - Pond Maintenance 40,000 40,000
61510 - Utilities: PGE 22,424 23,760 25,000 25,000
61530 - Utilites: Water 78,476 86,240 95,000 95,000
62210 - Property Owner Noticing 23 345 345
62242 - Annual Reporting 1,283 524 2,470 2,470
City Administration 4,592 4,730 7,069 7,398
Total Expenditure 143,796 219,277 333,884 269,213
Account Balance
Beginning Account Balance 367,696 391,137 322,711 154,394 Net Change (Revenue - Expenditures) 23,441 (68,426) (168,319) (71,273) Ending Account Balance 391,137 322,711 154,392 83,121
714
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 2
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

Method of Apportionment
Chapter 10, Article 10, Section 10‐10.25 of the Hayward Municipal Code and as supplemented by the provisions of Chapter 26 of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California permits the establishment of assessment districts by agencies for the purpose of providing certain public improvements which include the operation, maintenance and servicing of water buffer channels, water treatment ponds, masonry walls, predator fences and landscaping.

Proposition 218 requires that maintenance assessments must be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. In addition, Article XIIID, Section 4(a) of the California Constitution limits the amount of any assessment to the proportional special benefit conferred on the property.

Because assessments are levied on the basis of benefit, they are not considered a tax, and, therefore, are not governed by Article XIIIA of the California Constitution.

Article XIIID of the California Constitution provides that publicly owned properties must be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit from the assessment. Exempted from the assessment would be the areas of public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, public easements, and rights‐of‐ways.

The properties benefiting from the operation, maintenance and servicing of water buffer channels, water treatment ponds, masonry walls, predator fences and landscaping consist of the 534 single‐ family residential lots located within Tracts No. 7317, 7360 and 7361.

Each of the 534 single‐family residential lots receives a special benefit in that they are able to be developed because protection of the adjacent open space has been provided through the construction of these improvements. The special benefit derived by the individual parcels is indistinguishable between parcels. Therefore, all residential parcels derive the same benefit and the corresponding method of assessment for residential land uses is based on a per parcel basis.

The estimated Fiscal Year 2027 proposed assessment revenue is $164,664. The proposed assessment for the District for Fiscal Year 2027 is $308.36 per parcel, which is an increased amount compared to the previous fiscal year’s assessment. The MBA amount for the District is subject to an annual adjustment equal to the change in the applying CPI‐U for the San Francisco‐ Oakland‐Hayward MSA from the previous year. The MBA amount for the District for Fiscal Year 2027 has been increased from the previous year’s MBA amount of $1,183.42 by 2.477%, which is equal to the percentage increase in CPI‐U from February 2025 to February 2026. The MBA amount for the District for Fiscal Year 2027 is $1,212.74.
715
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 2
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

Assessment
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hayward, County of Alameda, California, Pursuant to Chapter 26 of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, and Chapter 10, Article 10, Section 10-10.25 of the Hayward Municipal Code, and in accordance with the Resolution of Intention, being Resolution No. 26-XXX, preliminarily approving the Engineer’s Report, as adopted by the City Council of the City of Hayward, on June 2, 2026, and in connection with the proceedings for;
WHEREAS,said Resolution directed the undersigned Engineer of Work to prepare and file a report presenting an estimate of costs, a diagram for the Assessment District and an assessment of the estimated costs of the improvements upon all assessable parcels within the Assessment District, to which Resolution and the description of said proposed improvements therein contained, reference is hereby made for further particulars;
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, by virtue of the power vested in me and the order of the City Council of the City of Hayward, hereby make the following assessments to cover the portion of the estimated cost of Improvements, and the costs and expenses incidental thereto to be paid by the Assessment District.

As required, an Assessment Diagram is hereto attached and made a part hereof showing the exterior boundaries of the Assessment District. The distinctive number of each parcel or lot of land in the Assessment District is its Assessor Parcel Number appearing on the Assessment Roll.

I do hereby assess and apportion said net amount of the cost and expenses of the Improvements, including the costs and expenses incident thereto, upon the parcels and lots of land within said Assessment District, in accordance with the special benefits to be received by each parcel or lot from the improvements, and more particularly set forth in the Estimate of Costs and Method of Assessment hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof.

The assessments are made upon the parcels or lots of land within Assessment District, in proportion to the special benefits to be received by the parcels or lots of land, from the Improvements.

Each parcel or lot of land is described in the Assessment Roll by reference to its parcel number as shown on the Assessor's Maps of the County of Alameda for the fiscal year 2027. For a more particular description of said property, reference is hereby made to the deeds and maps on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder of the County. 716
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 2
Engineer’s Report FY 2027