Attachment VII 4150 Point Eden Way Draft EIR — Hayward City Council, February 15, 2022

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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
.



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
.



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

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
.

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.

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.

EASONAL
W

ETLANDS
.

(
S

ALICORNIA
/S

ARCOCORNIA PACIFICA

AND
S

ALICORNIA DEPRESSA

ERBACEOUS
A

LLIANCE
).

CDFW

R
AN
K
:

S3G4,

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

ERBACEOUS
A

LLIANCE
).

CDFW

R
ANK
:

S3G4,

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
)

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

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

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
)

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
)

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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
.

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

and would
reduce the potential impacts to sensitive natural communities to a less -
than
-
significant level.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO
-
1h, above, would prevent people from
accessing and
damaging off
-
site marsh habitat
.

This impact would be les
s than significant with
implementation of
mitigation.

Mitigation Measures

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. Significance A
fter Mitigation

Implementation of Mitigation Measure
s BIO
-
1h and

BIO
-
3 would reduce potential impacts to
sensitive natural communities to a less
-
than
-
significant level.

Threshold
3 :

Would the project ha
ve a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

Environmental Impact Analysis

Biological Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.1 -
23 Impact BIO
-
3 T

HE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD

REQUIRE THE
PE

RMANENT

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 .

MPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN

SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION
.

The propo
sed project would not involve construction or operation activities within the western component of the project site.

The proposed project would have no impacts on wetlands or other waters within the western component of the project site.

According to the c
onfirmed Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
map
a total of 1.69 acres
of
potentially jurisdictional wetlands are located within the eastern component of the
project site. This
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. Of these total on -
site wetlands,
construction of
the proposed project would require the
permanent
fill of approximately 0.28 acre of seasonal
wetlands and 0.69 acre of sa
lt marsh and associated unvegetated waters in remnant salt ponds on the eastern component of the project site.

Fill would be permanent because a portion of the
proposed parking lot and relocated San Francisco Bay Trail segment would be constructed on top o f
the fill material.

Although t
he proposed project would include preservation of
all wetlands and
other waters

on the western component of the project site
, the
fill of approximately 0.28 acre of
seasonal wetlands and 0.69 acre of salt marsh
on the eastern

component
would be a potentially
significant

adverse
impact
.

I
mplementation of Mitigation Measure BIO
-
3 would be required to
reduce potential impacts to protected wetlands to a less -
than
-
significant level.

Mitigation Measure

BIO
-
3 Protected Wetlands Mitig
ation 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 sh
all comply, but in

case shall the mitigation ratio be less than 1:1.

Significance A
fter Mitigation

Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO
-
3 would reduce potential impacts to
federally protected
wetlands

to a less
-
than
-
significant level.

4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative setting for biological resources includes proposed development and construction within Hayward that is west of Interstate 880
. This cumulative extent is appropriate because it
encompasses

the mosaic of representative habitat types (and associated biological resources) affected by the proposed project, including a variety of wetlands habitats and industrial uses along the shoreline.

Areas to the east of Interstate 880 are urban until the fo othills of the East Bay Hills,
which provide habitat unlike that in areas west of Interstate 880, including the project site and San Francisco Bay shoreline.

The project site is located just north of the CDFW Eden Landing Ecological Reserve and west of ex
isting office/light industrial uses. Implementation of the proposed project would be consistent City of Hayward

4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

4.1 -
24 with both of these surrounding uses, as part of the project would construct a new industrial building and the other part would involve preservation of an open s pace/wetland preserve on the western
side of the project site. Project activities would occur entirely on the project site, and the interaction between the affected environment and project activities and facilities would be limited to this area.

Cumulative

projects within the assessment area are listed in Table 3 -
1, in Section 3, Environmental
Setting. The projects listed in Table 3
-
1 are not along the shoreline of the San Francisco Bay. There are no salt ponds at cumulative project sites because they are n ot along the shoreline of the Bay and
were not used for salt production, unlike the project site. Therefore, cumulative projects in Table 3 -
1 would not impact special
-
status species found in salt marsh habitat, such as salt marsh harvest mouse or salt mars
h wandering shrew.

However, cumulative project sites may support other
special
-
status species that could also be impacted by the project, such as migratory nesting birds or special
-
status bat species.

For example, the residential subdivision project propos ed at 24765
Hesperian Boulevard is on a property with trees and vegetation cover, which could be used by nesting birds.

Cumulative projects may also contain wetlands and riparian habitat. Specifically, construction of the cumulative projects could

result i
n:



Trampling, and degradation of sensitive habitats



Disruption of habitat values associated with edge habitat



Degradation of wetlands, creeks, drainages, riparian habitat, water quality, associated habitat values and functions, and ecosystems services; inc
luding channelization of storm runoff that
may increase stream flow, erosion, and sedimentation



Disruption of wildlife utilization of biological resources for foraging; hydration; cover, shelter, aestivation/hybernacula; nesting and breeding; movement, dis persal, and migration, sensitive
and native nesting birds
, and special
-
status bats.



Loss of sensitive natural communities
including seasonal wetlands



Introduction of litter (including human foods), urine and fecal matter, illegal off -
leash dogs
(causing ha
rassment and mortality of wildlife)

Taken cumulatively, these impacts would result in degradation of the suite of habitat types and associated biological resources that occur within the cumulative setting in the Hayward Regional Shoreline area and could re
sult in overall diminished regional ecological functions and values.

However, impacts to biological resources would be considered and mitigated on a project -
by
-
project basis. Permanent losses of sensitive habitats, including sensitive natural communities a nd
listed species, associated with cumulative development would be mitigated to a less than significant level. As such,
the project’s contribution to
cumulative impacts would be significant but mitigable
,
and after mitigation would not be cumulatively cons
iderable
.

Mitigation measures for biological resources identified in this EIR would reduce project -
level
impacts to a less than
significant level.

Mitigation Measure BIO
-
3 would
require the project
applicant to compensate for impacts to 0.97 acre of waters of the U.S. by purchasing wetland mitigation credits at a 1:1 ratio from an approved mitigation bank with
in

a
s
ervice
a
rea covering the
project site. This would mitigate permane
nt loss of waters of the U.S., and also support preservation of essential habitat for the SMHM to promote the recovery of the species in the region.

Implementation of these mitigation measures

outlined in this section

and above in Impact BIO
-
1 would reduce

project
-
level impacts to a less than significant level and would ensure that the project’s contribution to cumulative biological resources impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Environmental Impact Analysis

Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.2 -
1 4.2

Cultural

Resources

This section assesses
the potential for the proposed project to result in

impact
s

to cultural
resources
, including historic resources and prehistoric or archaeological resources.

4.2.1 Setting

Regional Setting

Prehistory

The
project site is

the San Francisco Bay Area archaeological region (Milliken et al. 2007, Moratto 1984). Following Milliken et al. (2007), the prehistoric cultural chronology for the Bay Area can be generally divided into five periods: The Early Holocene (8,000 -
3,500 BCE),

Early (3,500
-
500 BCE),
Lower Middle (500 BCE to CE 430), the Upper Middle (CE 430 -
1050), and the Late Period (CE1050
-
contact).

The five general prehistoric periods are summarized below.

Early Holocene (8,000
-
3,500 BCE)

Archaeological evidence from the
early Holocene is limited, as many sites dating to this period are likely buried under Holocene alluvial deposits (Moratto 1984; Ragir 1972). The available data suggest that the Early Holocene in the San Francisco Bay Area is characterized by a mobile fora ger
pattern and the presence of millingslabs, handstones, and a variety of leaf -
shaped projectile points.

Early Period (3,500
-
600 BCE)

The Early Period saw the introduction of new ground stone technologies (i.e., mortar and pestle), an increase in regional

trade, and the first cut shell beads. By 1,500 BCE, mortars and pestles had almost completely replaced millingslabs and handstones. The advent of the mortar and pestle indicates a greater reliance on processing nuts such as acorns.

The earliest cut bead h
orizon is also
associated with this period. (Milliken et al. 2007).

Lower Middle Period (500 BCE
-
CE 430)

Rectangular shell beads, common during the Early Period, disappear completely and are replaced by split
-
beveled and saucer Olivella beads

during the L
ower Middle Period
. Mortars and pestles
continued to be the dominant grinding tool (Milliken et al. 2007). Evidence for the Lower Middle Period in the Bay Area comes from sites such as the Emeryville shell mound (CA -
ALA
-
309) and Ellis
Landing (CA
-
CCO
-
295)
(Moratto 1984).

Upper Middle Period (CE 430
-
1050)

Around CE 430, Olivella saucer bead trade networks that had been established during earlier periods collapsed and over half of known sites occupied during the Lower Middle Period were abandoned.

New types o
f material culture appear at sites, including elaborate, decorative blades, fishtail charmstones, new Haliotis ornament forms, and mica ornaments. Sea otter bones became more abundant, suggesting changes in faunal exploitation patterns from earlier periods

(Milliken et al.
2007).

City of Hayward

4350
Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

4.2 -
2 Late Period (CE 1050
-
Contact)

The Late Period saw an increase in social complexity, indicated by differences in burials, and an increased level of sedentism relative to preceding periods. Small, finely worked projectile points asso
ciated with bow and arrow technology appear around CE 1250

(Milliken et al. 2007). This period
saw an increase in the intensity of resource exploitation that correlates with an increase in population (Moratto 1984).

Ethnographic Overview

The project site
i
s

an area traditionally occupied by the Ohlone (or Costanoan) people. The pre -
contact Ohlone were semi
-
sedentary, with a settlement system characterized by base camps and seasonal reserve camps composed of tule reed houses with thatched roofs made of matte d grass
(Schick 1994; Skowronek 1998). Just outside a base camp, there was sometimes a large sweat house built into the ground near stream banks used for spiritual ceremonies and possibly hygiene (Schick 1994, Jones 2015).

Ohlone
cemeteries

were set away from villages and visited during the annual Mourning Anniversary (Leventhal and DiGiuseppe 2009). Some Ohlone graves have been found with ritually buried animals, such as wolf, squirrel, deer, mountain lion, gray fox, elk, badger, grizzly be ar, blue goose,
and bat ray. Similar to human burials, ceremonial offerings were added to ritually buried animal graves like shell beads, ornaments, and exotic goods (Kroeber 1925; Field and Leventhal 2003; Jones 2010).

Ohlone subsistence was based on hun
ting, gathering, and fishing (Kroeber 1925:467, Skowronek 1998).

S
maller game
was

hunted and snared on a regular basis (Schick 1944:17). Like the rest of California, the acorn was an important staple and was prepared by leaching acorn meal both in openwork

baskets and in holes dug into the sand (Kroeber 1925:467). Fishing was

done with nets
and gorge hooks out of tule reed canoes (Schick 1994:16 -
17). Mussels were a particularly important
food resource (Kroeber 1925:467), along with sea mammals (Kroeber 1925 :467).

Seven Franciscan missions were built within Ohlone territory in the late 1700s, and all members of the Ohlone group were eventually brought into the mission system (Kroeber 1925:462, Skowronek 1998). After the establishment of the missions, Ohlone
population dwindled from roughly 10,000
people in 1770 to 1,300 in 1814 (Skowronek 1998
).

History

The Post
-
European contact history of California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769
–
1822), the Mexican Period (1822
–
1848), and
the American Period (1848
–
present).

Each of these periods is briefly described below.

Spanish Period (1769
–

1821)

Spanish exploration of California began when Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo led the first European expedition into the region in 1542
, but it took
more than 200 years to establish a settlement
(Bean
1968; Rolle 2003). In the autumn of 1769, an expedition led by Gaspar de Portolá entered San Francisco Bay. Portola sent a detachment led by Jose Francisco de Ortega in search of a land route to Point Rey
es. By November, the party reached a stream that was most likely Alameda Creek, whose course passes approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the project site
. On March 31, 1776,
an

expedition
led by
Juan Bautista de Anza
established a campsite at Arroyo de la
Harina, near what is
now Hayward City Hall (Circa 2009).

Environmental Impact Analysis

Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.2 -
3 During this period,
the

influx of European settlers brought the local Native American population in contact with European diseases which they had no immunity against, resulting in a catastrophic redu
ction in native populations throughout the state (McCawley 1996).

Mexican Period (1821
–

1848)

The Mexican Period commenced when news of the success of the Mexican War of Independence (1810
–

1821) against the Spanish crown reached California in 1822. Thi s period saw the
privatization of mission lands in California with the passage of the Secularization Act of 1833. During this era, a class of wealthy landowners known as rancheros worked large ranches based on cattle hide and tallow production. In the earl
y 1840s, the area now comprising Hayward was granted as two ranchos making up separate divisions of Rancho San Lorenzo. In 1841, Mexican Governor Juan Alvarado granted Guillermo Castro a 600
-
acre tract. Two years later, Governor Juan B. Alvarado
granted Ca
stro an additional six leagues of “former mission grazing lands” in 1843. Castro eventually constructed an adobe residence near the present location of Mission Boulevard and C Street in downtown Hayward. In 1842 and 1844, neighboring lands located south of

San Lorenzo Creek were
issued to Francisco Soto (Circa 2009; Kyle 2003).

American Period (1848
–

Present)

The Mexican Period officially ended in early January 1848 with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, formally concluding the Mexican
-
Ameri
can War. Under the treaty, the United
States agreed to pay Mexico $15 million for conquered territory, including California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming.

The discovery of gold in Northern
California in 1848 led to
the California Gold Rush (Workman 1935; Guinn 1976). The Gold Rush significantly transformed Northern California and contributed to an exponential increase in the territory’s population overall. During this time, San Francisco became California’s first tru e city,
growing from a population of 812 to 25,000 in only a few years. California was admitted as a state in 1850, and b
y 1853, its
population
exceeded 300,000.

Hayward (ca. 1850
–

Present)

American
-
era settlement in what is now Hayward began in the latter half of the 19 th

century with
the establishment of a handful of small communities, including Hayward (originally named Haywards), Russell City, and Mt. Eden.

The

nearby San Francisco Bay sh
oreline was home to
important shipping points for produce farmed in the Amador and Livermore valleys. The arrival of the rail service in Hayward in 1865 eventually undercut local shipping ventures but made Hayward a local overland transportation hub. Along

the shoreline, industry was shaped by several solar salt producers, who established plants with large evaporating ponds amid the bay’s tidal marshes. John Johnson built the first of these near Mt. Eden in 1853. Salt plants soon proliferated, and by the 18 90s several operations run by families or small corporations existed in the area. Among these outfits was that of Swedish immigrant Andrew August Oliver, who established the Acme Salt Company near Mt. Eden in 1872. His sons would later run the Oliver Broth ers Salt Company, which
developed the
current
project
site

as a salt works (Watt et al. n.d.; Anonymous 2020).

As was the case in many California communities, the state’s population boom was felt locally, as Hayward’s

population increased from 6,700 in 194
0 to 72,000 in 1960. Demand for housing helped
to inflate local real estate prices, convincing many farmers to sell their holdings to residential and commercial developers. As Hayward expanded, it annexed several outlying communities to the City of Hayward

4350
Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

4.2 -
4 south and west,

including Russel
l

City, Mt. Eden, and the area comprising the
project site

(Circa
2009; 2010).

Project Site Setting

Records Search

Rincon
Consultants
requested a search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Northwestern

Information Center (NWIC), located at Sonoma State University. NWIC staff conducted the search and Rincon

Consultants

received the results on August 24, 2020.

The
CHRIS search included a review of the NRHP, CRHR, the California Points of Historical Intere st list,
the California Historical Landmarks list, the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list, the Built Environment Resource Directory, and the California State Historic Resources Inventory list.

The
records search results identified 45 previously conducted cultural resources studies within a 0.5 -
mile radius of the project site, of which seven studies included a portion of the project site: S -
001743, S
-
009768, S
-
02300, S
-
023200a, S
-
023200b, S
-
0232
00c, and S
-
023200d.

E
ight previously
recorded cultural resources were

also

identified through the records search
.

These include five
historic archaeological sites, three historic buildings or structures, and one historic landscape. Two of these resources a
re present within the project site;

one is included in the western component (a
historical
-
period archaeological site), one is included in the eastern component (the Oliver Brothers Salt Company), and one is adjacent. The historical
-
period archaeological s
ite recorded within the
project site was completely collected at the time of its recording and is therefore no longer present.

Historical Aerial Imagery Review

Rincon
Consultants
conducted a review of historical aerial photographs and topographic maps to identify potential cultural resources concerns within the project site. The research individuated that salt fields began development in 1942, with three buildings and evaporators emerging by 1958.

Grading within the
eastern component of the
project site is

identified from 1987 to the present day.

Pedestrian Field Survey

Rincon

Consultants

conducted a pedestrian field survey of the project site on September 22, 2020.

All areas of
exposed ground surface

were examined

for artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools,
tool
-
making debris, stone milling tools, ceramics, fire
-
affected rock), ecofacts (marine shell and bone),
soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions, and features indicative of the former presence of structur
es or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls,
postholes, foundations) or historic debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics). Ground disturbances such as burrows and drainages were also visually inspected. Transects were generally spaced 10 to 20 meters throu
ghout the survey based on surface visibility.

All buildings, structures, and landscaped
features within the project site were

visually inspected
,
documenting their style, method of
construction, and physical condition
.

Results of the survey indicated that
the project site has been heavily disturbed.

Disturbance was
evident throughout the
project site
in the form of soil spoils piles, nonlocal gravel, concrete and construction debris, and levee construction. Ground visibility was limited by the presence of s
tanding water in the water storage ponds in the western portion of the project site and by vegetation in the eastern portion of the project site. No archaeological resources were identified within the
project site

during the field survey.

Environmental Impact Analysis

Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.2 -
5 Soil Remediation

To obtain further understanding of the sensitivity of the project site, Rincon
Consultants
reviewed
the soil remediation studies conducted by Aqua Science Engineers, Inc.

(2013).

1998 two
underground storage tanks containing diesel
-
fuel and hydrocarbon
s were removed from the project
site and from 1
998 to 2012 soil remediation efforts includ
ed

multiple soil samples taken of the
contaminated area
s,

and groundwater assessments to determine the extent of the site contamination

(Aqua Science Engineers 2013)
.

Additionally,
“
h
ot spots”
were identified
within the
project site
,

which were

excavated, bioremediated onsite,
then

backfilled. Other soil remediation
efforts included overexcavation, in
-
situ soil treatment, and groundwater monitoring.

Other
remediation e
fforts included the destruction of 12

monitoring wells, the deepest well approximately
360 feet below
ground
surface (Aqua Science Engineers 2013). Soil remediation efforts covered approximately 16 percent of the

western component of the

project site
, and
approximately 81
percent of
the eastern component of the site
.

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting

Cultural resources, including built environment and archaeological resources, may be designated as historic by national, state, or local authorities. For a resource to qualif y for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or as a locally significant resource, it must meet one or more identified criteria of significance. The resource must also retain suff
icient historic integrity, defined in National Register Bulletin 15 as the “ability of a property to convey its significance” (National Park Service 1990). An explanation of these designations follows.

Federal Regulations

National Register of Historic Plac
es

The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) was established by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 as “an authoritative guide to be used by Federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’ s cultural resources and to indicate
what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment” (CFR 36 CFR

60.2). The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels. To be eligible for lis
ting in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance must also possess integrity of location, design, settin g, materials, workmanship, feeling,
and association. A property is eligible for the NRHP if it is significant under one or more of the following criteria:

Criterion A:

It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patt
erns of our history;

Criterion B:

It is associated with the lives of persons who are significant in our past;

Criterion C:

It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a
master, or possesses high artistic values,
or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and/or

Criterion D:

It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

City of Hayward

4350
Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

4.2 -
6 In addition to meeting these criteria, a property must retain historic integrity, which is defined in National Register Bulletin 15 as the “ability of a property to convey its significance” (National Park Service 1990). In order to assess integrit
y, the National Park Service recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, considered together, define historic integrity. To retain integrity, a property must possess several, if not all, of these seven qualities, which are defined in the following manner i n
National Register Bulletin 15:



Location.

The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred;



Design.

The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property;



Set
ting.

The physical environment of a historic property;



Materials.

The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.



Workmanship.

The physical e
vidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory;



Feeling.

A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time; and/or



Association.

The direct link between an imp
ortant historic event or person and a historic
property.

State Regulations

California Environmental Quality Act

Under CEQA, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource is a project that may have a sign
ificant effect on the environment” (California
Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21084.1). Answering this question is a two -
part process: first,
the determination must be made as to whether the proposed project involves historic
resources;
second, if
his
toric
resources are present, the proposed project must be analyzed for a potential “substantial adverse change in the significance” of the resource.

California Register of Historical Resources

The CRHR helps government agencies identify, evaluate, and prot ect California’s historical
resources, and indicates which properties are to be protected from substantial adverse change (PRC Section 5024.1(a)). The CRHR is administered through the State Office of Historic Preservation, a part of the California State Pa
rks system.

A
historic
resource is evaluated under four CRHR criteria to determine its historical significance. A resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level in accordance with one or more of the following criteria set forth in the
State CEQA Guidelines at Section 15064.5(a)(3):

1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of California’s history and cultural heritage.

2. It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

3. It
embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

Environmental Impact Analysis

Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.2 -
7 4.

It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important i n prehistory or history.

In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the CRHR requires that sufficient time must have passed to allow a “scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource.” Fifty years is used as
a general estimate of the time needed to understand the historical importance of a resource according to State Historic Preservation Office publications. CRHR also requires a resource to possess integrity, defined as “the authenticity of a historical resou rce’s
physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and associati
on.” Archaeological resources can sometimes qualify
as “historical resources” [CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(c)(1)].

According to CEQA, all buildings constructed over 50 years ago that possess architectural or historical significance may be considered
potential historic resources. Most resources must meet
the 50
-
year threshold for historic significance, but resources less than 50 years in age may be eligible for listing on the CRHR if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand
their historical importance.

If a project can be demonstrated to cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed sta
te. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC Section 21083.2[a], [b], and [c]).

PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an artifact, object, or site about which it can be
clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a de
monstrable public interest in that information

Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type

Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic eve nt
or person

Two other programs are administered by the state: California Historical Landmarks and California “Points of Historical Interest.” California Historical Landmarks are buildings, sites, features, or events statewide significance and that have an
thropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other historical value. California Points of Historical Interest are buildings, sites, features, or events of local (city or county)

significance and
that have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other historical value.

Impacts to significant cultural resources are considered a significant effect on the environment if
they affect the characteristics of any resource that qualify it for the NRHP or adversely alter the significance of a resource listed in or eligible for listing in the CRHR. These impacts could result from physical demolition, destruc
tion, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5 [b][1], 2000). Material impairment is defined as demolition or

alteration in an adverse manner [of] those characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the CRHR (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5[b][2][A]).

City of Hayward

4350
Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

4.2 -
8 Codes Go
verning Human Remains

The CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 also assign special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. The disposition of human remains is governed by Health and Safety Cod
e Section 7050.5 and PRC Sections 5097.94
and 5097.98; it falls under the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Association (NAHC). If human remains are discovered, the county coroner must be notified within 48 hours and there should be no further d
isturbance to the site where the remains were found. If the remains are determined by the coroner to be Native American, the coroner is responsible to contact the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC, pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98, will immediately notify thos e persons
it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native Americans so they can inspect the burial site and make recommendations for treatment or disposal.

Local

Regulations

City of Hayward

The City of Hayward adopted a Historic Preservati
on Ordinance in 1989
, and comprehensively
updated that the Ordinance
in 2010
. The purpose of this Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the inhabitants of the City by providing for the identification, protection, enhancem
ent, perpetuation and use of historical resources, including buildings, structures, signs, objects, features, sites, historic and prehistoric archaeological sites, places, districts, designed landscapes, cultural landscapes and areas within the City that r eflect special
elements of the City's architectural, artistic, cultural, engineering, aesthetic, historical, political, social and other heritage (Article 11, Section 10
-

11.010). The City or any property owner may
request the designation of an historical r
esource or a potentially significant historical resource or the designation of an historic district by submitting an application for such designation to the Planning Division. The Planning Commission is authorized to approve in whole or in part, or disappr
ove in whole or in part, the application for designation of the resource as an historical resource on the local register (Article 11, Section 10
-

11.090). The Ordinance specifies that a
property may be determined historically significant if it possesses one

of the following:

An association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national, state and/or local history and cultural heritage

An association with the lives of persons significant in national, state and/or local

past

The embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master or important creative individual, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and

distinguishable entity
whose components may lack individual distinction

Details that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history

4.2.3 Impact Analysis

Methodology and Significance Thresholds

This section describes th
e potential environmental impacts of
the proposed project

relevant to
cultural

resources.

The analysis evaluates the potential for proposed activities to result in
impact
s

to
cultural resources, based on records of resources within the project site ,

observ
ations of the
Environmental Impact Analysis

Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.2 -
9 pedestrian survey completed by Rincon Consultants in September 2020 , and the history and
sensitivity of the project vicinity
. Complete documentation of the records search and pedestrian survey, including potential impacts to resources, is pro vided in the Cultural Resources Assessment
Report, prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. in February 2021. The Cultural Resources Assessment Report is provided as Appendix
B
to this EIR.

According to Appendix G

of the State
CEQA Guidelines
, impacts related to
cultural resources

from
the proposed project would be significant if the project would:

Cause a

substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §
15064.5;

Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §
15064.5; or

Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Impact Analysis

Threshold

1 :

Would the project cause a substanti
al adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?

Impact CUL
-
1 D

EMOLITION OF THE
O
LIVER
B

ROTHERS
S
ALT
C

OMPANY PROCESSING PLANT AND

FILLING OF PORTIONS OF THE

ASSOCIATED

SALT EVAPORATION PONDS

ON THE EASTERN COMPONENT OF THE

PROJECT SI
TE

WOULD ADVERSELY

IMPACT FEATURES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF

A HISTORIC
AL

RESOURCE
.

MPACTS WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT

AND UNAVOIDABLE
.

The proposed project would not involve construction or
operation

activities within the western
component of the p
roject site. The proposed
wetland preserve within the western component of
the project site would involve no maintenance or operational activities. Therefore, the proposed wetland preserve

would have no impacts on
historic resources within the

western comp
onent of
the project site.

The field survey and background research identified one built -
environment historical resource in the
eastern component of the
project site
:

the Oliver Brothers Salt Company. The resource 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 project site, including the eastern and
west
ern component of the site, are also part of a historic landscape affiliated with the former salt production operations.

Although the proposed project would not result in the demolition or alteration of the salt evaporation ponds and levees located on the w estern component of the
project site, it would result in the demolition of the processing plant and filling of portions of existing salt evaporation ponds located on the eastern component of the project site. The eastern component

of the site is essential
in the larger property’s ability to convey its significance ,

as it
contains the only remaining buildings on the
project
site and is the location of the primary salt
processing activities. Due to proposed demolition and construction activities that would im pact
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 j ustify its inclusion in the NRHP and
CRHR.

Filling the salt ponds and demolishing the building on the eastern component of the site would also alter the historic landscape, as would constructing a new industrial building.

The project
would therefore result

in a substantial adverse change to the significance of a historical resource and result in a significant impact pursuant to CEQA.

City of Hayward

4350
Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

4.2 -
10 Although not capable of reducing impacts to below the level of significance ,

two mitigation
measures
are

required
which woul
d minimize project impact
s

relating to the demolition of the
Oliver Brother Salt Company property to the maximum extent feasible : CUL
-
1a and CUL
-
1b
.

Mitigation Measures

CUL
-
1 a

Building Recordation

Archival documentation of as
-
built and as
-
found condition
sh
all

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 g
eneral 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 sh all 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 d
ocumentation 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.

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, a nd 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 issu
ance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

Significance After Mitigation

Although not capable of reducing impacts to below the level of significance ,

mitigation measures
CUL
-
1a

and CUL
-
1b

would minimize project impact
s

relating to the demolition of the Oliver Br
other
Salt Company property.

Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Threshold

2 :

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to
§15064.5?

Impact CUL
-
2 C

ONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD INVOLVE GROUND -

DISTURBING

ACTIVITIES

THAT

HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO UNEARTH OR ADVERSELY IMP

ACT PREVIOUSLY UNIDENTIFIED

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

WITHIN THE EASTERN COMPONENT OF THE PROJECT SITE
.

MPACTS WOULD BE

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
.

The proposed project would not involve construction or
excavation

activities within
the western
component of the project site. The proposed project would have no impacts on potential subsurface
archaeological resources within the

western component of the project site.

Construction of the proposed project, including the proposed industrial

building
, surface parking,
utilities and landscaping,

and relocated segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail
,

would involve
excavation and ground disturbance

on the site’s eastern component
. For example, the proposed
industrial building would require subsur
face utility connections that requiring trenching below Environmental Impact Analysis

Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.2 -
11 existing ground surface.

Although t
he
project site

has been

hea
v
i
ly disturbed
due to salt works
operations

and
soil remediation efforts

from 1998 to 2012
, ground
-
disturbing activities

would
have
the p
otential to unearth previously unidentified archaeological resources. Project impacts to unanticipated discoveries would be significant
but mitigable
.

Mitigation Measures

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 Qualification
s

Standards for archeology (Nationa
l 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 archaeolog
ist 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
a
voided by the
modified project
, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted to mitigate impacts to
archaeological

resources.

Threshold

3 :

Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemete
ries?

Impact CUL
-
3 T

HE DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS IS ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY DURING GROUND -

DISTURBING ACTIVITIES
.

ROUND DISTURBANCE

REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
COULD

DISTURB OR DAMAGE KNOWN OR UNKNOWN HUMAN REMAINS

WITHIN THE EASTERN COMPONENT OF
TH

E PROJECT SITE
.

HIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT

DUE TO MANDATORY

ADHERENCE TO

EXISTING REGULATIONS
.

The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities

extending
at least several feet into the ground surfa
ce
. If human remains are found, the State of California
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Secti
on 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a most likely

descendant (MLD). The
MLD has 48 hours to make recommendations for the disposition of the remains. The MLD has 48 hours from being granted site access to make recommendations for the disposition of the remains.

If the MLD does not make recommendations wit
hin 48 hours, the landowner shall reinter the
remains in an area of the property secure from subsequent disturbance.

The proposed project would not involve construction or
excavation

activities within the western
component of the project site. The propose
d project would have no impacts on
potential human
remains, if present, within the

western component of the project site.

Construction within the eastern component of the project site would require ground disturbance to several feet or more below ground su
rface, such as grading for relocation of the San Francisco Bay Trail, utility connections for the industrial building, or drilling for the displacement pier supports for the building foundation. These project activities would have potential to encounter an d disturb
unknown or previously undiscovered human remains, since this is usually a possibility regardless of City of Hayward

4350
Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

4.2 -
12 project or location. However, mandatory adhere to existing regulations to protect human remains, such as Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 wou
ld prevent significant impacts. Impacts would be
less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

N
o mitigation measures are indicated
.

Significance After Mitigation

Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation .

4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative i
mpacts assessment area for cultural resources consists of the project site, including both the western and eastern components of the project site. The project site was determined to be

appropriate because implementation of the proposed project would result in no structural demolition or ground disturbance or associated potential to impact buried cultural resources beyond the boundaries of the project site. Likewise, historic resources o n the project site occur
solely on the project site and not within the sites of other cumulative projects, list in Table 3 -
1 in
Section 3,
Environmental Setting
.

There are no other ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future projects within the project site

other
than the proposed project. Potential impacts to cultural resources associated with implementation of the proposed project are described above.

Implementation of the proposed project would result
in significant and unavoidable impacts to historic reso urces associated with demolition of the
former Oliver Brothers Salt Company structure and alterations to salt evaporation ponds within the eastern component of the project site. The proposed project would have no impacts to historic resources located elsew
here in the City because project activities would be limited to the project site. However, because the proposed project would result in direct significant impacts to historic resources on the project site, there would be fewer historic resources remaining in the City, and the
cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Within implementation of mitigation
measures CUL
-
1a and CUL
-
1b, impacts would be

reduced, but would remain significant and
unavoidable.

The reasonably foreseeable future projects
listed in Table 3
-
1 of Section 3,
Environmental Setting
,
would require ground disturbance and excavation during construction.

Ground disturbance and
excavation activities would have the potential to encounter previously unidentified or unknown subsurface c
ultural resources. Construction of the proposed project would also require excavation and result in the same potential to encounter or damage subsurface resources. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL
-
2 would be required and would reduce impac
ts to less
than significant.

Other projects would undergo environmental review with the City as lead agency, and mitigation would be required to reduce or avoid significant impacts, similar to the proposed project. Therefore, there would be no significant
cumulative impacts to archaeological resources
and human remains.

Environmental Impact Analysis

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.3 -
1 4.3

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

This section evaluates the potential
impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials
associated
with the proposed project
.

4.3.1 Setting

Project Site

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the project site by Cornerstone Earth Group in March 2017. The Phase I ESA is incl
uded as Appendix
E
to
the
Initial Study
, and

the
Initial Study is included as Appendix A to this EIR. The Phase I ESA

focuses on the eastern component
of the project site
. According the Phase I ESA,
a salt production and processing facility
, known as
Olive
r Brothers Salt Works,

operated on

the east component of

the project site until approximately
1981. The salt facility consisted of a processing plant and a shop, both of which were on the eastern component of the project site. The shop has since been demo lished. A salt pile or heap was located
south of the plant on the eastern component of the site, as were salt rinsing ponds. The salt pile is no longer present, but the former salt ponds remain.

Former salt ponds are also located on the
western component o
f the project site. Railroad tracks were used to transport salt between ponds and the processing plant. Much of the track system no longer remains, but some evidence, such as old railroad ties and spikes
,

can still be found on
-
site. A gasoline
-
powered loco
motive was
reportedly used to move railroad cars along the tracks, and an underground storage tank and associated pump were reportedly located next to the railroad track south of the shop, on the eastern component of the site. According to the Phase
I

ESA,

the gasoline tank had capacity for
approximately 100 gallons. Additionally, a 500
-
gallon underground storage tank with diesel fuel was
also on
-
site and
associated with the former salt production operations. Both underground storage tanks were removed in 1
998. Petroleum
-
related contamination
was
detected in underlying soil and
groundwater after the tanks were removed. Subsequent remedial activities were conducted through 2008. Soil sampling conducted in 2013 indicated there were additional areas outside of the
remediated areas where elevated concentrations of contaminants of potential concern remain. In addition,
elevated
concentrations of contaminants of potential concern were also detected in samples collected from temporary soil vapor probes in 2012, and in groundwater monitoring well
samples collected in 2013.

The contaminants of potential concern consist
ed

primarily of benzene,
TPHo, and 1,2
-
DCA. Additionally,

the

groundwater
sampling in 2013 revealed residual
concentrations of TPH
-
G

and BTEX

that exceed

ESL and/or MCL thresholds.

The potential for residual petroleum contamination is the only Recognized Environmental Condition identified
in the Phase I ESA. Additionally, a

Risk Management Plan (RMP) prepared for the project
site in 2014 identifies residual petroleum hydrocarbons as a concern within soil and groundwater.

According to the RMP, the project site

is acceptable for redevelopment without restrictions

except
for two areas on the eastern component of the site where residual petroleum hydrocarbons remain within soil and ground
water.

These two areas are referred to as the restricted areas

and are shown
on Figure 4.3
-
1 .

B
enzene concentrations in groundwater beneath the

restricted
areas

and in an area
slightly beyond the restricted areas

exceed the commercial non
-
drinking water Environmental
Screening Level (ESL) of 27 parts per billion (ppb) set by the RWQCB, which was established based on potential vapor intrusion to indoor air situati
ons.

The extent of benzene contamination
exceeding ESL in groundwater is shown on Figure 4.3
-

2. City of Hayward

4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

4.3 -
2 Figure

4.3 -
1 Restricted Areas

Source: ASE 2014

Environmental Impact Analysis

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.3 -
3 Figure

4.3 -
2 Extent of Benzene Exceeding ESLs in Shallow Groundwater

Source: ASE 2014

City of Hayward

4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

4.3 -
4 The

RMP
, which is provided as an Appendix to the Phase I ESA,

provides general protocols for
managing soil and groundwater at the site; recommendations for soil vapor mitigations for future structures; and restricted areas where detectable concentrations of c ontaminants of potential
concern may be present. On December 23, 2014, a deed restriction was recorded with Alameda County. The deed restriction identified that the project site was contaminated by petroleum products, and requires the following:



Property m
ust be used consistent with the 2014 RMP



Inhabited structures built on
-
site must be compliant with the RMP



Excavation on
-
site must be compliant with the RMP



Future uses on
-
site must preserve integrity of cap, vapor barrier, or installed ventilation systems



No water wells may be installed on
-
site unless approved by the State Water Resources Control Board



The State Water Resources Control Board must be notified if the integrity of cap, vapor barrier, or installed ventilation systems is compromised

The State Water Resources Control Board granted case closure for the project site on February 18, 2015. However, the State Water Resources Control Board noted that the case does not meet all criteria of the low
-
threat closure policy, but no further action
was still appropriate
because
:



The contamination plume is defined and on
-
site



The exposure pathways have been defined and assessed



Pollutant sources have been reportedly removed or remediated



Groundwater contamination plumes appear to be decreasing



Risk ma
nagement measures appear appropriate

The State Water Resources Control Board noted that “there may be residual petroleum -
contaminated soil and groundwater at the site that could pose an unacceptable risk as a result of future construction/development activ
ities” and “proper management may include sampling risk assessment, additional cleanup work, mitigation measures, or some combination of these tasks.”

Asbestos and Lead
-
Based Paint

The

Phase I ESA also indicates that existing on
-
site structures
associated

with the former Oliver
Brothers Salt Works operation
may contain asbestos due to their age. These structures may also contain lead
-
based paint. Both asbestos and lead are harmful to human health.

Off
-
site Sources of Contamination

According to the Phase I
ESA, there are 11 sites within approximately 0.25 mile of the project site (see Appendix
E of the Initial Study
). None of these sites are listed as active contamination cases, and some are noted to generate hazardous waste but have no known contamination a ssociated
with them. One of the 11 sites, located at 4125 Breakwater Avenue , approximately 0.1 mile to the
north of the eastern component of the project site,

and known as “Big Al’s Waste Hauling,” is noted
to have potential contamination requiring evaluat
ion.

Environmental Impact Analysis

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.3 -
5 4.3.2

Regulatory Setting

Federal Regulations

Toxic Substances Control Act (1976) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)

These acts
established a program administered by the USEPA for the regulation of the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act, which affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes. Among other things, the use of cert ain techniques for the disposal of
some hazardous wastes was

specifically prohibited by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Act
.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (1 986)

This law was enacted in 1980 and provides broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment.

Among other things, Comprehensive Environmental Respo
nse, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) established requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites, provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites, and established a trust fund to provi
de for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified.

CERCLA also enabled revision of the National Contingency Plan, which provided the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, polluta
nts, or contaminants. The National Contingency Plan

also established the National Priorities
List.

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

This Act (7 U.S. Code [USC] 136 et seq.) provides Federal control of pesticide distribution, sale, and u
se. The USEPA was given authority under the Act to study the consequences of pesticide usage, and to require users (farmers, utility companies, and others) to register when purchasing pesticides.

Later amendments to the law required users to take exams for

certification as applicators of
pesticides. All pesticides used in the United States must be registered (licensed) by the USEPA.

Registration assures that pesticides will be properly labeled and that, if used in accordance with specifications, they will n
ot cause unreasonable harm to the environment.

Lead
-
Based Paint
Regulations

Regulations for Lead
-
Based Paint (LBP) are contained in the Lead
-
Based Paint Elimination Final Rule
,

24 CFR 33, governed by the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which requires sellers and lessors to disclose known LBP and LBP hazards to perspective purchasers and lessees. Additionally, all LBP abatement activities must be in compliance with Cali fornia
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (Cal/OSHA)
and Federal OSHA and with the State of California Department of Health Services requirements. Only LBP
-
trained and
-
certified abatement personnel are allowed to perform
abatement activities. A
ll LBP removed from structures must be hauled and disposed of by a transportation company licensed to transport this type of material at a landfill or receiving facility licensed to accept the waste.

City of Hayward

4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

4.3 -
6 Regulations to manage and control exposure to lead
-
based

paint are

also

described in CFR Title 29,
Section 1926.62 and C
alifornia
C
ode of
R
egulations

Title 8 Section 1532.1. These regulations cover
the demolition, removal, cleanup, transportation, storage, and disposal of lead -
containing material.

The regulatio
ns outline the permissible exposure limit, protective measures, monitoring, and compliance to ensure the safety of construction workers exposed to lead -
based materials.

Cal/OSHA’s Lead in Construction Standard requires project proponents to develop and imp lement a
lead compliance plan when lead
-
based paint would be disturbed during construction. The plan must describe activities that could emit lead, methods for complying with the standard, safe work practices, and a plan to protect workers from exposure to

lead during construction activities.

Cal/OSHA requires 24
-
hour notification if more than 100
sf

of lead
-
based paint would be disturbed.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The USEPA is the agency primarily responsible for enforcement and implementation o f Federal laws
and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials. Applicable Federal regulations pertaining to hazardous materials are contained in the CFR Titles 29, 40, and 49. Hazardous materials, as defined in the CFR, are listed in 49 CFR 172.101. The

management of hazardous materials is governed by the
following laws:

1. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976) (42 USC 6901 et seq.); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (also called the Superfund Act) (42 U
SC 9601 et seq.)

2. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 USC 136 et. Seq.)

3. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99 499)

These laws and associated regulations include specific requirements for facilities that gene rate, use,
store, treat, and/or dispose of hazardous materials. USEPA provides oversight and supervision for Federal Superfund investigation/remediation projects, evaluates remediation technologies, and develops hazardous materials disposal restrictions an
d treatment standards.

Asbestos
Regulations

Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous material that was extensively used as a fireproofing and insulating agent in building construction materials before such uses were banned by the US
EPA in
the 1970s. Asbes
tos
-
containing materials (ACMs) were commonly used for insulation of heating ducts as well as ceiling and floor tiles
. Undisturbed
ACMs contained within building materials
present no significant health risk because there is no exposure pathway. However, on ce these tiny
fibers are disturbed, they can become airborne and become a respiratory hazard. The fibers are very small and cannot be seen with the naked eye. Once they are inhaled, they can become lodged into the lungs, and may cause cancer, lung disease
or other pulmonary complications.

The USEPA regulations under Title 40 CFR Part 61 regulate the removal and handling of ACMs. The statute is implemented by the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administ
ration also has a survey requirement under Title 29 CFR that is implemented by Cal/OSHA under Title 8 California Code Regulations. These regulations require facilities to take all necessary precautions to protect employees and the public from exposure to a
sbestos.

Environmental Impact Analysis

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.3 -
7 b.

State Regulations

Department of Toxic Substances Control

As a department of the California EPA, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is the primary agency in California that regulates hazardous waste, cleans up existing contamination,

and
looks for ways to reduce the hazardous waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code.

DTSC also administers the California Hazardous Waste Con trol Law (HWCL) to regulate hazardous
wastes. While the HWCL is generally more stringent than RCRA, until the USEPA approves the California program, both state and federal laws apply in California. The HWCL lists 791 chemicals and approximately 300 common
materials that may be hazardous; establishes criteria for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes; prescribes management controls; establishes permit requirements for treatment, storage, disposal, and transportation; and identifies some waste
s that cannot be disposed of in landfills.

Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the DTSC, the State Department of Health Services, the SWRCB, and CalRecycle to compile and annually update lists of hazardous waste sites and land designated as hazardous

waste sites throughout the state. The Secretary for Environmental Protection consolidates the information submitted by these agencies and distributes it to each city and county where sites on the lists are located. Before the lead agency accepts an applic ation for
any development project as complete, the applicant must consult these lists to determine if the site at issue is included.

If any soil is excavated from a site containing hazardous materials, it would be considered a hazardous waste if it exceed
ed specific criteria in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations.

Remediation of hazardous wastes found at a site may be required if excavation of these materials is performed, or if certain other soil disturbing activities would occur. Even if soil or groundwater at a
contaminated site does not have the characteristics required to be defined as hazardous waste, remediation of the site may be required by regulatory agencies subject to jurisdictional authority.

Cleanup requirements are determined on a
case
-
by
-
case basis by the agency taking jurisdiction.

Hazardous Waste Control Act

The hazardous waste management program enforced by DTSC was created by the Hazardous Waste Control Act (California Health and Safety Code Section 25100 et seq.), which is im plemented by
regulations described in CCR Title 26. The State program is similar to, but more stringent than, the Federal program under RCRA. The regulations list materials that may be hazardous, and establish criteria for their identification, packaging,
and disposal. Environmental health standards for
management of hazardous waste are contained in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, Division 4.5. As required by California Government Code Section 65962.5, DTSC maintains a Hazardous Waste and Sub
stances Site List for the State called the Cortese List.

California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Department of Food and Agriculture, and the Department of Public Health

The California Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR), a division of Californ ia Environmental
Protection Agency, in coordination with the California Department of Food and Agriculture, a division of Measurement Standards and the California Department of Public Health have the primary responsibility to regulate pesticide use, vector

control, food, and drinking water safety. CCR
City of Hayward

4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

4.3 -
8 Title 3 requires the coordinated response between the County Agricultural Commissioner and the Sonoma County Department of Health Services to address the use of pesticides used in vector control for animal and

human health on a local level. DPR registers pesticides; the County tracks pesticide use. Title 22 is used also to regulate both small and large California Department of Public Health water systems.

California Fire Building Code

The 2016 Fire and Building Code (2016) establishes the minimum requirements consistent with nationally recognized good practices to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare for the hazards of fire, explosion,
or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures and premises, and to provide safety and assistance to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. The provisions of this code apply to the construction, alteration, mo vement
enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such building structures throughout the State of California.

Local

Regulations

Alameda

County
Local

Hazard Mitigation Plan

The
Alameda

County
Local

Hazard Mitigation Plan

assesses hazards, risks, and capabilities for hazard
mitigation, and then provides a blueprint for a mitigation strategy.

The hazard and risk assessment
focuses on
dam failure inundation, drought,
earthquake, flood, landslide,

liquefaction, tsunami, and
w
ildfire.

The Alameda County 2016 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan was adopted by the County Board of Supervisors in January 2016, and was approved by FEMA in October 2016.

Alameda

County
Department of
Environmental Health

The

mission of the

Alameda County Dep
artment of Environmental Health (ACDEH) is to protect the health, safety and well
-
being of the public through the promotion of environmental quality.

The
department
’s Hazardous Materials Division contains the Clean Water Program, Waste Tire Program, and th
e Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA).

Alameda County
Water Department (ACWD)

The Alameda County Water District (ACWD) manages the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin, which underlies the project site, through comprehensive programs that protect and improve water
supplies for groundwater users. The project site is also locate d

within ACWD’s jurisdictional
boundary. ACWD is identified within the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) as the exclusive local agency within its statutory boundaries to compl y with SGMA with its boundaries.

ACWD is also the Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin and has an approved Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan.

City of Hayward General Plan

The Hazards Element of the City of H
ayward General Plan
defines hazardous materials and provides
the following information:

Hazardous materials are toxic, ignitable, corrosive, or reactive substances that can cause harm to people.

Hazardous materials are used by households and businesses wi thin urban
Environmental Impact Analysis

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.3 -
9 areas.

The improper use and disposal of hazardous materials can contaminate soil and groundwater resources and compromise the health and quality of life of residents.

Accidents
involving the transportation of hazardous materials can also cause

explosions or spills that
endanger the lives and property of nearby residents and businesses.

The

Hazards Element of the

City of Hayward

General Plan
includes the following goals and policies
that
aim to reduce potential damage from hazardous materials:

Goal HAZ
-
6 : Protect people and environmental resources from contaminated hazardous material sites and minimize risks associated with the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials
.

HAZ
-

6.2 :

The City shall require site
investigations to determine the presence of hazardous
materials and/or waste contamination before discretionary project approvals are issued by the City. The City shall require appropriate measures to be taken to protect the health and safety of site user
s and the greater Hayward community.

HAZ
-

6.7 :

The City shall coordinate with State, Federal, and local agencies to develop and promote best practices related to the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials.

G
oal

HAZ
-
6 and its suppo
rting policies are designed to establish strategies to minimize exposure to hazardous materials through the documentation, monitoring, clean -
up, and re
-
use of hazardous
material sites; and the implementation of best practices for the routine use, storage, transport, and
disposal of hazardous materials.

4.3.3 Impact Analysis

Methodology and Thresholds of Significance

According to

CEQA Guidelines

Appendix G, impacts related to
hazards

and
hazardous materials

are
considered significant if implementation of the proposed project would:

1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials
;

2. Create a significant hazard to the public or t
he environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment
;

3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one
-
quar
ter mile of an existing or proposed school
;

4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environm
ent
;

5. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles

of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard

or
excessive noise

for people residing or working in the project ar
ea
;

6. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
; or

7. Expose people or structures
, either directly or indirectly,

to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fir
es
.

City of Hayward

4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

4.3 -
10 CEQA checklist items

1 ,
3 , and
5 through 7

were found to be less than significant in the Initial Study

(Appendix
A
)
.

Therefore, no further analysis is warranted, and these t opics

will not be discussed
further in this section.

Threshold

2 :

Would the project

c
reate a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the e
nvironment
?

Impact HAZ
-
1 T

HE 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 HAZARD

OUS MATERIALS THAT

MAY BE PRESENT IN THE EXISTING ON
-

SITE STRUCTURES
.

HIS IMPACT WOULD BE

POTENTIALLY

SIGNIFICANT

BUT

MITIGABLE
.

The proposed project would preserve the western component of the project site as it currently exists. No construction activiti
es or ground disturbance would occur within the western component of the project site. Additionally, no operational activities would occur within the western component of the project site.

There are no on
-
site structures or known contamination on the
weste
rn component of the project site
.

B
ecause the project would
not involve

activities or
occupancy
on
the western component, the proposed preserve would have no potential to create a significant hazard to the public or environment.

Due to the age of the
form
er Oliver Brothers Salt Works

structures

on the eastern component of the
project site
, they
could

contain LBP and/or ACM (
see Phase I ESA included as
Appendix
E to the
Initial Study
).

Project construction would include demolition of the existing structures. During demolition, LBP and/or ACM, if present could become mobilized as dust or directly handled by construction workers.

Exposure to lead can cause adverse health

effects, including

disturbance of
the

gastrointestinal system, anemia, kidney disease, and neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction (in severe cases).

Lead
-
based paint and other lead
-
containing materials associated with
the
proposed project
would be
required to be
handled

in compliance with Cal/OSHA regulations
regarding lead
-
based paints and materials. The California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1, requires testing, monitoring, containment, and disposal of lead -
based paints and materials, such
that exposure levels do

not exceed Cal/OSHA standards. Compliance with
applicable
Cal/OSHA
regulations

would ensure impacts related to
LB
P would be

less than significant.

Friable ACMs are regulated as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act , and the Bay Area
Air Qualit
y Management District (BAAQMD) regulates ACM in Regulation 11, Rule 2, which governs the proper handling and disposal of ACM for demolition activities . As a worker safety hazard, they
are also regulated under the authority of Cal/OSHA. In structures slated

for demolition, any ACMs
would be abated in accordance with
state
and
federal
regulations prior to the start of
demolition or
renovation activities and in compliance with all applicable existing rules and regulations.

However,
in order to ensure the prese
nce of asbestos is known, Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
1, which requires
a
demolition plan and
asbestos testing, would be required.

Adherence to these
regulatory
requirements

if asbestos is detected

would ensure that asbestos removal would not result in the rele
ase of hazardous materials to the environment that could impair human health. Therefore, the impact related to ACMs would be less than significant

with mitigation

implemented
.

Environmental Impact Analysis

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.3 -
11 Mitigation Measures

HAZ
-
1 Project
Demolition
Activities

In conformance with Sta
te 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). Document
ation 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 b
eing 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 i
dentified 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) regu lations. 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
:



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 with 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 le
ad
-
based paint or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the type of waste being disposed.

Significance After Mitigation

Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
1 would reduce impacts by requiring
testing

to indicate
whether

lead
-
based

paint or
asbestos is present in the structures slated for demolition. If lead or
asbestos is
detected,
these materials
would be abated in accordance with state, federal, and local regulations to ensure
they would not

be released to the environment or impa
ir human health.

Threshold

4 :

Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the env ironment?

City of Hayward

4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

4.3 -
12 Impact HAZ
-
2 T

HE PROJECT
W
OULD

INVOLVE

DEVELOPMENT

ON A SITE THAT IS INCLUDED ON A LIST OF

HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SITES COMPILED PURSUANT TO
G

OVERNMENT
C
ODE
S
ECTION
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
.

Project Construction

The western component

of the project site

is not located on a site listed on Government Code
Section 65962.5
. Additionally
,

the proposed
project would not involve ground disturbance or
operational activities

on the western component of the site. Therefore, there

would be no
potential
for a signif
icant hazard to the public as a result of the proposed preserve on the western component of the project site.

The
eastern component of the
project site is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 a
s a result of leaking underground storage tanks that
were once present on the eastern component of the project site, as described in Section 4.3.1 above. Remediation after removal of the tanks has resulted in less on -
site contamination hazard,
and the Stat
e Water Resources Control Board granted case closure for the project site on February 27 , 2015.

In the closure letter, SWRCB notes
that there may be residual contamination, and that
therefore contractors performing subsurface activities should be prepared to encounter soil and
groundwater contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, and that if encountered, it must be properly managed. To address this, a Risk Management Plan ( RMP
) was prepared
.

The R
M
P identifies two areas within the eastern component of the project site where residual
contamination levels are of concern.

These areas are referred to as the restricted areas and are shown on Figure 3 of the RMP.

Soil within the

restricted

areas could contain detectable
concentrations of TPH
-
G, TPH
-
D, and BTEX. T
hese compounds are referred to as chemicals of
potential concern (COPCs). In addition, COPCs are present at moderate concentrations in groundwater in a slightly larger area surrounding the
restricted

areas.

According to the RMP,
elevated concentrations of
the COPCs in soil could be encountered during construction activities at depths of 5
-
feet below ground surface or deeper, within the
restricted

areas on the eastern
component of the project site.

Therefore, project construction activities involving excavat ion to approximately 5 feet below ground
surface, such as construction of the proposed building foundation or buried utility connections ,

could disturb contaminated soils or groundwater and expose construction workers. Because c
ontaminated soils generally
exist on
-
site at depths greater than 5 feet below ground surface ,

o
ther
shallow ground disturbance during project construction, such as relocating the segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail
,

would have
less
potential to disturb contaminated soils and expos
e construction
workers to contamination.

Nonetheless, the potential for construction workers to be exposed to contaminated soil or groundwater during project construction would be a potentially significant but mitigable impact.

Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
2a wo
uld reduce this impact to a less than significant
level.

Likewise
,

project
construction would generate dust. If soils from the contamination areas are stockpiled on site and become airborne dust, either from wind erosion or construction equipment, off
-
site

receptors could be exposed, as well as project construction workers. Reuse of contaminated soils as fill material on site could also expose workers to contamination, as well as future employees
of the industrial building or people using the San Francisco Bay Trail. Impacts would be potentially
significant but mitigable.

Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
2a would reduce this impact to a less than
significant level.

Environmental Impact Analysis

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.3 -
13 The proposed industrial building would be constructed atop the restricted

areas on the eastern
component

of the project site. The building would be constructed using pursuant to recommendations of the
Geotechnical
Engineering Services
Report prepared by
Professional
Services Industries, Inc., an Intertek company,

in
January 2018 for the project. Mitigation Measure
GEO
-
1 in the Initial Study (see Appendix A) requires that recommendations of the geotechnical report be incorporated into the project design and construction. The geotechnical report includes the use of disp
lacement piers to support the foundation of the proposed industrial building.

Displacement piers use a hollow mandrill that is filled with crushed rock that is vibrated into the ground to a preselected depth and is then raised and lowered, while vibrating,

to densify the gravel
and the surrounding soils. This produces a column of compacted gravels and increases the density of the surrounding soils.

The column of gravel created from displacement piers would create a potential
pathway
for migration of contami
nated groundwater plume to aquifers at depths of up to
20 feet below ground surface, as that is the recommended depth of the piers for the project. Due to the site’s proximity to the bay, the displacement piers may also create a preferential pathway for gr
oundwater associated with sea level rise, as the piers would displace lower permeable materials (e.g., clays and silts). Migration of the

groundwater

contamination plume into aquifers would be
potentially significant but mitigable.

Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
2 c would reduce this impact to a less
than significant level.

Project Operation

The proposed industrial building would be constructed atop the restricted

areas on the eastern
component of the project site.

During project operation, vapors from contaminated
soil and
groundwater could potentially infiltrate the proposed industrial building, including spaces within the
building wher
e employees would be routinely present. The accumulation of vapors in the breathing zone inside the building could present a potent
ial hazard to human health. Therefore, the potential
for soil vapor intrusion during operation would be a potentially significant but mitigable impact.

Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
2a would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Some stormwater run
off from impervious surfaces of the project would be directed to bioretention areas. The bioretention areas would slow runoff and aid infiltration in order to reduce the amount of runoff discharge to the storm drain system. However, if improperly designed,

the bioretention
areas could result in contaminant
s

leaching from soil into groundwater or result in migration of the existing contamination plume within groundwater.

At least one of the proposed bioretention swales
would be located partially within the r
estricted areas.

Migration or leaching of contamination would
be a potentially significant environmental impact, but mitigable.

Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
2b would
reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures

HAZ
-
2a

Implementation

o
f 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 fo
r 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 exp
osure include
,

but are not limited to the following:

City of Hayward

4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

4.3 -
14 

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 sha
ll be implemented include limiting construction vehicles speeds 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 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 me
thods 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 decontam
ination 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. Decont
amination 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 equip
ment 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 discoloration, work should halt in that area and an environmental professional (EP), such as a geologist, engineer, industrial hy gienist, 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.



PID readings are measured in a specific area
showing concentrations in excess of construction wo
rker 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 b
elow ground surface

in the restricted area sh
all

only be

reused on
-
site as backfill after sampling and analysis soil proves the soil is acceptable to remain

on site.

C
ommercial 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 sha
ll 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 Environmental Impact Analysis

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.3 -
15 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 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. If water sample analytical results 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 c
oncentrations of COPCs (e.g. by
activated carbon filtration); or, (b) transport the groundwater to a local treatment or disposal facility for appropriate handling.



The proposed industrial building shall be constructed on top of a minimum of a 5 -
foot
bioatt
enuation 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.



The
vapor barrier shall be resistant to VOCs.

The vapor barrier shall meet the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) guideline for a vapo
r 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 c
onstruction and other building considerations. The selected vapor barrier shall be approved by the RWQCB prior to installation.

HAZ
-
2 b

Bioretention Design Coordination

The project applicant shall consult with
the City

on
location and/or
design of the on
-
si
te
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 biore
tention basins shall demonstrate that groundwater
would be protected from contamination.

HAZ
-
2 c

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 geo technical
engineer shall be incorporated into project plans prior to commencement of construction. This mitigation measure shall apply to all displacement piers with in

the restricted areas

or the larger
area where benzene concentrations exceed ESLs, as sho
wn in Figure 4.3
-
2 of the EIR
. Additionally,
air
-
jetting
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.

City of Hayward

4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

4.3 -
16 Significance After Mitigation

With incorporation

of Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
2a
, the provisions of the RMP would reduce
potential hazardous materials impacts associated with the past on -
site contamination to a less than
significant level.

Mitigation Measures HAZ
-
2 b

and HAZ
-
2 c

would require coordination wi
th local
agencies to ensure that groundwater quality is protected and reduce the environmental impact associated with the existing contamination that may be affected by the bioretention basin and

that

the displacement piers

be designed and constructed to r
esult in

a less than significant
impact
.

4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts

A
project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” ( CEQA Guidelines

Section 15065[a][3]). The geographic scope for cumulative hazardous materials impacts is limited to projects within
Hayward that are west of Interstate 880
. This geographic scope is appropriate for
hazardous materials because risks associated with hazards and hazardous materials occur largely in a site
-
specific and localized context as a
dverse impacts from a hazardous materials release or spill diminish in m
agnitude with distance. Cumulative development in the vicinity of the

project site is
identified in Table 3
-

1. Continued urban development has the potential to increase exposure to hazards. However, overall, hazards and hazardous materials impacts associat ed with individual
developments are site specific in nature

and must be addressed on a case
-
by
-
case basis.

T
he
magnitude of hazards for individual projects would depend upon the location, type, and size of development and the specific hazards associated wi
th individual sites. Since hazards and hazardous
materials are required to be examined as part of the permit application and environmental review process, it is anticipated that potential impacts associated with individual projects will be adequately addre
ssed and mitigated prior to permit approval. Compliance with regulatory requirements would avoid potential hazard impacts associated with cumulative development .

With
adherence to existing policies and other local, regional, state, and federal regulations,

no significant
cumulative human
or environmental
health impacts are anticipated.

Environmental Impact Analysis

Transportation

Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.4 -
1 4.4

Transportation

This section analyzes impacts related to transportation. The analysis is based largely on the Transportation Analysis Memorandum

prepared by
Kittelson & Associates

and dated
January 27,
2021
. The
Transportation Analysis Memorandum
,
contained

in its
entiret
y in Appendix
C
to this EIR
,
provides

information relative to existing, existing plus project, future, and future plus project conditions based on project traffic volumes

and an analysis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
.

4.4.1 Setting

Roadway Network

The

project

site is accessed
by vehicle
from Point Eden Way, primarily via Eden Landing Road and State Route 92. Point Eden Road and Eden Landing road are two
‐
lane undivided roadways with a
functional classification of local roadways in the City ’
s
General Plan Circulation Element. State Route
92 (SR

92) is a
six
‐
lane
f
reeway under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

SR 92 is one of the primary routes used for access between East Bay and the Peninsula

in
the Sa
n Francisco Bay
.

Key intersections to access the site are the signalized intersection at Clawiter Road at SR ‐
92 e
astbound
r
amps, and the stop
‐
controlled intersections at Clawiter Road at SR
‐
92 w
estbound
r
amps, and at Eden Landing Road at Point Eden Way.

Tr
ansit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities

The Alameda
-Contra Costa Transit District provides transit/bus service in the City of Hayward. The nearest AC Transit bus route to the project site is transit route 86. Route 86 begins at the Hayward Bart station a
nd travels west on Winton Avenue, south on Cabot Boulevard, and east on Depot Road. It then travels south on Industrial Boulevard and east on Tennyson Road before terminating at the South Hayward BART station. The nearest bus stop along route 86 is on Indu strial Boulevard at
Depot Road, approximately 1 mile from the project site.

There are no pedestrian sidewalk connections to the project site on Point Eden Way. Additionally, Point Eden Way contains no formal bicycle lanes. However, the San Francisco Bay Tr ail is located
along the eastern edge of the project site. The San Francisco Bay Trail is open to both pedestrian and bicycle travel and provides access through much of the Bay Area.

Vehicle Miles Traveled

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is a measure used ext
ensively in transportation planning for a variety
of purposes. It measures the amount of travel for all vehicles in a geographic region over a given period of time, such as a 24
-
hour period or a one
-
year period. It is calculated as the sum of the
number of

miles traveled by each vehicle.

The City has calculated and mapped the existing or baseline VMT for each Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) or census block within the incorporated limits of Hayward.

According to the City’s GIS
portal,
the project site is
in a TAZ with an
existing

VMT of

18.23 per capita or employee
.

The regional
average VMT per employee is 18.15.

City of Hayward

4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

4.4 -
2 4.4.2

Regulatory Setting

State Regulations

State Senate Bill
743

On September 27, 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed S enate Bill (S
B
)

743 into law and
started a process that changes transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. SB 743 requires

the Governor’s
Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
to identify new metrics for
identifying and mitigating transportation impacts w
ithin CEQA. In January 2018, OPR transmitted its
proposed CEQA Guidelines implementing SB 743 to the California Natural Resources Agency for adoption, and in January 2019 the Natural Resources Agency finalized updates to the CEQA Guidelines, which incorpor
ated SB 743 modifications. As of July 1, 2020, localities are required to rely on vehicle miles traveled (VMT), instead of traffic delay, as the primary metric for evaluating transportation impacts in CEQA documents. Under SB 743, automobile delay, as desc
ribed solely by
level of service or traffic congestion, shall not be

considered
a

significant

environmental impact

except for certain types of transportation projects

(
Public

Resource Code, § 21099 (b)(2)).

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3

Originating

from SB 743, Section 15064.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines establishes vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts, shifting away from the level of service analysis that evaluated a project’s impacts on traffic co nditions on nearby roadways
and intersections. The primary components of new section 15064.3 include:



Identifies VMT (amount and distance of automobile traffic attributable to a project) as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts;



Declares t
hat a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact except for projects increasing roadway capacity;



Creates a rebuttable presumption of no significant transportation impacts for (a) land use projects within o
ne
-
half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor, (b) land use projects that reduce VMT below existing conditions, and (c) transportation projects that reduce or have no impact on VMT;



Allows a

lead agency to qualitatively evaluate VMT if existing models are not available; and



Gives lead agencies discretion to select a methodology to evaluate a project’s VMT but requires lead agencies to document that methodology in the
environmental document prepared for the
project.

In December 2018, OPR issued a
Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA

(OPR 2018). The technical advisory contains technical recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, thresholds of

significance, and mitigation measures. The technical advisory suggests a significance threshold for VMT that is based on state mandated GHG emission reduction targets.

The technical advisory recommends a quantitative per capita or per employee VMT that is

15 percent below that of existing development as a possible threshold of significance that would comply with the state’s long
-
term climate goals.

Environmental Impact Analysis

Transportation

Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.4 -
3 b.

Regional and
Local Regulations

Metropolitan Transportation Commission

The Metropolitan Transportation Commiss
ion (MTC) is designated by the State as the regional
transportation planning agency for the nine
-
county San Francisco Bay Area. MTC is responsible for
updating the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which plans the future transit, highway, roadway, railro
ad, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. MTC portions out federal funding to local agencies for transportation projects and determines their compliance with the Regional Transportation Plan.

Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy

MTC recently updated its RTP which was adopted by ABAG and MTC in July 2017. This new plan, 2040 Plan Bay Area, specifies how future transportation spending will occur through 2040. The new plan incorporates a California mandated Sustainable Communities St rategy. It also focuses on
reducing greenhouse gas emissions as it relates to transportation, per the requirements set out in the California Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008. Part of this effort includes the goal to increase non
-
a
uto mode share. Other main transportation goals of the plan include reducing vehicle operating and maintenance costs due to pavement conditions and reduce per
-
rider transit delay due to aged infrastructure.

Alameda County Transportation Commission

The Alam
eda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) coordinates transportation planning efforts throughout Alameda County and programs local, regional, State and federal funding for project implementation. It prepares the CMP, a program mandated by California law to describe the
strategies to address congestion problems on the CMP network, which includes state highways and principal arterials. The CMP requires analysis of Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadway and transit system and uses level
-
of
-
service
standards as a means to measure congestion and has
established level
-
of
-
service standards to determine how local governments meet the standards of the CMP.

City of Hayward VMT Thresholds of Significance

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) indicates that lan
d use projects would have a significant impact
if the project resulted in VMT exceeding an applicable threshold of significance.

In June 2020, the
City of Hayward adopted the following thresholds of significance for VMT analysis according the guidance from

OPR
:



Residential: 15 percent below existing average VMT per capita for the City



Employment
–

Office: 15 percent below existing regional average VMT per employee



Employment
–

Industrial: Below existing regional average VMT per employee



Retail: Net increas
e in total regional VMT

In addition, the City of Hayward has developed screening criteria to provide project applicants with a conservative indication of whether a project could result in potentially significant VMT impacts. If the screening criteria are m
et by a project, the applicant would not need to perform a detailed VMT assessment for their project. The thresholds and screening criteria that apply to the proposed project are discussed further in Section 4.4.3,
Impact Analysis
.

City of Hayward

4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

4.4 -
4 4.4.3

Impact Analysis

Methodol
ogy and Significance Thresholds

Methodology

The analysis presented herein is derived primarily from a Transportation Analysis
prepared by
Kittelson & Associates

for the
proposed project, included as Appendix
C
to this EIR. The Analysis,
dated January 2021,

assess
es

the VMT impact of the project.

Before undertaking
the VMT

analysis, the project underwent a screening assessment to determine if the impact can be screened out as having a less than significant impact according to criteria adopted by the City of Hayward, discussed further under
Significance Thresholds

below.

The

proposed
preserve area on the western component of the project site would generate no vehicle trips or associated VMT because no activities are proposed within this portion of the project site. Similarly, the relocated segment of the San Francisco Bay Tra
il would generate no VMT because
the trail
realignment would change the number of people who drive to use the trail . Therefore, the project’s
potential VMT impacts
were
analyzed as two major components:



Office:

the approximately 2,785 square
-
foot office
portion of

the proposed industrial building
would house U
-Haul’s regional corporate offices. The screening criteria and thresholds of significance for employment
-office projects was applied to this project compon
ent.



Industrial:

the approximately
114,059

square foot warehouse
portion of the proposed building
would be used to house U
-Haul storage pods, materials
,

and trucks. The screening criteria and
thresholds of significance for employment
-industrial projects we
re applied to this project
component.

The screening criteria and thresholds of significance adopted by the City for employment
-office
projects

and
employment
-industrial projects

ar
e discussed further under
Significance Thresholds

below.

Significance Thresh
olds

According to the adopted Appendix G

of the State
CEQA Guidelines
, impacts related to
transportation and circulation from the proposed project would be significant if the project would:

Conflict with a

program,
plan, ordinance or policy
addressing

the

circulation system, including
transit
, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities
;

C
onflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) ;

Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) ; or

Result in inadequate emergency access
.

Impacts associated with CEQA checklist items
1, 3, and
4 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. Therefore, no further analysis is warranted, and these t opics

will not be discussed
further in this section.

Section 15064.3 of State CEQA Guidelines, referenced in significance t hreshold 3 above, pertains to
VMT.

The City of Hayward adopted VMT thresholds for
specific land use

types
. The adopted VMT
Environmental Impact Analysis

Transportation

Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.4 -
5 thresholds for each land use are present
ed in
Table

4.4 -
1 , and
Table

4.4 -
2 shows the City’s screening
criteria for projects to be considered to have a less than significant VMT impact.

Table

4.4 -
1 City of Hayward VMT Thresholds of Significance

Land Use

VMT Threshold

Precedent

Residential

15% below existing average VMT per capita
for City of Hayward

Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research (OPR)

Employment
-

Office

15 % below existing regional average
employee per employee

OPR

Employment
–

Industrial

Below existing regional average VMT per
employee

City of San Jos
é

Retail

Net increase in total regional VMT

OPR

Source:

Appendix
C

Table

4.4 -
2 City of Hayward Screening Criteria for Development Projects

Screen Type

Screening Criteria

Small Infill Projects



Single
-
family detached housing of 15 units or less



Single
-
family attached or
multi
-
family housing of 25 units or less



Office of 10,000 square feet of gross floor area or less

Local Serving Retail



50,000 square feet of total gross floor area or less

Local Serving Public
Facilities



Local public serving facility
(determined with staff input, depending on the land use)

Residential and
Employment
-
Office
Land Use Projects
or Components



Location
: within a half mile of a major transit stop1 or in an area with low (below the threshold) VMT per
capita/employee and in an area with planned growth



Density/FAR:

-
Minimum gross floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.75 as applicable for employment project

Minimum of 35 units per acre as applicable for residential projects

If located in an area where zoning

calls for lower than 0.75 FAR or fewer than 35
units per acre, the maximum FAR or units per acre density allowed must be used



Parking
: No more than the minimum number of parking spaces required; in cases where no minimum is required and a maximum is ident
ified, no more than the
maximum number of parking spaces



Does not replace affordable residential units (including naturally occurring affordable residential units) with a smaller number of moderate -

or high
-
income
residential units



Consistent
with local p
lans for development priorities

Restricted
Affordable
Residential Projects
or Components



Affordability:
100% deed
-
restricted affordable housing (exception for the manager’s

unit(s)); affordability must extend for a minimum of 55 years for rental homes or 45
years

for for
-
sale homes. Affordability for this purpose is restricted to households making 80%

or less of the area’s median income.



Location:
within an area with below average VMT per capita

Parking:
no more than the minimum number of parking
spaces required; in cases where

no
minimum is required and a maximum is identified, no more than the maximum

n
umber of
parking spaces

Source:

Appendix
C

Threshold

2 :

Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

City of Hayward

4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

4.4 -
6 Impact TR
-
1 T
HE

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
.

I
MPAC
TS

WOULD BE

POTENTIALLY

SIGNIFICANT
,

BUT

MITIGA
BLE
.

Pursuant to the City of Hayward’s guidelines, projects should undergo a screening assessment by land use type. The proposed project

is comprised of

a trail realignment, establishment of a preserve,

an off
ice use
,

and an industrial use.

Realignment of the San Francisco Bay Trail and Preserve Establishment

These project components would not generate trips and would have no effect on VMT. Realignment of the trail segment would not generate new trail users.

P
reservation of the western component of
the project site would not generate vehicle trips or associated VMT because no development or maintenance activities are proposed within the preserve area.

Office Use Component

The City’s
VMT screening
criteria for employment
-
office land uses

provide an opportunity to screen
out small projects such as offices of 10,000 square feet of gross floor area or less. The proposed
building
would
contain approximately

2,785 square
feet of

office space.

Therefore, the proposed
office use on the project site would be below the screening criteria for employment -
office land uses.

Projects that do not exceed the screening criteria have less than significant VMT impacts and require no additional

analysis or mitigation.

Industrial Use Component

Pursuant to the City’s screening criteria presented in
Table

4.4 -
2 , above, employment projects
locate
d in areas with low baseline VMT and/or within a half mile of a major transit stop or corridor and include features that support low VMT can be assumed to have less than significant impacts and additional analysis is unnecessary.

As described above in Sect
ion 4.1,
Setting
, the nearest transit
stop to the project site is approximately 1 mile away. Therefore, the project site is not within a half mile of a major transit stop. The City’s VMT mapping also indicates that the project site is not within a low base
line VMT area. Therefore, the warehouse portion of the proposed project does not meet VMT screening criteria.

According to the City’s GIS portal, the project site is in a TAZ with an existing VMT of 18.23 per capita or employee. Therefore,
the Transportati
on Analysis

determined that the
proposed project
,
including both the industrial warehouse space and the office space

would also generate 18.23 VMT
per capita, consistent with the baseline VMT of the TAZ (see Appendix C
).

As presented in
Table

4.4 -
2 , above, employment
-
industrial land uses result in significant impacts if VMT would exceed the existing regional average VMT per employee, which is 18.15. Becaus e
the

project would generate
VMT of 18.23 per employee, it would exceed the regional average of 18.15 by approximately 0.5 percent. Impacts would be potentially significant. Therefore, Mitigation Measure TR
-
1 would be
required to reduce this potential impa
ct to a less
-
than
-
significant level.

Mitigation Measures

TR
-
1 Travel Demand Management

The project
applicant
shall implement
at least
one of the
measures described below:

Environmental Impact Analysis

Transportation

Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.4 -
7 

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 perm
it 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 prov
ide to the City documentation that at least one of the above measures is implemented. Documentation shall be provided annually.

Significance A
fter Mitigation

Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure TR -

1. As
describ
ed above,

project VMT would exceed the threshold of significance by approximately 0.5 percent. As demonstrated below, each of the measures in Mitigation Measure TR -
1 would reduce
project VMT by at least 0.5 percent.

The Transportation Analysis prepared for

the project recommends an additional mitigation to
reduce VMT consisting of an employer transit pass subsidy. The measure would require the project applicant to partially subsize transit passes for project employees. This measure is not included as mitiga
tion in this EIR because the project site is approximately 1 mile from the nearest transit stop.

Given the distance between the project site and transit stop, and that Point Eden Way contains no sidewalks, it is unlikely a transit pass subsidy would effect ively reduce impacts to less than
significant.

Voluntary Employer Commute Program

As described in Appendix
C
, assuming that 100 percent of employees would be eligible to participate in the

program, a VMT reduction of 6 percent would occur. This would exceed the 0.5 percent
reduction required to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.

Employer Carpool Program

As described in Appendix
C
, assuming that 100 percent of employees would be eligible to participate in the program, a VMT reduction of

8 percent would occur. This would exceed the 0.5 percent reduction required to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.

4.4.4 Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts assessment area for transportation is the City of Hayward
. This area is
appropriat
e because some VMT

evaluated using
citywide

thresholds, making the
City

the
appropriate geographic extent for the cumulative impacts assessment.

Some cumulative
growth in the City

would increase residency in the
City
, and thus the number of
vehicles that operate in the
City
. Increase
d

vehicle use could result in increased VMT in the
City
,
depending on the origin and destination of trips. Because reasonably foreseeable future projects would increase VMT, cumulative imp
acts could

be potentially significant.

As described under Impact
TR
-
1,
the proposed project
would have a less than significant VMT impact

with implementation of
City of Hayward

4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

4.4 -
8 Mitigation Measure TR
-

1. With implementation of the indicated mitigation, VMT of the proposed p
roject

would be below the existing regional VMT
,
and
the proposed project would not have a
cumulatively considerable contribution to
cumulative VMT impacts.

Other CEQA Required Discussions

Draft Environmental Impact Report

5 -
1 5

Other CEQA Required
Discussions

This section discusses growth
-
inducing impacts

and

irreversible environmental impacts

that would
be caused by the proposed project.

5.1 Growth Inducement

Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of a proposed project’s potentia l to
foster economic or population growth, including ways in which a project could remove an obstacle to growth. Growth does not necessarily create significant physical changes to the environment.

However, depending upon the type, magnitude, and location o f growth, it can result in significant
adverse environmental effects. The proposed project’s growth inducing potential is therefore considered significant if project
-
induced growth could result in significant physical effects in one or more environmental i
ssue areas.

5.1.1 Population Growth

As discussed in Section XIII,
Population and Housing
, of the Initial Study (Appendix
A
), the proposed
project would not directly
induce substantial

population growth because i
t is not a large technology
campus or medical facil
ity or similar type of development that would create jobs that attract people to relocate to the region from other areas of the state or country .

The project would result in
approximately 20
-
25 on
-
site employees. It is likely
that most of
these would be
drawn from the
existing workforce

in the Bay Area
.

5.1.2 Economic Growth

The proposed project would generate employment opportunities during construction. Because construction workers would be expected to be drawn from the existing regional work force, construction of the project would not be growth
-
inducing from a temporary em
ployment
standpoint. However, the proposed project would also
add
20 -
25 long
-
term employment
opportunities associated with operation of
the proposed industrial building
.

The proposed

project
would not induce substantial economic expansion to the extent tha t direct physical environmental
effects would result. Moreover, the environmental effects associated with future development in or around
the City of
Hayward

would be addressed as part of the CEQA environmental review for such development projects.

5.1.3 Removal

of Obstacles to Growth

The project site is located adjacent to
urbanized areas of the City of Hayward.

As discussed in
Section XVII,
Utilities

and Service Systems
, of the
Initial Study (Appendix
A
)
, there are

existing water,
wastewater treatment, stormwat
er drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities in the right
-
of
-
way of Point Eden Way

that are available to serve the project
. The project
would not require the extension

of,

or add substantial capacity to,

roads
or other infrast
ructure that
would facilitate or accommodate development beyond the project site .

The project would also
include relocation of the San Francisco Bay Trail but would not extend the trail to new areas of the
Bay.

Because the project does not
involve or
requi
re the extension of new infrastructure through
or
to
undeveloped areas,
or increase infrastructure capacity in such a way as to facilitate or City of Hayward

4350 Point Eden Way
Industrial Development Project

5 -
2 accommodate growth beyond the project site,
project implementation would not remove an
obstacle to growth.

5.2 Irrever
sible Environmental Effects

The CEQA Guidelines require that EIRs contain a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes. This section
addresses non
-
renewable resources, the commitment of future generations to the proposed uses, and irrever
sible impacts associated with the proposed project.

Construction and operation of the project would involve an irreversible commitment of construction materials and non
-
renewable energy resources. The project would involve the use of building materials and

energy, some of which are non
-
renewable resources, to construct the overall building
floor area.

Likewise, relocation of the San Francisco Bay Trail would require energy consumption.

Consumption of these resources would occur with any
development in the region and are not
unique to the proposed project.

The proposed project would also irreversibly increase local demand for non -
renewable energy
resources such as petroleum products and natural gas. However, increasingly efficient building

design would offset this demand to some degree by reducing energy demands of the project.

The

project would
be required to
comply with standards set

forth

in California Building Code (CBC) Title
24, which would minimize the wasteful, inefficient, or unnec essary consumption of energy
resources during operation
.

CALGreen
(as codified in CCR
Title 24, Part 11) requires implementation
of energy
-
efficient light fixtures and building materials into the design of new construction projects.

Furthermore, the 2019 B
uilding Energy Efficiency Standards (CBC Title 24, Part 6) requires newly constructed buildings to meet energy performance standards set by the CEC
.

T
hese standards are
specifically crafted for new buildings to
achieve

energy efficient performance. The sta
ndards are
updated every three years
,

and each iteration
increases
energy efficien
cy
standards. For example,
according to the CEC,
n
onresidential buildings will use about 30 percent less energy due mainly

to
lighting upgrades (CEC 2018c
).

The City also has

a Reach Code that requires efficiency beyond
CalGreen, which would be applicable to the proposed project.

Furthermore, the project would
continue to reduce its use of nonrenewable energy resources as the percentage of electricity
generated by renewable re
sources provided by PG&E continues to increase to comply with state requirements through Senate Bill 100, which requires
electricity providers to increase procurement
from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by
2030, and 100 percent by 2045
.

Additional vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would incrementally increase local traffic and regional air pollutant and GHG emissions. However, as discussed in Section 3 ,
Air Quality
,
and Section
7 ,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
, of the Initial Study (Appendix
A
), development and
operation of the project would not generate air quality or GHG emissions that would result in a significant impact. Additionally, Section 4.
4 ,
Transportation
, of
this EIR

conclu
de
s

that
impacts

associated with the proposed project would be less than significant

with mitigation

based on

adopted City threshold
s.

The project would also require a commitment of law enforcement, fire protection, water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal services. However, as discussed in Section 15 ,
Public Services
, and Section
19 ,
Utilities and Service Systems
, of
the Initial Study
, impacts to these
service systems would not be significant.

Other CEQA Required Discussions

Draft Environmental Impact Report

5 -
3 CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve a project. The analysis contained in this EIR
concludes that the proposed project would result in
impacts that are less than significant or less
than significant with mitigation
, except for potential impacts to historic resources. As described in Section 4.2,
Cultural Resources
,
and below in 5.3,
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
,
implementation of the project would result in potentially significant unavoidable impacts to historic resources due to proposed demolition of the Oliver Brothers Salt Works structures .

5.3 Significant and
Unavoidable Impacts

The proposed project includes demolition of the Oliver Brothers Salt Works structures. As described in Section 4.2,
Cultural Resources
, demolition of the structures and development of the project site would result in potentially signifi
cant impacts to historic resources. Implementation of mitigation measures CUL
-
1a and CUL
-
1b, as described in Section 4.2, would be required. However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable with implementation of mitigation measures.

City of Hayward

4350 Point Eden Way
Industrial Development Project

5 -
4 This page
i
ntentionally left blank

Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report

6 -
1 6

Alternatives

As required by Section 15126.6 of the
CEQA Guidelines
, this EIR examines a range of reasonable
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.

As discussed in Section 2.0,

Project Description
, the objectives for the proposed project, are as
follows:



Develop an industrial building to house U
-
Haul corporate headquarters and

a 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.



Cre
ate 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.

Included in this analysis are
three

alternative
s, 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 reason
able range of options to consider that would help

decision makers and the public understand
the general implications of revising or e
liminating 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
alternative are analyzed in Sections 6.
2 through

6. 4
.

6.1 Potentially Significant Impacts

According to Section 15126.6(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the discussion

of
EIR
alternatives
shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are cap able of

avoiding or
substantially lessening significant effects of the project . The City prepared an Initial Study and this
EIR to
analyze the project for potentially significant impacts related to each of the environmental issues or resource areas contain
ed in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines (see Appendix A to this EIR).

The results of the Initial Study and EIR analyses determined that the proposed project would have potentially significant and unavoidable impacts to historic resources (see Section

4.2,
Cultural Resources
).

Additionally, mitigation measures
a
re identified

in this EIR

for the following
topics
that would
reduce the respective potentially significant impacts of the project to less than significant

levels
:

City of Hayward

4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

6 -
2 

Biological Resources, specific
ally effects on special
-
status wildlife species and their habitat and
natural communities (mitigated to less
-
than
-
significant impact level by Mitigation Measures
BIO
-
1a through 1h)



Biological Resources, specifically effects on jurisdictional wetlands (miti gated to less
-
than
-
significant impact level by Mitigation Measure BIO
-
3)



Cultural Resources, specifically effects related to previously unidentified subsurface

resources
(mitigated to less
-
than
-
significant impact level by Mitigation Measures CUL
-
1 through
CUL
-
3 

Hazards and Hazardous Materials, specifically effects related to exposure of project construction personnel to

lead paint and/
o
r

asbestos containing materials during demolition of existing structures hazardous (mitigated to less
-
than
-
significant impa
ct level by Mitigation Measure
HAZ
-
1)



Hazards and Hazardous Materials, specifically effects related to exposure of persons or
groundwater
to hazardous contamination (petroleum hydrocarbons, soil vapor, etc.) during construction and operation (mitigated to
less
-
than
-
significant impact level by Mitigation
Measures HAZ
-
2a through 2c)



Transportation, specifically effects related to vehicle miles traveled

(VMT)
, as the project
VMT

per employee
would
exceed the regional average by 0.5 percent (mitigated to less
-
than
-
significant level by Mitigation Measures TR
-
1)

6.2 Altern
a
tive 1: No Project Alternative

6.2.1 Description

The No Project Alternative assumes that the
industrial

building,
surface parking, driveway
,
landscaping,
and other
project components

associated with

the proposed
industrial 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 utilize
d for flood pla
i
n and
agricultural 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

s
tat
e, and the existin
g structures associated with the former Oliver Brothers Salt Works operation would not be demolished.

T
he No Project Alternative would not fulfill
any of
the
p
roject
o
bjectives
.

6.2.2 Impact Analysis

Biological
Resources

Under the No Project Alternative, the ne
w medical office building would not be constructed and
operated on the project site, nor would the various utility, landscape, and street improvements occur.

There would be no change to listed species or habitat, including that of the salt marsh harvest mo
use or burrowing owl, and the San Francisco Bay Trail would not be relocated. No riparian or wetland habitat would be affected. As no construction would occur on the site, no potential impacts to nesting birds would occur. T
here would be no biological resources impacted or enhanced under this alternative compared with existing conditions.

However, effects unrelated to the project, such
Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report

6 -
3 as the potential for sea level rise to impact habitat for salt marsh harvest mouse, would o ccur
regardless of the potential implementation of this alternative or the proposed project.

The proposed project
’s

impacts related to biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation (see Section 4.1,
Biological Resources
). Because the
No Project Alternative would have no
impact, biological resources impacts would be
reduced

compared to the proposed project

and no
mitigation measures would be required
.

Cultural Resources

The No Project Alternative would not involve construction or ground

disturbance on the project site.

Therefore, there would be no potential for encountering or damaging potential buried cultural resources. Because this alternative would preclude development of the project site, the former Oliver Brother Salt Works buildin
g on the eastern component of the project site would not be demolished. The structure would remain in place but would be subject to continued natural deterioration
,

weathering

and squatting
by homeless individuals
.

The No Project Alternative would
have no
impact on cultural resources.

As described in Section 4.2,
Cultural Resources
, the proposed project would have significant and
unavoidable impacts to historic resources resulting from demolition of the Oliver Brother Salt Works building
, and mitigation mea
sures would be required
. Because the No Project Alternative would
avoid this significant impact, as well as potential impacts to subsurface resources, impacts would be reduced
compared to the proposed project

and no mitigation would be required
.

Hazards an
d Hazardous Materials

Under the
N
o Project Alternative, there would be no demolition of the existing on -
site structures
and no new construction, and no impacts related to potential exposure to

lead or

asbestos
-
containing materials.

Additionally, the propos
ed building would not be constructed, including
displacement piers for the building foundation or on
-
site bioretention areas for stormwater
management. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no potential to create new preferential pathways for sh
allow contaminated groundwater to reach deeper groundwater.

Additionally, because the proposed building would not be constructed, it also would not be occupied and there would be no potential for vapor intrusion risk. The No Project Alternative would have
no impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.

As described in Section 4.3,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
, the proposed project would have
potentially significant but mitigable impacts related to hazards materials and hazardous contamination. Bec
ause the No Project Alternative would have no impact, impacts of this alternative would be
reduced
compared to the proposed project

and no mitigation would be
required
.

Transportation

The No Project Alternative would result in no new development or changes

to the project site.

Currently, the project site is
unused
and does not generate VMT. Therefore, the No Project
Alternative would generate no new VMT, as the site would continue to be unused
. Additionally, the
No Project
Alternative
would have no conflict
s with plans or programs pertaining to circulation,
including bicycle, pedestrian, and transit circulation. The San Francisco Bay Trail would remain in its current alignment and available for bicycle and pedestrian travel.

The No Project Alternative would
have no impacts on transportation.

City of Hayward

4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

6 -
4 As described in Section 4.4,
Transportation
, the proposed project would generate new VMT that
exceeds the regional average VMT per employee. Impacts would be potentially significant but mitigable. Because the No Project Alternative would have no transportation impacts, impacts of this alternative w
ould be
reduced
compared to the proposed project

and no mitigation would be
required
.

6.3 Alternative 2:

Enterprise Avenue
Alternate
Site

6.3.1 Description

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 Industrial (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 gr
asses, weeds, and shrubs
.

Alternative 2 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 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 Ol
iver Brothers Salt Works operation on the project site would remain unchanged from current conditions, because Alternative 2 would involve no activities or development 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 include relocating the existing radio communication towers and associated building that cur
rently exist on the Enterprise Avenue property.

The Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site

Alternative would fulfill

some

project objectives
but not all
objectives. For example, 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 warehousing 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 Fra
ncisco Bay or to remove the dilapidated Oliver Brothers Salt Works structures from the State Route 92 gateway to the City.

6.3.2 Impact Analysis

Biological
Resource
s

The Enterprise Avenue site is not in proximity to salt marsh habitat. Therefore, implementation of
the Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site

Alternative

would have no potential to impact species
associated with salt marsh habitat, such as salt marsh harvest mouse or salt marsh wandering shrew. Additionally, the existing structure on the Enterprise Avenue site is a small shed
-
like
structure associated with current operations of the on
-
site radio communication towers. Because
Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report

6 -
5 the towers are currently operated and maintained, it is assumed that bats do not actively roost in the structure, and this alternative

would have no impact to special
-
status bats.

The Enterprise Avenue site consists primarily of open grass. The radio communication towers may provide perching spots for foraging raptor species, given that the towers are in open grassland.

Additionally, the

towers or the grass habitat may be used for nesting migratory bird species, and the grassland habitat specifically could be suitable for burrowing owl. Construction of the Enterprise
Avenue Site Alternative

would require removal of the radio communication

towers and grass
habitat. The site would be converted into the proposed industrial building and associated surface parking and landscaping. Therefore, the
Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site

Alternative

would have
potentially significant but
mitigable impacts to special
-
status species. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures BIO
-
1b through BIO
-
1e and BIO
-
1g would be required for this alternative.

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, there are no wetland areas on the

Enterprise Avenue

site

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2020).

Therefore, construction of an industrial building on the site would have no impacts on wetlands. Because the site is upland grass, construction of this alternative would also have no impacts on sensitive natural

communities.

Overall, the
Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site

Alternative

would have potentially significant but
mitigable impacts on special
-
status species, but fewer special
-
status species would be impacted
compared to the proposed project. Additionally,
while the proposed project would have potentially
significant but mitigable impacts to wetlands and sensitive natural communities, the Enterprise
Avenue

Alternate

Site Alternative

would have no impact. Accordingly, impacts of the
Enterprise
Avenue
Alternat
e
Site Alternative

would be less than significant with mitigation and
reduced
compared to the proposed project.

Cultural Resources

Construction of the Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site

Alternative

would require demolition or
removal of the on
-
site radio com
munication towers and associated shed
-
like structure. Based on a
review of aerial photography, the towers and associated structure were constructed sometime after 1982 but before 1987 (Historic Aerials 2021). Based on the apparent age of these structures (
approximately 39 years to 34 years), the Enterprise Avenue site contains no

known

historic
structures or potentially historic structures. Therefore, construction of the Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site Alternative would have
unknown but ex
pected

less than
significant effect

on historic
resources because historic structures are not known to be present .

Construction of the Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site

Alternative

would require ground disturbance
and excavation for the building foundation, utility connecti ons, and other subsurface project
component
s
. There is always potential for previously unknown or unidentified subsurface cultural resources to be uncovered during ground disturbance and excavation. If construction of the Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site

A
lternative

were to encounter resources and result in damage or
destruction of the resource or resources, impacts would be potentially significant but mitigable.

Implementation of the Mitigation Measure

C
U
L
-
2 in Section 4.2,
Cultural Resources
, would be
req
uired for this alternative.

Implementation of mitigation would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Overall, the Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site

Alternative

would
likely
avoid

or reduce

the project’s
potentially significant and unavoidable impact to h
istoric resources. Impacts to buried or subsurface
resources would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.

Because the Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site

Alternative

would completely avoid significant and
City of Hayward

4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

6 -
6 unavoidable i
mpacts to historic resources, impacts would be
reduced
compared to the proposed
project.

Hazards and Hazardous
Materials

Construction of the Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site

Alternative

would require demolition or
removal of the existing on
-
site radio communication towers and associated shed
-
like structure.

Based on a review of aerial photography, the towers and associated structure were constructed sometime after 1982 but before 1987 (H
istoric Aerials 2021). Because the towers and shed
-
like
structure were constructed in the 1980s, lead
-
based paint and asbestos would not have been used
in their construction. Therefore, demolition of removal of the towers and structure would not expose con
struction workers or others to potential hazards. The Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site

Alternative

would have no impact related to
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment .

Accor
ding to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the project site is not on a

list of hazardous material sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5

(SWRCB
2021
; DTSC
2021
)
. Therefore, construction
of the Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site

Alternative

would have
negligible
potential to create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site

Alternative

would have
less than significant

impacts
.

The Enterprise Avenue
Alternate
Site
Alternative would have a reduced hazards and hazardous materials compared to the proposed project.

Transportation

According to the City’s GIS portal, the
average
VMT per employee

within the traffic analysis zo
ne
(TAZ) containing the

Enterprise Avenue Site is 20.64

(City of Hayward 2020)
.

As described in Section

4.4,
Transportation
, the regional average VMT per capita

or employee

for industrial projects is

18.15. Therefore, the Enterprise Avenue

Alternate

Site A
lternative would require a VMT reduction
of approximately 14 percent to achieve a less than significant impact. This is higher than the proposed project site’s VMT per employee of 18.23, which requires a 0.5 percent reduction.

Therefore, the VMT impact of
the Enterprise Avenue
Alternate
Site Alternative would

be potentially
significant. Compared with the proposed project, impacts of this alternative would

be greater and
additional mitigation
would be required
compared to the proposed project.

6.4 Alternative
3 :

Reduced

Project Alternative

6.4.1 Description

The
Reduced

Project Alternative assumes that
, like the proposed project,

the industrial building,
surface parking, driveway, 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 component of the site, like
the proposed project
.

Lik
ewise, a wetland preserve would be established on the western component of the project site
, consistent with the proposed project
.

However, the industrial
building and surface parking lot would be reduced in size by approximately 50 percent
and shifted
sou
th within the eastern component of the project site in order to avoid demolition of the former Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report

6 -
7 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 fulfil
l

most

but not all
project
objectives. For example, this
alternative would
involve
develop
ment of

an industrial
building to house U
-
Haul corporate
headquarters and a warehouse

at the western edge of Hayward in proximity to regional roadways.

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 th
e 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
.

6.4.2 Impact Analysis

Biological Resources

The Reduced Project Alternative would be
constructed on the eastern component of the project
site. Therefore, construction of this alternative would impact the same biological resources as the proposed project, including special
-
status species, wetlands, and sensitive natural communities.

However
, the Reduced Project Alternative would require the industrial building and surface parking to be located farther south within the eastern component of the project site, result in additional wetland impacts compared to the proposed project. Additional wetl and impacts would occur
because the southern portion of the eastern component of the project site consists of wetlands.

Establishment of the preserve in the western component of the project site would have no impact to biological resources because no const
ruction, maintenance, or management activities would be conducted within the western component of the project site under this alternative , same as f
o
r the
proposed project
.

Overall, the Reduced Project Alternative would have significant but mitigable impac ts to biological
resources. Implementation of all mitigation measures in Section 4.1, Biological Resources
, would be
required. These mitigation measures include BIO
-
1a through BIO
-
1h and BIO
-

3. Compared to the
proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternat
ive would result in slightly greater impacts because
this alternative would impact more wetland areas.

Cultural Resources

Because no construction, maintenance, or management activities would occur within the preserve area on the western component of the pr
oject site, establishment of a wetland preserve under this alternative would result in no impacts to cultural resources , as with the proposed project
.

Under the Reduced Project Alternative, the salt plant structure from the former Oliver Brothers Salt Work
s on the eastern component of the project site would be retained. Demolition of the structure would not be required because the project would be designed to avoid the structure. While the structure would be retained, construction of the Reduced Project Alt ernative would require
placement of fill within former salt ponds at the south end of the eastern component of the project site. Therefore, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in impacts to components of the historic Oliver Brothers Salt Works sit
e. Additionally, the proposed industrial building would be of modern design and construction and could conflict with the historic landscape designation of the City of Hayward

4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

6 -
8 existing structure on the
project site. While retention of the salt plant structure, as well as p
reservation of all former salt ponds in the western component of the project site ,

would help to
retain the historic integrity of the Oliver Brothers Salt Works site, required filling of salt ponds on the eastern component of the site could have potentially significant impacts on historic resources.

The Reduced Project Alternative would

involve construction and ground disturbance in the eastern component of the project site. Although the proposed industrial building and surface parking lot would be reduced in size, the excavation required for utility connections and foundation supports w
ould have the potential to uncover and disturb previously unknown or unidentified archaeological resources or human remains within the eastern component of the project site. Grading required for relocation of the San Francisco Bay Trail would also have the

potential to uncover and disturb or
damage subsurface archaeological resources. Disturbance or damage to archaeological resources would be a potentially significant but mitigable impact. Implementation of the Mitigation Measure CUL
-
2 in Section 4.2,
Cultu
ral Resources
, would be required for this alternative. Implementation of mitigation
measures
would reduce impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant.

Compliance with existing regulations, such as
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
, wou
ld
prevent significant impacts related to discovery of human remains.

Overall, the Reduced Project Alternative would have potentially significant impacts to historic resources and significant but mitigable impacts to archaeological resources. Compared to t he
proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in reduced impacts because this alternative would avoid demolition of the Oliver Brothers Salt Works salt plant structure, which is a prominent component of the historic site and historic la ndscape.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Because no construction, maintenance, or management activities would occur within the preserve area on the western component of the project site, establishment of a wetland preserve under this alternative would resu
lt in no impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.

The Reduced Project Alternative would not require demolition of the former Oliver Brothers Salt Works salt plant structure, which could contain lead paint or asbestos containing materials. Becaus e
demolition would be avoided, there would be no potential for construction workers to be exposed to these hazards accidently during construction. Impacts would be less than significant.

The Reduced Project Alternative would be constructed on the eastern c omponent of the project
site. Therefore, construction of this alternative would require construction within the restricted areas, where soil and groundwater contamination exist (see Section 4.3, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
). During construction, worker
s could be exposed to hazardous contamination, especially during excavation activities reaching depths of five feet or more below ground surface.

Likewise,
construction would generate dust. If soils from the contamination areas are stockpiled on site and b
ecome airborne dust, either from wind erosion or construction equipment, off -
site receptors could
be exposed, as well as project construction workers. Impacts would be potentially significant but mitigable. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
2a in Se
ction 4.3,
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
, would be required, and impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Given the extent and location of the restricted areas within the eastern component of the project site, the proposed industrial building w
ould at least partially overlie the areas under this alternative, despite the building be positioned closer to the south end of the site. Displacement piers required for the building foundation could create a preferential pathway for shallow groundwater co
ntamination to reach deeper groundwater. Likewise, bioretention areas for this alternative could Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report

6 -
9 result in leaching of runoff through multiple underlying aquifers, creating a pathway for contamination. Impacts would be potentially significant but mitigable .

Mitigation Measures HAZ
-
2b
and HAZ
-
2c would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Additionally, because the building would be atop the restricted areas, there would be potential for vapor intrusion, exposing office and warehouse workers to

hazardous vapors. Impacts would be
potentially significant. Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
2a would reduce this impact to a less than
significant level.

Overall, the Reduced Project Alternative would have significant but mitigable impacts related
to
hazards and h
azardous materials
. Implementation of all
M
itigation
M
easures
HAZ
-
2a, HAZ
-
2b, and
HAZ
-
2c
in Section 4.
3 ,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
, would be required. Compared to the
proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in slightly reduced

impacts because
this alternative would
avoid potential impacts related

the accidental release of lead or asbestos
.

Transportation

Realignment of the San Francisco Bay Trail would not generate new VMT compared to existing conditions because realignment w
ould not increase vehicle trips from new trail users. Likewise, because no maintenance or management activities would occur within the preserve area on the western component of the project site, establishment of a wetland preserve under this alternative wo
uld generate no VMT.

The proposed industrial building would be reduced in size if the Reduced Project Alternative were implemented. Despite being reduced in size compared to the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would generate the same VMT
per employee as the proposed project. The VMT would
be the same because it is based on the average VMT per employee for the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) where the project site is located. Therefore, like the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative

would generate 18.23 VMT per employee. As described in Section 4.4, Transportation
,
the regional average VMT per capita or employee for industrial projects is 18.15. Therefore, the Reduced Project Alternative would generate VMT exceeding the regional aver age VMT, and impacts
would be potentially significant but mitigable. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TR -
1 in
Section 4.4, Transportation, would be required and would reduce impacts to less than significant

levels
.

Impacts

of th
e Reduced Project A
lternative would be
similar

to the proposed project.

6.5 Alternatives Considered
b
ut Rejected

Section 15126.6 of the State
CEQA Guidelines

states that:

“An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the proj ect, and evaluate the comparative merits
of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and

public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible.

The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternat ives. There is no ironclad rule
governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.”

City of Hayward

4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

6 -
10 Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (1) failure to meet m
ost of the basic project objectives, (2) infeasibility, or (3) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of
infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquir
e, control or otherwise have access to the alternative
site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.

The Cali
fornia Supreme Court, in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990), indicated that a discussion of alternative sites is needed if the project “may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner considering the economic, environmental, socia l, and technological factors
involved” at another site. Several criteria form the basis of whether alternative sites need to be considered in detail. These criteria take the form of the following questions:

1. Could the size and other characteristics of anoth
er site physically accommodate the project?

2. Is another site reasonably available for acquisition?

3. Is the timing of carrying out development on an alternative site reasonable for the applicant?

4. Is the project economically feasible on another site?

5. What are
the land use designation(s) of alternative sites?

6. Does the lead agency have jurisdiction over alternative sites? and

7. Are there any social, technological, or other factors which may make the consideration of alternative sites infeasible?

Site characteristic
s that could support a project that meets the project objectives include:
appropriate size to accommodate an economically viable
industrial building that also can house U
-
Haul corporate headquarters
;
proximity to a regional highway in Hayward
; and
proximit
y to other
industrial, warehousing, and logistics land uses to avoid land use conflicts .

In order to accommodate
the needed industrial and office uses, the industrial building must be located on a property or contiguous properties measuring approximately 6
.8 acres or larger. Additionally, the property must
be zoned Industrial Park or for industrial uses.

The following alternative

site
s were initially considered. However, for reasons discussed below, they were dismissed from further consideration.

6.5.1 4327 Break
water Avenue Site

Alternative

Under this alternative, the proposed building would have been constructed on a property at 4327 Breakwater Avenue identified as APN 439
-
0099
-
017
-

04. The property is adjacent to the north side
of State Route 92, opposite of the

project site. The property is currently vacant, but there is a freeway billboard on the property, adjacent to State Route 92. The property is in proximity to a regional highway, given that is adjacent to State Route 92. The property is zoned as Industrial

Park,
which would allow for an industrial warehouse. However, the property measures approximately 1 acre in size, and adjoining properties are either developed or consist of marshland that cannot be developed. Because the property measures only approximat ely 1 acre, which is less than the 6.8
acres needed for the industrial warehouse, the 4327 Breakwater Avenue Site Alternative was dismissed from further consideration.

Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report

6 -
11 6.5.2

3590 Enterprise
Avenue

Site Alternative

Under this alternative, the proposed building wo
uld have been constructed on a property at 3590
Enterprise Avenue identified as APN 439
-
0099
-
003
-

07. The property is located at the southwest
corner of the intersection of Enterprise Avenue and Whitesell Street in eastern Hayward. The property is currently

vacant and has been scraped or cleared of vegetation. The property is in proximity to State Route 92. The property is zoned as General Industrial, which would allow for an industrial warehouse. However, the property measures approximately 3.9 acres in siz e, which is less
than the 6.8 acres needed for the industrial warehouse. Therefore, the 3590 Enterprise Avenue Site Alternative was dismissed from further consideration.

6.5.3 Arden Road Site Alternative

Under this alternative, the proposed building would have b een constructed on a property accessible
from an existing driveway on Arden Road identified as APN 461 -
0040
-
004
-

04. The property is
adjacent to an existing warehouse to the west and an asphalt parking surface to the north. Railroad tracks are located immed
iately east of the property. Wetlands and the Eden Ecological Reserve area located south of the property.

Industrial Boulevard is to the east, less than a mile, and provides access to State Route 92 to the north.

The property is currently vacant but
does a
ppear disturbed in some areas, and there is a dirt road in the southern portion. The property measures approximately 34.6 acres in size, which is beyond sufficient for the 6.8 acres needed for the industrial warehouse. However, according to the U.S. Fish a
nd Wildlife Service,
much of the property is freshwater ponds that are either permanently or seasonally inundated

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2020)
. Therefore, the developable area of the
property is less than 34 acres. The configuration of the mapped ponds on the property do not
provide large contiguous developable areas

of at least 6.8 acres
. Additionally, the property is zoned
as Open Space

District
, which does not allow for development of an industrial building. Because the property contains ponds t
hat reduce developable area to less than needed for the industrial building, and the property is zoned as Open Space

District
, the Arden Road Site Alternative was
dismissed from further consideration.

6.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative

Table
6 -
1 indicates whether each alternative’s environmental impact is greater than, less than, or similar to that of the proposed project for each of the issue areas studied

in this section of the EIR
.

Based on the alternatives analysis provided above, Alternative

1 would be the environmentally
superior alternative
, though it is the No Project Alternative, and therefore would not meet the objectives of the proposed project.

The environmentally superior development alternative would be Alternative 2, as it would reduce impacts in the categories of biological resource s, cultural
resources, and hazards and hazardous materials,
but

it would result in greater impacts regarding
transportation. Alternative 2, however, would not meet all the objectives of the proposed project ,
such as establishing a wetland preserve or remov
ing a dilapidated structure from the gateway to the
City
.

Neither
of

the alternatives analyzed above would create significant or unavoidable impacts , but
the proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources .

City of Hayward

4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

6 -
12 Table 6
-
1 Impact Comparison of Alternatives

Issue

Proposed Project
Impact
Classification
1 Alternative 1: No
Project
Alternative

Alternative 2:

Enterprise
Avenue Alternate Site
Alternative

Alternative 3:

Reduced Project
Alternative

Biological Resources

Less than Significant
with Mitigation

Cultural Resources

Significant and
Unavoidable

Hazards and
Hazardous Materials

Less than Significant
with Mitigation

Transportation

Less than Significant
with
Mitigation

1 Most severe level of impact determination for proposed project is presented in this table.

+ Superior to the proposed project (reduced level of impact)

Inferior to the proposed project (increased level of impact)

= Similar level of
impact to the proposed project

References

Draft Environmental Impact Report

7 -
1 7

References

7.1 Bibliography

Biological Resources

California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Sections 1600
-
1607. Environmental Service Division, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA
.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2010. List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations.

Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. September 2010.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
. 2020. California Natural Diversity Database, Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. Sacramento, CA. Accessed: June 2020

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Ve
rsion 2.0). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer
Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. September 28, 2008.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vic
ksburg, Mississippi 39180
-
0631.

San Francisco Estuary Institute. 2020. California Aquatic Resource Inventory. Available at:
http://www.sfei.org/cari#sthash.Mzz93W9i.dpbs. Accessed: June 2020

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. National Wetlands Inventory . Available at:
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/index.html. Accessed: June 2020

U.S. Geological Survey. 2020. Redwood Point, California 7.5 -
minute quadrangle topographic map.

Cultural Resources

Anonymous
.
2020
.
“Four Generations of Salt
Production.” The Oliver Salt Company.
https://oliversalt.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/four
-
generations
-
of
-
salt/. Accessed
September 9, 2020.

Aqua Science Engineers, Inc. 2013. Recommendation for Case Closure as a Low -
Thread Underground
Storage Tank Case and Up
dated Site Conceptual Model ASE Job No. 3831 at Former Oliver Salt Facility, 4150 Point Eden Way, Hayward, California.

Bean, Walton
.
1968
.

California: An Interpretive History. New York, New York: McGraw -
Hill Book
Company.

Circa: Historic Property Developm
ent
.
2009
.

Historic Context Statement for the City of Hayward,
Administrative Draft Report. August. Prepared for the City of Hayward.

____.
2010

City of Hayward Historical Resources Survey and Inventory Report, Final. July.

Prepared for the City of Hayward
.

D’Oro, Stella
.
2009
.

Native California Prehistory and Climate in the San Francisco Bay Area. Master’s Thesis, San Jose State University.

City of Hayward

4350 Point Eden Way Industrial
Development Project

7 -
2 Dumke, Glenn S.

19 9
4 .

The Boom of the Eighties in Southern California. San Marino, California:

Huntington
Library

Publications.

Engelhardt, Zephyrin
.
1927
.

San Fernando Rey: The

Mission of the Valley. Chicago, Illinois:

Franciscan Herald Press.

Guinn, James M.

1976
.

Gold!

Gold! Gold! from San Francisquito! in Los Angeles Biography of a City.

John Caughey and

L
aRee Caughey, eds. Pp. 107
-
108. Berkeley, California: University of
California, Berkeley Press.

Hylkema, Mark G.

2002
.

Tidal Marsh, Oak Woodlands, and Cultural Florescence in the Southern San Francisco Bay Region. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California
Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp.233 –
262. Perspectives in California
Archaeology, Vol. 6. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.

Kyle,
Douglas

2002
.

Historic Spots in California. 5th ed. Stanford University

Press, Stanford,
California.

Lightfoot, Kent G., and Edward M. Luby
.
2002
.

Late Holocene in the San Francisco Bay Area:

Temporal Trends in the Use and Abandonment of Shell Mounds in the East Bay. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the
California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson
and Terry L. Jones, pp.263
-
281. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

McCawley, William
.
1996
.

The First Angelinos: The Gabrielin
o Indians of Los Angeles. Malki
Museum/Ballena Press Cooperative Publication, Banning or Novato, California.

Milliken, R. T., R.T. Fitzgerald, M. G. Hylkema, R. Groza, T. Origer, D. G. Bieling, A. Leventhal, R. S.

Wiberg, A. Gottsfield, D. Gillette, V. Bel
lifemine, E. Strother, R. Cartier, and D. A.

Fredrickson
.
2007
.

Punctuated Cultural Change in the San Francisco Bay Area. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. Edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A.

Klar. AltaMira Press.

Morat
to, Michael J.

1984
.

California Archaeology. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, Inc.

National Park Service
.
1983
.

Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Electronic document, online at http://www.nps.gov/
history/local
-
law
-
Arch_Standards.htm, accessed December 6, 2011.

Nevin, David
.
1978
.

The Mexican War. Time Life Books.

Poole, Jean Bruce
.
2002
.

El Pueblo
-
The Historic Heart of Los Angeles. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute and the J Paul Getty Museum.

Ragir, Sonia
.
1972
.

The Early Horizon in Central California Prehistory. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Re
search Facility, No. 15. Berkeley.

Rolle, Andrew
.
2003
.

California: A History. Arlington Heights, Illinois: Harlan Davidson, Inc.

Shumway, Burgess McK.

2007
.

California Ranchos: Patented Private Land Grants Listed by County.

Michael Burgess and Mary Wicki
zer Burgess, eds. Rockville, Maryland: Borgo Publishing Press.

Watt
Laura, Marie Galvin, David Blau, Charlane Gross, Aki Omi, and Donna Plunkett, and Lou Ann Speulda
-
Drews
.
n.d.

Historic American Landscapes Survey Alviso Salt Works HALS No. CA -

92. References

Draft Environmental Impact Report

7 -
3 http://l
cweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/ca/ca4000/ca4062/data/ca4062data.pdf.

Accessed September 9, 2020.

Workman, Boyle
.
1935
.

The City that Grew. Los Angeles, California: The Southland Publishing Company.

Alternatives

Department of Toxic Substances Control (D
TSC). 2021. EnviroStor [map database]. Retrieved on
February 9, 2021, from
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/

Hayward, City of. 2020. Vehicle Miles Traveled 2020 database. https://maps.hayward
-
ca.gov/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=b5a75035f77e4d80972424580c636354

(accessed January 2021).

Historic Aerials. 2021. Historic Aerials by NETRONLINE [map database of aerial photography].

Retrieved on January 6, 2021, from
https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer

State Water Resources Control Boar
d (SWRCB). 2021. GeoTracker [map database]. Retrieved on February 9, 2021, from
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. National Wetlands Inventory: Surface Waters and Wetlands [map database]. Retrieved on January 22, 2
021, from
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html

7.2 List of Preparers

This EIR was prepared by the City of
Hayward
, with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Consultant staff involved in the preparation of the EIR are listed below.

R
INCON
C
ONSULT
ANTS
,

I
NC
.

Abe Leider, AICP CEP
, Principal

George Dix, Project Manager

Katherine Green,

AICP,

Assistant Project Manager

Beth Wilson, Environmental Planner

Kari Zajac, MESM, Senior Planner

Hannah Haas, MA, RPA,
Senior Archaeologist

James Williams, Architec
tural Historian

Steven Treffers,
Senior Architectural Historian

Allysen Valencia, GIS Analyst

ITTELSON
&

SSOCIATES
,

I
NC
.

Damian Stefanakis

Fernando Sotelo

City of Hayward

4350 Point Eden Way Industrial
Development Project

7 -
4 This page
intentionally left blank

Hayward City CouncilFebruary 15, 2022

Hayward City Council
February 15, 2022