Tuesday, February 15, 2022
7:00 PM
CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
Virtual: Zoom Platform
City Council
Agenda
February 15, 2022City Council Agenda
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COVID-19 Notice: Consistent with Assembly Bill 361/Government Code section 54953(e), the City Council meeting includes teleconference participation by all members.
How to observe the Meeting:
1. Comcast TV Channel 15
2. Live stream https://hayward.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
3. YouTube Live stream: https://www.youtube.com/user/cityofhayward How to submit written Public Comment:
1. Use eComment on the City's Meeting & Agenda Center webpage at:
https://hayward.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx. eComments are directly sent to the iLegislate application used by City Council and City staff. Comments received before 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting will be exported into a report, distributed to the City Council and staff, and published on the City's Meeting & Agenda Center under Documents Received After Published Agenda.
2. Send an email to [email protected] by 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting. Please identify the Agenda Item Number in the subject line of your email. Emails will be compiled into one file, distributed to the City Council and staff, and published on the City's Meeting & Agenda Center under Documents Received After Published Agenda. Documents received after 3:00 p.m. through the adjournment of the meeting will be included as part of the meeting record and published the following day.
How to provide live Public Comment during the City Council Meeting:
Click link below to join the meeting:
https://hayward.zoom.us/j/84119129052?pwd=T3M1TUhTZ1c3ZjUwMGFPU2gzRkpZQT09 Meeting ID: 841 1912 9052
Passcode: CC2/15@7pm
or
Dial: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or 833 548 0276 (Toll Free) Meeting ID: 841 1912 9052
Password: 3478017968
A Guide to attend virtual meetings is provided at this link: https://bit.ly/3jmaUxa CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Halliday
Pledge of Allegiance: Council Member Zermeño
ROLL CALL
CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT
February 15, 2022City Council Agenda
PRESENTATION
Human Trafficking Awareness Month
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Public Comment section provides an opportunity to address the City Council on items not listed on the agenda or Information Items. The Council welcomes your comments and requests that speakers present their remarks in a respectful manner, within established time limits, and focus on issues which directly affect the City or are within the jurisdiction of the City. As the Council is prohibited by State law from discussing items not listed on the agenda, your item will be taken under consideration and may be referred to staff.
CITY MANAGER’S COMMENTS
An oral report from the City Manager on upcoming activities, events, or other items of general interest to Council and the Public.
ACTION ITEMS
The Council will permit comment as each item is called for the Consent Calendar, Public Hearings, and Legislative Business. In the case of the Consent Calendar, a specific item will need to be pulled by a Council Member in order for the Council to discuss the item or to permit public comment on the item. Please notify the City Clerk any time before the Consent Calendar is voted on by Council if you wish to speak on a Consent Item.
CONSENT
Approve the City Council Minutes of the City Council Meeting on January 25, 2022
MIN 22-0201.
Attachments: Attachment I Draft Minutes of 1/25/2022
Adopt a Resolution Approving Addendum No. 1, Awarding a Contract to Ranger Pipelines, Inc., for the Water Line
Improvements Project, Project No. 07093, in an Amount
Not-to-Exceed $12,488,057, and Appropriating Additional Funds in an Amount of $3,734,000
CONS 22-0792.
Attachments: Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Location Map
February 15, 2022City Council Agenda
Adopt a Resolution Allowing the City Council and Appointed Commissions/Task Forces and Council Committees to Hold
Continued Teleconferenced Public Meetings Pursuant to AB 361
CONS 22-1013.
Attachments: Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Exhibit A to Resolution
WORK SESSION
Work Session items are non -action items. Although the Council may discuss or direct staff to follow up on these items, no formal action will be taken. Any formal action will be placed on the agenda at a subsequent meeting in the action sections of the agenda.
Public Safety Projects Update: Receive and Discuss Public Safety Policy Innovation Workshop Projects Update (Report from City Manager McAdoo)
WS 22-0054.
Attachments: Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Project Update Summary
February 15, 2022City Council Agenda
PUBLIC HEARING
Pt. Eden Way U-Haul Facility: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial to Develop a New Approximately 116,844 Square Foot Industrial Building for U-Haul at 4150 Point Eden Way
(Assessor Parcel Number 461-0085-020-02) Requiring
Approval of Site Plan Review and Historic Resources
Demolition Permit Application No. 201901039 Including
Certification of an Environmental Impact Report, Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Approval of a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program. Jerry Owen on Behalf of U-Haul; Amerco Real Estate Co. (Applicant/Property Owner) (Report from Assistant City Manager/Development
Services Director Ott)
PH 22-0075.
Attachments: Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Future Gateway Signage Site Plan
Attachment III Land Development and Sea Level Rise
Attachment IV Staff Report December 14, 2021
Attachment V Resolution
Attachment VI Project Plans
Attachment VII 4150 Point Eden Way Draft EIR
Attachment VIII 4150 Point Eden Way Final EIR
Attachment IX 4150 Point Eden Way MMRP
Attachment X July 8 2021 Planning Commission Minutes
Attachment XI CEQA Correspondence from Lozeau Drury
LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
Adopt a Resolution Approving an Amendment to the City of Hayward Salary Plan for Fiscal Year 2022 (Report from Human Resources Director Sangy)
LB 22-0056.
Attachments: Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III FY 2022 Salary Plan
COUNCIL REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Members can provide oral reports on attendance at intergovernmental agency meetings, conferences, seminars, or other Council events to comply with AB 1234 requirements (reimbursable expenses for official activities).
February 15, 2022City Council Agenda
COUNCIL REFERRALS
Council Members may bring forward a Council Referral Memorandum (Memo) on any topic to be considered by the entire Council. The intent of this Council Referrals section of the agenda is to provide an orderly means through which an individual Council Member can raise an issue for discussion and possible direction by the Council to the appropriate Council Appointed Officers for action by the applicable City staff.
ADJOURNMENT
NEXT MEETING, February 22, 2022, 7:00 PM
PUBLIC COMMENT RULES
Any members of the public desiring to address the Council shall limit their remarks to three (3) minutes unless less or further time has been granted by the Presiding Officer or in accordance with the section under Public Hearings. The Presiding Officer has the discretion to shorten or lengthen the maximum time members may speak. Speakers will be asked for their name before speaking and are expected to honor the allotted time. Speaker Cards are available from the City Clerk at the meeting.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
That if you file a lawsuit challenging any final decision on any public hearing or legislative business item listed in this agenda, the issues in the lawsuit may be limited to the issues that were raised at the City's public hearing or presented in writing to the City Clerk at or before the public hearing.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE
That the City Council adopted Resolution No. 87-181 C.S., which imposes the 90-day deadline set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 for filing of any lawsuit challenging final action on an agenda item which is subject to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. ***Materials related to an item on the agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk ’s Office, City Hall, 777 B Street, 4th Floor, Hayward, during normal business hours. An online version of this agenda and staff reports are available on the City ’s website. Written comments submitted to the Council in connection with agenda items will be posted on the City ’s website. All Council Meetings are broadcast simultaneously on the City website, Cable Channel 15 - KHRT, and YouTube. ***
Assistance will be provided to those requiring accommodations for disabilities in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Interested persons must request the accommodation at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting by contacting the City Clerk at (510) 583-4400 or [email protected].
Assistance will be provided to those requiring language assistance. To ensure that interpreters are available at the meeting, interested persons must request the accommodation at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting by contacting the City Clerk at (510) 583-4400.
CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: MIN 22-020
DATE: February 15, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Clerk
SUBJECT
Approve the City Council Minutes of the City Council Meeting on January 25, 2022
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council approves the City Council meeting minutes of January 25, 2022.
SUMMARY
The City Council held a meeting on January 25, 2022.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Draft Minutes of 1/25/2022
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/10/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541
Virtual Platform – Zoom
https://hayward.zoom.us/j/87529584500?pwd=c2tQek9seGRvZXJYaXUyR2FjaDVKUT09 Tuesday, January 25, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
The meeting of the Hayward City Council was called to order by Mayor Halliday at 7:03 p.m.
The City Council held a virtual meeting with teleconference participation by members of the City Council, staff and public.
Pledge of Allegiance: Council Member Lamnin
Present: COUNCIL MEMBERS Andrews, Lamnin, Márquez, Salinas, Wahab, Zermeño MAYOR Halliday
Absent: None
CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
The City Council convened in closed session on December 20, 2021, at 4:30 p.m., with all members present, regarding one conference with labor negotiators pursuant to Government Code section 54957.6 regarding all labor groups. City Attorney Lawson reported there was no reportable action and adjourned the closed session at 6:45 p.m.
The City Council convened in close d session on January 18, 2022, at 5:30 p.m., with all members present, regarding five items: (1) conference with legal counsel pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9 regarding Justin Nishioka v. City of Hayward , Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG 20078266; (2) conference with legal counsel pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9 regarding Sharma, et al. v. City of Hayward , Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. HG20064943; (3) conference with legal counsel pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9 regarding one anticipated litigation case; (4) conference with property negotiators pursua nt to Government Code section 54956.8 regarding Cargil Salt, 7220 Central Avenue, Newark, CA 94560, APN: 537 -751-7-1; and (5) conference with property negotiators pursuant to Government Code 54956.8 regarding Caltrans Parcel Group 5 Maitland Drive, Bunker Hill Court, Bunker Hill Boulevard and Central Boulevard, APNs: 445- 0250-041-01, 445 -0260-084-03, 445 -0260-018-04, 445 -0270-054-02, 445 -0250-060-00, 445-0250-059-01, 445 -0260-109-04, 445 -0260-018-03, 445 -0260-109-03, 445 -0260-002-
00. City Attorney Lawson reported that he recused himself from participating on Item 1 and indicated there was no reportable action related to Items 1, 2 and 3. It was noted the Council adjourned the closed session at 6:50 p.m. and reconvened after the regular meeting agenda at 8:05 p.m. Regarding Items 4 and 5, the Council took no reportable action. The closed session adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
The City Council convened in closed ses sion on January 25, 2022, at 5:30 p.m., with all members present, regarding six items: 1) public employment pursuant to Government Code section 54957 regarding performance evaluation for City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk; 2) conference with lega l counsel pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9 regarding Woods v. City of Hayward, et al., U.S.D.C.N.D.CA, No. 3:19 -cv-01350-JCS; 3) 2 | J a n u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 2 2
conference with legal counsel pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(4) regarding one anticipated litigation case; 4) conference with property negotiators pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8 regarding: Caltrans Parcel Group 4 (APNs: 078C-648-01- 01, 078C-0800-029, 078C-0800-030, 078C-0800-031, 078C-0800-032, 078C-0800-033, 078C- 0800-034, 078C -0800-035, 07 8C-0800-036, 078C -0800-037, 078C -0800-038, 078C -0800- 039, 078C -0800-040, 078C -0800-041, 078C -0800-042, 078C -0800-043), Caltrans Parcel Group 5 (Maitland Drive, Bunker Hill Court, Bunker Hill Boulevard and Central Boulevard , APNs: 445-0250-041-01, 445-0260-084-03, 445-0260-018-04, 445-0270-054-02, 445-0250- 060-00, 445 -0250-059-01, 445 -0260-109-04, 445 -0260-018-03, 445 -0260-109-03, 445 - 0260-002-000), Caltrans Parcel Group 8 (Grove Way; APNs: 415 -0180-070-00, 415 -0180- 068-01, 415 -0180-076-00, 415 -0180-084-01, 415-0180-073-00, 415 -0180-074-00, 415 - 0180-075-00, 415 -0180-072-00, 415 -0180-071-00, 415 -0180-069-01, 415 -0190-064-00, 415-0180-083-01, 415 -0180-080-00, 415 -0180-082-01, 415 -0180-081-01), Caltrans Parcel Group 9 (Apple and Oak Streets, APNs: 415-0160-001-00, 415-0160-002-00, 415-0160-003- 00, 415 -0160-004-00, 415 -0160-005-00, 415 -0160-006-00, 415 -0160-007-00, 415 -0160- 008-00, 415 -0160-009-00, 415 -0160-010-00, 415 -0170-002-00, 415 -0170-003-00, 415 - 0170-004-00, 415 -0170-005-00, 415 -0170-006-00, 415 -0170-007-00, 415 -0170-008-00, 415-0170-009-00, 415 -0170-010-00, 415 -0170-011-00, 415 -0170-012-00); ( 5) conference with property negotiators pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8 regarding Caltrans Parcel Group 3 (Adjacent to Tennyson Road, East 16th Street and Calhoun Street; APNs: 078C- 0626-003-16, 078C -0626-003-09, 078C -0626-001-07); and (6) conference with property negotiators pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8 regarding Caltrans Parcel Group 6 (Carlos Bee Boulevard and Overlook Avenue, APN 455 -0180-001-00). Mayor Halliday reported on Item 1 indicating the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk recused themselves from participation and there was no reportable action. Regarding Item 2, City Attorney Lawson reported that Council was advised a settlement was tentatively reached in the amount of $90,000. As to Item 3, there was no reportable action. Regarding Items 4, 5, and 6, City Attorney Lawson reported they were discussed in a single session after a legal analysis showed that no single member of the Council had a conflict distinguishable from the public and took no reportable action. The closed session adjourned at 6:51 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
CITY MANAGER’S COMMENTS
City Manager McAdoo made two annou ncements: 1) t he Hayward Library and Alameda County Health Ca re S ervices Agency partnered to provide medical and dental care on the second Tuesday of every month through the Alameda County Health Ca re for the H omeless program; and 2) the City is updating the Housing Element of the General Plan and the Climate Action Plan and community members can participate and provide input by visiting the website haywardhousingandclimateupdate.com.
HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541
Virtual Platform – Zoom
https://hayward.zoom.us/j/87529584500?pwd=c2tQek9seGRvZXJYaXUyR2FjaDVKUT09 Tuesday, January 25, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
CONSENT
Council Member Lamnin made a disclosure about Consent Item No. 8, indicating that when the housing subdivision was originally approved, she had a conflict of interest due to property ownership, but no longer had any conflict since she moved, and was able to vote on the item.
1. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Professional Services Agreements with W illdan Engineering, SNG & Associates, and 4Leaf, Inc., in an Amount Not -to-Exceed $150,000 Annually Per Firm for Three Years for On-Call Construction Inspection Services CONS 22-008
Staff report submitted by Public Works Ameri, dated January 25, 2022, was filed.
It was moved by Council Member Wahab, seconded by Council Member Márquez, and carried by the following roll call vote, to adopt the resolution.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS Andrews, Lamnin, Márquez, Salinas, Wahab, Zermeño
MAYOR Halliday
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution 22-021, “Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Professional Services Agreements with Willdan Engineering, SNG & Associates, a nd 4leaf, In c., in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $150,000 Annually Per Firm for Three Years for on call Construction Inspection Services”
2. Adopt a Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Calling for Bids for the FY22 New Sidewalks Project, Project No. 05305 CONS 22-019
Staff report submitted by Director of Public Works Ameri, dated January 25, 2022, was filed.
It was moved by Council Member Wahab, seconded by Council Member Márquez, and carried by the following roll call vote, to adopt the resolution.
4 | J a n u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 2 2
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS Andrews, Lamnin, Márquez, Salinas, Wahab, Zermeño
MAYOR Halliday
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution 22-022, “ Resolution Approving Plans and
Specifications, and Calling for Bids for the FY22 New Sidew alks Project, Project No. 05305”
3. Adopt a Resolutio n Authorizing the City Manager to Amend the FY2022 Operating Budget for the Development Services Department Building Division for Outside Plan Check, Building Inspection, and Permit Technician Services CONS 22-041
Staff report submitted by Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director Ott, dated January 25, 2022, was filed.
It was moved by Council Member Wahab, seconded by Council Member Márquez, and carried by the following roll call vote, to adopt the resolution.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS Andrews, Lamnin, Márquez, Salinas, Wahab, Zermeño
MAYOR Halliday
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution 22-023, “Adoption of a Resolution Appropriating an Additional $470,000 for Consulti ng Services for Plan Check, Building Inspection, an d Permit Technician Services for Fiscal Year 2022”
4. Adopt a Resolution Appointing the City ’s Representative to the Boards of Directors of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency and the San Franc isco Bay Are a Regional Water System Financing Authority CONS 22-042
Staff report submitted by Director of Public Works Ameri, dated January 25, 2022, was filed.
It was moved by Council Member Wahab, seconded by Council Member Márquez, and carried by the following roll call vote, to adopt the resolution.
HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541
Virtual Platform – Zoom
https://hayward.zoom.us/j/87529584500?pwd=c2tQek9seGRvZXJYaXUyR2FjaDVKUT09 Tuesday, January 25, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS Andrews, Lamnin, Márquez, Salinas, Wahab, Zermeño
MAYOR Halliday
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution 22-024, “ Resolution Appointing the City ’s
Representative to the Boards of Directors of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency and the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water System Financing Authority”
5. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute an Agreement with M intier Harni sh in an Amount Not to Exceed $235,000 f or the Development and Adoption of Objective Standards for Residential Development and Zoning Consistency Updates for the City of Hayward and Related Environmental Analysis CONS 22-055
Staff report submitted by Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director Ott, dated January 25, 2022, was filed.
It was moved by Council Member Wahab, seconded by Council Member Márquez, and carried by the following roll call vote, to adopt the resolution.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS Andrews, Lamnin, Márquez, Salinas, Wahab, Zermeño
MAYOR Halliday
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution 22-025, “Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute an Agreement with Mintier Harnish for the Develop ment and Adoption of Objective Standard s for Residential Development and Zoning Consistency Updates for the City of Hayward and Related Environmental Analysis for an Amount Not-to-Exceed $235,000”
6. Adopt a Resolution Accepting $1 Million in Sta te of California General Fund Grant Funds for the C onstruction of the South Hayward Youth and Family Center (Stack Center) CONS 22-061
6 | J a n u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 2 2
Staff report submitted by Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director Ott, dated January 25, 2022, was filed.
It was moved by Council Member Wahab, seconded by Council Member Márquez, and carried by the following roll call vote, to adopt the resolution.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS Andrews, Lamnin, Márquez, Salinas, Wahab, Zermeño
MAYOR Halliday
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution 22-026, “Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hayward Approving the Acceptance and Appropriation of
General Fund Grant Funds for the South Hayward Youth and Family Center”
7. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Accept and Appropriate $20,000 in Grant Funding from the National Endowment for the Arts for Heritage Plaza Art Pieces CONS 22-062
Staff report submitted by Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director Ott, dated January 25, 2022, was filed.
It was moved by Council Member Wahab, seconded by Council Member Márquez, and carried by the following roll call vote, to adopt the resolution.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS Andrews, Lamnin, Márquez, Salinas, Wahab, Zermeño
MAYOR Halliday
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution 22-027, “Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Accept and Appropriate up to $20,000 in Grant Funding from the National Endowment for the Arts for Heritage Plaza Art Pieces”
8. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Public Works Director to Complete Construction of Subdivision Improvements in Tract 8058 of the Golden Oaks 2 Subdivision; Making Findings to Procure the Work in the Open Market; and Authorizing Expenditure of City Funds in an Amount Not to Exceed $630,000 CONS 22-075
Staff report submitted by Director of Public Works Ameri, dated January 25, 2022, was filed.
HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541
Virtual Platform – Zoom
https://hayward.zoom.us/j/87529584500?pwd=c2tQek9seGRvZXJYaXUyR2FjaDVKUT09 Tuesday, January 25, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
It was moved by Council Member Wahab, seconded by Council Member Márquez, and carried by the following roll call vote, to adopt the resolution.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS Andrews, Lamnin, Márquez, Salinas, Wahab, Zermeño
MAYOR Halliday
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution 22-028, “ Resolution Authorizing the Public Works Director to Complete Construction of Subdivision Improvements in Tract 8058 of the Golden Oaks 2 Subdivision; Making Findings to Procure the Work in the Open Market; and Authorizing Expenditure of Funds in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $630,000”
LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
9. Unmanned Aerial Systems Program: Adopt a Re solution and Policy Statement Regarding the Use of Surveillance Technologies and an Operational Policy for the Hayward Police Department’s Unmanned Aerial Systems Program LB 22-003
Staff report submitted by City Manager McAdoo and Chief of Police Chaplin, dated January 25, 2022, was filed.
City Manager McAdoo indicated the Council had received a comment by e-mail with request for it to be read into the record , but since that was not the practice in Hayward , the comment was posted to the City we bsite (Meeting and Agenda Cen ter) with other comments received for the item.
City Manager Mc Adoo provided an overview of the Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Program and Citywide Policy Statement for use of surve illance technology. Deputy Police Chief Matthews provided an overview of the Hayward Police Department UAS Program Operations Manual . Police Chief Chaplin spoke abou t the proposed policy and use o f drones for law enforcement purposes and urged Council’s approval of the resolution.
Discussion ensued among members of the City Council an d City staff regarding: reporting structure on use of the proposed surveillance technology and frequency of re ports submitted to Council; use of technology for mass gatherings as a matter of security concern; examples of use of drone; communications with Hayward Concerned Citizens and Hayward Community Coalition (HayCoCoa); review of the re port of UAS usage by the Community 8 | J a n u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 2 2
Advisory Panel (CAP); a definition of “a security concern” as related to protests; the role of the Program Coordinator; updates on the use of drones included in rep orts to Council; consequences of misuse of dr ones could be grounds for license revocation by the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), and cease of program by Council ; prohibited list of uses wa s vetted w ith local groups and agencies ; there was one complaint on the use of dro ne by Hayward Police Departme nt (HPD) and other complaints on private drone use; City departments, including H PD, would create their own administrative/operational policies and have t he City Manager approv al, as long as they remained consistent with Council ’s overarching policy statement regarding the use of surveillance technologies; and there was a suggestion to amend Po licy 610.6 (L) “Use of UAS ” to clarify language by remo ving “tend to” from that section ; quarterly reports on drone usage ; information on community meetings about the topic ; Policy 610.9 (Retention of UAS Data ) and data security protocol similar to body-worn camera video from Hayward Police; length of terms for CAP members, formation of the CAP , composition of the CAP and its role; and deployment of GPS trackers, StarChase, placed on vehicles that are in pursuit.
Mayor Halliday opened public comments at 7:56 p.m.
Mr. Mike Katz -Lacabe urged the City Council to require regular reporting on the use of surveillance technology and City Council approval of any changes to the operational policy.
Mr. Jessie Gunn, Hayward resident, teacher, and Hayward Community Coalition member, did not support the proposed policy, noted he favored drone use for good purposes but not used for surveillance of security concern deemed by the Police Department.
Ms. Cynthia Nunes, cousin of Agustin Gonzalez and Hayward Community Coalition member, noted the U AS Program would cost more than in cluded in the Fiscal Impact and the technology would be misused by the Police Department.
Ms. Sameena Usman, Senior Government Relations Coordinator for the Council on American Islamic Relations and Secure Justice Board member, suggested there should be no retention of any data, unless as part of an active investigation and not shared with federal agencies to target undocumented individuals, suggested to include an impact report on communities of color, and if a policy is approved, it should be used for legitimate security concerns.
Mr. Alexis Villalobos, Hayward resident, Hayward Community Coalition member, expressed the need for a n accountability process to hold the Police accountable through an external group such as the Community Advisory Panel (CAP).
Ms. Vanessa Magaña, Hayward resident and Hayward Community Coalition chair, noted Policy 610 (UAS Operations) was too vague, failed to protect Hayward residents’ right to privacy and needed changes; indicated the plan for public notification of U AS use in s ection 610.4 (e) needed to be defined , added that more than 600 community members signed a petition against use of police drones; recommended any UAS Program Coordinator position be appointed by the CAP; and added the purchase of drones was a frivolous expense.
HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541
Virtual Platform – Zoom
https://hayward.zoom.us/j/87529584500?pwd=c2tQek9seGRvZXJYaXUyR2FjaDVKUT09 Tuesday, January 25, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
Ms. Susan Gelke, Hayward Concerned Citizens member, appreciated the thoroughness in the process, noted d rones are modern tools used in many communities for safety reasons, and urged the Council to vote in favor of the use of drones by HPD.
TJ, Hayward Concerned Citizens member, noted her group had been a strong supporter of HPD having its own UAS program along with a strong policy for its use, appreciated allowing differing perspectives on devel oping the policy , noted transparency and accountability concerns were addressed, and added the Police Department need ed to be provided with necessary resources to keep the community safe, and urged approval of the proposed policy.
Mr. George Syrup , Hayward resident , Community Services Commissioner and Hayward Community Coalition member, noted the Coalition was not engaged in conversations; noted Policy 610 (UAS Operations) was not ready for implementation; suggested the CAP should be included in the for mal reporting s tructure and it s role strengthen; indicated H ayCoCoa demand opposing the militarization of Po lice force; noted the purchase of drones was a frivolous expense; and noted that if Policy 610 is approved it needs to be amended to include community oversight.
Ms. Ro Aguilar , Hayward resident, supported concerns around privacy , ab use and accountability, noted that implementation of new technology warrants more reporting and transparency, supported a community group receiving reports on a regular basis on the use of drones, and noted the technology allows to identify property owners allowing use of illegal activity.
Ms. Suzanne Luther, Hayward Concerned Citizens member, was in favor of drone use by the Police Department.
Mr. Tom Ferreira, Hayward Concerned Citizens member, was in favor o f allowing drone use by the Police Department because the department is currently borrowing on e from other agencies, and favored giving the Police Department tools to keep Hayward residents safe.
Ms. Tracy Rosenberg, privacy advocate, noted the need for retention of da ta, indicated reporting requirements/schedule needed to be stated in the policy and changes presented to an ac countable body, noted the job of a legislative bod y was to set up systems for accountability, and asked the Council to send the po licy back to the Police Department for further changes.
Ms. Elbakri expressed concern about retention and sharing of data, noted the policy needs more information and an enfor cement component, was concern ed about misuse of the technology, and asked Council to request an impact report on the technology.
10 | J a n u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 2 2
Ms. Lupe Angulo noted that documents provided on th e policy and agenda report were not provided in Spanish , when Hayward was a 40% Latino community , noted data retention information was not pro vided, and mentioned that marginalized communities would be targeted with the use of drones.
Ms. Claire Dugan was unable to connect via Zoom.
Mayor Halliday closed public comments at 8:38 p.m.
Members of the City Council appreciated input by community members on the topic.
Council Member Zermeño noted the use of U AS was a matter of safety, added there were checks and balances in the policy and the Council could cease the program if there was any misuse of tech nology, favored quarterly reporting on drone us e, added the prop osed technology would be used to con trol illegal firewor ks and people doing car donuts in the streets, was reviewed by the City Attorney and community groups, and mentioned the Police Department needed the technology and the policy could be modified.
Council Member Zermeño made a m otion to approve the staff recommendation. Mayor Halliday seconded the motion.
Council Member Andrews requested inclusion of actual costs of the UAS Program in the quarterly reporting; requested to consider demographic data on an impact report as a part of the reporting to Council; asked to review if CAP can be in volved in appointing a Program Coordinator and have the CAP be a part of t he quarterly review process; noted she did not approve the technology initially but she had offered to help review the policy; and while she still had concerns about the technology, she acknowledged Police had incorporated comments from the Council Infrastructure Committee and community members.
Council Member Lamnin noted that because she saw commun ity input reflected in the operations manu al, she was willi ng to support the policy moving forward as proposed; favored the quarterly reporting and having local control on drone usage; concurred with CAP being able to review the quarterly report and policy; suggested that the Program Coordinator, upon appointment, meet with the CAP to hear community concerns; and recommended to have, within three months, Policy 610 (UAS Operations) updated to in clude transition to gender neutral language, reference to the City-wide policy statement, retention of UAS data clarified, and information on the collaboration among departments on drone use.
Council Member Salinas commented the item was heard by the Council Infrastructure Committee (CIC); noted that once the length of term of CAP members is resolved, he was optimistic about their role in reviewing policy; concurred with having the CAP participate in the quarterly review reporting and policy updates; was confident with the UAS retention of data as recommended in the policy; asked to include in quarterly reports, GPS (geographical) data on UAS deployment; and noted he was sati sfied with the policy as drafted after three years and being vetted through community groups, the CIC, and City departments.
HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541
Virtual Platform – Zoom
https://hayward.zoom.us/j/87529584500?pwd=c2tQek9seGRvZXJYaXUyR2FjaDVKUT09 Tuesday, January 25, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
Council Member Márquez indicating she had reviewed the item as a member of the Council Infrastructure Committee noting the thoughtful approach in drafting the policy; added the proposed tool wi ll provide saf ety; added she will be looking at quarterly updates h aving parameters of why the tech nology was deployed; noted the Council was seeking bette r relationships between the community and the City by creating the CAP; and added that any misuse of the technology will be addressed accordingly.
Council Member Lamni n concurred w ith Council Member S alinas’s recommendation that quarterly reports should include geographic data on UAS deployment; and offered friendly amendments to the m otion as follows: the CAP would review the Police Department’s quarterly reports and policy amendments; the CAP would meet the Program Coordinator upon appointed; and within three months , the Council would review Policy 610 (UAS Operations) updates to include transition to gender neutral language, reference to the city- wide policy statement, clarification o n retention of U AS dat a, and information on the collaboration among departments that use drones.
Council Member Wahab noted there were no UAS use cases or pilot program; indicated her major concern was the balancing of civil liberties and privacy rights; noted there was no city- wide pri vacy policy in place; added there has not been use cases for fireworks o r other nuisance; noted residents’ privacy rights , including those of marginalized community members, needed to be considered when creating a policy; and had significant reservations on data retention, selling of data and third-party vendors storing data.
Mayor Halliday noted the length of time the policy and topic had been discussed, indicated the City should be using its own drones and not borrowing from neighboring agencies, added lives could be saved with the technology and it must not be misused, and mentioned the proposed policy would protect privacy.
The friendly amendments made by Counci l M ember Lam nin were accepted by Council Member Zermeño and Mayor Halliday.
It was moved by Council Member Zermeño, seconded by Mayor Halliday, and carried by the following roll call vote, to adopt the resolution with the following amendments : (1) the Community Advisory Panel (CAP) will review the Police Department’s quarterly reports and policy amendments, including geographic data on UAS deployment; (2) upon appointment, the P rogram Coordinator will meet with the CAP to hear concerns; and, (3) within three months, the City Council will review updates to Policy 610, including the city -wide policy statement, transition to gender neutral language, retention of UAS data, and information on collaboration among departments that use UASs.
12 | J a n u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 2 2
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS Andrews, Lamnin, Márquez, Salinas, Zermeño MAYOR Halliday
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBER Wahab
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution 22-029, “Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hayward Adopting a Statement of Values and Commitments to the C ommunity Regarding Unmanned Ae rial Su rveillance Systems (UASS), Which Balance Use of Such Technologies with Competing In terests of Constitutional Rights of Privacy; Authorizing the City Manager to Issue Administrative
Regulations Consistent Herewith, Including but Not Limited to Purchasing, D ata Retention, Storage, and Access Policies, that Apply Broadly Across City Operati ons; and, Adopting by Reference and Incorporating Herein the Associated Staff Report Dated January 25, 2022”
Mayor Halliday called for a recess at 9:47 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
10. Homekey 2.0 Application: Adopt a Resolution Approving the City of Hayward's Homekey Projects and Authorizing the City M anager and Assigned Staff to Submit Applications to the State of Califor nia Department of Housing Comm unity Development for Homekey Funds for Housing for Persons Experiencing Homelessness LB 22-002
Staff report submitted by Assistant City Manager Ott/Director of Development Services, dated January 25, 2022, was filed.
Assistant City Manager Ott introduced the i tem and Management Analyst Lobedan along with Management Analyst Cole -Bloom provided a synop sis of the staff report seeking adoption of a resolution approving Homekey projects and the City Manager’s authorization to submit applications.
Discussion ensued among members of the City Council, City staff, Mr. Jake Metcalf with Firm Foundation Community Housing , and Mr. Jo nathan Russell with Bay Area Community Services (BACS) regarding: how vacant properties would be transferred to BACS and units would be deed restricted; Homekey Round 3 funding; case management for t iny homes village and safety ambassadors; explore prioritizing placement of individuals sleeping at Weekes Park ; BACS proposal to purchase and remodel up to five homes in Hayward; continue to look for additional funding to house beyond 30 unhoused individuals; design of the Tiny Home Village to fit within the community and integrating experiences; partnership with H ayward Area Recreation and Park District and programming at Weekes Park; and scattered site locations for affordable housin g and service model geared to integratin g unhoused individuals into neighborhoods.
Mayor Halliday opened public comments at 10:35 p.m.
HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541
Virtual Platform – Zoom
https://hayward.zoom.us/j/87529584500?pwd=c2tQek9seGRvZXJYaXUyR2FjaDVKUT09 Tuesday, January 25, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
Ms. Ro Aguilar, Hayward resident, stated the hotel/motel model was the best cost-effective long-term housing strategy, and urged the City to continue to complete the hotel conversion project with re-entry services through funds from other sour ces and/or Homekey Round 3 funds.
Mr. George Syrup, Hayward resident, appreciated the City’s efforts to address the h ousing crisis and encouraged more discussion around community land trusts.
Mayor Halliday closed public comments at 10:41 PM.
Council Member Salinas thanked his colleagues, Council Members Lamnin and Wahab, who serve on the Homelessness -Housing Task Force (HHTF) and City staff for figuring out substantive solutions to the housing crisis and for their quick approach. Council Member Salinas made a motion to approve staff’s recommendation,
Council Member Lamnin, also HHFT Chair, seconded the motion.
Mayor Halliday thanked the three HHTF members, Council Members Lamnin, Salinas and Wahab, for their efforts on the item.
Council Member Lamnin appreciated staff’s efforts and dedication to moving the needle on the issue in creative ways and brining more resources to the City; and indicated that community land trusts and cost effectiveness were already part of the plan.
Council Member Wahab complimented the housing staff team for providing answers, finding sources of funding, agreed with trying to secure Homekey Round 3 funding, and getting first dibs when parcels come up from the Alameda County Assessor’s Office.
Mayor Halliday expressed support for the motion and noted the scattered site homes would be helpful for individual development.
It was moved by Council Member Salinas, seconded by Council Member Lamnin, and carried by the following roll call vote, to adopt the two resolutions.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS Andrews, Lamnin, Márquez, Salinas, Wahab, Zermeño
MAYOR Halliday
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
14 | J a n u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 2 2
Resolution 22-030, “Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hayward Authorizing Joint Application to and Participation in the Homekey Program for the Project Reclamation Regional Scattered Site Program in a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $28,500,000”
Resolution 22-031, “Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hayward Authorizing Joint Application to and Participation in the Homekey Program for Construction and Operations of a Tiny Home Village in a Total Not-to-Exceed $6,000,000”
INFORMATIONAL ITEM
11. Informational Item Regar ding Marin Municipal Water District ’s Propo sal to Transmit Purchased Water Through the City ’s Transmission Mains and the Regional Water System Intertie as a Drought Relief Measure RPT 22-006
Staff report submitted by Director of Public Works Ameri, dated January 25, 2022, was filed.
The information item was presented as general information for Council and the public.
COUNCIL REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were none.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
There were none.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Halliday adjourned the City Council meeting at 10:58 p.m., in memory of Marilyn Baker-Madsen, Jerald Allen Mosher, Paul McCreary, and Richard Hardwick.
Ms. Marilyn Baker -Madsen served as Hayward Library Director from 1985 to 2004, implemented the Celebrating Cultures in Harmony Festival and Hayward Literacy Program, was largely responsible for the camp aign to raise funds to upgrade Weekes Library, and served on the Eden Youth and Family Center Board and the Hayward Literacy Plus Council, and was active o n the Hayward Volunteer Dinner Comm ittee and Martin Luther King Jr.
Celebration Committee.
Mr. Gerald Allen Mosher served as the City’s Human Resources Manager, graduated from Hayward High School, and was married to City employee, Marylin Mosher.
HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541
Virtual Platform – Zoom
https://hayward.zoom.us/j/87529584500?pwd=c2tQek9seGRvZXJYaXUyR2FjaDVKUT09 Tuesday, January 25, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Paul McCreary served as Hayward Area Recreation and Park District General Manager from 2016 to 2020, helped pass major Ballot Measure F1 for funding to upgrade local parks and for the Mia’s Dream Come True Park , and became board trustee of the Califo rnia Foundation for Parks and Recreation.
Mr. Richard Hardwick volunteered on the St. Rose Hospital Foundation Board and served as its president, supported South Hayward Parish, Alameda County Food Bank, and many other organizations, and collected coins off the street and last year collected more than $400 which he donated to St. Rose Hospital’s Patient Assistance Fund.
Mayor Halliday asked staff to work with the families to plant trees in memory of the four individuals.
APPROVED
__________________________________________________________ Barbara Halliday
Mayor, City of Hayward
ATTEST:
__________________________________________________________ Miriam Lens
City Clerk, City of Hayward
CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: CONS 22-079
DATE: February 15, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT
Adopt a Resolution Approving Addendum No. 1, Awarding a Contract to Ranger Pipelines, Inc., for the Water Line Improvements Project, Project No. 07093, in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $12,488,057, and Appropriating Additional Funds in an Amount of $3,734,000
RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II):
1. Approving Addendum No. 1, providing minor revisions to the project specifications;
2. Awarding the construction contract to Ranger Pipelines, Inc., (Ranger) in an amount not-to-exceed $12,488,057; and
3. Appropriating additional funds in the amount of $3,734,000.
SUMMARY
The Utilities Division of the Department of Public Works & Utilities replaces the City’s water mains to improve supply reliability and fire flow through annual water line replacement projects. This project will improve water supply reliability by replacing approximately 26,600 linear feet of existing cast iron, ductile iron (DIP), and asbestos cement (ACP) pipes ranging from 4 to 12-inch with new 6, 8, or 12-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC), ductile iron (DIP), or earthquake resistant ductile iron (ERDIP) pipes at fourteen locations throughout the City (Attachment III). Approximately 26,000 linear feet will be replaced by traditional open-cut method, and another approximately 600 linear feet will be replaced by trenchless technology used to cross under obstructions that prohibit open-cut installation.
On January 18, 2022, five (5) bids were received. The low bid was $11,352,779 which is $114,779, or 1%, above the Engineer’sestimate of $11,238,000. Staff is requesting Council’sapproval of Addendum No. 1, which provided minor revisions to clarify the specifications, and awarding the contract to the lowest bidder, Ranger, in the amount not-to-exceed $12,488,057, including a contingency for Administrative Change Orders.
ATTACHMENTS
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/10/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:CONS 22-079
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Location Map
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/10/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
DATE: February 15, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT Adopt a Resolution Approving Addendum No. 1, Awarding a Contract to Ranger Pipelines, Inc., for the Water Line Improvements Project, Project No. 07093, in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $12,488,057, and Appropriating Additional Funds in an Amount of $3,734,000
RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II):
1. Approving Addendum No. 1, providing minor revisions to the project specifications;
2. Awarding the construction contract to Ranger Pipelines, Inc., (Ranger) in an amount not-to-exceed $12,488,057; and
3. Appropriating additional funds in the amount of $3,734,000.
SUMMARY
The Utilities Division of the Department of Public Works & Utilities replaces the City’s water mains to improve supply reliability and fire flow through annual water line replacement projects. This project will improve water supply reliability by replacing approximately 26,600 linear feet of existing cast iron, ductile iron (DIP), and asbestos cement (ACP) pipes ranging from 4 to 12-inch with new 6, 8, or 12-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC), ductile iron (DIP), or earthquake resistant ductile iron (ERDIP) pipes at fourteen locations throughout the City (Attachment III). Approximately 26,000 linear feet will be replaced by traditional open-cut method, and another approximately 600 linear feet will be replaced by trenchless technology used to cross under obstructions that prohibit open-cut installation.
On January 18, 2022, five (5) bids were received. The low bid was $11,352,779 which is $114,779, or 1%, above the Engineer’s estimate of $11,238,000. Staff is requesting Council’s approval of Addendum No. 1, which provided minor revisions to clarify the specifications, and awarding the contract to the lowest bidder, Ranger, in the amount not- to-exceed $12,488,057, including a contingency for Administrative Change Orders.
BACKGROUND
The City’s current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes funding to replace the City’s water mains to improve supply reliability and fire flow through annual water line
replacement projects. The City has approximately 375 miles of water distribution pipeline, of which approximately 67% consists of asbestos cement pipe and a majority of the existing pipelines are 6 inches in diameter. Staff selected the water line locations for a variety of reasons including being undersized, having exceeded service life, frequency of breaks, and/or upgrades needed for supply reliability and fire flow improvements.
As shown in Attachment III, the water main improvements include replacing approximately 26,600 linear feet of existing 4, 6, 8, and 12-inch cast iron, ductile iron, and asbestos cement pipes at fourteen locations throughout the City. These segments have been selected based on performance and maintenance data over the past several years. Recommended projects from the 2014 Water System Master Plan, including upsizing undersized water mains and installing new water lines, were also incorporated to address capacity deficiencies within the existing water distribution system, satisfy future capacity requirements, and provide sufficient fire flow.
Approximately 26,000 linear feet of water main will be replaced by traditional open-cut method constructed in segments to minimize the impact to customers and traffic. The work generally involves excavating a trench two to three feet in width and four to six feet deep, parallel to the water main to be replaced, typically eight feet or more away from the existing water main. After a segment of new water main has been installed and tested, service connections are expeditiously transferred from the old water main to the new one such that water service is typically restored within two hours. After all services have been transferred to the new water main, the remaining portions of the old water main are abandoned in place.
The remaining 600 linear feet will be replaced by trenchless pipe replacement techniques including bore and jack, and micro tunneling where open-cut installation is impossible. The bore and jack method generally utilizes a boring head that is driven into the ground together with a protective steel casing using jacking equipment. The boring head cuts through and extracts the soil and the steel casing allows installation of new water mains crossing under obstructions such as railroad tracks, storm culverts, and flood channels. The micro tunneling method is a newer technology similar to bore and jack and is used to install larger diameter or longer pipe runs.
DISCUSSION
On December 7, 20211, Council approved the plans and specifications for the project and called for bids to be received on January 11, 2022. Addendum No. 1 postponed the bid opening to January 18, 2022, due to requests from contractors.
On January 18, 2022, the City received five (5) bids for the project, ranging from $11,352,779 to $14,832,023. Ranger Pipelines, Inc., submitted the low bid in the amount of $11,352,779, which is approximately 1% above the Engineer’s estimate of $11,238,000.
1 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5347829&GUID=B1C01790-44AD-4D1E-A005- CD3DADA51E29&Options=ID|Text|&Search=07093
The average of the five (5) bids received was $13,079,234, which is approximately 15% above the Engineer’s estimate. An additional $1,135,278 (or 10% of the contract amount) is included as a contingency for administrative change orders in the event additional funds are needed for unforeseen conditions and changes during construction.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
The community will enjoy the benefits of the project, including the continued operability and serviceability of the water distribution system. Furthermore, a robust and reliable water infrastructure can help foster economic development and viability in the City.
Replacing the water mains and appurtenances are part of an effort to, pursuant to Council direction, modernize and upgrade existing infrastructure. The project will reduce operations and maintenance costs associated with servicing the undersized and aging water mains. In addition, staff time attending to issues related to high frequency maintenance and system breaks will be reduced.
FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated costs for the Water Line Improvements Project are as follows:
Construction Contract $11,352,779
Administrative Construction Contingency $1,135,278
Professional Engineering Services – Consultant $733,933 Inspection & Testing & Permitting (Estimated) $650,000
Construction Administration – City Staff (Estimated) $400,000
Total $14,271,990
Appropriation of Additional Funds
The adopted FY22 CIP includes $10,538,000 for the Water Line Improvements Project in the Water System Capital Improvement Fund. As shown above, the current total estimated cost to construct the project exceeds this amount. The original estimate was based on a preliminary conceptual design. These costs are typically developed when project definition is at the planning stage. Expected accuracy for a planning stage estimate typically ranges from 50% below or above the actual cost. Furthermore, the accuracy of the previous estimates is now becoming increasingly unattainable due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic related global supply chain disruptions. Staff requests that Council appropriate additional funds in the amount of $3,734,000 from the Water System Improvement Fund (604) to fully fund the project in FY22. Adequate fund balance is available to cover the necessary appropriation.
STRATEGIC ROADMAP
This agenda item supports the Strategic Roadmap, which includes Improve Infrastructure as one of the strategic priorities. Specifically, this item relates to the implementation of the following project:
Project 13b: Replace 4-6 miles of water pipelines annually.
SUSTAINABILITY FEATURES
The repair and replacement of deteriorating water lines would reduce potable water and energy losses.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Prior to and during construction, notices will be provided to affected residents, property, and business owners to inform them of the nature and purpose of the work, potential impacts, work schedule, and City contact for additional information. In addition, staff will separately contact any large employers and schools that may be affected by the project and coordinate work to minimize impact.
NEXT STEPS
The following schedule has been developed for this project:
Award Construction Contract February 15, 2022 Notice to Proceed March, 2022
Construction Completion March, 2023
Prepared by: Sammy Lo, Acting Senior Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Tay Nguyen, Senior Utilities Engineer
Recommended by: Alex Ameri, Director of Public Works
Approved by:
________________________________
Kelly McAdoo, City Manager
ATTACHMENT II
HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 22-
Introduced by Council Member
RESOLUTION APPROVING ADDENDUM NO. 1, AWARDING A CONTRACT TO RANGER PIPELINES, INC., FOR THE WATER LINE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PROJECT NO. 07093, IN AN AMOUNT NOT -TO-EXCEED $12,488,057, AND APPROPRIATING ADDITIONAL FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT OF $3,734,000
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 21 -236, on December 7 , 2021, the City Council approved the plans and specifications for the Water Line Improvements Project, Project No. 07093, and called for bids to be received by January 11, 2022; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 1 was issued to make minor revisions to the specifications and postpone bid opening date to January 18, 2022 ; and
WHEREAS, on January 18 , 2022, five (5) bids were received ranging from $11,352,779 to $ 14,832,023. The low bid, submi tted by Ranger Pipelines , Inc., is approximately 1% above the engineer’s estimate of $11,238,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hayward that Addendum No. 1 is hereby approved and adopted as part of the plans and specifications for the project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Ranger Pipelines, Inc., of San Francisco, CA, is hereby awarded the contract for the Water Line Improvements Project, Project No. 07093, in accordance with the plans and specifications adopted therefore and on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Hayward, at and for the price named and stated in the final proposal of the hereinabove specified bidder, and all other bids are hereby rejected.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute an agreement with Ranger Pipelines, Inc., on behalf of the City of Hayward, in an amount not to exceed $12,488,057, including a contingency for administrative change orders, in a form to be approved by the City Attorney.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hayward that Resolution 21-101, as amended, the Budget Resolution for Capital Improvement Projects for Fiscal Year 2022, is hereby amended by approving an appropriation of $ 3,734,000 for a total project amount of $14,271,990 from the Water System Improvement Fund (604) to the Water Line Improvements Project, Project No. 07093.
ATTACHMENT II
IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA _______________________, 2022
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
ATTACHMENT III
CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: CONS 22-101
DATE: February 15, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Clerk
SUBJECT
Adopt a Resolution Allowing the City Council and Appointed Commissions/Task Forces and Council Committees to Hold Continued Teleconferenced Public Meetings Pursuant to AB 361
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) pursuant to AB 361 making specific findings to allow the Council and appointed commissions/task forces and Council committees (Exhibit A to Attachment II) to continue holding teleconferenced public meetings during the COVID 19 state of emergency.
SUMMARY
On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361 that amended provisions of the Brown Act to allow local governments to conduct virtual meetings during a state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor, subject to complying with specific requirements, including providing public access and participation via call-in or internet-based platforms. While AB 361 does not require legislative bodies to take any specific actions to hold an initial teleconferenced meeting during a state of emergency, a legislative body must act in order to continue holding subsequent teleconferenced meetings while the state of emergency remains in effect. Specifically, no later than 30 days after the initial AB 361 teleconferenced meeting, and every 30 days thereafter, a legislative body must make findings that the body has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency and that either of the following conditions exist: the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person; or, state or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Exhibit to Resolution
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/10/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:CONS 22-101
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/10/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
DATE: February 15, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Manager
City Clerk
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Allowing the City Council and Appointed Commissions/Task Forces and Council Committees to Hold Continued Teleconferenced Public Meetings Pursuant to AB 361
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) pursuant to AB 361 making specific findings to allow the Council and appointed commissions/task forces and Council committees (Exhibit A to Attachment II) to continue holding teleconferenced public meetings during the COVID 19 state of emergency.
SUMMARY
On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361 that amended provisions of the Brown Act to allow local governments to conduct virtual meetings during a state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor, subject to complying with specific requirements, inclu ding providing public access and participation via call -in or internet-based platforms. While AB 361 does not require legislative bodies to take any specific actions to hold an initial teleconferenced meeting during a state of emergency, a legislative body must act in order to continue holding subsequent teleconferenced meetings while the state of emergency remains in effect. Specifically, no later than 30 days after the initial AB 361 teleconferenced meeting, and every 30 days thereafter, a legislative b ody must make findings that the body has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency and that either of the following conditions exist: the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person; or , state or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.
BACKGROUND
In general, the Brown Act allows legislative bodies to use teleconferencing during a public meeting as long as certain requirements are met, such as:
Identification of any remote location from which a member of the legislative body is participating via teleconference;
Posting of agendas at all remote locations from which members of the legislative body are participating;
Public accessibility to the remote location and the technological means for allowing the public to participate in the meeting from the location; and A quorum of the members must be participating from a location within the jurisdiction of the legislative body.
In response to the COVID 19 state of emergency, the Governor temporarily suspended the rules described above when he issued Executive Order N-29-20 on March 17, 2020 and authorized local legislative bodies to hold virtual public meetings subject to specific public accessibility and noticing requirements.
With the expiration of Executive Order N-29-20, AB 361 amends the Brown Act to allow virtual public meetings during a state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor. A local agency may hold a teleconferenced meeting during a state of emergency without complying with the normal teleconferencing requirements described above if it meets requirements related to providing notice of the meeting, public access and participation via call-in or internet-based service options, real-time public comments, and conduct of the meeting in a manner that protects statutory and constitutional rights of any parties and the public appearing before the legislative body.
AB 361 does not require legislative bodies to take any specific action prior to holding an initial teleconferenced meeting during a state of emergency. However, to hold a subsequent teleconferenced meeting a legislative body must act no later than 30 days after the initial teleconferenced meeting, and every 30 days thereafter, by making findings that the body has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency and that either of the following conditions exist:
The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person; or
State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.
DISCUSSION
Current orders of the Alameda County Health Official satisfy both conditions necessary for the AB 361 findings described above:
Order No. 20-05g, originally issued April 3, 2020 and most recently amended on January 10, 2022, imposes a mandate that all individuals diagnosed or likely to have COVID 19 must isolate themselves and follow requirements further specified in the Order.
Order No. 20-06n, originally issued April 3, 2020 and most recently amended on January 10, 2022, imposes a quarantine requirement on individuals who have had close contact to a person infected with COVID 19 unless specific criteria described in the order are met.
In response to circulation of the Delta variant of COVID 19, Order No. 21-06 (effective on December 8, 2021) requires all individuals within the County of Alameda to wear face coverings when indoors in workplaces and public settings, with limited exemptions, and recommends that businesses make face coverings available to individuals entering the business.
Additionally, the California Department of Public Health has mandated that everyone in California wear a mask in indoor public spaces and workplaces through February 15, 2022.
Alameda County Health Order No. 21- 04 (effective November 1, 2021), which allows a stable group of fully vaccinated individuals to remove masks in certain indoor situations, is not applicable to the City’s public meetings because they do not necessarily involve a stable group of vaccinated individuals.
Currently, the Council is holding hybrid Council meetings that allow for virtual participation via the Zoom platform as well as in-person participation. This format also allows for real-time public comments, in compliance with AB 361. All in-person participants are required to document they are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 before entering the Council chamber. In compliance with Alameda County public health orders, everyone inside the Council chamber is required to wear a mask or other face-covering. All City commissions, task forces, and Council committees continue meeting entirely virtually over the Zoom platform.
Based on the above, staff recommends that the Council adopts the attached resolution making the necessary findings to allow the Council and the appointed boards and commissions identified in Exhibit A to the resolution to continue holding teleconferenced meetings pursuant to AB 361.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
STRATEGIC ROADMAP
This agenda item is a routine operational item and does not relate to any of the projects outlined in the Council’s Strategic Roadmap.
NEXT STEPS
Adoption of the resolution will allow the Council and specified appointed boards and commissions to hold a subsequent teleconferenced meeting pursuant to the provisions of AB 361. Additional resolutions must be adopted every thirty days during the existen ce of the state of emergency in order to continue holding teleconferenced meetings.
Prepared and Recommended by: Kelly McAdoo, City Manager Miriam Lens, City Clerk
Approved by:
___________________________________
Kelly McAdoo, City Manager
ATTACHMENT II
HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 22-____
Introduced by Council Member __________
RESOLUTION MAKING THE REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO AB 361 TO
CONTINUE TO HOLD TELECONFERENCED PUBLIC MEETINGS DURING THE COVID 19 STATE OF EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, the Brown Act (Government Code section 54950 et seq. ) allows for public meetings of a legislative body to occur via teleconferencing subject to certain requirements, particularly that the legislative body notice each teleconference location of each member that will be participating in the public meeting, tha t each teleconference location be accessible to the public, that members of the public be allowed to address the legislative body at each teleconference location, that the legislative body post an agenda at each teleconference location, and that at least a quorum of the legislative body participate from locations within the boundaries of the local agency’s jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, in response to the COVID 19 state of emergency, the Governor temporarily suspended the rules described above when he issued Executive Order N-29-20 on March 17, 2020 and authorized local legislative bodies to hold virtual public meetings subject to specific public accessibility and noticing requirements; and WHEREAS, the Governor signed AB 361 prior to the expiration of Order N-29-20; and WHEREAS, AB 361 amends the Brown Act to the legislative body of a local agency to hold a teleconferenced meeting during a state of emergency without complying with the normal teleconferencing requirements described above if it meets requirements related to providing notice of the meeting, public access and participation via call-in or internet-based service options, real -time public comments, and conduct of the meeting in a manner that protects statutory and constitutional rights of any parties and the public appearing before the legislative body; and
WHEREAS, AB 361 does not require legislative bodies to take any specific action prior to holding an initial teleconferenced meeting during a state of emergency, however, to hold a subsequent teleconferenced meeting a legislative body must act no later than 30 days after the initial teleconf erenced meeting, and every 30 days thereafter, by making findings specified in the statute justifying the continued use of teleconferenced public meetings; and WHEREAS, it shall be the policy of the City that the appointed boards and commissions of the Cit y will hold teleconferenced public meetings in compliance with the provisions of AB 361 during the COVID 19 state of emergency; and
ATTACHMENT II
WHEREAS, the COVID 19 state of emergency declared by the Governor remains active; and
WHEREAS, public meetings involve many people in shared indoors spaces for hours, when the number of people present does not always allow for a minimum six foot distance between persons, and close contacts raise the risk of the spread of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Public Health has mandated that everyone in California wear a mask in indoor public spaces and workplaces through February 15, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Health Officer has issued Order No. 20 -05g (originally issued April 3, 2020 and most recently amended on J anuary 10, 2022) imposing a mandate that all individuals diagnosed or likely to have COVID 19 must isolate themselves and follow requirements further specified in the Order; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Health Officer has issued Order No. 20 -06n (originally issued April 3, 2020 and most recently amended on January 10, 2022) imposing a quarantine requirement on individuals who have had close contact to a person infected with COVID 19 unless specific criteria described in the order are met; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Health Officer has issued Order No. 21-06 (effective on December 8, 2021) which requires all individuals within the County of Alameda to wear face coverings when indoors in workplaces and public settings, with limited exemptions, and recommends that businesses make face coverings available to individuals entering the business; and
WHEREAS, Alameda County Health Order No. 21 - 04 (effective November 1, 2021), which allows a stable group of fully vaccinated individuals to remove masks in certain indoor situations, is not applicable to the City’s public meetings because they do not necessarily involve a stable group of vaccinated individuals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hayward makes the following findings pursuant to AB 361 to continue holding teleconferenced public meetings during the COVID 19 state of emergency:
The City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency. The COVID 19 state of emergency declared by the Governor remains active and continues to directly impact the ability of Councilmembers to meet safely in-person. State and local officials continue to recommend or impose measures to promote social distancing.
The Alameda County Health Officer has issued orders imposing measures to promote social distancing via isolation and quarantine of individuals infected or likely infected with COVID 19 and individuals with close contact to persons infected with COVID 19.
ATTACHMENT II
The Alameda County Hea lth Officer has issued order s imposing a mask mandate on all individuals in Alameda County, regardless of vaccination status, in all indoor public settings venues, gatherings, and workplaces.
The California Department of Public Health has mandated that everyone in California wear a mask in indoor public spaces and workplaces through February 15, 2022.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in the interest of public health and safety, based on the findings contained herein, the City Council of the City of Hayward and the appointed boards and commissions identified in Exhibit A of this Resolution shall continue to hold teleconferenced public meetings pursuant to AB 361.
IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA ___________________, 2022
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
ATTACHMENT III
EXHIBIT A
Community Services Commission
Keep Hayward Clean and Green Task Force
Library Commission
Personnel Commission
Planning Commission
Council Airport Committee
Council Budget and Finance Committee
Council Economic Development Committee
Council Infrastructure Committee
Council Homelessness-Housing Task Force
Council Sustainability Committee
Hayward Youth Commission
Hayward Police Department Community Advisory Panel
CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: WS 22-005
DATE: February 15, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT
Public Safety Projects Update: Review and Discuss Public Safety Policy Innovation Workshop Projects Update
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council receives and comments on this Public Safety Policy Innovation Workshop implementation report.
SUMMARY
On May 18, 2021, Council received the recommendations of the Public Safety Policy Innovation Workshop, authorized a budget allocation to support the projects, and directed staff to begin implementing nine of the pilot projects in FY 2022. Council also directed staff to return with progress updates at six-month intervals. This report provides an update on the nine projects, including the creation of the Hayward Evaluation and Response Teams (H.E.A.R.T.) program and the launch of the Hayward People’s Budget neighborhood participatory budgeting initiative (Attachment II).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Project Update Summary
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/10/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
DATE: February 15, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Public Safety Projects Update: Review and Discuss Public Safety Policy Innovation Workshop Projects Update
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council receives and comments on this Public Safety Policy Innovation Workshop implementation report.
SUMMARY
On May 18, 2021, Council received the recommendations of the Public Safety Policy Innovation Workshop, authorized a budget allocation to support the projects, and directed staff to begin implementing nine of the pilot projects in FY 2022. Council also directed staff to return with progress updates at six-month intervals. This report provides an update on the nine projects, including the creation of the Hayward Evaluation and Response Teams (H.E.A.R.T.) program and the launch of the Hayward People’s Budget neighborhood participatory budgeting initiative (Attachment II).
BACKGROUND
Following the May 25, 2020 murder of George Floyd by an on-duty officer of the Minneapolis Police Department and subsequent national protests and conversations about race, police brutality, and public safety, a group of Hayward community members brought forth concerns about Hayward’s policing services, policies, and programs in light of three Hayward officer- involved shootings that occurred around the same time period. Directed by Council, the City began a year-long effort to elicit and address community concerns about public safety comprised of the following projects.
Community Conversations & Public Safety Survey1 (August – October 2020) Over 1,700 community members shared their opinions on and concerns about public safety in Hayward. Participants in the community conversations indicated that their main safety
1 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4677304&GUID=52E170E7-7C7A-4B62-AEA8- 32BB683AC71D
concerns in Hayward were racism and homelessness. The conversations brought forth themes of Hayward’s diversity and complexity, a desire for all community members to feel safe, and a connection between neighborhood cohesion and feelings of safety. Many community members have positive views of the police, and among those who do not, their perspectives were informed by concerns about over-policing, specific negative experiences, and trust, systemic racism, and intergenerational trauma. The results of the Public Safety Survey indicated a general satisfaction and feeling of safety interacting with Hayward police, but a significant minority of respondents reported negative or ambivalent responses to general safety-related questions. Close to 60% of survey respondents indicated a feeling that the relationship between Hayward Police and Hayward residents is positive. A majority of survey respondents support reducing the police budget and redistributing it towards other community services while 60% supported establishing a participatory committee for dictating how that funding is reallocated.
Public Safety Policy Innovation Workshop2 (February – April 2021) Teams of community members and City staff, including participants from the Hayward Police Department and Hayward Fire Department, participated in a 10-week workshop to review the community’s feedback, interview key stakeholders, refine their understanding of the problems, and develop and prioritize possible solutions.
Council Adoption of Public Safety Policy Innovation Workshop Recommendations3 (May 2021)
The participants in the Public Safety Policy Innovation Workshop recommended a list of 25 projects for Council to consider implementing to address four concerns identified in the Community Conversations and Public Safety Survey data:
1. There is a lack of trust between the community and government, including City Hall and Hayward Police Department (HPD), stemming from a lack of communication and relationship building and an inadequate recognition of the long-term negative impacts of systemic racism.
2. Systemic health inequities for the Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) community, inadequate cultural responsiveness, and a lack of resources have led to limited and/or uncoordinated response options for mental health crises.
3. There are inadequate shelter and outreach resources to meet the needs of people experiencing homelessness. In addition, the current outreach model and resource options are not meeting everyone's needs, and some people decline services. These challenges are especially burdensome for people that have experienced systemic inequities and other long-term traumas, particularly BIPOC communities.
2 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4730803&GUID=B7016A74-469D-4B54-A400- B830088097E7
3 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4955272&GUID=F899B470-2D3E-4373-9CE0- EF2552EB821D
4. There are limited public resources and a possible misalignment between resource allocation and community safety needs, including inadequate transparency and focus on the long-term negative impacts of systemic racism.
Council authorized funding for and directed staff to begin implementing nine of the pilot projects recommended by workshop participants, while providing progress updates to Council at six-month intervals (Attachment II).
DISCUSSION
This report provides an update on the nine projects that Council directed staff to implement immediately following the Public Safety Policy Innovation Workshop. The remaining 14 recommended projects, some of which required additional research, community engagement, and/or development, have longer implementation timelines and are not yet scheduled to launch.
The pilot projects included in this staff report are still in the process of formalizing and improving data collection and reporting processes, with the intent to provide a more in-depth analysis of project outcomes in the next report out to Council and to sustainably support continuous improvement and program evaluation goals. Additionally, each of the projects has been impacted by general constraints and challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including reduced capacity and limited staffing.
Project 1 - Communications Center Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan (Dispatch Needs Assessment)
Federal Engineering, the project consultant, was selected via a competitive Request for Proposals process administered by an interdepartmental staff team. The selected proposal outlined a phased approach to the communications center needs assessment: Phase 1, currently underway, consists of an operations assessment; Phase 2 will identify improvements to existing communications operations, focusing on effectively supporting the Public Safety Workshop pilot programs; and Phase 3 will include the development of a long- term strategic plan for the communications center. Work on the project began in November 2021 and is anticipated to complete by June 2022.
Projects 2, 3, and 4 - Hayward Evaluation and Response Teams (H.E.A.R.T.) The recommendations from projects two, three, and four, have been combined into the newly established Hayward Evaluation and Response Teams (H.E.A.R.T.) service model. The goals of the H.E.A.R.T. program model, drawn from the Public Safety Policy Innovation Workshop, are:
Build an integrated continuum of options that allows for the right team or resource to respond to calls for service
Improve access to medical, mental health, and other support services Reduce the need for police officers to intervene in calls for service involving people experiencing mental illness, substance abuse, and homelessness.
The H.E.A.R.T. program model incorporates a Mobile Evaluation Team (MET) consisting of a specially trained Hayward police officer and an Alameda County Behavioral Health clinician to respond to crisis calls for service where there may be a threat to self or others, a Mobile Integrated Health Unit (MIHU) that pairs a community paramedic with specialized training in mental health issues and nutrition and a behavioral health clinician to respond to calls for service related to mental illness, substance abuse, and homelessness where the scene is secure, and a Behavioral Health Coordinator to link community wraparound care resources to City response teams and support pilot program implementation through data collection and community engagement activities. The program model is further described in a September 2021 staff report here.4
Project 2 – Mobile Integrated Health Unit (Mobile Mental Health Response Team) This project launched on a part-time basis on January 22. Staff has identified a community paramedic, purchased vehicles and necessary supplies, and identified Tiburcio Vasquez Health Center (TVHC) as a community partner. TVHC is in the process of recruiting a licensed clinician to staff the MIHU pilot. However, because launching the MIHU is a high priority for the City, the Behavioral Health Coordinator (described below) will transfer 50% of their time (or approximately 20 hours per week) to begin responding to calls for service as a clinician with the MIHU.
Project 3 – Mobile Evaluation Team (District Command Behavioral Health Clinician) Since the pilot project’s launch in June 2021, the MET has responded to 257 calls for service.
From September 1, 2021 through December 1, 2021, MET responded to 174 calls for service.
Calls for service have originated from the Hayward Police Department, outpatient mental health providers, family members or loved ones, schools, community members, Adult Protective Services, and individuals experiencing crisis. Two calls resulted in criminal justice involvement (in the form of an arrest or citation), while the remainder of the calls resulted in referrals to appropriate social services resources (including crisis centers, the Navigation Center, and Child Protective Services), involuntary psychiatric holds in situations where the individual in crisis was a danger to themself and/or others, and de-escalation resulting in individuals following up with their current mental health care providers.
Staff is working to formalize this partnership with Alameda County, which will allow a greater degree of data sharing and reporting for program evaluation purposes. Staff is also working to expand the capacity of the MET by adding staff hours.
Project 4 – Behavioral Health Coordinator
The pilot Behavioral Health Coordinator position was filled on August 13, 2021. The Behavioral Health Coordinator has participated in the City Hall to You neighborhood meetings to meet community members and answer questions about the public safety initiatives and
4 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5149133&GUID=1DA13B00-BBFB-41BE-B070- D1C09F1A0CB2
H.E.A.R.T. program; participated in Alameda County Crisis Intervention Training sessions and relevant task forces to learn about resources for care beyond the crisis setting; and engaged community groups and community-based organizations to build relationships and a better understanding of the network of behavioral health care available in Hayward.
In addition to the project activities described above, staff issued a Request for Information seeking input from agencies working directly with community members with lived experience related to mental health crises, substance abuse, and homelessness, with the goal of identifying potential improvements in the H.E.A.R.T. program model. Staff has also applied for a Behavioral Health Justice Intervention Services Project Crisis Care Mobile Unit grant to leverage additional resources for the H.E.A.R.T. program.
Project 5 – Expand Shelter Options & Outreach
Council approved the Let’s House Hayward! Strategic Plan to Reduce Homelessness on July 12, 2021. Updates for this project will be provided in the context of that plan.
Project 6 – Community Services Officers Respond to Property Crimes This pilot began its “soft” part-time launch in November 2021. Under the program, Community Services Officers (CSOs) are dispatched to calls for service related to non-violent property crimes received by the communications center or via the online police report system. to take police reports and collect evidence. Due to staffing constraints, the pilot operates on a part-time basis, though staff plan to expand the program. In the first month of the program, CSOs responded to 30 calls for service, two-thirds of which originated from the non-emergency police line. Nearly 50% of calls were for vehicle theft or break-in.
Staff plans to expand program hours, promote the program to the community, and increase data collection to include qualitative feedback from community members.
Project 8 - The Hayward People’s Budget (Neighborhood Participatory Budgeting) Outreach for the Hayward People’s Budget began at the City Hall to You community meetings in September and October 2021. Project staff divided the City into six sectors based on Census tract data, each containing several neighborhoods, and recruited neighborhood delegates from each sector to receive training in conducting community outreach and drafting proposals. Delegate outreach, community brainstorming, and proposal development will continue through February. The community will vote on project proposals in March. Projects will be completed by December 2022. More information about the People’s Budget can be found on the project website at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/peoplesbudget.
Hayward Police Department Curriculum Working Group (Project 9) and Community Feedback and Complaint Liaison (Project 17)
Both projects have been scheduled for the second half of FY 22 due to staffing limitations and are on track to launch.
STRATEGIC ROADMAP
This agenda item supports the Strategic Priority of Support Quality of Life. Specifically, this item is an update on Project 16: Implement Solutions to Increase Community Safety and all associated subprojects.
FISCAL IMPACT
Council authorized funding for the first wave of Public Safety Policy Innovation Workshop projects in the FY 22 budget. There are no additional budget requests related to the projects at this time, and no fiscal impact associated with this report.
PUBLIC CONTACT
In September 2021, staff launched a Public Safety Policy Innovation Workshop Project Dashboard (www.hayward-ca.gov/HaywardSafeDashboard) so community members can visit to view the status of the pilot projects. Staff plans to expand the dashboard to include links to project webpages, project data and reports as these resources become available.
Additionally, staff has continued to center community engagement in project implementation, including meeting with interested community members to provide updates, presenting the proposed H.E.A.R.T. program model to workshop participants, and sharing information about the H.E.A.R.T. and Hayward People’s Budget projects via the City Hall to You meetings held in September and October 2021.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will continue to implement the priority projects, returning to Council at six-month intervals with project updates. At Council meetings in June 2022, staff will provide further analysis and recommendations for the midterm and long-term Public Safety Workshop projects. Additionally, Council will receive project updates through the Strategic Roadmap implementation and update process, and throughout the course of the FY 23 budgeting cycle.
Prepared by: Laurel James, Management
Recommended by: Toney Chaplin, Chief of Police
Garrett Contreras, Fire Chief
Jennifer Ott, Assistant City Manager
Approved by:
_________________________________
Kelly McAdoo, City Manager
Attachment II
Implementation Plan for Projects
Recommended for Immediate
Implementation
January 2022 Updates on Public Safety Policy Innovation Workshop Projects Recommended for Immediate Implementation
# Project Status Next Steps
1 Dispatch Needs Assessment
and Capacity Improvement
The project consultant, Federal Engineering, was selected via a competitive bidding process and has begun Phase I of a multi-part Communications Center needs assessment.
Complete project Phases II & III.
Implement strategic plan and
consultant recommendations.
2 3
4 Hayward Evaluation and
Response Teams
(H.E.A.R.T.)
Mobile Mental Health
Response Team
District Command
Behavioral Health Clinician
Behavioral/Mental Health
Coordinator
Staff has purchased equipment and vehicles, selected a
community paramedic, identified a partner organization, and began piloting the program on a part-time basis in January, while recruiting for a full-time clinician.
Behavioral health clinicians have been deployed with District Command staff since June 2021.
The Behavioral Health Coordinator position was filled in August 2021.
Hire a full-time clinician, launch
full program pilot, collect data.
Continue program and collect
data.
Continue program and collect
data.
5 Expand Shelter Options &
Outreach
Council approved the Let’s House Hayward! Strategic Plan to Reduce Homelessness on July 12, 2021. Updates for this
project will be provided in the context of that plan.
The next quarterly update on the
Let’s House Hayward! Strategic
Plan to Reduce Homelessness is
scheduled for March.
6 Community Services
Officers Respond to
Property Crimes
This project had a soft launch in early November 2021 and is currently operational on a part-time basis.
Continue program, launch full
pilot, collect data.
Attachment II
Implementation Plan for Projects
Recommended for Immediate
Implementation
8 Neighborhood
Participatory Budgeting
The People’s Budget project began outreach in September 2021 as part of the City Hall to You community meetings.
Delegates have been selected and the program is accepting neighborhood project nominations at https://www.hayward- ca.gov/peoplesbudget.
Community voting to select
projects will take place in March
and projects are scheduled for
completion by December 2022.
9 HPD Training Curriculum
Working Group
This project is scheduled to launch in Q3/Q4 of FY 2022.
Convene working group, identify
scope and regulatory limitations,
work with community to
understand interest level, desired
format, and recruitment strategy.
17 Community Feedback and
Complaint Liaison
This project is scheduled to launch in Q3/Q4 of FY 2022.
Convene working group, identify
key features and integrations
with existing systems and
processes, research comparable
programs in other jurisdictions,
develop a scope of services in
preparation for issuing an RFP.
CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: PH 22-007
DATE: February 15, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director
SUBJECT
Pt. Eden Way U-Haul Facility: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial to Develop a New Approximately 116,844 Square Foot Industrial Building for U-Haul at 4150 Point Eden Way (Assessor Parcel Number 461-0085-020-02) Requiring Approval of Site Plan Review and Historic Resources Demolition Permit Application No. 201901039 Including Certification of an Environmental Impact Report, Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Approval of a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program. Jerry Owen on Behalf of U-Haul; Amerco Real Estate Co. (Applicant/Property Owner)
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council adopts a resolution (Attachment V) overturning the Planning Commission denial and approving Site Plan Review and Historic Resources Demolition Permit Application No. 201901039, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval outlined in the attached resolution; and reviews and certifies the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (Attachments VII and VIII, respectively), and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment IX), and findings related to the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment V), prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
SUMMARY
The Council is being asked to overturn a Planning Commission denial of a proposed project that would result in the construction of a new industrial building to house U-Haul regional corporate offices and a warehouse on an underutilized site located at the western edge along State Route 92. If approved, the proposed industrial building would be approximately 116,844 square feet in size and reach approximately 50 feet in height to finished roof and would require demolition of dilapidated historic structures previously affiliated with the Oliver Brothers Salt Company. Off-site improvements include relocation of the Bay Trail from the current alignment along the eastern property line between two industrially zoned properties to run along the project site’swestern property line to take advantage of the natural setting and views to the Bay and establishment of an approximately 32-acre preserve on the western portion of the project site.
On December 14, 2021, the Council held a public hearing on the proposed project and continued the item to a future meeting to allow the applicant to 1) continue to negotiate with and come to an agreement CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/10/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:PH 22-007
to a future meeting to allow the applicant to 1) continue to negotiate with and come to an agreement with labor groups; 2) explore options for installing future gateway signage on the site; 3) provide a more detailed plan about use of historic materials on the site; and 4) provide additional detail on potential environmental impacts related to sea level rise, bird strikes, use of permeable materials, and the addition of trees along the realigned Bay Trail. Additional detail on each of these topics is provided in this staff report.
This staff report is intended to be a supplement to the Staff Report provided on December 14, 2021, which contains detailed Background, Site Conditions, Project Description, Code Compliance and Environmental Analysis related to the project (Attachment IV).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Future Gateway Signage Site Plan
Attachment III Land Development & Sea Level Rise - A Primer Attachment IV Staff Report - December 14, 2021
Attachment V Resolution
Attachment VI Project Plans
Attachment VII 4150 Pt Eden Way Draft EIR. Appendices are available on the City’s website at <https://www.hayward-ca.gov/your-government/special-projects/under- Attachment VIII 4150 Pt Eden Way Final EIR
Attachment IX 4150 Pt Eden Way Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachment X July 8, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachment XI CEQA Correspondence from Lozeau Drury
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/10/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
DATE: February 15, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director
SUBJECT: Pt. Eden Way U-haul Facility: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial to Develop a New Approximately 116,844 Square Foot Industrial Building for U-Haul at 4150 Point Eden Way (Assessor Parcel Number 461-0085-020-02) Requiring Approval of Site Plan Review and Historic Resources Demolition Permit Application No. 201901039 Including Certification of an Environmental Impact Report, Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Approval of a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program. Jerry Owen on Behalf of U- Haul; Amerco Real Estate Co. (Applicant/Property Owner)
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council adopts a resolution (Attachment V) overturning the Planning Commission denial and approving Site Plan Review and Historic Resources Demolition Permit Application No. 201901039, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval outlined in the attached resolution; and reviews and certifies the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (Attachments VII and VIII, respectively), and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment IX), and findings related to the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment V), prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
SUMMARY
The Council is being asked to overturn a Planning Commission denial of a proposed project that would result in the construction of a new industrial building to house U-Haul regional corporate offices and a warehouse on an underutilized site located at the western edge along State Route 92. If approved, the proposed industrial building would be approximately 116,844 square feet in size and reach approximately 50 feet in height to finished roof and would require demolition of dilapidated historic structures previously affiliated with the Oliver Brothers Salt Company. Off-site improvements include relocation of the Bay Trail from the current alignment along the eastern property line between two industrially zoned properties to run along the project site’s western property line to take advantage of the natural setting and views to the Bay and establishment of an approximately 32-acre preserve on the western portion of the project site.
On December 14, 20211, the Council held a public hearing on the proposed project and continued the item to a future meeting to allow the applicant to 1) continue to negotiate with and come to an agreement with labor groups; 2) explore options for installing future gateway signage on the site; 3) provide a more detailed plan about use of historic materials on the site; and 4) provide additional detail on potential environmental impacts related to sea level rise, bird strikes, use of permeable materials, and the addition of trees along the realigned Bay Trail. Additional detail on each of these topics is provided in this staff report.
This staff report is intended to be a supplement to the Staff Report provided on December 14, 2021, which contains detailed Background, Site Conditions, Project Description, Code Compliance and Environmental Analysis related to the project (Attachment IV).
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
On December 14, 2021, the Council held a public hearing on the proposed project and continued the item to a future meeting to allow the applicant to: 1) continue to negotiate with and come to an agreement with labor groups; 2) explore options for installing future gateway signage on the site; 3) provide a more detailed plan about use of historic materials on the site; and 4) provide additional detail on potential environmental impacts related to sea level rise, bird strikes, use of permeable materials, and the addition of trees along the realigned Bay Trail. Additional detail on each of these topics is provided below:
Labor Negotiation. The applicant will enter in an agreement with Swinerton, a general contractor recognized for their union agreements with local organizations.
Gateway Signage. The Council directed the applicant to explore opportunities for adding gateway signage at the site. Recognizing that designing and procuring gateway signage would most appropriately be led by the City, the applicant agreed to provide space on the site and to provide a contribution based on a percentage of the cost of the building permit toward the sign. Attachment II shows two approximately 100 sq. ft. locations for the gateway signage; and, proposed Condition No. 7 (Attachment V), modeled on the condition of approval related to public art at the Gillig site, would require that the applicant contribute one third of one percent (0.33%) of the building permit construction costs for acquisition and installation of gateway signage in the development project prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building.
Historic Materials Reuse. The applicant will reuse salvaged lumber from the salt processing plant to construct interpretive sign features that would be placed along the Bay Trail. Further, salt processing equipment, such as the remains of an Archimedes screw (pictured below), will be retained and displayed at the site and/or at the Historical Society as a remnant of salt mining history in the area.
1 December 14, 2021 City Council Meeting. https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5357653&GUID=B1B003A8-13D7-498B-B787- 56C6FEC61187&Options=&Search=
Sea Level Rise. The attached Land Development & Sea Level Rise – A Primer (Attachment III), was prepared by City staff and provides additional information related to the Shoreline Adaptation Master Plan, Flood Protection Ordinance, definitions and terminology, and impacts related to new industrial development along the shoreline and the U-Haul project in particular. The Primer concludes that the U-Haul project meets the current City requirements for flood protection. Furthermore, it can be inferred that the U-Haul warehouse has 100-year (1% chance of exceedance) protection for approximately three foot of sea level rise and that the parking areas will begin to flood during king tide events with about two feet of sea level rise. The loading dock is at most risk, flooding annually with about one foot of sea level rise and daily with about two feet of sea level rise.
Bird Strikes. To address the concern related to bird strikes, the building design will incorporate bird-safe features that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service consider best practices for reducing the risk of bird strikes against buildings. Strategies include breaking up large sections of glass with elements such as dark, vertical sunshades that would protrude outward on western facing windows, installation of white panels between windows to divide glass segments, and use of sculptural cutouts which will be mounted on the north façade adjacent to the glass entry way.
Permeable Pavers. Permeable pavers are a porous pavement that allows water to infiltrate into the underlying soil. They may provide stormwater benefits when they are used in the appropriate environment. Kier & Wright, a civil engineering firm, reviewed the geotechnical
report prepared for the site and determined that the underlying soils, which consist mainly of undocumented fill and clay with high groundwater, can be highly expansive and are not recommended for infiltration. Thus, permeable pavers are not an appropriate treatment solution for the project site. Rather, the project site includes bio-retention areas to achieve compliance with stormwater requirements.
Additional Landscaping between Bay Trail and State Route 92. In examining if there is adequate space to add trees between the Bay Trail and State Route 92, the applicant found that the area is not within their property boundaries and is under Caltrans jurisdiction. The only way to add trees would be to reduce the Bay Trail width, which is not being proposed at this time.
FISCAL IMPACT
In December 2021, staff included in the previous staff report a potential impact on property valuation of the proposed project as $13 million. Redevelopment of the site would result in increased property taxes, fees for permitting and inspections, and would result in park in lieu fees totaling about $93,475 (based on the 2021 Fee Schedule). Once operational, the development would result in minimal sales taxes related to the rental of U-Haul storage pods.
NEXT STEPS
The Council may vote to overturn the Planning Commission denial, approve the project, and adopt the attached resolution with CEQA Findings and related Statement of Overriding Conditions. Following the approval, the applicant would submit improvement and grading plans and a building permit application for the proposed development.
Alternatively, if the Council does not believe that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the environmental impacts related to the proposed project, the Council may vote to deny the project because it cannot make the requisite findings to adopt the CEQA Findings and the related Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Prepared by: Leigha Schmidt, Acting Principal Planner
Recommended by: Jennifer Ott, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director
Approved by:
_________________________________
Kelly McAdoo, City Manager
LANDS OF OLIVER PROPERTIES, LLC
LANDS OF DEPARTMENT OF FISH &GAME
2002-132615 OR
4 CY
TRASH
4 CY
RECYCLE
3 CY
ORGANIC
W
B
-
65 INDOT 2013 (US)
(c) 2
01 9
Tran
s oft S
olutio
ns, Inc. A
ll rig hts
res erve
d.
WB-65
INDOT 2013 (US)
(c ) 2 01 9 Transoft Sol utions, I n c . A ll ri ght s res e rve d.
W
B
-
65 INDOT 2013 (US)
(c) 2
01 9
Transoft Sol utions, In c. A
ll right s
rese rve
d.
BUILDING AREA - 113,730 SF
AC PAVING
AC
PAVING
RELOCATE
THE BAY
TRAIL
STORM WATER TREATMENT AREA
20' - 8"
LANDSCAPE
BAY TRAIL
BAY TRAIL
LANDSCAPE
BAY TRAIL
6 SPACES
6 SPACES
6 SPACES
6 SPACES
9 SPACES
20' - 0"
65' - 0"
125' - 0"
18' - 0"
36' - 0"
18' - 0"
40' - 0"
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
35' - 0"
18' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
OFFICE
PROPERTY
LINE
FIRE
PUMP
ROOM
ELECTRICALROOM
60' - 0"
109' - 0"
250' - 0"
45' - 0"
272' - 0"
T
6 SPACES
6 SPACES
4 SPACES
6 SPACES
6 SPACES
6 SPACES
6 SPACES
6 SPACES
1 1
2 7
1 8
39 1
1 9
4 50' - 0"
6 5
CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY 92
5 15
21 27
33 39
45 51
57 63
67 73
79 9
ZONING: IP- INDUSTRIAL PARK
APN: 461-0085-020-02
NORTH SITE AREA
GROSS: 6.83 AC
297,762 SF
DETENTION: @3.4% 8,743 SF
SLOPE: 0 SF
EASEMENTS:
LANDSCAPE: @16% 45,840 SF
NET: 5.58 AC
243,179 SF
BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 113,730 SF
NORTH BUILDING USE:
WAREHOUSE 110,231 SF
OFFICE 2,785 SF
COVERAGE:
GROSS: 38%
NET: 47%
PARKING REQUIRED:
WAREHOUSE 1/2000 SF 55 STALLS
OFFICE 1/250 SF 11 STALLS
TOTAL 67 STALLS
PARKING PROVIDED:
AUTO: 79 STALL
REQ. ACCESSIBLE 2 STALLS
REQ. EV 2 STALLS
BUILDING TRUCK DOCKS:
9X9 DOCK - HIGH OH DOORS 9
12X10 GRADE LEVEL OH DOORS 3
T
X
TRANSFORMER WITH CONCRETE PAD
PARKING STALL COUNT TOTAL
DOCK HIGH TRUCK DOOR
26' FIRE LANE
GRADE LEVEL TRUCK DOOR
PROPERTY LINE
LANDSCAPE
SHEET NO:
KEY PLAN:
ITEM: REVISION/ISSUE: DATE:
THIS DOCUMENT, AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN, ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF ATI ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS. ANY USE OR MODIFICATIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ATI ARCHITECTS + ENGINEERS, IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
DSA:
PROFESSIONAL STAMP:
3050 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 - T 714.338.1600 3009 Douglas Blvd #290 Roseville, CA 95661 - T 916.772.1800 4750 Willow Road #250 Pleasanton, CA 94588 - T 925.648.8800 AGENCY APPROVAL:
CONSULTANT:
BIM 360://U-Haul Hayward/U-Haul Hayward_rshahQ3EL2.rvt
1/27/2020 1:46:36 PM
SITE PLAN
A-100
U-HAUL COMPANY OF
S
AN FRANCISCO
4150 POINT EDEN WAY
Owner
PROJECT NO: U2301
DRAWN BY: RS CHECKED BY: RFT
DATE: 01/17/2020
1" = 40'-0"1 SITE PLAN
IRRIGATED AREA, SEE LANDSCAPE L1.01
ACCESSIBLE ENTRY SIGNAGE
BIKE RACK, SEE DETAIL 8/A-602
TRASH ENCLOSURE PER CITY STANDARDS, SEE DETAIL 3/A-602
NEW FENCE
EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN
FIRE LANE ENTRY SIGNAGE
ACCESSIBLE CURB RAMP WITH TRUNCATED DOMES
CONCRETE PAVING
PROJECT DATA
KEY NOTES
SITE LEGEND
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 GENERAL NOTES
A PLA N N IN G SU BM IT T A L 0 1 /2 7 /2 0
NORTH
PLAN
ATTACHMENT II
ATTACHMENT III
Updated January 2022 1
LAND DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS SUBJECT TO SEA LEVEL RISE
Planning Division • (510) 583-4216 • [email protected]
HAYWARD AREA SHORELINE ADAPTATION MASTER PLAN
In 2021, the City of Hayward and the Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency (HASPA) has completed the development of a Shoreline Adaptation Master Plan to address anticipated sea level rise through the end of this century. The primary focus of the Shoreline Adaptation Master Plan is to mitigate the impacts of sea level rise through the construction of a perimeter levee intended to protect the shoreline and existing low-lying development from future inundation. A new levee would also protect any new development within these flood plain areas from coastal flooding. Any low-lying development, whether existing or new, would remain at risk of flooding from groundwater emergence and stormwater runoff after the construction of a perimeter levee.
The Shoreline Adaptation Master Plan aimed at reducing risk to critical assets from daily tidal inundation and future 100-year flood events in a up to 4’ of sea level rise scenario. Based on a medium-risk aversion, it is estimated that the state will see approximately 4' of sea level rise in 50-60 years (California Coastal Commission recommendations, 2018). Due to complexities associated with estimating sea level rise and the evolving science, this estimate is subject to change. For planning purposes, the Shoreline Adaptation Master Plan used a target elevation of 14.3" (NAVD 88) to evaluate and assess adaptation strategies.
The Shoreline Adaptation Master Plan recommends that the City increase flood protection standards for new construction and renovations but does not identify or require a specific amount of sea level rise or minimum design elevations within the Master Plan. For more information about the Hayward Shoreline Adaptation Master Plan, please visit https://www.hayward-ca.gov/shoreline-master-plan
SEA LEVEL RISE MAPS
As part of the Shoreline Adaptation Master Plan, the City of Hayward and the Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency conducted a thorough analysis of future sea level rise scenarios based on guidance from the state and previous studies. Sea level rise scenarios of 2, 4, and 7 feet were used to prepare maps showing inundation from sea level rise, the 100-year flood event and groundwater emergence. These maps can be found here: Sea Level Rise Mapping Report Story Map.
FLOOD PROTECTION AND SEA LEVEL RISE
The City of Hayward participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and has adopted a Flood Plain Management Ordinance.
The intent of the ordinance is to protect development from existing flood hazards including coastal flooding and the threshold of protection is set at the 100-year event (1% chance of exceedance in any year). The primary purpose of the NFIP is to provide insurance protection for improved structures and does so by ensuring that structures are either located outside of the flood plain or elevated and protected where they may be located within a flood plain. As an example, the finish floor elevation of an industrial building near the shoreline may be elevated above and protected from the 100-year flood event while the surrounding grades including parking areas may be inundated during this same event.
Critically, FEMA flood plain maps do not account for sea level rise at this time. As sea levels rise in the coming century, the frequency of coastal flooding will increase as well. It is not known if, when, or how FEMA will incorporate sea level rise into the NFIP. Currently, the City has no ordinances or other
ATTACHMENT III
Updated January 2022 2
regulatory requirements for new development projects to account for future sea level rise; however, there are steps that applicants can take to mitigate these impacts on a project by project basis, as detailed below.
ELEVATIONS AND DATUMS
Tide charts are for sailors and fisherman, typically based on elevations relative to the average daily low tide within a 30-year epoch and not tied directly to any fixed elevations on land. For example, the current high tide is about 7 feet. After 3 feet of sea level rise, the high tide will still be 7 feet. Historically, elevation datums were also local, with cities often having varying datums or reference zero elevations; the zero elevation in San Francisco was different than the zero elevation in Hayward. The advent of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) in the 1980s lead to the establishment of the North American Vertical Datum, 1988 (NAVD88) which provides a consistent datum or zero elevation across the entire country. NAVD 88 is the datum used by most project surveyors when preparing a topographic site survey and by FEMA when preparing all flood maps. Therefore, when trying to understand tidal impacts to the shoreline, all elevations should be converted to the North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD88).
CURRENT TIDAL EVENTS (ALL ELEVATIONS PER NAVD88)
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) maintains several tide stations within San Francisco Bay including along the Hayward shoreline, however the closest tide station with an elevation tie to the NAVD88 datum is at San Leandro Marina. Using information from this tide station:
Mean Higher High Water (average daily high tide) ~ 7.0 feet King Tide (annual highest tide or 1-year event) ~ 8.5 feet 100-Year Flood (tidal event and storm surge) ~ 10.3 feet (11 feet per FEMA maps) A key takeaway is that the 100-year (1% change of exceedance) event is about 2 feet above the annual king tide event – an elevation difference that should remain consistent even with future sea level rise.
CONSIDERATIONS FOR NEW INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS NEAR THE SHORELINE Much of the current development occurring near the Hayward shoreline is industrial with a tilt up concrete structure(s) surrounded by parking and/or truck loading docks. Due to the nature of loading docks, the surrounding parking areas and other site amenities are often a couple feet below the finish floor elevation of the structure.
Since the City’s flood plain ordinance and FEMA already require that finish floor elevations be raised above the 100-year flood (1% chance of exceedance) elevation, much of the new development, including both structure and contents within those structures, are generally protected. Parking lots, loading docks, and other sitework are typically less expensive and usually able to withstand an occasional period of inundation. Therefore, protecting parking and site improvements by elevating above the annual king tide event may be deemed prudent and may result in potentially significant cost savings for a new development.
Buildings and site improvements constructed above the 100-year and king tide elevations, respectively, can be assumed to have some protection against sea level rise.
ATTACHMENT III
Updated January 2022 3
PROJECT SPECIFIC INFORMATION
The following information was taken from the site topography and grading plans for the U-Haul project with all elevations converted to the NAVD88 datum:
Finish Floor Elevation 13.2 feet
Parking areas, typical 10.7 feet
Loading dock 9.2 feet
As proposed, the U-Haul project meets the current City requirements for flood protection. Furthermore, it can be inferred that the U-Haul warehouse has 100-year (1% chance of exceedance) protection for approximately 3 foot of sea level rise and that the parking areas will begin to flood during king tide events with about 2 feet of sea level rise. The loading dock is at most risk, flooding annually with about 1 foot of sea level rise and daily with about 2 feet of sea level rise.
ATTACHMENT III
Updated January 2022 4
DATE: December 14, 2021
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial to Develop a New Approximately 116,844 Square Foot Industrial Building for U-Haul at 4150 Point Eden Way (Assessor Parcel Number 461-0085-020-02) Requiring Approval of Site Plan Review and Historic Resources Demolition Permit Application No. 201901039 Including Certification of an Environmental Impact Report, Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Approval of a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program. Jerry Owen on Behalf of U-Haul; Amerco Real Estate Co. (Applicant/Property Owner)
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council overturns the Planning Commission denial and approves Site Plan Review and Historic Resources Demolition Permit Application No. 201901039, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval outlined in the attached Resolution (Attachment II); and reviews and certifies the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (Attachments IV and V, respectively), and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment VI), and findings related to the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment II), prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SUMMARY
The Council is being asked to overturn a Planning Commission denial of a proposed project that would result in the construction of a new industrial building to house U-Haul regional corporate offices and a warehouse on an underutilized site located at the western edge along State Route 92. If approved, the proposed industrial building would be approximately 116,844 square feet in size and reach approximately 50 feet in height to finished roof. The project would require demolition of dilapidated historic structures previously affiliated with the Oliver Brothers Salt Company. Off-site improvements include relocation of the Bay Trail from the current alignment along the eastern property line between two industrially zoned properties to run along the project site’s western property line to take advantage of the natural setting and views to the Bay as well as establishment of an approximately 32-acre preserve on the western portion of the project site.
ATTACHMENT IV
The Planning Commission denied the project on the grounds that the proposed project does not align with Council goals related to growing the high-tech, advanced manufacturing sector in the City’s Industrial Districts; that the proposed regional warehouse use would not generate enough quality jobs or sales taxes to off-set the environmental and other impacts related to the project; and, that the site, which is projected to be inundated due to sea level rise, is not appropriate for the development. The applicant’s appeal did not provide substantive changes to the proposed development. Rather, it stated that the warehousing and corporate regional offices are a permitted use that would provide between 35-75 jobs when fully operational and that the U-Haul pod storage would generate sales tax revenues among other reasons detailed further in this staff report.
In addition to overturning the Planning Commission denial, the City Council is being asked to review and certify an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was prepared for the project.
The DEIR concluded that all impacts could be mitigated to a level of less than significant as detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), except for Cultural Resources, which could not be mitigated because the project requires demolition of a designated historic resource. A mitigation measure requiring archival documentation of the extant structures and installation of interpretive signage was incorporated into the MMRP and as a condition of approval for the project, but the impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the Council must also adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to approve the proposed project.
BACKGROUND
In September 2016, a development permit application was submitted to construct a large- scale industrial shell building on the subject site. During the review period, staff identified major areas of concern including poor building design, impacts to wetlands and biological and cultural resources, and conflicts with Bay Trail access through the site. The applicant withdrew the development permit application.
In July 2017, the property was sold via online auction and purchased by Amerco Real Estate Company based in Phoenix, Arizona. On February 25, 2019, U-Haul submitted Site Plan Review Application 201901039 for two concrete tilt-up buildings to house the U-Haul Corporate Maintenance Facility and a speculative warehouse. In the first application status letter, staff expressed significant concerns related to the proposed building and site design, impacts to wetlands and biological resources, and conflicts with Bay Trail access, similar to comments provided in May 2017.
Council Economic Development Committee. In May 2017, the Council Economic Development Committee (CEDC) considered a preliminary concept design by CenterPoint Properties, which proposed a 98,000 square foot speculative industrial building to house biotechnology uses.
The CEDC was supportive of the proposed project; however, the developer did not move forward due to environmental issues and infeasibility of the project.
On April 1, 2019, the CEDC1 considered the initial U-Haul application, which included two separate concrete tilt-up buildings with stucco exterior, minimal glazing, and a corporate maintenance yard for U-Haul. The CEDC was not supportive of the building as designed and recommended significant upgrades to the site and building design to eliminate the maintenance yard, and to increase the building design complexity along the Route 92 frontage. The CEDC did not support the proposed U-Haul use or the corporate maintenance yard but did say that the use could be acceptable if the site and building are very well designed. Overall, the CEDC expressed a desire to see a state-of-the-art gateway building on the site regardless of use. There was discussion of feasibility of retaining and building around the Oliver Brothers Salt Works historic structure, but all of the members of the CEDC did not express a desire to retain the structure. Following this feedback, the applicant eliminated the maintenance yard and significantly redesigned the site and building as described further in this staff report.
Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency. In April 2019, the proposed development was presented to the Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency (HASPA), which is comprised of members from the Hayward City Council, the East Bay Regional Park District and the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District. Members of HASPA recommended that the building be redesigned to have a high-tech, high-quality aesthetic; that the building incorporate art features reflecting the natural setting and historic salt production on the site; that the Bay Trail be relocated to the western edge of the property; that the height of the building be minimized; and, that the foundation of the building be raised to accommodate future sea level rise.
Chamber of Commerce – Government Relations Committee. On March 5, 2021, City staff presented the updated proposed development at the Chamber of Commerce Government Relations Committee (GRC). Committee members expressed a desire to see more intense office or biotechnology uses similar to development and uses on the west side of the San Mateo Bridge in Foster City; however, the group understood that the site was environmentally sensitive, which constrained future redevelopment.
Planning Commission. On July 8, 2021, the Planning Commission2 held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed project and voted 5:1:0 to deny the project on several grounds.
Commissioners felt that the proposed project did not align with Council goals related to growing the high-tech, advanced manufacturing sector in the City’s Industrial Districts; that the proposed regional warehouse use would not generate enough quality jobs or sales taxes to off-set the environmental impacts related to the project; that the site was not appropriate for the proposed development due to future sea level rise and destruction of habitat; that the trucks from the proposed development would further deteriorate surrounding roadways; and, that as a result, they could not support a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Planning Commission meeting minutes are included as Attachment VII to this report.
1 April 1, 2019 CEDC Meeting Agenda. https://hayward.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=684793&GUID=78F33279-7339-4D4E-8975- 26ACC6BC8562&Options=info|&Search=
2 July 8, 2021 Planning Commission Agenda. https://hayward.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=874187&GUID=82C6DF7A-F6DD-4AF1-B07E- 225456980F8D&Options=info|&Search=
Appeal. On July 14, 2021, the applicant filed an appeal of this denial on the grounds that the proposed building would be located above the flood plain and not be impacted by sea level rise; that the use would not solely be a warehouse in that the building would also house the regional corporate offices for U-Haul and would employ 35-50 individuals to start and up to 75 once fully operational; that bird strikes would not be an issue due to the use of non- reflective glass; that the storage pods housed in the warehouse are utilized by Hayward residents and the use would generate tax revenue for the City. The applicant also offered to set aside land for gateway signage, which was suggested at the Commission meeting.
DISCUSSION
Existing Conditions. The proposed project site is comprised of six separate parcels with an eastern component (APNs 461-0085-019-00, 461-0085-020-01, and 461-0085-020-02) and a western component (APN 461-0061-001-00, 461-0090-001-00, and 461-0090-002-00). The eastern component at 4150 Point Eden Way is the location of the proposed development project while the western component has no public road access. The Figure below is taken from the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project and shows the western and eastern components outlined in yellow.
The 32-acre western component of the project site is generally flat and covered in grasses, shrubs and salt ponds that were used as evaporation ponds for salt production. The
approximately 6.8-acre eastern component of the project site is generally flat. The site has a 12,350 square foot wooden structure that was previously used as a processing plant for salt production for the Oliver Brothers Salt Company, which operated in the first half of the 20th century. The structure is dilapidated, vandalized, and has been used by squatters over the past several decades.
The site is bordered by State Route 92 on the north, the Bay Trail and industrial development on the eastern property line, and publicly owned and maintained bay lands to the west and south of the project site.
Proposed Project. The proposed project would involve construction of a new industrial building on the eastern component of the project site and preservation of an open space/wetland preserve on the western component.
Eastern Component: The proposed industrial building would be located on the approximately 6.8-acre eastern component. The building would be approximately 116,844 square feet in size and would include approximately 114,059 square feet of warehouse space and a 2,785-square-foot office. The office space would be provided at the north end of the building, facing State Route 92, and would house regional corporate offices for U-Haul. The warehouse portion of the building would house U-Haul storage pods, materials, and trucks.
When operational, approximately 35-75 employees would be on-site. The building would reach approximately 50 feet in height to finished roof.
The proposed architecture would feature varying rooflines and a projecting, glass encased office area at the front of the building visible along State Route 92. The building would have a mix of architectural materials and colors and vertical and horizontal scoring to break up the building massing. The northern (facing State Route 92) and western (facing the Bay) building elevations would also feature artistic elements including bird sculptures and green accent metal panels reflecting surrounding wildlife and grasses.
Access to the site would be provided at the terminus of Point Eden Way. A total of 79 parking stalls would be located along the northern and western property lines and would be buffered by approximately 20-foot-wide landscaped setback along the northern and eastern property lines and 10-foot-wide landscaped setbacks along the western and southern property lines.
Approximately 16% of the site would be landscaped and an 830 square foot employee amenity area with meandering pathways, a shaded dining area, portable seating areas, and landscaping features would be located at the front of the building.
The San Francisco Bay Trail is currently located on the eastern edge of the eastern component of the project site. The proposed project includes a land swap to allow East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) to relocate the Bay Trail from the current location along the eastern property line (between two industrial properties) to meander along the northern property line and then to turn south to run along the western property line until meeting its current location on Point Eden Way. The realignment would provide views to the Bay, and the trail would be designed to EBRPD standards.
Western Component: The 32-acre western component of the project site, which is primarily composed of abandoned salt evaporation ponds, would be preserved in perpetuity via recordation of a deed restriction or other appropriate legal mechanism, ensuring that the salt ponds are permanently preserved as open space in perpetuity. No conservation easement or conservator endowment would be provided, and no management plan or improvement plan is proposed.
Policy Context and Code Compliance
Hayward 2040 General Plan. The project site is in an area designated as Industrial Technology and Innovation Corridor (IC) in the Hayward 2040 General Plan3. The Corridor is expected to grow as an economic and employment center and evolve to achieve a healthy balance of traditional manufacturing, warehousing, and logistics as well as newer information- and technology-based uses. The proposed use would fall into a more traditional warehousing and storage use with minimal office space which is permitted; however, that use is not prioritized.
The proposed development would meet Hayward 2040 General Plan goals and policies related to expanding the economic and employment base in Hayward (Land Use Goal 6); enhancing the visual character of the site with the removal of a dilapidated structure currently located at the gateway entrance to the City (Land Use Policy-6.6); and in employing building and site design strategies and employee amenities to create an attractive development (Land Use Policy-6.7 and 6.8).
Zoning Ordinance. The proposed development is located in the IP (Industrial Park) sub- district4. The proposed warehouse and office use is permitted in the IP District, provided buildings and site development are designed with an office appearance from right-of-way.
Further, the proposed development meets the IP District standards for new development as shown in Table 1:
Table 1. Proposed Development Consistency with IP District Standards
Required Proposed Consistent
Minimum Lot Size 1.5 acres 6.83 acres Yes
Minimum Lot Frontage
& Average Lot Width
250 feet 429-440 feet Yes
Maximum Floor Area
Ratio
0.8 0.39 Yes
Maximum Height 75 feet 50 feet Yes
Minimum Yards
Front 20 feet 20 feet to parking Yes
3 Hayward 2040 General Plan: https://www.hayward2040generalplan.com/ 4 Hayward Municipal Code Section 10-1.1600, Industrial Districts. https://library.municode.com/ca/hayward/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=HAYWARD_MUNICIPAL_CODE_CH10PLZOSU_ART1ZOOR _S10-1.1600INDI
West Side
(abutting Open Space)
10 feet 10 feet to parking Yes
East Side
(abutting industrial
development)
10 feet 50 feet to face of
building
Yes
Rear
(abutting Open Space)
10 feet 72 feet to the face of
building
Yes
Minimum Landscaping 15% 16% Yes
Parking 59 parking spaces 79 parking spaces Yes
Minimum Employee
Amenity Area
300 sq. ft.
830 sq. ft.
Yes
Historic Resources Ordinance. The extant structure located on the project site was used in salt production and processing that occurred on the site in the first half of the 20th century. The site and structure are listed on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHC) and deemed eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Resources (NRHR). Pursuant to HMC Section 10-11.070, all projects that require modification or removal of a designated historic resource shall obtain a Historical Resource Demolition Permit following certification of the environmental analysis. Please see the Staff Analysis and Environmental Review sections of the staff report below, Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR5 and related Cultural Resources Assessment Report (Appendix B to the Draft EIR)6, for additional information and analysis related to this topic.
Hayward Shoreline Adaptation Master Plan & Flood Plain Management Ordinance. On February 16, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21-024 approving the Hayward Regional Shoreline Adaptation Master Plan7. The Master Plan provides background and existing conditions along the Hayward shoreline; assesses sea level rise and flood risk impacts; and provides adaptation strategies and design strategies for the Hayward shoreline.
According to a Sea Level Rise Mapping Report prepared for the Master Plan, portions of the parking lot would experience periodic inundation during king tides and storm surges with two feet of sea level rise within approximately 30 years. However, the proposed building is designed to be protected for over two feet of sea level rise at Mean Higher High Water and would be raised above the 100-year flood plain and therefore meets the City’s Flood Plain Management Ordinance. The applicant is aware of the risks associated with sea level rise and is exploring options for adaptation across the site in the future.
5 Draft EIR for the U-Haul Development Project at 4150 Pt Eden Way. https://hayward- ca.gov/sites/default/files/4150%20Point%20Eden%20Way%20Industrial%20Project%20Draft%20EIR.pdf 6 Draft EIR Appendix B, Cultural Resources Assessment Report. https://hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/EIR%20Appendix%20B.pdf 7 Hayward Regional Shoreline Adaptation Master Plan. https://www.hayward- ca.gov/sites/default/files/210510_Hayward%20Shoreline%20Adapatation%20Master%20Plan_Document_Pages.pdf
Environmental Analysis
State Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080(d) requires that a lead agency prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) for any project that is expected to have a significant effect on the environment. An EIR is an informational document; it is intended to inform decision makers and the public generally of the significant environmental impacts of a project, identify possible ways to minimize significant impacts, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.
On November 10, 2020, the City released a Notice of Preparation (NOP) with an accompanying Initial Study (IS). The IS prepared for the project found less than significant impacts or no impact in the areas of aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. The IS also found that the proposed project could potentially affect the environment in the areas of biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, transportation, and tribal cultural resources. The NOP and related attachments were circulated to the public, local, state, and federal agencies, and other interested parties to solicit comments on the project. Following release of the NOP, a public scoping meeting was held on December 10, 2020 (held on Zoom), to receive additional public comments. Concerns raised in response to the NOP were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR.
The Notice of Availability (NOA)8 and the Draft EIR9 was published, noticed, and circulated for a 45-day public review period starting on April 9, 2021, and ending on May 24, 2021.
Written comments were accepted throughout the comment period. Those comments and responses to those comments are included in the Final EIR10 prepared for the project. The City Council must consider and certify the Final EIR and related documents for the project before acting on the necessary entitlements for the project.
The Draft EIR includes:
Project description,
Evaluation of required environmental topic areas including the setting, environmental impact analysis at both the project and cumulative levels, Other CEQA required discussions including growth inducement, irreversible environmental effects and significant and unavoidable impacts, and Alternatives to the project that address or incorporate characteristics to lessen or eliminate potential impacts that meet most of the project objectives.
8 Notice of Availability: https://hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/NOA%204150%20Point%20Eden%20Way%20DEIR.pdf 9 Draft EIR: https://hayward-
ca.gov/sites/default/files/4150%20Point%20Eden%20Way%20Industrial%20Project%20Draft%20EIR.pdf Appendices to the Draft EIR: https://hayward-ca.gov/content/projects-under-environmental-review-0 10 Final EIR: https://hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/4150%20Point%20Eden%20Way%20FEIR%20RTC.pdf
The Final EIR includes:
A list of commenters,
Comment letters and responses to each of the comments received, and Revisions to the Draft EIR necessary in light of the comments received and responses provided.
The Draft EIR identified one or more mitigation measures in the topic areas of Biological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Transportation to reduce the impact’s effects to a level of less than significant. However, in the topic area of Cultural Resources (Section 4.2), the Draft EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts related to removal of an extant structure on the site that was used in salt processing and production for the Oliver Brothers Salt Company. As noted in the Historic Resources Section above, the structure is listed on the CRHR and deemed eligible for listing on the NRHR.
Proposed Mitigation Measures CUL-1a and CUL-1b would require archival documentation of the structures that will be kept at the Hayward Historic Society and City of Hayward, and installation of an interpretive display at the site to commemorate the history of the Oliver Brothers Salt Company, which would minimize project impacts; however, those mitigations are not capable of reducing the significance of demolition of the structures to a level of less than significant. Thus, this impact was deemed significant and unavoidable and requires adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration for the project.
Required CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations: To certify an EIR for a project, the Council must find that mitigation measures have been required or incorporated into the project in order to substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. For those impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, the decision makers shall adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations finding that the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the project’s significant and unavoidable environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and 15093). The proposed Resolution (Attachment II) sets forth the requisite CEQA findings and a statement of overriding considerations related to significant and unavoidable impacts related to the proposed project.
On July 8, 2021, prior to the start of the Planning Commission meeting, the City received late correspondence from Lozeau Drury on behalf of Shawn Smallwood, PhD, (Attachment VIII), detailing concerns with the DEIR and FEIR’s conclusions related to impacts to biological species due to loss of habitat; bird strikes related to construction of the building; and potential noise impacts from vehicle circulation related to the proposed use. The comment letter was provided to the Commission ahead of the meeting, reviewed by the CEQA consultant and consultant team who found that all potential impacts were mitigated by proposed mitigation measures included in the analysis already provided, and those conclusions were presented to the Planning Commission verbally in the public hearing.
Concurrent with the certification of an EIR, the deciding body must also adopt a Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Attachment VI) that identifies timing and responsibility for mitigation implementation.
Staff Analysis
The Council is being asked to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission denial of an application for Site Plan Review, Historical Demolition Permit, and related environmental analysis.
As detailed above, and in the attached Planning Commission minutes, the Commissioners who voted to deny the project generally felt that the economic benefits of the project did not outweigh the environmental costs related to loss of habitat, threat of sea level rise, and that the proposed use would result in deterioration of surrounding roadways. The applicant’s appeal would not result in a substantial change to the proposed development or the proposed use. Rather, the appeal contains what the applicant feels is clarifying information related to the Commission’s rationale for denial. Specifically, that the building would be protected against sea level rise, the building would be designed to discourage bird strikes, and the proposed use would be a corporate office as well as a warehouse and would offer jobs and result in sales tax benefits to the City. The applicant also offered to set aside land for gateway signage along Route 92; however, there is no specific gateway sign design and the area needed for such signage is unknown at this time.
Despite the Commission’s reservations about the use and threat of sea level rise, staff believes that the Council can make the findings to approve the Site Plan Review and Historic Resources Demolition Permit as detailed in Attachment II to this report. Specifically, the proposed development is compatible with on-site and surrounding structures in that it would result in the development of a well-designed, glass fronted building with variety of building planes, textures, and sculptural elements that would enhance a key site located at the gateway entrance to the City along Route 92. The project would include robust site landscaping, employee amenities, and other related site improvements as well as a realignment of the Bay Trail to run along the western edge of the site between the proposed development and the Bay rather than between two industrially zoned sites. Overall, the proposed development is consistent with the applicable General Plan land use designation, the IP District standards and regulations and industrial design guidelines.
The development also takes into consideration the physical and environmental constraints on the site in that the proposed development would occur on a small portion of the site to preserve environmentally sensitive wetlands and open space. To avoid the ecologically sensitive areas of the site, the applicant must demolish an extant structure that is a designated historic resource. It is important to note that while the structure is a designated resource due to its affiliation with the historic salt processing and production that occurred on the site, it is currently dilapidated, defaced with graffiti, and structurally unsound. Since 2015, over 20 complaints have been submitted to the City related to graffiti, trash, overgrown weeds, encampments, and general community appearance problems at the site. Staff recommends that the Council adopt the statement of overriding considerations related to demolition of the structure indicating: that the proposed development would result in redevelopment of an
underutilized, dilapidated site at the gateway to the City; that it would result in employment opportunities and signal increased investment in the City; and, that it would result in preservation of wetlands adjacent to the San Francisco Bay.
Proposed conditions of approval would require the applicant to enter into a land swap with the East Bay Regional Park District to allow realignment of the Bay Trial and design of the trail to EBRPD standards; that site lighting be contained on the site to prevent spillover onto bay lands; and, that the 32-acre western component of the project site be preserved and maintained in perpetuity via recordation of a deed restriction. Further, all mitigation measures, including documentation and installation of an interpretive display commemorating the site’s importance to historic salt production will be included as conditions of approval of the proposed project. Thus, as conditioned, staff believes that the Council can make the findings to approve the proposed project.
STRATEGIC ROADMAP
In January 2020, the Council adopted six Strategic Priorities as part of its three-year Strategic Roadmap. Elements of this agenda item supports the Strategic Priorities to Grow the Economy and Improve Infrastructure. This item is not specifically related to a project identified in the Strategic Roadmap; however, staff is bringing this item forward because it is a development application that necessitates processing to meet State requirements.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
The proposed development would generally have a positive economic benefit in that it would result in development of a currently underutilized site at a major gateway to the City.
According to the applicant, the proposed building would house the U-Haul corporate headquarters for the region. There will be 35-50 individuals employed at this location once it is operational and will grow to about 75 employees. The addition of these employees would result in cascading economic benefits for nearby retailers and restaurants who would enjoy increased business from the proposed development. Further, the proposed development includes realignment and construction of improvements along the Bay Trail which benefits the users of the trail and the region.
FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated valuation of the proposed project is $13 million. Redevelopment of the site would result in increased property taxes, fees for permitting and inspections, and would result in park in lieu fees totaling about $93,475 (based on 2021 Fee Schedule). Once operational, the development would result in minimal sales taxes related to the rental of U- Haul storage pods.
SUSTAINABILITY FEATURES
The proposed development will follow the City’s recently adopted Reach Code for new commercial buildings 11. The project will make provisions to meet the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) California Long-Term Energy Efficiency for commercial construction to be zero net energy and will not include natural gas. A total of two electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and four bicycle parking spaces will be provided on site.
PUBLIC CONTACT
On February 28, 2019, an initial Notice of Application Receipt for the project application was sent to 82 addresses including property owners, tenants, and businesses within a 300-foot radius of the project site. Staff has not received any public comments, concerns or questions related to the proposed development except as descried below in regard to the environmental review process.
As described in the Environmental Analysis section above, on November 10, 2020, the City released a Notice of Preparation (NOP) with an accompanying Initial Study (IS). The Notice of Availability (NOA) and the Draft EIR was published, noticed and circulated for a 45-day public review period starting on April 9, 2021, and ending on May 24, 2021. The City received five comment letters in response to the EIR. The letters were from State, Regional and Local Agencies as well as the Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge and Lozeau Drury LLP. Those comment letters and responses to the comments were published in the Final EIR which was posted to the City’s website and provided to the commenters on June 25, 2021.
On June 25, 2021, a Notice of the Planning Commission Public Hearing for the Planning Commission meeting was sent to property owners, residents, and businesses within 300-feet of the project site as well as published in The Daily Review newspaper.
On October 22, 2021, a Notice of the City Council Public Hearing related to the appeal was sent to commenters, property owners, residents, and businesses within 300-feet of the project site, people that requested such notice and was published in The Daily Review newspaper.
Prepared by: Leigha Schmidt, Acting Principal Planner
Recommended by: Jennifer Ott, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director
Approved by:
___________________________________
Kelly McAdoo, City Manager
11 City of Hayward Reach Code Initiative: https://www.hayward-ca.gov/reach-code
ATTACHMENT V
HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 21-___
Introduced by Council Member __________
RESOLUTION OVERTURNING THE PLAN NING COMMISSION DENI AL,
APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW AND HISTORIC DEMOLI TION PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 201901039, CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRR IDING CONSIDERATION ,
AND APPROVING A MITI GATION MONITORING AND REPOR TING PROGRAM FOR A NEW 116,844 SQ URE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMNTS FOR U-HAUL AT 4150 POINT EDEN WAY; JERRY OWEN ON BEHALF OF U-HAUL/AMERCO REAL ESTATE CO. (APPLICANT/OWNERS)
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2019, Levi Coulter on behalf of U -Haul submitted Application No. 20190039 requesting approval of Site Plan Review for two concrete tilt-up buildings to house the U-Haul Corporate Maintenance Facility and a speculative warehouse at 4150 Point Eden Way (Assessor Parcel Number 461-0085-020-02); and
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2019, the Council Economic Development Committee (CEDC) considered the initial U-Haul application and was not supportive of the building as designed and recommended significant upgrades to the site and building design to eliminate the maintenance yard; to increase the building design complexity along the Route 92 frontage by breaking up the building massing and incorporating a variety of building materials; and were generally not supportive of the proposed use as a warehouse and corporate facility for U-Haul.
Overall, the CEDC expressed a desire to see a state -of-the-art gateway building on the site regardless of use; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2020 , in response to the CE DC c omments, the applicant resubmitted a significantly redesigned building and site to propose one approximately 116,000 square foot industrial building with a well-designed, glass fronted building with variety of building planes, textures and sculptural elements , a redesign site plan with employee amenity areas and a proposed realignment of the Bay Tail; and
WHEREAS, finding the application near complete, on November 10, 2020, the City released a Notice of Prepara tion (NOP) with an accompanying Initial Study (IS) , which found less than significant impacts or no impact the areas of aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, land use and planni ng, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire.
The IS also found that the pr oposed project could potentially affect the environment in the areas of biological resources, cultural resources, hazards an d hazardous materials,
ATTACHMENT V
transportation and tribal cultural resources. The City held a scoping meeting on December 10, 2020 (held on Zoom), to receive additional public comments; and
WHEREAS, on April 9, 2021, a Notice of Availability (NOA) and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR ) were published, noticed and circulated for a 45 -day public review period starting on April 9, 2021, and ending on May 24, 2021.
WHEREAS, the City received five comment letters. Those comments and responses to those comments are included in the Final EIR (FEIR) prepared for the project. A copy of the FEIR was provided to the commenters, posted to the website and noticed with the Planning Commission public hearing for the project; and
WHEREAS, on July 8, 2021, prior to the start of the duly noticed Planning Commission meeting, the City received late correspondence from Lozeau Drury on behalf of Shawn Smallwood, PhD, detailing concerns with the DEIR and FEIR’s conclusions related to impacts to biological species due to loss of habitat; bird strikes related to construction of the building; and potential noise impacts from vehicle circulation related to the proposed use. The comment letter was provided to the Commission ahead of the meeting, reviewed by the CEQA consultant and consultant team who found that all potential impacts were mitigated by proposed mitigation measures included in the analysis already provided , and those conclusions were presented to the Planning Commission verbally in the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on July 8, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noti ced public hearing on the proposed project and voted 5: 1:0 to deny the project on several grounds.
Commissioners felt that the proposed project did not align with Council goals related to growing the high -tech, advanced manufacturing sector in the City’s Industrial Districts; generation or desirable uses in the Industrial Districts; that the proposed regional warehouse use would not generate enough quality jobs or sales taxes to off -set the environmental impacts related to the project; that the site was not appropriate for the proposed development due to future sea level rise and destruction of habitat; that the trucks from the proposed development would further deteriorate surrounding roadways; and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2021, the applicant filed an appeal of this denial on the grounds that the proposed building would not be impacted by sea level rise in that the build area would be located above the flood plain; that the use would not solely be a warehouse in that the building would also house the regional corporate offices for U-Haul and would employ 35- 50 individuals to start and up to 75 once fully operational; that bird strikes would not be an issue due to the use of non-reflective glass; that the storage pods housed in the warehouse are utilized by Hayward residents and the use would generate tax revenue for the City; and
WHEREAS, on October 22, 2021, a Notice of the City Council Public Hearing related to the appeal was sent to commenters, property owners, residents, and businesses within 300- feet of the project site , people that requested such noti ce and was published in The Daily Review newspaper.
ATTACHMENT V
NOW, THERE FORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following findings:
SITE PLAN REVIEW.
Pursuant to Hayward Municipal Code (HMC) Section 10-1.3025, the approving authority may approve or conditionally approve an application for Site Plan Review when all of the following findings are made:
1. The development is compatible with on -site and surrounding structures and uses and is an attractive addition to the City.
The proposed deve lopment would include demolition of an extant structure associated with the historic Oliver Salt Brothers manufacturing and processing plant that was located on the site in order to develop a new , approximately 116,844 square foot industrial building to ho use the U-Haul regional corporate offices and U-Haul pods, trucks and related materials. The proposed development would include site landscaping, an employee amenity area, and related site improvements . The proposed development would also require realignment of the Bay Trail to run along the w estern edge of the site between the proposed development and the Bay. The proposed development would require removal of a designated historic structure ; however, the structure is dilapidated, defaced with graffiti, and has been the cause of numerous community appearance com plaints over the past several years . Redevelopment of the site with a well -designed, glass fronted building with variety of building planes, textures and sculptural elements would signal increased inv estment in the industrial area and in the City at a gateway entrance to Hayward along Route
92. The proposed project, which is surrounded by other industrial developments and baylands, is compatible with those surrounding land uses in that it proposes realignment of the Bay Trail, installati on of substantial landscaping and employee amenities along the project frontage , and inclusion of artistic building elements reflecting the surrounding wildlife and grasses. The proposed development would remain compat ible with the adjacent bay lands during operations with a condition of approval to ensure that building and site lighting is minimized and contained to the site.
2. The development takes into consideration physical and environmental constraints.
The proposed development takes into consideration physical and en vironmental constraints in that the development pad is located on a small portion of the site thus minimizin g potential impacts on adjacent wetlands and ecologically sensitive areas. Further, the pr oposed development include s realignment of the
ATTACHMENT V
Bay Trail to maximize visual and physical connection between trail users and the Bay and surrounding natural landscapes .
The Draft and Final EIR prepared for the proposed development found that the project would result in less than significant impacts or impacts th at could be mitigated to a less than significant level in all impact areas except for Cultural Resources. Specifically, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts relat ed to removal of a structure listed on the California Register for Historic Resources and deemed eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Resources . Proposed Mitigation Measures CUL -1a and CUL- 1b would require archival documentation of the structures that will be kept at the Hayward Historic Soci ety and City of Hayward, and installation of an interpretive display at the site to commemorate the history of the Oliver Brothers Salt Company on the site would minimize project impacts but are not capable of reducing the significance of demolition of the structures to a level of less than significant. Thus , this impact was deemed significant and unavoidable and requires adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration for the project.
See the related CEQA Findings below for a thorough description of i mpacts, mitigation measures, findings and a statement of overriding considerations related to removal of the identified Cultural Resources .
3. The development complies with the intent of City develop ment policies and regulations.
The project site is in an area designated as Industrial Technology and Innovation Corridor (IC) in the Hayward 2040 General Plan. The Corridor is expected to grow as an economic and employment center and evolve to achieve a healthy balance of traditional manufacturing, warehousing and logistics as well as newer information- and technology-based uses. Allowable uses include professional offices, corporate campuses, research and development, warehousing and logistics, manufacturing, and biotechnology. The proposed development would meet the following Hayward 2040 General Plan goals and policies in that it would expand the economic and employment base in Hayward (Land Use Goal 6); enhance the visual character of the site with the removal of a dilapidated structure at the gateway entrance to the City (Land Use Policy-6.6); and, employ building and site design strategies and employee amenities to create a more attractive development (Land Use Policy-6.7 and 6.8).
Further, the proposed project is consistent with the intent and purpose of the IP (Industrial Park) District, where regional offices and warehouses are permitted uses; and is consistent with all applicable IP District regulations including setbacks,
ATTACHMENT V
FAR, parking, minimum landscaping and employee amenities as detailed in the accompanying staff report.
4. The development will be operated in a manner determined to be acceptable and compatible with surrounding development.
The proposed development will operate in a manner that is consistent with surrounding industrial development in that it will house U -Haul corporate offices and provide storage of U -Haul pods, trucks and related equipment.
Conditions of approval requiring that building and site lighting be minimized and contained to the site and requiring the 32 -acre western componen t of the project site be preserved and maintained in perpetuity via recordation of a deed restriction w ill ensure compatibility with the adjacent bay lands and natural setting.
HISTORICAL RESOURCE DEMOLITION PERMIT.
Pursuant to HMC Section 10-11.070, no person shall demolish, remove or relocate a historic resource without first obtaining an historic resources demolition permit by the City Council.
The City Council has reviewed the application proposal and the related environmental analysis and hereby issues the historical demolition permit subject to the related Site Plan Review and CEQA findings contained herein.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS.
I. Introduction
The City of Hayward (C ity) prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) f or the proposed 4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project (project).
The Final EIR, which is comprised of the Draft EIR; Responses to Public Comments; and appendices and supporting technical studies and reports, addresses the potential environmental effects associated with the development of the project site, including the construction of a new industrial building, preservation of an open space/wetland prese rve, and land swap and realignment of a segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail.
The Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Findings) set forth below are presented for adoption by the City Council , as the City' s findings under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (P ublic Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.) relating to the project. The Findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of this City Council regarding the proj ect's environmental impacts, mitigation measures, alterna tives to the project, and the overriding considerations, which in this C ouncil's view, justify approval of the proposed project, despite significant and unavoidable environmental effects.
ATTACHMENT V
II. General Findings and Overview
A. Relationship to the City of Hayward General Plan
The project site consists of western and eastern component s. The western component of the project site is designated Baylands in the Hayward General Plan, and most of the eastern componen t of the project sit e is designated Industrial Technology and Innovation Corridor in the Hayward General Plan. The westernmost corner of the eastern component of the project site is designated Baylands in the Hayward General Plan. The General Plan notes th at within the Industrial Technology and Innovation Corrid or land use designation, typical building types include warehouses, office buildings, research and development facilities, manufacturing plants, business parks, and corporate campus buildings.
The General Plan notes tha t the Baylands land use designation g enerally applies to the open space resources located along the Hayward shoreline, and activities are expected to include continued restoration of saltwater and freshwater marshes and upland habitat. The proposed warehou se with office space is consistent wi th the d escribed building types for the Industrial Technology and Innovation Corridor land use designation for the eastern component of the project site. The proposed wetland preserve on the western component on the project site is consistent with the acti vities specified for the Baylands land use designation.
The western component of the project site is zoned Floodplain District, while the eastern component is zoned Industrial Park District. The purp ose of the Floodplain District is to protect persons and property from the hazards of development in areas subject to tidal or flood water inundation. The purpose of the Industrial Park District is to provide areas for high technology, research and development, and i ndustrial activities in an industrial park or campus-like atmosphere. Warehousing and distribution uses are allowed, provided buildings and site development are designed with an office appearance from right -of-way.
The proposed warehouse buildin g on the ea stern component of the project site would have an offi ce that faces the rights -of-way of all adjacent or nearly adjacent roadways, including Point Eden Way and State Route 92. The wetland preserve on the western component of the project site wou ld effectively protect or prevent development from flood inundation because establishment of the preserve would preclude development. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the Industrial Park and Floodplain District zoning districts applicable to the project site.
B. Procedural Background
The Cit y started the environmental review process following submittal of the development application on February 25, 2019. The City prepared an Initial Study to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed pr oject. Fol lowing preparation of the Initial Study, the Ci ty deter mined the potential for the proposed project to result in potentially significant impacts. The City prepared a
ATTACHMENT V
Notice of Preparation (NOP) on November 10, 2020, stating that an EIR for the project woul d be prepared , and provided notice for a Scopin g Meeting on December 10, 2020 (held on Zoom) . This NOP, along with the accompanying Initial Study was circulated to the public, local, state, and federal agencies, and other interested parties to so licit comm ents on the project. Concerns raised in response to the NOP and at the Scoping Meeting were considered during preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR). On April 9, 2021, the Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR and the Draft EIR was published for public review and comm ent and filed with the California Office of Planning and Research under State Clearinghouse No. 2020110180. The review period for the Draft EIR ended on May 24, 2021.
The City prepared written respon ses to th e comments received during the comment period an d included these responses in a separate volume entitled 4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project Final Environmental Impact Report. The Final EIR includes a list of those who commented on the Draft EIR, copies of written comments (coded for refe rence), written responses to comments regarding the environmental review, and errata with minor text changes made to the Draft EIR as a result of comments. The Final EIR was made available for public review on June 25, 2021.
The City finds, accordingly, t hat the Final EIR was published, circulated and reviewed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and constitutes an accurate, objective, and complete Final EIR.
C. Consideration of the Environmental Impact Report
In adopting th ese Find ings, the City Council finds that the Final EIR was presented to the decision -making body of the lead agency, which reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the proposed project. By these Findings, the Council ratifies, a dopts, and incorporates the analysis, explanations, findings, responses to comments, and conclusions of the Final EIR. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was completed in com pliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Final EI R represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City.
D. Severability
If any term, provision, or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a particular situa tion is hel d by a court to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these Findings, or their application to other actions related to the proposed project, shall continue in f ull force and effect unless amended or modified by the City.
E. Summary of Environmental Findings
The City Council has determined that bas ed on all of the evidence presented, including but not limited to the EIR, written and oral testimony given at
ATTACHMENT V
meetings and hearings, and submission of comments from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, and the responses prepared to the public comments, the following environmental impacts associated with the project are:
1. Potentially Significant Impacts that Cannot be Avoided or Reduced to a Less Than Significant Level
Indirect and Direct. As discussed in the Final EIR in Section 4.2, Cultural Resources, significant project -related impacts were found related to the demolition of existing features on the project site that contribute to the significance of historical resource.
Cumulative. As discussion in the Final EIR in Section 4.2, Cultural Resources, significant cumulative impacts were found related to the demolition of existing features on the project site that contribute to the significance of historical resource.
2. Potentially Significant Impacts that can be Avoided or Reduced to a L ess Than Significant Level Through Implementation of Mitigation Measures Indirect and Direct. As discussed in the Initial Study, project -related impacts in the areas of geology and soils and tribal c ultural re sources could be mitigated to level of less than significant with mitigation. As discussed in the Final EIR in Section 4.1, Biological Resources, Section 4.2, Cultural Resources, Section 4.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials , and Section 4.4, Transportation, project-related impacts in the areas of biolo gical resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and transportation could be mitigated to level of less than significant with mitigation.
Cumulative. To the extent impacts in the foregoing environmental topical areas have the capabilit y of cumu lating, the Initial Study and Final EIR Section 4.1 through Section 4.4, incorporated herein by this reference, demonstrate that either the Project would not make a considerable contribution to an imp act or would not, in combination with other exi sting and reasonably foreseeable projects, combine to have significant cumulative impacts.
3. Less Than Significant and No Impacts That Do Not Require Mitigation Indirect and Direct. As discussed in the Initial Study and in the Final EIR in Section 1, Introduction, pr oject-related impacts that do not require mitigation were found in the areas of Aesthetics; Agricultural and Forest Resources; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Energy, Geology a nd Soils; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Mineral Resources; Noise; Population and Housing; Public Services; Recreation; Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems; and, Wildfire.
ATTACHMENT V
Cumulative. As discussed in the Initial St udy and F inal EIR Sections 4.1 through 4.4 (incorporated herein by this reference), cumulative impacts in the areas of Aesthetics; Agricultural and Forest Resources; Biological Resources; Energy; Geo logy and Soils; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hazards and Haz ardous Ma terials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Mineral Resources; Noise; Population and Housing; Public Services; Recreation; Transportation; Utilities and Service Systems; and , Wildfire were found less than significant.
III. Findings a nd Recommendations Regarding Significant and Unavoidable and Cumulatively Considerable Impacts
A. Cultural Resources
1. Demolition of the Oliver Brothers Salt Company processing plant and filling of portions of the associated salt evaporation ponds on the eastern component of the project site would adversely impact features that contribute to the significance of a historical resource. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. (EIR Impact CUL-1) a) Potential Impact. Construction of the proposed project would req uire demolition of the Oliver Brothers Salt Company processing plant and filling of portions of the associated salt evaporation ponds on the eastern component of the project site. The Oliver Brothers Salt Company has been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP and is listed in the CRHR; therefore, the property qualifies as a historical resource as defined by CEQA. Due to proposed demolition and construction activities that would impact contributing features within the eastern component, the proposed project would cause the material impairment of the resource, meaning it would alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in the NRHP and CRHR. Filling the salt ponds and de molishing the building on the eastern component of the site would also alter the historic landscape, as would constructing a new industrial building.
b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation meas ures CUL-1a and CUL -1b, as set forth in Final EIR Section 4.2, Cultural Resources, are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. After implementation of mitigation measures CUL -1a and CUL -1b, the impact will still be considered significant and unavoidable.
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before this City Council, the Council finds that:
(1) Mitigation is Feasible. Mitigation measures CUL -1a and CUL -1b are determined to be the only fe asible measures the City can impose to reduce the propose d development’s impacts to historic resources.
Mitigation measures CUL -1a and CUL -1b require archival documentation of the Olive r Salt Brothers Salt Company plant
ATTACHMENT V
structure prior to demolition and co nstruction of an interpretative display to commemorate th e history of the Oliver Salt Brothers Salt Company plant structure. Other measures were considered but rejected because they were deemed infeasible on ineffective, including retaining the Oliver Salt Brothers Salt Company plant structure while also permitting the proposed development on the site. However, given the size of the project site, required design and size of the proposed development, and location of the Oliver Salt Brothers Salt Company plant structure within the site, avoidance of the structure w hile also constructing the proposed development is infeasible. Accordingly, avoidance of the existing Oliver Salt Brothers Salt Company plant structure is infeasible.
(2) Remaining Impacts. Development o f the eastern component of the project site would permane ntly remo ve the Oliver Salt Brothers Salt Company plant and fill associated salt evaporation ponds. Because avoidance of the Oli ver Salt Brothers Salt Company plant structure is not feasible, there a re no mitigation measures that would meet the objectives of the project while retaining the historic resources. While mitigation measures CUL -1a and CUL -1b are feasible and would be implemented, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable because demo lition of the Oliver Salt Brothers Salt Company plant structure is unavoidable.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the project overrid e remaining significant adverse impacts of the project resulting in the demolition or loss of a historic resource, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VIII, below.
2. Cumulative impacts on loss of historic resources in the City of Hayward. a) Potential Impact. Construction of the proposed project would require demolition of the Oliver Brothers S alt Compa ny processing plant and filling of portions of the associated salt evaporation ponds on the eastern component of the project site. The Oliver Brothers Salt Company has been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP and is listed in the CRHR; the property, therefore, qualifies as a historical resource as defined by CEQA.
The proposed project would not impact other histori c resources that may occur elsewhere, off -site, within Hayward. However , because the proposed project would result in direct sig nificant impacts to historic resources on the project site, there would be fewer historic resources remaining in the City of Hayward.
b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measures CUL -1a and CUL -1b, as set forth in Final EIR Section 4.2, Cultural Resour ces, are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. After implementa tion of mitigation
ATTACHMENT V
measures CUL -1a and CUL -1b, the impact will still be considered significant and unavoidable.
c) Findings. Based on the Fi nal EIR and the entire record before this City Council, the Council finds that:
(1) Mitigation is Feasible. Mitigation measures CUL -1a and CUL -1b are determined to be the only feasible measures the City can impose to reduce the proposed development’s impacts t o historic resources.
Other measures were considered but rejected because they were deemed inf easible on ineffective, as set forth in Finding III.A.1(c)(1) above, incorporated herein by this reference.
(2) Remaining Impacts. Development of the eastern component of the project site would permanently remove the Oliver Salt Brothers Salt Company plant and fill associated salt evaporation ponds. Because avoidance of the Oliver Salt Brothers Salt Comp any plant structure is not feasible, there are no mitigat ion measu res that would meet the objectives of the project while retaining the historic resources. Whil e mitigation measures CUL -1a and CUL -1b are feasible and would be implemented, impacts would rem ain significant and unavoidable because demolition of the Oliver S alt Brothers Salt Company plant structure is unavoidable.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The envir onmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the project override remaining significant adverse impacts of the project resulting in the demolition o r loss of a historic resource, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VIII, below.
IV. Findings and Recommendations Regarding Significant Impacts Which Are Avoided or Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level
A. Biological Resources
1. The proposed project would have a substantial adverse effect on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status, such as salt marsh harvest mouse, burrowing owl and other birds, and bats. Impacts would be less than significant wi th mitigation incorporated. (EIR Impact BIO-1)
a) Potential Impact. The proposed project would remove habitat suitable for special-status wildlife species and could directly impact these species if pre sent within the suitable habitat during construction. Add itionally, removal of vegetation cover during construction could impact nesting migratory bird species or their nests. Light and noise generated from both project construction and operation could ind irectly affect wildlife species in adjacent areas. See Fi nal EIR p ages 4.1 -15 through 4.1 -19, incorporated herein by this reference.
b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measures BIO -1a through BIO - 1h are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provid ed by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
ATTACHMENT V
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before this City Council, the Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation. The impacts related to special -status species and nesting migratory birds, including their habitats, will be mitigated to a less t han significant level by requiring surveys to conducted by a qualified biologist prior to construction, installing fencing to exclude wildlife from active construction areas, implementing wildlife tr aining for construction personnel, and excluding public a ccess fro m surrounding habitat.
(2) Remaining Impacts. Remaining impacts related to special -status species, nesting migratory birds, and their habitat would not be significant.
2. The proposed project woul d require impacts to seasonal wetlands and salt marsh on the easte rn component of the project site, which are considered sensitive natural communities. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. (EIR Impact BIO-2)
a) Potential Impact. Project con struction activities on the eastern component of the proj ect site would result in the fill of 0.28 acre of seasonal wetlands and 0.69 acre of salt marsh and associated unvegetated waters in the remnant salt ponds on the eastern component project site. See Final EIR page 4.1 -22, incorporated herein by this reference.
b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measures BIO-1h and BIO-3 are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Based on th e Final EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation. The impacts related to sensitive natural communities will be mitigated to a less than significant level by requiring fencing to exclude public acces s from surrounding habitat and providing wetland mitigation credits.
(2) Remaining Impacts. Remaining impacts related to sensitive natural communities would not be significant.
3. The proposed project would require the permanent fill of approximately 0.28 acre o f seasonal wetlands and 0.69 acre of salt marsh and associated unvegetated waters in remnant salt ponds on the eastern component of the project site. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. (EIR Impact BIO-3)
a) Potential Impact. Project const ruction activities on the eastern component of t he projec t site wo uld result in the fill of 0.28 acre of seasonal wetlands and 0.69 acre of salt marsh and associated unvegetated waters in the remnant salt ponds on the eastern component project site. See Fi nal EIR page 4.1 -23, incorporated herein by this reference.
ATTACHMENT V
b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measure BIO -3 is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before this City Council, the Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation. The impacts related to wetlands will be mitigated to a less than significant level by requiring wetland mitigation credits.
(2) Remaining Impacts. Remaining impacts rel ated to wetlands would not be significant.
B. Cultural Resources
1. Construction of the proposed project would involve ground -disturbing activities that have the potential to unearth or adversely impact previously unidentified archaeological resources within th e eastern component of the project site. Impacts would be less tha n s ignificant with mitigation incorporated. (EIR Impact CUL-2)
a) Potential Impact. Construction of the proposed project, including the proposed industrial building, surface parking, utilities and landscaping, and relocated segment of the San Francis co Bay Trail, would involve excavation and ground disturbance on the site’s eastern component. Ground -disturbing activities would have the potential to unearth previously unidentified archaeological resources. See Final EIR pages 4.2 -10 through 4.2 -11, incorporated herein by this reference.
b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measure CUL -2 is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record befor e this City Council, the Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation. The impacts related to archaeological resources will be mitigated to a less than significant level by requiring construction activities to halt near archaeological finds until further eval uated and protected, as applicable, by a qualified archaeologist. (2) Remaining Impacts. Remaining impacts related to archaeological resources would not be significant.
C. Geology and Soils
1. Project constru ction would be susceptible to failure resulting from soil liquefaction and soil instability. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Initial Study Impact)
a) Potential Impact. The project site is within a liquefaction zone that c ould result in foundation damage to the proposed industri al building during a seismic-related ground failure. Additionally, graded slopes could be susceptible to collapse during seismic events if improperly constructed or compacted. Soils on site could bec ome unstable from the overlying weight of the proposed in dustrial building and surface parking lot. Collapse or failure
ATTACHMENT V
of soils could result in substantial risk of loss, injury, or death. See Initial Study page 49, incorporated herein by this reference.
b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measure GEO -1 is h ereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before this City Council, the Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation. The impacts relate d to soi l liquefaction and instability will be mitigated to a less than significant level by requiring incorporation of measures from a Geotechnical Engineering Report into the project design and construction.
(2) Remaining Impacts. Remaining impacts related to soil l iquefaction and instability would not be significant.
D. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
1. The project has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release o f hazardous materials into the environment due to potential hazardous materials that may be present in the existing on-site structures. This impact would be potentially significant but mitigable. (EIR Impact HAZ-1)
a) Potential Impac t. Demolition of the Olive r Brothers Salt Company plant would have the potential to release lead and asbestos containing materials, potentially exposing construction workers. See Final EIR pages 4.3 -10 through 4.3-11, incorporated herein by this reference.
b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measure HAZ -1 is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Miti gation. The impacts related to lead and asbestos containing materials will be mitigated to a less than significant level by requiring materials inspections and possible sampling to determine if lead or asbestos are present, and if so, safe removal , remediation, and disposal in accordance with all federal, state, and local regulations. (2) Remaining Impacts. Remaining impacts related to lead and asbestos exposure would not be significant.
2. The project would involve development on a site that is included on a lis t of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and due to the potential to encounter residual soi l and groundwater contamination on the eastern component of the project site, impacts would be potentially significant but mitigable. (EIR Impact HAZ-2) a) Potential Impact. Project construction activities involving excavation to approximately 5 feet below gr ound surface, such as construction of the proposed build ing foundation or buried utility connections, could distu rb
ATTACHMENT V
soils or groundwater from previous contamination incidents and expose construction workers. Project construction would generate dust. If soi ls from the contamination areas on -site are stockpiled o n site and become airborne dust, either from wind erosion or construction equipment, off -site receptors could be exposed, as well as project construction workers. The proposed building foundation coul d create a potential pathway for migration of contaminated groundwater plume to aquifers at depths of up to 20 fe et below ground surface. During operation of the proposed project, building occupants could be exposed to hazardous vapors from underlying contamination. Likewise, stormwater runoff collected in on -site bioretention areas could cause mobilization of contam ination through leaching. See Final EIR pages 4.3-11 through 4.3-16, incorporated herein by this reference. b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measures HAZ -2a and HAZ -2b and HAZ-2c are hereby a dopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation. The impacts related to soil and groundwater contamination will be mitigated to a less tha n significant level by requiring implementation of the previously approved Risk Management Plan for the project site, consulting with the City on the location and/or design of on-site bioretention areas, and designing the foundation in such as way that it is demonstrated the proposed building would not create a preferential pathway for contamination.
(2) Remaining Impacts. Remaining impacts related to soil and groundwater contamination would not be significant.
E. Transportation
1. The proposed project would generat e 18.23 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per employee, which exceeds the VMT threshold of the existing regional average of 18.15 by 0.5 percent. Impacts would be potentially significant, but mitigable. (EIR Impact TR-1)
a) Potential Impact. The proposed project w ould gene rate 18.23 VMT per employee, which would exceed the existing regional average VMT per employee, which is 18.15. See Fin al EIR page 4.4 -5 through 4.4 -7, incorporated herein by this reference.
b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measure TR -1 is hereby ad opted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Based on the Fi nal EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation. The impacts related to V MT will be mitigated to a less than significant level by requiring implementation of either a voluntary employer commute program or employer carpool program. (2) Remaining Impacts. Remaining impacts rela ted to VMT would not be significant.
ATTACHMENT V
F. Tribal Cultural Resources
1. Construction of the proposed project would require excavation and grading, which could damage or destroy tribal cultural resources, if present. (Initial Study Impact)
a) Potential Impact. Subsurface excavation and grading required for the project would have the potential to uncover and either damage or destroy unknown or unidentified tribal cultural resources, if present. See Initial Study page 104, incorporated herein by this reference.
b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measure TCR -1 is hereby ad opted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Based on the F inal EIR and the entire record before this City Council, the Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation. The impacts related to tribal cultural resources will be mitigated to a less than significant level by requiring construction work to halt around discovery of a potential tribal cultural resource, and development of a mitigation plan is the resource is de termined to be a tribal cultural resource.
(2) Remaining Impacts. Remaining impacts related to tribal cultural resources would not be significant.
V. Other Impacts and Considerations
A. Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project . CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires that an environmental impact report evaluate the growth - inducing impacts of a proposed action.
a) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before this City Council, the project would generate further employmen t growth. However, employment growth would consist of app roximately 20 to 25 long -term employees, which would not generate substantial growth in Hayward. b) Explanation. As identified on Final EIR page 5 -1, incorporated herein by this reference, the proposed project w ould generate short -term construction jobs, that given th eir short -term duration, would be filled by the local Bay Area workforce. Operation of the project would generate 20 to 25 new long - term jobs, which would not be considered substantial unpla nned growth in Hayward.
B. Significant Irreversible Environ mental Ch anges Involved if the Project is Implemented. CEQA Sections 21100(b)(2) and 21100.1(a) require that EIRs prepared for the adoption of a project include a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes of project implementation. a) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the project would result in consumption of renewable, nonrenewable, and limited resources including, but are not limited to, oil, gasoline, lumber, sand and gravel, asphalt, water, steel, and similar materials.
ATTACHMENT V
However, the proposed building would be constructed pursuant to CalGreen and the City’s Reach Code, both of which require energy efficiency. b) Explanation. As identified on Final EIR pages 5 -2 and 5 -3, incorporated herein by th is reference, the proposed project would result in consumption of renewable, nonrenewable, and limited resources including, but are not limited to, oil, gasoline, lumber, sand and gravel, asphalt, wa ter, steel, and similar materials. Additional vehicle tri ps associated with the proposed project would incrementally increase local traffic and regional air pollutant and GHG emissions. The project would be required to comply with standards set forth in Ca lifornia Building Code (CBC) Title 24, which would minimi ze the wa steful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during operation. CALGreen (as codified in CCR Title 24, Part 11) requires implementation of energy -efficient light fixtur es and building materials into the design of new construc tion proj ects. Furthermore, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CBC Title 24, Part 6) requires newly constructed buildings to meet energy performance standards set by the CEC.
The City als o has a Reach Code that requires efficiency beyond CalGre en, which would be applicable to the proposed project.
c) Issues Raised on Appeal. There are no appeals to certification of the Final EIR.
VI. Project Alternatives
A. Background – Legal Requirements
CEQA requires that environmental impact reports assess feasible al ternatives or mitigation measures that may substantially lessen the significant effects of a project prior to approval Public Resources Code Section 21002). Apart from the "no project" alternative, t he specific alternatives or types of alternatives that mu st be ass essed are not specified. CEQA establishes no categorical legal imperative as to the scope of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR. Each case must be evaluated on its own facts, which in turn must be reviewed in light of the statutory purpose” ( Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors , 52 Cal.3d. 553, 556 1990]). The legislative purpose of CEQA is to protect public health and welfare and the environment from significant impacts associated with all types of development by ensuring that agen cies regulate activities so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian Public Resources Code Section 21000).
In short, the objective of CEQA is to avoid or mitigate environmental damage associated with development. This objective has been largely accomplished in the project through the inclusion of project modifications and mitigation m easures that reduce the potentially significant impacts to an acceptable level. The courts have held that a public agency "may approve a developer's choice of a project once its significant adverse environment effects have been reduced to an acceptable lev el— that is, all avoidable significant damage to the environme nt has been eliminated and
ATTACHMENT V
that which remains is otherwise acceptable" ( Laurel Hills Homeowners Assoc. v. City , 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 [ 1978]).
B. Identification of Project Alternatives
The CEQA Guidel ines state that the "range of potential alternatives to t he project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one of more of the significant effects" of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c)). Thus, consideration of the project objectives is important to determining which alternatives should be assessed in the EIR. The Final EIR identified the following objectives for the proposed project:
Develop an industr ial building to house U -Haul corporate headquarters and warehouse.
Locate the building at the western edge of Hayward in proximity to a regional highway and other industrial, warehousing and logistics uses to avoid land use conflicts.
Create new employment and economic growth opportunities by redeveloping a vacant and underutilized property.
Establish a wetland preserve adjacent to the San Francisco Bay.
Remove a dilapidated and unsafe structure from a currently underutilized property at the gateway to the City.
VII. Alternatives Analysis in Final EIR
A. Alternatives C onsidered but Rejected . Alternatives considered but rejected from further consideration include three separate off-site alternatives. a) Findings. Three separate off -site alternatives were considered bu t rejected from further consideration. The three alternat ive sites include an approximately one-acre property at 4327 Breakwater Avenue; an approximately 3.9 -acre property at 3590 Enterprise Avenue; and an approximately 34.6 -acre property on Arden Road. Th e alternative sites on Breakwater Avenue and Enterprise A venue wer e rejected from further consideration because the properties were substantially less than the approximately 6.8 acres necessary to accommodate the proposed project.
The alternative site on A rden Road was eliminated because it contains large areas of freshwater ponds which reduce the contiguous area of developable land to less than the approximately 6.8 acres required to accommodate the proposed project.
b) Explanation. While each of the three o ff-site alternatives would eliminate significant impacts to the hi storic resource of the Oliver Brother Salt Company processing plant, none of the three alternative sites have enough developable land to accommodate the proposed pr oject. Because the three alternative sites are not large enough to accommodate the proposed project,
ATTACHMENT V
each alternative would fail to meet the project objective of developing an industrial building to house U -Haul corporate headquarters and warehouse.
Additionally, the three alternat ive sites would also fail to meet project objectives to c reate new employment and economic growth, establish a wetland preserve adjacent to the San Francisco Bay, and removal of a dilapidated and unsafe structure from a currently underutilized property at the gateway to the City.
B. Alternatives Analyzed in the Fi nal EIR . The CEQA Guidelines state that the “range of potential alternatives to the project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects" of the project. The City evaluated the alternatives listed below.
1. No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative assumes that the industrial building, surface p arking, driveway, landsca ping, and other project components associated with the pr oposed in dustrial building are not constructed. Additionally, the San Francisco Bay Trail would remain in its current location and would not be realigned. Likewise, a wetland preserve would not be established on the western component of the project site. The western component of the project site would not be preserved in perpetuity via recordation of a deed restriction or other appropriate legal mechanism; therefore, the salt ponds and other areas of the western component of the site could be utilized for f lood plain and agricultural uses such as chemical extraction from bay water, crop and tree farming, dredging, farming or ranching and limited sales of materials grown on site .
The project site would remain in its current unused state, and the existing structures as sociated with the former Oliver Brothers Salt Company operation would not be demolished.
a) Findings. The No Project Alternative is rejected as a feasible alternative because it would not achieve the project objectives as listed on page 6-1 of the Final EIR.
b) Explanation. The No Project Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project because no construction would occur on the project site a nd demolition of the Oliv er Brothers Salt Company plant would not be required. Bec ause no c onstruction would occur on the project site, other significant but mitigable impacts of the project would be avoided under this alternative, such as impacts to special-status species, wetlan ds, and contaminated soils and groundwater. Additionally, because the proposed building would not be constructed under this alternative, significant but mitigable impacts associated with VMT would also be avoided. While the No Proj ect Alternative would avo id the potentially significant impacts of the proposed project, it would meet none of the project objectives.
ATTACHMENT V
2) Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site Alternative. Under the Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site Alternative, the proposed industrial building would be constructed on an approximately 10.8 -acre property locate d at 3636 Enterprise Avenue in Hayward. The property is identified as APN 439 - 0099-036-02, and is zo ned as General Industrial (IG). The property is mostly vacant with the exception of several radio c ommunication towers scattered across the property. A small structure is located at the base of one tower and is associated with the tower operations. Vegetat ion is present across nearly the entire property, and based on aerial photography, consists primarily of low grasses, weeds, and shrubs.
The Enterprise Av enue Alte rnate Site Alternative assumes that the industrial building and associated surface parking lot would be approximately the same size and design as the proposed project, only located on the En terprise Avenue property instead of the project site.
However, bec ause the Enterprise Avenue property is an upland area, this alternative would not include e stablishing a wetland preserve on -site or off-site. Likewise, this alternative assumes the existing structures and ponds associated with the former Oliver B rothers Salt Works operation on the project site would remain unchanged from current conditions, bec ause this alternative would involve no activities or development at the project site. Finally, this alternative would not result in redevelopment of and reinvestment in a site that serves as a gateway to the City.
The San Francisco Bay Trail is not adjac ent the Enterprise Avenue property. Therefore, this alternative would not involve relocation of the trail or coordination with the East Bay Regional Parks D istrict. However, this alternative would include relocating the existing radio communication towers and associated building that currently exist on the Enterprise Avenue property.
a) Findings. The Enter prise Avenue Alternate Site Alternative is rejected as a feasible alternative because it would not achieve most of the project objectives, as listed on page 6-1 of the Final EIR. Additionally, the project applicant does not own the Enterprise Avenue site a nd has no control over development decisions or investmen ts on the Enterprise Avenue property.
b) Explanation. The Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project because no construction would oc cur on the project site and demolition of the Oliver Brot hers Salt Company plant would not be required. However, the Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site Alterna tive would not avoid some of the potentially significant but mitigable impacts of the proposed project. For example, the Enterprise Avenue Site contains ope n grassland and communication towers which could be used by migratory nesting birds, which would be impact by construction on the site.
Similarly, construction on the Enterprise Avenue Site would req uire
ATTACHMENT V
excavation and there would be potential to impact bu ried but previously unknown cultural resources. Additionally, the Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site A lternative would result in increased VMT impacts compared to the proposed project.
While the Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site Alternative would avoid the potentially significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project, it would fail to meet most of the project objectives, such as establishing a wetland preserve or removing a dilapidated structur e from the gateway to the City. Additionally, the project applicant does not own the Enterprise Avenue site and has no control over development decisions or investments on the Enterprise Avenue property.
3) Reduced Project Alternative. The Reduced Project Alt ernative assumes that, like the proposed project, the ind ustrial b uilding, surface parking, driveway, landscaping, and other project components associated w ith the proposed industrial building would be constructed on the eastern component of the project si te. Additionally, the San Francisco Bay Trail would be re aligned t o encompass the eastern component of the site, like the proposed project. Likewise, a wetl and preserve would be established on the western component of the project site, consistent with the proposed project. However, the industrial building and su rface parking lot would be reduced in size by approximately 50 percent and shifted south within the eastern component of the project site in order to avoid demolition of the former Oliver Brothers Salt Company plant in the northeast part of the site.
The existing building would be left in place.
a) Findings. The Reduced Project Alternative is rejected as a feasible alternative because it would not achieve some of the project objectives, as listed on page 6-1 of the Final EIR. The Reduced Project Alternative would also result in more wetland impacts compared to the proposed project, including wetlands that a re contributing elements to the historic landscape in the form of salt evaporation ponds. The Reduce d Project Alternative would also be economically infeasib le because the warehouse size would be reduced making its construction and operation less functional.
b) Explanation. The Reduced Project Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project because no construction would occur on the project site and demolition of the Oliver Brothers Salt Company plant would not be required. Howev er, the Reduced Project Alternative would not avoid some of the potentially significant but mitigabl e impacts of the proposed project. For example, the Reduc ed Project Alternative would require vegetation removal, which could impact special -status species migratory nesting birds.
Because the Reduced Project Alternative would shift the building further so uth on the eastern component of the project site, more disturbance to wetlands would be required compared with the
ATTACHMENT V
proposed project. Finally, the dilapidate d structures would remain in place at the gateway entrance to the City.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
The environmentally superior alternative is discussed on pages 6-11 and 6-12 of the Final EIR. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, another environmentally superior alternative must be identified. For the EIR analysis, th e Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative.
However, while the Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site Alternative would reduce impacts in the categories of b iological resources, cultural resources, and hazards and hazardous materials, it would result in greater impacts regarding transportation. The Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site Alternative, however, would not meet all the objectives of the proposed project, such as establishing a wetland preserve or removing a dilapidated structure from the gateway to the City.
VIII. Statement of Ov erriding Considerations Related to the 4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project Findings
The City is the lead agency under C EQA, responsible for the preparation, review and certification of the Final EIR for the 4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Dev elopment Project. As the lead agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant. CEQA also requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a propos ed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the proposed acti on. In making this determination the lead agency is guide d by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, which provides as follows:
a) “CEQA requires the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region -wide or statewide environmental benefit s, of a p roposed project against its unavoidable environmental r isks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region - wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmenta l effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable,”
b) “When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are ident ified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially less ened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in t he record.
The statement of overriding considerations sha ll be sup ported by substantial evidence in the record."
c) “If an a gency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination ....”
ATTACHMENT V
In add ition, Pu blic Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that whe re a public agency finds that economic, legal, social, technical, or other reasons make the mitigation measures or alternatives identifi ed in the EIR infeasible and thereby leave significant un avoidable adverse project effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technical or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant unavoidable adverse effects of the project.
The Final EIR identified a number o f alternatives to the proposed development, and the administrative record of proceedings, including without limitation the Final EIR and these findings, determined the extent to which these alternati ves meet the basic project objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening any significant adverse impacts of the proposed project.
Analysis in the Final EIR for the 4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project has concluded that the proposed d evelopment will result in historic resource impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. These impacts are set forth in Findings IIIA, above, which is incorporated herein by this reference. All other potential significant adverse proj ect impacts have been mitigated to a level less than sign ificant based on mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 and other applicable law, the City has, in determining whether or not to approve the project, balanced the economic, social, technological, a nd other project benefits against its unavoidable environmental risks, and finds that each of the benefits of the project set forth below outweigh the significant adverse environmental effects that a re not mitigated to less-than-significant levels. This st atement of overriding considerations is based on the City's review of the Final EIR and other information in the administrative record.
Each of the benefits identified below provides a separate and i ndependent basis for overriding the significant environme ntal effe cts of the project. The benefits of the project are as follows:
A. Implementation of Goals and Policies Set Forth in the City' s General Plan and Economic Development Strategic Plan
The project implements the construction and development of 4150 Poin t Eden Way, which will allow for new industrial warehouse and office activities, consistent with General Plan Goals and Policies as detailed in the staff report prepared for the project, a s well as a nd the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) (3)(A). O f particular relevance is that the proposed development would build out gateway and opportunity development sites in the Industrial area. The project site has been underutilized s ince the Oliver Brothers Salt Company vacated the site decades ago, and is a source of blight, trespassing and safety issues. It has been challenging to develop the site with the industrial uses envisioned in the General Plan and the E conomic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) due to economic downturn around 2008 and the fa ct that a
ATTACHMENT V
developer must work through sensitive biological issues and hazardous contamination from prior uses on -site. The proposed development would involve construction of a new, modern, and aesthe tically pleasing warehouse with office space, consistent with the General Plan and EDSP.
B. Employment Opportunities and Economic Development
The proposed project would directly provide temporary construction jobs and approximately 35-75 permanent employment opportunities, according to the project applicant. Furthe r, the pr oposed project would be consistent with the General Plan and would be within the employment and population projections in the 2040 General Plan EIR. The project would provide the regional headquarters office for a national company, furthering the economic development goals of the City. Finally, redevelopment of the site at a gateway entrance to the City would signal investment in the industrial sector and the City as a whole.
C. Preservation of Wetlands Adjacent to the San Francisco Bay The proposed project would establish an approximately 32 -acre preserve on the western component of the project site. The preserve would be preserved in perpetuity via recordation of a deed restrict ion or other app ropriate legal mechanism, ensuring that the salt ponds ar e permanently preserved as open space in perpetuity. Because the area would be preserved in perpetuity, habitat for special-status species that occur within the preserve area, such sa lt harvest mouse and salt marsh wandering shrew, would also be preserved.
D. Conclusion
Based on the objectives identified for the project, review of the project, review of the EIR, and consideration of public and agency comments, the City Council has determined that the pro ject should be approved and that any remaining unmitigated environmental impacts attributable to the project are outweighed by the specific social, environmental, land use, and other overriding considerations.
The City Council has determined that any envir onmental detriment caused by the proposed 4150 Point Eden Way Indu strial Development Project has been minimized to the extent feasible through the mitigation measures identified herein and, where mitigation is not feasibl e, has been outweighed and counterbalanced by the significant social, environmental, and lan d use ben efits to be generated to the City. Accordingly, the City hereby adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hayward, based on the foregoing findings, hereby reverses the denial o f the pro ject, certifies the Environmental Impact Report, adopts a Statement of Overriding Consideration, approves a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and approves the Site Plan Review and Historic
ATTACHMENT V
Resources Demolition Permit Application No. 201901039, subject to the attached conditions of approval (Exhibit I.a).
IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA _______________________, 2022
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
Exhibit I.a
I.a-1
SITE PLAN REVIEW AND HISTORIC DEMO LITION PE RMIT APPLICATION NO. 201901039 – Site Plan Review and His toric Resources Permit to Allow Development o f a New 116,844 Square Foot Industrial Building and Site Improvements for U -Haul at 4150 Point Eden Way (Assessor Parcel Number 461-0085-020-02). Jerry Owen on Behalf of U - Haul; Amerco Real Estate Co. (Applicant/Property Owner).
GENERAL
PLANNING
1. The developer shall assume the defense of and shall pay on behalf of and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, volunteers and agents from and against any or all loss, liability, expense, claim costs, suits and damages of every kind, nature and description directly or indirectly arising from the performance and action of this permit.
2. Site Plan Review Application No. 201901039 is approved subject to the Architectural, Civil and Landscape plans received by the City on May 4, 2021 (plans dated April 24, 2020), and the revised Site Plan received by the City on May 12, 2021 (plans dated January 18, 2021), respectively, except as modified by the conditions listed below. Any proposal for alterations to the conditionally approved site plan or building design that does not require a variance to any zoning ordinance standard shall be subject to review and approval by the Development Services Director or her designee prior to implementation. Alterations requiring a variance shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission, if applicable.
3. The proposed site plan and development is subject to a land swap and relocation of the Bay Trail requiring approval of the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD). The applicant shall provide evidence of the land swap approval prior to the issuance of grading permits for the proposed project. If the EBRPD does not approval the land swap and relocation of the Bay Trail, the applicant shall submit a revised Development Permit Application to the Planning Division for consistency review with applicable zoning regulations and the environmental analysis prepared for the project. The Planning Director may review and approve the alteration upon determination that the site plan and development is substantially the same.
Alternatively, the Planning Director may refer the revised site plan to the Planning Commission for determination.
4. The Bay Trail shall be designed in accordance with EBRPD trail standards. The Bay Trail design shall be included on improvement and landscape plans and shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Hayward and the EBRPD prior to issuance of grading permits.
Exhibit I.a
I.a-2
5. The realigned Bay Trail shall be constructed and operable prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the development project.
6. The applicant shall set aside area on the site to allow for construction of future gateway signage in accordance with the plans submitted to the City and included as an attachment to the staff report dated February 15, 2022.
7. The applicant shall provide one third of one percent (0.33%) of the construction costs of the relevant building permit construction cost to fund design, fabrication and/or installation of future gateway signage on the project site. The funds shall be provided to the City and held in an account for gateway signage prior to issuance of relevant building permits and/or certificates of occupancy.
8. The building colors and materials shown on the building permit plans shall match those shown on the architectural plans, color/material exhibit and renderings received by the City on May 4, 2021 (dated April 24, 2020), including sculptural pieces and art. Any revision to the approved colors and materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of a building permit.
9. The permittee, property owner or designated representative shall allow the City’s staff to access the property for site inspection(s) to confirm all approved conditions have been completed and are being maintained in compliance with all adopted city, state and federal laws.
10. Lights inside and affixed to the building shall be turned off at night to eliminate light pollution impacts to the adjacent baylands. All lighting fixtures on the site and in the parking lot shall incorporate a shield to allow for downward illumination. No spillover lighting to adjacent properties is permitted and all exterior lighting on walls, patios or balconies shall be recessed/shielded to minimize visual impacts.
11. The proposed 32-acre preserve (western component) shall be preserved and maintained in perpetuity with a deed restriction or other appropriate legal mechanism. The mechanism for preservation and maintenance shall be recorded and provided to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the development project.
12. All vents, gutters, downspouts, flashings, electrical conduits, etc. shall be painted to match the color of the adjacent material unless specifically designed as an architectural element.
13. All exterior and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened or located away from public view. Mechanical and rooftop equipment shall include, but is not limited to, electrical panels, pull boxes, air conditioning units, gas meters, and swimming pool equipment. All rooftop screening and mechanical equipment shall be shown on the project plans and be subject to final review and approval by City Exhibit I.a
I.a-3
staff prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. All screening shall be compatible with respect to forms and materials used on the building.
14. All above-ground utility meters, mechanical equipment and water meters shall be enclosed within the buildings or shall be screened with shrubs or an architectural screen from all perspectives. All equipment shall be designed to be compatible with respect to location, form, design, exterior materials, and noise generation. The applicant shall identify all screens on the building permit and landscape plans prior to the issuance of improvement plans and building permits.
15. No signs are approved with this project. All signage, including the signage required in Condition No. 22 below and placed on-site or off-site shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division and a Sign Permit application shall be required, consistent with Hayward Municipal Code Sign Ordinance requirements.
16. Failure to comply with any of the conditions set forth in this approval, or as subsequently amended in writing by the City, may result in failure to obtain a building final and/or a Certificate of Occupancy until full compliance is reached. The City' s requirement for full compliance may require minor corrections and/or complete demolition of a non-compliant improvement regardless of costs incurred where the project does not comply with design requirements and approvals that the applicant agreed to when permits were filed to construct the project.
17. All outstanding fees owed to the City, including permit charges and staff time spent processing or associated with the development review of this application shall be paid in full prior to any consideration of a request for approval extensions or issuance of a building permit.
18. If determined to be necessary for the protection of the public peace, safety and general welfare, the City of Hayward may impose additional conditions or restrictions on this permit. Violations of any approved land use conditions or requirements will result in further enforcement action by the Code Enforcement Division. Enforcement includes, but is not limited to, fines, fees/penalties, special assessment, liens, or any other legal remedy required to achieve compliance including the City of Hayward instituting a revocation hearing before the Planning Commission.
19. A copy of these conditions of approval shall be scanned and included on a separate, full-sized sheet(s) in the building permit plan check set.
20. The Planning Director or designee may revoke this permit for failure to comply with, or complete all, conditions of approval or improvements indicated on the approved plans.
Exhibit I.a
I.a-4
21. The owner shall maintain in good repair all building exteriors, walls, lighting, drainage facilities, landscaping, driveways, and parking areas. The premises shall be kept clean and weed-free.
22. The applicant shall be responsible for graffiti-free maintenance of the property and shall remove any graffiti within 48 hours of occurrence or City notification.
23. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from the City and/or outside agencies prior to any site work.
24. Within 60 days of following the issuance of a building permit and prior to construction, the applicant shall install one non-illuminated “Coming Soon” sign on the project site that includes a project rendering, a project summary, and developer contact information. The sign shall be constructed of wood or recyclable composite material, be placed in a location at least ten (10) feet back from the property line, and shall not impede pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular visibility or circulation. The sign shall be maintained in accordance with Section 10-7-709 of the Hayward Municipal Code and may be up to thirty-two (32) square feet of sign area and shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height. Sign design, size and location shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to placement.
25. Impact Fees. This development is subject to the requirements of the Property Developers – Obligations for Parks and Recreation set forth in HMC Chapter 10, Article 16. Per HMC Section 10-16.10, the applicant shall pay the impact fee rate that is in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
26. In accordance with Hayward Municipal Code (HMC) Section 10- 1. 3055, approval of this Site Plan Review is void 36 months after the effective date of approval unless:
a. Prior to the expiration of the 36-month period, a building permit application has been submitted and accepted for processing by the Building Official or his/ her designee. If a building permit is issued for construction of improvements authorized by this approval, said approval shall be void two years after issuance of the building permit, or three years after approval of the application, whichever is later, unless the construction authorized by the building permit has been substantially completed or substantial sums have been expended in reliance on this approval; or
b. A time extension of the approval has been granted by the Development Services Director or his/her designee, which requires that a request for an extension of this approval must be submitted in writing to the Planning Division at least 15 days prior to the expiration date of this approval.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Exhibit I.a
I.a-5
27. BIO-1a: SWHM and SMWS Habitat Fencing. Prior to ground disturbing activities adjacent to potential SMHM and SMWS habitat, temporary exclusion barriers and/or fencing shall be installed to exclude individuals of these species from areas of active construction. The design of the exclusion barriers and fencing shall be approved by a qualified biologist and shall be installed in the presence of a qualified biological monitor. The fence will be made of a material that does not allow SMHM or SMWS to pass through, and the bottom shall be buried to a depth of a minimum of four inches so that these species cannot crawl under the fence. All support for the exclusion fencing shall be placed on the inside of the project footprint. Additionally, removal of marsh or associated ruderal vegetation shall be completed using only hand tools and in the presence of a biological monitor. The barriers and/or fencing shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project.
28. BIO-1b: Qualified Biological Monitor. A qualified biological monitor shall be present during wildlife exclusion fence installation and removal, and during all vegetation clearing and initial ground disturbance which take place in marsh habitats of the former salt ponds and the vegetation adjacent to marsh habitats. The monitor will have demonstrated experience in biological construction monitoring and knowledge of the biology of the special-status species that may be found in the project site, including SMHM and SMWS. The monitor(s) shall have the authority to halt construction, if necessary, if noncompliance actions occur. If a federal or State listed species is observed at any time during construction, work shall not be initiated or shall be stopped immediately until the animal leaves the vicinity of the work area of its own volition. If the animal in question does not leave the work area, work shall not be reinitiated until the qualified biological monitor has contacted the appropriate agency to discuss on how to proceed with work activities. The biological monitor shall direct the contractor on how to proceed accordingly.
The biological monitor(s) shall be the contact person for any employee or contractor. who might inadvertently kill or injure a special-status species or anyone who finds dead, injured, or entrapped special-status species. Following fence installation, vegetation removal in potential habitat areas, and initial ground disturbance in potential habitat areas, the biologist shall train an onsite monitor to continue to document compliance. The biologist shall conduct weekly site checks to provide guidance for fence maintenance, provide environmental sensitivity training, and document compliance with permit conditions.
29. BIO-1c: Worker Environmental Awareness Program Training. The biological monitor shall provide an endangered species training program to all personnel involved in project construction. At a minimum, the employee education program shall consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable about the biology of sensitive species with potential to occur in the project footprint, and about their Exhibit I.a
I.a-6
legislative protection to explain concerns to contractors and their employees involved with implementation of the project. The program shall include a description of the species and their habitat needs, any reports of occurrences in the area; an explanation of the status of these species and their protection under State and federal legislation; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to these species during construction.
30. BIO-1d: Burrowing Owl Pre-Construction Surveys and Avoidance. A qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction clearance surveys prior to ground disturbance activities within suitable natural habitats and ruderal areas throughout the eastern component of the project site to confirm the presence/absence of active burrowing owl burrows. The surveys shall be consistent with the recommended survey methodology provided by CDFW (2012). Clearance surveys shall be conducted within 30 days prior to construction and ground disturbance activities. If no burrowing owls are observed, no further actions are required. If burrowing owls are detected during the pre-construction clearance surveys, the following measures shall apply:
a. Avoidance buffers during the breeding and non-breeding season shall be implemented in accordance with the CDFW (2012) and Burrowing Owl Consortium (1993) minimization mitigation measures.
b. If avoidance of burrowing owls is not feasible, then additional measures such a passive relocation during the nonbreeding season and construction buffers of 200 feet during the breeding season shall be implemented, in consultation with CDFW. In addition, a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be developed by a qualified biologist in accordance with the CDFW (2012) and Burrowing Owl Consortium (1993).
31. BIO-1e: Nesting Bird Avoidance and Pre-Construction Surveys. Project activities, such as vegetation removal, grading, or initial ground-disturbance, shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31 to the greatest extent feasible. If project activities must be conducted during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to vegetation removal or initial ground disturbance. Additional nesting surveys shall be conducted if project construction activities cease for more than 14 days during this period. The survey shall include the project site plus a 200-foot buffer around the eastern component of the project site if feasible, and a 500-foot buffer for California least tern, western snowy plover, and black skimmer, if feasible, to identify the location and status of any nests that could potentially be affected either directly or indirectly by project activities. A survey of the western component of the project site shall be optional and not required because no ground disturbance or construction activities are proposed in the western component of the project site. If active nests are identified during the nesting bird survey, an appropriate avoidance buffer shall be established within Exhibit I.a
I.a-7
which no work activity will be allowed which would impact these nests. The avoidance buffer would be established by the qualified biologist on a case-by-case basis based on the species and site conditions. In no cases shall the buffer be smaller than 50 feet for passerine bird species and 250 feet for raptor species. The buffer for California least tern, western snowy plover, and black skimmer shall be at least 600 feet or otherwise determined by CDFW and USFWS. Larger buffers may be required depending upon the status of the nest and the construction activities occurring in the vicinity of the nest. Buffers shall be delineated by orange construction fencing that defines the buffer where it intersects the project site. If a California least tern, western snowy plover, or black skimmer nest is found within 500 feet of the project site, USFWS and CDFW will be immediately notified. USFWS and CDFW shall be consulted on appropriate avoidance and minimization methods, which would likely include work restrictions within 500 feet of the nest, biological monitoring for activity within the nest’ line-of-sight, etc. The buffer area(s) shall be closed to all construction personnel and equipment until juveniles have fledged and the nest is inactive. The qualified biologist shall confirm that breeding/nesting is completed, and young have fledged the nest prior to removal of the buffer.
32. BIO-1f: Special-Status Bat Avoidance and Pre-Construction Surveys. To avoid impacts to roosting special-status bats, focused surveys to determine the presence/absence of roosting bats shall be conducted prior to the initiation of demolition of buildings and removal of mature trees large enough to contain crevices and hollows that could support bat roosting. If active maternity roosts are identified, a qualified biologist shall establish avoidance buffers applicable to the species, the roost location and exposure, and the proposed construction activity in the area. If active non-maternity day or night roosts are found on the project site, measures shall be implemented to passively relocate bats from the roosts prior to the onset of construction activities. Such measures may include removal of roosting site during the time of day the roost is unoccupied or the installation of one-way doors, allowing the bats to leave the roost but not to re-enter. These measures shall be presented in a Bat Passive Relocation Plan that shall be submitted to, and approved by, CDFW.
33. BIO-1g: Trash Removal. During construction of the project, all food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in solid, closed containers (trash cans) and removed at the end of each workday from the project site to eliminate an attraction to predators of special-status species.
34. BIO-1h: Public Access Exclusion Fencing. Access by all project construction personnel into the Eden Landing Ecological Reserve shall be prohibited. Upon completion of the development project a permanent fence shall be installed on the eastern component of the project site to prevent access from the San Francisco Bay Exhibit I.a
I.a-8
Trail relocated segment and the new industrial development into the adjacent salt ponds and associated marsh habitats to the west. In addition, signs shall be posted stating that public access into the salt ponds and associated marsh habitat is strictly prohibited owing to the sensitivity of the habitat and to ensure the continued use of this habitat by special-status species.
35. BIO-3: Protected Wetlands Mitigation Credits. To compensate for impacts to approximately 0.97 acre of waters of the U.S., the project applicant shall purchase wetland mitigation credits at a minimum of 1:1 mitigation ratio from an approved mitigation bank with a Service Area that covers the project site. The San Francisco Bay Wetland Mitigation Bank currently has "Tidal Wetland and Other Waters Creation" credits available for purchase. Either the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the CDFW may adjust the mitigation ratio and the applicant shall comply, but in no case shall the mitigation ratio be less than 1:1.
36. CUL-1a: Building Recordation. Archival documentation of as-built and as-found condition shall be prepared for the Oliver Brothers Salt Company prior to demolition. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the City of Hayward shall ensure that documentation of the buildings and structures proposed for demolition is completed that follows the general guidelines of Historic American Building Survey (HABS)-level III documentation. The documentation shall include high resolution digital photographic recordation, a historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified professional who meets the standards for history, architectural history, or architecture as set forth by the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR, Part 61). The original archival-quality documentation shall be offered as donated material to the Hayward Library and/or Hayward Area Historical Society to make it available for current and future generations. Archival copies of the documentation shall be submitted to the City of Hayward where it shall be available to local researchers.
37. CUL-1b: Interpretive Display. An interpretive display shall be developed and installed on site to commemorate the history of the Oliver Brothers Salt Company.
The display may include historic photographs, drawings, and text to convey the history of the site and the significance of salt processing in Alameda County. The display shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to installation at a site to be chosen by the City. The installation shall occur prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
38. CUL-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Archeological Resources. In the event that archaeological resources are unexpectedly encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area shall be halted and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archeology Exhibit I.a
I.a-9
(National Park Service 1983) shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If the find is prehistoric, then a Native American representative should also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the find. If necessary, as determined by the archaeologist in consultation with the City, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) eligibility. If the discovery proves to be eligible for the CRHR and cannot be avoided by the modified project, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted to mitigate impacts to archaeological resources.
39. GEO-1: Geotechnical Considerations. The project applicant shall implement all measures and recommendations set forth in the Geotechnical Engineering Services Report prepared by Professional Services Industries, Inc., an Intertek company, in January 2018 (included as Appendix D and on file with the City of Hayward) or other updated study reviewed and approved by the Hayward Public Works - Engineering Division. This measure shall be implemented for development on the eastern component of the project site. Recommendations include but are not limited to the following topic areas, or others as determined by an updated study:
a. Engineered fill material required at this site shall not contain rocks greater than 3-inches in diameter or greater than 30 percent retained on the ¾-inch sieve and shall not contain more than 3 percent (by weight) of organic matter or other unsuitable material. The expansion index for the material shall not exceed 50.
b. Engineered fill shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the modified Proctor (ASTM D1557). The moisture content of engineered fill shall be maintained at approximately 2 percent above or below the material’s optimum moisture content as determined by the same index during compaction.
c. Engineered fill shall be placed in maximum lifts of 8-inches of loose material.
Each lift of engineered fill shall be tested by a PSI soils technician, working under the direction of a licensed geotechnical engineer, prior to placement of subsequent lifts.
d. Properly compacted engineered fill shall extend horizontally outward beyond the exterior perimeter of the foundations a distance equal to the height of fill or 5 feet, whichever is greater, prior to substantial sloping. e. Permanent cut or fill slopes shall not exceed 2 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (2H:1V). Excavations extending below a 1H:1V plane extending down from any adjacent footings shall be shored for safety.
f. Utilities trenches within the building, pavement, and sidewalk areas shall be backfilled with granular engineered fill such as sand, sand and gravel, fragmental rock, or recycled concrete of up to 2 inches maximum size with less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve (washed analysis). Granular Exhibit I.a
I.a-10
backfill shall be placed in lifts and compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557. Compaction by jetting or flooding shall not be permitted.
g. To ensure precipitation is conveyed away from structural foundation, continuous roof gutters shall be installed on the proposed industrial building.
The roof drains shall be connected to a tight-line pipe leading to storm drain facilities. Pavement surfaces and open space areas shall be sloped such that surface water runoff is collected and routed to suitable discharge points.
Ground surfaces adjacent the building shall be sloped to facilitate positive drainage away from the building. Landscaped or planted areas shall not be placed within 10 feet of the footings of the proposed building.
40. HAZ-1: Project Demolition Activities. In conformance with State and local laws, a visual inspection/pre-demolition survey, and possible sampling, shall be conducted prior to the demolition of on-site building(s) to determine the presence of asbestos- containing materials (ACMs) and/or lead-based paint (LBP). Documentation of the survey shall be provided to the City prior to commencement of demolition activities.
During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Title 8, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the type of lead being disposed. All potentially friable asbestos containing materials (ACMs) shall be removed in accordance with National Emission Standards for Air Pollution (NESHAP) guidelines prior to demolition or renovation activities that may disturb ACMs. All demolition activities shall be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards contained in Title 8, CCR, Section 1529, to protect workers from asbestos exposure. A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of ACMs identified in the asbestos survey performed for the site in accordance with the standards stated above in this mitigation measure. Materials containing more than one-percent asbestos are also subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations. Removal of materials containing more than one percent asbestos shall be completed in accordance with BAAQMD requirements and notifications. Based on Cal/OSHA rules and regulations, the following conditions shall be implemented to limit impacts to construction workers:
a. Prior to commencement of demolition activities, a building survey, including sampling and testing, shall be completed to identify and quantify building materials containing lead-based paint.
b. During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR, Section 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring and dust control.
Exhibit I.a
I.a-11
c. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the type of waste being disposed.
41. HAZ-2a: Implementation of the RMP. The project shall implement the appropriate handling procedures and worker health and safety measures during excavating or dewatering activities, as well as the use of an engineered vapor barrier as described in the site-specific RMP developed for the project in 2014. The RMP is an appendix to the Phase I ESA. The Phase I ESA is included as Appendix D to this EIR. Measures included in the RMP to control potential hazardous contamination and exposure include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Construction contractors shall implement dust control mitigation measures during construction activities at the project site to minimize the generation of dust. Examples of dust control measures that shall be implemented include limiting construction vehicles speeds to 5 miles per hour when on-site; routinelyapplying water to exposed soils while performing excavation activities; and, covering soil stockpiles with plastic sheets at the end of each workday. Additional dust control measures shall be implemented by the selected contractor, as necessary, especially if windy conditions persist during site grading and excavation. These measures may include moisture, conditioning the soil, using dust suppressants, or covering the exposed soil and stockpiles with weighted plastic sheeting to prevent exposure of the soil. b. To prevent or minimize construction equipment from tracking polluted spoils off the site onto roadways, construction equipment that contacts soils deeper than 5-feet below ground surface shall be decontaminated prior to leaving the site. Decontamination methods shall include brushing and/or vacuuming to remove loose dirt on vehicle exteriors and wheels. In the event that these dry decontamination methods are inadequate, methods such as steam cleaning, high pressure washing, and cleaning solutions shall be used, as necessary, to thoroughly remove accumulated dirt and other materials.
Decontamination activities shall be performed in an on-site decontamination facility established by the contractor.
c. All project construction workers performing construction activities at depths below 5-feet below ground surface in the restricted areas shall adhere to decontamination procedures when exiting the area. Decontamination measures shall include: (a) vacuuming the surface of coveralls, head covers, and footwear to remove accumulated soil particles and changing into other clean clothes if practical; (b) vacuuming or washing small tools, hand tools, or personal equipment to remove accumulated soil particles; and, (c) placing work clothes and personal equipment in sealed plastic bags or other suitable containers for transportation or on-site storage.
Exhibit I.a
I.a-12
d. In the event that disturbed soil appears to contain contaminants of potential concern (COPCs), such as odors, staining, and/or discoloration, work should halt in that area and an environmental professional (EP), such as a geologist, engineer, industrial hygienist, or environmental health specialist with expertise in these matters, shall be called to the site to oversee the work and determine safe construction and soil handling procedures. Additionally, if contaminated soil is encountered, the project applicant shall coordinate with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Alameda County Water District to determine adequate and proper remediation and handling actions.
e. The EP shall be present on-site during excavations greater than 5-feet below ground surface in the restricted areas to observe field conditions and measure hydrocarbon vapors using a hand held photoionization detector (PID). If PID readings are measured in a specific area showing concentrations in excess of construction worker screening levels published by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), construction activities in that area shall halt until appropriate risk mitigation measures are implemented. If necessary, HAZWOPER trained personnel shall be called to the site to complete the construction activities in that area.
f. Soil excavated from deeper than 5-feet below ground surface in the restricted area shall only be reused on-site as backfill after sampling and analysis soil proves the soil is acceptable to remain on site. Commercial ESLs or concentration limits established in the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board document titled Characterization and Reuse of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Impacted Soil and Inert Waste (2006), whichever is lowest shall be used as the threshold to determine if soils may remain on site or require off-site disposal. All appropriate regulatory sampling methods, holding times, and detection limits shall be followed.
g. A health and safety plan shall be developed and implemented for project construction that incorporates measures and procedures to minimize direct contact by construction workers with site groundwater, particularly in the restricted areas. The health and safety plan shall be approved by either the City or the RWQCB, or both as applicable, prior to excavation activities. h. If groundwater is encountered within the former remediation area during construction of the project, as shown on Figure 4 of the RMP, an EP shall be called to the site to determine safe handling procedures. The groundwater shall be pumped into appropriate containers and samples shall be obtained for chemical analysis of the COPCs in accordance with a site sampling plan and the requirements of the waste disposal facility to which the material is sent. The project applicant shall coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Alameda County Water District if possible contaminated groundwater is encountered. If water sample analytical results Exhibit I.a
I.a-13
indicate the water is free of all detectable concentrations of COPCs, such water can be re-used at the site if deemed appropriate by Alameda County and the RWQCB. If water sample analytical results indicate the water contains concentrations of COPCs above appropriate RWQCB screening levels, such water shall not be re-used at the site. The contractor and the EP shall elect to: (a) treat the groundwater on-site to render it free of detectable concentrations of COPCs (e.g. by activated carbon filtration); or, (b) transport the groundwater to a local treatment or disposal facility for appropriate handling.
i. The proposed industrial building shall be constructed on top of a minimum of a 5-foot bioattenuation zone within the restricted areas. This bioattenuation zone shall consist of a minimum of 5-feet of soil above the anticipated shallowest groundwater elevation, and the soil shall not contain total petroleum hydrocarbons greater than 100 parts per million. j. An engineered vapor barrier shall be employed to further protect against possible vapor intrusion of COPCs into the proposed industrial building. The vapor barrier shall be designed to meet the needs of building. Vapor barriers are generally constructed using membranes constructed with high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or other polyolefin-based resins. The vapor barrier shall be resistant to VOCs. The vapor barrier shall meet the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) guideline for a vapor barrier and have a permeance rating of 0.1 perms or less. The thickness and strength of the vapor barrier shall be based on the needs for the building, but the architect and contractor shall use a material strong enough to easily withstand the building construction and other building considerations. The selected vapor barrier shall be approved by the RWQCB prior to installation.
42. HAZ-2b: Bioretention Design Coordination. The project applicant shall consult with the City on location and/or design of the onsite bioretention basins to ensure protection of the groundwater basin, which may include, but is not limited to, locating the basins outside of the restricted areas or use of a liner in the detention basin. The final design and location of the on-site bioretention basins shall demonstrate that groundwater would be protected from contamination.
43. HAZ-2c: Displacement Pier Design and Construction. The project applicant shall retain a geotechnical engineer to design the displacement piers for support of the building foundation. The displacement piers shall be designed in a way to prevent creating a preferential pathway between shallow groundwater at approximately 5 feet below ground surface and deeper groundwater. The displace pier design developed by the geotechnical engineer shall be incorporated into project plans prior to commencement of construction. This mitigation measure shall apply to all displacement piers within the restricted areas or the larger area where benzene Exhibit I.a
I.a-14
concentrations exceed ESLs, as shown in Figure 4.3-2 of the EIR. Additionally, airjetting shall not be used to create the holes for the displacement piers within the restricted areas to avoid bringing subsurface soils to the ground surface.
44. TR-1: Travel Demand Management. The project applicant shall implement at least one of the measures described below:
a. Voluntary Employer Commute Program: The project applicant shall encourage alternative modes of transportation through a program that may include elements such as: a carpool or vanpool program, subsidized or discounted transit passes, bike amenities, commute trip-reduction marketing, and preferential parking permit program.
b. Employer Carpool Program: The project applicant shall encourage carpooling by providing ride matching assistance to employees, providing priority parking for carshare vehicles, and providing incentives for carpooling. The applicant shall provide to the City documentation that at least one of the above measures is implemented. Documentation shall be provided annually.
45. TCR-1: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, all earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find and an appropriate Native American representative, based on the nature of the find, is consulted. If the City determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with Native American groups. The plan shall include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan shall outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the archeologist and the appropriate Native American tribal representative.
ENGINEERING
46. San Francisco Bay Trail: Applicant shall submit written documents confirming East Bay Regional Park District consent for relocation of the San Francisco Bay Trail to the west of the proposed development and the required property exchange. The written documents shall include the proposed trail improvement details.
47. Site Grading and Improvement Plans: Permits for the site grading and improvements and the trail improvements shall be secured before issuance of a building permit. Such permits will require plans and design documents prepared by the state licensed and qualified professions and approved by the City Engineer.
Portions of the project site is within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated Flood Zone AE and hence subject to the following conditions:
Exhibit I.a
I.a-15
a. The lowest floor elevation of the proposed buildings shall be elevated to at least one foot above the base flood elevation (BFE).
b. Building support utility systems within the flood zone such as 1-IVAC, electrical, plumbing, air conditioning equipment, including ductwork, and other service facilities must be elevated above the BFE or protected from flood damage.
c. An Elevation Certificate (FEMA Form 086-0-33) for the proposed structures within the flood zone, based on construction drawings, is required prior to issuance of a building permit. Consequently, an Elevation Certificate based on finished construction is required for the built structure prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy.
48. Stormwater Pollution Prevention: Stormwater Treatment Basins shall be located on property owned by the Applicant. The applicant must acquire the Bay Trail property if a stormwater treatment basin is located thereon. Stormwater pollution prevention measures shall comply with the Alameda County Clean Water Program (ACCWP) C.3 Technical Guidance Manual.
49. Drainage plans should include all proposed underground pipes, building drains, area drains and inlets. All building sites shall be graded to slope away from the building foundations per California Building Code, Chapter 18, Section 1804.3 Site Grading or as required by the Soils Engineer. On-site collector storm drains shall be sized to minimize potential for blockages. Storm drains shall be designed to prevent standing water.
50. The on-site storm conveyance and treatment systems shall be owned and maintained by the property owner.
51. The project’s Stormwater Control Plan and updated Stormwater Requirements Checklist shall be submitted and shall show, at a minimum, drainage management areas, location and details of all treatment control measures and site design measures, and numeric sizing calculations in conformance with Alameda County Clean Water Program C3 design guidelines.
52. This project involves a land disturbance of one or more acres, the developer is required to submit a Notice of Intent to the State Water Resources Control Board and to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for controlling storm water discharges associated with construction activity. Copies of these documents must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The SWPPP shall utilize the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook for Construction Activities, the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion & Sediment Control Measures, the City's Grading and Erosion Control ordinances and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control.
Exhibit I.a
I.a-16
53. Construction Stormwater Management: Developer shall be responsible for the preventing the discharge of pollutants and sediments into the street and/or the public storm drain system from the project site during construction in accordance with the Hayward Municipal Code. Projects proposed for construction between October 1st and April 30th, must have an erosion and sedimentation control program approved, and implemented to the maximum extent possible, prior to the start of any land disturbing activity. Trash and debris must be adequately contained at all times. Such measures shall be maintained during the project’s construction period. Violations or other noncompliance with stormwater management measures may result in the project being shut down, including any building permit activity, until full compliance with stormwater management requirements is achieved.
54. Construction Damage: The Developer shall remove and replace curb, gutter, sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavement, pavement markings, etc. damaged during construction of the proposed project prior to issuance of the Final Construction Report by the City Engineer. Damaged pavement surfaces shall be repaired or resurfaced as required by the City Engineer. Unused driveways or unused portions thereof shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk per City standards.
55. Effective measures for adjacent property protection, storm water pollution prevention, noise and dust control must be in-place before starting any construction activity.
56. Stormwater pollution prevention measures shall be maintained and kept effective until disturbed ground is protected with ground cover.
57. Damaged street curb, gutter, sidewalk and driveway fronting the property shall be replaced with the City standard improvements. Driveway shall comply with ADA standards.
58. All utility services to the property shall be installed underground.
59. Multiple trenches less than 20-feet apart in a street pavement shall be repaired with a single patch.
TRANSPORTATION
60. Applicant shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program as a mitigation measure for Transportation-related significant impacts as identified in the Project’s Traffic Impact Analysis (Kittelson, Feb 2021). Applicant shall select Exhibit I.a
I.a-17
and implement one of the following programs to satisfy the mitigation requirement:
a. 1A, Voluntary Employer Commuter Program
b. 1B, Mandatory Employer Commute Program
c. 1C, Employer Carpool Program
d. 1D, Employer Transit Pass Subsidy
e. 1E, Employer Vanpool Program
f. 1F, Employer Telework Program
61. Applicant shall submit to the City of Hayward Planning Division a TDM Statement of Intent stating which TDM Program Applicant intends to implement for this Project.
Statement of Intent shall be reviewed and approved by the Transportation Division prior to issuance of Building Permits.
62. Applicant shall submit the following items as part of Improvement Plans to Public Works-Transportation for review prior to issuance of Building Permits:
a. An on-site and off-site (fronting City right-of-way) Signing and Striping Plan in accordance with Caltrans’ latest Standard Plans (refer to Caltrans Standard Plans Sheet A90A for more information on marking complaint disabled stalls).
b. A Photometric Plan, refer to Hayward's Standard Plans Sheet SD-120 for roadway lighting criteria, link: https://www.hayward-
ca.gov/documents/hayward-standard-detail
c. Turning Analysis using the largest vehicle expected on-site (typically a delivery vehicle) using AutoTurn software. Turning Analysis shall not depict vehicles backing into public streets/right-of-way.
63. Upon review of Improvement Plan(s) and required item(s) listed above by Public Works-Transportation, Applicant shall modify Improvement Plan(s) to address any deficiency(ies) or item(s) identified by Public Works-Transportation staff, to the satisfaction of Public Works-Transportation staff or the City Engineer, prior to issuance of Building Permit(s).
SOLID WASTE
64. The owner or property manager shall be responsible for litter-free maintenance of the property and shall remove any litter on or within 50 feet of the property daily to ensure that the property and its street frontage remain clear of any abandoned debris or trash per Municipal Code Section 11-5.22.
LANDSCAPING
65. Prior to issuance of building permits, detailed landscape and irrigation improvement plans prepared by a licensed landscape architect on an accurately Exhibit I.a
I.a-18
surveyed base plan shall be submitted to, reviewed and approved by the City’s Landscape Architect. The plans shall comply with the City’s Bay-Friendly Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (California Building Code Title 23) and all relevant Municipal Codes. Once approved, a digital file of the approved and the project landscape architect signed improvement plans shall be submitted to the City for the City’s approval signatures. Copies of the signed improvement plans shall be submitted as a part of the building permit submittal.
66. The landscape plans shall be prepared on an accurately surveyed topographic plan that matches the architectural, site or civil plan. Base information shall include all existing trees shown on the survey plan, and designation of existing trees whether to be preserved or removed as well as all known existing and proposed above and underground utilities.
67. If any existing trees meet the definition of “Protected Tree” in accordance with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, an arborist report by a certified arborist shall be submitted for approval.
68. Notes shall be provided on the planting plan that all proposed plant material has been evaluated by an environmental biologist or arborist to be suitable for planting near Bayland with potential high groundwater table and salinity. Height of proposed trees also shall be evaluated for proving nesting and harboring birds that may endanger wildlife in the Bayland.
69. Pursuant to HMC Section 10-12.07 (2)(C): Plant spacing shall not be closer the minimum spread provided in the reference books in the ordinance to allow mature plant growth without subjecting plants to routine cutbacks and shearing. Reference plant books in the landscape ordinance and additional reference books of “Landscape Plants for California Gardens” by Robert Perry and “California Native Plants for the Garden” by Carol Bornstein, David Fross and Bart O’Brien shall be used, and the list of reference book shall be provided in the plant legend.
70. All above ground utilities shall be screened with a minimum five-gallon evergreen shrub to provide continuous screening.
71. All plants in bioretention basin shall conform to the plant list in the latest C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance Appendix B.
72. Tree shall be located a minimum of five-feet from lateral service lines and driveways, a minimum of 15 feet from a light pole, and a minimum of 30 feet from the face of a traffic signal, or as otherwise specified by the City.
Exhibit I.a
I.a-19
73. A note shall be provided that all final tree locations shall be field verified by the project landscape architect prior to planting.
74. In accordance with City Street Tree Detail SD-122, trees at minimum 15-gallon and 24-inch-box size or equal shall be planted in conjunction with the proposed development. Tre sizes shall be indicated on the landscape plans and reviewed and approved by the City’s Landscape Architect. A separate tree planting detail for larger size trees shall be provided.
75. Root barriers shall be installed linearly against the paving edge in all instances where a tree is planted within seven feet of pavement or buildings, and as recommended by the manufacturer.
76. Minimum three inches deep organic recycled chipped wood mulch in dark brown color shall be provided in all planting areas including biotreatment area. The size of the mulch shall not exceed one and on-half-inch in diameter.
77. Commercial and industrial development with equal or greater than 1,000 square feet of irrigated landscape area shall require a dedicated irrigation water meter. The meter shall be clearly located and sized in the irrigation plan.
78. Pursuant to HMC Section 10-12.07 (b), an irrigation Hydrozone map shall be provided prior to issuance ofpermits.
79. The City requires the backflow prevention device to be located after water meter.
Backflow prevention device shall conform to the City Standard Detail SD-202 and the detail shall be incorporated into irrigation detail plan.
80. Pursuant to HMC Section 10-12 Appendix B Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet for water budget calculation for Maximum Applied Water Allowance and Estimated Total Water Allowance shall be provided on the plan. The water budget calculation shall use Eto of 44.2 for City of Hayward, and the calculation shall provide the calculation methodology used. For commercial and industrial developments, ET adjustment factor of 0.45 shall be used.
81. Bio-treatment area, when wider than ten feet, shall be irrigated with matched precipitation rotator type, or as efficient overhead spray irrigation system that allows “cycle and soaking” program function. When the treatment area width is less than ten feet, efficient irrigation system that meets the current ordinance requirements shall be provided. The irrigation for bio-retention area shall be provided on a separate valve.
Exhibit I.a
I.a-20
82. A tree removal permit shall be obtained prior to the removal of any tree in conjunction with grading and/or demolition permits.
83. Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, all landscape and irrigation shall be completed in accordance to the approved plan and accepted by the City Landscape Architect. Before requesting an inspection from the City Landscape Architect, the project landscape architect shall inspect and accept landscape improvements and shall complete Appendix C. Certificate of Completion in the City’s Bay-Friendly Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The completed Certificate of Completion Part 1 through Part 7 or applicable parts shall be e-mailed/turn in prior to requesting an inspection from the City Landscape Architect.
84. Landscape Maintenance:
a. Landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy, weed-free condition at all times and shall maintain irrigation system to function as designed to reduce runoff, promote surface filtration, and minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides, which contribute pollution to the Bay.
b. The owner’s representative shall inspect the landscaping on a monthly basis and any dead or dying plants (plants that exhibit over 30% dieback) shall be replaced within ten days of the inspection.
c. Three inches deep mulch should be maintained in all planting areas. Mulch shall be organic recycled chipped wood in the shades of Dark Brown Color and the size shall not exceed 1-1/2-inch diameter. The depth shall be maintained at three inches deep.
d. All nursery stakes shall be removed during tree installation and staking poles shall be removed when the tree is established or when the trunk diameter of the tree is equal or larger to the diameter of the staking pole. e. All trees planted as a part of the development as shown on the approved landscape plans shall be “Protected” and shall be subjected to Tree Preservation Ordinance. Tree removal and pruning shall require a tree pruning or removal permit prior to removal by City Landscape Architect.
f. Any damaged or removed trees without a permit shall be replaced in accordance with Tree Preservation Ordinance or as determined by City Landscape Architect within the timeframe established by the City and pursuant to the Municipal Code.
g. Irrigation system shall be tested periodically to maintain uniform distribution of irrigation water; irrigation controller shall be programed seasonally; irrigation system should be shut-off during winter season; and the whole irrigation system should be flushed and cleaned when the system gets turn on in the spring.
FIRE PREVENTION
Exhibit I.a
I.a-21
85. The new building shall comply with all requirements of the 2019 California Building, California Fire Code(s) and local Ordinances respectfully.
86. Any portion of the building or facility shall be within 400 feet of a fire hydrant. Fire hydrants shall be placed at least 50 feet from the building to be protected. Where it is not feasible to place them at that distance, they may be in closer proximity in approved locations. A separate fire permit is required for hydrant installation.
87. Blue reflective pavement markers shall be installed at fire hydrant locations. If fire hydrants are located to be subjected to vehicle impacts as determined by the Hayward Fire Department, crash posts shall be installed around the fire hydrant(s).
88. When buildings exceed 30 feet in height, fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 26 feet an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet-six inches. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus 75,000 lbs. and shall be surfaced to provide all-weather driving capability.
89. Portable fire extinguishers shall be installed throughout the storage area at every 75 feet of travel or in areas required by the Fire Department. Portable fire extinguishers shall have a minimum rating of 2A:10BC, of which the maximum protection area is 3,000 square feet. Signage shall be provided for each portable fire extinguisher and shall be acceptable to the Fire Department.
90. The new building is not currently approved for high piled storage. A building permit is required for the installation of storage (pallet) racks greater than six feet in height. A Fire Department Annual Operational Permit is required for any combustible storage (floor and/or rack) which exceeds 12 feet in height (Class I-IV type commodities), AND/OR any high hazard storage which includes commodities such as hazardous materials, flammable liquids, plastics, foam and rubber products, or any other classified commodity as dictated by the California Fire Code and NFPA 13 Standards, which exceeds 6 feet in height. (Deferred submittal, if applicable)
91. At least one interior audible alarm device shall be installed within each tenant space within the building and shall be placed in a location to be heard throughout the constantly attended areas in accordance with NFPA 72. The device shall activate upon any fire sprinkler system water flow activity. (If applicable)
92. Minimum building address shall be 12-inches high with one and one-half inch stroke. When building is located greater than 50 feet from street frontage, address shall be minimum 16-inches high with one and one-half inch stroke. If applicable, tenant space numbers shall be six inches high with 0.75” stroke on a contrasting background to be visible from the street.
Exhibit I.a
I.a-22
93. An Automatic Fire Sprinkler System is required and shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 13 and all local Ordinances. Be advised that per HFD Ordinance 10-14:
When an automatic sprinkler system is required in a building of undetermined used, it shall be designed and installed to have a sprinkler density of 0.33/3750 with a maximum coverage of 100 square feet per head. (Deferred Submittal)
94. Maximum 80 PSI water pressure should be used when water data indicates a higher static pressure. Residual pressure should be adjusted accordingly.
95. A Fire Alarm System shall be installed in accordance with the California Fire Code (CFC) and all NFPA 72 Standards. Fire alarm system will be determined based on the occupancy and demand of the proposed building. Sprinkler system monitoring is required when there are 20 sprinklers or more than in accordance with the 2019 California Fire Code.
96. Underground fire service line serving the NFPA 13 sprinkler system and new fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 24 and the Hayward Public Work Department SD-204. Water meter shall be minimum or four-inch for a (NFPA 13) commercial grade system.
97. Per the 2019 California Fire Code (CFC) table BB105.1, a minimum fire flow of 7,250 for 4 hours is required for this site. A reduction of 50% is allowed if the building is protected with an automatic fire sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION
98. Environmental and Health Based Site Clearance – A “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update, 4150 Point Eden Way, Hayward, California” prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group, dated March 10, 2017, was submitted to the Hayward Fire Department. Based on the review of information in that document, historic Hayward Fire Department records and records found in the State Water Resources Control Board’s Geotracker website, residual contamination exists on the project site from the former Oliver Salt operations, including from two underground storage tanks that held diesel and gasoline and were removed in 1998.
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has been and continues to be the oversight agency for this contamination case. Extensive remedial activities have occurred since 1998. A deed restriction was singed on December 19, 2014, which addresses actions/mitigations required, which includes property development and the involvement of the RWQCB. The deed restriction also references a Risk Management Plan (RMP) approved by the RWQCB associated the residual contamination on the site. The applicant shall continue to work with the RWQCB on this case and associated clearance.
Exhibit I.a
I.a-23
Proof shall be provided to the Hazardous Division that the site meets development investigation and cleanup standards for this industrial property, along with any stipulations of any clearances such as a deed restriction, the need for any groundwater/soil management plan and other mitigations such as vapor barriers/soil vapor mitigations. A clearance document shall be submitted to the Hayward Fire Department’s Hazardous Material Office, Planning Division and Public Works Division prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Allowance may be granted if acceptable to the RWQCB and the Hazardous Materials Office of the Hayward Fire Department.
An initial coordination meeting prior to the start of grading activities on site shall be conducted with the developer, the developers’ environmental consultant, RWQCB, the Hayward Fire Department Hazardous Materials Office and other City Agencies to ensure consistency/coordination between agencies and the developer.
99. Electronic Submittal of Environmental Documentation – Environmental Documentation associated with the evaluation, investigation and/or clearance of this site shall be provided in an electronic format to the City of Hayward Fire Department and Planning Division prior to the issuance of the Building or Grading Permit
100. Proposed Uses of Hazardous Materials – The project proposed office and material storage. There will be no storage/use of hazardous materials associated in the material storage rental used by the general public or with any other area associated with the expansion of the project. A final letter shall be submitted with the building permit that confirms this.
101. Grading and Demolition – A condition of approval, prior to grading: If structures and their contents are present, then they shall be removed or demolished under permit in an environmentally sensitive manner. Proper evaluation, analysis and disposal of materials shall be done by appropriate professional(s) to ensure hazards posed to development construction workers, the environment, future uses, and other persons are mitigated.
102. Wells, Septic Tank Systems or Subsurface Structures – Any wells, septic tank systems and others subsurface structures shall be removed properly in order not to pose a threat to the development construction workers, future residents, or the environment. These structures shall be documented and removed under permit from appropriate regulatory agency when required.
103. Hazardous Materials/Waste and their Vessels discovered during Grading/Construction – If hazardous materials/waste or their containers are Exhibit I.a
I.a-24
discovered during grading/construction the Hayward Fire Department shall be immediately notified at (510) 583-4910.
104. Underground Storage Tanks, Oil Water Separators, Hydraulics Lifts – If found on the property, the underground vessels/structures shall be removed under a plan filed with Hayward Fire Department and appropriate samples shall be taken under the direction of a qualified consultant to ensure that contamination has not occurred to the soil or groundwater. A follow up report shall be required to be submitted that documents the activities and any conclusions. Below are specific requirements on each:
a. Underground storage tank and associate piping (plan, sampling and Hayward Fire Department permit and follow up report is required) b. Oil Water Separators (plan, sampling required and follow up report is required)
c. Hydraulic Lifts (plan, sampling and follow up report is required).
105. Hazardous Materials/Waste During Construction - During grading and construction hazardous materials and hazardous waste shall be properly stored, managed, and disposed.
UTILITIES
Water Services:
106. All connections to existing water mains shall be performed by City Water Distribution personnel at the Applicant/Developer’s expense.
107. Any modifications to existing water services such as but not limited to upsizing, downsizing, relocating, and abandoning shall be performed by City Water Distribution personnel at the Applicant/Developer’s expense.
108. Only City of Hayward Water Distribution personnel shall perform operation of valves on the City of Hayward Water System.
109. This parcel does not have existing water services. The Applicant/Developer is responsible for applicable water connection and facilities fees, at the rates in effect at the time of application for water service, prior to water connection. Payment shall be made at issuance of building permit.
110. If applicable, each commercial tenant space shall be served by separate water meters.
111. The development requires a separate irrigation water service for the property’s landscaping. The Applicant or Developer shall install an above ground Reduced Exhibit I.a
I.a-25
Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly (RPBA) on each irrigation water meter, per City of Hayward Standard Detail 202 (SD-202). Backflow preventions assemblies shall be at least the size of the water meter or the water supply line on the property side of the meter, whichever is larger.
112. A separate fire permit is required for the fire sprinkler system installation. The fire service size will be determined by the Fire Department’s requirements. All fire services must have an above-ground double check valve assembly (DCVA), per City Standard Detail 204 (SD-204) and 201 (SD-201). New fire services must be installed by the City’s Water Distribution personnel at the Applicant’s or Developer’s expense.
113. Water meters and services are to be located a minimum of two feet from top of driveway flare as per City Standard Detail 213 (SD-213) through 218 (SD-218).
Water meters shall not be located in the driveway.
Sewer Services:
114. The property has an existing industrial sewer connection with a “grandfathered” sewer capacity of 1,015 gallons per day of domestic strength discharge. Additional sewer capacity to accommodate additional wastewater discharge over the “grandfathered” sewer capacity may need to be purchased. Payment shall be made at issuance of building permit.
115. All sewer mains and appurtenances shall be constructed in accordance with the City’s “Specifications for the Construction of Sewer Mains and Appurtenances,” latest revision at the time of permit approval. Available on the City’s website:
https://www.hayward-ca.gov/your-government/departments/engineering- division
116. Sewer cleanouts shall be installed on each sewer lateral at the connection with the building drain, at any change in alignment, and at uniform intervals not to exceed 100 feet. Manholes shall be installed in the sewer main at any change in direction or grade, at intervals not to exceed 400 feet, and at the upstream end of the pipeline.
Where sanitary sewer lines and/or laterals are the same size as the sanitary sewer line, the connection must be made with a manhole.
117. Industrial waste monitoring structures shall be installed on sewer connections per City Standard Detail SD-309.
DUE PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
118. Construction of Improvements: All public and private improvements, including punch list items, must be complete prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Exhibit I.a
I.a-26
119. “As-Built” Records: Provide “as-built” record plans in electronic formats to the City Engineer. Electronic plans shall be in “AutoCad” and pdf formats acceptable to the City Engineer.
120. Stormwater Treatment Measures Maintenance: The property owner(s) shall enter into an “Stormwater Treatment Measures Maintenance Agreement” with the city.
The executed Agreement shall be recorded with the Alameda County Recorder’s Office.
121. An Elevation Certificate (FEMA Form 086-0-33) based on finished construction is required for the built structure prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy.
122. SWPPP Final Report: The project QSP shall prepare and file a Final SWPPP Report with the City and Water Board.
123. Final Engineer’s Report: Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, The Engineer of Record shall submit a confirming letter that all grading, drainage, and engineering components of the project have been performed in conformance with the approved plans and specifications.
LANDS OF OLIVER PROPERTIES, LLC
LANDS OF DEPARTMENT OF FISH &GAME
2002-132615 OR
WB-65
INDOT 2013 (US)
(c) 2020 T ran sof t S ol uti o ns, Inc. Al l rig ht s re se rved .
BUILDING AREA - 116,844 SF
AC PAVING
AC
PAVING
RELOCATE
THE BAY
TRAIL
STORM WATER TREATMENT AREA
LANDSCAPE
BAY TRAIL
BAY TRAIL
LANDSCAPE
BAY TRAIL
20' - 0"
65' - 1"
125' - 0"
30' - 6"
19' - 0"
13' - 0"
18' - 0"
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
34' - 0"
19' - 0"
EASEMENT
20' - 0"
18' - 0"
19' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
OFFICE
PROPERTY
LINE
FIRE
PUMP
ROOM
ELECTRICALROOM
60' - 0"
109' - 0"
250' - 0"
45' - 0"
272' - 0"
T
1 1
2 9
1 10
4 3
1 1
3 6
50' - 0"
8 CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY 92
15 21
27 33
39 45
51 57
63 67
73 79
9 11
5 46' - 9 1/2"
12 10
10 STIPULATION #4 ARCHIMEDES
SCREW RELOCATION
STIPULATION #5 INTERPRETIVE
PANEL BUILT FROM SALVAGE
MATERIALS
EASEMENT
10' - 0"
EASEMENT
10' - 0"
20' - 0"
ZONING: IP- INDUSTRIAL PARK
APN: 461-0085-020-02
NORTH SITE AREA
GROSS: 6.83 AC
297,762 SF
DETENTION: @3.4% 8,743 SF
SLOPE: 0 SF
EASEMENTS:
LANDSCAPE: @16% 45,840 SF
NET: 5.58 AC
243,179 SF
BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 116,844 SF
NORTH BUILDING USE:
WAREHOUSE 114,059 SF
OFFICE 2,785 SF
COVERAGE:
GROSS: 38%
NET: 47%
PARKING REQUIRED:
WAREHOUSE 1/2000 SF 58 STALLS
OFFICE 1/250 SF 11 STALLS
TOTAL 69 STALLS
PARKING PROVIDED:
AUTO: 79 STALLS
REQ. ACCESSIBLE 2 STALLS
REQ. EV 2 STALLS
BIKE STALL 2 STALLS
BIKE LOCKER 2 SPACES
BUILDING TRUCK DOCKS:
10X10 DOCK - HIGH OH DOORS 7
12X10 GRADE LEVEL OH DOORS 1
T
X
TRANSFORMER WITH CONCRETE PAD
PARKING STALL COUNT TOTAL
DOCK HIGH TRUCK DOOR
26' FIRE LANE
GRADE LEVEL TRUCK DOOR
PROPERTY LINE
LANDSCAPE
EASEMENT
SHEET NO:
KEY PLAN:
ITEM: REVISION/ISSUE: DATE:
THIS DOCUMENT, AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN, ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF ATI ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS. ANY USE OR MODIFICATIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ATI ARCHITECTS + ENGINEERS, IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
DSA:
PROFESSIONAL STAMP:
3050 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 - T 714.338.1600 3009 Douglas Blvd #290 Roseville, CA 95661 - T 916.772.1800 4750 Willow Road #250 Pleasanton, CA 94588 - T 925.648.8800 AGENCY APPROVAL:
CONSULTANT:
BIM 360://U-Haul Hayward/U-Haul Hayward_rshahQ3EL2.rvt
3/12/2021 11:41:04 AM
SITE PLAN
A-100
U-HAUL COMPANY OF
EAST BAY
4150 POINT EDEN WAY
Owner
PROJECT NO: U2301
DRAWN BY: RS CHECKED BY: RFT
DATE: 01/18/2021
1" = 40'-0"1 SITE PLAN
IRRIGATED AREA, SEE LANDSCAPE L1.01
ACCESSIBLE ENTRY SIGNAGE
CONCRETE PAVEMENT
BIKE RACK, SEE DETAIL 8/A-602
BIKE LOCKERS
TRASH ENCLOSURE PER CITY STANDARDS, SEE DETAIL 3/A-602
N/A
EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED
FIRE LANE ENTRY SIGNAGE
ACCESSIBLE CURB RAMP WITH TRUNCATED DOMES
SIDE WALK
EASEMENT AS PER CITY REQUIREMENTS
PROJECT DATA
KEY NOTES
SITE LEGEND
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 GENERAL NOTES
A P LA N N IN G SU BM IT T A L 0 1 / 2 7 /2 0
B P LA N N IN G R ESU BM IT T A L 0 4 /2 4 /2 0
NORTH
PLAN
10 11
12 Attachment VI
WB-65
INDOT 2013 (US)
(c) 2020 Transof t Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
POIN T EDEN
WAY
BIOSWALE
BAY TRAIL
LANDSCAPE
BAY TRAIL
LANDSCAPE
20' - 0"
35' - 0"
19' - 0"
40' - 0"
18' - 0"
39' - 0"
34' - 0"
19' - 0"
30' - 0"
A-601
11 FIRE PUMP ROOM
ELECTRICAL ROOM
9 15
T
21 27
33 39
45 12
1 1
1 1
45 6
50' - 0"
CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY 92
3 7
9 SPACES
8 9
T
X
TRANSFORMER WITH CONCRETE PAD
PARKING STALL COUNT TOTAL
DOCK HIGH TRUCK DOOR
26' FIRE LANE
GRADE LEVEL TRUCK DOOR
PROPERTY LINE
ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVVEL 1:20 MAX. SLOPE, 2%
MAX CROSS SLOPE
LANDSCAPE
SHEET NO:
KEY PLAN:
ITEM: REVISION/ISSUE: DATE:
THIS DOCUMENT, AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN, ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF ATI ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS. ANY USE OR MODIFICATIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ATI ARCHITECTS + ENGINEERS, IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
DSA:
PROFESSIONAL STAMP:
3050 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 - T 714.338.1600 3009 Douglas Blvd #290 Roseville, CA 95661 - T 916.772.1800 4750 Willow Road #250 Pleasanton, CA 94588 - T 925.648.8800 AGENCY APPROVAL:
CONSULTANT:
BIM 360://U-Haul Hayward/U-Haul Hayward_rshahQ3EL2.rvt
4/24/2020 5:39:37 PM
ENLARGED SITE
PLAN
A-101
U-HAUL COMPANY OF
SAN FRANCISCO
4150 POINT EDEN WAY
Owner
PROJECT NO: U2301
DRAWN BY: Author CHECKED BY: Checker
DATE: 03/30/2020
1" = 20'-0"1 ENLARGED SITE PLAN
1 LANDSCAPE IRRIGATED AREA, SEE L1.01
ACCESSIBLE ENTRY SIGNAGE
CONCRETE PAVEMENT
BIKE RACK , SEE DETAIL 8/A602
BIKE LOCKER
TRANSFORMER
FENCE
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO BAY TRAIL
EMPLOYEE AMENITY AREA, SEE L1.01
2 3
KEY NOTES
SITE LEGEND
A PLA N N IN G SU BM IT T A L 0 1 /2 7 /2 0
B PLA N N IN G R ESU BM IT T A L 0 4 /2 4 /2 0
4 5
6 7
8 9
Attachment IV
LANDS OF OLIVER PROPERTIES, LLC
4150 POINT EDEN WAY
LANDS OFJON K TAKATA INVESTMENTS, LLCPARCEL 6
TRACT NO. 4019
LANDS OFSTATE OF CALIFORNIAPARCEL MAP 1042
N21°53'36"W
34.00' TIE
LANDS OF DEPARTMENT OF FISH &GAME
2002-132615 OR
Gravel Road
Gravel Road
Gate
Gate
Wooden Wall
Pond
Wire Fence
Wire Fence
Chainlink Fence
Chainlink Fence
Chainlink Fence
Chainlink Fence
Gravel Path
Gravel Path
Grass/Dirt
Grass/Dirt
Grass/Dirt
Wire Fence
Waterway Wall Supports
Shed
Pond
Concrete
Barbed Wire Fence
Gravel Path
EXCEPTION TO PARCEL 5
PARCEL 14A
(RE 1553, IM 51)
EXCEPTION TO PARCEL
5 2005-312073 OR
APPROXIMATE
LOCATION
PUBLIC EASEMENT
& ADVERSE CLAIM
EBMUD ESMT
DOC# 2005-312074
CALIFORNIA ST ATE HIGH WAY 92
PARCEL 5
1993-153181 OR
EXISTING BUILDING TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING WOODEN WALL TO BE REMOVED
SHEET NO:
KEY PLAN:
ITEM: REVISION/ISSUE: DATE:
THIS DOCUMENT, AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN, ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF ATI ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS. ANY USE OR MODIFICATIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ATI ARCHITECTS + ENGINEERS, IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
DSA:
PROFESSIONAL STAMP:
3050 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 - T 714.338.1600 3009 Douglas Blvd #290 Roseville, CA 95661 - T 916.772.1800 4750 Willow Road #250 Pleasanton, CA 94588 - T 925.648.8800 AGENCY APPROVAL:
CONSULTANT:
BIM 360://U-Haul Hayward/U-Haul Hayward_rshahQ3EL2.rvt
4/24/2020 5:39:37 PM
EXISTING
CONDITION SITE
PLAN
A-102
U-HAUL COMPANY OF
SAN FRANCISCO
4150 POINT EDEN WAY
Owner
PROJECT NO: U2301
DRAWN BY: Author CHECKED BY: Checker
DATE: 03/30/2020
1" = 40'-0"1 EXISING CONDITION SITE PLAN
A PLA N N IN G SU BM IT T A L 0 1 /2 7 /2 0
B PLA N N IN G R ESU BM IT T A L 0 4 /2 4 /2 0
Attachment IV
UP
11 22
33 55
66 77
88 B
B
D
D
E
E
F
F
G
G
H
H
I
I
J
J
L
LK
KC
C
4 A
A
475' - 0"
60' - 0"50 ' - 0"50' - 0"50' - 0"50' - 0"50' - 0"50' - 0"35' - 0"35' - 0"40' - 0"5' - 0" 302' - 0"
30' - 0" 30' - 0" 50' - 0" 67' - 0" 25' - 0" 50' - 0" 50' - 0"
4.1 4.2
A-301
5 A-3014
A-301 1
A-301
2 18' - 0" 31' - 0" 18' - 0"
TOTAL BUILDING AREA - 113,730 SF
CONSTRUCTION TYPE : IIIB
OCCUPANCY : S1
OFFICE
2,785 SF
ELECTRICAL ROOM
278 SF
WAREHOUSE
110,231 SF
A-104
1 - -
FIRE PUMP
333 SF
4.3 SHEET NO:
KEY PLAN:
ITEM: REVISION/ISSUE: DATE:
THIS DOCUMENT, AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN, ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF ATI ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS. ANY USE OR MODIFICATIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ATI ARCHITECTS + ENGINEERS, IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
DSA:
PROFESSIONAL STAMP:
3050 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 - T 714.338.1600 3009 Douglas Blvd #290 Roseville, CA 95661 - T 916.772.1800 4750 Willow Road #250 Pleasanton, CA 94588 - T 925.648.8800 AGENCY APPROVAL:
CONSULTANT:
BIM 360://U-Haul Hayward/U-Haul Hayward_rshahQ3EL2.rvt
4/24/2020 5:39:41 PM
BUILDING EXITING
PLAN
A-103
U-HAUL COMPANY OF
SAN FRANCISCO
4150 POINT EDEN WAY
Owner
PROJECT NO: U2301
DRAWN BY: Author CHECKED BY: Checker
DATE: 03/30/2020
1" = 20'-0"1 BUILDING FLOOR PLAN
A PLA N N IN G SU BM IT T A L 0 1 /2 7 /2 0
B PLA N N IN G R ESU BM IT T A L 0 4 /2 4 /2 0
Attachment IV
Refrigerator
5 B C
4 A
110231 SF
12 WAREHOUSE
4.1 4.2
67' - 0"
18' - 0"18' - 0" 31' - 0"
5' - 0" 40' - 0"
10' - 0"
18' - 0"
22' - 10"
5' - 0"
1' - 3"
301 SF
2 CONFERENCE
ROOM
160 SF
3 MEN'S
RESTROOM
160 SF
4 WOMEN'S
RESTROOM
380 SF
9 CONFERENCE
ROOM
341 SF
5 BREAK
ROOM
78 SF
6 UNISEX
RESTROOM
5' - 0 1/2" 18' - 6"
10' - 9"
5' - 0"
5' - 0" 5' - 0"
7' - 10" 7' - 10"7' - 4"
5' - 4"
24' - 0"
1' - 4"
4' - 10"
15' - 7"
17' - 10"
78 SF
13 UNISEX
RESTROOM
39 SF
14 JAN'S
CLOSET
8' - 5"705 SF
15 RETAIL
STORE
359 SF
16 OFFICE
10' - 0"
17' - 1"
21' - 3"
4.3 SHEET NO:
KEY PLAN:
ITEM: REVISION/ISSUE: DATE:
THIS DOCUMENT, AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN, ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF ATI ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS. ANY USE OR MODIFICATIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ATI ARCHITECTS + ENGINEERS, IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
DSA:
PROFESSIONAL STAMP:
3050 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 - T 714.338.1600 3009 Douglas Blvd #290 Roseville, CA 95661 - T 916.772.1800 4750 Willow Road #250 Pleasanton, CA 94588 - T 925.648.8800 AGENCY APPROVAL:
CONSULTANT:
BIM 360://U-Haul Hayward/U-Haul Hayward_rshahQ3EL2.rvt
4/24/2020 5:39:44 PM
OFFICE LAYOUT
A-104
U-HAUL COMPANY OF
SAN FRANCISCO
4150 POINT EDEN WAY
Owner
PROJECT NO: U2301
DRAWN BY: RS CHECKED BY: RFT
DATE: 03/30/2020
1/4" = 1'-0"1 OFFICE LAYOUT
A PLA N N IN G SU BM IT T A L 0 1 /2 7 /2 0
Attachment IV
UP
11 22
33 55
66 77
8 B
B
D
D
E
E
F
F
G
G
H
H
I
I
J
J
L
LK
KC
C
4 A
A
4.1 4.2
A-301
5 A-3014
A-301 1
1/4" / 1'-0"
1/4" / 1'-0"
50' - 0"
45' - 0"
45' - 0"
45' - 0"
2' - 0"
13 2
- -
4.3 SKYLIGHT
ROOF DRAIN
SHEET NO:
KEY PLAN:
ITEM: REVISION/ISSUE: DATE:
THIS DOCUMENT, AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN, ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF ATI ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS. ANY USE OR MODIFICATIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ATI ARCHITECTS + ENGINEERS, IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
DSA:
PROFESSIONAL STAMP:
3050 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 - T 714.338.1600 3009 Douglas Blvd #290 Roseville, CA 95661 - T 916.772.1800 4750 Willow Road #250 Pleasanton, CA 94588 - T 925.648.8800 AGENCY APPROVAL:
CONSULTANT:
BIM 360://U-Haul Hayward/U-Haul Hayward_rshahQ3EL2.rvt
4/24/2020 5:39:46 PM
ROOF PLAN
A-105
U-HAUL COMPANY OF
SAN FRANCISCO
4150 POINT EDEN WAY
Owner
PROJECT NO: U2301
DRAWN BY: Author CHECKED BY: Checker
DATE: 03/30/2020
A PLA N N IN G SU BM IT T A L 0 1 /2 7 /2 0
B PLA N N IN G R ESU BM IT T A L 0 4 /2 4 /2 0
KEY NOTES
1" = 20'-0"1 ROOF PLAN
SKYLIGHT
ROOF STORM DRAIN
SKYLIGHT
WALL MOUNT SCONCES
SKYLIGHT
SKYLIGHT SIZE: 48" X 96" - 32 SQFT
BUILDING AREA SQFT X 2% = 113730 X 0.02 SKYLIGHT SIZE 32 DESIRED : 71 SKYLIGHTS
PROVIDED: 72 SKYLIGHTS
LEGEND
1 2
3 Attachment IV
GROUND LEVEL
0' - 0"
B D E F G H I J LKCA
60' - 0"50 ' - 0"50' - 0"50' - 0"50' - 0"50' - 0"50' - 0"35' - 0"35' - 0"40' - 0"5' - 0" 104 95 7
45' - 0"
475' - 0"
Top of Parapet
45' - 0"
Top of Lobby
50' - 0"
45' - 0"
GROUND LEVEL
0' - 0"
1235678
30' - 0" 30 ' - 0" 50' - 0" 50' - 0" 50' - 0"
9 8
302' - 0"
Top
40' - 0"
Top of Lobby
50' - 0"
4.3 50' - 0"42' - 0"
GROUND LEVEL
0' - 0"
1 2 3 5 6 7 84 4.1 4.2
30' - 0"30 ' - 0"50' - 0"18' - 0"31' - 0"18' - 0"25' - 0"50' - 0"50' - 0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
302' - 0"
Top of Parapet
45' - 0"
Top
40' - 0"
Top of Lobby
50' - 0"
11 GROUND LEVEL
0' - 0"
BDEFGHIJL K C A
60' - 0" 50 ' - 0" 50' - 0" 50' - 0" 50' - 0" 50' - 0" 50' - 0" 35' - 0" 35' - 0" 40' - 0" 5' - 0" 8 475' - 0"
Top of Parapet
45' - 0"
Top
40' - 0"
SHEET NO:
KEY PLAN:
ITEM: REVISION/ISSUE: DATE:
THIS DOCUMENT, AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN, ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF ATI ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS. ANY USE OR MODIFICATIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ATI ARCHITECTS + ENGINEERS, IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
DSA:
PROFESSIONAL STAMP:
3050 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 - T 714.338.1600 3009 Douglas Blvd #290 Roseville, CA 95661 - T 916.772.1800 4750 Willow Road #250 Pleasanton, CA 94588 - T 925.648.8800 AGENCY APPROVAL:
CONSULTANT:
BIM 360://U-Haul Hayward/U-Haul Hayward_rshahQ3EL2.rvt
4/24/2020 5:39:50 PM
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
A-301
U-HAUL COMPANY OF
SAN FRANCISCO
4150 POINT EDEN WAY
Owner
PROJECT NO: U2301
DRAWN BY: RS CHECKED BY: RFT
DATE: 03/30/2020
1" = 20'-0"5 WEST ELEVATION
1" = 20'-0"4 SOUTH ELEVATION
1" = 20'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION
1" = 20'-0"2 EAST ELEVATION
3'X 16' METAL PANEL - CENTRIA 154 DARK BRONZE - METAL WRAP FDWS
WINDOW GLAZING
STOREFRONT SYSTEM
SCULPTURE - BIRD CUTOUTS FROM PERFORATED METAL
3' WIDE METAL PANEL - CENTRIA 786 BEACH - METAL WRAP FDWS 1' WIDE METAL PANEL - CENTRIA 786 BEACH - METAL WRAP FDWS 3' WIDE METAL PANEL
TILT UP CONCRETE WALL- PAINTED
WALL MOUNT SCONCE, SEE P1 PHOTOMETRIC DRAWINGS
ACCENT METAL PANEL WALL- CENTRIA FDWS
VERTICAL SOLAR SHADES
GENERAL NOTES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
KEY NOTES
A PLA N N IN G SU BM IT T A L 0 1 /2 7 /2 0
B PLA N N IN G R ESU BM IT T A L 0 4 /2 4 /2 0
11 Attachment IV
UP
GROUND LEVEL
0' - 0"
1235678 44.14.2
Top of Parapet
45' - 0"
Top
40' - 0"
30' - 0" 50' - 0" 67 ' - 0" 25' - 0" 50' - 0" 50' - 0"
272' - 0"
Top of Lobby
50' - 0"
4.3 GROUND LEVEL
0' - 0"
BDEFGHIJL K C A
Top of Parapet
45' - 0"
60' - 0" 50 ' - 0" 50' - 0" 50' - 0" 50' - 0" 50' - 0" 50' - 0" 35' - 0" 35' - 0" 40' - 0" 5' - 0" 475' - 0"
Top of Lobby
50' - 0"
A-302
2 A-302
3 TOTAL BUILDING AREA - 113,727 SF
SHEET NO:
KEY PLAN:
ITEM: REVISION/ISSUE: DATE:
THIS DOCUMENT, AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN, ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF ATI ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS. ANY USE OR MODIFICATIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ATI ARCHITECTS + ENGINEERS, IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
DSA:
PROFESSIONAL STAMP:
3050 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 - T 714.338.1600 3009 Douglas Blvd #290 Roseville, CA 95661 - T 916.772.1800 4750 Willow Road #250 Pleasanton, CA 94588 - T 925.648.8800 AGENCY APPROVAL:
CONSULTANT:
BIM 360://U-Haul Hayward/U-Haul Hayward_rshahQ3EL2.rvt
4/24/2020 5:41:21 PM
SITE SECTIONS
A-302
U-HAUL COMPANY OF
SAN FRANCISCO
4150 POINT EDEN WAY
Owner
PROJECT NO: U2301
DRAWN BY: Author CHECKED BY: Checker
DATE: 03/30/2020
A PLA N N IN G SU BM IT T A L 0 1 /2 7 /2 0
B PLA N N IN G R ESU BM IT T A L 0 4 /2 4 /2 0
1" = 40'-0"2 SECTION 1
1" = 40'-0"3 SECTION 2
1" = 40'-0"1 KEY PLAN
KEY NOTES
Attachment IV
SHEET NO:
KEY PLAN:
ITEM: REVISION/ISSUE: DATE:
THIS DOCUMENT, AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN, ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF ATI ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS. ANY USE OR MODIFICATIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ATI ARCHITECTS + ENGINEERS, IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
DSA:
PROFESSIONAL STAMP:
3050 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 - T 714.338.1600 3009 Douglas Blvd #290 Roseville, CA 95661 - T 916.772.1800 4750 Willow Road #250 Pleasanton, CA 94588 - T 925.648.8800 AGENCY APPROVAL:
CONSULTANT:
BIM 360://U-Haul Hayward/U-Haul Hayward_rshahQ3EL2.rvt
4/24/2020 5:41:22 PM
RENDERED
EXTERIOR VIEWS
A-501
U-HAUL COMPANY OF
SAN FRANCISCO
4150 POINT EDEN WAY
Owner
PROJECT NO: U2301
DRAWN BY: RS CHECKED BY: RFT
DATE: 03/30/2020
FRONT VIEW NORTH-WEST VIEW
WEST VIEW
A PLA N N IN G SU BM IT T A L 0 1 /2 7 /2 0
B PLA N N IN G R ESU BM IT T A L 0 4 /2 4 /2 0
Attachment IV
1 CENTRIA METAL
PANEL
154 DARK BRONZE
2 STOREFRONT
SYSTEM
1 CENTRIA METAL
PANEL
154 DARK BRONZE
Scale
Project number
Date
Drawn by
Checked by 1 1/2" = 1'-0"
4/24/2020 5:41:23 PM
A-502
MATERIAL BOARD
U2301
03/30/2020
RS
RFT
1 2
3 1
Attachment IV
NOTE: ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN
TO BE 70 SQ. INCH PER SEC.
1129B.5
1/2'' RADIUS
BLUE TO MATCH FEDERAL BLUE
15090 PER FEDERAL
STANDARDS 595B.
WHITE
.080 ALUMINUM
REFLECTORIZED SIGN TEXT
WHERE OCCURS
.080 ALUMINUM 12'' X
9'' SIGN "MINIMUM FIN $250''
.080 ALUMINUM 12'' X 6'' SIGN
DESIGNATED FOR "VAN
ACCESSIBLE" WHERE OCCURS
2 1/2'' DIA. GALVANIZED STEEL
POST
WALKWAY OR FIN. GRADE
1' - 0"
1' - 6"6'-8'' MIN. FOR FREE STANDING
0' - 2"0' - 2"5'-0'' MIN.
1' - 0"
3' - 6"
0' - 6" MIN.
MINIMUM
FINE
$250
VAN
ACCESSIBLE
ALL AROUND
3'
' MIN. CONC. COVER
6' - 0" MIN.
MAX. SPACE
0'
- 2"
MAX. SPACE
0'
- 3"
DETECTABLE WARNING
TILE SURFACE ON
RAMP. SEE DET. 11/A-601
RAMP SLOPE 8.33%
MAX. W/CROSS
SLOPE OF 2% MAX
F.O. CURB
DETECTABLE WARNINGS START
6'' TO 8'' FROM CURB
FLUSH TRANSITION
BOTTOM LANDING WITH
5% MIN. SLOPE
SIDEWALK
TOP LANDING WITH 2%
MAX. SLOPE IN ALL
DIRECTIONS
MIN.
2' - 0"
MIN.
4' - 0"
CURB RAMP WIDTH - SEE PLAN
UNAUTHORIZED VEHICLES
PARKED IN DESIGNATED
ACCESIBLE SPACES NOT
DISPLAYING DISTINGUISHING
PLACARDS OR SPECIAL
LICENSE PLATES ISSUED
FOR PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES WILL BE TOWED
AWAY AT THE OWNER'S
EXPENSE.
TOWED VEHICLES MAY BE
RECLAIMED BY
TELEPHONING
### - ### - ####
1' - 5" MIN.
1' - 10" MIN.6'-8'' MIN.
LETTERING ON SIGN MUST BE
A MINIMUM OF 1'' IN HEIGH
WITH REFLECTORIZED FINISH
APPROPIATE INFORMATION
MUST BE INLUDED ON SIGN
(MIN. OF 1'' IN HT.) PRIOR TO
SIGN FABRICATION
SEE DETAIL 5'- FOR CONCRETE FOOTING
DETAIL
FINISHED SURFACE / GRADE
2.3'' - 2.4'' 0.9'' - 0.92''
BASE DIA.
0.45'' - 0.47''
TOP DIA.
APART
2.3'' - 2.4''
APART
0.18'' - 0.22''
TYP. SECTION A-A
CONCRETE
EMBEDDED
PANEL
AA
3' - 0"
3' - 0"
EMBLEM MUST BE LOCATED SO THAT IS VISIBLE
BY A TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHEN A
VEHICLE IS PROPERLY PARKED IN THE SPACE
(CENTERED AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE STALL)
WHITE SYMBOL
BLUE BACKGROUND
(305 mm)
1' - 0" 4"
(305 mm)
1' - 0"
2"
THE WORDS "CLEAN AIR
VEHICLE" SHALL BE PAINTED
IN WHITE LETTERS NO LESS
THAN 305 MM (12 INCH) HIGH
ON CONTRASTING BACKGROUND
AND LOCATED SO THAT IT IS
VISIBLE TO TRAFFIC
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.
(305 mm)
1' - 0" 4"
(305 mm)
1' - 0"
1 1/2"
2"
THE WORDS "NO PARKING"
SHALL BE PAINTED IN THE
LOADING AND UNLOADING
AREA IN WHITE LETTERS NO
LESS THAN 305MM (12 INCH)
HIGH ON CONTRASTING
BACKGROUND AND LOCATED
SO THAT IT IS VISIBLE TO
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT
OFFICIALS.
2" 4 1/2"
2"3"
SECTION
9"
12''
12''
9''
3/4"ISOMETRI
CSCALE:N.T.S
ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVING
18'' MIN. #4 REBAR FLUSH
WITH TOP OF WHEEL
STOP
5/8'' DIA. DRILLED HOLES,
FILL TOP WITH SEALANT
6'-0''
6"1' - 8"4"
2' - 6"
2'' x 3'' x 3/16'' GALVANIZED
STEEL TUBE, CAP TUBE END
TOP OF PAVEMENT
CONCRETE FOOTING,
SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS
2' - 0"
9' - 0"5' - 0"12 ' - 0"5' - 0"6' - 0" 9' - 0"5' - 0" 12' - 0" 9' - 0" 19' - 0"
CURB RAMP PER
DETAIL 15/A-601
WHEEL STOP, TYP. PER
DETAIL 16/A-601
PAINT BLUE 4"
WIDE ALL
AROUND
ACCESSIBLE PARKING
SIGN, PER DETAIL 1/A-601
36"X36" SQ. TYP.
PAVEMENT
SYMBOL PER
SEC1129B.5 SEE
DETAIL 6/A-601
EQ. EQ.
9' - 0"
WHEEL STOP, PER
DETAIL 16/A-601
NO PARKING SIGN 9/A-601
CURB RAMP
DETAIL 15/A-601
PAINT BLUE
4" WIDE ALL
AROUND
9' - 0"
SHEET NO:
KEY PLAN:
ITEM: REVISION/ISSUE: DATE:
THIS DOCUMENT, AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN, ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF ATI ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS. ANY USE OR MODIFICATIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ATI ARCHITECTS + ENGINEERS, IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
DSA:
PROFESSIONAL STAMP:
3050 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 - T 714.338.1600 3009 Douglas Blvd #290 Roseville, CA 95661 - T 916.772.1800 4750 Willow Road #250 Pleasanton, CA 94588 - T 925.648.8800 AGENCY APPROVAL:
CONSULTANT:
BIM 360://U-Haul Hayward/U-Haul Hayward_rshahQ3EL2.rvt
4/24/2020 5:41:24 PM
SITE ELEMENTS
A-601
U-HAUL COMPANY OF
SAN FRANCISCO
4150 POINT EDEN WAY
Owner
PROJECT NO: U2301
DRAWN BY: Author CHECKED BY: Checker
DATE: 03/30/2020
1" = 1'-0"1 ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN
1/4" = 1'-0"15 CURB-RAMP
1 1/2" = 1'-0"5 TOW-PRKG
3" = 1'-0"10 Drafting 1
1" = 1'-0"6 ACCESSIBLE SIGN
3/4" = 1'-0"13 "CLEAN AIR VEHICLE" MARKING
1" = 1'-0"9 "NO PARKING" PAVEMENT MARKING
3" = 1'-0"16 PRECAST CONCRETE WHEELSTOP
3/4" = 1'-0"14 TYPICAL SIGN FOUNDATION
3/16" = 1'-0"11
ENLARGED SITE PLAN ACCESSIBLE
PARKING STALLS
A PLA N N IN G SU BM IT T A L 0 1 /2 7 /2 0
B PLA N N IN G R ESU BM IT T A L 0 4 /2 4 /2 0
Attachment IV
1" 3" "TS" 2X2X. 120 POST, CAP BOTH
ENDS AND WELD TO EMBEDDED
ANGLE.
4" X" HEAVY DUTY BUTT HINGE,
(4) TYP. AT EACH JAMB.
VERTICALLY APPLIED STEEL
DECKING WITH SUPPORT, CAP
ALL ENDS
ANGLE 4"x3"x3/8" X LC WITH (2)
1/2" DIA. ANCHOR BOLTS CAST
INTO PANEL (TYP. OF 4).
CMU WALL
NOTE: GATE IS ALL WELDED
CONSTRUCTION - GRIND ALL
BURRS SMOOTH PRIOR TO
PRIME AND PAINT.
1"
4"
4' - 0"
4"
6' - 0"
2 X 2 X 3/16'' ANGLE FRAME
TS 2 X 2 X. 120 GATE BACK
SUPPORT
12'' DIA. HORIZONTAL CANE
BOLT GATE LOCK
22 GA. GALV. STEEL DECK
PROFILE "B" W/ 4'' RIB
SPACING
1/2'' DIA. VERTICAL CANE
BOLT WITH STEEL SLEEVE
AT SLAB PLACED ON BACK
OF GATES
NOTE:
ALL GATE & FRAME SURFACES
TO HAVE PAINTED FINISH.
4"
4"
6"
CMU WALL BASALITE COLOR
389 SPLIT FACE
SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS.
VINE SUPPORT
STRUCTURE, SEE
LANDSCAPE PLANS
PAINT WALLS TO MATCH
BUILDING FIELD COLOR,
TYP.
MONOLITHIC POUR
CONCRETE CURB
FINISH SURFACE, SEE CIVIL
DRAWINGS.
CONCRETE FOOTING,
SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS.
A-602
12 A-602 8
A-602
4 A-60216
GROUND LEVEL
0' - 0"
2' - 6"
GROUND LEVEL
0' - 0"
7' - 4"
GROUND LEVEL
0' - 0"
2' - 6"
GROUND LEVEL
0' - 0"
7' - 4" 1' - 3"
2' - 6" MIN.
1' - 6" MIN.
NOTICE
NO PARKING
IN RED ZONES
FIRE LANE
VIOLATING VEHICLES
WILL BE CITED OR
TOWED AT OWNER'S
EXPENSE
POLICE OR SHERIFF'S
(Phone Number)
CVC 22500.1 CVC 22658A
TEXT SHALL READ: "NOTICE"
"NO PARKING" "IN RED
ZONES". TEXT SHALL BE
RED LETTERING ON WHITE
REFLECTIVE BACKGROUND.
NO SMALLER THAN 2 INCHES
IN HEIGHT
80" AT WALKING
SURFACES
60" AT LANDSCAPE
AREA
TEXT SHALL READ: "FIRE
LANE". TEXT SHALL BE
WHITE REFLECTIVE
LETTERING ON RED
BACKGROUND, NO SMALLER
THAN 4 INCHES IN HEIGHT
TEXT SHALL READ:
"VIOLATING VEHICLES WILL
BE CITED OR TOWED AT
OWNER'S EXPENSE" "POLICE
OR SHERRIFF'S" "(PHONE
NUMBER)" "CVC 22500.1 CVC
22658A". TEXT SHALL BE
RED LETTERING ON WHITE
REFLECTIVE BACKGROUND,
NO SMALLER THAN 1
INCHES IN HEIGHT
FOR POST AND FOOTING
INFORMATION SEE DETAIL
FIRE LANE
NO
PARKING
TOW AWAY
ZONE
CVC 22658A
CVC22500.1
POLICE OR SHERIFF'S
(Phone Number)
1' - 6" MIN.
1' - 0" MIN.
AREA
60'' AT LANDSCAPE
SURFACES
80'' AT WALKING
TEXT SHALL READ: "FIRE
LANE". TEXT SHALL BE
WHITE REFLECTIVE
LETTERING ON RED
BACKGROUND. NO SMALLER
THAN 2 INCHES IN HEIGHT
TEXT SHALL READ: "NO"
"PARKING" "TOW AWAY"
"ZONE". TEXT SHALL BE RED
LETTERING ON
WHITEREFLECTIVE
BACKGROUND NO SMALLER
THAN 2 INCHES IN HEIGHT.
TEXT SHALL READ: "POLICE
OR SHERIFF'S" "(PHONE
NUMBER)" "CVC 22500.1
CVC22658A". TEXT SHALL BE
RED LETTERING ON WHITE
REFLECTIVE BACKGROUND,
NO SMALLER THAN 1 INCHES
IN HEIGHT
FOR POST AND FOOTING
INFORMATION SEE DETAIL
FIRE LANE NO PARKING
3-INCH HIGH WHITE
LETTERING @ 30´' O.C. OR
PORTION THEREOF.
OSHA SAFETY RED PAINT
ROAD WAY - SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
CONCRETE CURB OR CURB AND
GUTTER - SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
TYPICAL AT ALL EXTERIOR
DOORS: CONCRETE
LANDING WITH 2%
MAXIMUM SLOPE IN ANY
DIRECTION. LANDING
ELEVATION TO FLUSH OUT
WITH F.F.E. AT WALL.
MAXIMUM 1/2'' VERTICAL
RISE AT THRESHOLD.
12'' LONG #4 DOWELS @
18''O.C. W/ MIN. 4'' EMBED
FOR DOOR WIDTH +2'-0'' EA.
SIDE AT ALL EXTERIOR
DOORS TO WALKS.
SEALANT OVER 1/2'' EXP. JT.
MATERIAL, TYP. AT ALL
CONC. AGAINST WALL
SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR EXACT LAYOUT
MIN. WALK
4' - 0"
2' - 0" DOOR WIDTH 6"
5' - 0" MIN.
ACCESSIBLE
ENTRANCE
NOTE:
ARROW TO POINT IN DIRECTION
OF ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE
BASED ON LOCATION OF SIGNACCESSIBLE
ENTRANCE
FOR POST AND FOOTING
INFORMATION SEE DETAIL
A-601
14 Sim
COLOR:
BORDER AND LEGEND - WHITE (RETROREFLECTIVE)
BACKGROUND - BLUE (RETROREFLECTIVE)
AREA
60'' AT LANDSCAPE
SURFACES
80'' AT WALKING
1' - 6"
1' - 0"
352 353
EQ EQ
1' - 6"
6" DIM "A" 6'-0"
F.G.
CONCRETE CAP
CONC. FILLED & CAPPED HOT
DIPPED GALV. STEEL GUARD
POST, SCHEDULE 40, PRIMED
AND ENAMEL PAINTED
YELLOW. UNO.
1/2" /FT. SLOPE TOP OF
FOOTING
PAVING PER CIVIL PLANS
AND SITE PLAN
CONC. FOOTING
3/8" x 10" SQ. STEEL BASE
PIPE
DIA. DIM "A"
8" DIA.
4" DIA.
6" DIA.
3'-0"
2'-0"
2'-6"
EXT.
1' - 4"
3' - 4"1' - 6"
AS REQ'D TO PROVIDE MIN. NO. OF BIKE LOCKING SPACES AS NOTED
ON THE SITE PLAN
HEAVY DUTY WAVE
BIKE RACK
NOTE: FINISH TO
BE GALVANIZED
AND PAINTED
CONC. PAVING PER
PLANS
CONC. FTG. PER
STRUCTURAL
SHEET NO:
KEY PLAN:
ITEM: REVISION/ISSUE: DATE:
THIS DOCUMENT, AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN, ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF ATI ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS. ANY USE OR MODIFICATIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ATI ARCHITECTS + ENGINEERS, IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
DSA:
PROFESSIONAL STAMP:
3050 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 - T 714.338.1600 3009 Douglas Blvd #290 Roseville, CA 95661 - T 916.772.1800 4750 Willow Road #250 Pleasanton, CA 94588 - T 925.648.8800 AGENCY APPROVAL:
CONSULTANT:
BIM 360://U-Haul Hayward/U-Haul Hayward_rshahQ3EL2.rvt
4/24/2020 5:41:27 PM
TRASH
ENCLOSURE &
OTHER DETAILS
A-602
U-HAUL COMPANY OF
SAN FRANCISCO
4150 POINT EDEN WAY
Owner
PROJECT NO: U2301
DRAWN BY: Author CHECKED BY: Checker
DATE: 03/30/2020
3" = 1'-0"7 TRASH GATE JAMB AT CMU
1/2" = 1'-0"11 TRASH ENCLOSURE GATE
3/8" = 1'-0"15 TRASH ENCLOSURE SECTION
1/4" = 1'-0"3 TRASH ENCLOSURE
1/4" = 1'-0"16 NORTH - TRASH ENCLOSURE
1/4" = 1'-0"12 EAST ELEVATION - TRASH ENCLOSURE
1/4" = 1'-0"8
SOUTH ELEVATION - TRASH
ENCLOSURE
1/4" = 1'-0"4 WEST ELEVATION -TRASH ENCLOSURE
A PLA N N IN G SU BM IT T A L 0 1 /2 7 /2 0
B PLA N N IN G R ESU BM IT T A L 0 4 /2 4 /2 0
1 1/2" = 1'-0"14 FIRELANE ENTRY SIGNAGE
1 1/2" = 1'-0"10 FIRELANE SIGNAGE
3/4" = 1'-0"6 FIRE LANE CURB
1/2" = 1'-0"2 CONCRETE LANDING
1 1/2" = 1'-0"13 ACCESSIBLE DIRECTION SIGN
3/4" = 1'-0"9 EXTERIOR BOLLARD
3/4" = 1'-0"5 BIKE RACK 7 SPACES
Attachment IV
CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY 92
W2 W2 W2
BB
AA
AA
W2W2
W1 W1 W1
W1
AA
AA
AA
AA
W1
W1
W1
W1
W1
W1
0.220.30 0.42
0.520.56
0.23 0.33 0.48
0.620.72
0.26 0.39 0.58
0.820.98
0.29 0.45 0.72
1.071.32
0.32 0.50 0.81 1.241.65
0.34 0.52 0.83 1.241.65 0.19 0.200.21
0.34 0.51 0.78 1.121.42 0.32 0.350.38
0.33 0.48 0.71 0.981.22 0.52 0.590.63
0.31 0.45 0.65 0.881.11 1.22 0.961.05
0.28 0.41 0.58 0.780.99 1.17
1.261.46
0.26 0.37 0.51 0.660.83 1.02
1.211.40
0.24 0.33 0.44 0.550.66 0.78
0.870.94
0.21 0.28 0.36 0.430.48 0.53
0.540.57
0.24 0.290.33 0.35 0.36
0.360.38
0.22 0.250.27 0.28 0.29
0.290.29
0.21 0.250.27 0.29 0.30
0.300.31
0.22 0.280.32 0.36 0.38
0.410.43
0.24 0.320.39 0.47 0.56 0.630.66
0.26 0.350.45 0.59 0.78 0.991.08
0.26 0.360.48 0.65 0.92 1.281.49
0.26 0.360.47 0.63 0.89 1.211.38
0.330.43 0.55 0.70 0.860.92
0.300.36 0.42 0.49 0.530.56
0.260.29 0.32 0.34 0.360.38
0.240.27 0.27 0.28 0.290.30
0.260.29 0.28 0.300.31 0.32
0.300.35 0.40 0.390.42 0.44
0.360.44 0.54 0.650.66 0.69
0.400.52 0.69 0.911.16 1.13
0.58 0.79 1.101.48 1.74
0.59 0.80
1.111.49 1.72 0.43 0.470.50
0.55 0.74
0.981.23 1.40 1.39 0.810.85
0.48 0.63
0.810.99 1.19 1.39 1.201.33
0.40 0.54
0.700.86 1.06 1.31 1.541.57
0.36 0.53
0.670.79 0.93 1.09 1.261.27
0.38 0.56
0.670.71 0.75 0.81 0.870.83
0.41 0.55
0.600.61 0.61 0.62 0.600.59
0.60 0.690.67 0.61 0.55 0.470.44
0.85 1.050.96 0.78 0.60 0.430.37
1.22 1.691.61 1.19 0.720.46 0.36
2.26 1.59 0.880.54 0.40
2.54 1.79
1.010.61 0.42 0.35 0.30
1.63 1.000.66 0.45 0.40 0.370.33 0.33
1.43 1.13
0.860.64 0.51 0.51 0.530.46 0.42 0.420.45
0.80 0.730.61 0.63 0.72 0.820.75 0.63 0.530.46 0.44 0.531.37 2.14
0.66 0.86 1.14 1.441.36 1.03
0.760.56 0.48 0.53 0.731.13 1.69 2.202.12
1.68 2.122.21 1.68
1.090.71 0.52 0.48 0.580.78 1.04 1.371.42 1.16 1.07
2.62 2.03
1.280.74 0.51 0.44 0.480.56 0.67 0.800.83 0.79 0.87
1.231.96
1.220.72 0.50 0.44 0.470.45 0.47
0.520.55 0.59 0.71 1.051.72 2.28 2.35
0.46 0.46 0.420.38 0.37
0.380.40 0.45 0.56 0.771.07 1.42 1.57
0.300.27 0.28
0.300.32 0.35 0.40 0.490.62 0.74 0.830.72
0.19 0.220.25 0.28 0.31 0.340.37 0.42
0.460.45 0.38 0.36
0.18 0.21 0.24 0.260.26 0.27
0.280.30 0.29 0.31 0.38
0.17 0.190.20
0.210.23 0.25 0.30 0.330.33 0.32 0.350.44 0.55
1.51 1.32
0.890.53
1.18 1.05 0.740.46
0.83 0.76 0.560.38
0.56 0.54 0.420.29
0.34 0.37 0.310.23
0.20 0.25 0.230.19
0.13 0.18 0.180.16
0.11 0.17 0.170.15
0.16 0.21 0.200.17
0.26 0.30 0.260.20
0.44 0.440.35 0.25
0.66 0.630.48 0.32
0.99 0.880.63 0.41
1.36 1.190.81 0.50
1.56 1.350.90 0.54
1.48 1.290.87 0.52
1.14 1.010.71 0.45
0.79 0.720.53 0.36
0.53 0.520.40 0.28
0.32 0.350.29 0.22
0.19 0.240.22 0.18
0.12 0.170.17 0.15
0.11 0.160.16 0.15
0.15 0.200.19 0.16
0.26 0.300.26 0.20
0.43 0.440.35 0.25
0.66 0.620.47 0.32
0.98 0.870.63 0.41
1.35 1.180.81 0.49
1.56 1.350.90 0.54
1.501.30 0.88 0.53
1.171.04 0.73 0.47
0.830.77 0.58 0.40
0.600.60 0.48 0.35
0.420.47 0.42 0.33
0.330.40 0.39 0.35
0.290.38 0.41 0.40
0.290.38 0.46 0.48
0.320.43 0.58 0.64
0.380.60 0.97 1.06
0.430.89 1.61 1.70
0.451.11 2.05 2.17
0.431.17 2.13 2.69
0.461.15 2.08 2.30
0.460.96 1.75 1.77
0.420.66 1.09 1.16
0.360.45 0.62 0.67
0.320.36 0.43
0.45 0.300.30 0.33
0.33 0.310.27 0.27
0.25 0.340.30 0.29
0.25 0.38 0.37 0.39
0.34 0.37 0.38 0.40
0.40 0.220.28 0.33 0.340.31 0.35 0.39
0.420.43 0.42 0.41 0.420.52 0.60
0.590.76 1.22 1.86 2.462.54 1.99
0.20 0.290.40 0.48 0.490.40 0.46 0.51 0.550.57 0.56 0.54 0.560.60 0.66
0.600.71 1.01 1.61 2.102.17 1.73
1.100.71 0.57 0.64 0.650.58 0.73 1.171.83 2.44 2.40
1.761.10 0.64 0.41 0.37
0.25 0.370.53 0.68 0.700.51 0.59 0.65 0.680.70 0.70 0.700.70 0.69 0.69
0.600.63 0.79 1.06 1.281.30 1.12
0.820.61 0.54 0.61 0.610.56 0.65 0.901.39 1.66 1.65
1.330.82 0.53 0.37 0.34
0.30 0.470.70 0.93
1.010.67 0.80 0.86 0.860.85 0.88 0.910.89 0.80 0.74
0.620.59 0.64 0.70 0.750.75 0.71
0.640.57 0.53 0.57 0.570.54 0.59 0.710.84 0.92 0.91 0.800.62 0.44 0.330.31
0.23 0.37 0.600.90 1.23
1.380.88 1.11 1.15 1.051.00 1.09 1.211.16 0.94 0.81
0.640.57 0.54 0.54 0.550.55 0.54
0.530.54 0.54 0.58 0.570.54 0.55
0.560.58 0.60 0.58 0.530.46 0.40 0.330.29
0.25 0.42 0.731.16 1.60
0.651.07 1.45 1.47 1.231.11 1.29 1.531.44 1.06 0.72 0.690.60 0.56 0.550.55 0.56 0.55
0.550.56 0.58 0.60 0.600.57 0.56
0.540.53 0.51 0.49 0.450.42 0.39 0.350.30
0.27 0.46 0.821.34 1.91
0.651.06 1.49 1.52 1.251.14 1.32 1.601.48 1.03 0.68 0.770.67 0.63 0.620.64 0.64 0.63
0.630.65 0.66 0.67 0.660.64 0.64
0.630.60 0.57 0.52 0.510.50 0.46 0.390.31
0.25 0.420.71 1.12 1.520.470.54 0.61 0.660.70 0.70 0.70
0.710.73 0.75 0.74 0.730.72 0.72
0.720.68 0.64 0.58 0.600.62 0.57 0.450.33
0.25 0.390.63 0.95 1.230.550.65 0.71 0.770.80 0.81 0.81 0.820.83 0.84 0.83 0.830.82 0.82
0.810.77 0.73 0.66 0.750.79 0.70
0.530.37
0.23 0.350.52 0.74 0.900.690.83 0.90 0.920.93 0.97 1.00 1.000.98 0.96 0.991.01 1.00 0.97
0.930.93 0.90 0.82 1.021.06 0.89
0.640.43
0.21 0.300.44 0.59 0.680.871.12 1.18
1.091.06 1.17 1.29 1.281.15 1.09 1.181.30 1.28 1.13
1.061.12 1.19 1.08 0.811.39 1.12
0.790.50
0.21 0.280.39 0.50 0.531.051.45 1.48
1.271.16 1.37 1.63 1.581.32 1.19 1.381.63 1.57 1.31
1.161.32 1.52 1.36 0.951.78 1.43
0.970.59
0.21 0.290.38 0.48 0.491.061.52 1.56
1.301.19 1.39 1.71 1.651.34 1.21 1.401.71 1.64 1.33 1.191.36 1.61 1.430.95 2.10 1.71
1.110.64
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY 92
AA
W2 W2
BB
W1 W1
W1
AA
AA
AA
AA
0.210.25 0.27 0.29
0.300.30 0.31
0.220.28 0.32 0.36 0.380.41 0.43
0.240.32 0.39 0.47 0.560.63 0.66
0.260.35 0.45 0.59 0.780.99 1.08
0.260.36 0.48 0.65 0.921.28 1.49
0.260.36 0.47 0.63 0.891.21 1.38
0.33 0.43 0.550.70 0.86 0.92
0.30 0.36 0.420.49 0.53 0.56
0.26 0.29 0.320.34 0.36 0.38
0.24 0.27
0.270.28 0.29 0.30
0.26 0.29
0.280.30 0.31 0.32
0.30 0.35
0.400.39 0.42 0.44
0.36 0.44
0.540.65 0.66 0.69
0.40 0.52
0.690.91 1.16 1.13
0.58 0.791.10 1.48 1.74
0.59 0.801.11 1.49 1.720.43 0.47 0.50
0.55 0.740.98 1.23
1.401.39 0.81 0.85
0.48 0.630.81 0.99
1.191.39 1.20 1.33
0.40 0.540.70 0.86
1.061.31 1.54 1.57
0.360.53 0.67 0.79
0.931.09 1.26 1.27
0.380.56 0.67 0.71
0.750.81 0.87 0.83
0.410.55 0.60 0.61 0.610.62 0.60 0.59
0.60 0.69 0.67 0.610.55 0.47 0.44
0.85 1.05 0.96 0.780.60 0.43
0.37 1.22 1.69 1.61 1.190.72 0.46
0.36 2.26 1.590.88 0.54
0.40 2.541.79 1.01 0.61
0.420.35 0.30
1.63 1.00 0.66
0.450.40 0.37 0.33 0.33
1.431.13 0.86 0.64 0.510.51 0.53 0.460.42 0.42 0.45
0.80 0.73 0.61 0.630.72 0.82 0.750.63 0.53 0.46
0.440.531.37 2.14
0.66 0.861.14 1.44
1.361.03 0.76 0.56 0.480.53 0.73 1.131.69 2.20 2.12
1.68 2.12
2.211.68 1.09 0.71 0.520.48 0.58 0.781.04 1.37 1.42
1.161.07
2.622.03 1.28 0.74 0.510.44 0.48
0.560.67 0.80 0.83 0.790.87 1.23 1.96
1.22 0.72 0.500.44 0.47
0.450.47 0.52 0.55 0.590.71 1.05 1.722.28 2.35
0.460.46 0.42
0.380.37 0.38 0.40 0.450.56 0.77
1.071.42 1.57
0.30 0.270.28 0.30 0.32 0.350.40 0.49
0.620.74 0.83 0.72
0.19 0.22 0.25 0.280.31 0.34
0.370.42 0.46 0.45 0.380.36
0.180.21 0.24 0.26
0.260.27 0.28 0.30 0.290.31 0.38
0.17 0.190.20 0.21 0.23 0.250.30 0.33
0.330.32 0.35 0.44 0.55
0.190.22 0.26 0.27
0.290.32 0.41 0.62 0.92
0.21 0.23
0.260.35 0.53 0.87 1.42
0.230.33 0.59 1.151.91
0.210.29 0.53 1.071.94 2.52
0.200.26 0.43
0.801.47 1.90
0.22 0.32
0.550.89 1.14 1.17
0.19 0.24
0.370.52 0.60 0.63 0.53
0.19 0.250.31 0.34 0.37 0.36
0.21 0.23 0.28
0.24 1.561.35 0.90 0.54
1.481.29 0.87 0.52
1.141.01 0.71 0.45
0.790.72 0.53 0.36
0.530.52 0.40 0.28
0.320.35 0.29 0.22
0.190.24 0.22 0.18
0.120.17 0.17
0.15 0.110.16 0.16
0.15 0.150.20 0.19
0.16 0.26 0.30 0.26
0.20 0.43 0.44 0.35
0.25 0.66 0.62 0.47 0.32
0.98 0.87 0.63 0.41
1.35 1.18 0.81 0.49
1.56 1.35 0.90 0.54
1.50 1.30 0.88 0.53
1.17 1.04 0.73 0.47
0.83 0.77 0.580.40
0.60 0.60
0.480.35
0.42 0.47
0.420.33
0.33 0.40
0.390.35
0.29 0.38
0.410.40
0.29 0.38
0.460.48
0.32 0.43 0.580.64
0.38 0.60 0.971.06
0.43 0.89 1.611.70
0.45 1.11 2.052.17
0.43 1.17 2.132.69
0.46 1.152.08 2.30
0.46 0.961.75 1.77
0.42 0.661.09 1.16
0.36 0.450.62 0.67
0.32 0.360.43 0.45
0.30 0.300.33 0.33
0.31 0.270.27 0.25
0.34 0.300.29 0.25
0.38 0.370.39 0.34
0.37 0.380.40 0.40
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY 92
POINT EDEN WAY
AA
W2 W2 W2
BB
AA
AA
W2W2
W1 W1 W1
W1
AA
AA
AA
AA
W1
W1
W1
W1
W1
W1
0.22 0.30 0.42 0.52 0.56
0.23 0.330.48 0.62 0.72
0.26 0.39 0.580.82 0.98
0.29 0.45 0.72 1.07 1.32
0.32 0.50 0.81 1.24 1.65
0.34 0.52 0.83 1.24 1.65 0.19 0.20 0.21
0.34 0.51 0.78 1.12 1.42 0.32 0.35 0.380.330.48 0.71 0.98 1.22 0.520.59 0.63
0.31 0.450.65 0.88 1.11 1.22 0.96 1.05
0.28 0.41 0.58 0.78 0.99 1.17 1.26 1.46
0.26 0.37 0.51 0.66 0.83 1.02 1.21 1.40
0.24 0.33 0.44 0.55 0.66 0.78 0.87 0.94
0.21 0.28 0.36 0.43 0.48 0.53 0.54 0.57
0.24 0.29 0.33 0.350.36 0.36 0.38
0.22 0.25 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.29
0.21 0.25 0.27 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.31
0.22 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.38 0.41 0.43
0.24 0.32 0.39 0.47 0.56 0.63 0.66
0.26 0.35 0.45 0.59 0.78 0.991.08
0.26 0.36 0.480.65 0.92 1.28 1.49
0.26 0.36 0.47 0.63 0.89 1.21 1.38
0.33 0.43 0.55 0.70 0.86 0.92
0.30 0.36 0.42 0.49 0.53
0.56 0.26 0.29 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38
0.24 0.27 0.27 0.280.29 0.30
0.260.29 0.28 0.30 0.31 0.32
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.39 0.42 0.44
0.36 0.44 0.54 0.65 0.66 0.69
0.40 0.52 0.69 0.91
1.161.13
0.58 0.79 1.10 1.48 1.74
0.59 0.801.11 1.49 1.72 0.43 0.47 0.50
0.55 0.74 0.98 1.23 1.40 1.39 0.81 0.85
0.48 0.63 0.81 0.99 1.19 1.39 1.20 1.33
0.40 0.54 0.70 0.86 1.06
1.311.54 1.57
0.36 0.53
0.670.79 0.93 1.09 1.261.27
0.38 0.56 0.67 0.710.75 0.81 0.87 0.83
0.410.55 0.60 0.61 0.61 0.62 0.60 0.59
0.60 0.69 0.67 0.61 0.55 0.47 0.44
0.85 1.05 0.96 0.78 0.60 0.43 0.37
1.22 1.69 1.61
1.190.72 0.46 0.36
2.26 1.59 0.880.54 0.40
2.54 1.79 1.01 0.61 0.42 0.35 0.30
1.63 1.00 0.66 0.45 0.40 0.37 0.33 0.33
1.43 1.13 0.86 0.64 0.51 0.51 0.53 0.46 0.42 0.42 0.45
0.80 0.73 0.61 0.63 0.72 0.82 0.75 0.630.53 0.46 0.44 0.531.37 2.14
0.66 0.86 1.141.44 1.36 1.03 0.76 0.56 0.48 0.53 0.73 1.13 1.69 2.20 2.12
1.68 2.12 2.21 1.68 1.09 0.71 0.52 0.48 0.58 0.78 1.04 1.37 1.42 1.16 1.07
2.62 2.03 1.28 0.74 0.51
0.440.48 0.56 0.67 0.80 0.830.79 0.87 1.23 1.96
1.220.72 0.50 0.44 0.470.45 0.47 0.52 0.55 0.59 0.71 1.05 1.72 2.28 2.35
0.46 0.46 0.42 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.40 0.45 0.56 0.77 1.07 1.42 1.57
0.30 0.27 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.35 0.40 0.49 0.62 0.74 0.83 0.72
0.19 0.22 0.25 0.28 0.31 0.34 0.37 0.420.46 0.45 0.38 0.36
0.18 0.21 0.240.26 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.30 0.29 0.31 0.38
0.17 0.190.20 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.30 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.35 0.44 0.55
0.19 0.22
0.260.27 0.29 0.32 0.41 0.620.92
0.21 0.230.26 0.35 0.53 0.87 1.42
0.23 0.33 0.59 1.15 1.91
0.21 0.29 0.53 1.07 1.94 2.52
0.20 0.26 0.43 0.80 1.47 1.90
0.22 0.32 0.55 0.89 1.141.17
0.19 0.240.37 0.52 0.60 0.63 0.53
0.19 0.25 0.31 0.34 0.37 0.36
0.21 0.23 0.28
0.24 1.51 1.32 0.89 0.53
1.18 1.05 0.74 0.46
0.83 0.76 0.56 0.38
0.56 0.54 0.42 0.29
0.34 0.37 0.310.23
0.20 0.25 0.23 0.19
0.13 0.18 0.18 0.16
0.11 0.17 0.17 0.15
0.16 0.21 0.20 0.17
0.26 0.30 0.26 0.20
0.44 0.440.35 0.25
0.66 0.63 0.48 0.32
0.99 0.88 0.63 0.41
1.36 1.19 0.81 0.50
1.56 1.35 0.90 0.54
1.48 1.29 0.87 0.52
1.141.01 0.71 0.45
0.79 0.72 0.53 0.36
0.53 0.52 0.40 0.28
0.32 0.35 0.29 0.22
0.19 0.24 0.22 0.18
0.12 0.17 0.170.15
0.11 0.16 0.16 0.15
0.15 0.20 0.19 0.16
0.26 0.30 0.26 0.20
0.43 0.44 0.35
0.25 0.66 0.62 0.47 0.32
0.98 0.870.63 0.41
1.35 1.18 0.81 0.49
1.56 1.35 0.90 0.54
1.50 1.30 0.88 0.53
1.17 1.04
0.730.47
0.83 0.77 0.58 0.40
0.600.60 0.48 0.35
0.42 0.47 0.42 0.33
0.33 0.40 0.39 0.35
0.29 0.38 0.41 0.40
0.29 0.380.46 0.48
0.32 0.43 0.580.64
0.38 0.60 0.97 1.06
0.43 0.89 1.61 1.70
0.45 1.11 2.05 2.17
0.43 1.17 2.13 2.690.461.15 2.08 2.30
0.46 0.961.75 1.77
0.42 0.66 1.09 1.16
0.36 0.45 0.62 0.67
0.32 0.36 0.43 0.45
0.30 0.30 0.33 0.33
0.31 0.27 0.27 0.25
0.340.30 0.29 0.25
0.38 0.37 0.39 0.34
0.37 0.38 0.40 0.40
0.22 0.28 0.33 0.34 0.31 0.35 0.39 0.42 0.43 0.42 0.41 0.42 0.52 0.600.59 0.76 1.22 1.86 2.46 2.54 1.99
0.20 0.29 0.40 0.48 0.49 0.40 0.46 0.51 0.55 0.57 0.56 0.540.56 0.60 0.66 0.60 0.71 1.01 1.61 2.10 2.17 1.73 1.10 0.71 0.57 0.64 0.65 0.58 0.73 1.171.83 2.44 2.40 1.76 1.10 0.64 0.41 0.37
0.25 0.37 0.53
0.680.70 0.51 0.59 0.65 0.680.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.60 0.63 0.79 1.06 1.28 1.30 1.12 0.82 0.61 0.54 0.61 0.610.56 0.65 0.90 1.39 1.66 1.65 1.33 0.82 0.53 0.37 0.34
0.300.47 0.70 0.93 1.010.67 0.80 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.88 0.91 0.89 0.80 0.74 0.62 0.59 0.64 0.70 0.75 0.75 0.71 0.64 0.570.53 0.57 0.57 0.54 0.59 0.71 0.84 0.92 0.91 0.80 0.62 0.44 0.33 0.31
0.23 0.37 0.600.90 1.23 1.38 0.88 1.11 1.15 1.05 1.00 1.09 1.21 1.16 0.94 0.81
0.640.57 0.54 0.54 0.550.55 0.54 0.53 0.54 0.54 0.58 0.57 0.54 0.55 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.58 0.53 0.46 0.40 0.33 0.29
0.25 0.42 0.73 1.16 1.60 0.65 1.07 1.45 1.47 1.23 1.11 1.29 1.53
1.441.06 0.72 0.69 0.600.56 0.55 0.55 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.60 0.57 0.56 0.54
0.530.51 0.49 0.45 0.42 0.390.35 0.30
0.27 0.46 0.82 1.34 1.91 0.65 1.06 1.49 1.52 1.25 1.14 1.32 1.60 1.48 1.030.68 0.77 0.67 0.63 0.62 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.66
0.640.64 0.63 0.60 0.570.52 0.51 0.50 0.46 0.39 0.31
0.25 0.42 0.71 1.12 1.520.47 0.54 0.61 0.66 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.72 0.720.72 0.68 0.64 0.58 0.60 0.62 0.57 0.45 0.33
0.25 0.39 0.63
0.951.230.55 0.65 0.71 0.77 0.80 0.81 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.830.83 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.77 0.73 0.66 0.75 0.79 0.70 0.53 0.37
0.230.35 0.52 0.74 0.900.69 0.83 0.90 0.92 0.93 0.97 1.00 1.000.98 0.96 0.99 1.01 1.00 0.97 0.93 0.93 0.90 0.82 1.02 1.06 0.89 0.64 0.43
0.21 0.300.44 0.59 0.680.87 1.12 1.18 1.09 1.061.17 1.29 1.28 1.15 1.09 1.18 1.30 1.28 1.13 1.06 1.12 1.19 1.08 0.81 1.39 1.12 0.79 0.50
0.21 0.28 0.39 0.50 0.531.051.45 1.48 1.27 1.16 1.37 1.63 1.58 1.32 1.19 1.38 1.63 1.57 1.31
1.161.32 1.52 1.36 0.95 1.781.43 0.97 0.59
0.21 0.29 0.38 0.48 0.491.06 1.52 1.56 1.30 1.19 1.39 1.71 1.65 1.34 1.21 1.40
1.711.64 1.33 1.19 1.361.61 1.43 0.95 2.10 1.71 1.11 0.64
MATCHLINE
Calculation Summary
Project: U-HAUL - HAYWARD
DescriptionCalcTypeUnitsGrid ZAvgMaxMinAvg/MinMax/Min
AUTO PARKING AND PAVED DRIVESIlluminanceFc00.682.620.174.0015.41 EAST TRUCK DRIVEIlluminanceFc00.602.690.115.4524.45
TRUCK LOAD - UNLOAD AREAIlluminanceFc00.842.540.204.2012.70 Luminaire Schedule - LED
Project: U-HAUL - HAYWARD
SymbolQtyLabelArrangementLum. WattsLum. LumensLLFLLDLDDUDFDescriptionFilename 7AASINGLE52.770380590.9000.9001.0001.000AR13-48N-MV-NW-4-XX-080AR13-48N-MV-NW-4-XX-080.ies 1BBSINGLE52.822379410.9000.9001.0001.000AR13-48N-MV-NW-3-XX-080AR13-48N-MV-NW-3-XX-080.ies 10W1SINGLE58.757380.9000.9001.0001.000ES1-24H-MV-NW-FT-XX-700IES ES1-24H-MV-NW-FT-XX-700 05 5W2SINGLE58.657710.9000.9001.0001.000ES1-24H-MV-NW-W-XX-700IES ES1-24H-MV-NW-W-XX-700 040
SCALESHEETREV
X 1 OF 1 1" = 30'01.03.2019
DATE
PHOTOMETRIC DATA USED AS INPUT FOR THESE CALCULATIONS
IS BASED ON ESTABLISHED IES PROCEDURES AND PUBLISHED
LAMP, RATINGS, FIELD PERFORMANCE WILL DEPEND ON ACTUAL
LAMP, BALLAST, ELECTRICAL, AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS.
ALL VALUES SHOWN ARE MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES AT GRADE
ASSOCIATED LIGHTING REPRESENTATIVES, INC
7777 PARDEE LANE
P.O. BOX 2265
OAKLAND, CA 94621
PHONE: (510) 638-0158 - FAX (510) 638-2908
REPORT FOR: ATI ARCHITECTS + ENGINEERS
BY: APPLICATIONS ENGINEERING; RAMON ZAPATA
Calculations have been performed according to IES standards and good practice.
Some differences between measured values and calculated results may occur due to tolerances in calculation methods, testing procedures, component performance, measurement techniques and field conditions such as voltage and temperature variations. Input data used to generate the attached calculations such as room dimensions, reflectances, furniture and architectural elements significantly affect the lighting calculations. If the real environment conditions do not match the input data, differences will occur between measured values and calculated values.
SALES REPRESENTATIVE: ALR; TIM HALEY
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CITY OF HAYWARD
U-HAUL
DRAWING NO. / INPUT FILE
17579HAL.DWG / 17579HAL.A32
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AGI32 VERSION 19.11
AGI (C) 2019 LIGHTING ANALYSTS, INC.
10268 W. CENTENNIAL ROAD, SUITE 202
LITTLETON, CO 80127
Attachment IV
Attachment IV
CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY 92
POINT EDEN WAY
C1.0 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
NORTH
NOTES
LEGEND
2850 Collier Canyon Road
Livermore, CA 94551
Phone: (925) 245-8788
www.kierwright.com
NO.
APRIL, 2020
OF 8 SHEETS
SHEET
DATE
SCALE
DESIGNER
JOB NO. A19640 NO. REVISION BY REVISION BY
U-HAUL, INC.
4150 POINTE EDEN WAY
FOR
OF
HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA
DRAWN BY TB/JTQ
KS/SS
PRELIMINARY
1" = 40'
Attachment IV
CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY 92
POINT EDEN WAY
LEGEND
C2.0 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
NORTH
2850 Collier Canyon Road
Livermore, CA 94551
Phone: (925) 245-8788
www.kierwright.com
NO.
APRIL, 2020
OF 8 SHEETS
SHEET
DATE
SCALE
DESIGNER
JOB NO. A19640 NO. REVISION BY REVISION BY
U-HAUL, INC.
4150 POINTE EDEN WAY
FOR
OF
HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA
DRAWN BY TB/JTQ
KS/SS
PRELIMINARY
1" = 40'
Attachment IV
CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY 92
POINT EDEN WAY
LEGEND
C3.0 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
NORTH
2850 Collier Canyon Road
Livermore, CA 94551
Phone: (925) 245-8788
www.kierwright.com
NO.
APRIL, 2020
OF 8 SHEETS
SHEET
DATE
SCALE
DESIGNER
JOB NO. A19640 NO. REVISION BY REVISION BY
U-HAUL, INC.
4150 POINTE EDEN WAY
FOR
OF
HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA
DRAWN BY TB/JTQ
KS/SS
PRELIMINARY
1" = 40'
A
A
B
B
2 KS-1 TRASH CAPTURE DROP INLET
FLARED END SECTION OUTFALL
1 Attachment IV
CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY 92
POINT EDEN WA
LEGEND
1 -
3 -
C4.0 EROSION CONTROL PLAN
NORTH
2850 Collier Canyon Road
Livermore, CA 94551
Phone: (925) 245-8788
www.kierwright.com
NO.
APRIL, 2020
OF 8 SHEETS
SHEET
DATE
SCALE
DESIGNER
JOB NO. A19640 NO. REVISION BY REVISION BY
U-HAUL, INC.
4150 POINTE EDEN WAY
FOR
OF
HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA
DRAWN BY TB/JTQ
KS/SS
PRELIMINARY
DROP INLET SEDIMENT FILTER
3 STRAW WATTLE
1"x1" STAKE
2 NOTE:
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
PROFILE
PLAN
1 1" = 40'
3 -
3 -
3 -
2 -
2 -
2 -
2 -
Attachment IV
CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY 92
POINT EDEN WAY
PROGRESS SET
LEGEND
C5.0 PRELIMINARY STORM WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN
NORTH
2850 Collier Canyon Road
Livermore, CA 94551
Phone: (925) 245-8788
www.kierwright.com
NO.
APRIL, 2020
OF 8 SHEETS
SHEET
DATE
SCALE
DESIGNER
JOB NO. A19640 NO. REVISION BY REVISION BY
U-HAUL, INC.
4150 POINTE EDEN WAY
FOR
OF
HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA
DRAWN BY TB/JTQ
KS/SS
PRELIMINARY
1" = 40'
DMA1
DMA2
DMA3
DMA5
DMA4
Attachment IV
CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY 92
POINT EDEN WAY
LEGEND
C2.0 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
NORTH
2850 Collier Canyon Road
Livermore, CA 94551
Phone: (925) 245-8788
www.kierwright.com
NO.
APRIL, 2020
OF 8 SHEETS
SHEET
DATE
SCALE
DESIGNER
JOB NO. A19640 NO. REVISION BY REVISION BY
U-HAUL, INC.
4150 POINTE EDEN WAY
FOR
OF
HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA
DRAWN BY TB/JTQ
KS/SS
PRELIMINARY
1" = 40'
14,378.4 sf
14,378.9 sf
EXISTING EAST BAY
REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
PARCEL APPROXIMATELY
14,378 S.F. TO BE SWAPPED.
TO BE GRANTED TO UHAUL
PROPOSED LAND SWAP AREA
TO BE GRANTED TO EAST BAY
REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
APPROXIMATELY 14,378 S.F.
PROPOSED 18' WIDE TRAIL
EASEMENT TO BE GRANTED
TO EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK
UHAUL TO MAINTAIN
RIGHT TO PLACE UTILITES
AND HAVE PEDESTRIAN
ACCESS IN THIS AREA
PROPOSED LAND SWAP EXHIBIT
Attachment IV
415
0 Point Eden Way
Ind
ustrial Development Project
Draft
Environmental Impact Report
p
repared by
City of Ha
yward
777
B Street
Ha
yward, California 94541
Contact: Leigh
a Schmidt, Senior Planner
p
repared with the assistance of
Rincon
Consultants, Inc.
449 15th S
treet, Suite 303
Oak
land, California 94612
April 2021
ATTACHMENT VII
4 1
50 Point Eden Way
Industrial Development Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report
prepared by
City of Hayward
777 B
Street
Hayward, C
alifornia
94541
Contact: Leigha Schmidt, Senior Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
April
202
1 This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50%
post
-
consumer content
.
Table of Contents
Draft Environmental Impact Report
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
................................
................................
................................
...........................
ES
-
1 Project Synopsis
................................
................................
................................
.........................
ES
-
1 Project Objectives
................................
................................
................................
......................
ES
-
3 Alternatives
................................
................................
................................
................................
ES
-
3 Areas of Known Controversy
................................
................................
................................
.....
ES
-
5 Issues to be Resolved
................................
................................
................................
.................
ES
-
5 Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EIR
................................
................................
.......................
ES
-
5 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
................................
................................
........
ES
-
6 1
Introduction
................................
................................
................................
................................
1 -
1 1.1
Environmental Impact Report Background
................................
................................
.....
1 -
1 1.2
Purpose and Legal Authority
................................
................................
...........................
1 -
1 1.3
Scope and Content
................................
................................
................................
..........
1 -
4 1.4
Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EIR
................................
................................
............
1 -
5 1.5
Lead, Responsible, and
Trustee Agencies
................................
................................
.....
1 -
11 1.6
Environmental Review Process
................................
................................
.....................
1 -
11 2
Project Description
................................
................................
................................
.....................
2 -
1 2.1
Project Applicant
................................
................................
................................
.............
2 -
1 2.2
Lead Agency Contact Person
................................
................................
...........................
2 -
1 2.3
Project Location
................................
................................
................................
..............
2 -
1 2.4
Existing Site Characteristics
................................
................................
............................
2 -
1 2.4.1
Existing Site Conditions
................................
................................
...................
2 -
5 2.4.2
Current Land Use Designation and Zoning
................................
.....................
2 -
5 2.4.3
Surrounding Land Uses
................................
................................
...................
2 -
5 2.5
Project Characteristics
................................
................................
................................
....
2 -
6 2.5.1
Parking and Site Access
................................
................................
................
2 -
13 2.5.2
Utilities
................................
................................
................................
..........
2 -
13 2.5.3
Construction and Grading
................................
................................
.............
2 -
13 2.5
Project Objectives
................................
................................
................................
.........
2 -
13 2.5
Required Approvals
................................
................................
................................
.......
2 -
14 3
Environmental Setting
................................
................................
................................
................
3 -
1 3
.1
Regional Setting
................................
................................
................................
..............
3 -
1 3
.2
Project Site Setting
................................
................................
................................
..........
3 -
1 3
.3
Cumulative Development
................................
................................
...............................
3 -
1 4
Environmental Impact Analysis
................................
................................
................................
..
4 -
1 4
.1
Biological Resources
................................
................................
................................
.....
4.1 -
1 4
.
1 .1
Setting
................................
................................
................................
..........
4.1 -
1 4
.
1 .2
Regulatory Setting
................................
................................
.....................
4.1 -
1 0
4 .
1 .3
Impacts
Analysis
................................
................................
........................
4.1 -
1 4
4 .
1 .
4 Cumulative Impacts
................................
................................
...................
4.1 -
2 3
4 .
2 Cultural Resources
................................
................................
................................
.......
4.2 -
1 4
.
2 .1
Setting
................................
................................
................................
..........
4.2 -
1 4
.
2 .2
Regulatory Setting
................................
................................
.......................
4.2 -
5 City of
Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
ii
4 .
2 .3
Impacts Analysis
................................
................................
..........................
4.2 -
8 4
.
2 .
4 Cumulative Impacts
................................
................................
...................
4.2 -
12 4
.
3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
................................
................................
...............
4.3 -
1 4
.
3 .1
Setting
................................
................................
................................
..........
4.3 -
1 4
.
3 .2
Regulatory Setting
................................
................................
.......................
4.3 -
5 4
.
3 .3
Impacts Analysis
................................
................................
..........................
4.3 -
9 4
.
3 .
4 Cumulative Impacts
................................
................................
...................
4.3 -
16 4
.
4 Transportation
................................
................................
................................
.............
4.4 -
1 4
.
4 .1
Setting
................................
................................
................................
..........
4.4 -
1 4
.
4 .2
Regulatory Setting
................................
................................
.......................
4.4 -
2 4
.
4 .3
Impacts Analysis
................................
................................
..........................
4.4 -
4 4
.
4 .
4 Cumulative Impacts
................................
................................
.....................
4.4 -
7 5
Other CEQA Required
Discussions
................................
................................
..............................
5 -
1 5
.1
Growth Inducement
................................
................................
................................
........
5 -
1 5
.
1 .1
Population Growth
................................
................................
.........................
5 -
1 5
.
1 .2
Economic Growth
................................
................................
...........................
5 -
1 5
.
1 .3
Removal of Obstacles to Growth
................................
................................
....
5 -
1 5
.
2 Irreversible Environmental Effects
................................
................................
..................
5 -
2 5
.
3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
................................
................................
..............
5 -
3 6
Alternatives
................................
................................
................................
................................
.
6 -
1 6
.1
Potentially Significant Impacts
................................
................................
........................
6 -
1 6
.
2 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
................................
................................
..............
6 -
2 6
.
2 .1
Description
................................
................................
................................
......
6 -
2 6
.
2 .2
Impact Analysis
................................
................................
...............................
6 -
2 6
.
3 Alternative 2: Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site
................................
.............................
6 -
4 6
.
3 .1
Description
................................
................................
................................
......
6 -
4 6
.
3 .2
Impact Analysis
................................
................................
...............................
6 -
4 6
.
4 Alternative 3: Reduced Project Alternative
................................
................................
....
6 -
6 6
.
4 .1
Description
................................
................................
................................
......
6 -
6 6
.
4 .2
Impact Analysis
................................
................................
...............................
6 -
7 6
.
5 Alternatives Considered but Rejected
................................
................................
............
6 -
9 6
.
5 .1
4327 Breakwater Avenue Site Alternative
................................
...................
6 -
10 6
.
5 .2
3590 Enterprise Avenue Site Alternative
................................
.....................
6 -
11 6
.
5 .
3 Arden Road Site Alternative
................................
................................
.........
6 -
11 6
.
6 Environmentally Superior Alternative
................................
................................
..........
6 -
11 7
References
................................
................................
................................
................................
..
7 -
1 7
.1
Bibliography
................................
................................
................................
....................
7 -
1 7
.
2 List of Preparers
................................
................................
................................
..............
7 -
3 Table of Contents
Draft Environmental Impact Report
iii
Tables
Table ES 1
-
Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts
......
ES
-
6 Table 1
-
1 NOP Comments and EIR Response
................................
................................
.................
1 -
2 Table 1
-
2 Issues Not Studied in the EIR
................................
................................
..........................
1 -
5 Table
3 -
1 Cumulative Projects List
................................
................................
................................
..
3 -
2 Table
4. 1
-
1 Land Cover Types on the Eastern Component of the Project Site
...............................
4. 1
-
2 Table
4. 1
-
2 Special
-
Status Wildlife Species Poten
tially Present
................................
.....................
4. 1
-
6 Table 4.
4 -
1 City of Hayward VMT Thresholds of Significance
................................
........................
4. 4
-
5 Table 4.
4 -
2 City of Hayward Screening Criteria for Development Projects
................................
....
4. 4
-
5 Table
6 -
1 Impact Comparison of Alternatives
................................
................................
..............
6 -
12 Figure
s
Figure 1
-
1 Environmental Review Process
................................
................................
..................
1 -
13 Figure
2 -
1 Regional Location
................................
................................
................................
.........
2 -
2 Figure
2 -
2 Project Vicinity Map
................................
................................
................................
.....
2 -
3 Figure 2
-
3 Project Site Boundary
................................
................................
................................
..
2 -
4 Figure 2
-
4 Land Use Designations
................................
................................
................................
.
2 -
7 Figure 2
-
5 Zoning Districts
................................
................................
................................
............
2 -
8 Figure 2
-
6 Surrounding Land Use
................................
................................
................................
..
2 -
9 Figure 2
-
7 Conceptual Site Plan: Eastern Component
................................
................................
2 -
10 Figure 2
-
8 Conceptual Landscape Plan
................................
................................
.......................
2 -
11 Figure 2
-
9 Conceptual San Francisco Bay Trail Land Swap Plan
................................
.................
2 -
12 Figure
4.3 -
1 Restricted Areas
................................
................................
................................
........
4.3 -
2 Figure
4.3 -
2 Extent of Benzene Exceeding ESLs in Shallow
Groundwater
................................
....
4.3 -
3 Appendices
Appendix A
Notice of Preparation (NOP),
Initial Study
, and
Comments on the NOP
Appendix
B
Cultural Resources Assessment Report
Appendix
C
Transportation Analysis Memorandum
City of
Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
iv
This page intentionally left blank
Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES
-
1 Executive
Summary
This document is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzing the environmental effects of the proposed
4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
(
p
roposed
p
roject). This section
summarizes the characteristics of the
p
roposed
p
roject, alternativ
es to the
p
roposed
p
roject, and
the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the p
roposed
p
roject.
Project Synopsis
Project
Applicant
U
-
HAUL, 815 Marketing Company
8000 San Leandro Street
Oakland, California 94621
Lead Agency
Contact Person
Leigha Schmidt, Senior Planner
City of Hayward
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
510
-
583
-
4113
Project Description
This EIR has been prepared to examine the potential environmental effects of the 4150 Point Eden
Way Industrial Development Projec
t
. The following is a summary of the full project description, which can be found in Section 2.0,
Project Description
.
The project site consists of six parcels in the City of Hayward identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 461
-
0084
-
019
-
00, APN 461
-
0085
-
020
-
01, APN 461
-
0085
-
020
-
02, APN 461
-
0061
-
001
-
00, APN
461
-
0090
-
001
-
00, and APN 461
-
0090
-
002
-
00. A separate parcel, not included in the project site, separates APN 461
-
0085
-
019
-
00, 461
-
0085
-
020
-
01, and 461
-
0085
-
020
-
02 from APN 461
-
0061
-
001
-
00, 461
-
0090
-
001
-
00, and 461
-
0090
-
002
-
00. Therefore, the project site has an eastern component (APN 461
-
0085
-
019
-
00, 461
-
0085
-
020
-
01, and 461
-
0085
-
020
-
02) and a western component (APN
461
-
0061
-
001
-
00, 461
-
0090
-
001
-
00, and 461
-
0090
-
002
-
00), which are non
-
contiguous but nea
rly
adjacent.
The eastern component is located at 4150 Point Eden Way, while the western component has no public road access. Point Eden Way roughly parallels the south side of State Route 92 in the eastern portion of Hayward.
The regional location of the
site is shown in
Figure 2
-
1 , the vicinity of the site is
shown in
Figure 2
-
2 , and the project site boundaries are depicted in
Figure 2
-
3 .
Project Characteristics
The proposed project would involve construction of a new industrial building on the eastern c
omponent of the project site and preservation of an open space/wetland preserve on the western component. The project would commence with demolition and removal of existing structures on the eastern component of the project site associated with the former Oliver Brothers Salt Works
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
ES
-
2 operations. After demolition and removal of existing structures and materials, construction of the new industrial building would begin. The proposed industrial building would be approximately 50 feet in height to finished roof. T
he proposed building would provide approximately
114,059
square
feet of warehouse space and a 2,785
-
square
-
foot of office, for a total size of approximately 116,844 square feet. The office space would be provided at the north end of the building, facing St ate Route
92. During operation of the project, approximately 20 to 25 employees would be present .
A
conceptual site plan for the eastern component is shown in
Figure 2
-
7 , and a conceptual landscape
plan is shown in
Figure 2
-
8 .
The San Francisco Bay Trail is located on the eastern edge of the eastern component of the project site, within APN 461
-
0085
-
020
-
01. The proposed project includes a land swap for East Bay Regional Park District to relocate the Bay Trail from the current lo cation along the eastern property line to
meander along the northern property line and then to turn south to run along the western property line of APN 461
-
0085
-
020
-
02, until meeting its current location on Point Eden Way, as shown in Figure 2
-
9 . The swap
would transfer ownership of APN 461
-
0085
-
020
-
01 to the project applicant
and grant an easement to the East Bay Regional Park District for the trail to cross APN 461 -
0085
-
020
-
02. The proposed project also includes establishing an approximately 32 -
acre prese
rve on the western
component of the project site, within APN 461
-
0061
-
001
-
00, 461
-
0090
-
001
-
00, and 461
-
0090
-
002
-
00. These parcels are currently characterized by salt evaporation ponds from the former salt production operation on the project site that would
remain in place. This 32
-
acre area (Preserve)
contains six old salt ponds totaling 26 acres. The 32
-
acre Preserve would be preserved in perpetuity
via recordation of a deed restriction or other appropriate legal mechanism, ensuring that the salt ponds are
permanently preserved as open space in perpetuity. No conservation easement or conservator endowment would be provided. Because the 32 -
acre area would be preserved in
perpetuity with a deed restriction or other appropriate legal mechanism, without managem ent
activities, no management plan or improvement plan is proposed.
Parking and Site Access
Ingress and egress to the industrial building would be from a new driveway on Point Eden Way.
Approximately 79 parking spaces would be provided, including two space s dedicated for electric
vehicles and two accessible spaces compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Two bike lockers and two bike stalls would also be provided on -
site near the industrial building.
Landscaping would be installed on all si
des of the new building but would be concentrated on the north side of the building facing State Route 92
and along the western property line parallel to the
realigned Bay Trail
. Landscaping would include trees, low shrubs, grasses, and perennials. No phys
ical changes are proposed for the western component.
Utilities
The proposed industrial building would require utility and drainage improvements including new sanitary sewer, storm drain, and domestic water lines. These new utilities would connect to existi ng
utilities within the right
-
of
-
way of Point Eden Way. Bioretention areas (see Figure 2 -
8) would be
constructed on
-
site to collect and treat stormwater runoff prior to discharge into the City’s storm drain system.
Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES
-
3 Construction and Grading
Estimated constr
uction duration of the proposed project would be 12 to 18 months, tentatively beginning in 2021. Maximum construction depth would generally be approximately seven
feet
below ground surface; however, displacement piers would be used in the foundation and re quire
drilling to depths of approximately 20 feet below ground surface. Construction would begin with demolition of existing structures on the project site. Construction would involve standard and typical equipment, such as excavators, graders, backhoes, d ump trucks, and power tools.
Construction would also involve site preparation, consisting primarily of grading the site to achieve desired drainage and suitable building area. Grading would require permanent placement of fill material on
-
site, including wi
thin jurisdictional waters of the United States (i.e., wetlands). The proposed project would generate approximately 18,200 cubic yards of fill and 6,000 cubic yards of cut material, resulting in approximately 12,200 cubic yards of material for import. Cons truction
would not require the removal of trees.
Project Objectives
The objectives for the proposed project are to:
Develop an industrial building to house U
-
Haul corporate headquarters and warehouse.
Locate the building at the western edge of
Hayward in proximity to a regional highway and
other industrial, warehousing and logistics uses to avoid land use conflicts.
Create new employment and economic growth opportunities by redeveloping a vacant and underutilized property.
Establish a wetland pr
eserve adjacent to the San Francisco Bay.
Remove a dilapidated and unsafe structure from a currently underutilized property at the gateway to the City.
Alternatives
As required by Section 15126.6 of the
CEQA Guidelines
, this EIR examines a range of reasona
ble
alternatives to the proposed project that would attain most of the basic project objectives (stated in Section 2.0,
Project Description
, of this EIR) but would avoid or substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts.
Included in this analysis ar
e three alternatives, including the CEQA
-
required “no project” alternative,
that involve changes to the project that would reduce the project -
related potentially significant
environmental impacts as identified in this EIR. Alternatives have been developed to provide a
reasonable range of options to consider that would help decision makers and the public understand the general implications of revising or eliminating certain components of the proposed project.
The following alternatives are evaluated in this
EIR:
Alternative 1: No Project
Alternative 2: Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site
Alternative 3: Reduced Project
Detailed descriptions of the alternatives are included in the impact analysis for each alternative. The potential environmental impacts of each al
ternative are analyzed in Sections 6.2 through 6.4.
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
ES
-
4 Alternative 1 (No Project)
The No Project Alternative assumes that the industrial building, surface parking, driveway, landscaping, and other project components associated with the proposed industrial bu
ilding are not constructed. Additionally, the San Francisco Bay Trail would remain in its current location and would not be realigned. Likewise, a wetland preserve would not be established on the western component of the project site. The western component
of the project site would not
be preserved in perpetuity via recordation of a deed restriction or other appropriate legal mechanism; therefore, the salt ponds and other areas of the western component of the site could be utilized for flood plain and agric
ultural uses such as chemical extraction from baywater, crop and tree farming, dredging, farming or ranching and limited sales of materials grown on site.
The project
site would remain in its current unused state, and the existing structures associated wit h the former
Oliver Brothers Salt Works operation would not be demolished.
The No Project Alternative would not fulfill any of the project objectives.
Alternative 2 (
Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site
)
Under the Enterprise
Avenue Alternate Site
Alternative, the proposed industrial building would be constructed on an approximately 10.8 -
acre
property located at 3636 Enterprise Avenue in Hayward. The property is identified as APN 439 -
0099
-
036
-
02, and is zoned as General Indust
rial (IG). The property is mostly vacant with the exception of several radio communication towers scattered across the property. A small structure is located at the base of one tower and is associated with the tower operations. Vegetation is present across
nearly the entire property, and based on aerial photography, consists primarily of low grasses, weeds, and shrubs.
Alternative 2 assumes that the industrial building and associated surface parking lot would be approximately the same size and design as th
e proposed project, only located on the Enterprise
Avenue property instead of the project site. However, because the Enterprise Avenue property is an upland area, Alternative 2 would not include establishing a wetland preserve on -
site or off
-
site.
Likewise
, this alternative assumes the existing structures and ponds associated with the former Oliver Brothers Salt Works operation on the project site would remain unchanged from current conditions, because Alternative 2 would involve no activities or developmen t at the project site.
The San Francisco Bay Trail is not adjacent the Enterprise Avenue property. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not involve relocation of the trail or coordination with the East Bay Regional Parks District.
However, Alternative 2 would i
nclude relocating the existing radio communication towers and associated building that currently exist on the Enterprise Avenue property.
The Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site Alternative would fulfill some project objectives but not all objectives. For exa
mple, this alternative would develop an industrial building to house U -
Haul
corporate headquarters and a substantial warehouse at the western edge of Hayward in proximity to regional roadways. Alternative 2 would also be near other industrial and warehousi ng land uses
and would create new employment opportunities by developing a property that is currently vacant.
However, Alternative 2 would not fulfill project objectives to establish a wetland preserve adjacent to the San Francisco Bay or to remove the dil
apidated Oliver Brothers Salt Works structures from
the State Route 92 gateway to the City.
Alternative 3 (
Reduced Project Alternative)
The
Reduced Project Alternative assumes that, like the
proposed project, the industrial building, surface parking, drive way, landscaping, and other project
components associated with the proposed industrial building would be constructed on the eastern component of the project site. Additionally, the San Francisco Bay Trail would be realigned to encompass the eastern compone
nt of the site, like the proposed project. Likewise, a wetland preserve would be established on the western component of the project site, consistent with the Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES
-
5 proposed project. However, the industrial building and surface parking lot would be reduced in si ze
by approximately 50 percent and shifted south within the eastern component of the project site in order to avoid demolition of the former Oliver Brothers Salt Works building in the northeast part of the site. The existing building would be left in place
.
The Reduced Project Alternative would fulfill most but not all project objectives. For example, this alternative would involve development of an industrial building to house U -
Haul corporate
headquarters and a warehouse at the western edge of Hayward in proximity to regional roadways.
Alternative 3 would also be near other industrial and warehousing land uses and would create new employment opportunities by developing a property that is currently unused. Additionally, Alternative 3 would also fulfill the
project objective to establish a wetland preserve adjacent to the San Francisco Bay. However, Alternative 3 would not fulfill the project objective to remove the dilapidated Oliver Brothers Salt Works structures from the State Route 92 gateway to the City.
In
addition, this alternative would reduce the space available for the proposed project elements compared to the propose project, which would result in smaller office and warehouse spaces by approximately 50 percent.
Refer to Section 6.0,
Alternatives
, fo
r the complete alternatives analysis.
Areas of Known Controversy
The EIR scoping process did not identify any area
s
of known controversy for the
p
roposed
p
roject.
Responses to the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR and input received at the scoping
meeti
ng
on
the EIR
held by the
City
are summarized in Section 1,
Introduction
.
Comments pertained to a range
of issues, but most notably
biological resources
,
climate change and sea
-
level rise
,
hazardous
materials and groundwater contamination,
and
tribal cultu
ral resources
.
Issues to be Resolved
The
p
roposed
p
roject would require
site plan review and grading and building permits
. In addition,
construction of the project would involve fill of wetlands, which would require approval from the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The project would involve demolition of a historic resou rce, which would require the
United
States Army Corps of Engineers
to approve a Historic Properties Treatment Plan.
The East Bay
Regional Park
District must also consider approval of the proposed land exchange included in the project for relocation
of the
San Francisco Bay Trail.
Issues to be resolved also include the choice
among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate potentially significant effects of the project.
Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EIR
Table 5 in Section
1.4 summarizes issues from t
he environmental checklist that were addressed in
the Initial Study (Appendix B). As indicated in the Initial Study, there is no substantial evidence that significant impacts would occur
to the following
issue areas
: Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Air
Quality,
Energy,
Geology/
Soils,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Hydrology, Land Use and Planning,
Mineral Resources, Noise,
Population/Housing, Public Services, Recreation, and Utilities .
Impacts to
Biological Resources,
Cultural Resources
, Hazards and Hazardou
s Materials, and Transportation
were found to be potentially significant
and
are addressed in this EI
R.
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
ES
-
6 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
T
a
b
l
e
E
S
-
1 includes a brief description of the environmental issues relative to the proposed project, the identified environmental impacts, proposed mitigation measures, and residual impacts.
Impacts
ar
e categorized by significance. Significant and unavoidable adverse impacts require a statement of overriding considerations to be issued per Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines if the project is approved. Significant but mitigable impacts are advers e impacts that can be feasibly mitigated to
less than significant levels and which require findings to be made under Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Less than significant impacts
would not exceed significance thresholds and
therefore would not
require mitigation.
The Initial Study found that the proposed project would have significant but mitigable
impacts on
geology and soils and tribal cultural resources. The Initial Study addresses these issues and provides mitigation measures, which are sum
marized in
T
able ES
-
1 below. These issues, as well as those
issues found to have less than significant impacts in the Initial Study, are not analyzed f urther in this
EIR. Discussion of these impacts may be found in the Initial Study (Appendix A). Issues that were found to have potentially significant impacts in the Initial Study and therefore required additional analysis in the EIR include biological res
ources, cultural resources (historical resources), hazards and hazardous materials, and transportation.
T
able
E
S
-
1 summarizes the impacts related to these issues
as well as applicable mitigation measures to reduce impacts, as identified in this EIR.
Impacts are categorized as follows:
Significant and
Unavoidable.
An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project
is approved per §15093 of t
he
CEQA Guidelines.
Less than Significa
nt with Mitigation Incorporated.
An impact that can be reduced to below the
threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under §15091 of the CEQA Guidel
ines.
Less than Significant.
An impact that may be adverse but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily a vaila
ble and easily achievable.
No Impact:
The
p
roposed
p
roject would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.
Table ES
-
1 Summary
of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measu
res, and Residual
Impacts
Impact
Mitigation Measure
(s)
Residual Impact
Biologica
l Resources
Impact
BIO
-
1. The proposed project
would have a substantial adverse
effect on species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status,
such as salt marsh harvest mouse,
burrowing owl and other birds, and
bats. Impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation
incorporated.
BIO
-
1a
SMHM and SMWS Habitat Fencing
.
Prior to
ground disturbing activities adjacent to potential SMHM and SMWS habitat, temporary exclusion barriers and/or
fencing shall be installed to exclude individuals of these species from areas of active construction. The design of the exclusion barrier
s and fencing shall be approved by a
qualified biologist and shall be installed in the presence of a qualified biological monitor. The fence will be made of a material that does not allow SMHM or SMWS to pass
through, and the bottom shall be buried to a de
pth of a
Less than
significant.
Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES
-
7 Impact
Mitigation Measure
(s)
Residual Impact
minimum of four inches so that these species cannot
crawl under the fence. All support for the exclusion
fencing shall be placed on the inside of the project
footprint. Additionally, removal of marsh or associated ruderal vegetation shall be compl
eted using only hand
tools and in the presence of a biological monitor. The
barriers and/or fencing shall remain in place for the
duration of construction of the project.
BIO
-
1b
Qualified Biological Monitor
.
A qualified biological
monitor shall be present
during wildlife exclusion fence
installation and removal, and during all vegetation
clearing and initial ground disturbance which take place in marsh habitats of the former salt ponds and the
vegetation adjacent to marsh habitats. The monitor will have dem
onstrated experience in biological construction
monitoring and knowledge of the biology of the special
-
status species that may be found in the project site,
including SMHM and SMWS. The monitor(s) shall have the
authority to halt construction, if necessary
, if
noncompliance actions occur. If a federal or State listed species is observed at any time during construction, work shall not be initiated or shall be stopped immediately until the animal leaves the vicinity of the work area of its own volition. If th
e animal in question does not leave the work
area, work shall not be reinitiated until the qualified biological monitor has contacted the appropriate agency to discuss on how to proceed with work activities. The
biological monitor shall direct the contract
or on how to
proceed accordingly.
The biological monitor(s) shall be the contact person for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a special
-
status species or anyone who finds a
dead, injured, or entrapped special
-
status species
.
Following fence installation, vegetation removal in
potential habitat areas, and initial ground disturbance in potential habitat areas, the biologist shall train an onsite monitor to continue to document compliance. The
biologist shall conduct weekly sit
e checks to provide
guidance for fence maintenance, provide environmental
sensitivity training, and document compliance with permit conditions.
BIO
-
1 c
Worker Environmental Awareness Program
Training.
The biological monitor shall provide an
endangered speci
es training program to all personnel
involved in project construction. At a minimum, the
employee education program shall consist of a brief
presentation by persons knowledgeable about the biology of sensitive species with potential to occur in the project
footprint, and about their legislative protection to explain concerns to contractors and their employees involved
with implementation of the project. The program shall
include a description of the species and their habitat
needs, any reports of occurrence
s in the area; an
explanation of the status of these species and their
protection under State and federal legislation; and a list of City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
ES
-
8 Impact
Mitigation Measure
(s)
Residual Impact
measures being taken to reduce impacts to these species during construction.
BIO
-
1 d
Burrowing Owl Pre
-
Construction Surveys
and
Avoidance.
A qualified biologist shall conduct pre
-
construction clearance surveys prior to ground
disturbance activities within suitable natural habitats and ruderal areas throughout the eastern component of the
project site to confirm the presence/abs
ence of active
burrowing owl burrows. The surveys shall be consistent
with the recommended survey methodology provided by
CDFW (2012). Clearance surveys shall be conducted
within 30 days prior to construction and ground
disturbance activities. If no burrow
ing owls are observed,
no further actions are required. If burrowing owls are
detected during the pre
-
construction clearance surveys,
the following measures shall apply:
Avoidance buffers during the breeding and non
-
breeding season shall be implemented in
accordance with the CDFW (2012) and
Burrowing Owl Consortium (1993) minimization
mitigation measures.
If avoidance of burrowing owls is not feasible,
then additional measures such as passive
relocation during the nonbreeding season and
construction buffer
s of 200 feet during the
breeding season shall be implemented, in
consultation with CDFW. In addition, a
Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan and Mitigation
and Monitoring Plan shall be developed by a
qualified biologist in accordance with the CDFW
(2012) and Burr
owing Owl Consortium (1993).
BIO
-
1 e
Nesting Bird Avoidance and Pre
-
Construction
Surveys.
Project activities, such as vegetation removal,
grading, or initial ground
-
disturbance, shall be conducted
between September 1 and January 31 to the greatest
extent fe
asible. If project activities must be conducted
during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), a
pre
-
construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted
by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to
vegetation removal or initial ground distu
rbance.
Additional nesting surveys shall be conducted if project construction activities cease for more than 14 days during this period. The survey shall include the project site plus a 200
-
foot buffer around the eastern component of the
project site if fe
asible, and a 500
-
foot buffer, if feasible,
for California least tern, western snowy plover, and black skimmer, to identify the location and status of any nests that could potentially be affected either directly or
indirectly by project activities. A surve
y of the western
component of the project site shall be optional and not required because no ground disturbance or construction
activities are proposed in the western component of the project site.
If active nests are identified during the nesting bird
sur
vey, an appropriate avoidance buffer shall be
established within which no work activity will be allowed Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES
-
9 Impact
Mitigation Measure
(s)
Residual Impact
which would impact these nests. The avoidance buffer
would be established by the qualified biologist on a case -
by
-
case basis based on the species and si
te conditions. In
no cases shall the buffer be smaller than 50 feet for
passerine bird species, 250 feet for raptor species, or 600 feet for California least tern, western snowy plover, and black skimmer. Larger buffers may be required depending upon the s
tatus of the nest and the construction activities
occurring in the vicinity of the nest. Buffers shall be delineated by orange construction fencing that defines
the buffer where it intersects the project site.
If a California least tern, western snowy plov
er, or black
skimmer nest is found within 500 feet of the project site, USFWS and CDFW will be immediately notified. USFWS
and CDFW shall be consulted on appropriate avoidance
and minimization methods, which would likely include
work restrictions within 50
0 feet of the nest, biological
monitoring for activity within the nest’ line
-
of
-
sight, etc.
The buffer area(s) shall be closed to all construction
personnel and equipment until juveniles have fledged and the nest is inactive. The qualified biologist shall
confirm
that breeding/nesting is completed, and young have
fledged the nest prior to removal of the buffer.
BIO
-
1 f
Special
-
Status Bat Avoidance and Pre
-
Construction Surveys.
To avoid impacts to roosting
special
-
status bats, focused surveys to determine the
presence/absence of roosting bats shall be conducted
prior to the initiation of demolition of buildings and
removal of mature trees large enough to contain crevices and hollows that could support bat roosting. If active
maternity roosts are identified, a
qualified biologist shall
establish avoidance buffers applicable to the species, the roost location and exposure, and the proposed
construction activity in the area. If active non
-
maternity
day or night roosts are found on the project site,
measures shall
be implemented to passively relocate bats
from the roosts prior to the onset of construction
activities. Such measures may include removal of roosting site during the time of day the roost is unoccupied or the installation of one
-
way doors, allowing the ba
ts to leave
the roost but not to re
-
enter. These measures shall be
presented in a Bat Passive Relocation Plan that shall be submitted to, and approved by, CDFW.
BIO
-
1 g
Trash Removal.
During construction of the project,
all food
-
related trash items such as
wrappers, cans,
bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in solid, closed containers (trash cans) and removed at the end of each workday from the project site to eliminate an
attraction to predators of special
-
status species.
BIO
-
1 h
Public Access Excl
usion Fencing.
Access by all
project construction personnel into the Eden Landing
Ecological Reserve shall be prohibited. Upon completion of the development project a permanent fence shall be
installed on the eastern component of the project site to preven
t access from the San Francisco Bay Trail relocated
segment and the new industrial development into the
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
ES
-
10 Impact
Mitigation Measure
(s)
Residual Impact
adjacent salt ponds and associated marsh habitats to the west. In addition, signs shall be posted stating that public access into the salt ponds and ass
ociated marsh habitat is
strictly prohibited owing to the sensitivity of the habitat and to ensure the continued use of this habitat by special -
status species.
Impact
BIO
-
2 .
The proposed project
would require impacts to seasonal
wet
lands and salt marsh on the
eastern component of the project
site, which are considered sensitive
natural communities. Impacts would
be less than significant with
mitigation.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO
-
1h, as
described above under
Impact BIO
-
1. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO
-
3, as
described below under Impact BIO
-
3. Less than
significant
.
Impact BIO
-
3 .
The proposed project
would require the permanent fill of
approximately 0.28 acre of seasonal
wetlands and 0.69 acre of
salt marsh
and associated unvegetated waters in
remnant salt ponds on the eastern
component of the project site.
Impacts would be less than significant
with mitigation.
BIO
-
3 Protected Wetlands Mitigation Credits.
To
compensate for impacts to approximately
0.97 acre of
waters of the U.S., the project applicant shall purchase wetland mitigation credits at a minimum of 1:1 mitigation ratio from an approved mitigation bank with a Service
Area that covers the project site. The San Francisco Bay Wetland Mitigati
on Bank currently has "Tidal Wetland and
Other Waters Creation" credits available for purchase.
Either the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the CDFW may adjust the mitigation ratio and the applicant shall comply, but in no case shall the mitigation ratio be
less than 1:1.
Less than
significant
.
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL
-
1. Demolition of the
Oliver Brothers Salt Company
processing plant and filling of
portions of the associated salt
evaporation ponds on the eastern
component of the project site
would
adversely impact features that
contribute to the significance of a
historical resource. Impacts would be
significant and unavoidable.
CUL
-
1a Building Recordation.
Archival documentation of
as
-
built and as
-
found condition shall be prepared for the
Ol
iver Brothers Salt Company prior to demolition. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the City of Hayward shall ensure that documentation of the buildings and
structures proposed for demolition is completed that
follows the general guidelines of Histori
c American
Building Survey (HABS)
-
level III documentation. The
documentation shall include high resolution digital
photographic recordation, a historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualif
ied professional who meets the
standards for history, architectural history, or architecture as set forth by the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR, Part 61). The original archival
-
quality documentation shall be offere
d as
donated material to the Hayward Library and/or Hayward
Area Historical Society to make it available for current and future generations. Archival copies of the documentation shall be submitted to the City of Hayward where it shall be available to local
researchers.
CUL
-
1b Interpretive Display.
An interpretive display shall
be developed and installed on site to commemorate the
history of the Oliver Brothers Salt Company. The display may include historic photographs, drawings, and text to convey the histo
ry of the site and the significance of salt
processing in Alameda County. The display shall be
reviewed and approved by the City prior to installation at S
ignificant and
unavoidable.
Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES
-
11 Impact
Mitigation Measure
(s)
Residual Impact
a site to be chosen by the City. The installation shall occur prior to issuance of a Certificate of Oc
cupancy.
Impact CUL
-
2 .
Construction of the
proposed project would involve
ground
-
disturbing activities that have
the potential to unearth or adversely
impact previously unidentified
archaeological resources within the
eastern
component of the project
site. Impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation
incorporated.
CUL
-
2 Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological
Resources.
In the event that archaeological resources are
unexpectedly encountered during ground
-
disturbing
activities, work in the immediate area shall be halted and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for
archeology
(National Park Service 1983) shall be contacted
immediately to evaluate the find. If the find is prehistoric, then a Native American representative should also be
contacted to participate in the evaluation of the find. If necessary, as determine
d by the archaeologist in
consultation with the City, the evaluation may require
preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological
testing for California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) eligibility. If the discovery proves to be eligible for the C
RHR and cannot be avoided by the modified project,
additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted to mitigate impacts to archaeological
resources.
Less than
significant
.
Impact CR
-
3. The discovery of human
remains is always a possibility during
ground
-
disturbing activities. Ground
disturbance required for construction
of the proposed project could disturb
or damage known or unknown
human remains within the eastern
component of the proj
ect site. This
impact would be less than significant
due to mandatory adherence to
existing regulations.
No mitigation measures are indicated.
Less than
significant
.
Geology and Soils
Geology and Soils: Unstable Soils and
Geology.
The
project site is within a
liquefaction zone that could result in
foundation damage to the proposed
industrial building during a seismic
-
related ground failure. Additionally,
graded slopes could be susceptible to
collapse during seismic events if
improperly
constructed or
compacted. Soils on site could
become unstable from the overlying
weight of the proposed industrial
building and surface parking lot.
Collapse or failure of soils could result
in substantial risk of loss, injury, or
death. This impact would
be
potentially significant but
mitigable.
GEO
-
1 Geotechnical Considerations
.
The project
applicant shall implement all measures and
recommendations set forth in the Geotechnical
Engineering Services Report prepared by Professional
Services
Industries, Inc., an Intertek company, in January
2018 (included as Appendix D and on file with the City of Hayward). This measure shall be implemented for
development on the eastern component of the project
site. Recommendations include but are not limite
d to the
following topic areas:
Engineered fill material required at this site shall
not contain rocks greater than 3
-
inches in
diameter or greater than 30 percent retained on
the ¾
-
inch sieve, and shall not contain more
than 3 percent (by weight) of organ
ic matter or
other unsuitable material. The expansion index
for the material shall not exceed 50.
Engineered fill shall be compacted to at least 90
percent of the maximum dry density as
determined by the modified Proctor (ASTM
D1557). The moisture content
of engineered fill
shall be maintained at approximately 2 percent
Less than
significant.
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
ES
-
12 Impact
Mitigation Measure
(s)
Residual Impact
above or below the material’s optimum
moisture content as determined by the same
index during compaction.
Engineered fill shall be placed in maximum lifts
of 8
-
inches of loose material. Each
lift of
engineered fill shall be tested by a PSI soils
technician, working under the direction of a
licensed geotechnical engineer, prior to
placement of subsequent lifts.
Properly compacted engineered fill shall extend
horizontally outward beyond the ext
erior
perimeter of the foundations a distance equal to
the height of fill or 5 feet, whichever is greater,
prior to substantial sloping.
Permanent cut or fill slopes shall not exceed 2
Horizontal to 1 Vertical (2H:1V). Excavations
extending below a 1H:1V p
lane extending down
from any adjacent footings shall be shored for
safety.
Utilities trenches within the building, pavement,
and sidewalk areas shall be backfilled with
granular engineered fill such as sand, sand and
gravel, fragmental rock, or recycled co
ncrete of
up to 2 inches maximum size with less than 5
percent passing the No. 200 sieve (washed
analysis). Granular backfill shall be placed in lifts
and compacted to 95 percent of the maximum
dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557.
Compaction by jettin
g or flooding shall not be
permitted.
To ensure precipitation is conveyed away from
structural foundation, continuous roof gutters
shall be installed on the proposed industrial
building. The roof drains shall be connected to a
tight
-
line pipe leading to st
orm drain facilities.
Pavement surfaces and open space areas shall
be sloped such that surface water runoff is
collected and routed to suitable discharge
points. Ground surfaces adjacent the building
shall be sloped to facilitate positive drainage
away fro
m the building. Landscaped or planted
areas shall not be placed within 10 feet of the
footings of the proposed building.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact
HAZ
-
1 .
The project has the
potential to create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment due to potential
hazardous material
s that may be
present in the existing on
-
site
HAZ
-
1 Project Demolition Activities.
In conformance with
State and local laws, a visual inspection/pre
-
demolition
survey, and possible sa
mpling, shall be conducted prior to
the demolition of on
-
site building(s) to determine the
presence of asbestos
-
containing materials (ACMs) and/or
lead
-
based paint (LBP). Documentation of the survey shall
be provided to the City prior to commencement of
de
molition activities.
During demolition activities, all building materials
containing lead
-
based paint shall be removed in
accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Title 8, California Code Less than
significant
.
Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES
-
13 Impact
Mitigation Measure
(s)
Residual Impact
structures. This impact would be
potentially significant but mitigable.
of Regulations (CCR), Section 1532.1, including employee training, employee
air monitoring, and dust control. Any
debris or soil containing lead
-
based paint or coatings shall
be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the type of lead being disposed.
All potentially friable asbestos containing materials
(ACMs) s
hall be removed in accordance with National
Emission Standards for Air Pollution (NESHAP) guidelines prior to demolition or renovation activities that may
disturb ACMs. All demolition activities shall be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards con
tained in Title
8, CCR, Section 1529, to protect workers from asbestos
exposure.
A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be
retained to remove and dispose of ACMs identified in the asbestos survey performed for the site in accordance with the stan
dards stated above in this mitigation measure.
Materials containing more than one
-
percent asbestos are
also subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations. Removal of materials containing
more than one
-
percent asbestos shall be co
mpleted in
accordance with BAAQMD requirements and
notifications.
Based on Cal/OSHA rules and regulations, the following
conditions shall be implemented to limit impacts to
construction workers:
Prior to commencement of demolition activities,
a
building survey, including sampling and
testing, shall be completed to identify and
quantify building materials containing lead
-
based paint.
During demolition activities, all building
materials containing lead
-
based paint shall be
removed in accordance wit
h Cal/OSHA Lead in
Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR, Section
1532.1, including employee training, employee
air monitoring and dust control.
Any debris or soil containing lead
-
based paint or
coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that
meet acceptance
criteria for the type of waste
being disposed.
Impact HAZ
-
2. The project would
involve development on a site that is
included on a list of hazardous
material sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5,
and due to
the potential to encounter
residual soil and groundwater
contamination on the eastern
component of the project site,
impacts would be potentially
significant but mitigable.
HAZ
-
2a
Implementation of the RMP.
The project shall
implement the appropriate handl
ing procedures and
worker health and safety measures during excavating or
dewatering activities, as well as the use of an engineered vapor barrier as described in the site
-
specific RMP
developed for the project in 2014. The RMP is an
appendix to the Phase
I ESA. The Phase I ESA is included
as Appendix E to the Initial Study, which is provided as Appendix A to this EIR. Measures included in the RMP to control potential hazardous contamination and exposure
include, but are not limited to the following:
Constr
uction contractors shall implement dust
control mitigation measures during construction
activities at the project site to minimize the
Less than
significant
.
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
ES
-
14 Impact
Mitigation Measure
(s)
Residual Impact
generation of dust. Examples of dust control
measures that shall be implemented include
limiting construction vehicles sp
eeds to 5 miles
per hour when on
-
site; routinely applying water
to exposed soils while performing excavation
activities; and, covering soil stockpiles with
plastic sheets at the end of each workday.
Additional dust control measures shall be
implemented by
the selected contractor, as
necessary, especially if windy conditions persist
during site grading and excavation. These
measures may include moisture, conditioning
the soil, using dust suppressants, or covering the
exposed soil and stockpiles with weighted
plastic sheeting to prevent exposure of the soil.
To prevent or minimize construction equipment
from tracking polluted spoils off the site onto
roadways, construction equipment that contacts
soils deeper than 5
-
feet below ground surface
shall be decontami
nated prior to leaving the
site. Decontamination methods shall include
brushing and/or vacuuming to remove loose dirt
on vehicle exteriors and wheels. In the event
that these dry decontamination methods are
inadequate, methods such as steam cleaning,
high
pressure washing, and cleaning solutions
shall be used, as necessary, to thoroughly
remove accumulated dirt and other materials.
Decontamination activities shall be performed
in an on
-
site decontamination facility
established by the contractor.
All project
construction workers performing
construction activities at depths below 5
-
feet
below ground surface in the restricted areas
shall adhere to decontamination procedures
when exiting the area. Decontamination
measures shall include: (a) vacuuming the
surface
of coveralls, head covers, and footwear
to remove accumulated soil particles and
changing into other clean clothes if practical; (b)
vacuuming or washing small tools, hand tools,
or personal equipment to remove accumulated
soil particles; and, (c) placing
work clothes and
personal equipment in sealed plastic bags or
other suitable containers for transportation or
on
-
site storage.
In the event that disturbed soil appears to
contain contaminants of potential concern
(COPCs), such as odors, staining, and/or
d
iscoloration, work should halt in that area and
an environmental professional (EP), such as a
geologist, engineer, industrial hygienist, or
environmental health specialist with expertise in
these matters, shall be called to the site to
oversee the work and
determine safe
construction and soil handling procedures.
Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES
-
15 Impact
Mitigation Measure
(s)
Residual Impact
The EP shall be present on
-
site during
excavations greater than 5
-
feet below ground
surface in the restricted areas to observe field
conditions and measure hydrocarbon vapors
using a hand held pho
toionization detector
(PID). If PID readings are measured in a specific
area showing concentrations in excess of
construction worker screening levels published
by the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), construction activities in that area
shall
halt until appropriate risk mitigation
measures are implemented. If necessary,
HAZWOPER trained personnel shall be called to
the site to complete the construction activities
in that area.
Soil excavated from deeper than 5
-
feet below
ground surface in the r
estricted area shall only
be reused on
-
site as backfill after sampling and
analysis soil proves the soil is acceptable to
remain on site. Commercial ESLs shall be used as
the threshold to determine if soils may remain
on site or require off
-
site disposal.
All
appropriate regulatory sampling methods,
holding times, and detection limits shall be
followed.
A health and safety plan shall be developed and
implemented for project construction that
incorporates measures and procedures to
minimize direct
contact by construction workers
with site groundwater, particularly in the
restricted areas. The health and safety plan shall
be approved by either the City or the RWQCB,
or both as applicable, prior to excavation
activities.
If groundwater is encountered
within the
former remediation area during construction of
the project, as shown on Figure 4 of the RMP, an
EP shall be called to the site to determine safe
handling procedures. The groundwater shall be
pumped into appropriate containers and
samples shall b
e obtained for chemical analysis
of the COPCs in accordance with a site sampling
plan and the requirements of the waste disposal
facility to which the material is sent. If water
sample analytical results indicate the water is
free of all detectable concent
rations of COPCs,
such water can be re
-
used at the site if deemed
appropriate by Alameda County and the
RWQCB. If water sample analytical results
indicate the water contains concentrations of
COPCs above appropriate RWQCB screening
levels, such water shall
not be re
-
used at the
site. The contractor and the EP shall elect to: (a)
treat the groundwater on
-
site to render it free
of detectable concentrations of COPCs (e.g. by
activated carbon filtration); or, (b) transport the
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
ES
-
16 Impact
Mitigation Measure
(s)
Residual Impact
groundwater to a local treatment o
r disposal
facility for appropriate handling.
The proposed industrial building shall be
constructed on top of a minimum of a 5
-
foot
bioattenuation zone within the restricted areas.
This bioattenuation zone shall consist of a
minimum of 5
-
feet of soil above
the anticipated
shallowest groundwater elevation, and the soil
shall not contain total petroleum hydrocarbons
greater than 100 parts per million.
An engineered vapor barrier shall be employed
to further protect against possible vapor
intrusion of COPCs in
to the proposed industrial
building. The vapor barrier shall be designed to
meet the needs of building. Vapor barriers are
generally constructed using membranes
constructed with high
-
density polyethylene
(HDPE) or other polyolefin
-
based resins. The
vapor b
arrier shall be resistant to VOCs. The
vapor barrier shall meet the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) guideline for a
vapor barrier and have a permeance rating of
0.1 perms or less. The thickness and strength of
the vapor barrier shall be b
ased on the needs
for the building, but the architect and contractor
shall use a material strong enough to easily
withstand the building construction and other
building considerations. The selected vapor
barrier shall be approved by the RWQCB prior to
inst
allation.
HAZ
-
2 b
Bioretention Design Coordination.
The project
applicant shall consult with the City on location and/or design of the on
-
site bioretention basins to ensure
protection of the groundwater basin, which may include, but is not limited to, locat
ing the basins outside of the
restricted areas or use of a liner in the detention basin.
The final design and location of the on
-
site bioretention
basins shall demonstrate that groundwater would be
protected from contamination.
HAZ
-
2 c
Displacement Pier Des
ign and Construction.
The
project applicant shall retain a geotechnical engineer to design the displacement piers for support of the building foundation. The displacement piers shall be designed in a way to prevent creating a preferential pathway between
s
hallow groundwater at approximately 5 feet below
ground surface and deeper groundwater. The displace
pier design developed by the geotechnical engineer shall be incorporated into project plans prior to
commencement of construction. This mitigation measure
shall apply to all displacement piers within the restricted areas or the larger area where benzene concentrations
exceed ESLs, as shown in Figure 4.3
-
2 of the EIR.
Additionally, air
-
jetting shall not be used to create the
holes for the displacement piers w
ithin the restricted
areas to avoid bringing subsurface soils to the ground
surface.
Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES
-
17 Impact
Mitigation Measure
(s)
Residual Impact
Transportation and Traffic
Impact TR
-
1. The proposed project
would generate 18.23 VMT per
employee, which exceeds the VMT
threshold of the
existing regional
average of 18.15 by 0.5 percent.
Impacts would be potentially
significant, but mitigable.
TR
-
1 Travel Demand Management.
The project applicant
shall implement at least one of the measures described
below:
Voluntary Employer Commute Progra
m:
The project
applicant shall encourage alternative modes of
transportation through a program that may include
elements such as: a carpool or vanpool program,
subsidized or discounted transit passes, bike amenities, commute trip
-reduction marketing, and p
referential
parking permit program.
Employer Carpool Program:
The project applicant shall
encourage carpooling by providing ride matching
assistance to employees, providing priority parking for carshare vehicles, and providing incentives for carpooling.
The applicant shall provide to the City documentation that at least one of the above measures is implemented.
Documentation shall be provided annually.
Less than
significant
.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Tribal Cultural Resources: Damage or
Destruction of Resources.
While no
tribal cultural resources are known to
occur on the project site, given its
proximity to the shoreline of the San
Francisco Bay, there could be
unknown resources, particularly
subsurface resources. Construction of
the pro
posed project would require
excavation and grading, which could
damage or destroy tribal cultural
resources, if present.
Impacts would
be potentially significant but
mitigable.
TCR
-
1 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural
Resources
.
In the event
that cultural resources of Native
American origin are identified during construction, all earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an
archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find and an appropriate Native American
representative, based on the nature of the find, is
consulted. If the City determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and imple
mented in
accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with Native American groups. The plan shall include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is
infeasible, the plan shall outline the appropriate
treatment of the resource in
coordination with the
archeologist and the appropriate Native American tribal representative.
Less than
significant
.
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
ES
-
18 This page intentionally left blank.
Introduction
Draft
Environmental Impact Report
1 -
1 Introduction
This document is
a
Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for
t
he proposed
4150 Point Eden
Way
Industrial Development
Project (hereafter referred to as the “
p
roposed
p
roject” or “
p
roject
”)
located at 4150 Point Eden Way, Hayward, California.
This section discusses (1) the
project
and EIR background; (2) the legal basis for preparing an EIR; (3) the scope and content of the EIR; (4) issue areas found not to be signific ant by the Initial Study; (5)
the lead, responsible, and trustee agencies; and (6) the environmental review process required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The p
roposed
p
roject is described in detail
in Section 2.0,
Project Descript
ion
.
The aforementioned Initial Study is included as Appendix A to this EIR.
1.1 Environmental Impact Report Background
The City of
Hayward
distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the EIR
and the Initial Study
for a
30 -
day agency and public review period starting on
November 10, 2020
and ending on
December
10, 2020
.
In addition, the City held
a
public
EIR Scoping Meeting on
November 19, 2020
. The
meeting, held from
4 :00
PM to
5 :30 PM, was aimed at providing info
rmation about the
p
roposed
p
roject to members of public agencies
, interested stakeholders
and residents/community members.
The meeting was held
virtually through a web
-
based video conference
.
The City received letters
from
three
agencies
in response to the
NOP during the public review period, as well
as various
verbal comments during the EIR Scoping Meeting.
The NOP is
provided as
Appendix
A
of this EIR
,
along with the Initial Study that was prepared for the project and the NOP responses received.
Table
1 -
1 on the following page summarizes the content of the letters
and verbal comments
and where
the
issues raised are addressed in the EIR.
1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority
The
p
roposed
p
roject requires the discretionary approval of the City of Hayward
;
t
herefore,
the
project
is subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA. In accordance with Section 15121 of the
CEQA Guidelines
(California Code of Regulations, Title 14), the purpose of this EIR is to serve as an informational document that:
“
...will inform public a
gency decision makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.
”
This EIR has been prepared as a
p
roject
EIR pursuant to Section 15161 of the
CEQA Guidelines
. A
Project EIR is appropriate for a specific development project. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines
:
“
This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the d
evelopment project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project, including planning, construction, and operation.
”
City of Hayward
4 1
50 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
1 -
2 This EIR is
intended
to serve as
an informational document for the public and City of
Hayward
decision
makers. The process will includ
e p
ublic hearings before the
City
to consider certification of
a Final EIR and approval of the
p
roposed
p
roject.
Table 1
-
1 NOP Comments and EIR Response
Commenter
Comment/Request
How and Where
I
t
W
as Addressed
Agency Comments
Alameda County
Water District (ACWD)
Offers additional information regarding
ACWD for incorporation into the DEIR.
Comment
is
addressed in Section 4.3,
Hazards
and Hazardous Materials
.
Requests
that
the EIR analyze the
potential for groundwater quality impacts
as a result of hazardous materials
involvement on
-
site.
Groundwater quality is discussed in the Initial
Study, included as Appendix A to this EIR.
Groundwater quality as it related to hazardous
materials
contamination is addressed in Section
4.3,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
.
Requests records be uploaded to the
State Water Resources Control Board
GeoTracker database.
This comment does not pertain to the EIR, and
therefore is not
discussed further. However, this
comment is noted.
Requests that the EIR address concerns
regarding the proposed bioretention
areas to ensure leaching and plume
migration do not occur, and that the
project proponents coordinate with the
Regional Water Qu
ality Control Board
(RWQCB) and ACWD on this issue
prior to
construction and City approval
.
Comment
is
addressed in Section 4.3,
Hazards
and Hazardous Materials
.
Requests
that
the EIR evaluate potential
groundwater impacts due to installation
of displacement piers (and any resulting
vapor intrusion impacts) and the potential
for hydraulic interaction of the shallow
water
-
bearing zone, piers, and future seal
level rise, and that
project proponents
coordinate with the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and
ACWD regarding
the design and
construction of the piers.
Comment
is
addressed in Section 4.3,
Hazards
and Hazardous Materials
.
Citizens Committee to
Complete the Refu
ge
(CCCR)
Suggests
that
the project location should
be evaluated for sea level rise resilience
(and 100 year storm events with 2 feet of
freeboard) consistent with the most
current guidance from the State, and that
the EIR should provide existing ground
l
evel elevations for the site in NAVD 88.
This comment does not pertain to a specific
CEQA impact or threshold. Therefore, it is not
addressed further in this EIR. However, potential
for inundation of the project site from sea level
rise is discussed in the hydrology and water
quality section of t
he Initial Study (see
Appendix
A).
States
that
the EIR should evaluate the
effect of raising the ground level elevation
to determine if impacts would arise due
to displacement of flood flows, and
hydraulic analyses, if available, should be
incorporated
into the EIR.
Potential flooding impacts are addressed in the
hydrology and water quality section of the Initial
Study (see
Appendix
A).
States
that
the EIR must consider whether
the project
site
is habitat for the salt
marsh harvest mouse (SMHM) under
flood conditions.
Impacts to special
-
status species, including salt
marsh harvest mouse, a
re
discussed in Section
4.1,
Biological Resources
.
Introduction
Draft
Environmental Impact Report
1 -
3 Commenter
Comment/Request
How and Where
I
t
W
as Addressed
Recommends the EIR disclose biological
impacts due to
light pollution.
Potential impacts to biological resources,
including lighting impacts, are discussed in
Section 4.1,
Biological Resources
.
Asks for clarification regarding who will
manage the 32 acres set aside for
restoration, and if there are toxic
materials known to be on the site, as well
as who
w
ill manage the land if CDFW will
not.
The project applicant
w
ould
retain ownership of
the 32
-
acre preserve area, referred to in this EIR
as the western component of the project site. No
restoration activities or maintenance activities
are proposed in the western component of the
project site.
Asks what the 11 special status
plant
species mentioned in the Initial Study are
and if June and January are the times
when the species would be present and
identifiable.
The 11 special
-
status plant species mentioned in
the Initial Study are described in the Biological
Resources Technical Report, which is included as
Appendix
A to the Initial Study. The Initial Study
is Appendix A
to this EIR. Briefly, the 11 species
includ
e: alkali milkvetch; Congdon’s tarplant;
Salt
-
marsh birds
-
beak; Diablo helianthella; Santa
Cruz tarplant; Contra Costa goldfields; pincushion
navarretia; hairless popcornflower; chaparral
ragwort; most beautiful jewelflower; and,
California seablite.
Sta
tes
that
the EIR should identify,
analyze, and propose mitigation for the
adverse impacts of long
-
term
predator/nuisance species that may be
attracted to the project site, and, if
SMHM is adjacent to the sit
e
, how
nuisance species would be controlled
witho
ut impacts to the SMHM.
Impacts to special
-
status species, including salt
marsh harvest mouse,
a
re
discussed in Section
4.1,
Biological Resources
.
Asks if the Caltrans pond identified in the
Initial Study has mitigation attached to it
as part of a permit
mitigation
requirement and
,
if so, what the
requirements are, and if the proposed
trail relocation would impact the
mitigation requirements.
The Caltrans pond is located between the
eastern and western components of the project
site and is not part of th
e proposed project. No
activities are proposed within the parcel
containing the Caltrans pond. Therefore,
permit
conditions and mitigation measures attached to
the Caltrans pond, if any, are not discussed in
this EIR.
Asks for clarification on
fencing
mentioned in M
itigation
M
easure
BIO
-
8 and provides input and opinion on the
conflict between recreation and
conservation.
Mitigation Measure BIO
-
8 has been renumbered
as Mitigation Measure BIO
-
1h in this EIR, and can
be found in Section 4.1,
Biolog
ical Resources
.
As
described in Mitigation Measure BIO
-
1h, the
fence is specifically intended to prevent people
using the San Francisco Bay Trail from leaving the
trail and accessing sensitive marsh habitat to the
west. Property to the west of the trail is
private
property and not available for recreation.
East Bay Regional Park
District (EBRPD)
Provides a reminder that the
proposed
land swap is subject to approval by the
EBRPD Board of Directors and that
proposed improvements must comply
with regulations set by the San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC), as well as
be
resilient
to the sea level rise projecti
ons in the
Approvals required for the proposed project,
including EBRPD approval, are described in
Section 2,
Project Description
.
Potential for inundation of the project site from
se
a level rise is discussed in the hydrology and
water quality section of the Initial Study (see
Appendix
A).
City of Hayward
4 1
50 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
1 -
4 Commenter
Comment/Request
How and Where
I
t
W
as Addressed
Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency
Shoreline Adaptation Master Plan.
Expresses
an opinion that
the Initial Study
lacks details
relating to the management
and funding sources of the preserve, and
requests
information on these topics.
The project applicant w
ould
retain ownership of
the 32
-
acre preserve area, referred to in this EIR
as the western component of the project site. No
restoration activities
,
maintenance activities
, or
management activities
are pr
oposed in the
western component of the project site.
A
description of the proposed preserve area is
provided in Section 2,
Project Description
.
Native American
Heritage Commission
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 consultation, and if
applicable Senate Bill 18 consultation,
with California Native American tribes
that are traditionally or culturally
affiliated with the geographic area of the
proposed project should be conducted as
early as possi
ble.
Senate Bill 18 requires either cities or counties to
notify the appropriate California Native American
tribe(s) prior to the adoption of a general plan or
specific plan or an amendment to these plans.
The proposed project does not include adoption
of
a general plan or specific plan nor an
amendment to these plans. Therefore,
consultation pursuant to Senate Bill 18 is not
required for the proposed project.
As described in Section 1
2 on page
1 4
of the
Initial Study (see Appendix A)
, the City of
Hayward
sent a notification letter to the Ione
Band of Miwok Indians of the project and invited
them to participate in consultation
pursuant to
AB 52
. The City of Hayward prepared and mailed
letters on November 9, 2020.
Provides a summary of AB 52 and
Senate
Bill 18 requirements and protocol in
context with CEQA.
This comment does not pertain to a specific
CEQA impact or threshold.
However, the City has
notified the applicable California Native
American tribe of the project pursuant to AB 52.
Provides examples
and recommendations
for
mitigation measures to avoid or
minimize significant adverse impacts to
tribal cultural resources.
Impacts to tribal cultural resources are analyzed
in Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the
Initial
Study. Mitigation measures to reduce
impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than
significant are indicated. See Appendix A to this
EIR for the Initial Study.
1.3 Scope and Content
This EIR addresse
s
impacts identified
in
the Initial Study to be potentially significant.
Potentially
significant impacts were identified in t
he following issue
area
s
and are therefore
studied in the EIR:
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Transportation
In p
reparing the EIR,
use was made of
pertinent City policies and guidelines,
certified EIRs and
adopted CEQA documents,
and other background documents. A full reference list is contained in Section 7.0,
References
.
Introduction
Draft
Environmental Impact Report
1 -
5 The a
lternatives section of the EIR
(Section
6.0)
was prepared in accordance with Section 15126.6 of
the
CEQA Guidelines
and focuses on alternatives that are capable of eliminating or reducing significant adverse effects associated with the project while feasibly attaining most of the basic projec
t
objectives. In addition, the a
lternatives section identifies the
“
environmentally superior
”
alternative among the alternatives assessed. The alternatives evaluated include the CEQA
-
required
“
No Project
”
a
lternative and
an alternate project site alternative
.
The level of detail contained throughout this EIR is consistent with the requirements of CEQA and applicable court decisions. Section 15151 of the
CEQA Guidelines
provides the standard of adequacy
on which this document is based. The
Guidelines
state:
“
An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision -
makers with
information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental ef fects of the proposed
project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disag
reement among the experts. The courts have looked
not for perfection, but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure. ”
1.4 Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EIR
Table 1
-
2 summarizes issues from the environmental checklist that were addressed in the Initial Study (Appendix
A
). As indicated in the Initial Study, there is no substantial evidence that significant impacts would occur in any of these issue areas.
Table 1
-
2 Issues Not Studied in the EIR
Issue Area
Initial Study Findings
Aesthetics
Because the project would be adjacent to similar development, would involve
preserv
ation of
approximately 32 acres of land near the shoreline, and
would
include landscaping with native
species, impacts on scenic vistas would be less than significant.
Because the project site in not within a state scenic highway, the proposed project would have no impacts to state scenic highways.
Because the proposed project would be consistent with applicable zoning regulations governing scenic quality, including building design, height and massing, as well as landscaping and trail design, impacts would be less
than significant.
Section 10
-
1.1607 prohibits uses that generate substantial, direct glare visible beyond the boundaries of the site where the use is located. Mandatory compliance with Section 10 -
1.1607
of the Hayward Municipal Code would prevent the prop
osed project from creating substantial
glare from affecting views. Additionally, the proposed project would utilize window glazing to minimize the glare from glass surfaces on the façade of the industrial building. For these reasons, impacts would be less
than significant.
Agricultural
and
Forestry
Resources
The
p
roject
site does not contain agricultural or forestry uses. There would be no impacts on agricultural
or forestry
resources.
Air Quality
The project would not result in exceedances of BAAQMD thresholds for criteria air pollutants and
thus would not conflict wit
h the 2017 Cl
ea
n Ai
r Plan’s goal to attain air quality standards.
Furthermore, as shown inTable4,
the proposed project would include applicable control
measures from the 2017 Clean Air Plan and would not disrupt or hinder implementation of such control mea
sures. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to consistency with the 2017 Plan.
Construction emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds, and the project would be
below BAAQMD screening thresholds for operational emissions.
Therefore, project operation
City of Hayward
4 1
50 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
1 -
6 Issue Area
Initial Study Findings
would not result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollu
tant for
which
the project region is
in
non
-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Impacts would be less than
significant.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are schools and residences.
The nearest
school to the project site is California Crosspoint Academy, which is
approximately 1.1
miles
northeast of the site. The nearest public school to the project site is located approximately 1.5
miles northeast of the site.
The nearest residences to the project site are approximately 1.2 miles to
the east. Given the distance of the sensitive receptors from the project site, the proposed project
would not expose se
nsitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. Impacts would be less
than significant.
T
he proposed project would require the use of diesel equipment during construction.
Additionally,
some vehicles use
d
for warehouse operations at the proposed industrial building would also operate
with diesel fuel. Diesel exhaust is odorous. However, a substantial number of people, especially
those sensitive to odors, do not occur in proximity to the project site.
Peopl
e using the San Francisco
Bay Trail, around the perimeter of the project site, would be briefly exposed to odors of diesel
exhaust from project equipment. However, given that
warehousing would require
minimal
truck
trips, and project construction would be
temporary,
impacts would be less than significant.
Energy
Project
operation would increase energy use on the site
compared to existing conditions.
However,
energy use would be in conformance with the latest version of
CALGreen
and the
Building Energy
Effi
ciency Standards. Additionally, the electricity and natural gas use would not result in a significant
increase for PG&E.
Moreover, the project would not result in
wasteful use of vehicle fuel.
The
proposed preserve on the western component of the project s
ite would not require energy.
Therefore, the project would not result in wasteful or
unnecessary energy consumption, and
impacts would be less than significant.
T
he proposed project would be
consistent with policies from the City’s Climate
Action
Plan.
T
hose policies specifically pertaining to
energy efficiency include NR
-
4.1 through NR
-
4.11 and
NR
-
4.13 though NR
-
4.15 relating to energy
performance in new construction and energy
efficient design in new development. Therefore, the
proposed project
would not interfere
with the energy
-
related measures of the Climate Action Plan.
The proposed project
would not
conflict with or obstruct the state
or local
plan for renewable
energy
or energy efficiency.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Geology
an
d
Soils
The nearest earthquake fault zone to the project site is the Hayward Fault zone. The Hayward Fault zone is approximately 3.8 miles to the east of the project site. Given the distance between the project site and nearest known earthquake fault, the
proposed project would
cause no impacts related to fault ruptures.
The City would
ensure
that t
he
project would be
designed and constructed consistent with
the current
California Building Code (CBC)
,
thereby
ensuring that appropriate investigations and de
sign measures have been employed to
effectively minimize or avoid potential hazards associated with redevelopment and/or new building
construction.
Proper engineering, including compliance with the CBC, would minimize the risk to life
and property associat
ed with potential seismic activity in the area.
T
he project site is within a liquefaction zone that could result in foundation damage to the proposed
industrial building during a seismic
-
related ground failure. Additionally, graded
slopes could be
susceptible to collapse during seismic events if improperly constructed or compacted. Soils on site
could become unstable from the overlying weight of the proposed industrial building and surface
parking
lot.
Collapse or failure of soils could result in su
bstantial
risk of loss, injury, or death.
Mitigation Measure GEO
-
1 is
required to
reduce impacts
, and with
implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts would be less than significant .
Mitigation
measures from the Initial Study are listed in the Execu tive Summary of this EIR and will be
included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Landslide potential on the project site very low because there are no substantial slopes on or
nearby. Project grading would create slopes only
several feet high, and slopes would be no
steeper
than 1 foot of vertical per 2 feet
of horizontal, consistent with the Hayward Municipal
Introduction
Draft
Environmental Impact Report
1 -
7 Issue Area
Initial Study Findings
Code.
Therefore, there would be no potential for substantial adverse effects from landslides.
Impacts
would be less th
an significant.
Construction of the proposed project would disturb the ground surface and loosen soils, which
would increase the potential for erosion. As the proposed project would disturb over one acre of
land, the applicant would be required to
obtain coverage under the General Permit for
Discharges of
Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009
-
0009
-
DWQ) to comply with CWA NPDES requirements. Compliance with these requirements would
include preparati
on of a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP),
which would specify
best management practice
s
to prevent or reduce erosion. Following
construction, the
eastern component of the
project site
would either be landscaped or
covered with impervious surfac
es, such as
the industrial building and
asphalt parking.
The
wetland preserve on the western component of the project site would involve
no
ground
disturbance.
Accordingly, there would be no potential for substantial erosion or loss of
topsoil.
Impacts wou
ld
be less than significant.
Soils on the project site have low expansion potential. Therefore, the project would not be located
on an expansive soil. There would be no substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property as a
result of expansive soi
ls. Impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project would
include
connections to the City’s existing wastewater treatment
system. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would not be used. Therefore,
there would be no
impact
sin this regard.
The
project site is underlain by middle
-
aged Holocene geologic units. Late
-
to middle
-
aged
Holocene
geologic deposits have low potential to yield unique paleontological resources.
Therefore,
excavation and grading required for proj
ect construction would have low potential
to destroy
unique paleontological resources. Impacts would be less than significant.
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
T
he project would generate approximately
447.6MT of CO2e per year,
which would not
exceed the
bright
-
line
threshold of 660 MT of CO2e per year. Therefore, the proposed project
would have a less than significant impact related to
greenhouse gas (
GHG
)
emissions.
O
verall,
the proposed project would be consistent with Plan
Ba
y Area 2040. Impacts related to GHG
emissions would be less than significant.
Hydrology
and
Water
Quality
C
ompliance with construction
-
related water
quality and erosion control requirements,
construction of the proposed project would not violate
water quality standards. Impacts
resulting from project
construction would be less than significant.
Given required compliance to the provisions of NPDES Section C.3, the SWPPP, and the stormwater
control plan, the proposed project would not
result in adverse effects on water
quality and or in the
violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction o
r
operation. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on water
quality. With
implementation of the
measures contained in these
plans, excessive stormwater
runoff,
substantial erosion or siltation on
-
or off
-
site would not
occur and the potential for the
project to violate water quality standards and substantially degrade water qual
ity would be
reduced.
Compliance with
conditions or permit requirements established by the City as well as water discharge requirements
outlined by the RWQCB would ensure that wastewater discharges coming from the project site and
treated by the
Hayward Water Pollution Control (WPCF)
system would not exceed applicable RWQCB wastewater treatment
requirements.
Mandatory
compliance with the permit requirements would prevent stormwater
runoff and effluent
discharges from
violating
water
quality standards
or
substantially degrading
water quality.
Thus, the proposed project
would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water
quality control plan.
T
he proposed on
-
site bioretention areas would allow for precipitation and runoff fro
m impervious
project surfaces to infiltrate the ground surface. Therefore, although the proposed project would
increase the amount of impervious area on the project site, runoff from the impervious areas
would
still contribute to groundwater recharge. Addi
tionally, the
proposed project does not include use of
groundwater supplies
.
Although there is no adopted
sustainable groundwater management plan
for
the
groundwater basin underlying the project
City of Hayward
4 1
50 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
1 -
8 Issue Area
Initial Study Findings
site, because the proposed project would allow for
infiltrati
on and not use groundwater, it
would not conflict with such a plan. Impacts would be less
than significant.
The proposed project would not alter the course of a stream or river. Jurisdictional wetlands occur
on
-
site, but there are no streams or rivers (
i.e., flowing waterways) on the project site.
T
he
addition of the proposed industrial building and associated surface parking and driveway area
would increase the amount of impervious surface area on -
site. However, the proposed
project
would include on
-
sit
e bioretention areas to capture and treat runoff prior to discharge into the
existing storm
-
drain system. The bioretention areas would slow the velocity of runoff and allow for
infiltration, reducing the amount of runoff that is discharged to the storm -
dra
in
system. Therefore,
because runoff would be conveyed to bioretention
areas, substantial
erosion on
-
or off
-
site would
be avoided, as would flooding. Additionally, the proposed project includes landscaping, which would
restore ground cover following constr
uction. The
establishment of groundcover would reduce
erosion potential of on
-
site soils.
The proposed
preserve would not add or increase impervious
surface on the project site. The wetland
preserve would
not
alter drainage patterns
as no changes
to
current conditions within the
proposed preserve area are proposed. Therefore, the proposed
preserve would not exceed
the capacity of stormwater drainage systems.
Impacts would be less
than significant.
A portion of the project site is mapped by the Feder
al Emergency Management Agency as 100
-
year
floodplain. The proposed preserve area, new San
Francisco Bay Trail alignment, and a
portion of the proposed industrial building and surface parking
would be within the mapped
floodplain.
The industrial building a
nd surface parking area would
increase the amount of
impervious
surface area within the floodplain.
Increases in impervious area
can contribute to
accelerated stormwater runoff flow and larger volumes of flow.
However, during a
flood
event, flood flows wou
ld infiltrate surrounding pervious areas, which are abundant due to
marshlands to the south and east of the site. Additionally, the proposed preserve area would remain
pervious and available for flood flow storage. Impacts would be less than significant.
Inundation of the
relocated trail segment would not occur from reasonably foreseeable sea level rise.
Inundation of
the proposed preserve area could occur,
consistent with existing
conditions,
but no pollutants would be released from inundation of the pr eserve
area
because
no pollutants or hazardous materials would be stored or used in the preserve area .
No
restoration activities or maintenance activities are proposed in the western component of the project site.
More severe sea level rise in the future,
include four feet of sea level rise could
inundate the surface parking lot, industrial building, and relocated segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail; however, pollutants and hazardous materials would not be stored in the building or on
-
site. Therefore, in
undation of the project would not release pollutants into the environment.
Impacts would be less than
significant.
Land Use
and
Planning
The project does not include linear features or road or trail closures that would limit
m
ovement or access
within the surrounding neighborhood. The project would not divide an established community. There would be no impact.
T
he proposed project would be potentially consistent with most General Plan
policies. The
proposed project would be potentially inconsistent with Policy NR -
6.10 and Policy NR
-
6.12. Policy 6.10
encourages
rainwater catchment for reuse indoors and for landscaping. Policy NR -
6.12 encourages
dual plumbing systems in new buildings. How
ever, as described in Section 19,
Utilities and Service Systems
, adequate water supplies would be available for the project and other foreseeable future growth in Hayward. The absence of rainwater catchment and a dual plumbing system in the proposed indust
rial building would not result in significant physical
environmental impacts.
Inu
ndation of the proposed preserve area could occur, consistent with existing conditions. Although the preserve area could continue to be inundated, inundation would not result
in significant environmental impacts, as described in Section 10, Hydrology
and Water Quality
. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mineral Resources
The project
site is not a known mineral resource area of regional importance , and the nearest
such
area is approximately 4.4 miles from the project site
. No impact would occur.
Introduction
Draft
Environmental Impact Report
1 -
9 Issue Area
Initial Study Findings
Noise
The proposed project could generate temporary noise increases during construction and long -
term
increases associated with project operation; however, both construction
-
related and
operational noise would be less than significant.
C
onstruction of the proposed project would intermittently gene rate vibration on and adjacent
to
the project site. There are no sensitive receptors in proximity to the project site , such as
residences where people may sleep and notice vibration. Operation of the proposed project would not involve uses that generate vibration. Therefore, because construction vibrations would not exceed Caltrans criteria at the nearest neighboring str uctures and operation would
generate no vibration, impacts would be less than significant.
The nearest airport to the project site is the Hayward Executive Airport, located approximately
2.5 miles
north of the project site. The proposed project would not expose people within the project site to excessive noise levels associated with aircraft or airport operations.
No impact
would occur
.
Population
and
Housing
The proposed project would involve the development of
an industrial
buildin
g, which would
generate new business and jobs on the project site; however, the project is not of a type that would generate substantial indirect population growth
and would not remove barriers to
growth in the area
. This impact would be less than significant
.
There are no housing units on the project site or people residing on the project site in temporary housing. Therefore, the project would not displace existing housing units or people.
No impact would occur.
Public Services
The proposed
industrial
building would be next to existing similar development to the east and would not substantially
increase the geographic response area for the Hayward Fire Department.
Therefore, the existing
Hayward Fire Department
-
Fire Station 4 would be
adequat
e for serving the project site, and the
construction of new or altered fire protection
facilities would not be required.
The proposed
wetland preserve on the western portion of the
site would not result in additional demand for fire
protection services
as current conditions
within this area would remain unchanged by the project.
Impacts would be less than
significant.
T
he proposed project does not include new residential
development that would increase the
population
of Hayward. Therefore, the
service population of
the Hayward Police
Department
would not increase as a result of the proposed project. New police
officers or civilian support
staff would not be required
as a result of the proposed project.
T
he
project site is adjacent to
existing of
fice and light industrial development that would require similar
response times from
the Hayward Police Department on Winton Avenue. The construction of new or altered police facilities would not be required to
provide police protection services to the pro
ject. Impacts
would be less than significant.
The proposed project does not include new residential development that would directly increase the population of Hayward. The proposed project would not result in substantial indirect increases in population through
employment.
Because the proposed project
would
not substantially induce population growth, there would be no result substantial increase in school enrollment. The
construction of new or altered school facilities would not be required.
There would be no impact.
There are no parks on the projec
t site. The proposed project would not physically alter existing
parks.
Because the project would not induce substantial population growth
and
would be
subject to
applicable park impact fees,
it would not result in increased
use of parks or
demand
for park
s.
Impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project does not include new residential development that would
directly
increase
the population
of Hayward.
T
here would be no result substantial increase demand for public facilities, such as
libraries and court
services. The construction of new or altered public
facilities would not be required. The proposed
project would have no impact
in this regard.
City of Hayward
4 1
50 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
1 -
10 Issue Area
Initial Study Findings
Recreation
Because the project would not induce substantial population growth, it would also not result
in a substantial increase in use of existing recreation facilities in the area. Additionally ,
the
project would be subject to the City’s park impact fees. Impacts would be less than significant.
The project includes a land swap to r
elocate the San Francisco Bay Trail, and impacts of that relocation are analyzed throughout the Initial Study and this EIR. This impact would be less than significant.
Tribal Cultural
Resources
While no tribal cultural resources are known to occur on the project site,
given its proximity to
the
shoreline of the San Francisco Bay, there could be unknown resources,
particularly
subsurface resources. Construction of the proposed project would require excavation
and
grading, which could damage or destroy triba
l cultural resources, if present.
However, impacts
from the unanticipated discovery of tribal cultural resources during
project
construction would
be
less than significant with Mitigation Measure TCR
-
1. Mitigation measures from the Initial
Study are listed
in the Executive Summary of this EIR and will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Utilities
and Service
Systems
The proposed project would not require the relocation of water, wastewater treatment, stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities. These utilities exist within the
right
-
of
-
way of Point Eden Way. The proposed project would require construction of new
connections to the utilities within Point Eden Way. Additionally , new
bioretention areas would be
constructed on
-
site for stormwater treatment
on the eastern
component of the project site.
The
potential environmental impacts associated with the
construction of utility connections and on
-
site
bioretention
areas evaluate
d throughout this
document
as a component of the proposed project.
Impacts would be less than significant.
As determined in the City’s UWMP, there is adequate water supply available to serve anticipated
growth in Hayward, as envisioned by the
City’s General Plan. The proposed
industrial building would
be located on the portion of the project site
designated Industrial
Technology and Innovation Center
(IC). Therefore, the industrial building would be consistent with the General Plan. The relocat
ion of
the San Francisco Bay Trail and establishment of the
preserve on other areas of the project site
would not generate demand for water supply.
Therefore,
there would be sufficient potable water
supply to accommodate the anticipated
demand
increases re
sulting from the proposed project.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Because the proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan, and the
Hayward Water
Pollution Control Facility (
WPCF
)
has capacity for growth consistent with
the General Plan,
there would be adequate capacity at the existing WPCF for the proposed project.
Impacts
would be less than significant.
Hayward Municipal Code
Chapter 5, Article 10 requires that for construction
and demolition
projects that generate significant debris,
100 percent of all asphalt and concrete and 50
percent of
remaining materials
must be recycled.
Construction activities associated with the
proposed
project
would be required to comply with this re
quirement.
Further, the proposed
project would
be required to
comply
with regulations related to solid waste, as mandated by law. For these reasons, impacts would be
less than significant.
Wildfire
The project site is not within or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as very high
fire
hazard severity zones. The nearest state responsibility area or land classified as very high fire hazard
severity zone is at Garin Regional Park
.
Garin Regional Park is
approximately 4.5
miles east
-
northeast of the project site. Numerous
firebreaks, such as freeways and urban
development without wildland fuels exist between Garin
Regional Park and the project site.
The project site is bound by State Route 92 to the north and
mostly inundated
tidal m
arshland
to the south. Therefore, the risk of wildfire on the project site is
low. There would be no
impacts
in this regard.
Introduction
Draft
Environmental Impact Report
1 -
11 1.5
Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies
The
CEQA Guidelines
define lead, responsible and trustee agencies. The City of Hayward
is the lead
agency for the
p
roject because it holds principal responsibility for approving the p
roject.
A responsible agency refers to a public agency other than the lead agency that has d iscretionary
approval over the
p
roject.
Responsible agencies include
the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), the
San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control District (RWQCD), and the East Bay Regional Parks District
.
The
East Bay Regional P
arks District
submitted comments
o
n the Initial
Study, which is
provided in A
ppendix
A
. The
EIR will also be submitted to these agencies for review and comment.
A trustee agency refers to a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources af fected
by a project. There are no trustee agencies for the
p
roposed
p
roject.
1.6 Environmental Review Process
The environmental impact review process, as required under CEQA, is summarized below and illustrated
in
Figure 1
-
1 . The steps are presented in sequential order.
Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study
. After deciding that an EIR is required, the lead
agency (City of
Hayward
) must file a NOP so
liciting input on the EIR scope to the State
Clearinghouse, other concerned agencies, and parties previously requesting notice in writing (
CEQA Guidelines
Section 15082; Public Resources Code Section 21092.2). The NOP must be posted in the County Clerk’s o
ffice for 30 days. The NOP may be accompanied by an Initial Study that identifies the issue areas for which the project could create significant environmental impacts.
Draft EIR Prepared.
The Draft EIR must contain: a) table of contents or index; b) summar y; c)
project description; d) environmental setting; e) discussion of significant impacts (direct, indirect, cumulative, growth
-
inducing and unavoidable impacts); f) a discussion of alternatives; g) mitigation measures; and h) discussion of irreversible ch anges.
Notice of Completion
(NOC)
.
The lead agency must file a
NOC
with the State Clearinghouse
when it completes a Draft EIR and prepare a Public Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR. The lead agency must place the
NOC
in the County Clerk’s office for 30
days (Public Resources Code
Section 21092) and send a copy of the
NOC
to anyone requesting it (
CEQA Guidelines
Section
15087). Additionally, public notice of Draft EIR availability must be given through at least one of the following procedures: a) publica
tion in a newspaper of general circulation; b) posting on and off the project site; and c) direct mailing to owners and occupants of contiguous properties. The lead agency must solicit input from other agencies and the public and
respond in writing to all
comments received (Public Resources Code Sections 21104 and 21253). The minimum public review period for a Draft EIR is 30 days. When a Draft EIR is sent to the State Clearinghouse for review, the public review period must be 45 days unless the State Clear inghouse approves a
shorter period (Public Resources Code 21091).
Final EIR.
A Final EIR must include:
a) the Draft EIR; b) copies of comments received during public review; c) list of persons and entities commenting; and d) responses to comments.
Certification of Final EIR.
P
rior to making a decision on a
p
roposed
p
roject, the lead agency
must certify tha
t: a) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; b) the Final EIR was presented to the decision
-
making body of the lead agency; and c) the decision making body City of Hayward
4 1
50 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
1 -
12 reviewed and considered
the information in the Final EIR
prior to approving a pro
ject (
CEQA
Guidelines
Section 15090).
Lead Agency Project Decision.
The lead agency may a) disapprove the project because of its significant environmental effects; b) require changes to the project to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects; or c
) approve the project despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted ( CEQA
Guidelines
Sections 15042 and 15043).
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations
. For each signifi
cant impact of the project
identified in the EIR, the lead agency must find, based on substantial evidence, that either: a) the project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; b) changes to the project are within anot
her agency
’
s jurisdiction and such changes have or should
be adopted; or c) specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible (
CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091). If an agency
approves a project
with unavoidable significant environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations that sets forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency’s decision.
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program.
When the lead agency makes findings on significant
effects identified in the EIR, it must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval to mitigate significant effects.
Notice of
Determination
(NOD)
.
The lead agency must file a
NOD
after deciding to approve a
project for which an EIR is prepared (
CEQA Guidelines
Section 15094). A local agency must file
the
NOD
with the County Clerk. The
NOD
must be posted for 30 days and sent to an
yone
previously requesting notice. Posting of the
NOD
starts a
30 -
day
statute of limitations on CEQA
legal challenges (Public Resources Code Section 21167[c]).
Introduction
Draft
Environmental Impact Report
1 -
13 Figure 1
-
1 Environmental Review Process
City of Hayward
4 1
50 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
1 -
14 This page
intentionally left
blank
Project Description
Draft Environmental Impact Report
2 -
1 2
Project Description
This section describes the
p
roposed
p
roject, including the
p
roject applicant, the
p
roject site and
surrounding land uses, major
p
roject characteristics,
p
roject objectives, and discretionary actions
needed for approval.
2.1 Project Applicant
U
-
HAUL, 815 Market
ing Company
8000 San Leandro Street
Oakland
,
California
94621
2.2 Lead Agency Contact Person
Leigha Schmidt, Senior Planner
City of
Hayward
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
510
-
583
-
4113
2.3 Project Location
The project site consists of six parcels in the City of Hay ward identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers
(APN) 461
-
0084
-
019
-
00, APN 461
-
0085
-
020
-
01, APN 461
-
0085
-
020
-
02, APN 461
-
0061
-
001
-
00, APN
461
-
0090
-
001
-
00, and APN
461
-
0090
-
002
-
00. A separate parcel, not included in the project site, separates APN
461
-
0085
-
019
-
00, 461
-
0085
-
020
-
01, and 461
-
0085
-
020
-
02 from APN 461
-
0061
-
001
-
00, 461
-
0090
-
001
-
00, and 461
-
0090
-
002
-
00. Therefore, the project site has an eastern component (APN 461
-
0085
-
019
-
00, 461
-
0085
-
020
-
01, and 461
-
0085
-
020
-
02) and a western component (
APN
461
-
0061
-
001
-
00, 461
-
0090
-
001
-
00, and 461
-
0090
-
002
-
00), which are non
-
contiguous but nearly
adjacent. The eastern component is located at 4150 Point Eden Way, while the western component has no public road access.
Point Eden Way roughly parallels the s
outh side of State Route 92 in the
eastern portion of Hayward.
The regional location of the site is shown in
Figure 2
-
1 , the vicinity of
the site is shown in
Figure 2
-
2 , and the project site boundaries are depicted in
Figure 2
-
3 .
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
2 -
2 Figure 2
-
1 Regional Location
Project Description
Draft Environmental Impact Report
2 -
3 Figure 2
-
2 Project Vicinity Map
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
2 -
4 Figure 2
-
3 Project Site Boundary
Western Component
Ea
stern Component
Project Description
Draft Environmental Impact Report
2 -
5 2.4
Existing Site Characteristics
2.4.1 Existing Site Conditions
The eastern component of the project site is approximately six to eight feet in elevat ion above mean
sea level (msl). Numerous small depressions occur throughout the eastern component of the project site as a result of remediation grading. There are two historic finishing salt ponds along the southwestern boundary of the eastern component o
f project site. These ponds were originally
constructed as part of a salt processing plant, known as the Oliver Brothers Salt Works.
Currently
these salt ponds only receive water from precipitation and surface runoff from the former working surfaces of the
salt plant operation area. They are not subject to tidal influence.
Additionally, the
eastern component of the project site contains the primary structure associated with the former Oliver Brothers Salt Works operation, as well as other components of the salt operation that have
largely deteriorated over time.
There are six former salt ponds in the western component of the project site. The former use of these salt ponds as evaporation ponds for salt production is evident by the remaining salt crusts in th
e impounded areas. Old water control structures that used to convey water into these ponds are in poor and dilapidated condition and do not function now. Currently, each pond supports varying depths of standing water, and/or is dry over the course of the y ear.
Four land cover types occur within the eastern component of the project site including: developed; ruderal habitats dominated by upland vegetation; wetlands; and historic salt ponds. Remedial action measures associated with removal of contaminated soi
l that have been taking place for years have
altered the plant communities in the eastern component of the project site. Vegetation communities and land cover types were not delineated or classified in detail for the western component of the project site b
ecause no project activities are proposed within the western component other than preservation of existing conditions. Therefore, it was unnecessary to map or delineate vegetation communities in
that portion
of the project site. However, some of the same
p
lant species and communities that occur in the eastern component also occur in the western component of the project site.
2.4.2 Current Land Use Designation and Zoning
As shown in Figure 2
-
3, the
project site consists of a western and eastern component.
The
wes
tern
component of the project site has a
General Plan
land use designation of Baylands
and is zoned
Floodplain
District
, while the eastern component has a
General Plan
land use designation
of
Industrial
Technology and Innovation Corridor
, with the westernmost corner
has a General Plan land
use designation of
Baylands.
The eastern component is zoned Industrial Park.
Because
the 32
-
acre
area would be preserved in perpetuity
with a deed restriction or other appropriate legal
mechanism
, without management activities, no management plan or improvement plan is proposed.
Figure
2 -
4 shows the site’s land use designations, and
Figure
2 -
5 shows the zoning districts of the
site.
2 -
6 City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
2.4.3 Surrounding Land Uses
The project
site
is located directly south of State Route
92 and north of the CDFW Eden Landing
Ecological Reserve, as shown in
Figure
2-6.
North of State Route
92 is open space, and east of the
eastern component are office
and
Iight industrial uses.
2.5 Project Characteristics
The proposed project
would involve construction
of a new industrial building on the eastern
component of the project site and preservation of an open space/wetland preserve on the western
component.
The project would commence with demolition and removal of existing structures on
the eastern component of the project site associated with the former Oliver Brothers Salt Works
operations. After demolition and removal of existing structures and materials, construction of the
new industrial building would begin.
The proposed industrial building would be approximately 50
feet in height to finished roof. The proposed building would provide approximately
11 4
,0
59 square
feet of warehouse space and a 2,785-square-foot of office, for a total size of approximately
116,844
square feet. The office space would be provided at the north end of the building, facing State Route
92. During operation of the project, approximately 20 to 25 employees would be present.
A
conceptual site plan for the eastern component is shown in
Figure
2-7,
and
a conceptual landscape
plan is shown in
Figure
2-8.
The San Francisco Bay Trail is
located on the eastern edge of the eastern component of the project
site, within APN 461-0085-020-01. The proposed project includes a land swap for East Bay Regional
Park District to relocate the Bay Trail from the current location along the eastern property line to
meander along the
northern
property line and then to turn
south
to run along the western property
line of APN 461-0085-020-02, until meeting its current location on Point Eden Way, as shown in
Figure
2-9. The swap would transfer ownership of APN 461-0085-020-01 to the project applicant
and grant an easement to the East Bay Regional Park District for the trail to cross APN 461-0085-
020-02.
The proposed project also includes establishing an approximately 32-acre preserve on the western
component of the project site, within APN 461-0061-001-00, 461-0090-001-00, and 461-0090-002-
00. These parcels are currently characterized by salt evaporation ponds from the former salt
production operation on the project site that would remain in place. This 32-acre area (Preserve) contains six old salt ponds totaling 26 acres. The 32-acre Preserve would be preserved in perpetuity
via recordation of a
deed restriction
or other appropriate legal mechanism, ensuring that the salt
ponds are permanently preserved as open space in perpetuity. No conservation easement or
conservator endowment would be provided.
Because the 32-acre area would be preserved in
perpetuity
with a deed restriction or other appropriate legal mechanism, without management
activities, no management plan or improvement plan is proposed.
Project Description
Draft Environmental Impact Report
2 -
7 Figure
2 -
4 Land Use Designations
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
2 -
8 Figure
2 -
5 Zoning Districts
Project Description
Draft Environmental Impact Report
2 -
9 Figure
2 -
6 Surrounding Land Use
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
2 -
10 Figure
2 -
7 Conceptual Site Plan: Eastern Component
Project Description
Draft Environmental Impact Report
2 -
11 Figure
2 -
8 Conceptual Landscape Plan
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
2 -
12 Figure
2 -
9 Conceptual San Francisco Bay Trail Land Swap Plan
Project Description
Draft Environmental Impact Report
2 -
13 2.5.1
Parking and Site Access
I
ngress and egress to the industrial building would be from a new driveway on Point Eden Way.
Approximately 79 parking spaces would be provided,
including two spaces dedicated for electric
vehicles and two accessible spaces compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Two bike lockers and two bike stalls would also be provided on -
site near the industrial building.
Landscaping would be
installed on all sides of the new building but would be concentrated on the north side of the building facing State Route 92. Landscaping would include trees, low shrubs, grasses, and perennials.
No physical changes are proposed for the western component.
2.5.2 Utilities
The proposed industrial building would require utility and drainage improvements including new sanitary sewer, storm drain, and domestic water lines. These new utilities would connect to existing utilities within the right
-
of
-
way of Point Eden Wa
y. Bioretention areas
(see Figure 2
-
8)
would be
constructed on
-
site to collect and treat stormwater runoff prior to discharge into the City’s storm drain system
.
2.5.3 Construction and Grading
Estimated construction duration of the proposed project would be 12 t o 18 months, tentatively
beginning in 2021.
Maximum construction depth would generally be approximately 7 feet below ground surface; however, displacement piers would be used in the foundation and require drilling to depths of approximately 20 feet below g
round surface.
Construction would begin with demolition of
existing structures on the project site. Construction would involve standard and typical equipment, such as excavators, graders, backhoes, dump trucks, and power tools. Construction would also invo
lve site preparation, consisting primarily of grading the s
ite
to achieve desired drainage and
suitable building area. Grading would require permanent placement of fill material on -
site, including
within jurisdictional waters of the United States (i.e., we tlands).
The proposed project would
generate approximately 18,200 cubic yards of fill and 6,000 cubic yards of cut material, resulting in approximately 12,200 cubic yards of material for import.
Construction would not require the
removal of trees.
2.6 Project Objectives
The objectives for the proposed project are to:
Develop an industrial building to house U
-
Haul corporate headquarters and warehouse.
Locate the building at the western edge of Hayward in proximity to a regional highway and other industri
al, warehousing and logistics uses to avoid land use conflicts.
Create new employment and economic growth opportunities by redeveloping a vacant and underutilized property.
Establish a wetland preserve adjacent to the San Francisco Bay.
Remove a dilapidate
d and unsafe structure from a currently underutilized property at the gateway to the City.
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
2 -
14 2.7
Required Approvals
The following approvals and permits from the City of Hayward would be required for the proposed project:
Site Plan Review
Grading and Building
Permits
The City of Hayward is the lead agency with responsibility for approving the proposed project.
Construction of the project would also involve fill of wetlands, which w
ould
require approval from
the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board. Consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service will be required since the proposed project may affect endangered species protected pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act. The pr
oposed project will also require consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office.
The East Bay Regional Park District must also consider approval of the proposed land exchange included in the project for relocation of the San Francisco Bay Trail.
The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) has regulatory responsibility over development in San Francisco Bay and along the Bay's nine -
county shoreline,
including shoreline in Alameda County. It is necessary to obtain a BCDC perm it prior to undertaking
work in the San Francisco Bay or within 100 feet of the shoreline. The project site is approximately 2,000 feet from the shoreline of the San Francisco Bay. Thus, BCDC permits would not be required.
Environmental Setting
Draft Environmental Impact Report
3 -
1 3
Environmental Setting
This section provides a general overview of the environmental setting for the p
roposed
p
roject.
More detailed descriptions of the environmental setting for each environmental issue area evaluated in this EIR
can be found in Section 4,
Environmental Impact
Analysis
.
3.1 Regional Setting
The
p
roject site is in the
far eastern portion of the
City
of Haywar
d, which is in southwest Alameda
County
in the San Francisco Bay Area. Hayward is bound by the San Francisco Bay to the west and the East Bay Hills to the east.
The shoreline of the San Francisco Bay is approximately 2,000 feet to the west of the project site. Because of the proximity to the Bay, the region around the project site is largely characterized by marshlands and tidal zones.
The Mediterranean climate o
f the region and
the coastal influence produce moderate temperatures year -
round, with rainfall concentrated in the
winter months.
3.2 Project Site Setting
As described in Section 2,
Project Description
, the
project site has an eastern component (APN 461
-
0085
-
019
-
00, 461
-
0085
-
020
-
01, and 461
-
0085
-
020
-
02) and a western component (APN 461
-
0061
-
001
-
00, 461
-
0090
-
001
-
00, and 461
-
0090
-
002
-
00), which are non
-
contiguous but nearly adjacent.
The eastern component is l
ocated at 4150 Point Eden Way, while the western component has no public road access
.
Figure
2 -
1 and 2
-
2 in Section 2,
Project Description
, shows the
regional
location
of the
p
roject site
and the near vicinity.
As shown in
Figure
2 -
6 in Section 2,
Project Description,
the
p
roject site
is located directly south of
S
tate
R
oute
92, and north of the CDFW Eden Landing Ecological Rese
rve
. North of S
tate Route
92 is
open space, and east of the eastern component are office
and
Iight industria
l uses.
The western component of the project site has a
General Plan
land use designation of Baylands and
is zoned Floodplain
District
and
is characterized primarily by dormant salt ponds associated with the former Oliver Brothers Salt Works operations.
T
opography on the western component
of the project
site is
generally flat, with some small mounds and embankments several feet in height.
The
eastern
component has a
General Plan
land use designation of Industrial, with the westernmost corner
is
designated
as Baylands. The eastern component is zoned Industrial Park
District
.
The eastern
component of the project site contains the primary structure associated with the former Oliver Brothers Salt Works operation, as well as other components of the salt operatio n that have largely
deteriorated over time. Vegetation in the eastern component of the project site is mostly comprised of either invasive or ruderal species.
The eastern component
of the project site
has
numerous
topographic low areas that remain as a res
ult of
contaminated soil removal and replacement
measures conducted at this site
.
3.3 Cumulative Development
In addition to the specific impacts of individual projects, CEQA requires EIRs to consider potential cumulative impacts of the
p
roposed
p
roject. CEQA defines “cumulative impacts” as two or more City of Hayward
4 1
50 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
3 -
2 individual impacts that, when considered together, are substan tial or will compound other
environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts are the combined changes in the environment that result from the incremental impact of development of the p
roposed
p
roject and other nearby
projects. For example,
noise
impacts of two ne
arby projects may be
less than significant
when
analyzed separately but could have a significant impact when analyzed together
because their
combined noise levels could be substantial
. Cumulative impact analysis allows the EIR to provide a reasonable forec
ast of future environmental conditions and can more accurately gauge the effects of a series of projects.
CEQA requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider either a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to cumulative effects o
r a forecast of future development potential.
As
described above in Section 3.1, Regional Setting, the project site is in proximity to the San Francisco Bay in the eastern portion of
Hayward.
Currently planned and pending projects in
the
we
stern
portion of
Hayward
, generally between the Bay and Interstate 880
, are listed in
Table 3
-
1 . These
projects are considered in the cumulative analyses in Section 4,
Environmental Impact Analysis
.
Table 3
-
1 Cumulative Projects List
Project
Status
Project Location
Land Use
Approved
24765 Hesperian Boulevard
13 -
Unit
Residential Subdivision
Under Review
1000 La Playa Drive
46 -
Unit
Residential
Project
Under
Construction
1401 W. Winton Avenue
66,278 Square
-
Foot
Public Facilities/Fire
Department
Approved
3760 Depot Road
3,362 Square
-
Foot
Recycling Center
Approved
23986 Foley Street
9,000 Square
-
Foot
Industrial/Warehouse
Approved
2595 Depot Road
126
-
Unit
Residential
Project
Approved
25080 Monte Vista Drive
2 -
Unit
Residential
with Accessory Dwelling Units
Approved
27501 Loyola Avenue
2 -
Unit
Residential
Project
Under Review
25800 Clawiter Road
616,000 Square
-
Foot
Industrial
Campus
Under Review
25450 Clawiter Road
387,271 Square
-
Foot
Industrial
Campus
Under Review
24763 Mohr Drive
5 -
Unit Residential Project
Under Review
24493 Clawiter Road
157,000 Square
-
Foot
Industrial
Building
Note:
Cumulative project
s
are based on applications the City has either r
e
ceived or processed at the time of preparation of this EIR.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4 -
1 4
Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses the possible environmental effects of the 4150
P
oint Eden Way Industrial
P
roject for the specific issue areas that were identified through the scoping pro cess as having the
potential to experience significant effects.
A
“
s
ignificant effect”
a
s defined by the
CEQA Guidelines
§15382
:
means a
substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by
the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment . A social or economic c
hange
related to a physical change
may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.
The assessment of each issue area begins with a discussion of the environmental setting related to the issue, which is followed by the impact an
alysis. In the impact analysis, the first subsection
identifies the methodologies used and the “significance thresholds,” which are those criteria adopted by the City and other agencies, universally recognized, or developed specifically for this analysis t
o determine whether potential effects are significant. The next subsection describes each impact of the
p
roposed
p
roject, mitigation measures for significant impacts, and the level of significance after mitigation. Each effect under consideration for an is sue area is separately listed in
bold text with the discussion of the effect and its significance. Each bolded impact statement
also
contains a statement of the significance determination for the environmental impact as follows:
Significant and Unavoidable
.
An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved per §15093 of the CEQA Guid
elines.
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
.
An impact that can be reduced to below the
threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under §15091 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Less t
han Significant
.
An impact that may be adverse but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easi ly achievable.
No Impact.
The
p
roposed
p
roject would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.
Following each environmental impact discussion is a list of mitigation measures (if required) and th e
residual effects or level of significance remaining after implementation of the measure (
s
)
. In cases
where the mitigation measure for an impact could have a significant environmental impact in another issue area, this impact is discussed and evaluated as
a secondary impact. The impact
analysis concludes with a discussion of cumulative effects, which evaluates the impacts associated with the
p
roposed
p
roject in conjunction with other planned and pending developments in the area listed in Section 3.0,
Envir
onmental Setting
.
T
he Executive Summary of this EIR
summarizes
all impacts and mitigation measures that apply to
the
p
roposed
p
roject.
City of Hayward
4 1
50 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4 -
2 This page intentionally left blank
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.1 -
1 4.1
Biological Resources
This section analyses the proposed project’s impacts related to biological resources.
Information
contained in this section comes primarily from a Biological Resources Technical Report prepared for the proposed project by WRA, Inc. (WRA
2020
).
The Biological Resources Technical Report is
provided as Appendix A to the Initial Study, which i
s included as Appendix A to this EIR.
4.1.1 Setting
a.
Regional Setting
The project site is located in the City of Hayward, in Alameda County, California. The city is bordered
by
the San Francisco Bay to the west, the City of San Leandro to the north, the East Bay Hills
to the
east,
and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Eden Landing Ecological Reserve to
the south. Due to the city’s proximity to the San Francis co Bay, Hayward supports multiple
vegetation types and habitats for numer
ou
s plant and animal species. Suitable habitat for special status species in the region
includes
the foothill areas in the eastern portion of the
City
, salt marsh
adjacent to the
Bay
Shoreline
, and riparian areas that run throughout the
City
.
b.
Project Site Setting
Topography and Hydrology
The
eastern component of the
project site is approximately six to eight feet in elevation above mean sea level (msl).
Numerous small depressions occur
throughout the
eastern component of the
project
site as a result of remediation grading. These undulations and slight topographic depressions, especially in the parking lot areas, are a byproduct of when dirt piles were created and removed from the site a
nd from all construction related to remediation of the soils. As such, there is depressional topography that now collects precipitation that does not readily drain owing to the underlying compacted soils. Rather, water evaporated from these minor depressio ns, as indicated
by the alkaline/salt crusts and colonization by salt tolerant, wetland plants.
There are two historic finishing salt ponds along the southwestern boundary of the eastern
component of
project site. These ponds were originally constructed as
part of
a
salt processing
plant
, known as the Oliver Brothers Salt Works
. These salt ponds are several feet higher in elevation than the adjacent salt ponds
to the south
associated with the Eden Landing Ecological Reserve. Both of the salt ponds on the ea
stern component of the project site
are hydrologically isolated from
adjacent salt ponds
to the south
by elevation and by levees/berms that were constructed at the turn of the last century. Historically, these higher elevation salt ponds were infrequently flooded with
Bay water, and hypersaline brines and salt were concentrated in the ponds via evaporation for salt production. The water control structures are in a dilapidated condition, and no longer appear to be operational. Currently these salt ponds only
receive water from precipitation and surface runoff
from the former working surfaces of the salt plant operation area. They are not subject to tidal influence.
There are six former salt ponds in the
western component of the project site
. The former use of
these salt ponds as evaporation ponds for salt production is evident by the remaining salt crusts in the impounded areas. Old water control structures that used to convey water into these ponds are City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.1 -
2 in poor and dilapidated condition and do not function now
. Currently, each pond supports varying
depths of standing water, and/or is dry over the course of the year.
The local watershed is Ward Creek
-
Frontal San Francisco Bay Estuaries (HUC 12: 180500040804) and the regional watershed is San Francisco Bay (HUC 8
: 18050004). The project site is located in the
lower portion of the Ward Creek
watershed but
does not contribute flow to Ward Creek. There are
no blue
-
line streams within the project site (USGS 2015). The project site does not include mapped resources in
the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI;
U.S. Fish and Wildlife [
USFWS
]
2018a), and
California Aquatic Resources Inventory (CARI; SFEI 2018), however the salt ponds adjacent to the south of the
project site are included as mapped resources.
While the project site is relatively flat,
water appears to drain in the southwest direction towards the drainage ditches and salt ponds on -
site, and towards the adjacent salt ponds and San Francisco Bay furth er to the west and south.
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Four land cover types
occur
within the
eastern component of the
project site including: developed
;
ruderal habitats dominated by upland vegetation
;
wetlands
;
and historic salt ponds. Rem
edial action
measures
associated with removal of contaminated soil
that have been taking place for years have
altered the
plant communities in the eastern component of the
project
site
.
The vegetation
communities and land cover types within the eastern com ponent of the project site are shown in
Table 4.1
-
1 and
Figure
4.1 -
1 . A brief description of each vegetation community and land cover type follows
Figure
4.1 -
1 .
Vegetation communities and land cover types were not delineated or classified in detail for the western component of the project site because no project activities are prop osed within the
western component other than preservation of existing conditions. Therefore, it was unnecessary to map or delineate vegetation communities in the western component of the project site. However, some of the same plant species and communities
that occur in the eastern component also occur in
the western component of the project site. These are noted in the brief vegetation community and land cover type descriptions that follow
Figure
4.1 -
1 .
Table
4.1 -
1 Land Cover Types on the
Eastern Component of the
Project Site
Vegetation Community/Land Cover
Type
Sensitive Status
Rarity Ranking
Acres
within the Project Site
(Eastern Component)
Developed
Non
-
sensitive
None
1.45 Ruderal Uplands
Non
-
sensitive
None
5.17 Seasonal Wetland
Sensitive
S3G4; USACE
-
;
RWQCB
-
Jurisdictional
0.28 Former Salt Pond/Salt Marsh
Sensitive
S3G4; USACE
-
;
RWQCB
-
Jurisdictional
1.41 Source:
WRA 2020;
Appendix
A of the Initial Study
Note: Table does not include western component of the project site.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.1 -
3 Figure
4.1 -
1 Vegetation Community and Land Cover Types: Eastern
Component of
Project Site
Source: WRA 2020;
see
Appendix
A of the Initial Study
Project Site
Communities/Cover Types
Developed
Ruderal
Salt Marsh
Seasonal Wetlands
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.1 -
4 D
EVELOPED
A
REA
(
N
O VEGETATION ALLIANCE
).
CDFW
R
ANK
:
N
ONE
A portion of the
eastern component of the
project site is characterized by the abandoned and
dilapidated Oliver
Brothers
Salt
Works
plant, including one remnant building and two smaller
structures located in the northeast corner of the project s ite.
A
portion of the
San Francisco
Bay Trail
occurs at
the eastern edge of the
eastern component of the
project site.
R
UDERAL
U
PLANDS
(
NO VEGETATION ALLIANCE
).
CDFW
R
ANK
:
N
ONE
Ruderal (weedy) communities are assemblages of
plants that thrive in areas that
have been
disturbed by
human activity. Dominant upland plant species on the
eastern component of the
project site include non
-
native species such as soft chess
(
Bromus hordeaceus
), ripgut grass (
Bromus
diandrus
), slender wild oat (
Avena barbata
), broad
-
le
af filaree
(
Erodium botrys
), white
-
stem filaree
(
Erodium moschatum
), wall barley (
Hordeum murinum leporinum
),
bitter lettuce (
Lactuca virosa
),
dove’s foot geranium (
Geranium molle
), cut
-
leaf geranium (
Geranium
dissectum
), California
burclover (
Medicago polymorpha
), stinkwort (
Dittrichia graveolens
), short
-
podded
mustard
(
Hirschfeldia incana
), Italian thistle (
Carduus pycnocephalus pycnocephalus
), bristly ox
-
tongue
(
Helminthotheca echioides
), common vetch (
Vicia sativa
), white sweet clover (
Melil
otus albus
), and
bindweed (
Convolvulus arvensis
). These are just a few of the non
-
native weedy species found on the
project site. The uplands also support a few scattered native species, including common spikeweed
(
Centromadia
\
pungens pungens
) and coyote
brush (
Baccharis pilularus
ssp.
consanguinea
).
These
same species characterize much of the upland areas of the western component of the project site.
S
EASONAL
W
ETLANDS
.
(
S
ALICORNIA
/S
ARCOCORNIA PACIFICA
AND
S
ALICORNIA DEPRESSA
H
ERBACEOUS
A
LLIANCE
).
CDFW
R
AN
K
:
S3G4,
S
ENSITIVE
Seasonal wetlands include areas which hold water for part of the year, typically
during the rainy
season (between October and March), which are dominated by hydrophytic vegetative
cover, such
as hyssop loosestrife (
Lythrum hyssopifolia
),
cut
-
leaf plantain (
Plantago coronopus
), and
Mediterranean barley (
Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum
), rabbit's
-
foot grass (
Polypogon
monspeliensis
), birdfoot trefoil (
Lotus corniculatus
), and plants that withstand higher salinities
including
perennial pickleweed (
Salicornia pacifica
), annual pickleweed (
Salicornia depressa
),
tumbleweed (
Salsola
tragus
), slender
-
leaved iceplant (
Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum
), and brass
-
buttons (
Cotula
coronopifolia
).
S
ALT
P
ONDS
/S
ALT
M
ARSH
(
S
ARCOCORNIA PACIFICA
A
ND
S
ALICORNIA DEPRESSA
H
ERBACEOUS
A
LLIANCE
).
CDFW
R
ANK
:
S3G4,
S
ENSITIVE
There are two man
-
made, salt ponds and associated ditches at the southwestern edge of the eastern component of the
project site that are associated with the
former
salt production that
operated on the project site for over 50 years, as is evident from historical aerial photographs available on Google Earth. These features were abandoned when the salt production ceased operations in 1981. The salt ponds and associated ditches on the site
are dominated by perennial
pickleweed, Mediterranean barely, cut
-
leaf plantain, fathen (
Atriplex prostrata
), alkali heath
(
Frankenia salina
), and tall flatsedge (
Cyperus eragrostis
). These areas are not tidally influenced and
occur in drainage ditches and
diked basins within the
eastern component of the
project site that are
seasonally ponded or saturated.
The
six
man
-
made salt ponds within the
western component of the project site
support a fringe of
perennial pickleweed around the outer perimeter of the
ponds. Other species observed around the
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.1 -
5 edges of the salt ponds included annual pickleweed, slender -
leaved iceplant, brass
-
buttons, alkali
heath, Mediterranean barl
e
y, saltgrass (
Distichlis spicata
), and fleshy jaumea (
Jaumea carnosa
).
Special
-
Status Species
WRA biologists reviewed relevant databases and literature for baseline information on biological resources occurring and potentially occurring at the project site and in the immediate surrounding area.
Database searches (i.e., CNDDB, CNPS) f
ocused on the Redwood Point, Hunters Point, San
Leandro, Hayward, Newark, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Woodside, and San Mateo USGS 7.5 -
minute
quadrangles for special
-
status plants and wildlife. A complete bibliography including citations for each literature
and database source listed above is provide in the Biological Resources Technical Report (see Appendix
A of the Initial Study, which is provided as Appendix A to this EIR ).
On June 19, 2020, WRA biologists completed a field review of the project site to do cument: (1) land
cover types (e.g., terrestrial communities, aquatic resources); (2) existing conditions and to determine if such provide suitable habitat for any special -
status plant or wildlife species; (3) if and
what type of aquatic natural communities
(e.g., wetlands) are present; and, (4) if special
-
status
species are present. The presence of suitable habitat for special -
status species was evaluated during
the site visit based on physical and biological conditions of the site, as well as the professio nal
expertise of the investigating biologists
.
The potential for each special
-
status species to occur on the
project site was then determined according to the following criteria:
No Potential
. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for t he species
requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime).
Unlikely
. No suitable habitat is present on the site, but suitable habitat may be located adjacent to the site. The spe
cies is unlikely to be found on the site but may be found in nearby habitat.
Low Potential
. Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species has a
low probability of being found on the site.
Moderate Potential
. Some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species ha s
a moderate probability of being found on the site.
High Potential
. All of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is highly suitable. The species has a high probability of
being found on the site.
Based upon their review of literature and database resources, WRA determined that 11
special
-
status plant species have been documented in the vicinity of the project site. Most of the plant species documented from the vicinity were
determined unlikely to occur on the project site for one or more of the following reasons:
Suitable hydrologic conditions, such as rivers, are absent;
Suitable soil types are absent;
Topographic conditions, such as north
-
facing slopes, are absent;
Unique
pH conditions, such as acidic bogs, are absent;
Project site is isolated from historic range of plant species; and
Past activity on
-
site has degraded suitable habitat.
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.1 -
6 No special
-
status plants were found during the site surveys conducted by WRA in 2020, or
during
previous
surveys conducted by Monk & Associates in 2015 and 2016. Accordingly, it was determined that special
-
status plant species
are
not
expected to
occur on the project site (see Appendix
A of the
Initial Study
).
Twenty
-
six special
-
status wildli
fe species were documented within the vicinity of the project site.
Some were excluded from occurring on the project site due to a lack of suitable habitat features, such as perennial streams and ponds; tidal marshland; serpentine soil; sandy beaches; and caves.
T
he absence of such habitat features eliminates components critical to the survival or movement of most special
-
status species found in the vicinity. Although some species have no potential to occur, WRA determined that 13 special
-
status species hav
e potential to occur either on the project site,
and/or adjacent or near adjacent to the project site. The 13 species with potential to occur in or near the project site are
presented
in
Table
4.1 -
2 .
Table
4.1 -
2 Special
-
Status Wildlife Species Potentially Present
Species
Status
Habitat Preferences
Potential to Occur
Western snowy
plover
(
Charadrius alexandrines
nivosus
)
FT
CDFW SSC
USFWS BCC
Breed primarily above the
high tide line on coastal
beaches, sand spits, dune
-
backed beaches, sparsely
vegetated dunes, beaches
at creek and river mouths,
and salt pans at lagoons
and
estuaries. Nests
typically occur in flat, open
areas with sandy or saline
substrates where
vegetation and driftwood
are usually sparse or
absent.
Unlikely
. The project site is
unlikely to be used by
western snowy plovers
because it is not open
enough for w
estern snowy
plovers to nest. However,
the species may nest in the
restored salt ponds within
the CDFW’s Eden Landing
Ecological Reserve near the
project site.
California least tern
(
Sterna antillarum brownii
)
FE/SE
FP
Typically nest in loose
colonies on
flat sand
-
shell
beaches, mud or gravel
flats, and man
-
made
habitats including airports,
landfills, and dredge
-
fill
sites, relatively free of
plant growth.
Unlikely
. The project site is
not open enough for the
least terns to nest.
However, the species may
nest in the restored salt
ponds within the CDFW’s
Eden Landing Ecological
Reserve near the project
site.
California Ridgway's rail
(
Rallus obsoletus
obsoletus
)
FE/SE
FP
Occurs only within salt and
brackish marshes. Typically
inhabits salt marshes
dominated by pickleweed
and cordgrass.
Unlikely
. The project site
does not support tidal
sloughs or dense tidal
marsh habitat typically
associated with the species
foraging and nesting
habitat. Potential habitat
for California Ridgway’s rail
is present wit
hin 700 feet
of the project site, across
State Route 92 in tidal
marsh habitats at Hayward
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.1 -
7 Landing and Johnson
Landing.
California black rail
(
Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus
)
ST
FP
USFWS BCC
Occurs in California coastal
salt and brackish marshes
from
Bodega Bay to Morro
Bay, with additional
populations known from
freshwater marshes near
or in the northern Sierra
Nevada foothills.
Unlikely
. The project site
does not support tidal
marsh habitat typically
associated with California
black rail habitat. Ho
wever,
species are known to occur
in tidal habitat north and
south of the project site.
Black skimmer
(
Rynchops niger
)
CDFW SSC
USFWS BCC
Nests colonially on
undisturbed earthen
islands or levees, often
with terns
Unlikely
. Species i
s
not
known to nest on the
berms or levees associated
with
former
salt ponds on
the project site. However,
the species may nest
nearby.
Alameda song sparrow
(
Melospiza melodia
pusillula
)
CDFW SSC
USFWS BCC
Prefers tidally influenced
marsh, and taller shrub
s
such as gumplant are
required for breeding.
Low potential
. The project
site does not support tidal
marsh habitat typically
associated with Alameda
song sparrow habitat;
however, the species may
nest near the project site.
Burrowing owl
(
Athene cunicular
ia
)
CDFW SSC
Typical habitat is annual or
perennial grassland,
although human
-
modified
areas such as agricultural
lands and airports are also
used. Species is dependent
on burrowing mammals to
provide the burrows that
are characteristically used
for shelte
r and nesting.
Low potential
. The project
site does not contain a
large number of suitable
burrows or burrow
surrogates for this species.
However, burrowing owls
may use the levees
around
the project site for
wintering and nesting
habitat.
San
Francisco (saltmarsh)
common yellowthroat
(
Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
)
CDFW SSC
Found in freshwater
marshes, coastal swales,
riparian thickets, brackish
marshes, and saltwater
marshes. Requires thick,
continuous cover such as
tall grasses, tule
patches,
or riparian vegetation
down to the water surface
for foraging and prefers
willows for nesting.
Unlikely
. The project site
does not contain suitable
nesting habitat. However,
the salt marshes
near
the
project site may support
suitable nesting habit
at.
White
-
tailed kite
(
Elanus leucurus
)
FP
Resides in open to semi
-
open habitats throughout
the lower elevations of
California, including
grasslands, savannahs,
woodlands, agricultural
areas and wetlands. Nests
are constructed mostly of
Low potential
. The shrubs
in the eastern portion
of
the eastern component
of
the project site may
provide marginal nesting
habitat for this species. The
project site and
surrounding salt marshes,
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.1 -
8 twigs and placed i
n trees,
often at habitat edges.
however, offer suitable
for
aging habitat.
Salt marsh harvest mouse
(
Reithrodontomys
raviventris
)
FE/SE
FP
Found only in and adjacent
to suitable salt
-
and
brackish
-
marsh habitat in
the greater San Francisco
Bay, San Pablo Bay, and
Suisun Bay areas. Habitat
associated with the speci
es
is pickleweed
-
dominated
marsh, though more recent
studies have shown that
the species is supported
equally in pickleweed
-
dominated and mixed
-
vegetation (including
native and non
-
native salt
-
and brackish
-
marsh
species).
High potential
. Salt marsh
harve
st mouse is known to
occur in abundance near
the project site. Marginal
pickleweed habitat is
present at the former salt
ponds within the project
site.
Salt
-
marsh wandering
shrew
(
Sorex vagrans halicoetes
)
CDFW SSC
Inhabits salt marsh that is
inundated daily by tides
Unlikely
. The project site
does not support tidal
marsh habitat typically
associated with salt marsh
wandering shrew.
Pallid bat
(
Antrozous pallidus
)
CDFW SSC
WBWG High Priority
Typically occurs in
association with open,
rocky are
as. Roosts must
offer protection from high
temperatures and are
typically in rock crevices,
mines, caves, or tree
hollows; manmade
structures are also used,
including buildings and
bridges.
Moderate potential
. The
Oliver
Brothers
Salt
Works
building on
-
sit
e may
provide marginal roosting
habitat, hibernacula, or
maternity sites.
Western mastiff bat
(
Eumops perotis
californicus
)
CDFW SSC
WBWG High Priority
Roosts are primarily
located high on cliffs under
exfoliating rock slabs but
have also been found in
si
milar crevices in large
boulders and buildings.
Moderate potential
. The
Oliver
Brothers
Salt
Works
building on
-
site may
provide marginal roosting
habitat, hibernacula, or
maternity sites.
Source: WRA 2020; see Appendix
A of the Initial Study
Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S.
On January 7, 2015 Monk and Associates biologists conducted a wetland delineation of the eastern component of the project site, using criteria prescribed in the USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and the USACE Regional Supplement for the Arid West Regio n (USACE 1987; 2008). A draft
wetland delineation map was submitted to the USACE along with a Request for a Jurisdictional Determination on March 27, 2015. The USACE conducted the site verification on November 10, 2015 and issued the Preliminary Jurisdicti
onal Determination letter and map on January 27, 2016.
The confirmed Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Map of the eastern component of the Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.1 -
9 project site is included in the Biological Resources Technical Report, which is
provided as
Appendix
A
to
the
Initial Study
.
The Initial Study is Appendix A to this EIR.
According to the confirmed Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination map a total of 1.69 acres of potentially jurisdictional wetlands are located within the eastern component of the project site. T his
includes 1.41 acres of salt marsh and 0.28 acres of seasonal wetlands considered to be federally protected wetlands as defined by CWA Section 404.
Monk and Associates conducted a wetland delineation of the western component of the project site on Octob
er 12, 2016. Monk and Associates delineated 19 wetlands within the western component of the site, with a total land area of approximately 0.95 acre, combined. Wetlands consist generally of fringe or narrow strips along the edges of the former salt ponds. T he former salt ponds within the
western component were delineated as “Other Waters” and total approximately 26.14 acres.
Additionally, another approximately 3.2 acres of “Other Waters” were delineated in the form of barren mudflats and approximately 0.57 a
cre of “Other Waters” was delineated in the form of a
ditch.
The USACE has not issued a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination letter or map for the delineation of the western component of the project site. However, the delineation map of the western com
ponent of the project site is included in the Biological Resources Technical Report, provided as
Appendix
A
to
the Initial Study
.
Wildlife Movement Corridors
Wildlife movement corridors, or habitat linkages, are generally defined as connections between hab
itat patches that allow for physical and genetic exchange between otherwise isolated animal populations. Such linkages may serve a local purpose, such as providing a linkage between foraging and denning areas, or they may be regional in nature. The key to a functioning corridor or linkage is
that it connects two larger habitat blocks, also referred to as core habitat areas. Some habitat linkages may serve as migration corridors, wherein animals periodically move away from an area and then subsequently retur
n. Others may be important as dispersal corridors for young animals. A group of habitat linkages in an area can form a wildlife corridor network. The California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project commissioned by the California Department of Transportat ion
(Caltrans) and CDFW; identifies “Natural Landscape Blocks” which support native biodiversity and the “Essential Connectivity Areas” which link them (Spencer et al. 2010).
Wildlife movement corridors can be both large and small in scale. The South Bay S alt Pond
Restoration Project was developed by the CDFW and USFWS, in partnership with the California Coastal Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), among others. That restoration effort will restore and enhance wetlands in South San
Franc
isco Bay, while providing flood
management and wildlife
-
oriented public access and recreation (EDAW et al. 2007). One of the goals of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project is to restore a habitat mosaic to represent the historic pre
-
salt
-
pond landsca
pe. Since the decommissioning of the salt ponds that were previously used for salt production in the South Bay, thousands of acres of salt ponds have been preserved and restored to provide habitat for listed species. Most of these ponds are currently publi cly owned and
managed for the benefit of fish and wildlife (EDAW et al. 2007).
One of the large salt pond complexes of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project includes CDFW’s Eden Landing Ecological Reserve. As described above, wildlife corridors must provide a link
between two areas of suitable habitats. While the
eastern and western components of the
p
roject
s
ite
are
located adjacent to Eden Landing,
they are
otherwise bordered by
State Route
92 and
developed areas in the City of Hayward. The location of the project site
adjacent to these substantial
barriers to terrestrial passage, as well as the sparse nature of vegetation present within the project City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.1 -
10 site, limit its potential value as a wildli
fe corridor. The
eastern and western components of the
project site provide marginal wildlife corridor value as a stepping
-
stone area for migratory birds,
based primarily on
their
proximity to Eden Landing. However, this value is only marginal given the sm
all size of the site in relation to the size of Eden Landing, and the factors related to edge disturbance from adjacent developed areas.
4.1.2 Regulatory Setting
The following sections explain the regulatory context of the biological assessment, including applic
able laws and regulations that were applied to the field investigations and analysis of potential project impacts.
a.
Federal
and State
Regulations
Vegetation and Aquatic Communities
CEQA provides protections for particular vegetation types defined as sensiti ve by CDFW, and aquatic
communities protected by laws and regulations administered by the USACE, State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and RWQCB. The laws and regulations that provide protection for these resources are summarized below.
Sensitive Natural Communities
Sensitive natural communities include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values.
Natural communities considered sensitive are those identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the C
DFW. CDFW ranks sensitive communities as "threatened" or "very threatened" (CDFG 2010, CDFW 2018) and keeps records of their occurrences in its California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2018). CNDDB vegetation alliances are ranked 1 through 5 base
d on NatureServe's (2018) methodology, with those alliances ranked globally (G) or statewide (S) as 1 through 3 considered sensitive. Impacts to sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or those identifi ed by the CDFW or USFWS must be
considered and evaluated under CEQA (CCR Title 14, Div. 6, Chap. 3, Appendix G).
Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands
The USACE regulates “Waters of the United States” under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CW
A). Waters of the United States are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as including the territorial seas, and waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, such as t ributaries, lakes and ponds,
impoundments of waters of the U.S., and wetlands (33 CFR 328.3). Potential wetland areas, according to the three criteria used to delineate wetlands as defined in the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory
1987), are identified by the presence of (1)
hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology. Unvegetated waters including lakes, rivers, and streams may also be subject to Section 404 jurisdiction and are characterized by an ordinary h
igh water mark (OHWM) identified based on field indicators such as the lack of vegetation, sorting of sediments, and other indicators of flowing or standing water. The placement of fill material into Waters of the United States generally requires a permit from the USACE under
Section 404 of the CWA.
The USACE also regulates construction in navigable waterways of the U.S. through Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) of 1899 (33 USC 403). Section 10 of the RHA requires Corps approval Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.1 -
11 and a permit fo
r excavation or fill, or alteration or modification of the course, location, condition, or capacity of, any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, lake, harbor or refuge, or enclosure within the limits of any breakwater, or of the channel of any navigable water of the United States. Section
10 requirements apply only to navigable waters themselves, and are not applicable to tributaries, adjacent wetlands, and similar aquatic features not capable of supporting interstate commerce.
Waters of the State, Includ
ing Wetlands
The term “Waters of the State” is defined by the Porter -
Cologne Act as “any surface water or
groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” The SWRCB and nine
RWQCBs
protect waters within this broad regulatory scope
through many different regulatory
programs. Waters of the State in the context of a CEQA Biological Resources evaluation include wetlands and other surface waters protected by the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill M
aterial to Waters of the State. The SWRCB and RWQCB issue permits for the discharge of fill material into surface waters through the State Water Quality Certification Program, which fulfills requirements of Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter -
Cologne Wat
er
Quality Control Act. Projects that require a Clean Water Act permit are also required to obtain a Water Quality Certification. If a project does not require a federal permit, but does involve discharge of dredge or fill material into surface waters of t
he State, the SWRCB and RWQCB may issue a
permit in the form of Waste Discharge Requirements.
California Fish and Game Code, Sections 1600
-
1616
Streams and lakes, as habitat for fish and wildlife species, are regulated by CDFW under Sections 1600
-
1616 of C
alifornia Fish and Game Code (CFGC). Alterations to or work within or adjacent to streambeds or lakes generally require a 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. The term “stream”, which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in the California Code o f Regulations (CCR) as
“a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life [including] watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has suppo
rted riparian vegetation” (14 CCR 1.72). The term “stream” can include ephemeral streams, dry washes, watercourses with subsurface flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if they support aquatic life, riparian vege
tation, or stream
-
dependent terrestrial wildlife (CDFG 1994). Riparian vegetation has been defined as “vegetation which occurs in and/or adjacent to a stream and is dependent on, and occurs because of, the stream itself” (CDFG 1994). Removal of riparian ve getation also requires a Section
1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW.
San Francisco Bay and Shoreline
Enacted in1965, the McAteer
-
Petris Act (California Government Code Section 66600 et seq.) established the San Francisco Bay Conservatio
n and Development Commission (BCDC) as a state
agency charged with preparing a plan for the long
-
term use of the Bay. BCDC has several areas of
jurisdiction, including: San Francisco Bay (including sloughs and marshlands lying between mean high tide and fi
ve feet above mean sea level) and a shoreline band consisting of all territory located between the shoreline of the Bay and a line 100 feet landward of and parallel with the shoreline (California Government Code 66610). Any person or governmental agency wi shing to place fill, to
extract materials, or to make any substantial change in use of any water, land or structure within BCDC jurisdiction must secure a permit from BCDC.
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.1 -
12 Special
-
Status Species
Endangered and Threatened Plants, Fish and Wildlife
Specific
species of plants, fish, and wildlife species may be designated as threatened or endangered by the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).
Specific protections and permitting mechanisms for these species diff er under each of these acts,
and a species’ designation under one law does not automatically provide protection under the other.
The ESA (16 USC 1531 et seq.) is implemented by the USFWS (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The USFWS a
nd NMFS maintain lists of "endangered" and "threatened" plant and animal species (referred to as "listed species"). "Proposed" or "candidate" species are those that are being considered for listing and are not protected until they are formally listed as th
reatened or endangered. Under the ESA, authorization must be obtained from the USFWS or NMFS prior to take of any listed species. Take under the ESA is defined as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”
Take under the ESA includes direct injury or mortality to individuals, disruptions in normal behavioral patterns resulting from factors such as noise and visual disturbance and impacts to habitat for listed species. Actions tha
t may result in “take” of an ESA
-
listed species may obtain a
permit under ESA Section 10, or via the interagency consultation described in ESA Section 7.
Federally listed plant species are only protected when take occurs on federal land.
The ESA also provi
des for designation of critical habitat, which are specific geographic areas containing physical or biological features “essential to the conservation of the species”. Protections afforded to designated critical habitat apply only to actions that are funde d, permitted, or carried
out by federal agencies. Critical habitat designations do not affect activities by private landowners if there is no other federal agency involvement.
The CESA (California Fish and Game Code 2050 et seq.) prohibits a "take" of any plant and animal
species that the California Fish and Game Commission determines to be an endangered or threatened species in California. CESA regulations include take protection for threatened and endangered plants on private lands, as well as extending t his protection to “candidate species”
which are proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under CESA. The definition of a "take" under CESA ("hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill") only applies t
o direct impact to individuals, and does not extend to habitat impacts or harassment. CDFW may issue an Incidental Take Permit under CESA to authorize take if it is incidental to otherwise lawful activity and if specific criteria are met. Take of these spe cies is also
authorized if the geographic area is covered by a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), as long as the NCCP covers that activity.
Fully Protected Species and Designated Rare Plant Species
This category includes specific plant and wildlif
e species that are designated in the CFGC as
protected even if not listed under CESA or the ESA. Fully Protected Species includes specific lists of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish designated in CFGC. Fully protected species may not be taken
or possessed at any time. No licenses or permits may be issued for take of fully protected species, except for necessary scientific research and conservation purposes. The definition of "take" is the same under the CFGC and the CESA. By law, CDFW may not i ssue an Incidental Take Permit for
Fully Protected Species. Under the California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA), CDFW has listed 64 “rare” or “endangered” plant species, and prevents “take”, with few exceptions, of these species.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.1 -
13 CDFW may authorize tak
e of species protected by the NPPA through the Incidental Take Permit process, or under a NCCP.
Special Protections for Nesting Birds and Bats
The federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provides relatively broad protections to both of North America’s
eagle species (bald [
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
] and golden eagle [
Aquila
chrysaetos
)] that in some regards are similar to those provided by the ESA. In addition to regulations for special
-
status species, most native birds in the United States, including no n
-
status species, have
baseline legal protections under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 and CFGC, i.e., sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. Under these laws/codes, the intentional harm or collection of adult birds as well as the intentional collec
tion or destruction of active nests, eggs, and young is illegal.
For bat species, the Western Bat Working Group (WBWG) designates conservation status for species of bats, and those with a high or medium
-
high priority are typically given special considerati
on
under CEQA.
Species of Special Concern, Movement Corridors, and Other Special Status Species Under CEQA
To address additional species protections afforded under CEQA, CDFW has developed a list of special species as “a general term that refers to all of the taxa the CNDDB is interested in tracking,
regardless of their legal or protection status.” This list includes lists developed by other organizations, including for example, the Audubon Watch List Species, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Sensitive S
pecies, and USFWS Birds of Special Concern. Plant species on the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory (Inventory) with California Rare Plant Ranks (Rank) of 1, 2, and 3 are also considered special -
status plant species
and
must be considered under CEQA. Rank 4 species are typically only afforded protection under CEQA when such species are particularly unique to the locale (e.g., range limit, low abundance/low frequency, limited habitat) or are otherwise considered locall y rare. Additionally, any species listed
as sensitive within local plans, policies and ordinances are likewise considered sensitive. Movement and migratory corridors for native wildlife (including aquatic corridors) as well as wildlife nursery sites are gi
ven special consideration under CEQA.
b.
Local
Regulations
Hayward 2040 General Plan
On July 1, 2014, the Hayward City Council approved the Hayward 2040 General Plan and certified the Final General Plan Environmental Impact Report. The Natural Resources Element (Part 3 of the Hayward 2040 General Plan) establishes goals and policies to pro tect and enhance the natural
resources within the Hayward Planning Area. The goals and policies address a variety of topics, including biological resources.
The
biological resources goals and policies that are relevant to the
proposed
project
are presented
below
.
Goal NR
-
1 : Protect, enhance, and restore sensitive biological resources, native habitat, and vegetation communities that support wildlife species so they can be sustained and remain viable.
Policy NR
-
1.1: Native Wildlife Habitat Protection
. The Cit
y shall limit or avoid new
development that encroaches into important native wildlife habitats; limits the range of City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.1 -
14 listed or protected species; or creates barriers that cut off access to food, water, or shelter of listed or protected species.
Policy NR
-
1. 2: Sensitive Habitat Protection
. The City shall protect sensitive biological
resources, including State and Federally designated sensitive, rare, threatened, and endangered plant, fish, and wildlife species and their habitats from urban development and inc
ompatible land uses.
Policy NR
-
1.3: Sensitive Species Identification, Mapping, and Avoidance . The City shall
require qualified biologists to identify, map, and make recommendations for avoiding all sensitive biological resources on the project site, includ ing State and Federally sensitive,
rare, threatened, and endangered plant, fish, and wildlife species and their habitats using methods and protocols in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Cali
fornia Native Plant Society for all development
applications proposed within sensitive biological resource areas.
Policy NR
-
1.4 Shoreline Protection and Enhancement
. The City shall coordinate with the
Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency, Bay Conservatio n and Development Commission,
and California Coastal Commission to conserve, protect, and enhance natural and cultural resources along the San Francisco Bay shoreline by balancing uses that support multiple community needs, such as recreation, tourism, cul
tural resource preservation, and natural
resource protection.
Policy NR
-
1.5 Large
-
Scale Natural Area Access
. The City shall support efforts to improve
access to publicly owned large
-
scale natural areas located within the Planning Area,
including the shorel
ine, creeks, regional parks, riparian corridors, and hillside open space areas, by allowing them to be open for controlled access to improve public enjoyment and education, while also limiting access to extremely sensitive natural habitat and minimizing hu
man
-
related environmental impacts.
Policy NR
-
1.6 Migratory Bird Habitat Protection
. The City shall support the efforts of the
Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency and other agencies to preserve and protect tidal flats and salt ponds with low salinity for
migratory waterfowl that depend on these areas.
Policy NR
-
1.9 Native Plant Species Protection and Promotion
. The City shall protect and
promote native plant species in natural areas as well as in public landscaping.
4.1.3 Impacts Analysis
a.
Methodology
and Significance Thresholds
This section describes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project
relevant to
biological resources. The impact analysis is based on
the Biological Resources Technical Report
prepared by WRA which included a
bac
kground review of pertinent literature and resource
databases (e.g. CNDDB and CNPS online inventory), desktop vegetation mapping and a reconnaissance
-
level biological survey
(WRA 2020
;
see
Appendix
A of the Initial Study
). The
results
of the reconnaissance
survey and literature/background review were used to determine the potential for biological resources to occur in the biological study area and evaluate potential project impacts and mitigation measures.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.1 -
15 According to the adopted Appendix G
of the State
CEQA Guidelines
, impacts related to
biological
resources
from the proposed project would be significant if the project would:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, se
nsitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFW
or as defined under
CEQA Guidelines
Section 15380
;
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community ident
ified in local or regional plans, policies regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS ;
Have a substantial adverse effect on
a state or
Federally protected wetlands (including but not
limited to, marsh vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, or hydrological
interruption, or other means
;
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites
;
Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance
; or
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habit at conservation plan
.
These
topics
were utilized in completing the analysis of potential project impacts for CEQA purposes.
For the purposes of this analysis, a “substantial adverse effect” is generally interpreted to mean that a
potential impact
could directly or indirectly affect the resiliency or presence of a local biological
community or species population. Potential impacts to natural processes that support biological
communities and special
-
status species populations that can produce similar
effects are
also considered
potentially significant. Impacts to individuals of a species or small areas of existing biological communities
may be considered less than significant if those impacts are speculative, beneficial,
deminimis
, and/or
would not af
fect the resiliency of a local population.
Impacts associated with CEQA checklist items 4 through 6 were determined to be less than significant or no impact in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project and included with this EIR
as
Appendix
A
.
Th
erefore, no further analysis is
warranted,
and these
topics
will not be
discussed further in this section.
b.
Impact Analysis
Threshold
1 :
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species id
entified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Impact BIO
-
1 T
HE PROPOSED PROJECT
WOULD
HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERS
E EFFECT ON SPECIES
IDENTIFIED AS A CANDIDATE
,
SENSITIVE
,
OR SPECIAL STATUS
,
SUCH AS SALT MARSH HARVEST MOUSE
,
BURROWING OWL AND OTHER BIRDS
,
AND BATS
.
I
M
PACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION
INCORPORATED
.
Plant Species
As described above in
Section 4.1.1,
Setting
,
special
-
status plant species
do not
occur within the
eastern and western components of the
project site. Ground disturbance required for construction City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.1 -
16 of the proposed project would be limited to the
eastern and
component of the projec
t site and
roadway areas of Point Eden Way. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts on special
-
status plant species.
Wildlife Species
Given the
p
roject site’s relative proximity to sensitive habitats on the San Francisc o Bay, many
species documented nearby are obligates to marine or tidal marsh habitats which are not present on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
Thirteen special status wildlife species have some
potential to occur
either on the project sit
e and/or adjacent or near adjacent to the project site
;
however
,
many of these species are considered unlikely to occur on the project site
(see
Table
4.1 -
2 )
.
No special
status wildlife species were observed on the project site at the time of the field survey
s
. The salt marsh harvest mouse (SMHM), a federally and state endangered species, is considered to have a high potential for occurrence on the project
site
due to the
number of records
of SMHM in the vicinity and presence of marginal pickleweed habitat at former
salt ponds on
-
site
,
including on both the eastern and western components of the site . N
esting special status bird
species and/or nesting migratory birds protec
ted under CFGC may occur throughout the
project site
and
its
vicinity. Additionally, two special status bat species have a moderate potential to occur
within the existing building
on the
eastern component of the
project site.
The proposed project would no
t involve construction or operation activities within the western component of the project site. No maintenance or management activities would be conducted within the western component of the project site. Therefore, establishment of the preserve area with
in the western component of the project site would have no impacts on special -
status wildlife
species.
Potential impacts to
special
-
status wildlife
species
from project activities and facilities on the
eastern component of the project site
are described be
low.
Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and Salt Marsh Wandering Shrew
The closest known CNDDB record of SMHM is located just north of the project site in the EBRPD Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Preserve in the Hayward Marsh Regional Shoreline, located north of Highway
92 (CNDDB Occurrence No. 54) (the project site is south of Highway 92). SMHM are also known from pickleweed habitats south of the project site along the Mt. Eden Creek channel within the CDFW’s Eden Landing Ecological Reserve (CNDDB Occurrences No.
85 and 86). They are also known further
to the south of CDFW Eden Landing Ecological Reserve in the tidal salt marshes (CNDDB Occurrence Numbers 77, 87, 89 and 90). The closest CNDDB record for salt marsh wandering shrew (SMWS) dates from 1951 in the tida
l marsh habitat near Johnson Landing, northwest of the project site (CNDDB Occurrence No. 14).
Project construction activities
on the eastern component of the project site
could result in direct
mortality and/or harassment of the federal and State endanger ed SMHM and CDFW special
-
status
SMWS. Additionally, the project would potentially result in impacts to marginal pickleweed habitat for these species. No construction activities would occur within the western component of the project site, where most of the
former salt ponds and pickleweed habitat occurs. However, construction of the proposed building and parking lot would occur partially within pickleweed habitat at a former salt pond in the eastern component of the project site. Further, disturbance of the
upland area immediately adjacent to the salt pond in the eastern component would disturb habitat that could become increasingly important to SMHM and SMWS as escape refugia during flooding and inundation. These impacts to SMHM and SMWS are regarded as pot entially significant.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.1 -
17 Therefore, Mitigation Measures BIO
-
1a through BIO
-
1 c
listed below would be required to reduce
potential impacts to SMHM and SMWS to a less
-
than
-
significant level.
In addition to protections under FESA, SMHM is also a State Fully Prot ected species under
the CFGC
.
Fully Protected species are listed in
CFGC
Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515, which state that
CDFW is unable to authorize incidental take of such species when activities are proposed in areas inhabited by those species. The
refore, mitigation measures would be required to avoid take of these species to comply with federal, State and local regulations.
Burrowing Owl
The closest CNDDB record for burrowing owl is located southeast of the project site (CNDDB Occurrence No.
946). This species was observed in 2006, wintering in a ground squirrel burrow in sparse non
-
native grassland along Marina Drive in Hayward. The project site contains very few suitable burrows or burrow surrogates for this species; however, burrowing owls may use the levees
the project site for wintering and nesting habitat. Project activities ,
including vegetation removal
and ground disturbance
during construction could
affect burrowing owl by causing auditory,
vibratory, and/or visual disturbance of a suf
ficient level to cause abandonment of the site or active nests.
Impacts would be potentially significant.
Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO
-
1 d
would be
required to reduce potential impacts to burrowing owl to a less -
than
-
significant level.
California
L
east
T
ern, Western
S
nowy
P
lover, and Black
S
kimmer
The closest CNDDB record for California least tern is located northwest of the project site on a sandy island within the EBRPD Hayward Regional Shoreline (CNDDB Occurrence No. 82). There is another record sout
hwest of the project site in the salt ponds of CDFW Eden Landing Ecological Reserve (CNDDB Occurrence No. 70).
The closest CNDDB record for western snowy plover is located south of the project site in the restored salt ponds within the CDFW’s Eden Landing
Ecological Reserve (CNDDB Occurrence No.
136). Nesting has been recorded in numerous ponds, and the associated marsh habitats. There is an additional record for western snowy plover located northwest of the project site on a man -
made
island within the rest
ored tidal salt marsh within the EBRPD Hayward Regional Shoreline (CNDDB Occurrence No. 122). This record location is on the other side of Highway 92 from the project site.
The closest CNDDB record for black skimmer is located northwest of the project site
(CNDDB
Occurrence No. 3). This species was observed in 1994 nesting on an upland island in a brackish marsh, east of Johnson Landing. This record location is on the other side of Highway 92 from the project site. This species is not known to nest on the b erms or levees associated with the
on
-
site salt
ponds
or within the CDFW’s Eden Landing Ecological Reserve, but it may nest near the project site.
California least tern, western snowy plover, and black skimmer are not expected to forage or nest on the proj
ect site. Mr. John Krause, CDFW’s manager of the Eden Landing Ecological Reserve, states that the project site
is
unlikely to be used by these bird species. Hence, the proposed project would
not result in direct impacts to California least tern, western sn owy plover and black skimmer;
however, these species could nest in restored salt ponds or along levees within the Eden Landing Ecological Reserve that is
located next to the project site
(WRA 2020;
see
Appendix
A of the Initial
Study
)
.
Noise and visual imp
acts associated with construction of the project could result in nest abandonment, loss of young, reduced health and vigor of eggs and/or nestlings (resulting in reduced survival rates). These potential effects could result in potentially significant impac ts to California
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.1 -
18 least terns, western snowy plover, and black skimmer. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO -
1 e
would
be
required to reduce potential impacts to
California least terns, western snowy plover, and black skimmer to a less
than
-
significant level
.
O
ther Special
-
Status and Common Nesting Birds
The project site does not support tidal marsh habitat typically associated with Alameda song sparrow or San Francisco common yellowthroat nesting habitat; however, these species may nest near the project site. I
n addition, white
-
tailed kite may nest on or near the project site. Common songbirds (passerine birds) could also nest on the project site. All of these birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR 10.13) and their eggs and young are pro tected under CFGC
Sections 3503, 3503.5. Potential impacts to these nesting bird species from the project include disturbance to nesting birds and possibly death of adults and/or young. Impacts to these nesting bird species would be considered a potentiall
y significant impact. Therefore, Mitigation Measure
BIO
-
1 e
would be required to reduce potential impacts to nesting bird species to a less -
than
-
significant level.
Pallid Bat and Western Mastiff Bat
The
existing
Oliver
Brothers
Salt
Works
building may provi
de marginal roosting habitat, hibernacula,
or maternity sites for special
-
status bat species
on the eastern component of the project site
. The
closest CNDDB record for pallid bat is
located two
miles east of the project site (CNDDB Occurrence
No. 130). Pot
ential impacts to bat species could result from building demolition associated with the proposed project. Accordingly, impacts to pallid bat and western mastiff bat are regarded as potentially significant.
Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO
-
1 f
would be
required t
o reduce potential
impacts to special
-
status bat species to a less
-
than
-
significant level
.
Other Impacts
Construction of the project would require the use of heavy machinery, such as dozers and backhoes
within the eastern component of t
he project site
. Heavy machinery would generate noise that could
disturb the life patterns of any of the aforementioned special -
status species that occur either within
or adjacent to the
eastern component of the
project site. However, mitigation measures B
IO
-
1a
through BIO
-
1 h
, below, would ensure that these species and their habitat are properly protected during construction of the project. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of these mitigation measures.
Construction of the project w
ould generate small quantities of
solid
waste. For example,
construction workers could pack meals to the site, which would include food packaging that would be discarded as waste. Discarded food waste could attract nuisance species or predator species, suc
h as Norway rats, that could either harm or displace special -
status species. This would be a
potentially significant impact, but mitigable. Implementation of M
itigation
M
easure BIO
-
1 g
would
be required to reduce impacts to less than significant. Mitigation
M
easure BIO
-
1 g
requires removal
of food wrappers and waste at the end of each construction workday. During operation common
wastes
, such as food and beverage wrappers,
would be placed in standard trash dumpsters that
would be within an enclosed area.
Comm
on solid
waste generated during operation would be
minimal and consistent with waste quantities and types already generated nearby, such as at existing offices to the east of the project site. Operational impacts would be less than significant.
The propose
d building and associated parking area would include exterior lighting. Light pollution can affect bird nesting behavior, flight patterns of bats during night, and other similar wildlife Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.1 -
19 impacts. However, p
roposed exterior lighting and parking lot lighting
must comply with Hayward
Municipal Code Section 10
-
1.1606. Specifically, exterior lighting and parking lot lighting must be designed by a qualified lighting designer and erected and maintained so that light is confined to the property and will not cast di
rect light or glare upon adjacent properties or public rights -
of
-
way.
Mandatory compliance with Section 10
-
1.1606 would ensure that the proposed project does not
create substantial new sources of light that adversely affect wildlife in the areas near the p
roject
site, including the Caltrans Pond between the eastern and western components of the project site .
Impacts on special
-
status species from project lighting would be less than significant with mandatory compliance with Hayward Municipal Code Section 10 -
1.1606.
Relocation of the San Francisco Bay Trail to the western edge of the eastern component of the project site would put trail users in closer proximity to the Caltrans Pond and other salt marsh habitat to the west of the Caltrans Pond, including the western component of the project site.
Although use of the trail would not permit trail users to trespass onto adjacent property, some users may choose to leave the trail surface and enter the areas of salt marsh habitat to the west. If people enter the sa
lt marsh habitat, habitat destruction for special
-
status species could result, which would
be a
potentially
significant impact.
Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO
-
1h would be required to
reduce this potential impact to a less
-
than
-
significant level.
Mitigat
ion Measures
BIO
-
1 a
SMHM and SMWS Habitat Fencing
Prior to ground disturbing activities adjacent to potential SMHM and SMWS habitat, temporary
exclusion barriers and/or fencing shall be installed to exclude individuals of these species from areas of active
construction. The design of the exclusion barriers and fencing shall
be approved by a
qualified biologist and shall be installed in the presence of a qualified biological monitor. The fence will be made of a material that does not allow SMHM or SMWS to pa ss through, and the bottom
shall
be buried to a depth of a minimum of four inches so that these species cannot crawl under the fence. All support for the exclusion fencing
shall
be placed on the inside of the project footprint.
Additionally, removal of mar
sh or associated ruderal vegetation
shall
be completed using only hand
tools and in the presence of a biological monitor.
The barriers and/or fencing shall remain in place
for the duration of construction of the project.
BIO
-
1b
Qualified
Biological Monitor
A qualified biological monitor
shall
be present during wildlife exclusion fence installation and removal, and during all vegetation clearing and initial ground disturbance which take place in marsh habitats
of the former salt ponds and t
he
vegetation adjacent to marsh habitats. The monitor will have demonstrated experience in biological construction monitoring and knowledge of the biology of the special
-
status species that may be found in the
project
site, including SMHM and SMWS. The
mon
itor(s)
shall
have the authority to halt construction, if necessary, if noncompliance actions occur.
If a federal or State listed species is observed at any time during construction, work shall
not
be initiated or
shall
be stopped immediately until the ani
mal leaves the vicinity of the work area of
its own volition. If the animal in question does not leave the work area, work shall
not be reinitiated
until the
qualified biological monitor has contacted the
appropriate agency
to discuss
on how to
proceed wit
h work activities. The biological monitor
shall
direct the contractor on how to proceed
accordingly.
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.1 -
20 The biological monitor(s)
shall
be the contact person for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a special
-
status species or an
yone who finds a dead, injured, or entrapped
special
-
status species. Following fence installation, vegetation removal in potential habitat areas, and initial ground disturbance in potential habitat areas, the biologist shall
train an onsite monitor
to cont
inue to document compliance. The biologist
shall
conduct weekly site checks to provide
guidance for fence maintenance, provide environmental sensitivity training, and document compliance with permit conditions.
BIO
-
1c
Worker Environmental Awareness Program
Training
The biological monitor shall provide an endangered species training program to all personnel involved in
project
construction. At a minimum, the employee education program shall consist of a brief presentation by persons
knowledgeable about the biology of sensitive species with potential to occur in the project footprint, and about their legislative protection to explain concerns to contractors and their employees involved with implementation of the project. The program sh all
include a description of th
e
species and their habitat needs, any reports of occurrences in the area; an explanation of the status of these species and their protection under State and federal legislation; and a list of measures being taken to reduce i mpacts to these species during
construction.
B
IO
-
1 d
Burrowing Owl Pre
-
Construction Surveys
and Avoidance
A qualified biologist
shall
conduct pre
-
construction clearance surveys prior to ground disturbance activities within suitable natural habitats and rud
eral areas throughout the
eastern component of
the project site
to confirm the presence/absence of active burrowing owl burrows. The surveys shall
be consistent with the recommended survey methodology provided by CDFW (2012). Clearance surveys
shall
be con
ducted within 30 days prior to construction and ground disturbance activities. If no burrowing owls are observed, no further actions are required. If burrowing owls are detected during the pre
-
construction clearance surveys, the following measures
shall
ap
ply:
Avoidance buffers during the breeding and non
-
breeding season
shall be implemented in
accordance with the CDFW (2012) and Burrowing Owl Consortium (1993) minimization mitigation measures.
If avoidance of burrowing owls is not feasible, then additional measures such as passive relocation during the nonbreeding season
and construction buffers of 200 feet during the
breeding season shall be implemented, in consultation with CDFW. In addition, a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be developed by a qualified biologist in accordance with
the CDFW (2012) and Burrowing Owl Consortium (1993).
BIO
-
1 e
Nesting Bird Avoidance and Pre
-
Construction Surveys
Project activities, such as vegetation removal, grading, or initial ground -
disturbance,
shall
be
conducted between September 1 and January 31 t
o the greatest extent feasible.
If
p
roject activities
must be conducted during the nesting season
(February 1 to August 31)
, a pre
-
construction nesting
bird survey
shall
be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to vegetation removal
or initial ground disturbance.
Additional nesting surveys
shall
be conducted if project
construction activities cease for more than 14 days during this period.
The survey
shall
include the
project site
plus a 200
-
foot buffer around the
eastern component o
f the project
site if feasible, and
a 500
-
foot buffer
, if feasible,
for
California least tern, western snowy plover, and black skimmer ,
to
identify the location and status of any nests that could potentially be affected either directly or Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.1 -
21 indirectly by pro
ject activities.
A survey of the western component of the project site shall be optional and not required because no ground disturbance or construction activities are proposed in the western component of the project site.
If active nests are
identified dur
ing the nesting bird survey
, an appropriate avoidance buffer shall be
established within which no work activity will be allowed which would impact these nests. The avoidance buffer would be established by the qualified biologist on a case -
by
-
case basis bas
ed on
the species and site conditions. In no cases shall the buffer be smaller than 50 feet for passerine
bird
species,
250
feet for raptor species,
or
6 00
feet
for California least tern, western snowy plover, and
black skimmer. Larger buffers may be requi
red depending upon the status of the nest and the
construction activities occurring in the vicinity of the nest.
Buffers
shall
be delineated by orange
construction fencing that defines the buffer where it intersects the project site.
If a California least
tern, western snowy plover,
or
black skimmer nest is found within
500
feet of the
project site, USFWS and CDFW will be immediately notified.
USFWS and CDFW shall be consulted
on
appropriate avoidance and minimization methods, which would likely include wor k restrictions
within 500 feet of the nest, biological monitoring for activity within the nest’ line -
of
-
sight, etc.
The
buffer area(s) shall be closed to all construction personnel and equipment until juveniles have fledged and the nest is inactive. The
qu
alified
biologist shall confirm that breeding/nesting is
completed, and young have fledged the nest prior to removal of the buffer.
BIO
-
1 f
Special
-
Status
Bat Avoidance and Pre
-
Construction Surveys
To avoid impacts to roosting special
-
status bats
,
focused surveys to determine the
presence/absence of roosting bats shall be conducted prior to the initiation of demolition of buildings and removal of mature trees large enough to contain crevices and hollows that could support bat roosting. If active mat
ernity roosts are identified, a qualified biologist shall establish avoidance buffers applicable to the species, the roost location and exposure, and the proposed construction activity in the area. If active non
-
maternity day or night roosts are found on t
he project
site, measures shall be implemented to passively relocate bats from the roosts prior to the onset of construction activities. Such measures may include removal of roosting site during the time of day the roost is unoccupied or the installation o
f one
-
way doors, allowing the bats to leave the roost but
not to re
-
enter. These measures shall be presented in a Bat Passive Relocation Plan that shall be submitted to, and approved by, CDFW.
BIO
-
1g
Trash Removal
During construction of the project, all f
o
od
-
related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in solid, closed containers (trash cans) and removed at the end of each workday from the
project
site to eliminate an attraction to predators of
special
-
status
spe
cies.
BIO
-
1h
Public Access Exclusion Fencing
Access by all
project
construction personnel into the Eden Landing Ecological
Reserve
shall
be
prohibited. Upon completion of the development project a permanent fence shall
be installed
on
the eastern component
of the project site
to prevent access
from the San Francisco Bay Trail
relocated segment and the new industrial development
into the adjacent salt ponds and associated
marsh habitats
to the west
. In
addition, signs
shall
be posted stating that public acce
ss into the salt
ponds and associated marsh
habitat
is strictly prohibited owing to the sensitivity of the habitat and to ensure the continued use of this
habitat by special
-
status species.
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.1 -
22 Significance A
fter Mitigation
Implementation of these mitigation m
easures
would reduce potential impacts to special
-
status
species and their habitats to a level that is less than significant.
Threshold
2 :
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Impact BIO
-
2 T
HE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD
REQUIRE IMPACTS TO SEASONAL WETLANDS AND SALT
MARSH ON THE EASTERN
COMPONENT OF THE PROJECT SITE
,
WHICH ARE CONSIDERED
SENSITIVE NATURAL
COMMUNIT
IES
.
I
MPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION
.
There are no streams o
r
open freshwater areas on the project site that support adjacent riparian habitat. Riparian h
abitat does not occur on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on riparian habitat.
As described above under
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
, sensitive natural
communities within the project site
include
seasona
l wetlands scattered throughout the project site
and northern coastal salt marsh and associated unvegetated waters in the remnant salt ponds on the project site.
The proposed project would not involve construction or operation activities within the western
component of the project site. No maintenance or management activities would be conducted within the western component of the project site. Therefore, establishment of the preserve area within the western component of the project site would have no impact s on sensitive
natural communities.
Project c
onstruction activities
on the eastern component of the project site
would result in the fill of
0.28 acre of seasonal wetlands and 0.69 acre of salt marsh and associated unvegetated waters in the remnant salt po
nds on the
eastern component
project site. These impacts to sensitive natural
communities
under the jurisdiction of CDFW
would be
potentially significant.
Implementation of
Mitigation Measure BIO
-
3 would require compensatory mitigation for loss of wetlands