Final Maps For HUSD Districts Revealed
In Which: Districting dates are laid out together. Council approves impounding vendor equipment. And Council pushes back on Measure C being a 'Bait and Switch'
Districting Updates
The districting process continues for the City of Hayward, Hayward Unified School District (HUSD), and the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District (HARD). Below are some updates from the last week.
HUSD Final Maps Revealed
The final maps for HUSD’s districts have been made public. The only big difference was the inclusion of a third map, at the behest of Trustee April Oquenda who pushed for separating Cherryland from the rest of the unincorporated areas: “[Fairview and Cherryland] are different communities with different needs,” she said. This resulted in Map C.
The majority of public comment during the last public hearing was for Map A, though the new map may change opinions. Most of that seemed to be because it put the unincorporated areas together into a single unit, but Trustee Oquenda’s comments on the differences between Cherryland, Fairview, and Castro Valley were definitely worth considering. For what it’s worth, Attorney Scott Rafferty also supported Map A.
Other notable differences with Map C are that Treeview Elementary is grouped with South Hayward, as opposed to being primarily grouped with the Hayward Hills area. Cherryland is grouped with the area between 880 and Jackson to its south—at the behest of Trustee Oquenda.
You can look at the full list of changes on the HUSD Districting page under the Maps tab. And if you have one that you prefer, be sure to tell all the board members which one. They’ll be voting on it next week, June 26th.
HUSD Board Weighs In
During the last public hearing on June 12th, the HUSD Board gave their feedback on the draft maps that had been available for a little over a week. Trustee Rawdon once again tried to push for at-large voting for districted candidates, like San Leandro. Unfortunately for him—and fortunately for everyone else—Attorney Scott Rafferty confirmed that such an arrangement wouldn’t comply with the California Voting Right’s Act.
Trustee Oquenda pushed for in-person outreach at the Street Party—happening Downtown tonight. Trustee Prada expressed vague concern around issues with power and resource allocation by putting too many affluent areas together—though consolidating their vote into a single Trustee could actually be more beneficial to less-affluent areas.
The main result was the third map, which will be included in the Board vote on June 26th.
Upcoming Important Districting Dates
June 20—Downtown Street Party: City of Hayward and HUSD Districting Booths
June 22 at 10:00 AM—Cherryland Community Center: HARD Community Meeting
June 22 at 12:00 PM—Heritage Plaza: City of Hayward at Juneteenth Event
June 24 at 6:30 PM—Cherryland Elementary School: HUSD Public Hearing
June 26 at 6:30 PM—HUSD Board Meeting and FINAL MAP ADOPTION
June 27 at 11 AM—Weekes Library: City of Hayward Pop-Up Event
June 29 at 10 AM—San Felipe Community Center: HARD Community Meeting
June 28 at 11 AM—Mt. Eden Park: All American Festival: City Pop-Up Event
July 1 at 6:30 PM—HARD District Office: HARD Public Hearing #1
July 9—TBD: City of Hayward Community Workshop
July 13 at 10 AM—Sorensdale Park: HARD Community Event
July 15 at 6:30 PM—HARD District Office: HARD Public Hearing #2
August 5 at 6:30 PM—HARD District Office: HARD Hearing on Draft Maps
August 19 at 6:30 PM—HARD District Office: HARD Hearing on Draft Maps #2
August 27—City of Hayward Draft Maps Posted
September 3 at 7:00 PM—City of Hayward Public Draft Map Hearing
September 16 at 6:30 PM—HARD District Office: HARD FINAL MAPS ADOPTED
September 17—City of Hayward Final Maps Posted
October 1 at 5:30 PM—City of Hayward Public Hearing on Final Maps
October 8 at 5:30 PM—City of Hayward FINAL MAPS ADOPTED
Other public workshops may get added, but this is what’s been scheduled officially so far.
Council Adds Enforcement to Street Vendor Law
The City Council added further punishment to what has, until now, been a Street Vendor Ordinance that’s focused on education. The ordinance covers the folks who sell things on the street—from flower vendors to pupuseras to tamale vendors. A state law passed a few years ago legalized the practice and the City crafted an ordinance to regulate it locally.
This ordinance has only been in effect since November, but the conversations have been happening since June of 2023. It’s one of the few things that has divided the City Council. Generally speaking, Mayor Salinas and Councilmember Zermeño have been more hostile to street vendors—they’ve frequently said they hurt brick and mortar businesses—while the rest of Council has been more supportive.
The change that’s been proposed is an additional punishment for not complying. According to City Staff, the current escalating fine schedule is not enough to deter vendors who have been repeatedly cited. Staff said that it was also in response to “Some of the concerns we have heard since the adoption of the ordinance.” It was unclear if this was a reference to public concerns or City Council concerns.
The new punishment is impoundment: at the discretion of Code Enforcement, if a vendor is repeatedly in violation of the law then they can have their equipment seized. What the Staff presentation failed to mention is that any “perishables” would be immediately thrown away. Since the majority of the vendors sell food or flowers or other perishables, this means the immediate loss of their entire inventory.
In order to get their equipment back—minus their perishables—the vendors would have to show up at City hall to claim the equipment within 10 days and pay an impound fee, which is still being worked out. And if the vendor is unable to pick up and pay for their items within 30 days, they will be sold off or destroyed.
Council Digs For Information
Councilmember Zermeño seemed eager for impounds to begin. He asked when the enforcement would start—30 days after adoption—and also suggested specific areas to target based on alleged profit loss from businesses. City Staff said that they can’t prioritize specific areas and also said, “[we] can’t start with impoundment.”
Councilmember Bonilla tried to gauge the extent of the issue. He asked how many vendors were in the 3rd stage of enforcement—which includes a fine—and the number is 71. He then asked what the hurdles to compliance were. Staff pointed out that the primary barrier is getting their Mobile Food Facilities permit from the County. Staff said, “[The County Environmental Health Department is] severely under-resourced.”
When Councilmember Bonilla asked how many complaints had been registered so far, staff admitted that it was a mere 14 in over 6 months, or a little over 2 per month. He also asked if the Hayward ordinance is aligned with those from other neighboring cities, and Staff admitted they had never looked into it, which is usually the first things Staff does.
They also shared that Hayward is one of the only cities doing education on the process and that San Leandro had sent some of their vendors to Hayward education sessions.
Councilmember Bonilla finally asked how the Police Department felt about what’s going on, and Staff said, “They support anything that we’re willing to do” while also assuring Council that they’re “not trying to take a hard-nosed approach.”
Councilmember Roche asked about how complaints came in—mostly from Access Hayward, calls, and emails to code enforcement—and also if any vendors had made it through the entire process. Staff admitted that not a single vendor had made it to full compliance in 6 months—one has apparently come close—despite workshop attendance being fairly high at 6+ vendors per workshop.
Councilmember Roche then asked, “Will we look at spot enforcement [or] some hierarchy of need?” She said, “Vendors seem to be multiplying at this point.” She also pushed to link the County’s phone number in Access Hayward so that appropriate calls can go to them and possibly prompt further funding.
Councilmember Andrews asked if any education had been done with the property owners “impacted by the vendors” and Staff said they’d work on that. She also asked if there had been any interaction with the State. Staff said no, but also seemed to express frustration at the State law, “[The State] took that action to pave the way for vendors, taking away a lot of local control.” It was unclear what they’d do with more local control, though the prohibition on taking business competition into account is a sore spot with some on Council.
Councilmember Goldstein asked about connecting vendors to other resources in the community, and Staff said they tried. He further asked if there were funding resources available for things like micro-loans and Staff said they didn’t know of any. Staff may want to ask the Community Services Department, since the CSC funded Centro Community Partners to the tune of $50,000 this year and they do micro-loans to help low-income minority and women entrepreneurs.
Mayor Salinas focused on the polystyrene issue, which he has recently started focusing on more than the competition aspect. He asked what would happen if a brick and mortar restaurant had been in violation of the polystyrene ban, and Staff said that there was a Community Preservation ordinance that covers that—while they didn’t mention enforcement details, Municode states that it would be just another fine.
Council Changes Tone On Street Vendors
Mayor Salinas used his privilege as Mayor to set the tone of the comments this time around. “I hope the community sees here… that we’re really trying here,” he said. “We’re really trying to make this work.” It was a much softer tone than he has previously taken.
He also engaged in some revisionist history, at least insofar as the public record is concerned. “The restaurant owners were very empathetic.” This directly contradicts the June 2023 public hearing when multiple restaurant owners referred to street vendors with dehumanizing language and used them as a scapegoat for their post-COVID recovery problems.
The Mayor then said that “We wanted to legalize them and bring them into the economy.” Previously he said the point was to convert vendors into brick and mortar businesses. Mayor Salinas then pivoted into his talking points around too many tents and open air cooking. But he then used a slippery-slope argument, “[Street vending] is leading to other things.” He recalled someone washing cars in a parking lot, “Where do we stop?”
Lastly, Mayor Salinas took a jab at the County’s enforcement that allegedly occurred at the nacho booth during the Rowell Ranch Rodeo. Even he admitted he took “a little time to rant, here.”
Councilmember Zermeño took a softer tone, as well. He recalled his mother being a street vendor in Mexico who then came to the US and worked to open a restaurant in Salinas, CA. Given that this was, presumably, somewhere around 60’s or 70’s, it’s safe to assume the economic environment was a lot different then. He said that he wanted vendors to “obtain their American Dream… not legally… the word is ‘correctly.’” He said that the impoundment is “going to force them to find the correct way.”
But immediately after this, he mentioned 9 street vendors on Tennyson and said, “I’m filing a formal complaint… you need to visit them.” He did not mention any specific health code or permitting violation.
The change occurred when other members of Council made their comments. The rest of Council seemed to embrace the narrative of a city overrun. Councilmember Roche said she liked the “deterrent.” “If we don’t put another level of deterrent in this ordinance,” she said, “there will be some people who say ‘Oh, don’t worry, you’ll just get a fine.’”
She also took issue with restrictions imposed by the State, “State law has dictated how far we can go.” This comment implied that Councilmember Roche would prefer to be more restrictive on street vendors. She had previously voiced support for restricting them to specific areas, which is against State Law.
Councilmember Bonilla started his comments by agreeing with the Mayor. “Bringing this tool into our toolbox… makes a lot of sense to me,” he said. “These issues are only going to escalate [in the summer].” However, he did place some of the blame on the County’s slow permitting process and encouraged the public to contact the County to improve it
Councilmember Andrews also focused on the alleged harm done to business owners, “[W]e also need to be thinking about fairness.” She suggested that street vendors could participate in events, or engage in catering as “good way[s] of making a living without impacting our brick and mortar stores.” Unfortunately, events also require a MFF—which they can’t get—and catering requires a commercial kitchen—which needs a building and up to $50,000 in equipment.
Councilmember Syrop was the lone voice in full support of street vendors. “I’m a little frustrated by this issue because I think it’s turning local entrepreneurs against each other.” He was also the only one to point out the various other issues facing brick and mortar restaurants that aren’t street vendors, “We have a state that prevents us from regulating rents [on commercial buildings].”
He also said something that should have been said months ago, “I also have to wonder what our brick and mortar owners would have thought of this ordinance when they were just starting off as street vendors themselves.” Strictly speaking, if they were street vending before, they were likely doing so illegally. Some business owners have admitted to taking that route themselves and seem to be working to pull the ladder up after themselves.
Ultimately, Councilmember Syrop voted in favor of adding impoundment, but said, “If we find that our vendors have disappeared as a result, I think we, as a Council, have gone too far.”
Some Helpful Context
Below is some helpful information that everyone should know about the Street Vendor Ordinance:
The Ordinance requires vendors to be on the sidewalk, but also to allow 5’ of clearance. The Mayor implied that the Economic Development Committee wants more food vendors in residential areas. However, most residential sidewalks are 6’ wide which would put them out of compliance if they use an EZ Up to block the sun. The places with wide sidewalks—15’ would be ideal—are commercial areas, which forces vendors into direct competition with brick and mortar businesses.
If the threat of punishment stopped crime, we wouldn’t have any. Until I hear of millionaire street vendors, I refuse to believe that people are doing it because it’s lucrative. So if you’re trying to stop people from vending without an MFF, we should help them get an MFF and make them jobless for 6+ months while they wait for one or to scrape together the $900/year to apply.
Brick and mortar businesses are facing a number of hardships that have nothing to do with street vendors. Rents are up, cost of food is up, payroll costs are up, all while people have less money to spend. My weekly meal out increased from $30 to $45—that’s a more than 30% increase. We can’t control that, but it’s wrong to put the blame solely on street vendors.
Measure C Gets The Green Light
The .5% sales tax for Measure C will get a 20 year extension if approved by voters in November. City Council discussed the ballot language and some potential uses for the money.
Everyone on Council wants to see Measure C pass, the only difference is priorities. Councilmember Roche wanted to make sure that the measure matched reality. “If we’re gonna say this in the ballot measure, I wanna be sure we’re not dropping anything off that list,” she said “I wanna make sure we’re matching that.”
They discussed various costs, “I’m envisioning something a lot higher [for the Public Safety Center],” Mayor Salinas said, “$250,000,000-$300,000,000.” He, and Staff, felt that the City needed to make smart scoping decisions for big projects.
The only friction came from two callers from Hayward Concerned Citizens who alleged that Measure C had been a “bait and switch.” Councilmember Roche said, “I’ve heard this ‘bait and switch’ and I wanna push back on that.” She said, “I think it’s really clear what we’re promising in that ballot question… Within that promise [we need to decide] what we can do… We will be holding those discussions in the Fall.”
Councilmember Goldstein also pushed back. “Our financial accountability in this city is very strong,” he said. Councilmember Zermeño said, “We have delivered on past promises.” And Mayor Salinas reassured the public, “I have never seen a Councilmember or a Mayor not take this process seriously.”
Councilmember Syrop pointed we can’t please everyone. “I’m not expecting everyone to be 100% happy with the final prioritization.” But despite alleged competing priorities, one came directly to the top for many: the new Police HQ.
“We agree that the public safety center is very very important,” said Councilmember Andrews. “[My] first priority will be the public safety building,” said Councilmember Zermeño, “Simple as that.” Councilmember Bonilla stressed community input, however, “It’s important we all have a voice in shaping what it is we prioritize.” The Mayor agreed, “We don’t just go to the community and ask just to ask.” Though how that input is interpreted is up to Council.
Councilmember Andrews, however, had some strong words on the idea of renovating the Weekes Branch of the Hayward Public Library. “I don’t want to look at putting any money toward facilities unless we look at all the agencies that are providing services there.” It was unclear from her comments whether she supported or disliked the services in and around Weekes Park. She said “Weekes is more than just a building so we need to figure something out.”
But in the end, Mayor Salinas stressed that the extension of Measure C was an investment in the future. “We deserve the very best in this City,” he said. And this is one way to get it.