Hayward planning commission finds $161 million recommended FY26 capital improvement program consistent with Hayward 2040 General Plan

The Hayward City Planning Commission on April 10 voted to find that the city’s recommended fiscal year 2026–2035 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is consistent with the Hayward 2040 General Plan, clearing the way for the CIP to move to the City Council for final approval.

The commission’s unanimous vote by the six members present — Commissioners Goodbody, Hammond, Lowe, Myers, Stevens and Chair Hardy (Commissioner Franco Claussen was absent) — followed a staff presentation and a question-and-answer period on project priorities, funding sources and technical details of city infrastructure projects.

Public Works Director Alex Amiri summarized staff’s recommendation, saying the CIP “is consistent with the Hayward 2040 General Plan” and that the document reflects contributions from multiple city departments. Management Analyst Michael Wolney walked commissioners through the CIP’s online OpenGov presentation and budget summaries.

Why it matters

The CIP lays out project spending and priorities for the next 10 years and guides how the city will invest in utilities, streets, parks and public facilities. The commission’s finding on general-plan consistency is a required step before the program is forwarded to City Council for adoption.

Key budget figures and funding sources

- Staff described the recommended FY26 CIP budget as approximately $161,000,000 and the 10‑year CIP at about $1,300,000,000. Staff also noted identified but unfunded capital needs of roughly $709,000,000. - General-fund transfers to CIP funds for FY26 were said to be about $3,000,000; internal service fees were listed at about $3,900,000. - Staff said most CIP funding comes from enterprise funds (water, sewer, airport), county measures (Measure B and Measure BB), local measures (Measure C; Measure K1 extends Measure C), vehicle registration fees, grants and loans; only a small portion is from the general fund.

Major projects and priorities described

- Utility infrastructure: The largest portion of the FY26 program is allocated to sewer and water system projects, including annual sewer-line replacement and a phase 2 improvement at the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF). Staff said the city operates an ongoing multiyear program to replace water and sewer pipe, noting a current $33,000,000 project in design and construction. - Pipeline replacement: Staff said Hayward has about 400 miles of water pipeline; roughly 75% is asbestos cement, about 5% is older cast iron, and the remaining 20% is plastic or welded steel. The CIP funds replacement of about 26,000 feet of various pipe types and a continuing program replacing roughly 2 to 2.5 miles of pipeline per year (projects are often combined across years for economies of scale). Staff emphasized that asbestos-cement pipe is considered safe in service and that special precautions are taken only when pipes are disturbed or replaced. - Recycled water and WRRF energy projects: The city began delivering recycled water to roughly 31 Phase‑1 customers in March 2022 and plans Phase‑2 facilities to expand the system. The WRRF already has a 1.6‑megawatt solar array; staff described plans for an additional 1.4‑megawatt array to be installed as WRRF improvements increase onsite demand. The facility’s cogeneration system (digester gas refined and used by on‑site engines) produces a substantial share of its electricity. - Streets and multimodal projects: Staff highlighted the Mission Boulevard Phase 3 corridor improvements, Main Street Complete Streets work, Safe Routes to School implementation, annual pavement rehabilitation, new sidewalk projects and an internal policy to allocate at least 10% of paving funds to roads with a Pavement Condition Index below 30. - Parks and community facilities: Notable projects include the South Hayward Youth and Family Center, La Vista Park (a 39‑acre destination park in South Hayward with design complete and construction bids in process), and the STAC Center Phase 1 (pictured in staff materials). - Public Safety Center: Staff described two potential public safety center sites under evaluation: a parcel adjacent to the Fire Training Center on Winton Avenue (owned by the airport enterprise) and the former civic center site on Foothill Boulevard (city‑owned). The sites were selected for reasons including adjacency to other emergency facilities and site availability; staff said other city properties were not suitable. - Corporation Yard: Staff identified the city’s Corporation Yard (on Soto Road) as functionally obsolete and estimated rehabilitation costs at approximately $140,000,000; funding sources have not been identified. Staff said earlier efforts to pursue a joint project with the school district did not succeed. - EV charging: The presentation noted privately installed chargers (for example, at a Safeway) and a planned public installation of about 20 charging stations in Municipal Parking Lot 4 through a partnership with an energy procurement partner (EVA Energy). Staff said private installations on private property are handled differently than requests to place chargers on public property.

Commissioner questions and staff responses

Commissioners asked about public outreach, staffing, project funding and technical design choices: - Outreach and staffing: Staff said outreach varies by project type (postcards, community meetings, project websites); Public Works has more than 170 staff and manages over 200 CIP projects in the program, with roughly 100 projects active at present. - Funding constraints and prioritization: Staff said the city minimizes general-fund contributions to CIP and relies largely on enterprise funds, special measures and grants. Measure K1 was described as an extension of Measure C to continue a local revenue stream for capital projects beyond the original Measure C expiration. - Seismic upgrades: Staff summarized past and ongoing seismic work (including pipeline improvements at locations crossing the Hayward Fault) and noted the office building used for the meeting sits on base isolators; staff described seismic design requirements for infrastructure crossing faults. - Pipe material choices: Commissioners asked whether ductile iron could be used citywide; staff replied that ductile iron is preferable for seismic performance but is several times more expensive and is reserved for areas immediately adjacent to faults. PVC/plastic pipe is the current standard for much replacement work and was described by staff as not a health hazard.

Vote and next steps

Commissioner Lowe moved and Commissioner Myers seconded a motion finding the recommended FY26–FY35 CIP consistent with the Hayward 2040 General Plan. A roll call vote recorded Yes from Commissioners Goodbody, Hammond, Lowe, Myers, Stevens and Chair Hardy; Commissioner Franco Claussen was absent. The motion passed. Staff said the CIP will next be presented to the City Council infrastructure committee and then to City Council (staff indicated a target Council hearing in early May).

What the commission did not decide

The commission’s action was a finding of general-plan consistency, not a final appropriation of funds. Funding authorizations, contract awards and any project-specific approvals will require separate Council action where applicable. Several projects described in the CIP remain partially or wholly unfunded, and staff noted the program includes both funded and identified-but-unfunded needs.

Evidence and public participation

No members of the public spoke during the meeting’s public-comment period on non‑agenda items and no public commenters joined from the teleconference location. Staff demonstrated the CIP’s OpenGov online materials and described how residents can search project budgets and descriptions in the online appendices.

For more information

The recommended CIP materials and the online OpenGov presentation are available on the City of Hayward website; staff said the semiannual FY26 CIP progress report will be linked later in the year as projects advance.

Ending note

With the Planning Commission’s finding, the recommended CIP proceeds to City Council for consideration of funding and project‑level approvals.