HUSD District Maps Decided..?
In Which: HUSD districts are almost completely settled. Planning Commissioners buy into stereotypes around homelessness. And Planning Commissioners still frustrated with State housing law.
The Hayward Herald is going to be taking July 4th off—not out of any particular patriotism, but because everyone deserves a day, you know? We’ll be back on Tuesday, July 9th with election coverage and more. See you then!
Hayward Unified Decides On A Map—Kinda
The Hayward Unified School District (HUSD) voted June 26th to approve Final Map A. The map keeps the unincorporated areas of Alameda County together—Cherryland, Castro Valley, and Fairview. It was supported by vocal members of the unincorporated areas who said that not being a part of Hayward ties them together, despite stark socioeconomic and racial differences.
However, there was also an in-person community meeting the day before the final map was approved. Community members drafted Modified Map A, which changes the boundaries slightly to allow part of Cherryland (around the Hayward Adult School) to be rolled into a district with Downtown, the Jackson Triangle, and the Longwood/Hesperian areas. Upper B street is grouped with the remaining unincorporated areas, along with other minor modifications.
The HUSD Board of Trustees voted for Final Map A, even though they preferred Modified Map A. Unfortunately, that map hadn’t been up for enough time before the vote, so they couldn’t choose it. However, they’re discussing an agreement with Attorney Scott Rafferty to extend the deadline and allow adopting Modified Map A. If an agreement can be reached, HUsF will hold a final hearing and vote on July 24.
Below is the sequence of the districts, when it becomes time to vote:
2026: Districts 2 (east Hayward) and 4 (Tennyson Area)
2028: Districts 1 (Downtown/Jackson/Burbank), 3 (Unincorporated areas), and 5 (Hills area)
Both maps have the same sequence and area numbers, so that part has been settled.
Keep an eye on the HUSD Districting Website for any developments.
When Planners Discuss Homelessness
The Planning Commission hasn't met for the last month and a half, and this was their last meeting before the summer break. The items they covered this time focused on homelessness and affordable housing policy—more detail below. It’s important to highlight their stances, since this is where future City Councilmembers cut their teeth.
Zoning for Supportive Housing
This item already got City Council feedback just two days earlier, but the Planning Commission got to weigh in as well, since it has to do with zoning. To summarize, the City doesn’t have enough housing options for our unhoused neighbors—there just aren’t enough beds. One thing the City can do is loosen restrictions on supportive housing and make it easier to build and operate these facilities.
The Staff is proposing to ease restrictions on:
Single Room Occupancy (SROs)
Group Homes
Safe Parking Facilities
Shelters and Low-Barrier Navigation Centers
Some of these aren’t even legal yet and others are being allowed in more areas. There’s a lot more detail on the previous post.
Unsurprising, But Still Disappointing
A lot of the comments involved coded language about “public safety.” Commissioner Goodbody opened by saying she was concerned about “water and sewer infrastructure and public safety” at safe parking sites. “I’m concerned,” she said, “about this taxing the 911 system, which is already pretty impacted.” The HPD report during the City Budget meeting said that 98.86% of emergency calls were answered within 10 seconds, and 94% of Priority 1 calls were responded to within 10 minutes in FY 24.
Commissioner Goodbody was also concerned about unlicensed group homes, which is shared by others on Council, and Staff said that the State requires unlicensed group homes with 6 or fewer beds—they can’t be banned. However, like all the other supportive housing types, they will be required to get a Conditional Use Permit which can be revoked by Code Enforcement if things devolve.
Commissioner Goodbody finally asked that the Planning Commission be able to set the performance standards, and Staff reminded her that they were asking for exactly that during this meeting.
Commissioner Stevens said that the unhoused population is “a very small group” making up only .33% of the population—based on the Point In Time Count, which only counts those visibly on the streets. He asked, “If you create opportunities and resources [like supportive housing], do you encourage [unhoused] folks to relocate to the City?” Staff said, “Most of them originate from the area where they are experiencing homelessness.”
The tone changed when Commissioner Franco-Clausen said, “I actually lived in a group home here in Hayward.” She then spoke about foster youth, who frequently become homeless after aging out of the system, “They don’t seek to leave, because that’s comfort.” She celebrated the array of options being put forward, “I’m actually all for it, because unless you have that experience, you don’t actually know the services and housing that you need to become stable again.”
Commissioner Meyers asked a number of questions, mostly with the intent of meeting need as best the City can. “If we [had an emergency],” he said, “and we said ‘You have to wait until you get a hard plumb bathroom’… the [porta potty trailer] would perfectly work then.”
Commissioner Meyers also demonstrated how a connection to homelessness can change someone’s perspective. “I now have a son who is unhoused,” he said, “so I’m looking at it through a whole different paradigm. I’m looking at it with a heck of a lot more compassion than I probably did years ago.” However, he still expressed a frustration with behavior and suggested a sort of neighborhood council to work with group homes on behavior standards. Staff said there are working groups that could be a model, but “We don’t want to make it so burdensome that they don’t operate.”
Commissioner Patterson asked if the police had a preferred supportive housing typee. “[Are there] types of supportive housing that [Maintenance and the Police Department] are most concerned about?”
“They’re more concerned with the existing encampments,” Staff said, “There’s no 1-size-fits-all solution.”
Chair Lowe said, “What I’m concerned about is someone living [at a safe parking location] 24/7 for a very long time and other people can’t have a turn.” Staff said that there are hours of operation, which would force people to leave for the day, and chose non-profit locations who would need the parking during the day specifically to encourage leaving during the day.
Commission Supports It But…
Commissioner Stevens expressed his contempt for the unhoused during his comment period. “I fail to understand the logic of how this works,” he said. “I fail to see the logic of how Council has initiated this where it affects, let’s say 1% of the population. What about the other 99% of us that have to live in this city and have to look at all the things? For me, from my perspective, there’s a lot more consequential problems to deal with.”
He then said he was against safe parking, “I believe they will become nuisances.” He also expressed a dislike of group housing due to two which are allegedly operating in his neighborhood—again, allowed by State law.
Commissioner Franco-Clausen then responded in the most gentle way possible. “It’s always tough, based on your lived experience, to understand some of the implications that are happening when we discuss housing,” she said, “But I think this is a great start.” She said it was important to have these options available, “So we can remove some of the people who are living on the streets,” especially children.
Commissioner Patterson was generally for the zoning changes, but expressed a desire to engage with the carrot and the stick with regard to safe parking. She expressed a desire for a ban on living out of one’s car on the street along with having safe parking sites—tough luck for anyone who isn’t able to secure a spot.
Chair Lowe focused on managing bad actors, “I, too, am concerned [about leaving it all up to non-profits]. I think that if we choose to do that, we’ll have to be very specific as far as the regulations are concerned.” She also said she was concerned about the safety of people around the safe parking lots. “What do you have to do to get kicked out and not allowed back in?” she asked. “Because let’s face it, it only takes one person to make other people very afraid.”
She closed by placing conditions on her approval of the supportive housing types. “As long as the information that comes back is favorable to the residents of our city.” Considering the people living on the streets of Hayward are residents, that should at least be an easy bar to clear.
Commission And Prohousing Designation
This is going to come up in a few other places (Homelessness and Housing Task Force and likely the full Council), but the City is looking to apply to receive a Prohousing Designation from the State. There’s some minor grant money attached to getting it—about $1,000,000—but it also gives the City priority in a lot of other State grants. And anyone who has been following along knows that the City gets after grants.
Hayward tried to get the designation in December of last year, but the application wasn’t processed in time for the March deadline—bureaucracy, friends—so they’re trying again for this round. The City has to show that they’ve met a bunch of criteria, each of which is given a set of points. The minimum number of points is 30, and Staff thinks the City will get 44.
A lot of policies earn those points, but only 3 are new ones: a study looking to make ADUs easier to build, some universal design requirements to make it easier to build for all ages and abilities, and subsidizing a Tiny Homes village. Everything else is already on the books.
That Horse Left That Barn
Commissioner Patterson opened by asking about outreach—something she’s asked about frequently in the past. She said she received something in the mail and wondered if that was specifically for renters or for some other reason. Staff clarified that they’ve done outreach through all their mailing lists, but have not done specific outreach to renters. Commissioner Patterson encouraged Staff to do that so that renters know some of the programs that benefit them.
Commissioner Stevens asked a question about whether or not “prevailing wage contractors” are required for City projects and Staff confirmed that they were. Commissioner Stevens has shown contempt for unionized labor in the past, having spoken strongly against a project which accidentally added a requirement for it as a Condition of Approval. However, the City recently renewed their Community Workforce Agreement which requires Union labor for City projects.
Commissioner Lowe expressed concern about making ADUs too easy to construct, wondering whether the City had the resources to handle something that “packs people in.” Staff said that ADUs are generally considered a “gentle increase” in housing stock, and the proposed policy will simply offer a suite of pre-approved plans to make building ADUs easier.
“Is going beyond the State law on ADUs beneficial enough for Hayward to be worth the 2 points?” Commissioner Lowe asked. “I’m worried about resources and safety.” In the past, the Planning Commission has been skeptical of ADUs, referring to tenants who may not be family as “some strange people in the community.” Staff clarified that the project was merely for the plans and helping to set up utilities.
Commissioner Lowe then asked about a policy to eliminate parking minimums and streamlining CEQA—both of which are already on the books and are a part of the Downtown Specific Plan, Downtown zoning, and Mission Boulevard Plan Area. Staff then clarified that the three policies (listed above) are the only new policies and everything else is already in place.
A Vocal Minority
Commissioner Patterson approved of the plan, despite unnamed reservations. “I may not be totally in agreement with this,” she said. “I’m just wondering about the cost benefit.” Considering the number of housing grants City Staff apply for every year, anything to get a leg up sounds like a sound investment to me.
But the issue was, perhaps less with the grant assistance, and more with the State itself. “I bristle any time the state density bonus law is brought up,” Commissioner Patterson said. “I feel like we already have a lot of regulations that are impacting our ability to make decisions for the city… I feel very cautious about what the actual benefit is to the city.”
The Planning Commission frequently chafes at the State’s housing laws which are specifically designed to override local control, which has been used extensively in the past to stop development. Commissioner Stevens felt similarly. “Obviously I am in support of this because the state is holding the city hostage for getting funding that’s drastically needed to clean up the city.” It was unclear what he meant by “clean up.”
He, once again, complained about the lack of local control, which has, for example, stopped the Planning Commission from burying a 13 home development because they thought it was ugly. “There has to be some middle ground about getting housing built but also giving us local control.”
Chair Lowe took a different tone during the close of the item, and highlighted the use of in-lieu fees. “It’s really good to see what’s going on with those in-lieu fees,” she said. (In-lieu fees are fees developers pay into a fund instead of building on-site affordable units, for any number of reasons. They can be a divisive topic among some.)
Chair Lowe then seemed to express pleasant surprise that Staff had used the money the way they said they would. “That sounds really good to me that we are using those in-lieu fees for the purpose that we though they were being used for.” The in-lieu fees go into an Affordable Housing Trust Fund which, undoubtedly has legal stipulations around how the money can be used.