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

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. 2.

Dated: May 12, 2026
Engineer of Work
By ____________________________
John W. Bliss, License No. C52091
717
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 2
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

Page 9 ends

Vicinity Map
718
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 2
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

Page 10 ends

Assessment Diagram
The Assessment District Diagram for the City of Hayward's Maintenance District No. 2 (Eden Shores) is on file in the Office of the Hayward City Clerk and is incorporated in this report in Appendix “A”.

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 Tracts Maps No. 7317, 7360 and 7361 filed in the Office of the Recorder of Alameda County
719
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 2
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

Page 11 ends

720
City of Hayward
Maintenance District No. 2
Engineer’s Report FY 2027

Page 12 ends

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. 2 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. 721
CITY OF HAYWARD Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: CONS 26-236
DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works

SUBJECT
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Tartaglia Engineering for Construction Management Services and Additional Design Services Related to the C.3 Stormwater Compliance for the Hayward Executive Airport Taxiway A1 and Taxiway Z West Reconstruction Project by $1,202,300 for a Not-to-Exceed Maximum Compensation Amount of $1,850,300

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopts the attached resolution (Attachment II) authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Tartaglia Engineering (Tartaglia) for construction management services for the Hayward Executive Airport - Taxiway A1 and Taxiway Z West Reconstruction Project (Project), to increase the contract amount by $1,203,300, for a total not-to-exceed maximum compensation amount of $1,850,300. This amendment also includes additional design services related to C.3 stormwater treatment compliance. Funding in the amount of $110,000 will be appropriated from Project 06864 (Taxiway Zulu West Pavement Rehabilitation Construction).

SUMMARY
The Hayward Executive Airport (Airport) uses both in-house engineering staff and outside consultants to assist with the design and construction management of capital projects. The Airport uses outside consultants due to their engineering expertise and knowledge of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations and standards.

The Project includes the rehabilitation of Taxiway Zulu between Taxiway Delta and Taxiway Foxtrot, the rehabilitation of Taxiway Alpha 1, and a realignment of Taxiway Zulu at Taxiway Delta. A request for qualifications (RFQ) was prepared and released in accordance with the City’s procurement policy and FAA guidelines for construction management services for the Project. Three Statements of Qualifications were received. After reviewing and considering the merits of each Statement of Qualifications, the review panel selected Tartaglia as the most qualified firm for the construction management services.

The total cost for construction management services is estimated at $1,092,300. The funding for this CITY OF HAYWARD Page 1 of 2 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™722
File #: CONS 26-236
The total cost for construction management services is estimated at $1,092,300. The funding for this contract is included as part of the adopted FY 2026 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) under Project 06864 (Taxiway Zulu West Pavement Rehabilitation Construction), with 95% of the cost for the services for the Project to be reimbursed by the FAA. The Project also received a State of California Division of Aeronautics grant in the amount of $200,000.

In addition, the Project is subject to C.3 stormwater treatment requirements. Based on coordination with regulatory agencies and evaluation of site constraints within the active airport environment, the City is pursuing alternative compliance measures. Additional design services are required to support this effort, including coordination, documentation, and preparation of supporting materials for approval. These services will be performed by Tartaglia as part of this amendment.

The total cost for construction management services and additional design services associated with C.3 stormwater compliance will not exceed $1,192,300. To fully encumber the total cost of the requested contract increase amount of $1,192,300 will be appropriated from Project 06864.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
CITY OF HAYWARD Page 2 of 2 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™723

Page 1 of 5 ends

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Tartaglia Engineering for Construction Management Services and Additional Design Services Related to the C.3 Stormwater Compliance for the Hayward Executive Airport Taxiway A1 and Taxiway Z West Reconstruction Project by $1,202,300 for a Not-to-Exceed Maximum Compensation Amount of $1,850,300

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopts the attached resolution (Attachment II) authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Tartaglia Engineering (Tartaglia) for construction management services for the Hayward Executive Airport – Taxiway A1 and Taxiway Z West Reconstruction Project (Project), to increase the contract amount by $1,203,300, for a total not-to-exceed maximum compensation amount of $1,850,300. This amendment also includes additional design services related to C.3 stormwater treatment compliance. Funding in the amount of $110,000 will be appropriated from Project 06864 (Taxiway Zulu West Pavement Rehabilitation Construction).

Page 2 of 5 ends

the merits of each Statement of Qualifications, the review panel selected Tartaglia as the most qualified firm for the construction management services.

The total cost for construction management services is estimated at $1,092,300. The funding for this contract is included as part of the adopted FY 2026 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) under Project 06864 (Taxiway Zulu West Pavement Rehabilitation Construction), with 95% of the cost for the services for the Project to be reimbursed by the FAA. The Project also received a State of California Division of Aeronautics grant in the amount of $200,000.

The total cost for construction management services and additional design services associated with C.3 stormwater compliance will not exceed $1,192,300. To fully encumber the total cost of the requested contract increase, $1,192,300 will be appropriated from Project 06864.

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

The total estimated costs for the construction management services and additional design services associated with C.3 stormwater compliance are as follows:

Project Tasks Costs
Construction Management Services $1,092,300
(Inspection, material testing, & related tasks)
C.3. Stormwater Compliance $110,000
Total $1,202,300
The adopted FY 2026 CIP Budget included funding for the consultant agreement in the Airport Capital Fund (Fund 621), which is an Enterprise Fund. In addition, funding is included under Projects 06864, with 95% of the cost for the Project to be reimbursed by the FAA. The Project also received a State of California Division of Aeronautics grant in the amount of $200,000.

The Airport is operated as a financially independent Enterprise Fund. It receives no financial support from the City’s General Fund and solely relies on the revenue it generates to fund its annual operating and capital improvement budgets. FAA regulations require the Airport to be as financially self-sustaining as possible, which is also an objective of City Council. 725

Page 3 of 5 ends

BACKGROUND
The Airport has historically used a combination of in-house staff and consultants to support design and construction management of various Airport-related capital projects. Consultants are retained for their specialized expertise and familiarity with FAA regulations and standards.

On June 20, 20231, City Council authorized a PSA with Tartaglia for design services for the Taxiway Reconstruction Project in a not-to-exceed amount of $648,000. The agreement was executed on August 11, 2023, with a termination date of December 31, 2025.

On April 15, 20252, the City Council approved the plans and specifications prepared by Tartaglia, authorized the City Manager to submit grant funding applications to federal & state agencies and further authorized the call for bids for construction of the Project.

On October 21, 20253, the City Council approved Addenda Nos. 1 through 7 and awarded the construction contract for the Project to DeSilva Gates Construction.

On March 2, 2026, Amendment No. 1 to the PSA was executed to extend the termination date to December 31, 2027.

On March 10, 2026, in compliance with City procurement policy and FAA guidance, Airport staff and the Purchasing Division distributed an RFQ to aviation consultants for providing construction management services. After reviewing and considering the merits of the three Statements of Qualifications received, Tartaglia was selected as the most qualified firm.

DISCUSSION
Tartaglia will provide construction management services for the Taxiway Zulu and Taxiway Alpha 1 Reconstruction Project at Airport. They will oversee construction activities to ensure the work is delivered in accordance with the Project plans, specifications, and applicable FAA and regulatory requirements. Tartaglia will serve as the primary liaison between the City, contractor, and regulatory agencies, helping maintain clear communication and coordination throughout the Project.

During construction, Tartaglia will provide on-site observation and oversight of contractor operations to support quality and safety compliance. Their services will include construction survey and layout support to establish and verify field control, along with monitoring progress, documenting construction activities, and working with the contractor and design team to address field conditions and resolve issues as they arise. They will also support 1 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6264031&GUID=AC9BBDE2-46C0-4798-914E39E4C9BF3EC8&Options=&Search= 2 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7299985&GUID=289C59F3-944D-49CA-B8B0- FAACB95BFD77&Options=&Search=
3 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7708363&GUID=536527C1-7CE4-4DD8-B3BD87C8240CA1B8&Options=&Search= 726

Page 4 of 5 ends

project administration functions such as coordination meetings, progress tracking, and review of contractor requests to help keep the Project on schedule and within scope.

Tartaglia will also assist the City with overall contract administration and regulatory coordination, including supporting FAA-related requirements and maintaining proper project documentation. At the conclusion of construction, they will coordinate final inspections and closeout activities to confirm the Project is completed in accordance with all requirements and ready for acceptance.

In addition to construction management services, Tartaglia will provide supplemental design services to address C.3 stormwater treatment requirements associated with the Project. Due to operational and safety constraints within the active airport environment, including concerns related to ponding and potential wildlife attractants, traditional on-site treatment measures are not feasible. These services will support the development of alternative compliance strategies, including coordination with regulatory agencies, preparation of technical documentation, and integration of the selected approach into the overall Project.

ECONOMIC IMPACT
The Airport provides both direct and indirect economic value to the City and surrounding areas. Maintenance and rehabilitation of airfield pavement, electrical systems, drainage improvements, and graded infield areas adjacent to and between runways and taxiways, preserving and enhancing these features to FAA design standards, are essential goals for the long-term functionality and safe use of the Airport. The identified taxiway reconstruction Project is in line with those goals. Maintaining airfield facilities including runways, taxiways, aprons, and other airfield pavements, is cost prohibitive without grant funding.

The Project will generate work for skilled and unskilled tradespeople during the construction phase.

STRATEGIC ROADMAP
While the City’s Airport was not contemplated in the Fiscal Year 2025 Strategic Roadmap, the proposed taxiway improvement supports the Invest in Infrastructure core priority, specifically:

Objective 1: Invest in multi-modal transportation.

Objective 2: Invest in City-owned facilities & property.

SUSTAINABILITY FEATURES
The Airport is strongly committed to developing projects that are environmentally responsible. Project documents require the contractor to pulverize existing asphalt pavement and aggregate base in-place, blend the material, and place the recycled product 727

Page 5 of 5 ends

back into the structural section as a sub-base material. Additionally, all miscellaneous metals and removed concrete are to be delivered to a certified recycling facility.

PUBLIC CONTACT
The agenda and staff report for this item have been posted on the City’s website and distributed to interested parties.

NEXT STEPS
If the City Council approves this request, the City Manager will finalize negotiations and execute the contract amendment with Tartaglia.

Prepared by: Sammy Lo, Senior Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Dave Hung, Acting Deputy Director of Public Works Recommended by: Alex Ameri, Director of Public Works
Approved by:
______________________________
Jennifer Ott, City Manager
728

ATTACHMENT II

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

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH

TARTAGLIA ENGINEERING FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND ADDITIONAL DESIGN SERVICES RELATED TO C.3 STORMWATER COMPLIANCE FOR THE HAYWARD EXECUTIVE AIRPORT TAXIWAY A1 AND TAXIWAY Z WEST RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT BY $1,202,300 FOR A NOTTO-EXCEED MAXIMUM COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF $1,850,300 WHEREAS, the City of Hayward (“City”) owns and operates the Hayward Executive Airport (“Airport”); and
WHEREAS, the Airport has historically utilized both consultants and in-house engineering staff to support the design and construction management of Airport capital improvement projects due to their engineering expertise and knowledge of Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) regulations and standards; and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2023, the City Council authorized a Professional Services Agreement (“PSA”) with Tartaglia Engineering (“Tartaglia”) for design services associated with the Airport Pavement Rehabilitation Project in a not-to-exceed amount of $648,000; and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 2026, Amendment No. 1 to the PSA was executed to extend the term of the agreement through December 31, 2027; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2026, in accordance with City procurement policy and FAA guidance, Airport staff and the Purchasing Division distributed a Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) for construction management services for the Hayward Executive Airport Taxiway A1 and Taxiway Z West Reconstruction Project (“Project”); and WHEREAS, after reviewing and considering the merits of the Statements of Qualifications received, Tartaglia was determined to be the most qualified firm to provide construction management services for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project is also subject to C.3 stormwater treatment requirements, and additional design services are necessary to support alternative compliance measures associated with stormwater treatment within the active airport environment; and 729

ATTACHMENT II

Page 2 of 2 ends

WHEREAS, the total cost for construction management services and additional design services related to C.3 stormwater compliance will not exceed $1,202,300; and WHEREAS, funding for these services is included in the Adopted FY 2026 Capital Improvement Program under Project No. 06864 (Taxiway Zulu West Pavement Rehabilitation Construction), with a substantial portion of eligible project costs anticipated to be reimbursed through FAA grant funding.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hayward that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Tartaglia Engineering for construction management services and additional design services related to C.3 stormwater compliance for the Hayward Executive Airport Taxiway A1 and Taxiway Z West Reconstruction Project, in an amount of $1,203,300 for a total maximum compensation not-to-exceed $1,850,300, in a form approved by the City Attorney.

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA , 2026
ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

MAYOR:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: ______________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Hayward
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________________
City Attorney of the City of Hayward
730
CITY OF HAYWARD Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: WS 26-014
DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works

SUBJECT
Safe Streets Downtown Project (The Loop): Update and Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council receive an update for the Safe Streets Downtown Project, receive public comments, provide feedback, and approves staff recommendations to move forward and develop concepts and cost estimates.

SUMMARY
In 2014, the Route 238 Corridor Improvement Project Phase 1 was completed that created a one-way loop street system in Downtown Hayward commonly referred to as The Loop. Since then, the Loop has been a source of serious concern for pedestrian safety and accessibility throughout downtown. In 2026, two fatal pedestrian collisions occurred on the Loop within a span of two weeks. On average, 1.5 people die or are seriously injured on the Loop every year.

The Project’s Phase 1 Outreach started in May 2025 and was intended to understand the needs of the community. Details of the Phase 1 outreach are included as Attachment II. Phase 2 Outreach started in July 2025. One of the major events of the Phase 2 outreach was the community design charrette held on September 17, 2025, where participants had the opportunity to design the changes they wanted to see for the Loop. Almost all the ideas from those who attended the design charrette fit in a category of two visions, one that converted downtown into a grid layout and the other that kept a similar alignment to the Loop that is today but introduced major traffic calming measures and lane reductions.

Based on the feedback, the project team identified four options as candidates for further study and outreach. These options were: (1) Baseline Project, (2) Reconnecting the Grid, (3) Current Alignment with Place Focus, (4) Current Alignment with Movement Focus for Foothill Boulevard. Options 2 and 3 CITY OF HAYWARD Page 1 of 3 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™731
File #: WS 26-014
with Place Focus, (4) Current Alignment with Movement Focus for Foothill Boulevard. Options 2 and 3 were generated by the community and stakeholders through the design charrette event. Feedback was received regarding the four proposed options from the Council Infrastructure and Airport Committee CIAC) at the October 22, 2025 meeting and two options were approved to move forward for further study and outreach. Those options, were Option 2 and 3, which were renamed and renumbered to Downtown Grid (Option 1) and Civic Ave. (Option 2). Both the Downtown Grid and Civic Ave. options would convert the Loop’s one-way street configuration to two-way.

The project team conducted a Traffic Operations and Diversion Analysis and continued the Phase 2 round of public outreach to gather feedback on participants’ preferences to the two options, as well as preferences on the future direction of B Street and C Street. The options proposed for feedback are shown in Attachment V. The online survey, the main method of gathering feedback, was open from January 26, 2026 to April 30, 2026. Methods of outreach to notify residents and business owners included contacting previous participants through the project’s email contact list, focus group meetings, social media, and the City’s Stack newsletter. In addition, utility bill inserts with directions to take the project survey were sent electronically or mailed to the City residents. A total of 350 survey responses were received. Details of Phase 2 outreach are included as Attachment III.

Staff recommendations were made after a thorough review of the technical analyses with consideration of feedback received from outreach efforts. The Civic Ave. option with a continuous D Street was advantageous because it provides similar pedestrian and bicycle safety benefits compared to the Downtown Grid option, but with significantly less congestion impacts. At many downtown intersections proposed with the Civic Ave option, the congestion difference is multiple magnitudes less than the Downtown Grid option, although both options do increase congestion in comparison to the existing configuration. For B Street, staff recommends the Two-Way option, with a possibility of a temporary pedestrian plaza to be explored further in the future after additional analysis and evaluation is conducted. Lastly, staff recommend proceeding with the C Street proposal that includes a two-way cycle track between Mission Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard. The recommendations are summarized on the table below.

Staff Recommendations
Downtown Loop Civic Ave. Option
D Street Option Continuous
B Street Two-Way
C Street Two-Way with Cycle Track between
Mission Blvd. and Foothill Blvd.

After receiving feedback and approval from City Council on the options to move forward with, the project team will work on developing a more detailed concept with a cost estimate. A third and last round of outreach will be conducted to receive feedback on the concept, with expectation to have a final concept and cost estimate presented to City Council for approval in Q1 2027.

The recommendation of the Civic Ave. option provides direction to the vision of the Safe Streets Downtown project, culminating from over a year’s worth of outreach and analysis. This direction will assist staff seek in seeking future funding for the project. There is still flexibility to evaluate different CITY OF HAYWARD Page 2 of 3 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™732
File #: WS 26-014
assist staff seek in seeking future funding for the project. There is still flexibility to evaluate different variations within this option and completing any other needed technical studies in future project phases.

Staff would much appreciate City Council’s comments and feedback on the breadth and depth of the current public outreach before embarking on the much more involved, rigorous, and costly next steps.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Phase 1 Engagement Summary
Attachment III Phase 2 Engagement
Attachment IV Traffic Operations and Diversion Analysis Attachment V Conceptual Options
CITY OF HAYWARD Page 3 of 3 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™733

Page 1 of 13 ends

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Safe Streets Downtown Project (The Loop): Update and Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council receive an update on the Safe Streets Downtown Project, receive public comments, and provide feedback and direction on staff recommendations for moving forward and developing concepts and cost estimates.

SUMMARY
In 2014, the Route 238 Corridor Improvement Project Phase 1 was completed that created a one-way loop street system in Hayward Downtown commonly referred to as The Loop.

Since then, the Loop has been a source of serious concern for pedestrian safety and accessibility throughout downtown. In 2026, two fatal pedestrian collisions occurred on the Loop within a span of two weeks. On average, 1.5 people die or are seriously injured on the Loop every year.

The Safe Streets Downtown Plan (Project), a federal grant-funded planning project, has the goal of addressing these traffic safety concerns. The Project started in February 2025 and activities included background research, collection of traffic safety and operational data, technical analyses, and broad community outreach
The Project’s Phase 1 Outreach started in May 2025 and was intended to understand the needs of the community. Details of the Phase 1 outreach are included as Attachment II.

Phase 2 Outreach started in July 2025. One of the major events of the Phase 2 outreach was the community design charrette held on September 17, 2025, where participants had the opportunity to design the changes they wanted to see for the Loop. Almost all the ideas from those who attended the design charrette fit in a category of two visions, one that converted downtown into a grid layout and the other that kept a similar alignment to the Loop that is today, but introduced major traffic calming measures and lane reductions.

Page 2 of 13 ends

Foothill Boulevard. Options 2 and 3 were generated by the community and stakeholders through the design charrette event. Feedback was received regarding the four proposed options from the Council Infrastructure and Airport Committee (CIAC) in October 2025 and two options were approved to move forward for further study and outreach. Those options were Option 2 and 3, which were renamed and renumbered to Downtown Grid (Option 1) and Civic Ave. (Option 2). Both the Downtown Grid and Civic Ave. options would convert the Loop’s one-way street configuration to two-way.

For B Street, staff recommends the Two-Way option, with a possibility of a temporary pedestrian plaza to be explored further in the future after additional analysis and evaluation is conducted. Lastly, staff recommend proceeding with the C Street proposal that includes a two-way cycle track between Mission Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard.

The recommendations are summarized on the table below.

Staff Recommendations
Downtown Loop Civic Ave. Option
D Street Option Continuous
B Street Two-Way
C Street Two-Way with Cycle Track between
Mission Blvd. and Foothill Blvd.

Page 3 of 13 ends

The recommendation of the Civic Ave. option provides direction to the vision of the Safe Streets Downtown project, culminating from the public outreach and technical analysis conducted. This direction will assist staff seek in seeking future funding for the project.

There is still flexibility to evaluate different variations within this option and completing any other needed technical studies in future project phases. Staff would much appreciate City Council’s comments and feedback on the breadth and depth of the current public outreach before embarking on the much more involved, rigorous, and costly next steps.

FISCAL IMPACT
This Project does not impact the General Fund or Measure C. It is funded by Safe Streets & Roads for All federal grant funds. Funding has not been secured for future environmental, design, and construction phases.

BACKGROUND
Alameda County, like many other counties in the San Francisco Bay Area, experienced high population growth in the second half of the 20th century. Driven by post-World War II suburbanization and demographic shifts, the City of Hayward population increased nearly ten-fold. Due to this increased growth and congestion in the region, a decades long initiative was started by Caltrans in 1961 to create a bypass freeway that would run parallel to Mission Boulevard and I-880. This bypass freeway was proposed to run through the City of Hayward and parts unincorporated Alameda County. This proposal generated community backlash mostly from those living in the hillside developments related to funneling regional traffic through the hillside, and in 1971, a lawsuit, La Raza vs. Volpe, was filed in federal court on behalf of residents that would be displaced by the freeway construction. After years of legal difficulties from multiple lawsuits, Caltrans abandoned plans for the bypass in 2003.

Without the freeway bypass project, solutions were sought to increase roadway capacity for handling the increased local and regional traffic demands. Through these efforts, the Route 238 Corridor Improvement Project was created. Using funds from sold properties purchased with the intent of building the bypass, along with other local and regional funding, the City completed the first phase of the Route 238 Corridor Improvement Project in 2014. The Route 238 Corridor Improvement Project Phase 1 featured large capital infrastructure changes, including changes in traffic circulation, lane directions, road alignments, and implementation of a one-way loop street system in Downtown Hayward.

Comprised of segments from A Street, Mission Boulevard, and Foothill Boulevard, this oneway loop street system had the purpose of alleviating regional congestion by funneling traffic through Downtown Hayward. The one-way loop street system became known and is commonly referred to as The Loop by the community.

Shortly after the Loop was completed and opened to the public, the community expressed disdain for the project. The project brought in a large volume of regional traffic through Downtown Hayward, making it difficult to access shops and amenities by local residents 736

Page 4 of 13 ends

and visitors. Numerous City residents expressed that navigating the Loop is difficult for them, and for that reason, they are reluctant to visit the Downtown.

Although the Loop achieved its purpose in rerouting traffic to accommodate regional traffic demands, unintended negative impacts to transportation safety and the economic vitality of downtown were apparent.

On July 7, 2023, Staff applied for a U.S. Department of Transportation Safe Streets and Roads for All grant to develop a Speed Management Plan and a High Injury Network Safety Plan. Staff proposed a comprehensive safety evaluation and development of conceptual plans to improve traffic safety for many of the City’s main arterials, including the streets that make up the Loop. On October 27, 2023, the City was awarded $3,252,000 in funding with a requirement of $813,000 in City matching funds. Of the $4,065,000 total in grant and matching funds, only a portion of the funds would be used for the Downtown area of the High Injury Network Plan.

On October 18, 2024, Staff published a request for proposals for the first set of corridors to be studied for the High Injury Network Plan. After a review of the proposals received, staff recommended Fehr & Peers to be the City’s consultant to prepare the Downtown Area portion of the High Injury Network Safety Plan. On January 21, 20251 City Council approved to execute a contract with Fehr & Peers consultants for a not-to-exceed amount of $950,000. The contract was executed on February 20, 2025.

Initial Project Activities
Project activities began in February 2025. To establish consistency with other safety projects, the Project was renamed to Safe Streets Downtown.

The Project’s Phase 1 Outreach started in May 2025. The project team employed multiple methods to gather community and stakeholder feedback. A project website was created to allow participation through an electronic survey. Participants of the survey could also select locations on an interactive map to comment on. Throughout downtown, 33 sidewalk decals were installed on the sidewalk. The sidewalk decals contained a QR code linked to the project website. By the time the survey closed in July, 397 survey responses and 181 map comments were collected.

A number of focus groups were held to get specific feedback from groups of interest. On May 14, 2025, business owners and the Chamber of Commerce were a part of a focus group. Other focus groups held were a City employee focus group, due to the City being the largest employer in Downtown Hayward and a senior citizen focus group with additional representation from Community Resources for Independent Living (CRIL).

Project team staff also attended and tabled at various downtown events such as the Farmer’s Market, Downtown Street Party, and the Hayward Public Library Community HUB 1 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7096317&GUID=5B5E1ADD-C61F-411A-B463-7528C894906F&Options=&Search= 737

Page 5 of 13 ends

opening ribbon cutting. An individual presentation was made to the Hayward Youth Commission to gather feedback from 24 Hayward Youth Commissioners.

There were four recurring themes commonly heard from outreach activities that confirmed what many have known about the loop:
• Unsafe driving behavior
• Driving is confusing
• Biking and walking feels unsafe
• Need for economic and placemaking support
Phase 2 of public outreach started in July 2025. One of the major events of the Phase 2 outreach was to host a community design charrette. Held on September 17, 2025 at the Hayward Public Library, community members and interested stakeholders participated in a hands-on workshop to redesign the downtown area. Throughout the event, participants generally showed a preference for converting Loop streets to two-way operation and maintaining intersections as 90-degree with traffic signals. While there was some concern that regional cut-through traffic would oppose a redesign, there was also strong support for placemaking and pedestrian-oriented improvements geared towards Hayward residents, businesses, and visitors that would contribute to a more vibrant downtown.

Participants also noted the importance of maintaining on-street parking, paired with improved enforcement and parking management to support business activity.

Council Infrastructure and Airport Committee Review
The project team reviewed the ideas generated from the design charrette event and the results of the outreach and proposed four options to be studied further. The four options included a Baseline Project option, Reconnecting the Grid, Current Alignment with Place Focus, and Current Alignment with Movement Focus for Foothill Boulevard. The results of outreach were presented to CIAC for feedback and approval to study further. CIAC feedback eliminated Option 1 and Option 4, leaving Option 2 and 3 to be further studied. Below is a summary of the options presented to CIAC on October 22, 2025.

Option 1: Baseline Project
A baseline, near-term option that includes minimal changes to the Loop outside of systemic intersection safety improvements. Limited placemaking can be provided through parklets and planters in the rightof-way.

Option 2: Reconnecting the Grid (Community Generated)
Removal of segments of Foothill Boulevard from the circulation network.

This option also includes a strong reconfiguration of travel lanes on Mission Boulevard, A Street, and the remaining segments of Foothill Boulevard.
738

Page 6 of 13 ends

Option 3: Current Alignment with Place Focus (Community Generated) Maintain the current circulation network on the Loop and implement placemaking improvements on A Street, Mission Boulevard, and Foothill Boulevard. This option includes a strong reconfiguration of travel lanes for those streets.

Option 4: Current Alignment with Movement Focus for Foothill Boulevard Maintains the current circulation network on the Loop and retains more capacity for Movement on Foothill Boulevard. This option includes reconfiguration of travel lanes on Mission Boulevard and A Street.

After recommendation from CIAC to study two options going forward, Option 2 “Reconnecting the Grid” was renamed to “Downtown Grid” and Option 3 “Current Alignment with Place Focus” was renamed to “Civic Ave.” Going forward, in all outreach and technical documentation, the Downtown Grid option was designated as Option 1 and the Civic Ave. option was designated as Option 2.

DISCUSSION
The next phase of the project involved completing additional technical analyses to better inform residents and stakeholders of the two remaining options. It also includes a continuation of the Phase 2 round outreach to obtain feedback on preferred long-term options preferred, including preferences for non-Loop streets like B Street and C Street.

Traffic Operations and Diversion Analysis
Technical analysis was conducted to better understand the traffic, congestion, and diversion effects the two proposed options would have. This required identifying and collecting traffic volume data at key points within the project area, calculating intersection metrics, analyzing origin-destination data, and routing traffic to likely patterns that account for changes in roadway capacity and other factors.

Intersection delay, often referred to as control delay, is defined as the additional travel time (in seconds) experienced by vehicles at an intersection. It is the most common metric for measuring travel time impacts at an intersection due to traffic control signals, stop signs, conflicting traffic, and other factors. The traffic operations analysis found that the Downtown Grid option will experience a greater amount of intersection delay compared to the Civic Ave. option, with some Downtown Grid intersections producing on the order of three or four times more intersection delay on Mission Boulevard than the Civic Ave. option. Both options compared to the current existing configuration will introduce more overall intersection delay with the Civic Ave. option being the less impactful of the two options. Below is chart of the existing condition, Option 1 (Downtown Grid), and Option 2 (Civic Ave.) compared by intersection delay.
739

Page 7 of 13 ends

The diversion analysis modeled existing afternoon peak hour traffic volumes and found that both options will divert traffic to other neighborhood streets. For the Downtown Grid option, traffic currently taking Foothill Boulevard will divert to E Street and 2nd Street. This is due to Foothill Boulevard no longer being continuous. For the Civic Ave. option, traffic currently taking Foothill Boulevard will likely divert to Grand Street or other parallel routes. This is due to the greatly reduced capacity of Foothill Boulevard as traffic approaches from Jackson Street. Another area of anticipated diversion is at Fletcher Lane & Walpert Street to 2nd Street, also due to the greatly reduced capacity of Foothill Boulevard.

More detailed documentation of the Traffic Operations and Diversion Analysis is provided as Attachment IV.

Public Outreach
An online survey was created for residents and stakeholders to learn about and provide input on the multiple options. The survey consisted of six sections: Step 1: Goals, Step 2:

Downtown Grid Option, Step 3: Civic Avenue Option, Step 4: Tell us what you think. Step 5:

B Street, Step 6: C Street. The options that were available for consideration are shown in Attachment V.

The online survey was made available to the public on January 26, 2026, and remained open through April 30, 2026. The online survey included twelve different languages to select from. A total of 350 survey responses were received. The survey was complex and involved six steps with a variety of different questions and options to consider. After the first step of the survey, each of the five following steps operated like a separate survey. This allowed participants to give feedback according to their interest. Methods of outreach to notify residents and business owners included contacting previous participants through the project’s email contact list, focus group meetings, social media, and the City’s Stack newsletter. In addition, utility bill inserts with directions to take the project survey in were sent electronically or mailed to the City residents, depending on the method of how they receive their utility bill. The insert had an English and Spanish version. (Grid) (Civic Ave.)
740

Page 8 of 13 ends

Step 2 and 3 of the survey sought detailed feedback on the Downtown Grid and the Civic Ave. options. The main question of which option respondents showed a preference for, the Civic Avenue option was preferred over the Downtown Grid option, 58% vs 42% or 192 vs. 139 respondents, respectively.

Downtown Grid vs. Civic Ave Options:
331 Responses
Downtown Grid 139 responses (42%)
Civic Ave. 192 responses (58%)
For the Downtown Grid option, the most common support identified the bike lanes on Foothill Boulevard and retaining four lanes on A Street. The most common concerns cited reduced capacity on Foothill Boulevard and removal of the Foothill Boulevard segment between Mission Boulevard and Main Street. Regarding Mission Boulevard containing four travel lanes, feedback was mixed with approximately half the comments supporting the capacity and the other half having concerns about more cut-through traffic and speeding. 741

Page 9 of 13 ends

For the Civic Avenue option, the most common support cited the bike lanes on Mission Boulevard and A Street, retaining Foothill Boulevard as a through street and adding a planted median, and more feasible and less disruptive to construct compared to the Downtown Grid option. The Civic Avenue option also received mixed feedback, approximately half in support and half against the reduction of travel lanes on Mission Boulevard and A Street and that Foothill Boulevard would still carry significant regional traffic cutting through the City. A small proportion of comments mentioned that the Civic Avenue option still prioritizes cars and would like to see more safety improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists.

The survey also asked about the Civic Avenue option decision on whether to keep D Street continuous where it connects to Foothill Boulevard or to split the connection into two separate intersections. For this survey question, 303 responses were received and the option of D Street continuing straight through downtown had 51% support. The noncontinuous D Street option received 28% while 21% cited no preference.

Split or Continuous D Street:
303 Responses
Split 85 responses (28%)
Continuous 154 responses (51%)
No Preference 64 responses (21%)
The survey had four options to choose for B Street. The first option consisted of keeping B Street one-way and reducing it from two lanes to one lane. The second option converted B Street to two way. The third option proposed half a block of B Street to be converted into a pedestrian plaza with traffic calming features on car-traveled segments of B Street. This option may impact deliveries, loading/unloading, and buses routing. The Pedestrian Plaza received the most support with 43% of 317 responses. It was followed by the Two-Way Option with 30%, followed by 21% for the One-Way Option and 6% for Other/No Preference. Written feedback received included, concerns about maintenance and safety of a potential pedestrian plaza, concerns about food delivery drivers blocking travel lanes for the single-lane options, and desire to add bike lanes.
742

Page 10 of 13 ends

B Street Options:
317 Responses
One-Way 67 responses (21%)
Two-Way 95 responses (30%)
Pedestrian Plaza 136 responses (43%)
Other/No Preference 19 responses (6%)
One concept was proposed for C Street. This concept proposed a twelve-foot two-way cycle track on the west side of C Street between Mission Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard. The proposal for C Street converts C Street from one-way to two-way from Mission Boulevard to 2nd Street. The survey results for this concept proposal are summarized below. 743

Page 11 of 13 ends

C Street Proposed Changes:
267 Responses
Strongly Disagree 45 responses (17%)
Disagree 28 responses (10%)
Neutral 53 responses (20%)
Agree 80 responses (30%)
Strongly Agree 61 responses (23%)
Recommendation
Staff Recommendations
Downtown Loop Civic Ave. Option
D Street Option Continuous
B Street Two-Way with Pedestrian Plaza Pilot
C Street Two-Way with Cycle Track between
Mission Blvd. and Foothill Blvd.

Staff recommend the Civic Ave. option with a continuous D Street. Although both the Downtown Grid and Civic Ave. options would greatly increase traffic safety, the Civic Ave. option is able to do so with much less congestion and operational impacts. This recommendation also aligns with community feedback that favored this option. The recommendation of the Civic Ave. option provides direction to the vision of the Safe Streets Downtown project, is able to meet the projects safety, access, and economic vitality goals, and culminates from the technical analysis and public outreach conducted. There is still flexibility to evaluate different variations within this option and completing any other needed technical studies in future project phases. Staff seeks City Council comments and feedback on the breadth and depth of the current public outreach before embarking on the much more involved, rigorous, and costly next steps.

For B Street, staff recommend converting B Street to two-way operation, one lane in each direction. Recommending the two-way operation does not align with the majority of community feedback, which supported the pedestrian plaza option (43%) followed by the two-way concept (30%). After careful consideration, this recommendation was made with the understanding that many details and options still need to be considered on how a pedestrian plaza would be implemented, and what other evaluation and outreach is needed to demonstrate feasibility. The leaves the option open for the City to explore a possible pilot on a temporary basis in the future.

Staff recommend moving forward with the proposed C Street concept of conversion to twoway with a two-way cycle track on the west side of the street from Mission Boulevard to Foothill Boulevard. This recommendation provides increased safety benefit and high quality bicycle infrastructure. The recommendation aligns with community feedback, where the majority of participants selected “agree” (30%) and “strongly agree” (23%) with the proposed concept.
744

Page 12 of 13 ends

ECONOMIC IMPACT
The Safe Streets Downtown Plan will develop a design concept for the Downtown Area, which when implemented, will help reduce the likelihood of serious injuries and fatalities.

Vehicle crashes have a significant economic cost, both to those directly impacted and to other users of the transportation system. The increased safety and access to the downtown area, as well as potential placemaking enhancements, will also help support the local economy.

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

Project N1: Continue to implement major corridor traffic calming initiatives Project N8: Evaluate safety enhancements for the Downtown Loop

SUSTAINABILITY FEATURES
This project includes safety improvements that would increase multimodal connectivity in Downtown Hayward’s street network. Support of non-car modes of transportation will help reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public outreach for this project was conducted through various outreach events from May 2025 to September 2025. This includes focus groups, tabling at City events, hosting a design charrette, and an electronic survey accessible through the project website.

Preliminary options were presented to CIAC on October 22, 2025. From January 2026 through April 2026, a second round of outreach was conducted which included a survey made available on the project’s website. Methods of outreach included the use of previous email lists, social media posting, the STACK newsletter, and sending survey instructions to all residents through utility bill inserts.

NEXT STEPS
After receiving feedback and approval from City Council on the options to move forward with, the project team will work on developing a more detailed concept to get an understanding of full project costs. A third and last round of outreach for the planning phase will be conducted to receive feedback on the concept, with expectation to have a concept and cost estimate presented to City Council for approval in Q1 2027. There is still flexibility to evaluate different variations within this option and completing any other needed technical studies in future project phases. Staff seeks City Council comments and feedback on the breadth and depth of the current public outreach before embarking on the much more involved, rigorous, and costly next steps.
745

Page 13 of 13 ends

Table 1. Safe Streets Downtown Timeline
(Expected) Completion Date
Phase 1 Outreach August 2025
Select Alternatives for Further
Study
October 2025
Phase 2 Outreach April 2026
Selection of Preferred Alternative June 2026
Phase 3 Outreach October 2026
Conceptual Plan & Cost Estimates Q1 2027
Prepared by: Byron Tang, Deputy Director of Public Works - Transportation Recommended by: Alex Ameri, Director of Public Works
Approved by:
______________________________
Jennifer Ott, City Manager
746
PHASE 1: UNDERSTANDING THE SAFETY STORY
Community Engagement Summary
Safe Streets Downtown

ATTACHMENT II
747
2 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
Engagement Goals and
Objectives

ATTACHMENT II
748
3 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
3 Engagement Goals and Objectives
Goal Objective
People who live, work, play, and travel through
Downtown Hayward are aware of the project
and provide input on vision and needs
• Utilize in-person and online messaging to generate widespread awareness.

Hear from all who may potentially be impacted
by project
• Identify target audiences and best venues to reach these groups.

Develop a clear, shared vision that highlights
the need for change and benefits of future
project
• Clearly articulate project purpose and safety need.
• Provide opportunities for co-creating designs.
• Provide a clear narrative on trade-offs or constraints.

Community input is translated into
implementable strategies
• Create a clear narrative on how engagement will be used to inform solutions.
• Thoroughly and accurately record input at all engagement events.

Arrive at a preferred alternative understood
and supported by the stakeholders
• Provide feedback loop so that final design acknowledges when it is solving a safety need or addressing a community desire. • Reach agreement agency partners on a set of design/policy options for the project.

Completed as Part of Phase 1

ATTACHMENT II
749
4 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
What were the
opportunities to
participate?

ATTACHMENT II
750
5 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
5 The City engaged over 500 people as part of Phase 1
between May –August 2025.

Languages
(All outreach materials
provided in English
and Spanish; one
focus group provided
in Cantonese)
Website visitors
3 2,000
Individual online
contributors
400
In-person events
8 People engaged inperson
~100
Of survey respondents
live in Hayward
90%

ATTACHMENT II
751
6 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
6 Focus Groups
May 2025
Two meetings aimed at
hearing from target
audiences, such as business
owners and people who work
in Downtown Hayward.

Pop-Ups
June 2025
Two community-centered
events or locations with
simple, concise, and visually
engaging engagement
materials to gather and draw
attention broadly from
community members.

Roadway Safety Audit
May 2025
One walk audit/field visit with
key technical stakeholders
and City staff to identify
needs and opportunities.

Phase 1 offered six different ways to participate, in
three languages.

Ad-Hoc
Meetings/Events
July-August 2025
Two meetings, including
presentations at a Hayward
Youth Council Meeting and a
Resident Council meeting at
a senior living center.

Website with Online
Survey
May-August 2025
One project website with
interactive online survey. 33
sidewalk decals were installed
throughout the project area to
generate visits to the website
and survey responses.

ATTACHMENT II
752
7 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
What did we hear?

ATTACHMENT II
753
8 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
8 We heard four major themes.

Unsafe Driver
Behavior
Need Economic
and Placemaking
Support
Driving Is
Confusing
Biking and Walking
Feels Unsafe
Aggressive driving
behavior, including
speeding, red light
running, and
failure to yield to
pedestrians,
creates an unsafe
environment for all
modes.

Improved public
spaces and a
revitalized
commercial area
are needed to give
people a reason to
go downtown.

The Loop is
confusing and
frustrating for
drivers to navigate
due to complex
intersections,
difficult merges,
and heavy traffic.

High speeds and
volumes, long
crosswalks and
wait times, and
lack of bicycle
facilities make the
Loop feel unsafe
for walking and
biking.

Recurring themes heard across in-person and online engagement include:

ATTACHMENT II
754
9 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
9 Focus Group #1: City of Hayward Staff | May 29, 2025
Key Issues:
• Long wait times and crossing distances
for pedestrians wanting to cross the
Loop
• Safety concerns are limiting staff’s ability
to bike to work
• Circulation along the Loop feels
confusing
• Crossing Mission Blvd during lunch time
feels unsafe due to speeding
Key Opportunities:
• Hayward has the foundations for a
thriving downtown such as good
restaurants, other destinations - need
to make it more walkable
• Two-way conversion can help slow
down speeds
Attendance: 4 staff members
Objective: Learning about how people working in Downtown travel to/within Downtown, safety challenges they face, other key destinations in Downtown outside of work Languages: English

ATTACHMENT II
755
10 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
10 Focus Group #2: Business Owners and
Chamber of Commerce | May 14, 2025
Key Issues:
• Speeds and volumes along the Loop
make Downtown less walkable
• Losing business to other nearby
downtown areas such as Castro Valley
• On-street parking near businesses is
often taken by food delivery service
drivers
Key Opportunities:
• Creating designated loading zones for
food delivery drivers
• Improving wayfinding and signage for
drivers getting to downtown
• Enforcing parking restrictions,
especially on B St
• Near term improvements – speed
humps, lighting
Attendance: 9 people, including business owners and an AC Transit representative Objective: Discussing safety and other transportation related issues around their businesses, loading and delivery needs
Languages: English and Spanish

ATTACHMENT II
756
11 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
11 Focus Group #3: Seniors | August 12, 2025
Attendance: 25 seniors at Ivy Park Senior Living, Executive Director of CRIL Objective: Discussing the safety and other transportation related issues experienced by seniors living near the Loop
Languages: English and Cantonese
Key Issues:
• Walking to destinations like Safeway, the
dollar store, and BART feels unsafe
• Intersection crossings are hard for
people with limited mobility
• Sidewalk quality makes it difficult to use
a wheelchair/mobility device
• High speeds and red light running
Key Opportunities:
• Longer crossing times
• Need more directional curb ramps
• Adding more signage alerting drivers
to slow down near the senior living
center
• Need for daylighting on 2nd St

ATTACHMENT II
757
12 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
12 Hayward Youth Commission | May 12, 2025
• Attendance: 24 Commissioners, Mayor Salinas
• Objective: Understand what it is like for youth to
travel within Downtown, what are the safety issues
they see, and what would make it more fun for youth
to visit downtown
• Languages: English and Spanish
Key Issues:
• High number of lanes
and speeding
• Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians
• Long wait times for
pedestrian phase
Key Opportunities:
• Two-way conversion
• Adding bike
infrastructure
• Improving sidewalk
quality
• Improving
streetscape – more
trees, street art

ATTACHMENT II
758
13 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
13 Hub Library Ribbon Cutting | June 6, 2025
• Attendance: 20 people from including
City staff, academic staff and
coordinators, and non-profit and
community-based organizations:
• Eden Youth
• 4CS
• Hayward Promise Neighborhoods
• Objective: Engage and build ongoing
relationships with community
organizations
• Languages: English and Spanish
• Discussed issues and opportunities
around project area
• Shared information on the project website
and survey
• Requested future opportunities to engage
non-profits and CBO partners in future
project stages

ATTACHMENT II
759
14 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
14 Pop-Ups: Farmers’ Market and
Summer Block Party | June 7, 2025 and
June 12, 2025
• Attendance: 85 people
engaged
• Objective: Engage
members of the public in
a pop-up format to
understand safety
challenges and key
destinations.
• Languages: English and
Spanish
• Discussed safety issues,
including speeding, red
light running, and
confusing intersections.

ATTACHMENT II
760
15 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
15 Roadway Safety Audit | May 20, 2025
• Attendance: 6 people
in attendance
including City of
Hayward Public Works
and Development
Services staff and AC
Transit staff.
• Objective: Identify
unsafe infrastructure
and user behavior
through field-based
observations.
• Languages: English
• Discussed safety
issues, including
speeding, red light
running, and confusing
intersections.
• Discussed potential
solutions, including
traffic calming,
intersection
improvements, bike
facilities, and lane
reductions.

ATTACHMENT II
761
16 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
16 Specific Feedback
• 181 map comments received via
website and in-person pop-up
events
• Community members identified key
destinations they like to visit in
downtown, as well as safety
challenges related to walking,
biking, driving, and taking transit.

ATTACHMENT II
762
17 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
17 Key Destinations
Specific Feedback
Key destinations highlighted by
respondents include:
• Library
• City Hall
• Park
• Farmers’ market
• Various stores and restaurants in
downtown.

ATTACHMENT II
763
18 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
18 Safety Challenges
Specific Feedback
• Intersections along A St and
Foothill Blvd received the highest
density of comments identifying
safety challenges.
• Respondents shared their
experiences with safety issues,
including poor visibility, aggressive
driving, and pedestrian collisions or
near-misses.

ATTACHMENT II
764
19 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
19 Safety Challenges
Specific Feedback
“When I am walking around
downtown, I refuse to cross here
because I’ve seen so many near
misses with cars making the right
from A to Mission.”
“There are so many turns and lane
changes…I'm always worried I'm
going to crash or somebody's going
to come out of nowhere.”
At the A St & Mission Blvd
intersection, respondents highlighted
pedestrian conflicts, unsafe merging,
and a confusing driving environment.

ATTACHMENT II
765
20 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
20 Safety Challenges
Specific Feedback
“I cross this intersection multiple times
a week. Rarely do I not encounter a
driver running the red light on A St
going westbound.”
“Dangerous to cross, as the
northbound Main Street traffic
turning left to A Street is not paying
attention to the pedestrians or
oncoming traffic.”
At the A St & Main St intersection,
respondents highlighted red light
running and unsafe turns.

ATTACHMENT II
766
21 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
21 Safety Challenges
Specific Feedback
“It's not clear at this point which lanes
will turn to Mission, making lastminute lane adjustments more common once cars get past Main St.”
“This intersection is confusing, it
backs up constantly, and the merge
is dangerous.”
“The people driving and making a
right turn onto A Street don't slow
down or stop when the light is green”
At the A St & Foothill Blvd
intersection, respondents highlighted
lack of lane signage, unsafe merging,
and poor yielding behavior.

ATTACHMENT II
767
22 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
22 Safety Challenges
Specific Feedback
“There's a gas station exit/entrance
that's past the traffic light, and from
time to time I'll see a car exit from the
gas station and cross the intersection,
even if the light isn't green.”
“Red light running on D and Foothill -
once when I was driving, two cars
could have hit me if I didn't brake.”
At the D St & Foothill Blvd
intersection, respondents highlighted
red light running and poor driveway
visibility.

ATTACHMENT II
768
23 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
23 Safety Challenges
Specific Feedback
“People always block the
intersection and crosswalks,
especially during commuting hours.”
“There's a small stretch between two
lights that are almost never timed
together, so there's often backups
trying to get to that next light and then
wait again for that light once you get
there.”
At the Foothill Blvd & Mission Blvd
intersection, respondents highlighted
issues with signal timing and drivers
blocking intersections.

ATTACHMENT II
769
24 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
24 Key Takeaways
Long Form Survey
• 397 responses
• The online survey focused on:
• How people typically travel around
downtown
• What changes would encourage
people to visit downtown more
• How people would improve the
experience of traveling to and
within downtown
• Driving is the most common mode of
transportation in downtown, with 3 in
4 respondents driving more than a few
times a week.
• 43% walk in downtown more than a
few times a week.

ATTACHMENT II
770
25 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
25 Driving
Experience
34% of respondents
described driving on the
Loop as confusing and
stressful.

Economic Vitality and
Placemaking
77% highlighted the need
for economic development
and amenities such as
benches, lighting, and
trees.

Safety and Driver
Behavior
46% named bicycle and
pedestrian safety and
unsafe driver behavior,
such as speeding and red
light running, as key issues.

Key Takeaways
Long Form Survey
Themes from the survey comments aligned with what the City heard through other forms of engagement.

ATTACHMENT II
771
26 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
26 Key Takeaways
Long Form Survey
28% wanted to see improved bicycle or
pedestrian safety in downtown.
18% expressed concerns about
aggressive driving, speeding, and red
light running.
“Do something about the speeding and the
running of red lights. I avoid the
intersection of D Street and Foothill after
nearly being hit twice by a speeder running a
red light.”
“There are too many anxious drivers that
think speed is the answer with no regard to
the safety of other drivers and pedestrians.”
“I only ever walk within the Loop and avoid
crossing the Loop streets on foot because
the cars are so fast and disregard pedestrian
safety.
“The crosswalks along Mission favor the
cars so even when the crossing light is
pressed, pedestrians will have to wait a long
time for the light to change.”
“The downtown area is very high traffic and
there are no protected bike lanes.”

ATTACHMENT II
772
27 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
27 “Get rid of the Loop, which is just a freeway
through the middle of town with all the
dangers that come with a freeway.”
“I would love to see the street traffic return
to how it used to be. As a lifelong Hayward
resident, I was extremely disappointed…I
feel that it was created to accommodate
commuters who do not live in Hayward
rather than Hayward residents.”
Key Takeaways
Long Form Survey
34% named a two-way conversion of the
Loop as a change that would encourage
them to visit downtown more.
34% said the driver experience on the
Loop needs to be improved with less
congestion, less confusing navigation,
and easier parking.
“Fix the traffic light timing -- Sometimes,
only 2-3 cars go on the green light and the
light changes to yellow/red right after.”
“It is impossible to know lanes are going to
become turn lanes, so cars have to change
multiple lanes quickly to make their turns.”
“Less complicated parking and access to
the businesses on Foothill.”

ATTACHMENT II
773
28 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
28 “If the area was cleaner and brighter and I
felt safe, I would love to spend my money in
Hayward instead of traveling to Dublin or
Pleasanton to shop or eat.”
“Our city has so much potential, but I feel
like we don't give it enough TLC. More
cleanups or consistent cleaning. So much
trash around..”
Key Takeaways
Long Form Survey
38% expressed personal safety and
cleanliness concerns, highlighting the
need for lighting and maintenance.
39% expressed the need for economic
development and placemaking,
including trees, benches, and lighting.
“Downtown needs more family-friendly
businesses.”
“More options for shopping, restaurants,
and services.”
“I’d also invest in the streetlights in downtown
to make it safer and even be creative with
color lights in certain areas to make it more
decorative and inviting for visitors.”

ATTACHMENT II
774
29 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
29 Demographics
Long Form Survey
Women and people
over the age of 30 were
overrepresented in the
survey.

While respondents
reflected all racial
groups, Hispanic/Latino
and Black respondents
were underrepresented
in the survey. Note: The Loop is defined as Census Tract 4354. 2% 4% 5%
43%
32%
14%
20%
7% 8%
34%
22%
9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Under 18 18-25 26-30 31-50 51-70 Over 70
Age
43%
24%
16%
8%
3% 1% 4%
23%
35%
16% 16%
1% 0%
8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
White Hispanic or Latino Asian Black or African
American
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Other
Race/Ethnicity Survey Respondents
Loop Residents
63%
35%
2% 1%
48%
52%
0% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Female Male Non-binary Other
Gender

ATTACHMENT II
775
30 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
30 Demographics
Long Form Survey
2% 5%
10% 12% 13% 12%
45%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Household Income
Respondents skewed higher income
compared to people living near the
Loop, with nearly half making over
$150,000. 30% of households on the
Loop are low-income.
43% of respondents lived near the Loop
(94541 zip code). 90% of respondents
were Hayward residents.
43%
23%
17%
7%
10%
Outside
Hayward:

Survey responses by zip code

ATTACHMENT II
776
5/8/26
PHASE 2: EVALUATING ALTERNATIVES
Community Engagement Summary
September 2025 – April 2026
Safe Streets Downtown

ATTACHMENT III
777
2 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
Engagement Goals
and Objectives

ATTACHMENT III
778
3 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
3 Engagement Goals and Objectives
Goal Objective
People who live, work, play, and travel
through Downtown Hayward are aware of the
project and provide input on vision and
needs
• Utilize in-person and online messaging to generate
widespread awareness.

Hear from all who may potentially be
impacted by project
• Identify target audiences and best venues to reach these groups.

Arrive at a preferred alternative understood
and supported by the stakeholders
• Provide feedback loop so that final design acknowledges when it is solving a safety need or addressing a community desire.
• Reach agreement agency partners on a set of design/policy options for the project.

Phase 2 Engagement

ATTACHMENT III
779
4 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
4 Phase 2 engagement focused on…
Designs for Mission,
A, and Foothill
What should the modal
priorities be on each
street?
Benefits and Tradeoffs
of Different Options
Who benefits and who
loses with each design?
The Loop’s Overall
Circulation Network
Should the Loop be oneway or two-way?

ATTACHMENT III
780
5 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
What were the
opportunities to
participate?

ATTACHMENT III
781
6 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
6 Design Charrette
Attendance: ~20
people
Structure: Interactive
small group activities
to re-envision each
Loop street plus
presentation
Objective: Engage
public, business
leaders, and
technical
stakeholders in cocreating designs for
the Loop
Online Survey
Engagement: ~350
responses
Structure: Learn
about and provide
input on multiple
design options for
Loop streets plus B,
C, and D Streets
Objective: Obtain
feedback on
preferred long-term
vision, B St, and C St
options
Open House
Attendance: ~10
people
Structure:

Discussion and
review of design
ideas prepared by
public in earlier
design charrette with
option to create new
ideas
Objective: Obtain
feedback on
community-created
designs from
members of the
public
The City engaged the public in 7 ways as part of Phase 2 between July 2025-April 2026.

CIAC Meeting
Engagement: 3
councilmembers
Structure: Short
presentation
followed by
discussion.

Objective: Obtain
feedback on which of
the 4 long-term
visions the City
should study further

ATTACHMENT III
782
7 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
7 CRIL 1:1 Meeting
Small group
meeting on
feedback from CRIL
employees and
customers on their
preferences on the
design options.

AC Transit 1:1
Meeting with AC
Transit staff about
potential bus needs,
agency preferences,
and bus routing
implications of
options.

The City engaged the public in 7 ways as part of Phase 2 between July 2025-April 2026.

Local Businesses 1:1
Focus group with
local downtown
business owners
about long term
vision and benefits
and tradeoffs
associated with
each.

ATTACHMENT III
783
8 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
8 Design Charrette: Key Questions and Outcomes
Discussion Questions
• How do we want to use
Downtown streets?
• Should the Loop be
one-way or two-way?
• What big ideas should
the City study?
Outcomes
Four communitydesigned visions for:
(1) Circulation around
Downtown
(2) Corresponding design
ideas for Mission Blvd, A
St, and Foothill Blvd

ATTACHMENT III
784
9 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
9 Open House: Key Questions and Outcomes
Key Questions
• Which of the
community-designed
options should the City
advance to CIAC?
• Are there other options
or configurations you
would add?
Outcomes
• Participant
preferences for how
to re-envision the loop
• Feedback on benefits
and tradeoffs of each
community-designed
option

ATTACHMENT III
785
10 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
10 CIAC Meeting: Key Questions and Outcomes
Key Questions
• Which three options
should the City move
forward with additional
analysis on?
• What should be the
process for the City
formally selecting a
preferred option?
Outcomes
• Direction on moving
forward with two longterm options:

Downtown Grid and
Civic Avenue
• Direction selecting
preferred option
through online survey
followed by and council
meeting

ATTACHMENT III
786
11 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
11 Online Survey: Key Questions and Outcomes
Key Questions
• Which of two long-term
visions would you like
the city to move
forward with?
• How would you like to
reimagine B St and C
St?
• What are the benefits
and tradeoffs
associated with each
option?
Outcomes
• Understanding of
preferences for
reenvisioning the
Loop
• Understanding of
benefits and tradeoffs
associated with each
option
• Understanding of the
preference B St and C
St vision

ATTACHMENT III
787
12 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
What We Heard

ATTACHMENT III
788
13 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
13 General Themes from Design Charrette and Open House
Preference for TwoWay Circulation
• Clear preference for
two-way circulation on
the Loop
• Some retention of
capacity, but less
capacity than what
exists today
Preference for
Downtown as a
Destination
• More pedestrian space
in downtown to
support businesses
• Slower speeds and
less regional cutthrough traffic
• More on-street parking
and turnover near
destinations
Preference for Safety
Improvements
• Need for intersection
safety improvements
• Preference for 90-
degree, signalized
intersections
• Desire for bike
facilities on some
streets

ATTACHMENT III
789
14 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
14 General Themes from Online Survey
Preference for TwoWay Circulation
• Most respondents
support two-way
circulation, regardless
of which long-term
vision they prefer
Mixed feedback about
tradeoffs between bike and
pedestrian safety and
roadway capacity
• Strong feedback in
support of adding bike
infrastructure, pedestrianfriendly improvements
• Combined with strong
concerns about reduced
roadway capacity
Appetite for change to
make Downtown Hayward
a destination
• General support toward
change to improve access
options and prioritize local
circulation to Downtown

ATTACHMENT III
790
15 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
Design Charrette and Open
House

ATTACHMENT III
791
16 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
16 Charrette Group 1 of 4:

Downtown Grid
Design Elements • Two-way conversion on
Foothill and A, with Mission
remaining one-way
• Removes a link of Foothill to
create space for parks and/or
developable land
• Reconnects the grid • Separated bikeways and road
diets on all streets
• Allows regional traffic but
slower and longer travel time
• Reduces Foothill, Mission, A as
barriers and reintegrates
Downtown

ATTACHMENT III
792
17 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
17 • Foothill link removal
may impact businesses
• Reduces vehicle
capacity on Foothill
• Two-way circulation
and grid is easier to
navigate
• Reduces speeds
• Provides opportunities
for pedestrian or
green spaces
• Increases parking on
Foothill
Open House Feedback:

Downtown Grid
Benefits Tradeoffs 23%
Want Council to study
this option further
(6 votes)

ATTACHMENT III
793
18 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
18 Charrette Group 2 of 4:

Current Alignment – Place Focus
Design Elements
• Two-way conversion on all
streets
• Road diets with landscaped
medians
• Allows regional traffic but
will be slower
• Grand Boulevard for
Movement & Place on
Foothill – “Avenue of the
Arts”
• Creates a distinct identity
for downtown that’s arts
focused
• Separated bikeways on
Mission Blvd

ATTACHMENT III
794
19 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
19 • Foothill link removal
may impact businesses
• Reduces vehicle
capacity on Foothill
• More auto-centric
compared to other
options
• Prioritizes trees,
parklets, and green
space
• Median provides
safety benefits
• Two-way circulation is
easier to navigate
• Reduces speeds
Open House Feedback:

Current Alignment – Place Focus
Benefits Tradeoffs 27%
Want Council to study
this option further
(7 votes)

ATTACHMENT III
795
20 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
20 Charrette Group 3 of 4:

Current Alignment – Movement Focus
Design Elements
• Two-way conversion on all
streets
• Creates public space for
people with
pedestrianized B Street
• Foothill traffic focuses on
through trips which will be
going slower due to road
diet (e.g. no LTs)
• Reduces traffic on D
St/Winton Corridor to
improve efficiency at
D/Foothill
• Separated bikeways and
road diets on all streets

ATTACHMENT III
796
21 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
21 Tradeoffs
• Reduces number of
parking spots
• Eliminates left-turn
lanes
Benefits
• Provides opportunities
for pedestrian spaces
• Reduces speed
• Provides dedicated
space for bicyclists
Open House Feedback:

Current Alignment – Movement Focus
12%
Want Council to study
this option further
(3 votes)

ATTACHMENT III
797
22 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
22 Charrette Group 4 of 4: Hybrid Option - Grid,
Pedestrianized B St, Utilize Winton/D St Corridor
Design Elements
• Removes a link of Foothill
to create space for parks
• Through trips on Foothill
limited by link removal
and road diet
• Creates public space for
people with
pedestrianized B Street
• Separated bikeways on A
and Mission, road diets
on all streets

ATTACHMENT III
798
23 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
23 38%
Want Council to study
this option further
(10 votes)
• Does not provide
additional green space
or tree canopy
• Creates a more
complicated
connection to Jackson
St for drivers
• Two-way circulation is
easier to navigate
• Provides opportunities
for pedestrian spaces
• Median provides
safety benefits
• Reduces speed
Open House Feedback: Hybrid Option - Grid,
Pedestrianized B St, Utilize Winton/D St Corridor
Benefits Tradeoffs

ATTACHMENT III
799
24 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
24 Conclusion
While the community-generated
options had key differences, all
included:
• Two-way conversion
• Road diets and/or other capacity
reductions
• Pedestrian or green space
• Preservation of some parking
• Bike lanes on at least one segment
of the Loop

ATTACHMENT III
800
25 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
Online Survey
3 key questions:

1. Which long-term option would you prefer?

2. Which option for B Street would you prefer?

3. Additional feedback on proposed C Street changes

ATTACHMENT III
801
26 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
26 In October, CIAC showed a preference for 2 options

1. Baseline 2. Downtown Grid 3. Current Alignment –
Place option

4. Current Alignment –
Movement option
⚊ Not a priority Further study Further study ✘ Exclude
Do not think people
will follow left turn
restrictions
Community needs a
more transformative
change OPTION 1:

Downtown Grid
OPTION 2:

Civic Avenue

ATTACHMENT III
802
27 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
27 58% of respondents showed a preference for Option 2:

Civic Avenue
139 192
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Count
Which option is your top choice?
OPTION 1:

Downtown Grid
OPTION 2:

Civic Avenue

ATTACHMENT III
803
28 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
28 General consensus in support of bike
improvements with mixed feelings about
circulation and capacity
Most common support Most common Most common mixed feedback concerns • Bike lanes on Foothill Blvd:
• Most comments are positive
• Small proportion of
comments about these
mention bike lanes being
underutilized
• 4 lanes on A Street:
• Most comments support
added capacity on A street
• Reduced capacity on Foothill:
• Most comments about this
suggest more lanes on
Foothill
• Removal of Foothill link:
• Over half the comments
about this express concern
about inefficient flow and
diversion to other streets
• Relatively few support the
idea of new open space for
parks/development
• 4 lanes on Mission Blvd:
• Half the comments support
added capacity on Mission Blvd
• Other half have concerns about
more cut-through traffic and
speeding
OPTION 1:

Downtown Grid
Around 250 respondents provided additional feedback on what they liked or did not like about this option

ATTACHMENT III
804
29 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
29 General consensus in support of local
movement on Mission and A St, with through
movement on Foothill
Most common support Most common mixed feedback
• Bike lanes on Mission and A
Street
• Orienting Foothill to through
movement
• Adding planted median along
Foothill Blvd
• Comments about this are
mostly positive, with some
suggesting a narrower
buffer to add another lane
• More feasible/less disruptive
to construct
• Overall vision
• A small proportion of comments
mention that this option still feels
car-centric
• Would like to see more safety
improvements for pedestrians
and bicyclists.

Around 250 respondents provided additional feedback on what they liked or did not like about this option
OPTION 2:

Civic Avenue
• Overall roadway capacity:
• Half the comments about road
diet on Mission and A St are in
support, other half would prefer
more lanes
• Reducing cut-through travel:
• Half the comments related to
cut-through feel this option
would reduce cut-through, other
half feel like Foothill would still
carry regional traffic

ATTACHMENT III
805
30 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
More respondents support
keeping D St and Foothill as
one intersection
303
responses
Option A
Option B
28%
51%
21%
Option A: D St split into two "T" intersections at Foothill Blvd Option B: D St continues straight through downtown
No preference

ATTACHMENT III
806
31 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
31 Respondents are split between
pedestrianizing and allowing car
traffic on B Street
21%
30%
43%
6%
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Other/No Preference
OPTION 3
OPTION 2
OPTION 1
317
responses

ATTACHMENT III
807
32 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
32 Additional feedback on B Street Options
Extending
pedestrianization
Some suggestions to extend
the pedestrian plaza from
Foothill to Watkins
Access options with
pedestrianization
Concerns about not losing
business if restricted for cars
Adding bike lanes
Suggestions to add bike
lanes
Maintenance and
cleanliness
Food delivery / Loading
zones
On-Street Parking
Concerns about food
delivery drivers blocking
travel lanes, especially if
reduced to single lane
Concerns about
maintenance and safety of
the pedestrian plaza if
implemented
Suggestions to remove onstreet parking; improving
safety and enforcement of
surface lots/garages

ATTACHMENT III
808
33 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
33 Over half of the respondents
are in favor of changes to C
Street Support for two-way: People generally
prefer two-way circulation on C Street
Support for bike lanes: People generally
support adding bike lanes, with some
suggestions to extend to Watkins
Questions about on-street parking: Some
feel downtown has enough off-street
parking, but some would like to see more
on-street parking
Questions about road diet: Some feel road
diet/lane narrowing would make it safer, but
some are concerned about added delays
Concern about Mission to Watkins block:

Some concern about confusion where it
changes from two-way to one-way
23%
20% 30%
10%
17%
Strongly agree Agree Neutral
Disagree Strongly disagree
267
responses

ATTACHMENT III
809
1 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
1 Source:

Downtown
Specific Plan
Redesigning the Loop
Safe Streets Downtown
Traffic Operations &
Diversion Analysis
January 9, 2026

ATTACHMENT IV
810
2 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
How do the options
perform from a traffic
operations standpoint?
Evaluation Workstream

ATTACHMENT IV
811
3 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
3 Purpose
Summarize preliminary
Synchro findings for Options
1 and 2
Inform next steps of
operational analysis and
alternative refinement

ATTACHMENT IV
812
4 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N4
Routing and Volume
Assumptions
Step 1 • Identify total volumes entering
the Loop at key points
• Counts collected at most
points – these serve as control
totals
• ADT collected on parallel
blocks of Foothill & Mission –
these serve as control totals for
the total north and south
bound traffic under 2-way
operation

ATTACHMENT IV
813
5 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N5
Routing and Volume
Assumptions
Step 2 – Route Traffic
• Route traffic onto the network
using the OD pattern from
Streetlight
• Balance volumes across road
(e.g., split Foothill NB onto
Foothill & Mission considering
available capacity)
• Assumed drivers prefer the most
direct/least cost path (i.e., people
don’t go out of their way)

ATTACHMENT IV
814
6 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
6 Routing and Volume
Assumptions
Step 3 – Through Traffic
Reduction
• Evaluate potential for through
traffic to use other routes
• About 20% of traffic is through
• Also evaluated 10% reduction
• Removed traffic traveling
between Foothill Blvd/A St and
Jackson/Mission/Foothill
• No changes to traffic entering
on B, C, or D streets)
Regional cut-through traffic
Traffic volume starting or ending in
Downtown Hayward
Traffic volume starting or ending in Hayward
(outside downtown)
Other trips
19%
72%
48%
72%
11%
8%
11%
13%
24%
13%
- 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000
A Street
Foothill Boulevard
Mission Boulevard
Distribution of Weekday PM Traffic on the Loop

ATTACHMENT IV
815
7 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
7 Other Signal Assumptions
Signal Timing
• Revise cycle lengths to 90/120
seconds where it can be
accommodated with the
additional phases
• Does not account for shorter
pedestrian crossings to show a
conservative analysis
• Coordination along Mission and
Foothill
Protected Phasing
• Implement protected left turn
phasing where there is a left turn
pocket
• Implement protected right turn
phasing with overlap where there
is a right turn pocket
• Split phasing on B/C Street
intersections for pedestrian safety

ATTACHMENT IV
816
8 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
Operations Results

ATTACHMENT IV
817
9 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
Existing
AM/PM
C/D
D/C
B/E
B/C
B/C
D/E
C/C
B/B
B/B
D/D

ATTACHMENT IV
818
10 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
Operations Results with
0% Cut-through Traffic
Reduction

ATTACHMENT IV
819
11 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
11 Option 2 Is Better Able to Handle the Current Traffic Volumes on the Loop
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
A B C D Mission/ Foothill/ D C B A
Foothill Jackson Mission
Intersection Delay (seconds)
Existing Option 2 Option 3
Note: Delay at new intersection at Main St and D St (added in Option 1) is not shown but is expected to experience nearly 600 seconds of delay.

Option 1 Option 2

ATTACHMENT IV
820
12 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
12 Option 1:

Downtown Grid
(0% Reduction) • Most intersections perform at
LOS F in the PM peak hour
• Mission Blvd is especially
challenged to carry the traffic
with Foothill Blvd reduced to
less capacity
• The new connection from
Jackson St to E St attracts
substantial traffic, creating
significant delay at Main St
and D St
AM/PM
-/F
-/F
-/B
-/F
-/F
-/F
-/F
-/E
-/F
-/D
-/F
-/D

ATTACHMENT IV
821
13 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
13 Option 1: Downtown Grid
(0% Reduction)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13
Intersection locations
and geometries may
change based on
design sub-options

ATTACHMENT IV
822
14 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
14 • Most intersections operate
at an acceptable level of
service (LOS D/E) in the PM
peak hour.
• Foothill Blvd and B St
operates at LOS F, but is
just above the delay
threshold for LOS F.
• Delay can be managed
with signal design.
-/D-/E
-/C
-/E
-/D
-/D -/F
-/D
-/D
-/C
Option 2: Current
Alignment (0%
Reduction)
AM/PM
-/C

ATTACHMENT IV
823
15 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
15 Option 2: Current Alignment
(0% Reduction)
1 2
3 4
6 7
8 9
10 11
Intersection locations
and geometries may
change based on design
sub-options
5A
5B

ATTACHMENT IV
824
16 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
Operations Results with
20% Cut-through Traffic
Reduction

ATTACHMENT IV
825
17 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
17 Option 2 Continues to Show Significantly Less Delay
Under the 20% Reduction Scenario
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
A B C D Mission/ Foothill/ D C B A
Foothill Jackson Mission
Intersection Delay (seconds)
Existing Option 2 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

ATTACHMENT IV
826
18 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
18 Option 1:

Downtown Grid
(20% Reduction) • Multiple intersections perform
at LOS E/F; operations
degrade due to additional
phases.
• Mission Blvd continues to
perform much worse than
Foothill Blvd, even with travel
balanced across the corridors.
• Main St and D St continues to
show significant delay.
-/F
-/E
-/B
-/F
-/F
-/F
-/E
-/D
-/E
-/D
AM/PM
-/F
-/C

ATTACHMENT IV
827
19 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
19 Option 1: Downtown Grid
(20% Reduction)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13
Intersection locations
and geometries may
change based on
design sub-options

ATTACHMENT IV
828
20 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
20 • All intersections perform at
acceptable LOS (D/E) in the
PM peak hour.
• Some intersections on
Foothill Blvd perform at
LOS C, consistent with
existing conditions.
-/D
-/E
-/B
-/E
-/D
-/D
-/C
-/D
-/D
Option 2: Current
Alignment (20%
Reduction)
AM/PM
-/C
-/C

ATTACHMENT IV
829
21 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
21 Option 2: Current Alignment
(20% Reduction)
1 2
3 4
6 7
8 9
10 11
Intersection locations
and geometries may
change based on design
sub-options
5A
5B

ATTACHMENT IV
830
22 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
Operations Results with
10% Cut-through Traffic
Reduction

ATTACHMENT IV
831
23 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
23 Option 2 Continues to Show Significantly Less Delay
Under the 10% Reduction Scenario
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
A B C D Mission/ Foothill/ D C B A
Foothill Jackson Mission
Intersection Delay (seconds)
Existing Option 2 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

ATTACHMENT IV
832
24 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
24 Option 1:

Downtown Grid
(10% Reduction)
• No difference from 20%
reduction
AM/PM
-/F
-/F
-/B
-/F
-/F
-/F
-/F
-/E
-/F
-/D
-/F
-/D

ATTACHMENT IV
833
25 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
25 Option 1: Downtown Grid
(10% Reduction)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
Intersection locations
and geometries may
change based on
design sub-options
12 13
11 ATTACHMENT IV
834
26 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
26 • No difference from 20%
reduction
-/D
-/E
-/B
-/E
-/D
-/D
-/D
-/D
-/D
Option 2: Current
Alignment (10%
Reduction)
AM/PM
-/C
-/C

ATTACHMENT IV
835
27 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
27 Option 2: Current Alignment
(10% Reduction)
1 2
3 4
5A
6 7
8 9
10 11
Intersection locations
and geometries may
change based on design
sub-options
5B

ATTACHMENT IV
836
28 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
What is the risk of traffic
diversion with Safe
Streets Downtown?

ATTACHMENT IV
837
29 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
29 Diversion Risk Process
Process
• AlaCC Travel Demand model used to
evaluate potential diversion risk
• Scenario based on today
• Each option coded as defined
• Does not include potential changes to B
St and C St, except for making them 2-
way
Model Limitations
• Does not consider intersection
operations
• Identifies general travel pattern changes,
but is less accurate at estimating volume
changes on specific streets

ATTACHMENT IV
838
30 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
Option 1
• Potential diversion risk of
up to 1,200 vehicles (NB
peak)
• Most uses new grid
connection from Jackson
to E St
• Large increase in traffic
expected on 2nd St (or
nearby streets)
• Diversion risk is high due
to poor intersection
performance of the loop

ATTACHMENT IV
839
31 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
Option 2
• Potential diversion risk of
up to 1,200 vehicles (NB
peak)
• 2/3 on streets west of the
Loop (mostly Grand Ave)
• 1/3 on 2nd St (east) • Significant need for
complete streets on 2nd
and Grand – Option 3
can handle today’s traffic

ATTACHMENT IV
840
Safe Streets Downtown
Conceptual Options
June 2nd, 2026
Council Meeting
Attachment V
Attachment V
841
Safe Streets Downtown – Option 1 (Grid)
842
Downtown Grid Option
843
4 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
Mission Boulevard: Option 1 4
844
5 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
Foothill Boulevard: Option 1 5
845
Safe Streets Downtown – Option 2 (Civic Ave)
846
Civic Ave. Option with D Street Split
847
Civic Ave. Option with D Street Continuous
848
9 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
Mission Boulevard: Option 2 9
849
10 S A F E S T R E E T S D O W N T O W N
Foothill Boulevard: Option 2 10850
B Street Options – One Way
851
B Street Options – Two way
852
B Street Options – Pedestrian Plaza
853
C Street Options –
Watkins to Mission
• Assumes 2 to 1 road
diet EB Watkins to
Mission
Existing
Proposed
C Street – Watkins to Mission
854
C Street Options –
Mission to Foothill
• Two-way bike lane on
north side of street
Existing
Proposed
C Street – Mission to Foothill
855
CITY OF HAYWARD Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: PH 26-024
DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
Redevelopment Successor Agency Board of Directors
Housing Authority Board of Directors
FROM: Director of Finance

SUBJECT
Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27 Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program Public Hearing and Adoption: Public Hearing for the Proposed FY 2026-27 Operating Budgets for the City of Hayward, Hayward Redevelopment Successor Agency, and Hayward Housing Authority; Adoption of Resolutions Approving (1) the FY 2026-27 Operating Budgets and Appropriations for FY 2026-27 and Authorizing Actions for the FY 2025-26 Operating Budget; (2) the FY 2027-36 Capital Improvement Program and Appropriations for FY 2026-27; (3) the Hayward Redevelopment Successor Agency Budget for FY 2026- 27; and (4) the Hayward Housing Authority Budget for FY 2026-27

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council considers the Proposed FY 2026-27 Operating Budgets of the City, Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Redevelopment Successor Agency, and Housing Authority; conducts a Public Hearing on each; and adopts resolutions approving:
(1) The FY 2026-27 Operating Budgets and appropriations for FY 2026-27 and actions for FY 2025- 26 Operating Budget;
(2) The FY 2027-36 Capital Improvement Program appropriations for FY 2026-27; (3) The Hayward Redevelopment Successor Agency Budget; and (4) The Hayward Housing Authority Budget.

Should there be no needed actions following public testimony or Council direction, staff recommends that City Council adopt resolutions to approve the Operating and CIP Budgets, as well as separate resolutions for the Hayward Redevelopment Successor Agency as Redevelopment Successor Agency Board of Directors and the Hayward Housing Authority as Housing Authority Board of Directors.

ATTACHMENTS
CITY OF HAYWARD Page 1 of 2 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™856
File #: PH 26-024
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II FY 2027 Operating Budget Resolution including Exhibits A and B Attachment III Redevelopment Successor Agency Budget Resolution Attachment IV Housing Authority Budget Resolution
Attachment V Capital Improvement Projects Budget Resolution CITY OF HAYWARD Page 2 of 2 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™857

Page 1 of 10 ends

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
Redevelopment Successor Agency Board of Directors
Housing Authority Board of Directors
FROM: Director of Finance
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27 Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program Public Hearing and Adoption: Public Hearing for the Proposed FY 2026-27 Operating Budgets for the City of Hayward, Hayward Redevelopment Successor Agency, and Hayward Housing Authority; Adoption of Resolutions Approving (1) the FY 2026-27 Operating Budgets and Appropriations for FY 2026-27 and Authorizing Actions for the FY 2025-26 Operating Budget; (2) the FY 2027-36 Capital Improvement Program and Appropriations for FY 2026-27; (3) the Hayward Redevelopment Successor Agency Budget for FY 2026-27; and (4) the Hayward Housing Authority Budget for FY 2026-27

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council considers the Proposed FY 2026-27 Operating Budgets of the City, Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Redevelopment Successor Agency, and Housing Authority; conducts a Public Hearing on each; and adopts resolutions approving:
(1) The FY 2026-27 Operating Budgets and appropriations for FY 2026-27 and actions for FY 2025-26 Operating Budget;
(2) The FY 2027-36 Capital Improvement Program appropriations for FY 2026-27; (3) The Hayward Redevelopment Successor Agency Budget; and (4) The Hayward Housing Authority Budget.

SUMMARY
This item is a public hearing for the adoption of the Proposed FY 2026-27 Operating Budgets and FY 2027-36 CIP appropriations for FY 2026-27 as well as actions associated with the FY 2025-26 budget. Should there be no needed actions following public testimony or Council direction, staff recommends that City Council adopt resolutions to approve the Operating and CIP Budgets, as well as separate resolutions for the Hayward Redevelopment Successor Agency as Redevelopment Successor Agency Board of Directors and the Hayward Housing Authority as Housing Authority Board of Directors.
858

Page 2 of 10 ends

BACKGROUND
Budget Context: FY 2025-26 Budget
A year ago, in June 2025, Council adopted a General Fund budget for FY 2025-26 that included an assumed $8.9 million deficit and reflected a $30 million fund balance. At that time, Council directed staff to identify solutions to balance the FY 2025-26 budget. In August, staff reported that due to overstated revenues and overspending in FY 2024-25, the fund balance in the General Fund had been reduced to near zero.

In November 2025, staff presented an updated forecast for FY 2025-26 reflecting a $26.4 million deficit in the General Fund. In response, Council authorized the City Manager to take actions to reduce that deficit to zero. The budget deficit was eliminated through a combination of activities including the use of Measure C funding, use of OPEB Trust funding, transfers from other funds such as Information Technology and Worker’s Compensation Internal Service Funds, employee concessions, layoffs, and department savings on services and supplies. This adjustment also included funding for a contribution to the Russell City Redress Fund.

Key Factors Driving the City’s Fiscal Challenges
• Declining Real Estate Market: This caused a decline in market related tax revenues which stagnated at less than 1% on average per year over the last three years and failed to match increasing benefit costs which increased by 40% over the last three years.
• Rising Personnel Costs: CalPERS pension rates, retiree health obligations, and negotiated Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) continue to outpace revenue growth.

Also, the City entered into labor contracts misaligned with market and fiscal realities. • American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Expiration: The City increased staffing and programs over the past five years dependent on one-time ARPA and grant funding. • Lack of Adherence to Financial Best Practices: This includes maintaining realistic financial projections, budgeting accurately for overtime, contract increases, and leave payouts, and using salary savings as a “crutch.”
• Leadership Transitions: Experienced leadership transitions and dilution of authority and responsibility at the same time.

Tracking Actuals for Revenue and Expenses
Over the past year, staff has closely tracked actuals for revenue and expenses, with a particular focus on salaries and benefits. Based on these actuals, staff has adjusted the FY 2025-26 budget projections to ensure it will be balanced at the close of the fiscal year, including:
(1) Downward adjustments to revenue projections of $2.3 million compared to February projections to reflect actual receipts, and
(2) Further adjustments to salary and benefits resulting from better understanding of special pays and adjustments for payroll cycles. These adjustments were offset by 859

Page 3 of 10 ends

increasing transfers into the General Fund from other funds, such as Worker’s Compensation and Information Technology Internal Service Funds.

With these adjustments, the FY 2025-26 General Fund budget will remain in balance with total expenses currently estimated at $241 million. Staff will continue to track actuals and further updates may be required. Staff has planned for this possibility, and, subject to adoption of the attached resolution, will increase transfers if required to end FY 2025-26 with revenues balanced to expenses.

Even with COLAs of 3.5% in miscellaneous units and increases to retirement and medical costs, staff anticipates a reduction of approximately $6 million in General Fund expenditures compared to FY 2024-25. Staff anticipates using approximately $25 million in short-term or one-time sources to balance the FY 2025-26 budget. Around, September, 2026 after the year-end close process, staff will present a Budget Year End Report to specify all actions taken to balance the FY 2025-26 General Fund Operating Budget.

Preparation for the FY 2026-27 Budget
In preparation for the FY 2026-27 budget, the City Council held the following meetings:
• A work session on February 28, 2026 to consider the City’s five-year forecast and options to balance this and future budgets.
• A CIP budget work session for FY 2026-27 on May 5, 2026. • A work session to review the proposed FY 2026-27 operating budget on May 12, 2026.

The proposed operating budget was posted to the City’s website on May 8, 2026.

Following these work sessions and follow-up meetings with departments and the Council Budget and Finance Committee, staff has incorporated changes to the proposed budget. These changes are detailed in the discussion section below.

DISCUSSION
Public Hearing
This meeting has been noticed as a public hearing for the Proposed Operating and CIP budgets for Fiscal Year 2026-27 and is another opportunity to receive public input. Upon closure of the public hearing, Council will provide any additional comments and direction to staff. Should there be no need for changes after public testimony or Council direction, staff recommends that both documents be considered for adoption upon the closing of the Public Hearing. Should there be public testimony and/or direction from the Council that requires changes to either the FY 2026-27 Operating or CIP budgets, the public hearing will be closed, and the Proposed FY 2026-27 Operating and CIP budgets will be presented for adoption on June 16, 2026. 860

Page 4 of 10 ends

Operating Budget
Hayward’s operating budget is comprised of different funding sources, with the General Fund representing the largest single fund for which the Council has the most discretion. As proposed on to Council on May 12, the total City expenditure budget for the Proposed FY 2026-27 Annual Budget was $445 million and $507.6 million when transfers are included, with a General Fund budget of $248.6 million. Since that time, staff has updated the total budget to be $504.2 million, with a General Fund Budget of $249.1 million.

The Proposed FY 2026-27 Operating Budget is balanced but requires use of $30.29 million in one-time or short-term funds, consisting of the items below. • $10 million: Measure C;
• $4.95 million: Transfer from Worker’s Compensation Fund (total transfer of $6 million to allocate refunds to all funds that contributed to Worker’s Compensation Fund); • $3 million: Transfer from OPEB Trust (funds held by CalPERS and allowed for reimbursement of OPEB payments that took place during the same fiscal year). This amount will appear as a revenue as these funds are held outside of the City in a CERBT Trust;
• $5.33 million: Transfer from OPEB funds held by the City and not yet transferred to the OPEB Trust (total transfer of $6 million to allocate refunds to all funds that contributed to OPEB Fund);
• $1.01 million: One-time transfer of savings from the Information Technology Internal Service Fund (total transfer of $1.29 to allocate refunds to all funds that contributed to Information Technology Internal Services Fund);
• $5.5 million: Recovery / reimbursement of grant funds that have been held in other funds for projects completed in prior years, funded by General Fund, and not transferred;
• $500,000: One time use of Community Development Block Grant funds for eligible expenditures.

Staff notes that, in addition to the structural issues in the General Fund, several other funds have negative cash balances. For FY 2026-27, staff focused on the General Fund and assuring that all other funds have sufficient revenues to match expenses in FY 2026-27 so that deficit fund balances do not grow. During the next Fiscal Year, staff will continue to develop strategies to fund General Fund reserves and resolve deficit fund balances, such as through identifying alternate funding sources, use of one-time funding, or incremental increases in transfers.

Operating Budget Revenue and Expenses
The tables belowillustrate the proposed FY 2026-27Operating Budget revenue projections and proposed expenditure appropriations.Staff is using the most recent projections for the current year presented at the May 20, 2026 Council Budget and Finance Committee for comparison between FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27.
861

Page 5 of 10 ends

Table 1 – Citywide Revenue Projections
in 1,000's
FY2026
Updated
(Projected
as of 5/26)
FY2027
Proposed
5/12/26
FY2027
Proposed
6/2/26
Change
from
5/12/26
$ Change
from FY26
Projected
5/26
% Change
from FY26
General Fund
Ongoing Revenue 211,574 214,785 214,785 0 3,211 1.5%
General Fund
Ongoing Transfers In 4,419 4,010 4,010 0 (409) (9.2%)
General Fund OneTime/Short-Term
Revenue and
Transfers In 25,487 29,788 30,290 502 4,803 18.8%
Total General Fund 241,480 248,583 249,085 502 7,605 3.2% All Other Funds 198,526 207,117 212,794 5,677 14,268 7.2% Total City Revenue
and Transfers to
General Fund 440,006 455,700 461,879 6,179 21,873 5.0%
Table 2 – Citywide Expenditure Budget
in 1,000's
FY2026
Updated
(Projected
as of 5/26)
FY2027
Proposed
5/12/26
FY2027
Proposed
6/2/26
Change
from
5/12/26
$ Change
from FY26
Projected
5/26
% Change
from FY26
General Fund 241,262 248,583 249,085 502 7,823 3.2%
All Other Funds 199,059 228,748 227,839 (909) 28,780 14.5% One-Time/ShortTerm Transfers Out
from Other Funds to
General Fund 25,487 30,291 27,291 (3,000) 1,804 7.1%
Total City Budget 465,808 507,622 504,215 (3,407) 38,407 8.2% The changes for General Fund and All Other Funds from the time that the proposed budget was provided to Council on May 8th, 2026 and reviewed at the May 12th, 2026 work session include the following:

Adjustments to the Budget:

1. Development Services Department – Increase $465,000 in expenses: Correction to contract services to correct data entry error.

2. Finance Department – Increase $37,000 in expenses: Correction to contract services to correct data entry error
862

Page 6 of 10 ends

3. Increase in Transfer from Fund 720 (Other Post Employment Benefits) to the General Fund to offset increased expenses.

4. Modification to Reimbursement from OPEB Trust to reflect as a revenue instead of as a transfer.

Additional Administrative Adjustments:

Staff has made additional administrative adjustments, including:

1. Removal of working capital amounts as those are typically based on the prior year Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) which is not yet complete.

2. Adjustment within department’s total funding amounts that do not increase total appropriations except as specified above.

3. Changes to department organization charges to better reflect department vacancies, which are described further below.

Budget Updates / Staff Authority
The proposed resolution includes the following:

1. Authorization to appropriate amounts for expenditure as reflected in Exhibit A to the resolution (Attachment I).

2. Authorization to make transfers from one fund to another which are specified in Exhibit B to the resolution.

3. Authorization to distribute the appropriations and transfers to the various accounts of the City in accordance with Exhibit A and B to the resolution, generally accepted accounting principles, and where consistent with the purposes and objectives as outlined in the approved budget.

4. Authorization to appropriate any monies received during FY 2026-27 as a consequence of a gift, donation, or grant application approved by the City Council for the purposes for which the gift, donation, or grant has been approved and subject to City grant policies.

Such appropriation includes authorization for the City Manager to expend such monies and for the Director of Finance to increase revenues and appropriations and make payments therefore in accordance with the terms and conditions and for the purposes of the grant.

5. Authorization to increase revenues and appropriations and make payments where a direct external funding source (such as deposit from developer or payment from outside agency) is available for an unanticipated expenditure.

6. Authorization for City Manager to execute any contract for professional services included in the annual budget that will cost less than $100,000. Any contract that will cost more than $100,000 shall be executed by the City Manager only upon approval of the contract by the City Council given at a meeting of the City Council.

7. Authorization to bind and prepay all coverage and to negotiate and execute all documents necessary to obtain the insurance, third party administration services, loss fund stabilization and defense of claims budgeted for in the Liability Insurance Fund.

8. Authorization for the City Manager and/or City Attorney to represent the City on the board of the Exclusive Risk Management Authority of California (ERMA) and take any 863

Page 7 of 10 ends

and all actions necessary or appropriate to advance the City’s interests in connection with risk management services and procuring of insurance coverage.

9. Authorization for the Director of Finance to take actions required to comply with GASB 31 (Unrealized investment gains and losses) including to make such entries as are required to the City’s financial records and to make such changes to the budget as are required by GASB 31. This is a typical year-end entry which may modify investment earnings based on market value at the end of the period.

10. For Fiscal Year 2025-26 only, authorize the City Manager to reduce expenditure appropriations for General Fund departments and to increase appropriations and modify transfers to/from the General Fund or other funds for Fiscal Year 2025-26 such that the budget is balanced and revenues including transfers exceed or equal budgeted appropriations including transfers and a contribution to the Russell City Redress Fund.

Staff will return to Council around September 2026 with a Budget Year-End Report for Fiscal Year 2025-26 outlining all actions taken to balance the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget.

Staffing
During FY 2026, staffing in the General Fund was reduced over 10%. In order to provide departments with time to adjust to new staffing levels, instead of deleting positions, departments were budgeted for a specified set of positions.

Most vacancies in the General Fund or funds supported by the General Fund have been added to a vacancy management list. These vacancies are unbudgeted and cannot be filled unless the department has an alternate vacancy to swap onto the list. As new vacancies occur through retirement or other separation, staff recommends that the City Manager is authorized to allow departments to fill those vacancies using the positions on that vacancy management list or alternate positions, if recommended by the department head and approved by the City Manager.

In a few cases, vacant positions have been authorized to hire in the General Fund and funds requiring support from the General Fund. Generally, the cost of these positions authorized for hire will be offset by revenue recovery either through fees or charge out to funds other than the general fund.

The attached resolution includes authorization for City Manager to authorize alternate positions, including positions not on the current position list organization chart for the department, provided such position is listed on the current City of Hayward Salary Plan for All Classifications and there is sufficient funding for such position. This permits departments to quickly transition as new opportunities for efficiencies are identified. 864

Page 8 of 10 ends

A Citywide staffing summary is shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3 - Citywide Staffing
FY 2026
Adopted
FY2027
Proposed
5/12/26
FY2027
Proposed
6/2/2026
Managed
Vacancies
%
Vacancy
General Fund 700.90 700.60 700.60 80 11.4%
All Other Funds 255.40 255.40 255.40 5 2.1%
Total City Budget 956.30 956.00 956.00 85 8.9%
Hayward Redevelopment Successor Agency Budget
Acting as the Governing Board of the Successor agency for the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Hayward, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution (Attachment III) authorizing and approving the budget for the Redevelopment Successor Agency of the City of Hayward for FY 2026-27 and adopting appropriations.

Hayward Housing Authority Budget
Acting as the Hayward Housing Authority Board of Directors, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution (Attachment IV) authorizing and approving the budget for the Hayward Housing Authority for FY 2026-27 and adopting appropriations.

Fiscal Year 2027-36 Capital Improvement Program and Budget Appropriations for FY 2026-27
The proposed FY 2026-27 CIP appropriations total approximately $265 million, and a projected total programming of $1.3 billion for the 2027-36 CIP. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution attached as Attachment V approving Capital Improvement Program budget appropriations for FY 2026-27 and associated revenues and expenditures. The Recommended FY27 – FY36 CIP can be found at Capital Improvement Program | City of Hayward - Official website and features an online format. More information about navigating the new CIP format can be found via this link.
865

Page 9 of 10 ends

FISCAL IMPACT
Table 4 below summarizes the FY 2026-27 Citywide Operating & CIP expenditure budgets.

Table 4 – Summary of Citywide Operating & CIP Budgets

PUBLIC CONTACT
The City Council received a Five-Year Forecast at a Fiscal Sustainability Workshop on February, 28, 2026.Since that time, staff has refined the budget numbers especially associated with salary and benefit costs. A City Council work session regarding the FY 2026-27 Operating budget was held on May 12, 2026. Changes since the May 12, 2026 work session are summarized in this report.

The Proposed FY 2026-27 Operating Budget is currently available to the public by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected] or (510) 583-4400, and on the City’s website at: https://hayward-ca.gov/your-government/documents/budget-documents State law requires that the Planning Commission review the Recommended CIP to ensure consistency with the City’s adopted General Plan. The Recommended 2027-36 CIP was presented to the Planning Commission at their April 9, 2026, meeting, and with six members present, the Commission unanimously found that the Recommended 2027-36 CIP is consistent with the City’s 2040 General Plan
City of Hayward Budget FY 2026 - 27
City Funds
General Fund 249,085
Measure C Fund 25,027
Special Revenue Funds 25,358
Debt Service Funds 8,021
Enterprise Funds 129,674
Internal Service Funds 62,294
499,459
Agency Funds
Hayward Successor Redevelopment Agency Operating Fund 4,468 Housing Authority Fund 257
Hayward Shoreline JPA 31
4,756
Total City Operating Budget 504,215
Total CIP Budget 264,134,265
866

Page 10 of 10 ends

The 2027-36 CIP is currently available to the public by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected] or (510) 583-4400, and on the City’s website at:
https://www.hayward-ca.gov/your-government/documents/capital-improvement-program

NEXT STEPS
If Council adopts the FY 2026-27 Operating Budget, Redevelopment Successor Agency Budget, Hayward Housing Authority Budget, and Capital Improvement Program Budget appropriations for FY 2026-27 at this public hearing, staff will take the appropriate steps to effectuate the adoption and execution.

Prepared by: Franchesca Hatfield, Management Analyst
Nicholas Mullins, Senior Management Analyst
Michael Barnes, Acting Deputy Director of Finance | Revenue Manager DeAnna Hilbrants, Director of Finance
Recommended by: DeAnna Hilbrants, Director of Finance
Approved by:
______________________________
Jennifer Ott, City Manager
867

ATTACHMENT II

Page 1 ends

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 26-___
Introduced by Council Member__________

RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF HAYWARD OPERATING
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 AND AUTHORIZING
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
WHEREAS, the City Manager has submitted to the City Council of the City of Hayward estimates of revenues from all sources and estimates of expenditures required for the proper conduct of the activities of the City of Hayward for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27 contained in those documents entitled "City of Hayward Proposed Operating Budget FY 2026-27” with adjustments to the Proposed Budget as discussed at the June 2, 2026 Council Public Hearing and contained herein; and
WHEREAS, a City Council Work Session was held on May 12, 2026 and a Public Hearing was held by the City Council of the City of Hayward on June 2, 2026, at which time all interested persons were afforded an opportunity to be heard on matters pertaining to the budget recommended by the City Manager.

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

1. That the budget presented by the City Manager in the document entitled " City of Hayward Proposed Operating Budget FY 2026-27," with adjustments to the proposed budget as outlined in the June 2, 2026, staff report is hereby approved and adopted as the budget of the City of Hayward for FY 2026-27. Copies of the budget documents and the staff reports presented by the City Manager are on file in the office of the City Clerk and are hereby referred to, incorporated herein, and made a part of this resolution as though set forth in full.

2. That, except as may be otherwise provided, any and all expenditures relating to the objectives described in the budget are hereby approved and authorized and payments therefore may be made by the Director of Finance of the City of Hayward without further action of Council.

3. The amounts reflected in Exhibit A are hereby appropriated for expenditure.

4. The Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer the amounts from one fund to another as indicated in Exhibit B at such time as he/she may determine, giving consideration to the intended purposes for which the transfers are made.

5. The Director of Finance is hereby authorized and directed to distribute the above appropriations and transfers to the various accounts of the City in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and consistent with the purposes and objectives as outlined in the approved budget.
868

Page 2 ends

6. Any monies received during FY 2026-27 as a consequence of a gift, donation, or grant application approved by the City Council are hereby appropriated for the purposes for which the grant has been approved and subject to City policies. Such appropriation includes authorization for the City Manager to expend such monies and for the Director of Finance to increase revenues and appropriations and make payments therefore in accordance with the terms and conditions and for the purposes of the gift, donation, or grant.

7. That the City Manager and Director of Finance are authorized to increase revenues and appropriations and make payments where a direct external funding source (such as deposit from developer or payment from outside agency) is available for an unanticipated expenditure.

8. That for the purposes of determining whether the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract for a commodity or service pursuant to City Charter section 701 subsection 8, the City Manager shall have the authority to expend such funds and enter into and execute any and all contracts and documents necessary to carry out the priorities and service delivery outcomes of the Council's appropriations as set forth in this budget.

9. Any contract for professional services included in the annual budget that will cost more than $100,000 shall be executed by the City Manager only upon approval of the contract by the City Council given at a meeting of the City Council.

10. The City Manager is hereby authorized to modify vacant positions including authorizing alternate positions that are not listed on the department’s organization charts provided that such position is listed on the current City of Hayward Salary Plan for All Classifications and there is sufficient funding for such position.

11. The Director of Finance is authorized and directed to comply with GASB 31 (Unrealized investment gains and losses) and is authorized to make such entries as are required to the City’s financial records. In addition, the Director of Finance is authorized to make such changes to the budget as are required by GASB 31.

12. The City Manager shall have the authority to bind and prepay all coverage and to negotiate and execute all documents necessary to obtain the insurance, third party administration services, loss fund stabilization and defense of claims budgeted for in the Liability Insurance Fund. In consultation with the City Attorney, the City Manager and/or City Attorney shall be authorized to represent the City on the board of the Exclusive Risk Management Authority of California and take any and all actions necessary or appropriate to advance the City’s interests in connection with risk management services and procuring of insurance coverage.

13. For Fiscal Year 2025-26 only, authorize the City Manager to reduce expenditure appropriations for general fund departments and to increase appropriations and modify transfers to/from the General Fund or other funds for Fiscal Year 2025-26 such that the budget is balanced and revenues including transfers exceed or equal budgeted appropriations including transfers and a contribution to the Russell City Redress Fund.

Staff will return to Council around September 2026 with a Budget Year-End Report for Fiscal Year 2025-26 outlining all actions taken to balance the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget.
869

Page 3 ends

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA _ , 2026.

ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

MAYOR:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: _____________________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Hayward
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__
City Attorney of the City of Hayward
870
FY 2027 BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS ATTACHMENT II

EXHIBIT A
General Fund
100 General Fund 249,046,299
Measure C Fund
101 Measure C Fund 25,027,046
Special Revenue Funds
102 Economic Development Fund 100,000
214 Paratransit Fund - Measure BB 2,900,587
220 Federal Grants Fund 5,753,504
225 Community Development Block Grant Fund 4,576,832
230 State Grants Fund 6,217,945
231 Used Oil Fund 36,793
232 Recycling/Measure D Fund 1,352,044
240 Local Grants Fund 2,285,701
245 Housing Authority 257,334
246 Affordable Housing Fund 349,980
285 Inclusionary Housing 68,711
286 Rent Review Program Fund 1,173,743
295 So. Hayward B.A.R.T. JPA 284,720
Special Revenue Fund Total 25,357,894
Enterprise Funds
605 Water 77,999,009
606 Regional Intertie 64,552
610 Wastewater 41,065,941
615 Stormwater 4,186,734
620 Airport 4,772,379
630 Recycled Water 1,585,671
Enterprise Fund Total 129,674,286
Debt Service/Non-Departmental Funds
300 Certificate of Participation 2,487,288
301 Measure C Debt Service 4,450,550
805/810 Special Assessment District 1,083,620
Debt Service Fund Total 8,021,458
Internal Service Funds
705 Worker's Compensation 13,865,773
710 Risk Management 12,619,069
720 Retiree Medical Benefits Fund 9,693,788
725 Facilities 7,874,373
730 Information Technology 13,221,914
735 Fleet 5,019,108
Internal Service Fund Total 62,294,025
Fiduciary Funds
815 Hayward Redevelopment Successor Agency (HRSA) 4,467,697 850 Hayward Trust & Agency Fund 3,500
851 Hayward Shoreline JPA 31,800
Fiduciary Fund Total 4,502,997

Page 1 ends

FY 2024 Fund Transfers To/From ATTACHMENT II

EXHIBIT B
General Fund Transfers In
100-00-0000-00000-49100 101 Cost Allocation From Measure C Fund (623,560) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 210 Cost Allocation From Special Gas Tax Fund (75,533) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 214 Cost Allocation From Paratransit BB Fund (56,971) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 232 Cost Allocation From Recycling Fund (36,547) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 266 Cost Allocation From LLD 1 Fund (1,409) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 267 Cost Allocation From LLD 2 Fund (1,471) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 268 Cost Allocation From LLD 3 Fund (6,687) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 269 Cost Allocation From LLD 4 Fund (1,665) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 270 Cost Allocation From Maintenance District #1 (693) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 271 Cost Allocation From Maintenance District #2 (5,422) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 272 Cost Allocation From LLD 5 Fund (1,398) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 273 Cost Allocation From LLD 6 Fund (1,019) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 274 Cost Allocation From LLD 7 Fund (5,088) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 275 Cost Allocation From LLD 8 Fund (458) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 276 Cost Allocation From LLD 9 Fund (173) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 277 Cost Allocation From LLD 10 Fund (4,498) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 278 Cost Allocation From LLD 12 Fund (746) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 279 Cost Allocation From LLD 11 Fund (4,157) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 281 Cost Allocation From LLD 13 Fund (5,636) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 282 Cost Allocation From LLD 14 Fund (3,174) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 284 Cost Allocation From LLD 16 Fund (2,364) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 290 Cost Allocation From LLD 17 Fund (750) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 291 Cost Allocation From LLD 18 Fund (1,616) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 411 Cost Allocation From Rte. 238 Settlement Fund (15,394) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 605 Cost Allocation From Water Enterprise Fund (665,333) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 606 Cost Allocation From Water Inter-tie Fund (4,552) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 610 Cost Allocation From Sewer Enterprise Fund (677,711) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 615 Cost Allocation From Stormwater Enterprise Fund (111,984) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 620 Cost Allocation From Airport Enterprise Fund (154,011) 100-00-0000-00000-49100 630 Cost Allocation From Recycled Water Fund (6,877) 100-00-0000-00000-49530 101 One-Time Transfer Measure C Fund (10,000,000) 100-00-0000-00000-49530 220 One-Time Transfer From Federal Grants Fund (2,850,000) 100-00-0000-00000-49530 225 One-Time Transfer From CDBG Fund (500,000) 100-00-0000-00000-49530 230 One-Time Transfer From State Grants Fund (2,650,000) 100-00-0000-00000-49530 705 One-Time Transfer From Worker's Compensation Fund (4,954,522) 100-00-0000-00000-49530 720 One-Time Transfer From Retiree Medical Benefits Fund (5,325,799) 100-00-0000-00000-49530 730 One Time Transfer From Information Technology Fund (1,011,211) 100-00-0000-00000-49530 815 Transfer From Successor RDA Fund D/S Repayment (800,000) 100-00-0000-00000-49535 210 Transfer From Gas Tax Fund (249,000) 100-00-0000-00000-49545 810 Misc. Transfer From CFD #1 for Trustee Costs (8,000) 100-00-0000-00000-49545 810 Misc. Transfer From CFD #2 for Police Services (299,460) 100-00-0000-00000-49545 810 Misc. Transfer From CFD #3 for Police & Fire Services (175,000) Transfers In Total (31,299,889)
General Fund Transfers Out
100-00-0000-00000-98100 102 Transfer to Economic Development Fund 100,000 100-00-0000-00000-98110 300 D/S City Hall Debt Service 1,981,439 100-00-0000-00000-98110 300 Transfer D/S Fire Station #7 452,854 100-00-0000-00000-98110 605 Fire Station #7 Repayment to Water Fund 137,741 100-00-0000-00000-98115 405 Transfer To Capital Projects 1,888,000 100-00-0000-00000-98200 710 Liability Insurance Allocation 8,954,419 Transfers Out Total 13,514,453
Measure C Fund
101-00-0000-00000-49530 720 One-Time Transfer From Retiree Medical Benefits Fund (133,137) 101-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To The General Fund 623,560 101-00-0000-00000-98110 301 D/S New Library & Education Center 4,388,625 101-00-0000-00000-98100 100 One-Time Transfer To General Fund 10,000,000 101-00-0000-00000-98200 710 Transfer Out to Liability Insurance 395,721 Measure C Fund 15,274,769
872
FY 2024 Fund Transfers To/From ATTACHMENT II

EXHIBIT B
Economic Development Fund
102-00-0000-00000-49530 100 Transfer In From General Fund (100,000) Economic Development Fund (100,000)
Gas Tax Fund
210-00-0000-00000-49550 615 Transfer From Stormwater Fund (20,000) 210-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To The General Fund 75,533 210-00-0000-00000-98100 100 Transfer To General Fund 249,000 210-00-0000-00000-98115 450 Transfer To Street System Improvement Fund 850,003 OHHA Fund 1,154,536
Paratransit Fund (Measure BB)
214-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To The General Fund 56,971 214-00-0000-00000-98200 710 Transfer Out to Liability Insurance 19,148 Paratransit (Measure BB) Fund 76,119
Federal Grants Fund
220-00-0000-00000-49530 720 One-Time Transfer From Retiree Medical Benefits Fund (6,211) 220-00-0000-00000-98100 100 One-Time Transfer To General Fund 2,850,000 220-00-0000-00000-98200 710 Transfer Out To Liability Insurance 38,296 Grant Fund 2,882,085
CDBG Fund
225-00-0000-00000-49530 720 One-Time Transfer From Retiree Medical Benefits Fund (4,168) 225-00-0000-00000-98200 710 Transfer Out General Liability Insurance 19,786 225-00-0000-00000-98100 100 One-Time Transfer To General Fund 500,000 CDBG Fund 515,618
State Grants Funds
230-00-0000-00000-98100 100 One-Time Transfer To General Fund 2,650,000 230-00-0000-00000-98200 232 Transfer Out Liability Insurance 7,659 2,657,659
Measure D Fund
232-00-0000-00000-49530 720 One-Time Transfer From Retiree Medical Benefits Fund (5,342) 232-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Transfer Out Cost Allocation to General Fund 36,547 232-00-0000-00000-98200 710 Transfer Out Liability Insurance 46,593 Measure D Fund 77,798
Housing Authority Fund
245-00-0000-00000-49530 720 One-Time Transfer From Retiree Medical Benefits Fund (1,118) 245-00-0000-00000-98200 710 Transfer Out Liability Insurance 8,935 Housing Authority Fund 7,817
Affordable Housing Fund
246-00-0000-00000-49530 720 One-Time Transfer From Retiree Medical Benefits Fund (496) 246-00-0000-00000-98200 710 Transfer Out To Liability Insurance 8,936 Affordable Housing Fund 8,440
LLD 1 Fund
266-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To The General Fund 1,409 LLD 1 Fund 1,409
LLD 2 Fund
267-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To The General Fund 1,471 LLD 2 Fund 1,471
LLD 3 Fund
268-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To The General Fund 6,687 LLD 3 Fund 6,687
873
FY 2024 Fund Transfers To/From ATTACHMENT II

EXHIBIT B
LLD 4 Fund
269-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To The General Fund 1,665 LLD 4 Fund 1,665
Maintenance District #1 Fund
270-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To The General Fund 693 Maintenance District #1 Fund 693
Maintenance District #2 Fund
271-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To The General Fund 5,422 Maintenance District #2 Fund 5,422
LLD 5 Fund
272-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To The General Fund 1,398 LLD 5 Fund 1,398
LLD 6 Fund
273-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To The General Fund 1,019 LLD 6 Fund 1,019
LLD 7 Fund
274-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To The General Fund 5,088 LLD 7 Fund 5,088
LLD 8 Fund
275-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To The General Fund 458 LLD 8 Fund 458
LLD 9 Fund
276-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To The General Fund 173 LLD 9 Fund 173
LLD 10 Fund
277-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To The General Fund 4,498 LLD 10 Fund 4,498
LLD 12 Fund
278-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To The General Fund 746 LLD 12 Fund 746
LLD 11 Fund
279-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To The General Fund 4,157 LLD 11 Fund 4,157
LLD 13 Fund
281-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To The General Fund 5,636 LLD 13 Fund 5,636
874
FY 2024 Fund Transfers To/From ATTACHMENT II

EXHIBIT B
LLD 14 Fund
282-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To The General Fund 3,174 LLD 14 Fund 3,174
LLD 16 Fund
284-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To The General Fund 2,364 LLD 16 Fund 2,364
Inclusionary Housing Trust Fund
285-00-0000-00000-49530 720 One-Time Transfer From Retiree Medical Benefits Fund (4,224) Inclusionary Housing Trust Fund (4,224)
Rental Stabilization Program Fund
286-00-0000-00000-98200 710 Transfer Out To Liability Insurance 44,678 286-00-0000-00000-49530 720 One-Time Transfer From Retiree Medical Benefits Fund (8,696) Rental Stabilization Program Fund 35,982
Local Housing Trust Fund
288-00-0000-00000-49530 720 One-Time Transfer From Retiree Medical Benefits Fund (372) Local Housing Trust Fund (372)
LLD 17 Fund
290-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To The General Fund 750 LLD 17 Fund 750
LLD 18 Fund
291-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To The General Fund 1,616 LLD 18 Fund 1,616
Certificates of Participation Fund
300-00-0000-00000-49555 100 Transfer In D/S City Hall Debt Service (1,981,439) 300-00-0000-00000-49555 100 Transfer In D/S Fire Station #7 (452,854) Certificates of Participation Fund (2,434,293)
Measure C Debt Service Fund
301-00-0000-00000-49555 101 D/S New Library & Education Center (4,388,625) Measure C Debt Service Fund (4,388,625)
Water Maintenance & Operations Fund
605-00-0000-00000-49555 100 Transfer In From General Fund Fire Station #7 Repayment (137,741) 605-00-0000-00000-49530 720 One-Time Transfer From Retiree Medical Benefits Fund (148,859) 605-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To General Fund 665,333 605-00-0000-00000-98200 710 Transfer Out To Liability Insurance 789,400 605-00-0000-00000-98100 630 Transfer Out to Recycled Water Fund 600,000 605-00-0000-00000-98115 603 Transfer Out Capital Reserves To Water 7,000,000 Water Maintenance & Operations Fund 8,768,133
Water Inter-Tie Fund
606-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Transfer Out Cost Allocation To General Fund 4,552 Water Inter-Tie Fund 4,552
875
FY 2024 Fund Transfers To/From ATTACHMENT II

EXHIBIT B
Sewer Maintenance & Operations Fund
610-00-0000-00000-49555 630 Transfer In Sewer Replacement Recycled Water Loan (1,076,467) 610-00-0000-00000-49555 612 Transfer In D/S CA SWRCB Loan/Sewer (1,529,504) 610-00-0000-00000-49530 720 One-Time Transfer From Retiree Medical Benefits Fund (164,860) 610-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation to General Fund 677,711 610-00-0000-00000-98115 611 Transfer Out Capital Reserves to Sewer Replacement 9,000,000 610-00-0000-00000-98110 611 Transfer Out Capital Reserves to Sewer Replacement (D/S) 2,863,087 610-00-0000-00000-98200 710 Transfer Out To Liability Insurance 862,034 Sewer Maintenance & Operations Fund 10,632,001
Stormwater Maintenance & Operations Fund
615-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To General Fund 111,984 615-00-0000-00000-49530 720 One-Time Transfer From Retiree Medical Benefits Fund (29,789) 615-00-0000-00000-98115 210 Transfer Out Gas Tax 20,000 615-00-0000-00000-98200 710 Transfer Out To Liability Insurance 161,735 Stormwater Maintenance & Operations Fund 263,930
Airport Operations Fund
620-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To General Fund 154,011 620-00-0000-00000-98200 710 Transfer Out To Liability Insurance 149,353 620-00-0000-00000-49530 720 One-Time Transfer From Retiree Medical Benefits Fund (29,071) 620-00-0000-00000-98115 621 Transfer Out Cap Reserves To Airport Capital 900,000 Airport Operations Fund 1,174,293
Recycled Water Fund
630-00-0000-00000-49530 605 Transfer In from Water Operating Fund (600,000) 630-00-0000-00000-49530 720 One-Time Transfer From Retiree Medical Benefits Fund (2,113) 630-00-0000-00000-97100 100 Cost Allocation To General Fund 6,877 630-00-0000-00000-98115 611 Transfer Out to Sewer Replacement 210,000 630-00-0000-00000-98110 610 Transfer To Sewer Replacement for Recycled Water Loan 1,076,467 630-00-0000-00000-98200 710 Transfer Out To Liability Insurance 3,830 Recycled Water Fund 695,061
Workers' Compensation Fund
705-00-0000-00000-49530 720 One-Time Transfer From Retiree Medical Benefits Fund (12,920) 705-00-0000-00000-98100 100 One-Time Transfer to General Fund 4,954,522 705-00-0000-00000-98100 ALL One-Time Transfer to All Funds 1,045,478 705-00-0000-00000-98200 710 Transfer Out To Liability Insurance 66,379 Workers' Compensation Fund 6,053,459
Risk Management Fund
710-00-0000-00000-49100 100 Transfer In Liability Insurance-General Fund (8,954,419) 710-00-0000-00000-49100 101 Transfer In Liability Insurance-Measure C Fund (395,721) 710-00-0000-00000-49100 214 Transfer In Liability Insurance-Meas BB PRTRNST (19,148) 710-00-0000-00000-49100 220 Transfer In Liability Insurance-Federal Grants (38,296) 710-00-0000-00000-49100 225 Transfer In Liability Insurance-CDBG (19,786) 710-00-0000-00000-49100 230 Transfer In Liability Insurance-State Grants (7,659) 710-00-0000-00000-49100 232 Transfer In Liability Insurance-Recycling Program Fund (46,593) 710-00-0000-00000-49100 245 Transfer In Liability Insurance-Housing Fund (8,935) 710-00-0000-00000-49100 246 Transfer In Liability Insurance-Housing Mortg (8,936) 710-00-0000-00000-49100 286 Transfer In Liability Insurance-Rent Review Program Fund (44,678) 710-00-0000-00000-49100 605 Transfer In Liability Insurance-Water Fund (789,400) 710-00-0000-00000-49100 610 Transfer In Liability Insurance-Wastewater Fund (862,034) 710-00-0000-00000-49100 615 Transfer In Liability Insurance-Stormwater Fund (161,735) 710-00-0000-00000-49100 620 Transfer In Liability Insurance-Airport Fund (149,353) 710-00-0000-00000-49100 630 Transfer In Liability Insurance-Recycled Water Fund (3,830) 710-00-0000-00000-49100 705 Transfer In Liability Insurance-Workers Comp (66,379) 710-00-0000-00000-49100 725 Transfer In Liability Insurance-Facilities Fund (134,800) 710-00-0000-00000-49100 730 Transfer In Liability Insurance-IT Fund (293,599) 710-00-0000-00000-49100 735 Transfer In Liability Insurance-Fleet Fund (162,884) 710-00-0000-00000-49100 815 Transfer In Liability Insurance-Successor RDA Fund (24,491) 710-00-0000-00000-49530 720 One-Time Transfer From Retiree Medical Benefits Fund (9,939) Risk Management Fund (12,202,615)
876
FY 2024 Fund Transfers To/From ATTACHMENT II

EXHIBIT B
Retiree Medical Fund
720-00-0000-00000-98100 100 Transfer Out Retiree Medical Benefits Fund-General Fund 5,325,799 720-00-0000-00000-98100 101 Transfer Out Retiree Medical Benefits Fund-Measure C 133,137 720-00-0000-00000-98100 220 Transfer Out Retiree Medical Benefits Fund-Federal Grants 6,211 720-00-0000-00000-98100 225 Transfer Out Retiree Medical Benefits Fund-CDBG 4,168 720-00-0000-00000-98100 232 Transfer Out Retiree Medical Benefits Fund-Measure D Recycling 5,342 720-00-0000-00000-98100 245 Transfer Out Retiree Medical Benefits Fund-Housing Authority 1,118 720-00-0000-00000-98100 246 Transfer Out Retiree Medical Benefits Fund-Affordable Housing 496 720-00-0000-00000-98100 285 Transfer Out Retiree Medical Benefits Fund-Inclusionary Housing 4,224 720-00-0000-00000-98100 286 Transfer Out Retiree Medical Benefits Fund-Rental Housing Program 8,696 720-00-0000-00000-98100 288 Transfer Out Retiree Medical Benefits Fund-Local Housing Program 372 720-00-0000-00000-98100 605 Transfer Out Retiree Medical Benefits Fund-Water Fund 148,859 720-00-0000-00000-98100 610 Transfer Out Retiree Medical Benefits Fund-Sewer Fund 164,860 720-00-0000-00000-98100 615 Transfer Out Retiree Medical Benefits Fund-Stormwater Fund 29,789 720-00-0000-00000-98100 620 Transfer Out Retiree Medical Benefits Fund-Airport Fund 29,071 720-00-0000-00000-98100 630 Transfer Out Retiree Medical Benefits Fund-Recycled Water Fund 2,113 720-00-0000-00000-98100 705 Transfer Out Retiree Medical Benefits Fund-Worker's Compensation F 12,920 720-00-0000-00000-98100 710 Transfer Out Retiree Medical Benefits Fund-General Liability Insuranc 9,939 720-00-0000-00000-98100 725 Transfer Out Retiree Medical Benefits Fund-Facilities Management Fun 25,916 720-00-0000-00000-98100 730 Transfer Out Retiree Medical Benefits Fund-Information Technology F 57,150 720-00-0000-00000-98100 735 Transfer Out Retiree Medical Benefits Fund-Fleet Management Fund 26,164 720-00-0000-00000-98100 815 Transfer Out Retiree Medical Benefits Fund-RDA Successor Agency Fu 3,531 Retiree Medical Fund 5,999,875
Facilities Management Fund
725-00-0000-00000-98200 710 Transfer Out To Liability Insurance 134,800 725-00-0000-00000-49530 720 One-Time Transfer From Retiree Medical Benefits Fund (25,916) Facilities Management Fund 108,884
Information Technology Fund
730-00-0000-00000-49530 720 One-Time Transfer From Retiree Medical Benefits Fund (57,150) 730-00-0000-00000-98100 100 One-Time Transfer to General Fund 1,011,211 730-00-0000-00000-98100 ALL One-Time Transfer to All Funds 283,431 730-00-0000-00000-98200 710 Transfer Out To Liability Insurance 293,599 Information Technology Fund 1,531,091
Fleet Management Fund
735-00-0000-00000-49530 720 One-Time Transfer From Retiree Medical Benefits Fund (26,164) 735-00-0000-00000-98200 710 Transfer Out To Liability Insurance 162,884 Fleet Management Fund 136,720
Comm. Facility District Fund
810-00-0000-00000-98100 100 Transfer Out To General Fund for Trust Expenses CFD #1 8,000 810-00-0000-00000-98100 100 Transfer Out To General Fund for Police Services CFD #2 299,460 810-00-0000-00000-98100 100 Transfer Out To General Fund for Police & Fire Services CFD #3 175,000 Comm. Facility District Fund 482,460
Successor Agency-RDA of COH
815-00-0000-00000-98100 100 Transfer Out To General Fund D/S Loan Repayment 800,000 815-00-0000-00000-49530 720 One-Time Transfer From Retiree Medical Benefits Fund (3,531) 815-00-0000-00000-98200 710 Transfer Out To Liability Insurance 24,491 Successor Agency-RDA of COH 820,960
877

ATTACHMENT III

Page 1 of 3 ends

REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HAYWARD
RESOLUTION NO. RSA 26-
Introduced by Agency Member

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HAYWARD, ACTING

AS THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY FOR THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HAYWARD, APPROVING THE

BUDGET OF THE REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HAYWARD AND ADOPTING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 WHEREAS, the City Manager has submitted to the Successor Agency of the Redevelopment Agency (the “Redevelopment Successor Agency”) of the City of Hayward estimates of revenue from all sources and estimates of expenditures required for the proper conduct of the activities of the Redevelopment Successor Agency of the City of Hayward for fiscal year 2026-27; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Redevelopment Successor Agency of the City of Hayward, at which time all interested persons were afforded an opportunity to be heard on matters pertaining to the recommended budget.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Successor Agency of the City of Hayward that:

1. The budget presented by the Executive Director is hereby approved and adopted as the budget of the Redevelopment Successor Agency of the City of Hayward for FY 2026-27.

2. Any and all expenditures relating to the objectives described in the budget are hereby approved and authorized and payments therefore may be made by the Finance Director of the City of Hayward.

3. The Director of Finance is directed to comply with GASB 31 (Unrealized investment gains and losses) and is authorized to make such entries as are required to the Redevelopment Successor Agency’s financial records. In addition, the Director of Finance is authorized to make such changes to the budget as are required by GASB 31.

4. The following amounts are hereby estimated resources and appropriated expenditures:
878

Page 2 ends

5. Except as limited in paragraph 6 of this resolution, the Executive Director is authorized without further action from the Board to enter into a contract or agreement for any commodity or service included in the annual budget of the Redevelopment Successor Agency.

6. For the purposes of determining whether the Executive Director has the authority to execute a contract for a commodity or service pursuant to section 4 above, the Executive Director shall have the authority to expend such funds and enter into and execute any and all contracts and documents necessary to carry out the objectives of the Redevelopment Successor Agency's appropriations as set forth in this budget.

7. Any contract for professional services included in the annual budget that will cost more than $100,000 shall be executed by the Executive Director only upon approval of the contract by the Redevelopment Successor Agency Board given at a meeting of the Redevelopment Successor Agency and upon final approval by the Oversight Board and Department of Finance.
879

Page 3 ends

HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA , 2026.

ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: BOARD MEMBERS:

CHAIR:

NOES: BOARD MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS:

ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS:

ATTEST:
_________________________________________________
Secretary of the Redevelopment Successor
Agency of the City of Hayward
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________________________________ General Counsel of the Redevelopment Successor
Agency of the City of Hayward
880

ATTACHMENT IV

Page 1 of 2 ends

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF HAYWARD
RESOLUTION NO. HA 26-___________
Introduced by Board Member____________

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE HAYWARD HOUSING AUTHORITY BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
WHEREAS, the Executive Director has submitted to the Hayward Housing Authority Board of Directors estimates of revenues from all sources and estimates of expenditures required for the proper conduct of the activities of the Hayward Housing Authority for fiscal year 2026-27 contained in those documents entitled “Proposed FY 2026-27 Operating Budget;” and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Housing Authority Board of Directors, on June 2, 2026, at which time all interested persons were afforded an opportunity to be heard on matters pertaining to the budget recommended by the Executive Director.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Hayward Housing Authority as follows:

1. That the budget for FY 2026-27 presented by the Executive Director in the document entitled Proposed FY 2026-27 Operating Budget is hereby accepted and confirmed as the budget of the Hayward Housing Authority for FY 2026-27. Copies of the budget documents and the staff reports presented by the Executive Director are on file in the office of the City Clerk and are hereby referred to, incorporated herein, and made a part of this resolution as though set forth in full.

2. The Director of Finance is directed to comply with GASB 31 (Unrealized investment gains and losses) and is authorized to make such entries as are required to the Housing Authority’s financial records. In addition, the Director of Finance is authorized to make such changes to the budget as are required by GASB 31.

3. Except as limited in paragraph 5 of this resolution, the Executive Director is authorized without further action from the Board to enter into a contract or agreement for any commodity or service included in the annual budget of the Housing Authority.
881

Page 2 ends

4. For the purposes of determining whether the Executive Director has the authority to execute a contract for a commodity or service pursuant to section 3 above, the Executive Director shall have the authority to expend such funds and enter into and execute any and all contracts and documents necessary to carry out the objectives of the Housing Authority’s appropriations as set forth in this budget.

5. Any contract for professional services included in the annual budget that will cost more than $100,000 shall be executed by the Executive Director only upon approval of the contract by the Housing Authority Board given at a meeting of the Housing Authority.

HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA, ______________________., 2025
ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: BOARD MEMBERS:

CHAIR:

NOES: BOARD MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS:

ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS:

ATTEST: _________________________________________
Secretary of the Housing Authority
of the City of Hayward
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________________________
General Counsel of the Housing Authority
of the City of Hayward
882

ATTACHMENT V

Page 1 of 4 ends

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 26-_____
Introduced by Council Member _______________

RESOLUTION APPROVING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
WHEREAS, the City Manager has submitted to the City Council of the City of Hayward estimates of revenues from all sources and estimates of expenditures required for the proper conduct of the activities of the City of Hayward’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2026-27 contained in the document entitled “Recommended Capital Improvement Program FY 2027-36”; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council of the City of Hayward, at which time all interested persons were afforded an opportunity to be heard on matters pertaining to the Capital Improvement Program budget recommended by the City Manager; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the budget and appropriated funds for operating expenses for Fiscal Year 2026-27.

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

1. That the Capital Improvement Projects for Fiscal Year 2026-27, as embodied in Recommended Capital Improvement Program FY 2027-36, are hereby adopted as the Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2026-27. Copies of the budget documents and the staff reports presented by the City Manager are on file in the office of the City Clerk and are hereby referred to, incorporated herein, and made a part of this resolution as though set forth in full.

2. That, except as may be otherwise provided, any and all expenditures relating to the objectives described in the Capital Improvement Program budget are hereby approved and authorized and payments therefore may be made by the Director of Finance without further action of Council.

3. That, for the purposes of determining whether the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract for a commodity or service pursuant to City Charter section 701 subsection 8, the City Manager shall have the authority to expend such funds and enter into and execute any and all contracts and documents necessary to carry out the objectives of the Council's appropriations as set forth in this Capital Improvement Program budget. 883

ATTACHMENT V

Page 2 of 4 ends

4. The following are hereby approved for expenditure:

I. CAPITAL PROJECTS EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS
Fund Amount
Gas Tax Fund (210) $4,866,000
SB1 (211) 5,400,000
Measure BB Tax Fund (Local Transportation) (212) 7,465,785 Measure BB Tax Fund (Pedestrian & Bicycle) (213) 3,972,561 Measure B Tax Fund (Local Transportation) (215) 0
Measure B Tax Fund (Pedestrian & Bicycle) (216) 0
Vehicle Registration Fee Fund (218) 700,000
Measure BB Tax Fund (Paratransit) (219) 0
Capital Projects (Governmental) Fund (405) 12,108,000
Measure C Capital Fund (406) 0
Route 238 Corridor Improvement Fund (410) 0
Route 238 Settlement Administration Fund (411) 750,000
Street System Improvements Fund (450) 3,672,000
Transportation System Improvements Fund (460) 6,692,854 Water Replacement Fund (603) 9,501,000
Water Improvement Fund (604) 30,322,000
Sewer Replacement Fund (611) 12,760,000
Sewer Improvement Fund (612) 158,402,706
Airport Capital Fund (621) 4,701,359
Facilities Capital Fund (726) 300,000
Information Technology Capital Fund (731) 460,000
Fleet Management Capital Fund (736) 1,155,000
Fleet Management Enterprise Fund (737) 1,455,000
TOTAL: ALL CAPITAL FUNDS $264,684,265

5. The Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer the following amounts from one fund to another as indicated below at such time as she may determine, giving consideration to the intended purposes for which the transfers are made and available balances in each of the funds.
884

ATTACHMENT V

Page 3 of 4 ends

II. FUND TRANSFERS

FROM FUND TO FUND AMOUNT
General (100) Capital Projects (Governmental) (405) $2,516,000 General (100) Facilities Capital (726) 1,172,000
OHHA (209) Gas Tax (210) 182,022
Gas Tax (210) General (100) 249,000
Gas Tax (210) Street System Improvements (450) 850,000
Measure D Recycling (232) Capital Projects (Governmental) (405) 110,000 Water Operations (605) Capital Projects (Governmental) (405) 220,000 Water Operations (605) Water Replacement (603) 7,000,000 Sewer Operations (610) Capital Projects (Governmental) (405) 220,000 Sewer Operations (610) Sewer Replacement (611) 11,863,087 Sewer Replacement (611) Sewer Improvement (612) 97,770,000 Sewer Improvement (612) Water Improvement (604) 410,000 Sewer Improvement (612) Sewer Operations (610) 1,529,504 Stormwater Operating (615) Gas Tax (210) 20,000
Airport Operations (620) Airport Capital (621) 900,000
Recycled Water (630) Sewer Replacement (611) 210,000
Information Technology Operations (730) Information Technology Capital (731) 460,000 Facilities Management Fund (725) Facilities Capital (726) 450,000 Airport Operations (620) Fleet Replacement (737) 75,000 Stormwater Operating (615) Fleet Replacement (737) 90,000 Sewer Operations (610) Fleet Replacement (737) 240,000
Water Operations (605) Fleet Replacement (737) 286,000
In order to provide for completion of work on projects previously authorized but not completed as of June 30, 2026, in addition to the above appropriations for capital expenditures, appropriation balances remaining as of June 30, 2026, for capital projects previously authorized but uncompleted, are hereby appropriated for expenditure in fiscal year 2027.

6. Any monies received during fiscal year 2027 as a consequence of a grant application approved by the City Council are hereby appropriated for the purposes for which the grant has been approved. Such appropriation includes authorization for the City Manager to expend such monies and for the Finance Director to make payments therefore in accordance with the terms and conditions and for the purposes of the grant. 885

ATTACHMENT V

Page 4 of 4 ends

7. The Director of Finance is hereby authorized and directed to distribute the above appropriations to the various accounts of the City in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices and consistent with the purposes and objectives as outlined in the approved budget.

8. The budget for capital projects for Fiscal Year 2026-2027, as contained in the document entitled "Recommended Capital Improvement Program FY 2027-36,” is hereby approved.

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
886
CITY OF HAYWARD Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: PH 26-026
DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Finance

SUBJECT
Gann Limit Adoption: Adopt a Resolution Establishing a Gann Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2026- 27 RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) establishing a Gann appropriations limit for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27.

SUMMARY
Each fiscal year, the City is required to calculate and establish its appropriations limit. The Gann Limit for FY 2026-27 is calculated at $446,197,196, and the appropriations subject to the Gann limit total $156,425,344.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III FY 2026-27 Gann Appropriations Limit Calculation Attachment IV FY 2026-27 Gann Appropriations Limit
CITY OF HAYWARD Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™887

Page 1 of 3 ends

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Finance
SUBJECT Gann Limit Adoption: Adopt a Resolution Establishing a Gann Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2026-27

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) establishing a Gann Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2026-27.

BACKGROUND
State Proposition 4, commonly known as the Gann Initiative, was approved by California voters in November 1979. Proposition 4 created Article XIIIB of the State Constitution, which places limits on the amount of revenue that can be spent by government agencies. This is referred to as the Gann Appropriation Limit, or Gann Limit.

A subsequent related State Initiative, Proposition 111, was approved by the voters in June 1990 and provided new adjustment formulas to make the Gann Limit more responsive to local growth issues and to address concerns regarding the accountability of local governments in adopting their limits. Prior to each fiscal year, city councils must adopt by resolution the Gann Appropriation Limit for the city for the upcoming year. In addition, cities are required to conduct a review of their limits during annual financial audits.

The appropriations limitation imposed by Propositions 4 and 111 creates a restriction on the amount of revenue that can be appropriated in any fiscal year. The limit is based on actual appropriations during the 1978-79 fiscal year and is increased each year using population and inflation growth factors. Only revenues that are classified as "proceeds of taxes" are subject to the limit. The use of "non-tax proceeds" (user fees, rental income, franchise fees, Gas Tax revenue) is not restricted.
888

Page 2 of 3 ends

DISCUSSION
During any fiscal year, a city may not appropriate any proceeds of taxes it receives in excess of its established limit. Excess funds received in any year may be carried into the subsequent year for use if the city is below its limit for that year. Any excess funds remaining after the second year would be required to be returned to local taxpayers by reducing tax rates or fees. As an alternative, a majority of the voters may approve an "override" to increase the city's appropriations limit.

Senate Bill 1352 requires that the governing body of each local jurisdiction shall, by a legislative action, establish its appropriations limit at a regularly scheduled or special meeting and that the documentation used in the determination of the appropriations limit shall be made available to the public fifteen days before that meeting. Government Code Section 7910 requires that the City adopt its appropriations limit prior to the beginning of each fiscal year.

The Finance Department of the City of Hayward compiles the data and makes calculations incident to the determination of the XIIIB appropriations limit. The resolution establishes the appropriations limit FY 2026-27 to be $446,197,196.

STRATEGIC ROADMAP
This agenda item is a routine operational item and does not relate to one of the Council’s six Strategic Priorities.

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no present fiscal impacts related to establishing the limit for FY 2026-27. The amount of appropriations subject to the limit is the budgeted proceeds of taxes (e.g., all taxes levied; transfers from an enterprise fund to the extent those transfers exceed the cost of providing the services; discretionary state subventions; interest earned from the investment of proceeds of taxes, etc.), and the total of these budgeted revenues cannot exceed the total appropriations limit.

The City’s actual appropriations in each fiscal year have been significantly below the limit and this is also true for FY 2026-27. The table below summarizes the limit for FY 2026-27 and the preceding five years.
889

Page 3 of 3 ends

PUBLIC CONTACT
The amount of the Fiscal Year 2026-27 appropriations limit and the documentation substantiating this determination are available for review by the public by contacting the Office of the City Clerk.

Prepared by: Nicholas Mullins, Senior Management Analyst Recommended by: DeAnna Hilbrants, Director of Finance
Approved by:
______________________________
Jenniffer Ott, City Manager
890

ATTACHMENT II

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 26-
Introduced by Council Member
RESOLUTION ADOPTING APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27

PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIII B OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, on November 6, 1979, the citizens of the State of California approved Proposition 4, which added Article XIII B to the Constitution of the State of California to place various limitations on the fiscal powers of State and local government; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1352, Government Code Section 7900, et. seq. enacted by the California Legislature, provides for the implementation of Article XIII; and WHEREAS, the City is required to establish its appropriations limit at a regularly scheduled meeting or noticed special meeting, and 15 days prior to such meeting, the documentation used in the determination of the appropriations limit shall be made available to the public; and
WHEREAS, the Gann Limit for FY 2026-27 is calculated at $446,197,196, and the appropriations in FY 2026-27 subject to this limit total $156,425,344; and WHEREAS, the FY 2026-27 Gann Limit was calculated using the change in the cost of living based on the change in California per capita personal income, and the change in population based on the percentage change in population within Alameda County.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Hayward that at its meeting of June 02, 2026, Council adopted a Resolution that establishes the appropriations limit for the FY 2026-27 pursuant to Article XIII B of the Constitution of the State of California.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the documentation used in the determination of the appropriations limit for FY 2026-27 is available for public review by contacting the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Hayward.
891

Page 2 of 2 ends

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA __________2026.

ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

MAYOR:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: ______________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Hayward
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________________
City Attorney of the City of Hayward
892
FY 2026-27
Gann Limit
Attachment III
City of Hayward
Gann Appropriations Limit Calculation Fiscal Year 2026-27 FY 2026-27 Adjustment Factors

1. Population (-0.14+ 100)/100 99.86%

2. Per Capita Income (4.95 + 100)/100 104.95%
Total Adjustment Factor: 104.803%
FY 2025-26 Limit: $425,748,211
FY 2026-27 Adj Factor: 104.80%
New Limit Amount: $446,197,196
FY 2026-27 Limit: $446,197,196
Reference

1. Population: County Population Change

2. Per Capita Income: CA PCI Change
893
City of Hayward Attachment IV
Gann Appropriation Limit Fiscal Year 2026-27
A. Proceeds of Taxes:1 $167,558,857
B. Exclusions:2 $11,133,513
C. Appropriations Subject
to Limitation:3 $156,425,344
D. Current Year Limit:4 $446,197,196
E. Over/(Under) Limit:5 = ($289,771,852)
Note:
1 2
3 A - B (Proceeds of Taxes minus Exclusions)
4 FY 2026-27 Limit
5 C - D (FY 2026-27 Limit minus Appropriations subject to Limitation) Taxes = Property Tax, Sales Tax, Business License Tax, Real Property Transfer Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax, Supplemental Improvement Tax, Excise Tax, Utility Users Tax, Motor Vehicle In Lieu, Interest Earnings
Exclusions: Federal Mandates such as Landscape and Streets Maintenance, FLSA Overtime Costs, Americans with Disability (ADA) Compliance, United States Postal Rate Increases, and Qualitied Capital Outlays
894
CITY OF HAYWARD Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: LB 26-011
DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Manager

SUBJECT
Hayward Business License Tax: Adoption of Resolutions: (1) Establishing November 3, 2026, as the Date for an Election on a Proposed Ballot Measure Seeking Voter Approval of an Ordinance to Modernize the City of Hayward Business License Tax, (2) Requesting the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to Consolidate said Election with the Statewide General Election; (3) Establishing the Policy for Ballot Arguments for the Ballot Measure; and Finding that the Actions are Exempt from Environmental Review

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopts the attached resolutions (Attachments II and IV) to:

1. Place a measure to modernize the City of Hayward Business License Tax Ordinance on the November 3, 2026, ballot,

2. Approve the proposed ballot question as it will appear on the ballot and the underlying ordinance to be enacted,

3. Request that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors consolidates the election for this measure with the established election on November 3, 2026,

4. Direct the City Attorney to develop an impartial analysis of the proposed measure,

5. Direct the City Clerk to conduct necessary activities related to this item,

6. Establish the policy for submitting ballot arguments,

7. Find that the actions are exempt from environmental review.

SUMMARY
The City of Hayward adopted its current Business License Tax (BLT) structure on July 11, 1978. The current tax structure is primarily based on flat annual fees applied by business categories, employee counts and limited gross receipt categories. Over time, changes in the local economy and business environments have prompted consideration of whether the structure reflects today’s business landscape.

For example, newer industries such as data centers are not specifically captured in the City’s current rate categories.

At the January 20, 2026 work session on City revenue sources, Council gave direction to staff to explore modernizing the City’s BLT structure, including comparing Hayward to neighboring jurisdiction and CITY OF HAYWARD Page 1 of 2 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™895
File #: LB 26-011
modernizing the City’s BLT structure, including comparing Hayward to neighboring jurisdiction and conducting polling. On April 7, staff presented the results from public opinion polling, business engagement efforts, and a refined Business License Tax framework. At that meeting, Council directed staff to return with the legislative actions necessary to place the ballot measure at the November 3, 2026, election. The attached resolutions (Attachments II and IV) would formally place this measure on the ballot for voter consideration.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution Establishing November 3, 2026 as Date for an Election Attachment III Exhibit A to the Resolution Establishing Election Date Attachment IV Resolution for Ballot Arguments
Attachment V Comparison of April 7 and June 2 Proposed BLT Frameworks CITY OF HAYWARD Page 2 of 2 Printed on 5/29/2026
powered by Legistar™896

Page 1 of 7 ends

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT Hayward Business License Tax: Adoption of Resolutions: (1) Establishing November 3, 2026, as the Date for an Election on a Proposed Ballot Measure Seeking Voter Approval of an Ordinance to Modernize the City of Hayward Business License Tax; (2) Requesting the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to Consolidate said Election with the Statewide General Election; (3) Establishing the Policy for Ballot Arguments for the Ballot Measure; and Finding that the Actions are Exempt from Environmental Review

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopts the attached resolutions (Attachments II and IV) to:

1. Place a measure to modernize the City of Hayward Business License Tax Ordinance on the November 3, 2026, ballot,

2. Approve the proposed ballot question as it will appear on the ballot and the underlying ordinance to be enacted,

3. Request that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors consolidates the election for this measure with the established election on November 3, 2026,

4. Direct the City Attorney to develop an impartial analysis of the proposed measure,

5. Direct the City Clerk to conduct necessary activities related to this item,

6. Establish the policy for submitting ballot arguments,

7. Find that the actions are exempt from environmental review.

Page 2 of 7 ends

opinion polling, business engagement efforts, and a refined Business License Tax framework.

At that meeting, Council directed staff to return with the legislative actions necessary to place the ballot measure at the November 3, 2026, election. The attached resolutions (Attachments II and IV) would formally place this measure on the ballot for voter consideration.

FISCAL IMPACT
Should Hayward voters approve the modernization of the Business License Tax, the City is projected to generate approximately $16 million in total annual Business License Tax revenue. The current system generates approximately $3.3 million in revenue from about 10,000 business license payers. If approved, this measure would generate an estimated increase of approximately $12 million annually.

The cost of the election, including election of two Councilmembers subject to separate report and resolution is estimated at $500,000. This amount has been incorporated into the Proposed Operating Budget for FY 2026-27.

BACKGROUND
On January 20, 2026, staff presented to City Council information about the City’s general fund revenue sources, including the BLT. At that Work Session, Council gave direction to staff to explore modernizing the City’s BLT structure, starting with comparing Hayward to neighboring jurisdictions and conducting initial outreach to stakeholders.

At the February 28, 2026 Fiscal Sustainability Work Session, staff presented two potential proposals for Council consideration and feedback. Council expressed interest in exploring the “Match Neighbors” scenario, which aligns Hayward’s tax rates more closely with surrounding jurisdictions and directed staff to conduct public opinion polling and business engagement to better inform the next phase of this effort.

Staff returned to Council on April 7 to present the results of public opinion polling and business engagement efforts, as detailed in the associated staff report. At that meeting, Council expressed interest in pursuing the proposed tax framework and directed staff to return with legislative actions necessary to place the ballot measure at the November 3, 2026 ballot.

This topic was further discussed during the May 12th, 2026 Budget Work Session, where staff presented an overview of the City’s budget, including ongoing efforts to modernize the City’s BLT Tax structure. During the discussion, Council expressed interest in learning more about modernization efforts taking place in neighboring jurisdictions and directed staff to meet with labor representatives to gather additional input on the proposed BLT tax framework. 898

Page 3 of 7 ends

DISCUSSION
Proposed BLT Structure
Based on Council feedback from the April 7, 2026 Work Session, staff conducted additional outreach with neighboring jurisdictions and met with labor representatives to discuss potential refinements of the proposed progressive rate structure. Based on these discussions, staff is bringing back a refined proposal that includes the addition of a new tax rate bracket for businesses with annual gross receipts exceeding $50 million, as well as increased rates for Data Center and Residential and Nonresidential Rental classifications. Attachment V provides a comparison between the April 7th and updated June 2nd proposals.

The refined proposal also reflects modernization efforts taking place in neighboring cities, such as San Leandro and Newark, which are also considering BLT modernization measures for the November 2026 ballot. Figure 1 compares the estimated tax rates generated under the proposed tax framework with neighboring jurisdictions. As shown below, the updated proposal keeps the City’s generally aligned with the revenue generation of surrounding jurisdictions, while supporting long-term business retention and competitiveness locally.

Figure 1. Estimated Business License Tax Rates per $1,000 of Gross Receipts Across Selected Jurisdictions and Proposed Modernization Framework
Similar to the previously discussed “Match Neighbors” framework, the proposed structure transitions the City toward a gross receipts-based structure intended to better align tax obligations with business size and revenue and overall economic activity occurring within the City. This approach differs from the City’s current structure, which relies largely on flat fees and limited categories, toward a more progressive framework that reflects differences in business scale and economic activity.

Proposed Ballot Language
Based on direction from Council during our last work session, staff recommend placement of the following ballot language before Hayward voters:
899

Page 4 of 7 ends

HAYWARD BUSINESS LICENSE TAX MODERNIZATION: Shall the
measure updating the Hayward Business License Tax for the first time since 1978, to support general city services, including neighborhood police protection, firefighting, 911 response, libraries, and pothole repair, generating an additional $12 million annually until repealed, with a minimum tax of $60 and rates from $.30 to $3.75 per $1,000 of gross receipts, with higher rates for highergrossing businesses, as stated in the ordinance, be adopted? YES
NO
Proposed BLT Ordinance Amendment
The proposed ordinance would modernize the City’s BLT structure for the time since 1978 by transitioning from a system of flat annual fees and employee counts toward a more progressive gross receipts-based framework.

The proposed ordinance includes the following key elements:

Modernized Definitions and Administrative Framework
The ordinance updates and modernizes business activity definitions and classifications to provide clearer and more standardized categorization of business activity.

The ordinance also updates provisions related to annual license periods, payment schedules, penalties, interest, apportionment methodologies, and administrative authority to support implementation of the updated structure, including provisions allowing for apportionment of gross receipts attributable to business activity occurring within the City.

Updated Business Activity Classifications
The ordinance establishes standardized business activity classifications (Class A through Class J) to replace the City’s structure that contained dozens of individual business categories and fee schedules. It also replaces numerous outdated business-specific categories, such as card rooms, peddlers, and various trades and occupations into broader business activity categories.

The proposed categories are:
• Retail Sales and Utility
• Wholesale Sales, Transportation, and Warehousing
• Manufacturing
• Business and Personal Services
• Professional/Semi-Professional Services
• Construction Contractor
• Hotel and Motel
• Data Center
900

Page 5 of 7 ends

• Miscellaneous
• Residential and Nonresidential Rental
The ordinance also includes updated definitions and classifications related to utilities, data centers, warehousing operations, and other business types to better reflect modern business activity within the City.

Transition to Gross Receipts-Based and Progressive Tax Structure The ordinance introduces a new gross receipts-based methodology that transitions away from the current structure that was primarily based on flat fees and employee counts.

The ordinance establishes gross receipts brackets for most business classifications using the following thresholds:
• Up to $5 million
• $5 million to $10 million
• $10 million to $25 million
• $25 million to $50 million
• Over $50 million
Other key elements of the new structure include:
• A minimum tax payment of $60 applicable to all businesses, to ensure a baseline contribution across all business types;
• Tiered gross receipts rates ranging from $0.30 to $3.75 per $1,000 of annual gross receipts, with higher rates applied to businesses with higher gross receipts; • Authority for the Tax and License Administrator to determine apportionment of gross receipts attributable to business activity occurring within the City; and • A definition for businesses under common ownership to ensure that related entities under common control are treated as a single economic enterprise, so the progressive rate structure applies based on the true scale of business activity within the City.

The table below provides a summary of the proposed business activity classifications and corresponding gross receipts-based tax rates included in the proposed ordinance. 901

Page 6 of 7 ends

Effective Date and Implementation
If approved by voters, the ordinance would become effective following certification of the November 3, 2026 election results. The updated BLT rates would apply beginning January 1, 2027, and would be calculated using calendar year 2026 gross receipts.

Environmental Review
The adoption of the attached Resolutions is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code§§ 21000 et seq., "CEQA," and 14 Cal. Code Reg.§§ 15000 et seq., "CEQA Guidelines"). Under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), the resolution contained in Attachment II is not a project within the meaning of CEQA because the ballot measure would create a government funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. If revenue from the tax were used for a purpose that would have either such effect, the city would undertake the required CEQA review for that particular project.

Adoption of the resolution contained in Attachment III to establish the policy for ballot arguments is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) as an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change to the environment.

Furthermore, the resolutions contained in Attachment II and Attachment III are subject to the “common sense” exemption contained in section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that adoption of the resolutions may have a significant effect on the environment.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Staff conducted public outreach and stakeholder engagement efforts related to the modernization measure, including public opinion polling, a business engagement survey, and Alt Proposal Tax Revenue Average Effective
Bracket 1 Bracket 2 Bracket 3 Bracket 4 Bracket 5 (2026 $) Tax Rate (per $1,000) TAX CATEGORY Payers
Gross Receipts
(2026 $)* Min tax
Alt Tax
Payroll
$0 mil -
$5 mil
$5 mil -
$10 mil
$10 mil -
$25 mil
$25 mil -
$50 mil $50 mil + Current Law Alt Proposal
Current
Law
Alt
Proposal
Retail Sales 1,341 $2,917,255,148 $60 $0.70 $0.30 $0.40 $0.50 $0.75 $1.00 $694,021 $1,742,255 $0.24 $0.60 Grocers 58 $311,466,346 $60 $0.70 $0.30 $0.40 $0.50 $0.75 $1.00 $36,695 $136,839 $0.12 $0.44 Automobile Sales 103 $671,723,379 $60 $0.70 $0.30 $0.40 $0.50 $0.75 $1.00 $71,859 $454,177 $0.11 $0.68 Wholesale Trade/Warehouse 701 $4,646,990,288 $60 $0.70 $0.50 $0.60 $0.70 $0.80 $1.00 $549,313 $3,235,516 $0.12 $0.70 Manufacturing (Value Add) 365 $1,474,924,344 $60 $0.70 $0.60 $0.80 $0.90 $1.00 $1.10 $390,021 $1,323,451 $0.26 $0.90 Business/Personal Svcs 1,537 $920,476,690 $60 $0.70 $0.50 $1.00 $1.25 $1.50 $1.75 $169,286 $716,308 $0.18 $0.78 Professional Svcs 1,376 $1,419,045,992 $60 $0.70 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.75 $1,027,473 $2,264,055 $0.72 $1.60 Contractors 2,107 $700,214,941 $60 $0.70 $0.50 $0.90 $1.15 $1.25 $1.50 $191,275 $400,589 $0.27 $0.57 Hotel/Motel 19 $28,944,004 $60 $0.70 $0.30 $0.40 $0.50 $0.60 $1.00 $8,282 $9,215 $0.29 $0.32 Utility Companies 8 $145,564,178 $60 $0.70 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $1,075 $365,827 $0.01 $2.51 Trucking/Transportation 320 $576,448,601 $60 $0.70 $0.50 $0.60 $0.70 $0.80 $1.00 $111,582 $364,440 $0.19 $0.63 Data Centers 6 $34,574,216 $60 $0.70 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $2,359 $103,769 $0.07 $3.00 Miscellaneous 44 $17,208,925 $60 $0.70 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $3,481 $28,299 $0.20 $1.64 Commercial Rental Property 1,107 $740,542,575 $60 $0.70 $3.75 $3.75 $3.75 $3.75 $3.75 $221,232 $2,792,953 $0.30 $3.77 Residential Rental Property (4+ Units) 515 $282,637,889 $60 $0.70 $3.75 $3.75 $3.75 $3.75 $3.75 $86,982 $1,063,845 $0.31 $3.76 Residential Rentals (1-3 Units) 4,858 $154,719,415 $60 $0.70 $3.75 $3.75 $3.75 $3.75 $3.75 $0 $580,198 $0.00 $3.75 Total 14,466 $15,042,736,931 Total Estimated Base Taxes (excluding penalties) $3,564,937 $15,581,735 $0.24 $1.04 Estimated Penalties $95,866 $419,016
Total Estimated Business Tax Revenue $3,660,804 $16,000,751 902

Page 7 of 7 ends

meetings with local business stakeholder groups. Additional details regarding these outreach efforts are included in the April 7, 2026, Council Work Session Staff Report. Additionally, the City met with labor representatives in May to discuss potential refinement of the proposed tax framework.

NEXT STEPS
If Council adopts the resolution placing the measure on the November 3, 2026, ballot, staff will work closely with the City Clerk and City Attorney to submit all of the required documentation to the County Registrar of Voters by the deadline. The City Attorney will also draft the impartial analysis of the measure for submittal.

Below is a schedule of other key dates related to a November 3, 2026 election:

Date Action
August 3, 2026 Deadline to file City Attorney Impartial Analysis with City Clerk August 7, 2026 Deadline to file with County Board of Supervisors and Alameda County Registrar of Voters the ballot measure question, ballot measure full text, and City Attorney Impartial Analysis (EC 9280- 9287)
August 10, 2026
(noon, 12pm)
Last day to file direct arguments with City Clerk (EC 9282, 9286) August 10-20, 2026 Public review period for direct arguments (EC 9295) August 14, 2026
(noon, 12pm)
Last day to file rebuttal arguments with City Clerk (EC 9285, 9286)
August 14 -24, 2026 Public review period for rebuttal arguments (EC 9295) August 24, 2026 Deadline to submit direct and rebuttal arguments to the Alameda County Registrar of Voters
EC = Election Code
Prepared by: Irene Perez, Management Analyst II
Miriam Lens, City Clerk
Michael Vigilia, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Recommended by: Mary Thomas, Assistant City Manager
Approved by:
______________________________
Jennifer Ott, City Manager
903
a [Type here] Atta

Page 1 of 6 ends

ATTACHMENT II

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 26-_____
Introduced by Council Member ______________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HAYWARD ESTABLISHING NOVEMBER 3, 2026, AS THE DATE FOR AN ELECTION ON A PROPOSED BALLOT

MEASURE SEEKING VOTER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO

MODERNIZE THE CITY OF HAYWARD BUSINESS LICENSE TAX, AND

REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY TO

CONSOLIDATE SAID ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL
ELECTION; AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OTHER ELECTION ACTIVITIES;

AND FINDING THAT THE ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
WHEREAS, the Hayward City Council is authorized by California Elections Code Section 9222 to place measures before the voters; and WHEREAS, Elections Code Sections 9281 through 9287 set forth the procedures for arguments in favor of and in opposition to any City ballot measure and for rebuttal arguments; and
WHEREAS, the City of Hayward, as a charter city, may impose a business license tax pursuant to its authority over municipal affairs as described in Article XI, Section 5 of the California Constitution; and
WHEREAS, the proposed business license tax to be submitted to the voters is a general tax that can be used for any legitimate governmental purpose, including but not limited to, neighborhood police protection, firefighting, 911 response, libraries, and pothole repair; and
WHEREAS, any general tax must be submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote, as specified in Article XIIIC, Section 2 of the California Constitution and Government Code section 53723; and
WHEREAS, the City of Hayward adopted the current business license tax structure on July 11, 1978. This current system generates approximately $3.3 million in revenue from about 10,000 business license payers; and WHEREAS, the current tax structure is primarily based on flat annual fees applied by business categories, employee counts and limited gross receipt categories.

As a result, many businesses within the same category pay similar taxes regardless of business size or revenue; and
904
a [Type here] Atta

Page 2 of 6 ends

ATTACHMENT II
WHEREAS, the ballot measure proposes a business license tax that uses a gross receipts-based structure intended to better align tax obligations with business size and revenue and features a more progressive framework that reflects differences in business scale and economic activity; and
WHEREAS, the proposed business license tax would generate an additional $12 million annually with a minimum tax of $60 and rates from $.30 to $3.75 per $1,000 of gross receipts, with higher rates for higher-grossing businesses; and WHEREAS, November 3, 2026, is the date ofthe Statewide General Election and it is desirable that the election on the City's ballot measure be consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held on the same date; that within the City, the precincts, vote centers and election officers of the two elections be the same; and that the Alameda County Registrar of Voters canvass the returns of the consolidated election and that the election be held in all respects as if there were only one election; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code§§ 21000 et seq., "CEQA," and 14 Cal. Code Reg.§§ 15000 et seq., "CEQA Guidelines"). Under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), the action is not a project within the meaning of CEQA because the ballot measure would create a government funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. If revenue from the tax were used for a purpose that would have either such effect, the city would undertake the required CEQA review for that particular project. Furthermore, this action is subject to the “common sense” exemption contained in section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that adoption of the Resolution may have a significant effect on the environment.

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

1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference.

2. Call Election; Placement of Measure on the Ballot. Pursuant to California Constitution Article XIIIC, Section 2; Government Code Sections 53723 and 53724; and Elections Code Section 9222, the City Council of the City of Hayward hereby calls an election at which it shall submitto the qualified voters of the City, a measure that, if approved, would impose a business license tax that can be used for any legitimate governmental purpose. This measure shall be assigned a letter designation by the Alameda County Registrar of Voters. Pursuant to Election Code Section 10400 et seq., the election for this measure shall be 905
a [Type here] Atta

Page 3 of 6 ends

ATTACHMENT II
consolidated with the established election to be conducted on November 3, 2026.

3. Ballot Language. The question to be presented to the voters shall be as follows:

4. Proposed Ordinance.
a) That the proposed full text of the measure authorizing the general tax to be approved by the voters is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The City Council hereby approves the measure, the form thereof, and its submission to the voters of the City at the November 3, 2026 election. The full text of the
ordinance will be accessible on the City of Hayward’s
website (www.hayward-ca.gov) or by contacting the City
Clerk, and this will be referenced in the Voter Information Pamphlet.
b) That the measure authorizing the general tax is subject to the approval of a majority (greater than 50%) of the voters voting on the measure, per California Constitution Article XIIIC, Section 2 and Government Code section
53723.

5. Publication of Measure. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause notice of the measure to be published once in the official newspaper of the City of Hayward, in accordance with Section 12111 of the Elections Code and Section 6061 of the Government Code.
906
a [Type here] Atta

Page 4 of 6 ends

ATTACHMENT II

6. Request to Consolidate and Conduct Election and Canvass Returns.
(a) Pursuant to the requirement of Section 10403 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election on Tuesday November 3, 2026, for the purpose of placing the measure set forth in Sections 3 and 4 on the ballot. (b) The Alameda County Registrar of Voters is authorized to canvass the returns of the municipal election. The election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used.
(c) The Alameda County Board of Supervisors is requested to issue instructions to the Alameda County Registrar of Voters to take any and all steps necessary for the holding ofthe consolidated election. (d) The City of Hayward recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the Alameda County Registrar of Voters because ofthis consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for any costs.

7. Submission ofBallot Argument and Impartial Analysis to City Clerk.
(a) The lastday for submission of direct arguments for or against the measure shall be by noon, 12:00 p.m. on August 10, 2026. (b) The last day for submission of rebuttal arguments for or against the measure shall be by noon, 12:00 p.m. on August 14, 2026. (c) Direct arguments shall not exceed three hundred (300) words and shall be signed by not more than five authors. (d) Rebuttal arguments shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) words and shall be signed by not more than five authors. The author of an argument may prepare and submit a rebuttal argument or may authorize in writing another person or persons to prepare, submit, or sign the rebuttal argument. (e) The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure by August 3, 2026, and such analysis shall not exceed five hundred (500) words.
(f) Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9285, when the City Clerk has selected the arguments for and against the measure, which will be printed in the voter information guide, the City Clerk shall send a copy of the 907
a [Type here] Atta

Page 5 of 6 ends

ATTACHMENT II
argument in favor of the measure to the authors of the argument against the measure, and a copy ofthe argument against the measure to the authors ofthe argument in favor of the measure. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument, which it seeks to rebut.

8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and the CityClerk is directed to send certified copies of the Resolution to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and the Alameda County Registrar of Voters.

9. CEQA. The adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code§§ 21000 et seq., "CEQA," and 14 Cal. Code Reg.§§ 15000 et seq., "CEQA Guidelines"). Under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), the action is not a project within the meaning of CEQA because the ballot measure would create a government funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. If revenue from the tax were used for a purpose that would have either such effect, the city would undertake the required CEQA review for that particular project. Furthermore, this action is subject to the “common sense” exemption contained in section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that adoption of the Resolution may have a significant effect on the environment.

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA, _______________________, 2026.

ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

MAYOR:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Page 6 of 6 ends

ATTACHMENT II

EXHIBIT A
Proposed Ordinance
909

ATTACHMENT III
1 ME ORDINANCE NO. 26-____
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HAYWARD DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Definitions—Amendment. Section 8-1.10 of Article 1, Chapter 8 of the Hayward Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows, with deleted terms shown in strikeout and added terms underlined:

SEC. 8-1.10 - DEFINITIONS. GENERAL.

For the purposes of this Article certain words and phrases are defined and certain provisions shall be construed as herein set out unless it shall be apparent from their context that a different meaning is intended.

The definitions in this section apply to the words and phrases used in this Article unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
(a) “Business” means any activity, enterprise, profession, trade, or undertaking of any nature conducted or engaged in, with the object of gain, benefit or advantage, whether direct or indirect, to the taxpayer or to another or others. “Business” shall include any transaction which is, or which in effect results in, a sale, but shall not include the services rendered by an employee to their employer. (b) “City” means City of Hayward, a California Charter City. (c) “Engaging in Business” means commencing, conducting, or continuing in business and also the exercise of corporate or franchise powers as well as liquidating a business when the liquidators hold themselves out to the public as conducting such business.
(d) “Gross Receipts” means the total amount of the sale price of all sales and the total amount charged or received for the performance of any act, service, or employment of whatever nature it may be, for which a charge is made or credit allowed; and included in Gross Receipts shall be all receipts, cash, credits, and property of any kind or nature and any amount for which credit is allowed by the seller to the purchaser without any deduction therefrom on account of the cost of the property sold, the cost of the materials used, labor or service cost, interest paid or payable or losses or other expenses whatever. Excluded from Gross Receipts shall be cash discounts allowed and taken on sales, value of property accepted as part of the purchase price and which property will later be sold, any tax which is measured by the sales price or the Gross Receipts from the sale or which is a stated sum per unit of such property sold, included in or added to the purchase price and collected from the consumer or purchaser, and such part of the sale price 910

ATTACHMENT III
2 of property returned by the purchaser upon revision of the contract of sale as is refunded either in cash or by credit.
(e) “Newly Established Business” means:
(1) A Person conducting any business activity in the City for the first time; or (2) A Business that resumes operation in the City after having been out of operation in the City during the entire previous tax year. (f) “Person” means any natural person, receiver, administrator, executor, assignee, trustee in bankruptcy, trust, estate, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, club, company, joint stock company, business trust, limited liability company, municipal corporation, political subdivision of the State of California, domestic or foreign corporation, association, syndicate, society, or any group of individuals acting as a unit, whether mutual, cooperative, fraternal, nonprofit, or otherwise, and the United States or any instrumentality thereof, and any natural person, who as an individual or with a spouse, owns more than fifty (50) percent of the capital stock of a corporation obligated to file a declaration and pay tax pursuant to this Article; and in addition, is a person with the power to control the fiscal decisionmaking process by which the corporation allocates funds to creditors in preference to its tax obligations under the provisions of this Article. A person as defined herein, who is also an officer or director of a corporation obligated to file declarations and pay tax pursuant to this Article, shall be presumed to be a person with the power to control the fiscal decision-making process. Whenever the term “person” is used in any clause prescribing and imposing a penalty, the term as applied to any association shall mean the owners or part owners of such association, and as applied to any corporation, shall mean the officers of such association.
(g) “Sale” and “Sell” means any transfer of title to property for a price by any manner or means, and to the serving, supplying, or furnishing, for a price, of any property fabricated or made at the special order of consumers who do or do not directly or indirectly furnish the specifications for such special order. “Sale” also includes any transaction where the possession of property is transferred, but the seller retains the title as security for the payment of the price.

Section 2. Repeal of Sections 8-1.11 through 8-1.15. Sections 8-1.11 through 8-1.15 of Article 1, Chapter 8 of the Hayward Municipal Code are hereby repealed and reserved to read as follows:
911

ATTACHMENT III
3 SECS. 8-1.11—8-1.15 - Reserved.

Section 3. Business Activity Definitions—Addition. Section 8-1.16 is hereby added to Article 1, Chapter 8 of the Hayward Municipal Code to read as follows, with added terms underlined:

SEC. 8-1.16 - BUSINESS ACTIVITY DEFINITIONS.

The definitions in this section apply to the words and phrases used in this Article unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. The Tax and License Administrator may issue written determinations classifying specific business activities consistent with the criteria set forth in this section and shall publish a summary of such determinations for public reference.
(a) “Business and Personal Services” means any Business primarily engaged in providing administrative support, operational support, or personal care services to other businesses or to individuals, where the service does not primarily involve the exercise of professional advice or specialized technical expertise of the kind described in the definition of “Professional/Semi-Professional Services” in this section. “Business and Personal Services” includes, but is not limited to:
(1) Administrative and business support services, including office administrative services; facilities support services; employment placement and staffing agencies (except those placing licensed or credentialed professionals); document preparation and copying services; mail, courier, and messenger services; call center and telemarketing services; collection agencies; credit reporting services; travel arrangement and reservation services; investigation and security guard services; janitorial, landscaping, pest control, and other services to buildings and dwellings; packaging and labeling services; convention and trade show organizing services; and other similar administrative and support activities;
(2) Personal and laundry services, including laundries and dry cleaners; linen supply services; coin-operated laundry; cosmetologists, estheticians, barbers, nail technicians, and other personal appearance services requiring a California Board of Barbering and Cosmetology license or equivalent state license; massage therapists and bodywork practitioners; diet and weight-reducing centers; funeral homes and crematories; shoe repair; pet grooming and boarding; tattoo and body piercing studios; and other personal care and service activities not elsewhere classified. (b) “Construction Contractor” means a Person who conducts or carries on a Business that is licensed as a contractor by the State of California and who undertakes to, or 912

ATTACHMENT III
4 offers to undertake to, or purports to have the capacity to undertake to, or submits bids to, or does themselves or by or through others, construct, alter, repair, add to, subtract from, improve, move, wreck, or demolish any building, highway, road, railroad, excavation, or other structure project, development, or improvement, or to do any part thereof, including the erection of scaffolding or other structures or works in connection therewith.
(c) “Data Center” means any Business that primarily operates or provides facilities for the housing or operation of computer systems, servers, and associated equipment used to manage, process, store, distribute, or share data, including, but not limited to, colocation services, cloud computing, data hosting, and managed information technology services.
(d) “Hotel” and “Motel” means providing short-term lodging in facilities known as hotels, motor hotels, inns, resort hotels, and motels that may offer food and beverage services, recreational services, conference rooms, convention services, laundry services, and other services. “Hotel” and “Motel” also include offering all or a portion of a residential building or structure for short-term dwelling, sleeping, or lodging, for example, by offering a bedroom, home, or other living space on a third-party platform for short-term residential use. As used in this definition, “short-term” means for 30 consecutive days or less.
(e) “Manufacturing” means manufacturing or processing any goods, wares, merchandise, articles, or commodities at a location within or outside of the City and selling such items at retail and/or wholesale inside or outside the City. (f) “Miscellaneous” means any business activity not otherwise defined in this section.
(g) “Nonresidential Rental” means renting or letting all or a portion of a building, structure, billboard, or other property for commercial, industrial, or advertising purposes, or a portion of such building, structure, billboard, or property within the City for a purpose other than dwelling, sleeping, or lodging to a tenant. “Nonresidential Rental” includes offering, renting, or letting co-working spaces in any building or space, either as individual offices or shared working space, to businesses, independent contractors, or persons regardless of whether the person offering the co-working space owns the building or space or offers other related services, space, or products. “Nonresidential Rental” includes renting parking spaces in a parking lot or parking structure or any other rental of parking spaces. 913

ATTACHMENT III
5 (h) “Professional/Semi-Professional Services” means any Business providing services or information products where the primary activity involves the application of advanced specialized knowledge, skill, or judgment that typically requires formal post-secondary education, professional training, or a license or credential whose issuance is conditioned on demonstrated competency in a field of intellectual, scientific, technical, financial, or healthcare practice. “Professional/SemiProfessional Services” includes, but is not limited to:
(1) Legal services, including attorneys, law firms, title companies, and abstractors;
(2) Accounting, tax preparation, bookkeeping, payroll, and auditing services; (3) Architectural, engineering, land surveying, and related technical services; (4) Specialized design services, including graphic design, industrial design, interior design, and fashion design;
(5) Computer systems design, software development, information technology consulting, and related services, including software-as-a-service, platformas-a-service, and infrastructure-as-a-service; where a Business both operates Data Center infrastructure and provides software, consulting, or other professional services, it shall be classified as a Data Center if the primary activity at its location within the City is the physical housing and operation of computing infrastructure; otherwise, it shall be classified by the nature of the services it primarily provides;
(6) Management consulting, business process consulting, and other scientific and technical consulting services;
(7) Scientific research and development services;
(8) Advertising, public relations, market research, media buying, and related communications services;
(9) Veterinary services;
(10) Photography when conducted as a specialized commercial or artistic profession, translation and interpretation services, and other professional, scientific, or technical services not elsewhere classified; 914

ATTACHMENT III
6 (11) Finance and insurance services, including banking and credit intermediation; securities, commodities, and investment services; insurance carriers, agencies, and brokers; financial planning and investment advisory services; and fund, trust, and portfolio management; (12) Real estate services, including real estate agents and brokers, real estate managers and operators acting as agents, property appraisers, and title abstract and settlement services;
(13) Information services, including newspaper, magazine, book, music, and software publishing; motion picture and sound recording production; and other information services;
(14) Healthcare and social assistance services, including offices of physicians, dentists, optometrists, chiropractors, and other licensed health practitioners; outpatient care centers; medical and diagnostic laboratories; home health care services; hospitals; nursing and residential care facilities; individual and family social services; and other health and social assistance activities;
(15) Management of companies and enterprises, including holding companies, corporate headquarters, and central administrative offices whose primary activity is directing and coordinating the activities of subsidiaries or affiliates.

An activity shall be classified as Professional/Semi-Professional Services if it primarily involves any of the activities described above, regardless of how the Business describes itself or its services. Where an activity falls within this definition or the definition of Business and Personal Services, the activity shall be classified as Professional/Semi-Professional Services.
(i) “Residential Rental” means conducting or operating an apartment house or lodging house and every Person engaged in the business of conducting or letting rooms, and/or any building structure, for dwelling, sleeping, or lodging, including, but not limited to, a single-family house, duplex, triplex, townhouse, condominium, or co-operative. “Residential Rental” does not include rentals with an occupancy of 30 consecutive days or less.
915

ATTACHMENT III
7 (j) “Retail Sales” means the sale of goods, wares, or merchandise for any purpose other than resale in the regular course of business, including restaurants, the selling of new or used motor vehicles at retail, and the sale of groceries at retail.

Arts, entertainment, and other performances or recreation activities for which admission is charged to the public shall also be Retail Sales. (k) “Transportation” refers to the use of transportation equipment such as airplanes, trains, boats, cars, trucks, vehicles, pipelines, or other conveyances as productive assets to move people and goods and includes air transportation, rail transportation, water transportation, truck transportation, transit and ground passenger transportation, pipeline transportation, and scenic and sightseeing transportation.
(l) “Utility” means conducting or operating a public or private utility. This definition includes, but is not limited to, businesses providing to the general public or to private businesses utility services such as gas, electric, sanitary, or garbage services; video services, no matter how provided, including cable television, streaming services, satellite television, and other similar services; and telephone, audio or video telecommunications, or unified communication services. “Utility” also includes generating or selling electricity for either wholesale or retail, but does not include generating electricity from a clean energy source such as solar or wind when the generated electricity is primarily used on the premises where it is generated.
(m) “Warehousing” means any business operation where the principal business activity involves the storage and warehousing of goods, merchandise, packages, mail, or household furniture or goods in the City, including the temporary storage or processing of mail or packages for purposes of sorting or preparing for redelivery. A Business engaged in warehousing activities whose principal business activity within the City is Retail Sales shall be classified as Retail Sales. (n) “Wholesale Sales” means the sale of goods, wares, or merchandise for the purpose of resale in the regular course of business.

Section 4. Business Activity Classifications—Addition. Section 8-1.17 is hereby added to Article 1, Chapter 8 of the Hayward Municipal Code to read as follows, with added terms underlined:
916

ATTACHMENT III
8 SEC. 8-1.17 - BUSINESS ACTIVITY CLASSIFICATIONS.

Class A Retail Sales and Utility
Class B Wholesale Sales, Transportation, and
Warehousing
Class C Manufacturing
Class D Business and Personal Services
Class E Professional/Semi-Professional Services
Class F Construction Contractor
Class G Hotel and Motel
Class H Data Center
Class I Miscellaneous
Class J Residential Rental and Nonresidential Rental
Section 5. License Tax; Tax Rates—Addition. Section 8-1.18 is hereby added to Article 1, Chapter 8 of the Hayward Municipal Code to read as follows, with added terms underlined:

SEC. 8-1.18 - LICENSE TAX. TAX RATES.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Article, the City imposes, and every Person Engaging in Business within the City shall pay, an annual license tax. (b) Persons engaged in business activities within the City shall pay the license tax at the rates provided in Section 8-1.19. All rates stated as an amount per one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) shall be paid for each full one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) of taxable Gross Receipts and every fractional part thereof. (c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), every Person Engaging in Business within the City shall pay an annual minimum license tax of sixty dollars ($60.00).

Section 6. Tax Rates by Classification—Addition. Section 8-1.19 is hereby added to Article 1, Chapter 8 of the Hayward Municipal Code to read as follows, with added terms underlined:
917

ATTACHMENT III
9 SEC. 8-1.19 - TAX RATES FOR CLASS A THROUGH CLASS J.
(a) Class A (Retail Sales and Utility). Persons engaged in Class A business activities shall pay a license tax as follows: