5/8/26
PHASE 2: EVALUATING ALTERNATIVES
Community Engagement Summary
September 2025 – April 2026
Safe Streets Downtown
ATTACHMENT III
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
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.
Phase 2 Engagement
ATTACHMENT III
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 one-
way or two-way?
ATTACHMENT III
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
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 co-
creating 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
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
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 community-
designed visions for:
(1) Circulation around
Downtown
(2) Corresponding design
ideas for Mission Blvd, A
St, and Foothill Blvd
ATTACHMENT III
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
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 long-
term options:
Downtown Grid and
Civic Avenue
• Direction selecting
preferred option
through online survey
followed by and council
meeting
ATTACHMENT III
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
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
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 Two-
Way 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 cut-
through 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
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 Two-
Way 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, pedestrian-
friendly 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
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
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
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
TradeoffsBenefits
23%
Want Council to study
this option further
(6 votes)
ATTACHMENT III
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
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
TradeoffsBenefits
27%
Want Council to study
this option further
(7 votes)
ATTACHMENT III
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
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
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
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
TradeoffsBenefits
ATTACHMENT III
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
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
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
Further study
Further study⚊ Not a priority ✘ 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
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
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 mixed feedbackMost common 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
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
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
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
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 on-
street parking; improving
safety and enforcement of
surface lots/garages
ATTACHMENT III
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%
30%20%
10%
17%
Strongly agree Agree Neutral
Disagree Strongly disagree
267
responses
ATTACHMENT III