Hayward City Council
April 19, 2022

WHEREAS, on December 3, 2019, City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter in an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with Trumark Properties, LLC to develop the property in accordance with the approved Master Development Plan, and that ENA has been extended in accordance with the Agreement; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2021, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and enter in an easement agreement with California State University East Bay (CSUEB) for a roadway and utility connection from the project site to Carlos Bee Boulevard. The proposed easement runs along the northern boundary of the project site where the proposed Foothill Trail will meander from the project site onto CSUEB property and run parallel to the proposed roadway connector to terminate at Carlos Bee Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, following submittal of the development permit application, a neighbor whose property is surrounded by the proposed development inquired about being included in the proposed PD (Planned Development) District to allow for smaller lots and more lenient development standards than permitted by the RNP (Residential Natural Preserve) District.

After determining that the average lot size within the PD District would remain above 10,000 feet with the inclusion of four adjacent privately owned properties and that there would be no new or more severe environmental impacts due to a modification of the project, the City approached three other property owners whose properties are adjacent to and surrounded by the proposed development and offered the opportunity to opt into the PD District designation. All four property owners agreed to be included in the PD District designation thus the boundaries of the PD District designation were expanded to include 25450 Bunker Hill Blvd (APN 445-0260-109-02), 25401 Bunker Hill Blvd (APN 445-0270-029-00), 25588 Maitland Drive (APN 445-0260-084-02) and 25673 Maitland Drive (APN 445-0260-018-02); and
WHEREAS, disposal of the 238 corridor properties to and by the City is authorized subject to conditions established by the Local Transportation Improvement Program (LATIP) statutes. In January, the applicant increased the proposed number of deed restricted ADUs from eight to 18 to also make the proposed project consistent with the Surplus Lands Act (SLA). Specifically, Parcel Groups 3 and 5 were considered collectively and based on the minimum affordability requirements of the SLA, a total of ten additional Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) deed restricted for very-low-income households were added to Parcel Group 5.

On February 3, 2022, the City Council adopted a resolution affirming the approach of combining Parcel Groups 3 and 5, and HCD concurred with the findings of the Resolution on March 1, 2022; and
WHEREAS, On January 15, 2021, LSA and Kittelson, the environmental consultants who prepared the CEQA Addendum for the Parcel Group 5 Master Plan, prepared a memo evaluating the addition of four existing single-family homes to the Zone Change application to allow for subdivision of those lots into two lots each. According to the Memo, no new impacts nor an increase in the severity of impacts would occur as a result of the project modification.

ATTACHMENT III

Further, ADUs are ministerial under state law, the addition of ten ADU’s in furtherance of the SLA does not trigger any additional CEQA review; and
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2022, the Planning Commission voted 4:3:0 to recommend that the City Council approve the project; and
WHEREAS, on notices of this public hearing were sent to all property owners and residents within a 300-foot radius of the project site; the Caltrans 238 contact list and all individuals who requested to be notified about the project; was posted at the Alameda County Clerk Recorder’s Office; and was published in The Daily Review; and WHEREAS, on April 19, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing and accepted public testimony on the proposed project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following findings:

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMNTAL QUALITY ACT
A. In July 2014, the City Council certified a Final Program Environmental Impact Report, adopted the Statement of Overriding Considerations, approved the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Adopted the Hayward 2040 General Plan, and Approved related amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map for certain properties in the Planning Area.

B. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, LSA prepared an Addendum, dated June 2019, analyzing the proposed land use changes and associated development project for Route 238 Corridor Lands Parcel Group 5 Master Development Plan. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15164(g), an Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR. That there has been no substantial change proposed in the project or the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken, nor is there any new information that would require additional environmental review; therefore, the previously certified Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and related Technical Memoranda remain valid.

C. The adopted Final EIR identified all potential significant adverse impacts and feasible mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to a level of less than significant, and that all the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and related to the proposed project will be implemented, if applicable, as described in the Addendum. Based on the Final EIR and the Addendum, there is no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment.

D. On January 15, 2021, LSA and Kittelson prepared a memo evaluating the addition of four existing single-family homes to the Zone Change application to allow for

ATTACHMENT III

subdivision of those lots into two lots each. According to the Memo, no new impacts nor an increase in the severity of impacts would occur as a result of the project modification. Further, as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are ministerial under state law, the addition of ADU’s within the development does not trigger any additional CEQA review.

E. The project complies with CEQA, and that the previously certified Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Addendum and various Technical Memoranda was reviewed and considered prior to approving the project.

ZONE CHANGE
A. The development is in substantial harmony with the surrounding area and conforms to the General Plan and applicable City policies.

The proposed Zone Change to Planned Development District is consistent with the development standards, improvements and affordable housing obligation set forth in the Parcel Group 5 Master Development Plan, which was adopted by the City Council in July 2019, to ensure a coherent and consistent development project on the former Caltrans 238 site. Trumark’s proposed development plan is consistent with the standards and overall vision set forth in the adopted Master Plan.

The proposed development is also consistent with the Suburban Density Residential General Plan land use designation in that the average lot size for the PD District as a whole, including the four privately owned properties, will not exceed 10,180 square feet. Inclusion of the four single family homes in the PD District and allowing for future lot splits and development on those lots consistent with the Single-Family Residential District standards, would allow existing property owners adjacent to the project site to benefit from the same flexibility as the developer.

In addition to consistency with the General Plan allowable density, the proposed hillside development is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Hayward 2040 General Plan, including but not limited to the following:
 Policy Land Use (LU)-1.4 to encourage property owners to revitalize or redevelop abandoned, obsolete, or underutilized properties to accommodate growth.
 Policy LU-3.6 to implement residential design strategies such as creating a connected block and street network, designing new streets with sidewalks, planting strips, street trees, and pedestrian-scaled lighting and ensuring that windows are provided on facades that front streets or public spaces.  Policy LU-3.7 to protect the pattern and character of existing neighborhoods by requiring new infill developments to have complimentary building forms and site features.

ATTACHMENT III

 Policy LU-3.5 to encourage infill residential developments where individual parcels within the development may be developed at higher or lower densities than allowed by the General Plan provided that the net density of the entire site is within the allowable density range.
 Land Use Goal LU-7 and numerous policies related to hillside development to preserve the rural and natural character of hillside development areas; to ensure that grading, building and landscaping design mitigates visual impacts and blends the development with natural features of the hillside; to require curvilinear streets that respect natural topography; to cluster development to preserve sensitive habitat and natural open space; and, to provide public trail improvements that link to regional open space and trails (Policy LU-7.2, LU-7.3, LU-7.5 and LU-7.6).

B. Streets and utilities, existing or proposed, are adequate to serve the development.

The proposed project site was previously developed with residential uses, and there are a few existing residences along Bunker Hill Boulevard and Maitland Drive. The City of Hayward has adequate capacity to provide water and sanitary sewer services to the proposed development; however, the applicant will be required to upgrade water and sewer lines and to install a sewer pump station to serve portions of the development pursuant to the conditions of approval. Access to the site would be provided through existing public streets that would be improved as part of the proposed project, as well as construction of a new roadway connector from Bunker Hill Boulevard to Carlos Bee Boulevard. An Addendum prepared for the proposed development found that all impacts related to streets, public facilities, utilities and agencies were analyzed and disclosed in the Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) prepared for the General Plan.

C. The development creates a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, that sites proposed for public facilities, such as playgrounds and parks, are adequate to serve the anticipated population and are acceptable to the public authorities having jurisdiction thereon, and the development will have no substantial adverse effect upon surrounding development or neighborhoods.

The proposed development would create an environment of sustained desirability and stability in that it would result in development of a primarily vacant and underutilized site with new, high end residential development, including eight Accessory Dwelling Units that would be deed restricted for Very Low Income households.

Overall, the proposed site layout and architecture will lend to the sustained desirability of the neighborhood in that the lot configuration, lot size, setbacks, building heights and building orientation would change depending on placement of the homes on flat, uphill or downhill slopes. The design is intended to minimize massing by building into and along the adjacent slope. Further, each of the house types (flat,

ATTACHMENT III

uphill and downhill) would have different floor plans, elevations and color schemes.

The variation in building standards, placement, building elevations and colors are intended to reflect the surrounding topography and create variety and complexity from the right-of-way. Inclusion of the four existing single family lots within the Planned Development District would provide additional flexibility to existing homeowners.

The development will not have a substantial adverse impact on surrounding development provided that the developer installs and contributes to funds for installation of traffic calming and Transportation Demand Management strategies to minimize traffic related impacts in surrounding neighborhoods; and, if the planned Foothill Trail is constructed in accordance with the approved plans, remains open and accessible by the public and is maintained in perpetuity by a Community Facilities District or similar assessment/funding mechanism.

D. In the case of a development in increments, each increment provides a sufficient proportion of total planned common open space, facilities, and services so that it may be self-contained in the event of default or failure to complete the total development according to schedule.

The project applicant is required to comply with the Subdivision Ordinance requiring improvements that comply with the current standards of the City of Hayward and other agencies. Compliance with the Ordinance guarantees completion of all improvements including planned common open spaces and facilities in accordance with the approved plans and includes surety and insurance to ensure that the planned improvements are conducted, inspected and approved prior to occupancy of the residential units.

E. Any latitude or exception(s) to development regulations or policies is adequately offset or compensated for by providing functional facilities or amenities not otherwise required or exceeding other required development standards, which, in the judgment of the Planning staff provides for a high quality and attractive development.

As described in Zone Change Finding A above, the proposed development is consistent with the overall vision of the Parcel Group 5 Master Development Plan, the General Plan land use designation, and numerous General Plan goals and policies for residential and hillside development. In fact, the proposed Zone Change to PD District is necessary to enable consistency with the adopted Master Development Plan. The proposed development would meet the purpose and intent of the PD District zoning in that it would cluster the development on the flattest and most developable areas of the site allowing approximately half of the site to remain open space. Additionally, it would result in construction of approximately 3,000 lineal feet of the Foothill Trail, with overlooks and site furniture, that will be publicly accessible and maintained in perpetuity through property assessments.

ATTACHMENT III

VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
A. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451. [Subdivision Map Act §66474(a)] The proposed development is consistent with the adopted Parcel Group 5 Master Development Plan and the applicable Suburban Density Residential General Plan land use designation as detail in Zone Change Finding A above. The proposed project requires a Zone Change to Planned Development District to allow for development consistent with the Master Development Plan, and to retain approximately half of the project site as undeveloped open space.

B. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. [Subdivision Map Act §66474(b)] The proposed subdivision would contain a range of lot sizes from just over 5,000 square feet to just over 23,000 square feet with an average lot size of about 10,180 square feet which is consistent with the adopted Parcel Group 5 Master Development Plan and the Suburban Density Residential General Plan land use designation in addition to various General Plan goals and policies outlined in Zone Change Finding A, above.

The existing roadways would be reconstructed to align with current City standards, and all utilities would be installed in accordance with City standards per conditions of approval. Utilities, including water, sewer, and storm drain facilities, will be provided and/or upgraded as necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Further, an Addendum prepared for the proposed development found that all impacts related to streets, public facilities, utilities and agencies were analyzed and disclosed in the Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) prepared for the General Plan.

C. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. [Subdivision Map Act §66474(c)]
Engeo prepared a Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Report (2016) and Geotechnical Exploration Report (2017) for Parcel Group 5. Following development of the proposed site plan, Baez Geotechnical Group prepared a Geotechnical and Geologic Due Diligence Investigation (2020) in which they reviewed the previous studies and made recommendations based on Trumark’s proposed site plan and structures. The Baez analysis concluded with recommendations that additional fault trench analysis, which is currently underway, and submittal of design level geotechnical analysis be submitted with improvement plans and building permits.

Per conditions of approval, the additional analysis will be submitted, and recommendations and standards will be incorporated into the Improvement Plans and Building Permits for the proposed project thus ensuring that the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed.

ATTACHMENT III

D. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. [Subdivision Map Act §66474(d)]
As described in Vesting Tentative Tract Map Finding C above, several geotechnical studies and reports were prepared to determine if and how the site would be physically suitable for the proposed density of development and those specific recommendations would be incorporated into the Improvement Plans and Building Permit applications for the proposed project thus ensuring that the site is physically suited for the proposed project.

E. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. [Subdivision Map Act §66474(e)]
WRA prepared a Biological Site Assessment and Botanical Survey (April 15, 2020 and April 29, 2020) finding that there is no potential for special-status plant species on the site based on the proposed site plan which set aside approximately half of the site, including the steepest slopes and riparian areas, as untouched, open space.

F. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. [Subdivision Map Act §66474(f)] The proposed development is a residential subdivision that will not cause serious public health problems. The proposed improvements which include grading, reconstruction of streets, installation of stormwater control measures, construction of a new roadway connector from Bunker Hill Boulevard to Carlos Bee Boulevard as well as construction of the Foothill Trail along the eastern boundary will not result in public health problems, as conditioned.

G. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. [Subdivision Map Act §66474(g)]
The proposed project will not conflict with existing easements for access through or use of the property in that the City entered into an agreement with California State University, East Bay in order to construct the proposed roadway connector from Bunker Hill Boulevard to Carlos Bee Boulevard and for portions of the Foothill Trail, as proposed.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hayward, based on the foregoing findings, hereby approves the Zone Change and Vesting Tentative Tract Map (8637) Application 202003054, subject to the adoption of the companion ordinance (Ordinance No. 22-___) rezoning fourteen properties located at located at 25373 Bunker

ATTACHMENT III

Hill Court (Assessor Parcel No. (APN) 445-0270-054-02), 25564 Maitland Drive (APN 445- 0260-084-03), 25472 Bunker Hill Blvd (APN 445-0260-109-04), 25472 Bunker Hill Blvd (APN 445-0260-109-03), 25777 Bunker Hill Blvd (APN 445-0250-041-01), 25832 Bunker Hill Blvd (APN 445-0250-059-01), 25673 Maitland Drive (APN 445-0260-018-04), 25673 Maitland Drive/25721 Maitland Dr/25675 Maitland Dr/25685 Maitland Dr/25697 Maitland Dr (APN 445-0260-018-03), Harder Road (APNs 445-0250-060-01 and 445- 0260-002-00), 25450 Bunker Hill Blvd (APN 445-0260-109-02), 25401 Bunker Hill Blvd (APN 445-0270-029-00), 25588 Maitland Drive (APN 445-0260-084-02) and 25673 Maitland Drive (APN 445-0260-018-02) to Planned Development District, subject to the attached conditions of approval (Exhibit I.a); and,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hayward hereby authorizes the City Manager or her designee to execute any and all documents related to the disposition of City-owned properties as detailed in of the companion resolution (Resolution No. 22-___) to Trumark Properties, LLC, or its affiliate.

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA _______________________, 2022 ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

MAYOR:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: ______________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Hayward
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________________
City Attorney of the City of Hayward
Exhibit I.a
I.a-1
ZONE CHANGE & VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (TRACT 8637) APPLICATION NO. 202003054 – Applicant: Trumark Properties LLC/Owners: City of Hayward, and various other owners – Proposed Zone Change, Vesting Tentative Tract Map (8637), Disposition and Development Agreement to Construct a New Residential Subdivision with 74 New Single-Family Homes (Eighteen Homes will Include Accessory Dwelling Units Subject to Affordable Housing Rental Restrictions) and, Related On- and Off-Site Improvements.

Proposed Zone Change to PD District will include Four Existing, Privately Owned Single Family Lots Located within the Boundaries of the Proposed Development Project. APNs. 445- 0270-054-02, 445-0260-084-03, 445-0260-109-04, 445-0260-109-03, 445-0250-041-01, 445-0250-059-01, 445-0260-018-03, 445-0260-018-04, 445-0250-060-01, 445-0260-002- 00, 445-0260-109-02, 445-0270-029-00, 445-0260-084-02 and 445-0260-018-02.

General
Planning

1. The developer shall assume the defense of and shall pay on behalf of and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, volunteers and agents from and against any or all loss, liability, expense, claim costs, suits and damages of every kind, nature and description directly or indirectly arising from the performance and action of this permit.

2. Zone Change and Vesting Tentative Map Application No. 202003054, is approved subject to the Vesting Tentative Map, Planned Development Plans, Architectural Plans and Landscape Plans submitted to the Planning Division on November 17, 2021 and Tentative Map cover sheet submitted on December 16, 2021 except as modified by the conditions listed below. Further, the maintenance obligations set forth on the Vesting Tentative Map Cover Sheet may be modified upon agreement by all parties prior to approval of the Final Map.

3. Zone Change to PD District shall include four privately owned parcels with APNs. 445-0260-109-02, 445-0270-029-00, 445-0260-084-02 and 445-0260-018-02. Each single-family lot may be split into two single family lots and future development within each of those lots shall follow the standards set forth in the RS (Single Family Residential) District.

4. Lot size, setbacks, lot coverage and building height for parcels located within the PD District and developed by Trumark Properties shall follow the approved Vesting Tentative Map and Planned Development Plans submitted to the Planning Division on November 17, 2021.

5. The Vesting Tentative Map approval shall align with the timeframes set forth in the Subdivision Map Act, and all related automatic and Applicant-initiated extensions.

6. Any proposal for alterations to the conditionally approved site plan and/or design that does not require a variance to any zoning ordinance standard shall be subject to Exhibit I.a
I.a-2
approval by the Development Services Director or his/her designee, prior to implementation. Alterations requiring a variance or exception shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission.

7. The permittee, property owner or designated representative shall allow City planning and code enforcement staff access to the property for site inspection(s) to confirm all approved conditions have been completed and are being maintained in compliance with all adopted city, state and federal laws.

8. All permit charges accrued in the processing of Zone Change and Vesting Tentative Map Application No. 202003054 shall be paid in full prior to consideration of a request for approval extensions and/or submittal of building permits for the development.

9. In accordance with Zoning Ordinance Section 10-1.2550, and prior to approval of building permits, the applicant shall submit a Precise Development Plan to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.

The Precise Development Plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, Planned Development, Architectural and Landscape Plans except as modified by conditions below.

10. All final exterior building finishes including architectural details and colors shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. However, to the extent possible, the applicant shall update the architectural plans to incorporate warmer, earth tone colors, darker trim and natural materials such as wood accents; to create shadow depth on elevations by deepening build outs and projections; and to use darker window frames where appropriate. The final colors, materials, finishes and architectural elements shall be submitted to the Planning Division and reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of building permits.

11. A copy of these conditions of approval shall be included on a full-sized sheet(s) of the building permit application submittal.

12. Details including material, color, texture for all fences and walls shall be included on the improvement plans. All fences and walls shall be decorative and walls visible from right-ofway shall include a cap.

13. All air conditioners and utility connections for air conditioners shall be located behind solid board fences or landscaping.

14. All above-ground utility meters, mechanical equipment and water meters shall be enclosed within the buildings or shall be screened with shrubs and/or an architectural screen from all perspectives, unless other noise mitigation is required.

15. All rooftop mechanical equipment, other than solar panels, shall be fully and completely screened from view by the proposed roof structure or appropriate screening that is reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. All roof vents shall be shown on roof plans Exhibit I.a
I.a-3
and elevations. Vent piping shall not extend higher than required by building code. Roof apparatus and utilitarian equipment such as vents shall be painted to match surface to which it is adhered.

16. Mailboxes shall be installed in accordance with Post Office policy and include locking mechanisms to minimize opportunities for theft. Approved address numbers shall be at least four inches in height on a contrasting background. Font strokes shall be of sufficient width such that they are legible to the public from the street fronting the property.

Proposed mailbox design and locations, subject to Post Office approval

17. Planned Development Sheet C.2, Parking Plan shall be modified to remove eleven on-street parking spaces from the frontage along 24250 Bunker Hill Blvd (APN 445-0260-109-02).

Parkland Dedication Credits, Foothill Trail Access & Maintenance

18. Per HMC Chapter 10, Article 16, Property Developers – Obligations for Parks and Recreation sets forth requirements for private development based on residential unit count. The applicant shall receive a credit for their Park Fee based on an Engineer’s Estimate for construction of the Hayward Foothill Trail including construction of the 16-foot-wide multiuse paved trail with shoulders along with grading, retaining walls, landscaping, lighting, stairs from Bunker Hill Boulevard to the steepest part of the trail and site furnishings. The final design of the Trail and access shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans. The final Engineer’s Estimate shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the City of Hayward prior to the approval of Improvement Plans. The total final credit shall be based on the final, approved Engineer’s Estimate. If the applicable Park Fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance exceed the costs of the improvements outlined in the Engineer’s Estimate, the applicant shall pay the remaining park dedication fees.

19. Prior to or currently with the approval of the Final Map Developer shall not object to the initiation of any Community Facilities District ("CFD"), formed pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Sections 53311 et seq., for the purpose of maintenance of Foot Hill Trail, stairs and open space providing access to the Foothill Trail built as part of the Parcel Group 5 subdivision. Developer and City shall be in agreement with the Rate, Method of Apportionment and Manner of Collection of Special Tax ("RMA") for public improvements as it relates to the Property, as further provided in the DDA. Developer shall pay its fair share of administrative costs incurred by the City associated with the formation of a CFD pursuant to the DDA.

20. The Foothill Trail shall be maintained by the Hayward Area Recreation Department (HARD) or the City of Hayward, if elected by the City, with funding mechanism provided by property assessments, as further provided in the Trail Improvement Agreement (the “Trail Improvement Agreement”) to be executed by the City, Developer, HARD and the Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD).

Building

21. The proposed buildings fall under a new local green building ordinance called the "Reach Code". This local regulation modifies the energy code to prohibit natural gas in new one Exhibit I.a
I.a-4
and two-family buildings. The Reach Code requires these units to be designed as all-electric buildings. To offset any increased costs of all-electric designs, do not bring natural gas infrastructure to the site. The reach code also expands CalGreen's requirements for EV charging infrastructure. To learn more about the Reach Code and to find a checklist for your project, please see the City of Hayward website here: https://www.haywardca.gov/reach-code Landscape

22. The project will require a building permit application and the associated plan review process. Additional comments will be provided during that review.

23. Tree preservation bond shall be submitted to City Landscape Architect prior to issuance of grading permit for all trees that are to be preserved or relocated. Appraised tree value will be used for determining total amount for the tree preservation bond.

24. The unmet tree mitigation value of $313,375.00 as shown on the landscape plan L1.1 shall be mitigated at the City’s designated La Vista Park toward tree planting.

25. The applicant shall develop two separate plant lists. One shall be for the undeveloped open spaces and the other one for the areas that will be disturbed by site grading and compaction in yards and streets. The plant palette for the undeveloped open spaces shall only include California Native trees and understory plants while the other palette may include non-invasive and non-California native plants that meet the water efficiency standards which are more suited to a more constrained environment.

26. The best effort shall be made to preserve existing trees located in the front yard of Lot 15 as requested by the adjacent neighbor for providing privacy. If existing trees wouldn’t be preserved, new tree planting shall be provided in the front yard to provide privacy to the adjacent neighbor to the north per the approved plans.

27. Tree removal permit shall be obtained from City Landscape Architect prior to removal of any trees. Tree removal permit shall be obtained in addition to grading permit.

28. Final design and locations for the foothill trail signs shall be done in coordination with the HARD and in conformance with the HARD master signage program.

29. Pursuant to HMC Article 9 Section 9.01, on property at any corner formed by intersecting streets, it shall be unlawful to install any sign, landscaping at maturity or other obstruction to the view higher than three (3) feet above the level of the center of the adjacent intersection within the visibility triangle area between the tangents to the curb and a diagonal line joining points thirty (30) feet from the point of their intersection.

30. All plants in bioretention basin shall conform to the plant list under appropriate categories in the latest C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance Appendix B.

Exhibit I.a
I.a-5

31. Pursuant to HMC Article 12 - Bay-Friendly Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requires the following for single-family residential developments with usual yard: Section 10-12.14 requirement for installing basic “laundry to landscape” plumbing in each residence where usable private yard is available. Plumb-ready “laundry to landscape” system shall meet Plumbing Code and shall be addressed in the plumbing plan during building permit process.

32. Pursuant to HMC Section 10-12.15 Minimum one fifty (50) gallon lidded rainwater catchment device shall be located on the plan where it would be easily accessible to use.

33. Prior to planting trees, locations of all underground utilities shall be identified Tree shall be located a minimum of five feet from lateral service lines and 3 feet from driveways. Tree shall be located a minimum of nine feet from the centerline of fire hydrants, a minimum fifteen feet from a light pole, and a minimum of thirty feet from the face of a traffic signal, or as otherwise specified by the City. Tree planting near gas lines shall comply with PG&E’s tree planting guidelines.

34. All final tree locations shall be field verified by the project landscape architect prior to planting and resolve any conflicts arise in the field.

35. Root barrier shall be provided when a tree is located less than 7 feet from face of buildings or edge of pavement.

36. Erosion control fabric, compost blanket or a combination of compost sock and erosion fabric shall be installed per Geotechnical engineer recommendations.

37. Pursuant to HMC Section 10-12.07(a)(4)(D), mulch shall be arbor chips produced on site only, or organic recycled chipped wood in the shade of Dark Brown color, unless steep slope would prevent from using chipped wood. Mulch size shall not exceed 1-1/2-inch in diameter. The same mulch shall be used in all types of biotreatment areas. For steep slopes, organic green waste, organic compost blanket or organic compost sock in combination of chipped wood mulch shall be considered.

38. Splash block shall be installed at the end of roof downspouts. Splash block shall be tilted away from the building foundation.

39. Tree Staking Detail.
a. Provide plan view showing the location of horizontal cross brace in relationship to the tree trunk.
b. All hardware for tree staking and rubber ties shall be galvanized wood screws. c. Rubber ties shall be installed in figure “8” and shall be installed loose to allow the tree trunk movement and the growth beyond the diameter of the stakes for root establishment.

40. Irrigation.
a. All irrigation controllers shall be weather based.
b. Common landscape area shall be irrigated from a dedicated irrigation water meter.

Exhibit I.a
I.a-6
c. Backflow prevention device in conformance with the City Standard Detail SD202 shall be specified for the common landscape area for each irrigation water meter.
d. Individual Home. Antisiphon valve in place of a backflow prevention device can be installed. Antisiphon valve shall be located a minimum 12-inch higher than that the highest nozzle or emitter.
e. Bioretention area shall be irrigated on a separate valve. When the area would be wider than ten feet, the bioretention area shall be irrigated with matched precipitation rotator type, or as efficient overhead spray irrigation system that allows “cycle and soaking” program function.
f. Tree shall be irrigated on a separate valve. Tree with different watering needs shall be on separate valve.
g. Tree shall be irrigated with two tree bubblers in combination of preassembled deep root watering and flood bubblers. Flow rate of each device shall not exceed

0.25 gallon per minute.

41. All common area landscaping, irrigation and other required improvements shall be installed in accordance with the approved improvement plans prior to acceptance of tract improvements Certificate of Completion, as-built Mylar and an Irrigation Schedule shall be submitted upon acceptance of the landscape improvements for the Tract to the Department of Public Works Engineering by the developer

42. Common Area Landscape Maintenance:
a. Landscaping owned by the HOA (“Common Area Landscaping”) shall be maintained in a healthy, weed-free condition at all times and shall maintain irrigation system to function as designed to reduce runoff, promote surface filtration, and minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides, which contribute pollution to the Bay.
b. The HOA shall inspect the Common Area Landscaping on a monthly basis and any dead or dying plants (plants that exhibit over 30% dieback) shall be replaced within thirty (30) days of the inspection.
c. Three inches deep mulch should be maintained in all planting areas. Mulch shall be organic recycled chipped wood in the shades of Dark Brown Color and the size shall not exceed 1-1/2-inch diameter. The depth shall be maintained at three inches deep.
d. All nursery stakes shall be removed during tree installation and staking poles shall be removed when the tree is established or when the trunk diameter of the tree is equal or larger to the diameter of the staking pole. e. All final trees planted as a part of the development as shown on the approved landscape plans shall be “Protected” and shall be subjected to Tree Preservation Ordinance. Tree removal and pruning shall require a tree pruning or removal permit prior to removal by City Landscape Architect.
f. Any damaged or removed trees without a permit shall be replaced in accordance with Tree Preservation Ordinance or as determined by City Landscape Architect Exhibit I.a
I.a-7
within the timeframe established by the City and pursuant to the Municipal Code.
g. Irrigation system shall be tested periodically to maintain uniform distribution of irrigation water; irrigation controller shall be programed seasonally; irrigation system should be shut-off during winter season; and the whole irrigation system should be flushed and cleaned when the system gets turn on in the spring.

Utilities
Water

43. All public water mains, service lines between mains and meters, fire hydrants, and appurtenances shall be constructed in accordance with the City’s “Specifications for the Construction of Water Mains and Fire Hydrants,” latest revision at the time of permit approval. Available on the City’s website: https://www.haywardca.gov/your-government/departments/engineering-division.

44. The water mains, valves, and service lines up to and including meters and hydrants shall be public, owned, and maintained by the City.

45. All connections to existing water mains shall be performed by City Water Distribution personnel at the Applicant/Developer’s expense.

46. Any modifications to existing water services such as but not limited to upsize, downsize, relocation, and abandonment shall be performed by City Water Distribution personnel at the Applicant/Developer’s expense.

47. Domestic & Fire Services
a. Domestic: Each single-family residence (SFR) shall have an individual domestic water meter. Facilities fees for residential connections are based on the domestic demand for the home. A larger water meter may be installed if the service is combined with a private fire service. The developer is required to pay water facilities fees and installation charges for connections to water mains and work performed by City forces.
b. Fire: Each structure shall have its own fire service, sized per the requirements of the Fire Department. Fire services shall have an above ground Double Check Valve Assembly, per City Standard Detail SD-201 and SD-204. c. Combined Residential Services: The development could use combined residential domestic and fire services for each residence. Residential combined domestic and fire services are allowed, per City Standard Detail SD-216. Fire services shall be sized by the Fire Department; however, the minimum size for a residential fire service connection is 1”.

48. Each deed restricted accessory dwelling unit (ADU) shall have a separate water service line and water meter.

Exhibit I.a
I.a-8

49. Irrigation: It is anticipated that one or more separate irrigation water meters and services shall be installed for the development’s landscaping. The gallon-perminute demand of the irrigation system must be provided to determine appropriate meter size. The Applicant/Developer’s shall install an above ground Reduced Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly (RPBA) on each irrigation water meter, per City Standard Detail SD-202. Backflow preventions assemblies shall be at least the size of the water meter or the water supply line on the property side of the meter, whichever is larger.

50. Water meters are not allowed to be located in driveways. Water meters and services are to be located a minimum of two feet from top of driveway flare. Water meter lids shall be Nicor, Inc.

51. Where a public water main is in an unpaved easement or under decorative, stamped, or colored concrete (including turf-blocks), the water main shall be constructed of ductile iron. Shut-off valves are required where a water main transitions from a paved area to an unpaved easement. No structures shall be built within a water line easement (WLE) and sanitary sewer easement (SSE). No bioretention areas shall be located within the WLE and SSE. No deep roots or trees shall be planted within the WLE and SSE.

52. Water mains and services, including the meters, must be located at least ten (10) feet horizontally from and one (1) foot vertically above any parallel pipeline conveying untreated sewage (including sanitary sewer laterals), and at least four feet from and one foot vertically above any parallel pipeline conveying storm drainage, per the current California Waterworks Standards, Title 22, Chapter 16, Section 64572. The minimum horizontal separation distances can be reduced by using higher grade (i.e., pressure) piping materials.

53. Improvements to the interface station (pressure reducing station) located adjacent to the intersection of Carlos Bee Blvd and Tanglewood, at the Applicant/Developer’s expense, shall be required to accommodate the development. Improvements to be consistent with the Vesting Tentative Map and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

54. Water and sanitary sewer facilities, at the Applicant/Developer’s expense, are required to serve the proposed development. Improvements include, but are not limited to, replacement of the existing water and sanitary sewer pipelines, installation of new water and sanitary sewer pipelines and appurtenances, and replacement and reconnection of existing water service lines and sanitary sewer laterals to serve the proposed development. Improvements shall be in substantial conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Sewer
Exhibit I.a
I.a-9

55. The development’s sanitary sewer mains and manholes shall be public, owned, and maintained by the City.

56. All sewer mains and appurtenances shall be constructed in accordance with the City’s “Specifications for the Construction of Sewer Mains and Appurtenances,” latest revision at the time of permit approval. Available on the City’s website:
https://www.hayward-ca.gov/your-government/departments/engineeringdivision

57. Each single-family residence shall have an individual sanitary sewer lateral.

58. Per City of Hayward Municipal Code Section 11-3.351(2), if the frontage of the accessory dwelling unit to the street exceeds 75 feet, separate sanitary sewer lateral connections are required.

59. The Applicant/Developer is responsible for payment of sewer connection fees at the current rates at the time when application for water and sewer service is submitted.

60. The proposed sanitary sewer pump station per the Vesting Tentative Map shall be designed with sufficient capacity to pump. Project design flows including potential flows from infiltration and inflow and hold Project flows with the pump out of service. Project design flows shall include peak and safety factor. Pump station shall be equipped with, but not limited to, a backup generator, control panel, pole mounted lighting, wet-well probe, a second pump for alternating operation and backup, and associated mechanical and electrical equipment for the pumping station and SCADA system. Improvement plans and specifications of the pump station shall be prepared by the Developer in substantial conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

61. The sanitary sewer pump station, associated equipment, and laydown area shall be located on a separate parcel dedicated in fee to the City of Hayward.

Engineering

62. The subdivision shall comply with Chapter 10 Article 3 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the Hayward Municipal Code as determined by the City Engineer and provide Improvements complying with the applicable standards of the city of Hayward and other agencies. Improvements shall include but are not limited to providing slope stability; vehicular and pedestrian access; streetlighting and signage; drainage, sanitary sewer and solid waste collection and pollution prevention; water, gas, electricity, tele-communication, and other public utilities.

63. Final Map: Final Map(s) shall be approved by the City after approval of the site grading and public improvement plans and after execution of an agreement for their completion and posting of liability insurance and securities in forms and amounts approved by the City. Improvement securities shall include all costs the city may incur including for construction, legal and contingencies. Additionally, a title report Exhibit I.a
I.a-10
identifying current owners, land use restrictions and easements shall be provided to the City Engineer.

64. The subdivider shall dedicate the street right-of-way for both Westview Way and Central Court across the property located at APN 445-0250-06001 to Harder Road.

65. A four-ft. wide sidewalk shall be provided along one side of full length of Maitland Drive, Bunker Hill Court, Bunker Hill Boulevard and its extension to Carlos Bee Blvd.

66. The proposed three-ft. wide PUE behind the proposed sidewalk may need widening at certain locations to accommodate dry utility vaults and structures.

67. A public access easement shall be applied to open space Parcel G, providing access to and including the Foothill Trail. The public access easement shall be shown on the Improvement Plans and included in the Final Map. The completed Trail shall be offered for dedication to the Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) and maintained by HARD in accordance with the Trail Improvement Agreement.

68. GHAD: Prior to recording of the Final Map, the project shall be annexed into the Hayward GHAD with an approved plan of control and assessment roll for the management, maintenance, and preservation of improvements necessary for mitigation of geologic hazards.

69. Home Owners Association (HOA): Developer shall create a Master HOA for ownership and maintenance of street trees, Common Area Landscaping, and landscape irrigation system within Bunker Hill Boulevard Extension and the subdivision pursuant to the Ownership and Maintenance responsibilities Table in Sheet 1 of the Vesting Tentative Map. HOA documents and related Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions (CCRs) shall be recorded in the Alameda County Recorder’s office prior to the sale of any lot to a homebuyer. HOA documents and CC&Rs shall be submitted to the City for its review and approval before submittal to the State Department of Real Estate (DRE) and recording in the County’s public records. The CC&Rs shall include the following provisions:
a. The HOA shall be managed and maintained by a professional property management company and maintain updated registration information with the Secretary of State.
b. The HOA shall own and maintain in fully functional condition and good repair all areas, improvements, earth retaining structures, pathways, and other facilities owned by the HOA and created for the benefit of property owners within the project but not dedicated to or accepted by any public agency for its maintenance. The HOA shall be responsible for removing trash and debris from the riparian corridors, watercourses and common open areas in a timely manner and to the greatest extent feasible without disturbance of sensitive areas. c. The HOA shall be responsible for complying with the current and all future updates to the Community Preservation and Improvement Ordinance, Hayward Exhibit I.a
I.a-11
Municipal Code Chapter 5, Article 7.

70. Stormwater Treatment Basins: Parcels B, H, K, L, and M identified on the Tentative Map as “Public Storm Drain Easement” and improvements completed therein as per the City approved plans shall be maintained by the GHAD,

71. Site Improvements: Site Improvements: Site grading and improvements for streets, trails, stairs, drainage collection system, sewer mains, water mains and laterals up to and including water meters and hydrants, and sewer lift station shall be substantially consistent with the approved plans as determined by the City Engineer.

72. Easements: Easements for public utilities and emergency vehicle access shall be offered to the City as required by the City Engineer. The easement(s) shall be in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and at no cost to the City

73. Site grading and structures for human occupancy shall be completed in compliance with the requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Act.

74. Sheet 1 of 13 of the Vesting Tentative Map shows in a Table the developer’s plan for dedication of certain parcels to various agencies for their ownership and maintenance. Implementation of this plan will depend on the acceptance of such parcels by the designated agencies. Stormwater treatment and detention basins will not be accepted by the city. The city may accept for its ownership and maintenance only improvements completed as per its approved plans for public streets, traffic signs, streetlights, drainpipes, drain inlets and manholes, sanitary sewer mains, manholes and lift station; water mains, meters and service laterals between the mains and meters; fire hydrants and their laterals.

Transportation

75. Applicant shall maintain adequate sight distance at all project driveway(s) and access points.

Conditions Due Prior to the Issuance of Permits.

Environmental

25. Consistent with General Plan Policies NR-1.2 and NR-1.3, the applicant shall incorporate nesting bird protection, avoidance and minimizations measures to avoid impacts to nesting birds. To avoid impacts to nesting birds, the applicant shall conduct pre-construction surveys for breeding birds prior to construction during breeding season (between February 15 and August 31). For any construction activities conducted during the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nest survey of all trees or other suitable nesting habitat in and within 250 feet of the limits of work. The survey shall be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the start of work. If the survey indicates the presence of nesting birds, Exhibit I.a
I.a-12
the biologist shall determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work shall be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer shall be determined by the biologist and shall be based on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. In general, buffer sizes of up to 250 feet for raptors and 50 feet for other birds should suffice to prevent substantial disturbance to nesting birds, but these buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate, depending on the bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated near the nest.

26. Consistent with General Plan Policies NR-1.2 and NR-1.3, a qualified biologist shall identify, map, and make recommendations for avoiding burrowing owls during construction activities on the project site, if present. Specifically, no more than 14 days prior to any ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction/take avoidance survey for burrowing owls using methods described in Appendix D of the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Staff Report). If no burrowing owls are detected during the initial take avoidance survey, a final survey shall be conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance to confirm that owls are still absent. If take avoidance surveys conducted during the non-breeding season (September 1 to January 31) identify any burrowing owls within the construction footprint, individuals may be excluded from burrows using one-way doors provided that a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan is developed. If burrowing owls are found within the construction footprint during the breeding season, occupied burrows shall be avoided by establishing buffers around the burrows in which no work shall be allowed until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest attempt has failed or that young have fledged and can forage independently of the adults. A minimum buffer of at least 250 feet shall be maintained during the breeding season around active burrows. Burrowing owls present on site after February 1 shall be assumed to be nesting on or adjacent to the site unless focused monitoring by a qualified biologist familiar with burrowing owl reproductive behavior indicates that the observed individual is unpaired or that egg-laying has not yet begun.

27. Three species of bats have moderate potential to occur within the Project Site. The hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) has no special status, while the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) and western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) are both Species of Special Concern in California. The applicant shall incorporate bat roost protection, avoidance and minimizations measures to avoid impacts to these species. Avoidance measures typically require removal of trees and snags within the Project Site be performed outside of the bat maternity roosting season (April 1 through August 15).

For trees greater than 16 inches diameter at breast height which may be disturbed by construction activity on site, irrespective of time of year, a bat roost assessment shall be conducted to assess suitability of areas for day roosting and maternity roosting bats. The assessment shall be conducted by a qualified biologist a minimum of 30 days prior to disturbance. If any of the areas are found to be suitable for roosting bats or show signs of bat use, roost exclusion should occur prior to disturbance. If maternity roost is discovered or special status bats are observed, Exhibit I.a
I.a-13
avoidance and minimization measures to avoid impacts. No exclusion of active maternity roosts may occur.

Landscape

76. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, detailed landscape and irrigation improvement plans prepared by a licensed landscape architect on an accurately surveyed base plan shall be approved as a part of grading permit. The plans shall comply with the City’s Bay-Friendly Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (California Building Code Title 23) and all relevant and applicable Municipal Codes.

Once approved, a digital file of the approved and the project landscape architect signed improvement plans shall be submitted to the City for the City’s approval signatures. Copies of the signed improvement plans shall be submitted as a part of the building permit submittal.

77. Plot Plan - All required trees shown on the approved landscape improvement plans shall be shown on the plot plan clearly and legibly, and the following notes shall be provided on each plot plan:
a. All final tree locations shall be field verified by the project landscape architect prior to planting and resolve any conflicts arise in the field. b. Prior to planting trees, determine the location of existing or future underground utilities. Locate tree a minimum of 5 feet from lateral service lines and driveways. Locate tree a minimum of 15 feet from a light pole, and a minimum of 30 feet from the face of a traffic signal, or as otherwise specified by the City.

Provide root barriers when a tree is located less than 7 feet from face of buildings or edge of pavement.
c. See irrigation plans for location of sleeves before pouring driveways and walkways.

Housing

78. This development is subject to the requirements of the Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) set forth in Chapter 10, Article 17 of the HMC. The developer shall comply with the approved affordable housing requirements as reflected in the final Affordable Housing Plan on file with the Housing Division and included as Attachment VIII to the staff report and all additional development agreements, rental or resale restrictions, deeds of trust, option agreements and/or other documents recorded against the property.

79. The developer shall comply with the City Council or designated reviewing authorityapproved Phasing Plan and any changes to the Phasing Plan requires the approval from the City Council or designated reviewing authority and shall be subject to the terms and provisions of the DDA.

80. Pursuant to Hayward Municipal Code Sections 10-17.515 and 10-17.525, the developer shall enter into and record against the property an Affordable Housing Exhibit I.a
I.a-14
Agreement that is consistent with the DDA and includes all elements set forth in the Affordable Housing Ordinance and the final Affordable Housing Plan on file with the Housing Division, prior to the approval of a final map or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first. Additional rental or resale restrictions, deeds of trust, option agreements and/or other documents acceptable to the City Manager or designee shall be recorded pursuant to the terms and provisions of the DDA.

The Inclusionary Units in this development shall be constructed in accordance with the final construction drawings and improvement plans and consistent with the Affordable Housing Ordinance and the DDA. The quality of exterior and interior appearance, including finishes and features, of the Inclusionary Units shall be indistinguishable from those of the Single-Family Homes in the development. Prior to approval of final inspection/issuance of an occupancy permit, all affordable housing in-lieu fees must be paid per Phasing Plan and the Inclusionary Units shall consist of the following appliances and fixtures: refrigerator, washer, dryer, stove, microwave, and water heater. No final inspections for occupancy will be approved and no occupancy permit will be issued for Inclusionary Units unless these conditions have been met.

Hayward Fire Department
Access:

81. When buildings or portion of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access, fire apparatus roads shall have unobstructed width of 26 feet (exclusive of shoulders) in the immediate vicinity of the building. This round shows 32ft. wide roadway with a flush gutter to the curb. At least one of the required access routes shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building.

82. Building or facilities exceeding 30 feet or three stories in height shall have at least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure.

83. Fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 10% on grade. Grades steeper than 10% shall conform to Appendix D, Fire Apparatus Access Roads, Section D103, Minimum Specifications as follows:
a. D103.2, Grade. Fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 10 percent.

I. Exception 1: Grades 10% to 15% shall be constructed with a minimum sixinch-thick Portland Cement Concrete, upon approval from the Fire Marshal Office.

II. Exception 2: Grades 15.1% to 20% shall be constructed with a minimum sixinch-thick Portland Cement Concrete with grooves, upon Fire Chief’s Exhibit I.a
I.a-15
approval.
b. D103.3 Turning Radius. The minimum inside turning radius shall be 17 feet. The minimum outside turning radius shall be 45 feet.

84. Design of the public streets and private streets and courts shall meet all City of Hayward and California Fire Code Standards.

85. All public streets, private streets and private courts shall be designed and engineered to withstand 75,000 lbs. gross vehicle weight of fire apparatus. Such standard is also applicable to pavers or decorative concrete.

86. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26ft. exclusive of shoulders.

87. Turnaround provisions shall meet the intent of the current edition of the California Fire Code (CFC) and provide a minimum of 96’ diameter per section D102 of the California Fire Code (CFC).

88. Fire apparatus access road 20 feet to 26 feet wide shall be posted on both sides as a fire lane; fire apparatus access road 26 feet to 32 feet wide shall be posted on one side of the road as a fire lane. “No Parking” signs shall meet the City of Hayward Fire Department fire lane requirements.

An approved fire apparatus access road shall be provided for every building and shall extend to within 150ft of all portions of the building’s exterior walls as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building.

Water Supply:

89. Per the current edition of the California Fire Code (CFC), the minimum required fire flow shall be provided to the site. A fire flow reduction of up to 50% is allowed when the building is provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13. The resulting fire flow shall not be less than 1,500 GPM. Upgrades to the existing water system in the proposed area may be essential to provide the required fire flow to the proposed site.

90. The minimum number of fire hydrants shall be provided in accordance with the City of Hayward Fire Code Ordinance and the California Fire Code (CFC). The average spacing between hydrants is 300ft. Any portion of each building or facility shall be within 400ft. of a fire hydrant. Spacing locations of fire hydrants shall be subject to review and approval by the Hayward Fire Department.

91. The current proposal shows multiple fire hydrants along Bunker Hill Court, Bunker Hill Boulevard and along Maitland Drive. All new fire hydrants shall be double steamer type equipped with (2) 4-1/2” outlets and (1) 2-1/2” outlet. Blue reflective fire hydrant blue dot markers shall be installed on the roadways indicating the Exhibit I.a
I.a-16
location of the fire hydrants. Vehicular protection may be required for the fire hydrants.

92. Additional fire hydrants may be required to serve the entire site. The numbers of hydrants are subject to change.

93. Blue reflective pavement markers shall be installed at fire hydrant locations. If fire hydrants are located to be subjected to vehicle impacts as determined by the Hayward Fire Department, crash posts shall be installed around the fire hydrant(s).

94. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet exclusive of shoulders.

Fire Protection:

95. An audible alarm bell (device) shall be installed on the exterior of the fire sprinkler system riser. The device shall activate upon any fire sprinkler system water flow activity.

96. Interior audible alarm device(s) shall be installed within each dwelling unit in a location approved by the AHJ. Said device shall activate upon any fire sprinkler system water flow activity.

97. Combination smoke/carbon monoxide detectors shall be installed at approved locations based on the California Building (CBC), California Fire (CFC) Code(s) and NFPA 72 Standards.

98. An automatic fire sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13D (modified) Standards is required for any/all residential building construction. A separate fire permit is required for the fire sprinkler system installation. A State Licensed C-16 Fire Sprinkler Contractor shall be responsible for the fire sprinkler system installation. (Deferred submittal by licensed C16 Contractor)

99. A maximum static pressure of 80 PSI should be used when test data indicates higher pressures. Residual pressures used in the calculation should also be adjusted accordingly.
100. Underground fire service lines that serve NFPA 13D (domestic) systems shall be connected to the city water main per Hayward Public Works Dept. SD-216. An Underground Fire Service line is required for each proposed building onsite. (Deferred submittal)
101. Address and premise identification approved numbers shall be placed on all buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the road or street fronting the property. Dimensions of address numbers or letters on the front of the buildings shall be approved by the fire department.

Exhibit I.a
I.a-17
102. This development will work with the City of Hayward to identify a fire mitigation strategy pursuant to the City of Hayward’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. 103. This project is located within an area identified as a high fire hazard area which is classified as the Urban/Wildland Interface Area. Building construction shall comply with the requirements contained in the California Residential Code Section R337, Chapter 49 of the California Fire Code and City of Hayward Wildland Urban Interface Guidelines.
104. Roofs shall comply with a Class A roof rating and exterior non-combustible siding materials (stucco), double-pane windows. Do not use wood shake of treated wood shake roofs.
105. Provide spark arrestors with 1/4-inch metal mesh screens on all chimneys.

Homeowners should inspect spark arrestors every year to ensure screen integrity. 106. Restrict outdoor storage of firewood, kindling, or compost material within 30 feet of any structure, unless the material is stored in an approved bin or enclosure. 107. Locate chimney at least ten feet away from existing tree canopies. 108. Fences constructed within 10 feet of structures shall be open wire mesh or noncombustible material to prevent fire spread. 109. Decks are subject to review by the Fire Marshal and may be required to meet additional building construction requirements and fire protection standards.

Engineering
110. Subdivider shall get permits or approvals from all affected agencies or private parties. Copies of applicable permits or approvals shall be provided to the City Engineer.
111. Subdivider shall secure the City Fire Marshal’s approval of Improvements for all weather emergency vehicle access and fire protection before flammable material is brought on-site.
112. All grading shall comply with Chapter 10, Article 8 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the Hayward Municipal Code as determined by the City Engineer. A fine grading and drainage plan prepared by a State licensed civil engineer shall be submitted as a part of the Improvement Plans for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. Developer has the option to apply for a grading permit to rough grade the project site.
113. A soils report prepared by a licensed civil or geotechnical engineer subject to approval by the City Engineer shall be submitted and the grading, retaining walls, surface and sub-surface drainage, lot drainage, and utility trench backfilling shall be Exhibit I.a
I.a-18
designed in accordance with the recommendations of the soils report. Final grading and drainage plan for the grading permit shall be reviewed and signed by the soils report engineer certifying that the recommendations in the report have been followed. The geotechnical/soils engineer shall submit a letter report to the City at completion of construction certifying that grading, drainage and backfill installation was performed in general compliance with recommendations in the geotechnical report. All material testing reports shall be attached to the certification letter report. 114. Slope Stability analysis will be required in areas shown susceptible to landslides and/or liquefaction. Slopes shall be graded to provide the minimum static safety factor greater than 1.5 and the minimum pseudo-static safety factor greater than 1.1 unless otherwise recommended by a California state licensed geotechnical engineer and approved by the City Engineer.
115. Structural calculations and details prepared by a licensed civil or structural engineer are required for all earth retaining structures greater than 4-feet in height (top of wall to bottom of footing) and shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Division of the Development Services Department.
116. The project shall not block runoff from, or augment runoff to, adjacent properties.

The developer shall be required to mitigate augmented runoff to maintain postdevelopment site discharge rates to less than or equal to pre-development discharge rates to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
117. The Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s Hydrology and Hydraulics Criteria Summary shall be used to design the storm drain system.

On site surface drainage shall be collected and conveyed to a public drainage system as per plans approved by the City Engineer. The storm drainage system shall be designed to convey a 10-year storm event.
118. The storm drainage system shall be reviewed and approved by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District in addition to the City Engineer’s review and approval.
119. Drainage plans should include all proposed underground pipes, building drains, area drains and inlets.
120. All building sites shall be graded to slope away from the building foundations per California Building Code, Chapter 18, Section 1804.3 Site Grading or as required by the Soils Engineer. On-site collector storm drains shall be sized to minimize potential for blockages. Storm drains shall be designed to prevent standing water. 121. The project’s Stormwater Control Plan and updated Stormwater Requirements Checklist shall be submitted and shall show, at a minimum, drainage management areas, location and details of all treatment control measures and site design measures, and numeric sizing calculations in conformance with Alameda County Clean Water Program C3 design guidelines
Exhibit I.a
I.a-19
122. This project involves a land disturbance of one or more acres, the developer is required to submit a Notice of Intent to the State Water Resources Control Board and to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for controlling storm water discharges associated with construction activity. Copies of these documents must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The SWPPP shall utilize the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook for Construction Activities, the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion & Sediment Control Measures, the City's Grading and Erosion Control ordinances and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control. 123. Street Improvements: Streets fronting all lots in the subdivision and extension to Carlos Bee Boulevard shall be improved as per plans prepared by the state licensed and qualified professionals retained by the developer and approved by the City Engineer. Such plans shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Full length of Bunker Hill Boulevard, Bunker Hill Court and Maitland Drive shall have concrete curbs and gutters along both sides, drainage collection system and streetlights on one side. Concrete sidewalk, not less than 4-ft. In width, shall be provided along one side of these streets. Sidewalk on Maitland Drive shall be along its east side for its entire length, fronting the existing and new lots in the subdivision.
b. Central Boulevard, between Bunker Hill Boulevard and Maitland Drive, shall be widened and provided with concrete curb, gutter and vehicle parking spaces to maximum extent feasible parallel to its east curb per the approved plans. c. All streets shall have signs, markings, and required traffic control devices, street lighting fronting all lots in the development shall comply with applicable City standards and the City’s Security Ordinance. Lighting shall be designed by a qualified lighting designer and shall not cast a direct light or glare upon adjacent properties or rights-of-way. Photometric analysis/studies shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer.
d. All streets fronting the development parcels shall be designed to meet the needs of emergency service vehicles with street pavement Traffic Index of not less than

5.5. Such streets include Full lengths of Maitland Drive, Bunker Hill Court, Bunker Hill Boulevard with extension to Carlos Bee Boulevard and Central Boulevard between Maitland Drive and Bunker Hill Boulevard. e. Driveways shall comply with the City Standard Details SD-109 (available online). 124. Existing overhead utilities and poles fronting all homes shown on the Tentative Map on Bunker Hill Boulevard and Maitland Drive shall be replaced with underground facilities consistent with the requirements of the Hayward Municipal Code Section 10-3.815 and service providers. Transformers and switch gear cabinets shall be placed underground unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. Underground utility plans must be submitted for City approval prior to installation.

Exhibit I.a
I.a-20
125. The developer shall provide and install the appropriate facilities, conduit, junction boxes, etc., to allow for installation of a fiber optic network fronting all lots within the development.
126. No building permits will be issued for new structures on proposed lots prior to issuance of the City’s grading permit and recordation of the Final Map except for model homes as per the Subdivision Map Act Section 66499.30 (a).

Transportation.
127. Applicant shall submit the following items as part of Improvement Plans to Public Works-Transportation for review prior to issuance of Building Permits:
a. An on-site and off-site (fronting City right-of-way) Signing and Striping Plan in accordance with Caltrans’ latest Standard Plans (refer to Caltrans Standard Plans Sheet A90A for more information on marking complaint disabled stalls). b. A Photometric Plan, refer to Hayward's Standard Plans Sheet SD-120 for roadway lighting criteria, link: https://www.haywardca.gov/documents/hayward-standard-detail c. A Traffic Control Plan for the Project's Construction Phase(s). d. Turning Analysis using WB-50 or the largest vehicle expected on-site using AutoTurn software. Turning Analysis shall not depict vehicles backing into public streets/right-of-way.
128. Bunker Hill Boulevard Extension: Left turns from Bunker Hill Boulevard to westbound Carlos Bee Boulevard shall be prohibited. Prohibition of the left turn shall be accomplished using channelization, signage, and pavement markings per MUTCD and City Standards and to the satisfaction of the Public Works & Utilities Director or his/her designee. This item shall be included in Improvement Plans and the Signing & Striping Plan.
129. Applicant shall install “Class III bike route along Westview Way and Central Boulevard, and shall install, at minimum, “sharrows” and appropriate lane marking(s) and signage to the satisfaction of the Public Works & Utilities Director or his/her designee. This item shall be included in the Signing & Striping Plans. 130. Applicant shall install green conflict paint at the Harder Road bike lanes crossing Westview Way and all appropriate bikeway and caution signage at this location to the satisfaction of the Public Works & Utilities Director or his/her designee. This item shall be included in the Signing & Striping Plans. 131. Applicant shall install “STOP” sign and “STOP”/Stop Line pavement marking(s) at the southbound approach of Westview Way/Central Boulevard. This item shall be included in the Signing & Striping Plans.
132. Applicant shall relocate the existing “STOP” sign and pavement marking at the westbound approach of Westview Way/Central Boulevard closer to the intersection Exhibit I.a
I.a-21
and to the satisfaction of the Public Works & Utilities Director or his/her designee.

This item shall be included in the Signing & Striping Plans. 133. Applicant shall install a dedicated right-turn lane to allow deceleration at the intersection of Westview Way/Harder Road. This item shall be included in the Signing & Striping Plans.
134. Applicant shall and must maintain adequate sight distance at all project driveway(s), internal driveway(s)/drive aisle(s) and intersection(s), including but not limited to the Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard intersection. 135. Applicant shall install centerline striping and speed limit signage and pavement markings along Westview Way to the satisfaction of the Public Works & Utilities Director or his/her designee. This item shall be included in the Signing & Striping Plans.
136. Applicant shall install centerline striping along Central Boulevard at all approaches to the Belmont Avenue and Del Mar Avenue intersections to the satisfaction of the Public Works & Utilities Director or his/her designee. This item shall be included in the Signing & Striping Plans.
137. Applicant shall contribute an amount not to exceed $47,250 into a Public Works & Utilities account for the purpose of funding additional neighborhood traffic calming measures (along Central Boulevard, Del Mar Avenue, Belmont Avenue, Maitland Drive, Berry Avenue, and/or Bunker Hill Boulevard) to be installed by the City at the discretion of the Public Works & Utilities Director or his/her designee and in accordance with the City's adopted Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. 138. To satisfy Project’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements, Applicant shall contribute an amount not to exceed $18,300 into a Public Works & Utilities account for the purpose of providing Project’s fair share contribution toward future pedestrian and bicycle improvements in the project vicinity to be installed by City in accordance with the City's adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, including but not limited to filling in sidewalk gaps on the north side of Harder Road between Bryn Mawr Avenue and Westview Way; constructing planned protected bicycle lanes along Harder Road between Mission Boulevard and Westview Way; and constructing planned protected bicycle lanes along Carlos Bee Boulevard between Mission Boulevard and Bunker Hill Boulevard. 139. Upon review of Improvement Plan(s) and required item(s) listed above by Public Works-Transportation, Applicant shall modify Improvement Plan(s) to address any deficiency(ies) or item(s) identified by Public Works-Transportation staff, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director or his/her designee, prior to issuance of Building Permit(s).

Hayward Fire – Hazardous Materials
Exhibit I.a
I.a-22
140. Environmental and Health Based Site Clearance – Our office has reviewed the following two documents:
a. “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Hayward Bunker Hill Group 5 California” by Roux Associates, dated February 17, 2020. b. “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Bunker Hill Road Extension Area, Hayward, California” by Roux Associates, dated April 17, 2020. c. The applicant shall provide environmental screening clearance from the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health’s Local Oversight Program (LOP). The LOP contact, Paresh Khatri, can be reached at (510) 567- 6700 or (510) 777-2478. Clearance from the LOP will ensure that the proposed residential project meets development investigation and cleanup standards, including if necessary, any clearance stipulations, such as a deed restriction or the need for any groundwater/soil vapor/soil management plan. LOP clearance shall be submitted to the Hayward Fire Department’s Hazardous Materials Office, the City of Hayward Planning Division and City of Hayward Public Works/Engineering Division prior to issuance of any grading and building permits.
141. Electronic Submittal of Environmental Documentation – Environmental Documentation associated with the evaluation, investigation and/or clearance of this site shall be provided in an electronic format to the City of Hayward Fire Department and Planning Division prior to the issuance of the Building or Grading Permit.
142. Demolition/Grading – Structures and their contents shall be removed or demolished under permit in an environmentally sensitive manner. Proper evaluation, analysis and disposal of materials shall be done by an appropriate professional(s) to ensure that hazards posed to development construction workers, the environment, future uses, and other persons are mitigated.
143. Wells, Septic Tank Systems or Subsurface Structures – Any wells, septic tank systems and other subsurface structures shall be removed properly to minimize threats to the health and safety of the development construction workers, future residents, or the environment. These structures shall be documented and removed under permit from the appropriate regulatory agency when required. 144. Conditions Applicable During Construction
Environmental
145. Should an archaeological deposits or human remains be encountered during project subsurface construction activities, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and the contractor shall contract the City of Hayward Development Services to preserve and record the uncovered material so it can be safely removed. If human remains are encountered, the County Coroner shall also be contacted, and if the County Coroner determines the remains are of Native American origin the Exhibit I.a
I.a-23
Coroner will notify the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in accordance with California law. If the NAHC identifies a Native American Most Likely Descendent (MLD) pursuant to California law, the developer will confer with the MLD regarding the MLD’s preferred treatment of the remains and any related burial artifacts and consider any treatment recommendations made by the MLD. If the NAHC is unable to identify an MLD, the identified MLD does not make a recommendation within 48 hours, or the developer does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the developer shall reinter the human remains and items associated with the Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance in accordance with California Law
146. The applicant shall remove all trash and debris to the greatest extent feasible and without disturbance of the riparian areas during and at the completion of construction.

Landscaping
Pre-construction and Demolition Measures for Tree Preservation 147. Establish a Tree Protection Zone around each tree to be preserved. For design purposes, the Tree Protection Zone shall be the dripline or property line for trees.

No grading excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur within the protection zone.
148. Install non-movable chain link fence around the Protected Zone of each tree to be preserved. No entry is permitted into a Tree Protection Zone without permission of the Project Arborist.
149. Trees to be preserved may require pruning to provide clearance and/or correct defects in structure. All pruning shall be performed by an ISA Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker and shall adhere to the latest edition of the ANSI Z133 and A300 safety standards as well as the ISA Best Management Practices for Tree Pruning with a tree pruning permit from the City. The pruning contractor shall have the C-27/D-49 license specification.
150. All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish and Wildlife Code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds. To the extend feasible tree pruning and removal should be scheduled outside of the breeding season. Pre-construction surveys should be conducted prior to tree work from March through July pursuant to Route 238 Property Development Project Bunker Hill Parcel Group 5 CEQA Addendum dated June 2019.. A qualified biologists shall be retained by the Project Applicant to determine an appropriately sized buffer around nest if an active found is found during survey.

Tree Protection During Construction
Exhibit I.a
I.a-24
151. Prior to beginning work, the contractors working in the vicinity of trees for preservation are required to meet with the Project Arborist at the site to review all work procedure, access routes, storage areas and tree protection measures. 152. Any grading, construction, demolition or other work that is expected to encounter tree roots should be monitored by the Project Arborist. Any necessary root pruning shall be performed by a qualified arborist and not by construction personnel. Roots shall be cleanly pruned with a handsaw or sawzall, immediately covered with wet burlap, and kept moist until backfilled.
153. If damages should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as possible by the Project Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied. If the damages to tree result in removal, removed tree shall be replaced to its appraised value provided by the Project Arborist and approved by City Landscape Architect.
154. Fences will be erected to protect trees to be preserved. Fences are to remain until all site work has been completed. Fences may not be relocated or removed without permission of the Project Arborist.
155. Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a qualified arborist and not by construction personnel with a tree pruning permit from City Landscape Architect.
156. Trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the Project Arborist. Each irrigation session shall be wet the soil within the Tree Protection Zone to a depth of 30 inch.

Tree Replacement and Maintenance During Construction
157. Replacement trees shall be planted with sufficient space to accommodate the mature size of the species and maintained sufficiently to ensure establishment.

Preserved trees shall also be maintained to ensure the continued long-term health of the tree. Trees on-site will require monitoring and routine maintenance by a landscape specialist such as occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, pest management, replanting, and irrigation.

Engineering
158. Construction Stormwater Management: Developer shall be responsible for the preventing the discharge of pollutants (sediments) into the street and/or the public storm drain system from the project site during construction in accordance with the Hayward Municipal Code Section 11-5.19. Projects proposed for construction between October 1st and April 30th, must have an erosion and sedimentation control program approved, and implemented to the maximum extent possible, prior to the start of any land disturbing activity. Trash and debris must be adequately contained at all times. Such measures shall be maintained during the project’s Exhibit I.a
I.a-25
construction period. Violations or other noncompliance with stormwater management measures may result in the project being shut down, including any building permit activity, until full compliance with stormwater management requirements is achieved.
159. Construction Damage: The Developer shall remove and replace curb, gutter, sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavement, pavement markings, etc. within the public right-of-way along the project frontage and at any locations damaged by the construction of the proposed project. Damaged pavement surfaces shall be overlain or micro-surfaced. Damaged pavement surfaces shall be repaired or resurfaced as required by the City Engineer. Unused driveways or unused portions thereof shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk per City Standards. 160. The project geotechnical engineer shall submit a written report acceptable to the City’s Building Official confirming that buildings intended for human occupancy are built outside the ground deformation and damage zone of the earthquake fault zone. 161. Development in Phases: All required improvements leading and adjacent to lots to be occupied shall be installed according to the approved plan, including completion of punch list items. The public shall not be required to pass through active construction areas to reach occupied units.
162. In order to meet the BAAQMD fugitive dust threshold, the following BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be implemented:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off‐site shall be covered.
c. All visible mud or dirt tracked‐out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
f. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
g. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Exhibit I.a
I.a-26
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
h. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
i. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Hayward regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Hayward Fire – Hazardous Materials
163. Hazardous Materials/Waste and their Vessels Discovered during Grading/Construction – If hazardous materials/wastes or their containers are discovered during grading/construction, the Hayward Fire Department shall be immediately notified at (510) 583-4910.
164. Underground Storage Tanks, Oil Water Separators, Hydraulics Lifts – If found on the property, underground vessels and/or structures shall be removed under an approved plan filed with the Hayward Fire Department (HFD) and appropriate samples shall be taken under the direction of a qualified consultant to ensure that contamination has not occurred to soil or groundwater. A follow-up report shall be required to be submitted to document the activities performed and any conclusions.

Below are specific requirements on each:
a. Underground storage tank and associate piping: An approved removal plan, including appropriate sampling, a Hayward Fire Department permit for the removal, and follow-up report is required.
b. Oil Water Separators: An approved plan, including appropriate sampling, and follow-up report is required.
c. Hydraulic Lifts: An approved plan, including appropriate sampling, and followup report is required. 165. Hazardous Materials/Waste During Construction - During grading and construction hazardous materials and hazardous waste shall be properly stored, managed, and disposed.
166. Future Commercial Uses – No commercial use is proposed at this time for the project. If changes are approved that allow commercial uses, then the applicant shall provide adequate information associated with the use or storage of hazardous materials/waste for evaluation and approval by the Hayward Fire Department to ensure adequate conditions are met.

Exhibit I.a
I.a-27
167. Natural Occurring Asbestos Material – In both Phase I Environmental Site Assessments submitted for this project there is discussion that the property has one Recognized Environmental Concern where soils may contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA). The applicant shall work with the City of Hayward Public Works/Engineering Department, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and all appropriate agencies to ensure the NOA materials are property managed during grading activities.

Conditions Due Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy Landscaping
168. Model Home. A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) shall be issued for model home. TCO shall remain in place until converting model home to production home for sale. Landscape inspection shall be required prior to issuance of TCO, and another inspection prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy at the time of the conversion. The project landscape architect shall inspect and accept the installation prior to requesting an inspection from City Landscape Architect. The project landscape architect shall complete Appendix C. Certificate of Completion in the City’s Bay-Friendly Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The completed Certificate of Completion Part 1, 2 and 6 shall be submitted electronically in prior to requesting an inspection from the City Landscape Architect.
169. Production Home. Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for each production home, landscape and irrigation installations shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and details and shall be accepted by the City Landscape Architect. Prior to requesting an inspection from the City Landscape Architect, the project landscape architect shall inspect and accept landscape improvements and shall complete Appendix C. Certificate of Completion in the City’s Bay-Friendly Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The completed Certificate of Completion Part 1, 2 and 6 shall be submitted electronically in prior to requesting an inspection from the City Landscape Architect.
170. Tract Acceptance.
a. The entire landscape improvements including production homes and common landscape area shall be completed and well maintained until the acceptance by the City. The acceptance inspection shall be performed by City Landscape Architect. Prior to requesting an inspection by City Landscape Architect, the project landscape architect shall field inspect and accept landscape improvements and shall submit completed Appendix C. Certificate of Completion Part 1 through 7 in the City’s Bay-Friendly Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance to City Landscape Architect.
b. Irrigation Audit. Pursuant to HMC Section 10-12.11 and as required in Appendix C Certificate of Completion Part 5, an irrigation auditing rate of one (1) in seven (7) lots or approximately fifteen percent (15 %) of the total production homes and an audit of all common landscape areas shall be done prior to tract Exhibit I.a
I.a-28
acceptance. All landscape irrigation audits shall be conducted by a third-party certified landscape irrigation auditor. Landscape audits shall not be conducted by the person who designed the landscape or installed the landscape. c. Upon acceptance of the landscape installation in accordance with the approved landscape improvement plans by the City, As-Built digital plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Department by the developer.

Engineering.
171. All public improvements, including the complete installation of all street improvements, fencing, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, water system, underground utilities, streetlights etc., shall be completed and attested to by the City Engineer prior to acceptance pursuant to the DDA. Where facilities of other agencies are involved, such installation shall be verified as having been completed and accepted by those agencies.
172. Prior to final inspection and issuance of final certificates of occupancy, all pertinent conditions of approval and all improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Development Services Director or their designees pursuant to the DDA.
173. Post Construction Stormwater Maintenance: The property owner(s) shall enter into the City’s standard “Stormwater Treatment Measures Maintenance Agreement” as prepared by the City. The Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded with the Alameda County Recorder’s Office to ensure that the maintenance responsibility for private treatment control and site design measures is bound to the property in perpetuity.
174. SWPPP Final Report: The project QSP shall prepare and file a Final SWPPP Report with the City and Water Board.
175. GHAD: Prior to sale of any lot in the subdivision, the developer shall complete improvements as per the approved improvement plans
176. Geotechnical Letter: Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, Developer shall submit a confirming letter from the project geologic and/or geotechnical team confirming they have observed all grading activities and that those activities were performed in conformance with their recommendations. 177. Final Engineer’s Report: Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, The Engineer of Record shall submit a confirming letter that all grading, drainage, and engineering components of the project have been performed in conformance with the approved plans and specifications.
178. As-Built Records: As-built records of site grading and improvements completed by the property owner shall be provided to the City Engineer on electronic media in AutoCAD and pdf formats.

Exhibit I.a
I.a-29
-End-

ATTACHMENT IV

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 22 –
Introduced by Council Member______________
RESOLUTION APPROVING GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 52201 SUMMARY REPORT FOR THE PROJECT; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT

AGREEMENT WITH TRUMARK PROPERTIES LLC FOR TRANSFER OF

SPECIFIED CITY OWNED PROPERTIES AND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF

HOUSING AND MAKING SPECIFIED FINDINGS IN ASSOCIATION THEREWITH

CONSISTENT WITH PRIOR CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

DETERMINATIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Hayward entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) with Caltrans in January 2016 to acquire 10 parcel groups comprised of properties acquired by Caltrans for the State Route 238 expansion project; and WHEREAS, Caltrans granted the properties to the City in trust pursuant to State Route 238 Local Alternative Transportation Improvement Program (Government Code Sections 14528.6 and 14528.65); and
WHEREAS, Caltrans has transferred those properties to the City subject to the City managing the disposition and development of these former State Route 238 parcel groups with the goals of removing blight, enhancing community involvement in the development process, and creating economic and public benefits, such as job generating uses and trails and parks; and
WHEREAS, as the City sells or transfers particular parcels, the City is obligated to repay Caltrans the negotiated purchase prices for the various parcel groups under the PSA; and
WHEREAS, under Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(A) "exempt surplus land" is defined to include surplus land that is transferred pursuant to Government Code Section 37364; and
WHEREAS, under Government Code Section 37364, whenever a City determines that its property can be used for the provision of affordable housing to families of low or moderate income as defined in Health & Safety Code Section 50093, and that the use is in the City's best interest, the City may sell or otherwise convey the property under whatever terms and conditions it deems appropriate as long as at least 80% of the area of the property being disposed is used for the development of housing, and that at least 40% of the total housing units are restricted to low and very low incomes as specified under Government Code Section 37364(c-d); and

ATTACHMENT IV

WHEREAS, as least 80% of the developable area of geographically clustered Parcel Groups 3 and 5 will be used for the generation of housing, and at least 40% of the residential units will be affordable as specified under Government Code Section 37364(c-d); and WHEREAS, the generation of mixed income housing in a comprehensive manner over Parcel Groups 3 and 5 is in the best interest of the City as it allows the housing to be built in an expedient manner with project components that are nearly shovel ready and as it avoids detrimental impacts often associated with the concentration of poverty and provides the greatest economic, social, and education opportunities to all residents of Hayward regardless of income; and
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2022, the Council declared Parcel Groups 3 and 5 "exempt surplus land" because the land will be transferred to provide affordable housing pursuant to Government Code Section 37364, as the sale of these parcels for the generation of housing is in the City's best interest as set forth in adopted Resolution 22-037; and WHEREAS, on March 1, 2022, the State of California Housing and Community Development Department sent a letter to the City finding that Parcel Groups 3 and 5 qualify as "exempt surplus land" under Government Code Section 54221(f)(1), consistent with the City's adopted resolution 22-037; and
WHEREAS, in 2019, the Council approved the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the parcel located between Harder Road on the south, Carlos Bee Boulevard on the north, California State University East Bay on the east, and Central Boulevard on the west, referred to as “Parcel Group 5,” which was intended to facilitate the re-sale of the parcels through a competitive process to ensure the best price and land use for the City; and WHEREAS, on December 13, 2019, the Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate and enter into an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (ENRA) with the proposed Developer (Trumark Properties LLC), based on their proposal to construct 74 single family housing units, certain accessory dwellings units and other improvements on or adjacent to the Parcel Group 5 property; and
WHEREAS, after significant due diligence and site planning efforts, the Developer submitted an application for development of seventy-four single family residential units, including eighteen accessory dwelling units that will be available for occupancy by very low income households at an affordable rent; and
WHEREAS, the application required approval of a zone change and tentative map, which was approved by the Planning Commission on March 24, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City and the Developer successfully completed the obligations under the ENRA and now desire to enter into a Disposition and Development Agreement (the “DDA”); and

ATTACHMENT IV

WHEREAS, the City will enter into a DDA with the Developer for the disposition from the City to Developer for a total purchase price of $14,000,000 for the following property; and
WHEREAS, as further outlined in the Staff Report accompanying this Resolution and incorporated into this Resolution by this reference (the “Staff Report”), the transfers contemplated under the DDA will further the public purpose of economic development creating jobs, and securing a site for future development of affordable housing in an area that has suffered from historic under development as a result of the proposed and now defunct freeway project, all of which serve the common benefit; and WHEREAS, the City has placed on file a copy of the summary report called for under Government Code Section 52201 (the “Section 52201 Summary Report”), and has made the Section 52201 Summary Report available for public inspection and copying in compliance with Government Code Section 52201; and
WHEREAS, as further outlined in the Staff Report, the City has determined that the sale of the properties pursuant to the DDA will create economic opportunity and: (1) result in the creation of 74 single family housing units; (2) result in job creation as a result of the anticipated construction of the new development, including approximately 50-70 full-time equivalent (FTE) temporary construction jobs, and an estimated 5 permanent jobs without investment of City funds; and (3) result in the public purpose of economic development by creating jobs, housing, trail segment of Hayward Foothill Trail, and contribute to the vibrancy in an area of the City that has suffered from historic underdevelopment as a result of the proposed and now defunct SR 238 freeway project; and
WHEREAS, as further outlined in the Staff Report and the Section 52201 Summary Report, the City is not providing any form of direct or indirect financial assistance to the Developer and is transferring the property to the Developers for the determined fair market value at its highest and best use; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the DDA and the 52201 Summary Report pursuant to Government Code Section 52201, for the purpose of receiving the input and comments of the public on the DDA and the 52201 Summary Report; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted a Master Development Plan for the Property on July 9, 2019 (the "Master Development Plan") and in connection with its approval of the Master Development Plan approved an Addendum to the previously certified 2014 General Plan Environmental Impact Report, as authorized under California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15164, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, including Errata to 2014 General Plan Update EIR MMRP.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the above recitals are true and correct and have served, together with the Section 52201 Summary Report and the Staff Report, as the basis for the findings and approvals set forth below.

ATTACHMENT IV

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, pursuant to Government Code Section 52200.2 and Government Code Section 52201(b), the City Council hereby finds that the sale of the properties pursuant to the DDA will create economic opportunity and result in: (1) the creation of 74 single family housing units, including eight accessory dwelling units available to occupancy by very low income households at an affordable rent; (2) job creation as a result of the anticipated construction of the new development, including approximately 50-70 full-time equivalent (FTE) temporary construction jobs, and an estimated five permanent jobs without investment of City funds; and (3) the public purpose of economic development by creating jobs, housing, and expansion of a public trail and contribute to the vibrancy in an area of the City that has suffered from historic underdevelopment as a result of the proposed and now defunct SR 238 freeway project. This finding is based on the facts and analysis set forth in the Staff Report and the Section 52201 Summary accompanying this Resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, pursuant to Government Code Section 52201, the City Council hereby finds that the consideration to be paid under the DDA is not less than the fair market value at its highest and best use. This finding is based on the facts and analysis set forth in the Staff Report and the Section 52201 Summary accompanying this Resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, pursuant to Government Code Section 52201, the City Council hereby approves the Section 52201 Summary Report, in substantially the form on file with the City Clerk, and approved execution by the City Manager or her designee of the DDA and all ancillary documents in a form to be approved by the City Attorney and consistent with the terms and conditions identified in the accompanying Staff Report.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, pursuant to Government Code Section 37350, the City Council hereby finds that the disposition of the properties pursuant to the DDA is for the common benefit.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City finds and determines that the disposition and development of the Parcel Group 5 properties do not require any subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or further CEQA review pursuant to an Addendum to the General Plan EIR, which was prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA guidelines that demonstrated that the project is within the scope of the General Plan EIR and would have no new or more severe significant effects and no new mitigation measures are required.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or designee is directed to cause a notice of determination to be filed with the Alameda County clerk, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, following adoption of this Resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes the City Manager or designee to execute the DDA, and all ancillary documents attached thereto, on behalf of the City in substantial conformance to the terms outlined in the staff report, subject to such nonsubstantive or minor modifications or amendments as may be necessary to complete

ATTACHMENT IV

the transactions contemplated hereby, and subject further to the City Attorney's approval as to form.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager or designee shall execute such other instruments, and take any and all other action, as may be reasonbly necessary to complete the disposition and acquisition of the SR 238 Parcel Group 5 properties, and to close escrow on, as contemplated in the DDA.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council designates the City Clerk as the custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision herein is based. These documents may be found at the office of the office of the City Clerk, at 777 B Street, Fourth Floor, Hayward, CA 94541.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall take immediate effect from and after its passage.

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA_________________, 2022
ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

MAYOR:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS
ATTEST:_____________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Hayward
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________________
City Attorney of the City of Hayward

ATTACHMENT V
1 SUMMARY REPORT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 52201

ON THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE

CITY OF HAYWARD AND TRUMARK PROPERTIES LLC
I. Introduction.

The City of Hayward (the "City"), has prepared a summary report (the "Summary Report") as required by Section 52201 of the Government Code, with regards to the City's proposed execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement ("DDA") by and between the City and Trumark Properties LLC, a California limited liability company, and its permitted successor and assigns (the "Developer"), for the sale of approximately

37.46 acres of real property located between Harder Road on the south, Carlos Bee Boulevard on the north, California State University East Bay on the east and Central Boulevard on the west, commonly referred to as Caltrans Parcel Group 5 (the "Property") to the Developer.

Government Code Section 52201, authorizes the City, to sell or lease property to which it holds title for the purpose of creating economic opportunity. The City must first secure approval of the proposed sale from the City Council after a public hearing. A copy of the proposed DDA and a summary report that describes and contains specific financing elements of the proposed transaction is required to be available for public inspection prior to the public hearing. As contained in the Code, the following information is included in the summary report:
 The cost of the DDA to the City, including land acquisition costs, clearance costs, relocation costs, and the costs of any improvements to be provided by the City, plus the expected interest on any loans or bonds to finance the agreement;  The estimated value of the interest to be conveyed, determined at the highest and best use permitted under the general plan and zoning;
 The estimated value of the interest to be conveyed in accordance with the uses, conditions and covenants, and development costs required under the proposed DDA, i.e., the fair reuse value of the Property;
 An explanation of why the sale of the property will assist in the creation of economic opportunity; and
 If the sale price is less than the fair market value of the interest to be conveyed, determined at the highest and best use consistent with the general plan and zoning, then the City must provide as part of the summary an explanation of the reasons for the difference.

In addition to the authority granted to it under Government Code Section 52201, the City is also acting pursuant to authority granted to it under: (1) Government Code Section

ATTACHMENT V
2 14528.5 which governs the SR 238 parcels; (2) Government Code Section 37350, which provides that a city may purchase, lease, receive, hold, and enjoy real and personal property and control and dispose of it for the common benefit; and (3) Government Code Section 54221, which governs surplus lands.

II. Summary of Proposed Agreement.

The proposed development described in the DDA is a 74 single family home residential development where at least eighteen of the units will include accessory dwelling units to be made available for occupancy by very low income households at an affordable rent (the "Proposed Project"). As part of the Proposed Project, Developer will also construct improvements for the Foothill Trail, which will consist of an approximately 3,000 linear feet segment of the 16-foot wide Hayward Foothill Trail along the eastern boundary of the Property, connecting to the California State University East Bay campus.

The salient aspects of the proposed DDA are summarized as follows:
 The City commits to transfer "Property" as defined in the DDA to the Developer.  The City will convey the Property to the Developer in fee in its "as-is" condition.  The Developer will pay the City $14,000,000 for the Property in the form of cash payment, which reflects access to Carlos Bee Boulevard;  The City is not required to make any form of financial or other assistance to the Developer for the completion of the Proposed Project;
 The Proposed Project will be subject to and must comply with the requirements of the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and will result in eighteen accessory dwelling units that will be restricted for occupancy by very low income households as well as in lieu payments consistent with the ordinance.  Developer will construct a 3,000 linear feet segment of the 16-foot wide Hayward Foothill Trail along the eastern boundary of the Property.

III. Cost of Agreement
This section presents the total estimated cost of the DDA to the City. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 52201 (a)(2)(B)(i), the cost of the DDA to the City includes all land acquisition costs, clearance costs, relocation costs, the cost of any improvements to be provided by the City, plus the interest on any loans or bonds to finance the project under the terms of the DDA. The net cost can be either an actual cost, when expenditures exceed receipts, or a net gain, when revenues created by implementation of the Agreement exceed expenditures.

The estimated total cost to the City is projected to be significantly less than the Purchase

ATTACHMENT V
3 Price received from the Developer. The Property to be transferred to the Developer will consist of approximately 37.46 acres acquired by the City from Caltrans. The City currently owns the Property. The City has an agreement with Caltrans related to the acquisition of a various properties, including among others, the Property to be conveyed to the Developer. The Caltrans agreement requires that the purchase price for the Property be negotiated between the City and Caltrans. The purchase price paid to Caltrans has been finalized at $11,100,000 and therefore, does not exceed the purchase price being paid by the Developer for the property.

The City's holding costs for the Property is de minimis and the City has not incurred any costs associated with the Property.

The City has or expects to incur approximately $25,000 to $50,000 on internal staff costs which will be funded through the purchase price. The City's third-party costs, including; broker fees, legal fees, consulting fees, and other fees associated with the negotiation of the DDA and associated land transfer documents have been paid for by the Developer through a reimbursement agreement. All costs to the City associated with the processing of entitlements for the Proposed Project are also being paid solely by the Developer.

The City has not incurred any demolition costs.

IV. Estimated Highest and Best Use Value of the Interest to be Conveyed Section 52201 requires the City to identify the value of the interest being conveyed at the highest use permitted under the general plan and zoning in place on the Property. The valuation must be based on the assumption that the Property is vacant, and that near-term development is required. The highest and best use of a property, is that use of the Property that generates the highest property value and is physically possible, financially feasible, and legally permitted. The valuation does not take into consideration any extraordinary use, quality, and/or income restrictions being imposed on the development by the City. The value at highest and best use is based solely on the value created and not on whether or not that use carries out the development goals and policies for the City as set forth in the DDA.

This section presents an analysis of the fair market value of the Property at its highest and best use. This section explains the value of the Property to be sold to the Developer and the consideration being provided by the Developer. The section indicates that the consideration being provided is not less than the highest and best use value of the Property.

The City and Caltrans conducted previous appraisals for the property and the City retained a financial consultant to review the proposed valuation of the property based on a residual land value analysis in its existing condition with its current land use designations which determined that the purchase price of approximately $14,000,000 represents fair market value for the Property. The purchase price being paid by the Developer is based on the parties' negotiation of the Property value taking into account

ATTACHMENT V
4 the aforementioned financial evaluation and previous appraisals of the Property as well as the impact on value of the Property resulting from entitlement of the Project Site for the use consistent with the Proposed Project.

V. Estimated Fair Re-Use Value of the Interest to be Conveyed In calculating the fair re-use value, re-use value is defined as the highest price in terms of cash or its equivalent which a property or development right is expected to bring for a specified use in a competitive open market, subject to the covenants, conditions, and restrictions imposed by the DDA. The DDA requires the Developer to purchase the Property for the fair market value, at its highest and best use.

VI. Explanation of the Difference (if any) between the Compensation to be paid to the City under the DDA and the Fair Market Value of the Property Under Section 52201, the City is required to explain if the sale price is less than the fair market value of the interest to be conveyed, determined at the highest and best use consistent with the general plan and zoning, then the City must provide as part of this Summary Report an explanation of the reasons for the difference. In this instance, there is no difference. The City will receive $14,000,000 in compensation for the transfer of the Property, which is the estimated value of the Property at its highest and best use and exceeds the $11,100,000 Caltrans purchase price based on previous appraisals. The City fully expects that the Purchase Price received from the Developer will not be less than the costs paid by the City for the Property and the costs of the agreement summarized in Section III, above.

VII. Creation of Economic Opportunity
The Proposed Project, when constructed, will create economic opportunity in Hayward.

Section 52200.2 defines "economic opportunity" as any of the following:
 Development agreements, loan agreements, sale agreements, lease agreements, or other agreements that create, retain, or expand new jobs, at least one full-time equivalent, permanent job for every thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000) of city investment in the project after full capacity and implementation;  Development agreements, loan agreements, sale agreements, lease agreements, or other agreements that increase property tax revenues to all property tax collecting entities, by at least 15 percent (15%) of total property tax resulting from the project at full implementation when compared to the year prior to the property being acquired by the government entity;
 Creation of affordable housing;
 Projects that meet the goals set forth in Chapter 728 of the Statutes of 2008 and have been included in an adopted sustainable communities strategy or alternative

ATTACHMENT V
5 planning strategy or a project that specifically implements the goals of those adopted plans; or
 Transit priority projects, as defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code.

The City is not providing any form of financial assistance to the Developer. The City, however, has identified the following benefits that will result from implementation of the DDA and will create economic opportunity as defined in Government Code Section 52200.2.

A. Increased Property Taxes
Currently, the property subject to the DDA does not generate property tax revenues, and because all the Property has been in under the ownership of a governmental entity. The property tax revenue the year prior to the property being acquired by the City was $0.

Upon transfer to the Developer under the DDA, the assessed value of the Property will change from $0 to up to $14,000,000 and will result in estimated property tax payments of approximately $140,000, in its unimproved state.

The sale of the Property to the Developer is estimated to cause the following increase in the property tax revenue:

Assessed Value at Date of Acquisition $0.00
Property Tax Rate 1.0% $0.00
Estimated Property Tax Revenue $0.00
Assessed Value after sale to the Developer (unimproved
state)
$14,000,000.00
Property Tax Rate 1.0%
Estimated Property Tax Revenue (unimproved state) $140,000 Increase in Property Tax Revenue to Taxing Entities $140,000 The change in assessed value will result in an increase of more than 15% prior to the full implementation of the project. It further is anticipated that the completion of the Proposed Project will further increase the Property's assessed value to more than $89 million, resulting from the project at full implementation. Nevertheless, based on the change in property tax revenues in an unimproved state, it can be concluded that after full project implementation, the Proposed Project will increase property tax revenues to all property tax collecting entities, by more than 15 percent (15%) when compared to the year prior to the property being acquired by the government entity and the condition of Section 52200.2(b) will be satisfied.

ATTACHMENT V
6 The Developer intends to develop the approximately $89 million Proposed Project on the Project Site. The assessed value of the Project Site will result in additional benefits to the City.

B. Creation of Affordable Housing
The creation of affordable housing to meet demonstrated affordable housing needs identified in the housing element of the City’s general plan constitutes and economic opportunity. The Proposed Project will be subject to the requirements of the City's Inclusionary Affordable Housing Ordinance and will thus increase, improve, or preserve the supply of quality affordable housing in the community.

Under the approvals the Developer is allowed to develop a single family residential development project on the Property consisting of seventy-four (74) single family forsale housing units, of which eight (8) will have accessory dwelling units that will be made available for occupancy by very low income households at an affordable rent. The Developer will also be paying in lieu housing fees applicable to the project, as laid out in the DDA. The City has determined that the project is consistent with Section 10-17.205 which provides the unit threshold and basic requirements applicable to ownership residential projects, including alternative methods of compliance, like the one proposed to be constructed. The Developer and City will record an Inclusionary Housing Agreement that will ensure the development of the affordable units is completed in accordance with the terms of the City approved phasing plan for the Proposed Project.

C. Job Creation
Under Section 52200.2(a) economic opportunity is achieved is an agreement results in the creation, retention or expansions of new jobs, at least one full-time equivalent, permanent job for every thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000) of city investment in the project. As previously discussed, the City is not providing any financial assistance for the Proposed Project and no part of the development costs for the Proposed Project will be publicly subsidized.

Nevertheless, the sale of the Property under the DDA will result in job creation as a result of the anticipated construction of the development. During the construction of the Proposed Project, it is anticipated that 50-70 full-time equivalent (FTE) temporary construction jobs will be created. Upon completion and full implementation, the Proposed Project is also anticipated to generate an estimated 5 permanent jobs without investment of City funds.

D. Public Purpose
The transfer of the Property and construction of the Proposed Project will further the public purpose of economic development by creating jobs, market rate and affordable homes, parks, trail segment of the Hayward Foothill Trail, and vibrancy in an area of the

ATTACHMENT V
7 City that has suffered from historic underdevelopment as a result of the proposed and now defunct SR 238 freeway project.
1 69
14 67
73 74 70
68 64
66 65
63 62
72 61 71
15 16
24 17
19 21 22 20
18 23 25
26 28
32 27
29 30
31 PARCEL G
33 8
35 37
36 34
53 59
55 60
58 57 56
54 52 51 50 49 48 47 46
43 38
39 40
41 45 44
42 7

PARCEL B

PARCEL D

PARCEL J

PARCEL F

PARCEL C

PARCEL I

PARCEL A

PARCEL E PARCEL L

PARCEL H

PAE ROAD
TEMP CONS 2
9 10 11 12
13 TEMP CONS 1
2 3
4 5
6 PARCEL K

PARCEL M

PARCEL N

PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYP)

PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYP)

BUNKER HILL BLVD EXTENSION

TO CARLOS BEE BLVD

HAYWARD TRAIL CONNECTION

TO EX TRAIL AT CAL STATE

EAST BAY
61 1
8 15
16 7

PARCEL L
50 49 48
47 46 43
38 39
40 41
45 44 42
24 17
19 21 22 20
18 23
25 26
28 32 27 29 30
31 PARCEL G
33 35
37 36
34 53
59 55
60 58 57 56
54 PARCEL E
52 51
67 74 73
70 68
64 66
65 63 62
71 72
14 PARCEL I

PARCEL A

PARCEL J

PARCEL F
69 PARCEL C

PARCEL B PARCEL D

PARCEL K

PARCEL H

RIPERIAN FOREST & STREAM

REMAINS UNDISTURBED

RIPERIAN FOREST & STREAM

REMAINS UNDISTURBED

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF

EAST TRACE HAYWARD FAULT

PER ENGEO
10 11 12 13
9 2
3 4
5 6

PARCEL M

PARCEL N
SITE

STREET SECTIONS
1 LEGEND

SHEET INDEX

SHEET DESCRIPTION
1 COVER SHEET & NOTES
2 EXISTING BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
4 8
11 STORMWATER QUALITY PLAN
12 SANITARY SEWER PLAN
13 WATER PLAN
BASIS OF BEARINGS:

THE BASIS OF BEARINGS WAS CALCULATED BETWEEN 2 FOUND MONUMENTS IN BUNKER

HILL BOULEVARD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS CENTRAL BOULEVARD), SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED "E. 14TH ST. HOME SITES", RECORDED IN BOOK 18, AT PAGE 56, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS. THE MONUMENTS FOUND WERE NOT IN THE LOCATIONS

SPECIFIED ON THE MAP, BUT WERE AT THE POT AND PRC LOCATIONS IN FRONT OF LOTS 16/58 AND 22/65 RESPECTIVELY. THE BEARING BETWEEN THESE 2 POINTS IS CALCULATED AS N38°16'47"W.

BASIS OF ELEVATION:

THE PROJECT BENCHMARK IS NGS PT HT0201, PID P 1197
FOUND 1.9 MILES SOUTHEAST ALONG THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD FROM THE STATION AT HAYWARD, 0.3 MILES SOUTHEAST OF THE CROSSING OF HARDER AVENUE, 5 POLES NORTHWEST OF MILE POLE 22, OPPOSITE A WOODEN RAILROAD BRIDGE OVER WARD CREEK, IN THE TOP AND 1.0 FEET NORTHWEST OF THE SOUTHEAST END OF THE NORTHEAST CONCRETE HEAD WALL, 49.0 FEET SOUTHEAST OF THE SOUTHWEST RAIL, AND 39 FEET NORTHEAST OF THE CENTERLINE OF HUNTWOOD AVENUE.

ELEVATION: 46.26' (NAVD88)

LOT LAYOUT PLAN

VESTING TENTATIVE MAP

FOR THE BUNKER HILL DEVELOPMENT
PARCEL GROUP 5

ABBREVIATIONS

APN OWNER STREET ADDRESS
445-0270-054-02 CITY OF HAYWARD 25373 BUNKER HILL CT
445-0260-084-03 CITY OF HAYWARD 25564 MAITLAND DRIVE
445-0260-109-04 CITY OF HAYWARD 25472 BUNKER HILL BLVD
445-0260-109-03 CITY OF HAYWARD 25472 BUNKER HILL BLVD
445-0250-041-01 CITY OF HAYWARD 25777 BUNKER HILL BLVD
445-0250-059-01 CITY OF HAYWARD 25832 BUNKER HILL BLVD
445-0260-018-03 CITY OF HAYWARD 25673 MAITLAND DRIVE
445-0260-018-04 CITY OF HAYWARD 25673 MAITLAND DRIVE
445-0250-060-01 CITY OF HAYWARD HARDER DRIVE
445-0260-002-00 CITY OF HAYWARD HARDER DRIVE
SITE INFORMATION:

1. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: 37.75± ACRES
NET DEVELOPMENT AREA: 19.24± ACRES
NOTE: NET DEVELOPMENT AREA INCLUDES ALL PARCELS WITH STORMWATER

QUALITY MEASURES, THE SEWER PUMP STATION PARCEL, AND THE EASEMENT AREAS WITHIN CSUEB PROPERTY.

OPEN SPACE AREA: 18.51± ACRES
NOTE: OPEN SPACE AREA INCLUDES A PORTION OF HAYWARD FOOTHILL TRAIL WITHIN PROJECT BOUNDARY.

2. NUMBER OF PROPOSED UNITS: 74 UNITS
DENSITY: 2.0± DU/ACRE
NOTE: DENSITY BASED ON TOTAL PROJECT AREA.

3. EXISTING USE: RESIDENTIAL, VACANT
PROPOSED USE: RESIDENTIAL

4. EXISTING ZONING: RNP(RESIDENTIAL NATURAL PRESERVE WITH SD7 OVERLAY) PROPOSED ZONING: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

5. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SDR (SUBURBAN DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

6. PARK DISTRICT: HAYWARD AREA RECREATION & PARK DISTRICT FIRE PROTECTION: HAYWARD FIRE DEPARTMENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT: HAYWARD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

7. ELECTRIC: PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC(PG&E)
GAS: PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC(PG&E)
TELEPHONE: AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH (AT&T)
CABLE: COMCAST CORPORATION

8. AREA SUBJECT TO INUNDATION: NONE

9. ALL STREETS TO BE PUBLICLY OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF HAYWARD.

10. STORM WATER QUALITY AND HYDRO MODIFICATION TO BE DESIGNED PER ALAMEDA COUNTY CLEAN WATER PROGRAM DETAILS, STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATION.

11. DEVELOPER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO FILE MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS ON THE PROPERTY WITHIN THIS VESTING TENTATIVE MAP.
5 LOT LAYOUT PLAN
7 OVERALL GRADING PLAN

LOT GRADING DETAIL A & B
3 9 LOT GRADING SECTION A & B
10 LOT GRADING DETAIL & SECTION C
6 LOT INFORMATION TABLES

OWNERSHIP AND MAINTANENCE RESPONSIBILITIES

PARCEL (IF APPLICABLE) DESCRIPTION OWNERSHIP MAINTANENCE

RIGHT OF WAY CITY OF HAYWARD CITY OF HAYWARD

SEWER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF HAYWARD CITY OF HAYWARD

STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF HAYWARD CITY OF HAYWARD

WATER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF HAYWARD CITY OF HAYWARD

STREET LIGHT IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF HAYWARD CITY OF HAYWARD

PARCEL AOPENSPACE GHAD GHAD

PARCEL BWATER QUALITY (STORM DRAIN EASEMENT) GHAD GHAD

PARCEL COPEN SPACE GHAD GHAD

PARCEL DOPEN SPACE GHAD GHAD

PARCEL EOPEN SPACE GHAD GHAD

PARCEL FOPEN SPACE (INCLUSIVE OF RIPARIAN FOREST) GHAD GHAD

PARCEL GOPEN SPACE (INCLUSIVE OF HAYWARD FOOTHILL TRAIL) GHAD GHAD/MHOA

PARCEL HWATER QUALITY (STORM DRAIN EASEMENT) GHAD GHAD

PARCEL IOPEN SPACE GHAD GHAD

PARCEL JOPEN SPACE (INCLUSIVE OF RIPARIAN FOREST) GHAD GHAD

PARCEL KWATER QUALITY (STORM DRAIN EASEMENT) GHAD GHAD

PARCEL LWATER QUALITY (STORM DRAIN EASEMENT) GHAD GHAD

PARCEL MWATER QUALITY (STORM DRAIN EASEMENT) GHAD GHAD

PARCEL NSEWER PUMP STATION CITY OF HAYWARD CITY OF HAYWARD

OFFSITE

STREET & UTILITY FACILITIES (BUNKER HILL BOULEVARD

EXTENSION TO CARLOS BEE BOULEVARD)

CAL STATE UNIVERSITY EAST
BAY (LAND); CITY OF HAYWARD
(STREET & UTILITY FACILITIES

AND EASEMENT HOLDER)

CITY OF HAYWARD

OFFSITEHAYWARD FOOTHILL TRAIL FACILITY WITH CAL STATE

UNIVERISTY EAST BAY

CAL STATE UNIVERSITY EAST
BAY (LAND); GHAD (FOOTHILL
TRAIL FACILITY); CITY OF

HAYWARD (EASEMENT HOLDER)
GHAD

OFFSITEWATER QUALITY FACILITY

CAL STATE UNIVERSITY EAST
BAY (LAND); GHAD (WATER
QUALITY FACILITY); CITY OF

HAYWARD (EASEMENT HOLDER)
GHAD
Attachment VI
15' STORM SEWER ESMT
RE 2173 IM 149
6' SLOPE ESMT
BK 2072 PG 837
10' SLOPE ESMT
BK 869 PG 498

PARCEL AND SLOPE

EASEMENT EXCEPTION TO
LOT 18 REEL 869 PAGE 498
EXCEPTION TO LOT 18 AND 19
AU72965 AND AZ116252

EXISTING

LOT LINE
(TYP.)
R
=
3 5.00' BNDY
Δ
=
2 62
°49'09"
L
=
160.55'
R=25.00'
Δ=41°24'21"
L=18.07' BNDY
R=25.00'
Δ=41°24'48"
L=18.07' BNDY
N56°26'16"E
136.04' BNDY
Δ=
R=220.00' 29°55'30" L=114.90' BNDY
N74°03'30"W

95.25' BNDY
R=100.00'
Δ=47°53'14"
L=83.58' BNDY
R=518.91' BNDY
Δ=17°57'44" L=162.68'

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
(TYP.)
R=185.00' Δ=33°20'14" L=107.64' BNDY
R=655.00' Δ=38°11'25" L=436.59' BNDY
S56°26'55"W 308.07' BNDY
R=655.00' Δ=25°24'51"
L=290.53' BNDY
S31°02'04"W

45.17' BNDY N40°41'17"W
161.65' BNDY
N56°26'55"E 378.12' BNDY
N24°18'44"W 151.61' BNDY
R=20.00' Δ=66°25'38" L=23.19' BNDY
R=80.00' Δ=54°33'58" L=76.19' BNDY
N12°27'10"W

86.11' BNDY
R=1100.00' Δ=3°55'59"
L=75.51' BNDY

81.57' BNDY
S4°47'00"E
R=40.00' Δ=151°39'11" L=105.87' BNDY
R=598.10'
Δ=9°52'21"
N50°40'20"W 103.35' BNDYL=103.06' BNDY
R=480.00' Δ=11°53'40" L=99.65' BNDY
N38°46'40"W 42.87' BNDY
R=29.01'
Δ=63°00'10"
L=31.90' BNDY
N24°13'30"E

89.76' BNDY
R=20.00' Δ=93°08'24" L=32.51' BNDY
R=190.00' Δ=25°53'04" L=85.84' BNDY
N88°31'10"W

32.56' BNDY
N24°13'30"E

74.67' BNDY
R=60.00'
Δ=98°52'10"
L=103.54' BNDY
N74°38'40"W

91.76' BNDY
R=120.00' Δ=67°39'59"
L=141.72' BNDY
N56°12'30"E
135.86' BNDY
N68°48'10"W
176.16' BNDY
N28°35'40"W

52.86' BNDY
N24°13'30"E

85.37' BNDY
R=100.00' Δ=26°02'31" L=45.45' BNDY
N74°38'40"W

66.80' BNDY
R=80.00'
Δ=60°31'46"
L=84.52' BNDY
R=198.94' Δ=19°47'40"
L=68.73' BNDY
S37°50'54"W
111.19' BNDY
S44°08'00"E

73.92' BNDY 173.54' BNDY S16°10'10"W
N47°07'10"E 155.17' BNDY
N28°35'40"W

35.00' BNDY
N69°04'50"W
119.05' BNDY 126.22' BNDY N17°41'15"E
R=210.01' Δ=3°25'51"
L=12.58' BNDY
S80°17'50"E
118.55' BNDY
R=158.94'
Δ=40°44'20"
L=113.01' BNDY
S80°17'50"E 73.54' BNDY
R=170.00'
Δ=18°42'06"
S50°23'30"E
L=55.49' BNDY

65.00' BNDY
N59°30'00"E

61.75' BNDY
R=110.00'
Δ=40°24'56"
L=77.59' BNDY
N46°40'45"E

96.72' BNDY
N30°30'00"W

90.83' BNDY
R=70.00' Δ=70°06'30" L=85.65' BNDY
N59°30'00"E

20.10' BNDY
S50°23'30"E

24.65' BNDY
R=20.00' Δ=90°35'41" L=31.62' BNDY
R=140.00' Δ=47°37'46" L=116.38' BNDY
S77°32'05"E

33.42' BNDY
R=146.47' Δ=47°49'29" L=122.26' BNDY
R=266.82' Δ=15°51'59" L=73.89' BNDY
N53°04'49"E 281.17' BNDY4' PGE EASEMENT
(BK3840 PG360)
N44°19'43"W 721.90' BNDY
N44°08'00"W 1391.79' BNDY
N44°08'00"W 409.17' BNDY
N44°08'00"W 41.61' BNDY
N44°08'00"W 137.83' BNDY
N45°52'00"E 158.03' BNDY N45°52'00"E 70.95' BNDY N44°08'00"W 134.18' BNDY N62°47'00"W 391.80' BNDY N55°30'00"E 244.29' BNDY
R=54.28' BNDY
Δ=54°50'57"
L=51.96'
R=40.00' BNDY
Δ=22°33'25"
L=15.75'
S34°30'00"E 123.16' BNDY N47°09'55"E 101.07' BNDY S12°39'30"E 218.62' BNDY S42°56'40"E 118.07' BNDY
R=15.00' BNDY
Δ=85°07'14"
L=22.28'
R=185.00' BNDY
Δ=22°22'21"
L=72.24'
N45°52'00"E 282.17' BNDY
S42°56'40"E 67.53' BNDY
N45°52'00"E 272.57' BNDY
R=145.00' BNDY
Δ=28°36'17"
L=72.39'
N44°08'00"W 75.00' BNDY
R=923.57' BNDY
Δ=4°01'52"
L=64.98' S44°08'00"E

68.79' BNDY
R=477.03' BNDY
Δ=9°05'32"
L=75.70' R=270.00' BNDY
Δ=13°01'32"
L=61.38'

EXISTING LOT

LINE(TYP)
R=167.73'
Δ=40°48'25"
L=119.46' BNDY
R=41.30'
Δ=63°54'11"
L=46.06' BNDY
40' RESERVE
40'

RESERVE
5' RESERVE
5' RESERVE
RESERVE 10'
5'

RESERVE
5' RESERVE
S63°36'30"E 273.20' BNDY
N63°36'30"W 273.21' BNDY
S63°36'30"E 52.06' BNDY
N63°36'30"W 45.67' BNDY NOTES:

1. ALL EXISTING LOT LINES INTERIOR TO THE PROJECT BOUNDARY WILL BE REMAPPED AS A PART OF THIS APPLICATION'S FUTURE FINAL MAP(S). SEE PARCEL LAYOUT PLAN FOR PROPOSED LOTTING.

2. ALL EXISTING BUILDINGS, UTILITIES, PAVEMENT, WELLS, SEPTIC AND ANY OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE EXTENTS OF THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY TO BE DEMOLISHED.

3. ALL EXISTING EASEMENTS WITHIN PROJECT BOUNDARY TO BE QUITCLAIMED UNLESS OTHER WISE NOTED.

4. APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EAST TRACE HAYWARD FAULT IS SHOWN FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.

SEE "PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION" BY ENGEO DATED APRIL 6, 2021 FOR FAULT AND EXCLUSION ZONE DETAILS.

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF

EAST TRACE HAYWARD FAULT

PER ENGEO

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF

EAST TRACE HAYWARD FAULT

PER ENGEO
LEGEND

EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION

PROJECT BOUNDARY

LOT LINE

EASEMENT (FOR TYPE SEE CALLOUT)

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EAST

TRACE HAYWARD FAULT PER ENGEO
2 NTS

SECTION A
CL
R/W

FACE OF
CURB

FACE OF
CURB

TYPICAL STREET SECTION WITH PARKING

AT BUNKER HILL BLVD AND BUNKER HILL CT
PUE
R/W

PARKING
FLAT
FLAT
FLAT
FLAT
UPHILL 3 UPHILL 3
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3 UPHILL 3
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4 UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
FLAT
UPHILL 3
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
UPHILL 3 UPHILL 4 UPHILL 3 UPHILL 4
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 1
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
DOWNHILL 2 DOWNHILL 1 DOWNHILL 1 DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 2
UPHILL 3
UPHILL 3 UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
UPHILL 3
FLAT
FLAT
FLAT
DOWNHILL 1
UPHILL 4
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 2 DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 2 DOWNHILL 2
FLAT
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 1 DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 1
FLAT
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 1

PARCEL D

PARCEL J

PARCEL F

PARCEL C
14 PARCEL G

PARCEL A PARCEL B
7 6
5 59 60
58 57
43 38
39 40
41 42 13
12 8
9 10
16 31 32
33 35
37 36
34 4
1 2
3 11
74 73
69 55
56 54
52 51 50 49 48
47 46 45 44
24 17
19 20 21 22
18 23 25 26
28 27
29 30
53 61
67 70
68 64
66 65
63 62
71 72
15 PARCEL L

PARCEL E

PARCEL I

PARCEL H

PROPOSED CURB AND PARKING

ALONG CENTRAL BLVD JOGS

TO AVOID CONFLICT WITH

EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY

POLES TO REMAIN

EXISTING ALIGNMENT OF BUNKER

HILL BLVD TO BE MODIFIED

EXISTING BUNKER HILL COURT CUL-DE-SAC
TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED AT 96'

DIAMETER PER FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUEST
R=28' R=48'

EXISTING ALIGNMENT OF BUNKER

HILL COURT TO BE MODIFIED

CONFORM TO

EXISTING ROADWAY

PARCEL M

PARCEL N

PARCEL K

SECTION B
R/W

EX FACE

OF CURB
R/W
EX

FACE OF
CURB
NTS

MAITLAND DRIVE

EXISTING TRAVELWAY
PROP

PARKING

PROP TRAVELWAY

EX CURB TO

BE REMOVED EX CURB TO

REMOVED
PROP

FACE OF
CURB

PROP CURB
& GUTTER PROP CURB
& GUTTER

PROP FACE

SWLK OF CURB
PUE

SECTION C

FACE OF
CURB

FACE OF
CURB
NTS

BUNKER HILL BLVD EXTENSION TO CARLOS BEE BLVD

MULTI USE L/S SWLK
TRAIL
PROP.

PUBLIC
ACCESS
ESMT
PROP.

PUBLIC
ACCESS
ESMT
C/L
(HAYWARD

FOOTHILL
TRAIL)
2%

1.5%

R/W R/W

EDGE OF

PAVEMENT
NTS

PROPOSED

FACE OF
CURB
EX

EXISTING PROPERTY

FRONTAGE

EXISTING PROPERTIES

EXISTING TRAVEL
WAY

CENTRAL BLVD

SECTION D

PROP CURB
PROP

PARKING
3 LEGEND

EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION

PROJECT BOUNDARY

LOT LINE

EASEMENT (FOR TYPE SEE CALLOUT)

FACE OF CURB

EDGE OF PAVEMENT

RIGHT OF WAY (ROW)

NOT A PART
NOTES:

1. SEE PD PACKAGE FOR PARKING COUNTS.

2. EXISTING BUNKER HILL BLVD AND BUNKER HILL
COURT ARE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED. SOME

PORTIONS OF THESE ROADWAYS WILL BE REALIGNED
AND MODIFIED IN ELEVATIONS AND SLOPES.

3. EXISTING MAITLAND DRIVE AND CENTRAL BLVD TO
BE REMOVED AND REPLACED. FINISH GRADE TO
MATCH EXISTING.

NOTE: 3' PUE ON HIGH (SIDEWALK) SIDE OF ROADWAY ONLY. 4' WIDTH FROM

CURB TO ROW ON LOW SIDE (NON-SIDEWALK) SIDE OF ROADWAY IS EXPECTED TO BE ADEQUATE FOR ANY PROPOSED UTILITIES BEHIND CURB.

NOTE: PROPOSED PARKING TO AVOID EXISTING HYDRANTS AND DRIVEWAYS TO REMAIN NOTE: PROPOSED CURB TO JOG TO AVOID EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY POLES TO REMAIN. RETAINING WALL WILL BE NEEDED TO PROVIDE PARKING.

OVERHEAD UTILITY POLE
1 14
64 66
65 63
61 62
15 16 17
19 21 22
20 18
8 53
59 55
60 58 57
56 54
52 7

PARCEL B

PARCEL J

PARCEL I

PARCEL A

PAE ROAD
TEMP CONS 2
9 10
11 12
13 TEMP CONS 1
2 3
4 5
6 PARCEL K

PARCEL N
PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYP.)
EXISING LOT LINE TO REMAIN (TYP.)
50' PUBLIC

ACCESS & UTILITY

EASEMENT
40' ROW
PROPOSED ROW (TYP.)
EX. ROW TO BE
QUITCLAIMED 40' ROW

EXISTING ROW TO
REMAIN
PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYP.)

PROPOSED LOT

LINE(TYP)

PROPOSED LOT

LINE(TYP) PROPOSED LOT

LINE(TYP)
3'PUE 3'PUE
3=R
.5 0 '0
Δ=262°49'09" L=160.55' BNDY
R=25.00'
Δ=41°24'48"
L=18.07'
BNDY
R=25.00'
Δ=41°24'21"
L=18.07'
BNDY
80'
98'
99'
111'
R=
185.0
0' Δ
=
2 2°22'21" L
=
7 2.2
4' B
N
DY
R=15.00' Δ=85°07'14"
L=22.28' BNDY
L 144'
=30' N44°08'00"W 137.83' BNDY29'
L
=
72' 71'
28' 149'
157'
71'
156' 167'
106' 76'
125'
147' 69' S45°52'00"W 272.57' BNDY 43' 42'
134'
77'
S12°39'30"E 218.62' BNDY N47°09'55"E 101.07' BNDY S34°30'00"E 123.16' BNDY R=40.00' Δ=22°33'25"
L=15.75' BNDY
R=54.28' Δ=
54°50'57"
L=

51.96' BNDY
S55°30'00"W 244.29' BNDY
N62°47'00"W 391.80' BNDY
21'
N42°56'40"W 67.53' BNDY
129'
86'
L=45' N59°30'00"E 61.75' BNDY
R=20.0 ' Δ=90°35'41" L=31.62' BND
R Y
=140.00' Δ=47°37'46"
L=116.38' BNDY
S77°32'05"E

33.42' BNDY
R=146.47' Δ=47°49'29"
L=122.26' BNDY
R=167.73' Δ=40°48'25" L=119.46' BNDY
R=41.30' Δ=63°54'11"
L=46.06' BNDY
R=266.82' Δ=15°51'59"
L=73.89' BNDY
S53°04'49"W 281.17' BNDY
N16°10'10"E 173.54' BNDY
210'
30'
L=55'
218'
L=33' 55'
211'
65'
201'
L=12'
192'
58'
L=78' S59°30'00"W 20.10' BNDY
R=70.00' Δ=70°06'30"
L=85.65' BNDY
N50°23'30"W 24.65' BNDY N46°40'45"E 96.72' BNDY
S30°30'00"E

90.83' BNDY
N80°17'50"W 118.55' BNDY S42°56'40"E 407.25' BNDY
N44°08'00"W 409.17' BNDY
R=110.00' Δ=70°06'30" L=134.60' BNDY
48' N45°52'00"E 282.17' BNDY
R=145.00' Δ
=
4 0°2
2'14" L=
102.17' B
N
DY
N44°08'00"W 134.21' BNDY N45°52'00"E 100.00' BNDY
N63°36'30"W 45.67' BNDY
116' N45°52'00"E 190.03' BNDY
N44°08'00"W 1391.79' BNDY
100'
159'
83'
313'
R=220.00' Δ=29°55'30" L=114.90' BNDY
R=180.00' Δ=29°55'30"
L=94.01' BNDY
N44°08'00"W 107.62' BNDY N74°03'30"W 95.25' BNDY
R=100.00' Δ=47°53'14" L=83.58' BNDY
R=518.91' Δ=17°57'44" L=162.68' BNDY
R=478.91' Δ=17°57'44" L=150.14' BNDY
S80°17'50"E

73.54' BNDY
R=170.00' Δ=29°54'18"
L=88.73' BNDY
S50°23'30"E 177.63' BNDY
40' EX. ROW

TO REMAIN
N44°08'00"W 41.61' BNDY

PROPOSED ROW (BUNKER

HILL BLVD ALIGNMENT

TO BE MODIFIED IN

THIS AREA)
PROPOSED LOT LINE (TYP.)
20' PUBLIC ACCESS

EASEMENT FOR HAYWARD

TRAIL CONNECTION

EXISTING BUNKER HILL COURT CUL-DE-SAC TO
BE REMOVED AND REPLACED AT 96' DIAMETER

PER FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUEST
40'
ROW
229'
261'
288'
265'
R=185.00' Δ=32°49'18"
L=
L
1 =
0 9
5 3.98' BNDY
N44°08'00"W 152.62' BNDY '
L=13' 51' 70' 32' L=68' L=73' L=4'
L=68' L=97' L=3'
80' 12'
L=35' 128'
S44°08'00"E 78.44' BNDY

CONFORM TO

EXISTING ROW

EXISTING ROW TO

BE REALIGNED
R=140.00' Δ=47°53'14"
L=117.01' BNDY
3'PUE
3'PUE 14' 143'
75' 158'
75'
60'
142'
32' L=42'
53'
133'
L=74' 64'
141'
L=19' L=49'
27' 85'
106'
L=63'
76' 96'
L=63'
70' 110'
L=36'
67'
63' 3' 110'
L=15'
85'
15' 16' 36' 10' 45' 20'
65'
3'
5' 32'
51'
67'
64'
124'

0.14±AC

PARCEL B

PUBLIC STORM

DRAIN EASEMENT

3.75±AC

PARCEL J

OPEN SPACE
14 3.61±AC

PARCEL A

OPEN SPACE
8 7
53 59
55 60
58 57
56 54
52 63 64
61 62
66 65
19 21 22
20 15
16 17
19 18
1 9
10 11
12 13

0.09±AC

PARCEL I, OPEN SPACE
64' 13' 124' 118' 65'
124'
67'
33'
52' 37' 62'
11'
59'
68'
71'
68'
85'
2 3
4 5 6
66' 32' 141'

0.19±AC

PARCEL K

PUBLIC STORM

DRAIN EASEMENT
N63°36'30"W 273.21' BNDY
S63°36'30"E 52.06' BNDY
S63°36'30"E 273.20' BNDY
45'
L=64' 52'
L=67' L=67' L=64' L=64'
L=63'
L=67'
R=48.50' Δ=56°46'33"
L=48.06'
L=35'L=4'
L=30' L=16'
L=50'
40' ROW 0.01±AC

PARCEL N

SANITARY SEWER

PUMP STATION
4 LEGEND

EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION

PROJECT BOUNDARY

LOT LINE

EASEMENT (FOR TYPE SEE CALLOUT)

FACE OF CURB

EDGE OF PAVEMENT

EXISTING ADJACENT PROPERTY TO
REMAIN

RIGHT OF WAY (ROW)

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF

EAST TRACE HAYWARD FAULT

PER ENGEO

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EAST

TRACE HAYWARD FAULT PER ENGEO
NOTES:

1. APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EAST TRACE HAYWARD FAULT IS SHOWN FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. SEE "PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION" BY ENGEO DATED APRIL 6, 2021 FOR FAULT AND EXCLUSION ZONE DETAILS.

2. LOT SIZES MAY VARY WITH FINAL DESIGN WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OUTLINED IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE.

3. SEE SHEET C6 FOR LOT INFORMATION TABLES.

4. PARCEL N, SANITARY SEWER PUMP STATION TO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF HAYWARD.

PUBLIC STORMDRAIN

EASEMENT
69 67
73 74
70 68
66 72
71 23 24 25
26 28
32 27
29 30
31 PARCEL G
33 35
37 36
34 51 50 49
48 47
46 43
38 39
40 41
45 44
42 PARCEL D

PARCEL F

PARCEL C

PARCEL E PARCEL L

PARCEL H
PARCEL M 40' ROW
40' EX. ROW TO REMAIN
40' ROW TO REMAIN
PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYP.)
PROPOSED BNDY(TYP.) 40' EX. ROW

PROPOSED LOT

LINE(TYP)

PROPOSED LOT

LINE(TYP)

PROPOSED LOT

LINE(TYP)
3'PUE
3'PUE
L=2' 149'
L=43'88'
102'
17'
L=26'
76'
69'
78'
67'
69'
48'
74' 57'
70'
26'
82'
29'
74'
46' L=72' 43'
82'
88'
131'
65'
122'
114'
65'
52'
66'
11'8'
65'
61' 123'
45' 28' 34'
84' 31'
107'
119' 126'
70' 74' 7'
N16°10'10"E 173.54' BNDY
74'
30' ' N80°17'50"W 118.55' BNDY
R=158.94' Δ=40°44'20"
L=113.01' BNDY N47°07'10"E 155.17' BNDY
S28°35'40"E 35.00' BNDY
S69°04'50"E 119.05' BNDY S17°41'15"W 126.22' BNDY R=210.01' Δ=3°25'51" L=12.58' BNDY R=120.00' Δ=67°39'59"
L=141.72' BNDY
N74°38'40"W 91.76' BNDY R=60.00' Δ=98°52'10" L=103.54' BNDY R=20.00' Δ=93°08'24"
L=32.51' BNDY
R=190.00' Δ=25°53'04" L=85.84' BNDY
S88°31'10"E 32.56' BNDY
S24°13'30"W 85.37' BNDY S68°48'10"E 176.16' BNDY
S28°35'40"E 52.86' BNDY
S56°12'30"W 135.86' BNDY
L=100' S38°46'40"E 42.87' BNDY
R=29.01' Δ=63°00'10"
L=31.90' BNDY
S24°13'30"W 89.76' BNDY
L=46'
101' 102' S37°50'54"W 111.19' BNDY L=64'
110'
L=62'
L=69'
131'
L=43'171'
L=34'
25'
L=85' 150'
67'
117'
L=15' L=66'
121'
L=45' R
=
655.00' Δ
=
2 5°2
4'51" L
=
2 9

0.5 3' B
N
D
Y
N31°02'04"E 45.17' BNDY
S40°41'17"E 161.65' BNDY
S56°26'55"W 378.12' BNDY
S24°18'44"E 151.61' BNDY
R=20.00' Δ=66°25'38"
L=23.19' BNDY
R=80.0 ' Δ=54°3 '58"
L=76.19' BNDY
R=100.00' Δ=98°52'10" L=172.56' BNDY
N44°08'00"W 1391.79' BNDY N44°19'43"W 721.90' BNDY
R=655.00' Δ=38°11'25" L=436.59' BNDY
S56°26'55"W 308.07' BNDY
R=1100.00' Δ=7°40'10"
L=147.24' BNDY
R=270.00' Δ=51°51'28" L=244.37' BNDY
S4°47'00"E 214.80' BNDY
N12°27'10"W 86.11' BNDY
R=477.03' Δ=17°59'59" L=149.86' BNDY
66'
83'
69'
Y
S44°08'00"E 75.42' BNDY
R=923.57' Δ=4°01'52"
L=64.98' BNDY
R=40.00' Δ=151°39'11"
L=105.87' BNDY
R=598.10' Δ=9°52'21"
L=103.06' BNDY
N50°40'20"W 103.35' BNDY R=480.00' Δ=11°53'40" L=99.65' BNDY N74°38'40"W 91.76' BNDY R=80.00' Δ=84°40'59"
L=118.24' BNDY
R=198.94' Δ=68°37'21" L=238.27' BNDY
N24°13'30"E 74.67' BNDY
S44°08'00"E 143.46' BNDY
S80°17'50"E

73.54' BNDY
Δ=29°54'18" .73' BNDY
12' 60' 128' 128'
19' L=64' L=85' L=67' L=23' L=47' L=63' L=73'
L=69' L=94'
L=100' L=14' 51'
72'
65'
27'
L=38'
S44°08'00"E 78.44' BNDY
R=8
L
8 =3.57' Δ=5°32'36"

85.48' BNDY
R=517.03' Δ=6°59'02" L=63.02' BNDY
R=230.00' Δ=23°24'43" L=93.98' BNDY
S4°47'00"E 214.80' BNDY
R=1140.00' Δ=5°46'30"
L=114.90' BNDY N12°27'10"W 86.11' BNDY

CONFORM TO

EXISTING ROW

EXISTING ROW

TO REMAIN
67'
3'
68' 110'
68' 110'
72' 112'
6' L=58'
73'
119'
L=65' 72'
108'
L=64' L=62'
69'
124'
55'
135'
L=71' 47' 160'
L=75'
23' 49'
155'
L=72'
95' 143'
L=51' L=10' 95'
152'
L=61' 55' 90'
83'
L=62'
138'
26'
L=37'
30'
65'
65'
49'
92'
81'
L=15'
99'
L=118'
181' 126'
105'
105'
28' 37' 47'
31' 31'
12' 58' 34' 67'

0.70±AC

PARCEL D

OPEN SPACE

7.76±AC

PARCEL F

OPEN SPACE

0.63±AC

PARCEL C

OPENSPACE
51 50 49
48 47
46 66
69 67 68
70 73 74 72
71 43
45 44
42 38
39 40
41 35
37 36

1.18±AC

PARCEL G

OPEN SPACE
33 34
26 28
32 27
29 30
31 23 24 25
26 0.90±AC

PARCEL E

OPEN SPACE

0.56±AC

PARCEL L

PUBLIC STORM

DRAIN EASEMENT

0.23±AC

PARCEL H

PUBLIC STORM

DRAIN EASEMENT

0.11±AC

PARCEL M

PUBLIC STORM

DRAIN EASEMENT
5 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF

EAST TRACE HAYWARD FAULT

PER ENGEO

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF

EAST TRACE HAYWARD FAULT

PER ENGEO
LEGEND

EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION

PROJECT BOUNDARY

LOT LINE

EASEMENT (FOR TYPE SEE CALLOUT)

FACE OF CURB

EDGE OF PAVEMENT

EXISTING ADJACENT PROPERTY TO
REMAIN

RIGHT OF WAY (ROW)

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EAST

TRACE HAYWARD FAULT PER ENGEO
NOTES:

1. APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EAST TRACE HAYWARD FAULT IS
SHOWN FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. SEE "PRELIMINARY
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION" BY ENGEO DATED APRIL 6, 2021
FOR FAULT AND EXCLUSION ZONE DETAILS.

2. LOT SIZES MAY VARY WITH FINAL DESIGN WITHIN THE
PARAMETERS OUTLINED IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE.

3. SEE SHEET 6 FOR LOT INFORMATION TABLES.
1 14
15 16
58 57
13 FLAT
FLAT UPHILL 3
UPHILL 4
DOWNHILL 2 DOWNHILL 1 DOWNHILL 1
FLAT
FLAT
UPHILL 4
DOWNHILL 2

MINIMUM REAR
SETBACK (TYP.)

MINIMUM FRONT YARD
SETBACK (TYP.)

MINIMUM SIDEYARD
SETBACK (TYP.)

MINIMUM GARAGE
SETBACK (TYP.)
29'
97'
20'
27'
78'
89'
89'
30'
39'
21'
38'
14 PARCEL I
13 60 59
58 57
1 15
16 67
66 PARCEL M
UPHILL 3
UPHILL 4
65'
21' 20'
67 66

PARCEL M
11'

MINIMUM REAR
SETBACK (TYP.)

MINIMUM FRONT YARD
SETBACK (TYP.)

MINIMUM SIDEYARD
SETBACK (TYP.)

MINIMUM GARAGE
SETBACK (TYP.)
1 69
14 67
73 74
70 68
64 66
65 63 62
72 71
61 15 16
24 17
19 21 22 20
18 23 25
26 28
32 27
29 30
31 PARCEL G
33 8
35 37
36 34
53 59
55 60
58 57 56
54 52 51 50 49 48
47 46
43 38
39 40
41 45 44
42 7

PARCEL B

PARCEL D

PARCEL J

PARCEL F

PARCEL C

PARCEL I

PARCEL A

PARCEL E PARCEL L

PARCEL H

PAE ROAD
TEMP CONS 2
9 10 11
12 13
TEMP CONS 1
2 3
4 5
6 PARCEL K

PARCEL M

PARCEL N
FLAT
FLAT
FLAT
FLAT
UPHILL 3 UPHILL 3 UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4 UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3 UPHILL 3
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4 UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
FLAT
UPHILL 3
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
UPHILL 3 UPHILL 4 UPHILL 3 UPHILL 4
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 1
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
DOWNHILL 2 DOWNHILL 1 DOWNHILL 1 DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 2
UPHILL 3
UPHILL 3 UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3 UPHILL 4 UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
UPHILL 3
FLAT
FLAT
FLAT
DOWNHILL 1
UPHILL 4
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 2 DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 2
FLAT
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 1 DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 1
FLAT
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 1

PARCEL J

PARCEL B

PARCEL D

PARCEL F
69 PARCEL C
14 PARCEL A

PARCEL I

PARCEL H

PARCEL L
9 10 11
12 13
7 67
74 73 70
68 64
66 65
63 62
32 27
29 30
31 PARCEL G 33
35 37
36 34
53 59
55 60 58 57 56
54 PARCEL E
52 51 50 49
48 47
46 43
38 39
40 41
45 44 42
61 1
8 15 16
24 17
19 21 22
20 18
23 25
26 28
71 72

PARCEL M

PARCEL K
2 3
4 5
6 PARCEL N
6 Lot Area Table
Lot Area (SF) Area (AC) Pplan Type
Lot Coverage
Percentage
1 6628 0.15 Flat 5 39%
2 7564 0.17 Flat 5 34%
3 7166 0.16 Flat 5 36%
4 6523 0.15 Flat 5 40%
5 5708 0.13 Downhill 1 37%
6 5108 0.12 Downhill 1 41%
7 12967 0.30 Downhill 1 16%
8 11347 0.26 Downhill 2 18%
9 15652 0.36 Downhill 1 13%
10 15242 0.35 Flat 5 17%
11 16890 0.39 Flat 5 15%
12 17926 0.41 Flat 5 14%
13 13575 0.31 Flat 5 19%
14 10088 0.23 Uphill 4 24%
15 11853 0.27 Uphill 3 20%
16 9690 0.22 Uphill 4 25%
17 8800 0.20 Uphill 4 27%
Lot Coverage Analysis
Max Lot size 23,402 SF
Min Lot Size 5,108 SF
Average Lot Size 10,255 SF
Max Coverage 41 %
Min Coverage 9 %
Average Coverage 24 %
Max Unit Size 3,525 SF
Min Unit Size 2,406 SF
Average Unit Size 3,020 SF
Plan Type Summary Table
Plan Type Description Parking Total DU
Area (SF)
% TOTAL GSF
Per Level Per Unit
Plan 1 Downhill 4 bd / 3ba 4 Total (2 car garage /
2 car driveway) 16 DU
First FL 1,249
2,406 22% 38,496
Lower FL 1,157
Plan 2 Downhill 4 bd / 3ba 4 Total (2 car garage /
2 car driveway) 14 DU
First FL 1,352
2,633 19% 36,862
Lower FL 1,281
Plan 3 Uphill 4 bd+Loft (opt bed 5) /

3.5 ba (+ opt. ba 4)
4 Total (2 car garage /
2 car driveway) 16 DU
First FL 688
Second FL 1,686 3,293 22% 52,688
Third FL 919
Plan 4 Uphill 4 bd+Office (opt bed 5) / 4
ba
4 Total (2 car garage /
2 car driveway) 18 DU
First FL 707
Second FL 1,976 3,525 24% 63,450
Third FL 842
Plan 5 Flat 4 bd+Loft (opt bed 5) /

3.5 ba
5 Total (3 car garage /
2 car driveway) 10 DU
First FL 1,577
3,200 14% 32,000
Second FL 1,623
Total 74 DU 100% 223,496
*Measured to exterior stud of wall. GSF does not include covered parking, covered balconies, or porches.

Total 8 Accessory Dwelling Units provided on site. Please see the A3.1.2 & A4.1.2 for the ADU layouts.

ADU on plan 3 Uphill: 433 sq.ft. 1bd/ 1 ba
ADU on plan 4 Uphill: 429 sq.ft. 1bd/ 1 ba
18 9903 0.23 Uphill 3 24%
19 8680 0.20 Uphill 3 28%
20 6994 0.16 Uphill 4 34%
21 6884 0.16 Uphill 3 35%
22 7388 0.17 Uphill 4 33%
23 7566 0.17 Uphill 3 32%
24 7625 0.18 Uphill 4 32%
25 7966 0.18 Uphill 3 30%
26 7713 0.18 Uphill 4 31%
27 7710 0.18 Uphill 3 31%
28 8277 0.19 Uphill 3 29%
29 9824 0.23 Uphill 4 25%
30 9636 0.22 Uphill 3 25%
31 11525 0.26 Uphill 4 21%
32 11384 0.26 Uphill 3 21%
33 10797 0.25 Uphill 4 22%
34 10856 0.25 Downhill 2 19%
35 11214 0.26 Downhill 1 19%
36 7611 0.17 Downhill 2 28%
37 8111 0.19 Downhill 1 26%
NOTE:

1. SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR PLAN TYPE DETAILS.

2. PLAN TYPE DISTRIBUTION SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH FINAL DESIGN.

EXISTING HOME SETBACKS

BUNKER HILL BLVD

EXISTING HOME SETBACKS

MAITLAND DRIVE
38 7229 0.17 Flat 5 36%
39 8746 0.20 Flat 5 30%
40 9673 0.22 Downhill 2 22%
41 7684 0.18 Downhill 1 27%
42 7043 0.16 Downhill 2 30%
43 9227 0.21 Downhill 1 23%
44 9781 0.22 Downhill 2 21%
45 10604 0.24 Downhill 1 20%
46 7117 0.16 Downhill 2 29%
47 7164 0.16 Downhill 1 29%
48 7709 0.18 Downhill 2 27%
49 9754 0.22 Downhill 1 21%
50 9969 0.23 Downhill 2 21%
51 9028 0.21 Downhill 1 23%
52 11551 0.27 Downhill 2 18%
53 12690 0.29 Downhill 1 17%
54 10136 0.23 Downhill 2 21%
55 13029 0.30 Downhill 1 16%
56 12563 0.29 Downhill 2 17%
57 11140 0.26 Downhill 1 19%
58 12970 0.30 Downhill 2 16%
59 13533 0.31 Downhill 1 15%
60 23402 0.54 Downhill 2 9%
61 14734 0.34 Uphill 3 16%
62 13750 0.32 Uphill 3 18%
63 13393 0.31 Uphill 4 18%
64 14342 0.33 Uphill 4 17%
65 10877 0.25 Uphill 4 22%
66 16095 0.37 Uphill 4 15%
67 7456 0.17 Uphill 3 32%
68 7936 0.18 Uphill 3 30%
69 7719 0.18 Uphill 4 31%
70 9926 0.23 Uphill 4 24%
71 12591 0.29 Uphill 4 19%
72 9973 0.23 Uphill 3 24%
73 7527 0.17 Uphill 4 32%
74 10411 0.24 Uphill 3 23%
Total Lot
Area 758,858 17.42
STORM WATER QUALITY BASIN 1
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION = 318'

RETAINING BOTH SIDES

RIPERIAN FOREST
& STREAM REMAINS

UNDISTURBED

RIPERIAN FOREST
& STREAM REMAINS

UNDISTURBED
14 PARCEL I

PARCEL B

PARCEL D

PARCEL J

PARCEL F
69 PARCEL C
PARCEL A 61
56 54

PARCEL E
51 50
49 48
47 46
43 38
39 40
41 45
44 42
15 16
24 19
21 22
20 18
23 25
26 28
32 27
29 30
31 PARCEL G
33 35
37 36
34 53
59 55
60 58
57 67
74 73
70 68
64 66
65 63
62 72
71 1
8 GFF
GFF
LOW FF
LOW FF
GFF
GFF

GFF GFF
GFF
GFF
GFF
GFF
GFF
GFF
GFF
GFF
GFF
GFF
GFF
GFF
GFF
GFF
GFF
GFF
GFF
GFF
GFF
GFF
GFF
EX 12%-15%
GFF
LOW FF
GFF
LOW FF

PARCEL K

PARCEL L
SEE SHEET 8 FOR DETAIL A & B

TYPICAL UPHILL/DOWNHILL LOT
GRADING AND SHEET 9 FOR SECTIONS
STORM WATER QUALITY BASIN 5
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION = 358'
STORM WATER QUALITY BASIN 3
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION = 225.4'
STORM WATER QUALITY BASIN 4
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION = 257.5'
STORM WATER QUALITY BASIN 1
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION = 300'

RETAINING BOTH SIDES
STAIR CONNECTION TO TRAIL.

SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR DETAILS
7 PARCEL H

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT TO

ALLOW FOR BUNKER HILL EXTENSION,

GRADING, AND CONSTRUCTION
52 17
FG 400.0
FG 399.0
FG 373.0
FG 369.0
FG 420.0
FG 412.2
FG 422.0
FG 401.0
FG 416.2
FG 408.5

DOWNHILL SLOPE GRADING IN AREA OF CORRECTIVE

GRADING/REMOVAL OF COLLUVIUM (FILL NEEDED TO

MODIFY BUNKER HILL BLVD ALIGNMENT)
LOW FF

LOW FF LOW FF
9 10
11 12 13
SEE SHEET 10 FOR DETAIL C

TYPICAL FLAT LOT GRADING

AND SECTION
LOW FF
LOW FF
LOW FF
LOW FF

LOW FF LOW FF LOW FF
LOW FF
LOW FF
LOW FF
LOW FF
LOW FF

LOW FF LOW FF
LOW FF
LOW FF
LOW FF
LOW FF
LOW FF
LOW FF
LOW FF
LOW FF
LOW FF

LOW FF HIGH FF

HIGH FF
LOW FF

HIGH FF

HIGH FF

HIGH FF HIGH FF

HIGH FF

HIGH FF

HIGH FF

HIGH FF

HIGH FF

HIGH FF HIGH FF

HIGH FF HIGH FF

DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL DOWNHILL
UPHILL
LOW FF

HIGH FF UPHILL

HIGH FF

HIGH FF HIGH FF HIGH FF HIGH FF

HIGH FF

HIGH FF HIGH FF
LOW FF

HIGH FF
UPHILL
LOW FF

HIGH FF UPHILL

LOW FF UPHILL
LOW FF

HIGH FF
UPHILL
LOW FF

HIGH FF
UPHILL
LOW FF

HIGH FF
UPHILL
LOW FF

HIGH FF
UPHILL

LOW FF HIGH FF
UPHILL
LOW FF

HIGH FF
UPHILL

DOWNHILL DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL DOWNHILL DOWNHILL DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL
FLAT
FLAT

DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL
UPHILL
UPHILL
UPHILL
UPHILL
UPHILL
UPHILL
UPHILL

UPHILL UPHILL
UPHILL

UPHILL UPHILL

UPHILL UPHILL

HIGH FF

HIGH FF
LOW FF
UPHILL
LOW FF
UPHILL
LOW FF
LOW FF
UPHILL
UPHILL
LOW FF
UPHILL

LOW FF UPHILL
LOW FF
UPHILL

LOW FF UPHILL

LOW FF UPHILL

LOW FF LOW FF
LOW FF
LOW FF

LOW FF LOW FF
LOW FF
LOW FF
LOW FF
LOW FF
LOW FF
LOW FF

DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT
LOW FF

DOWNHILL GFF DOWNHILL
4 3 2
6 5
TC 331.42 LP

PARCEL M
STORM WATER QUALITY BASIN 3
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION = 225.4'

PARCEL N
7 DETAIL A
NOTES:

1. THE CROSS SLOPE OF BUNKER HILL BLVD IS CONSTANT AT 2.0%.

2. SEE DETAILS A-C ON SHEETS 8-10 FOR TYPICAL RETAINING WALL HEIGHTS.

3. SEE PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION BY ENGEO DATED APRIL 6,2021 FOR REMEDIAL GRADING INFORMATION.

4. GRADES ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH FINAL DESIGN
2:1 MAX SLOPE TO MATCH EXISTING GROUND (TYP.)
REFERENCE NOTES:

EXTENTS OF GRADING (MATCH EXISTING GROUND) (TYP.)

REALIGNMENT OF BUNKER HILL BLVD TO RAISE EXISTING ROADWAY ELEVATION. ADDITIONAL GRADING REQUIRED AT BACK OF DOWNHILL LOTS TO MATCH EXISTING GROUND. SEE PLAN FOR APPROXIMATE EXTENTS

EXISTING LONGITUDINAL SLOPE ALONG BUNKER HILL COURT VARIES BETWEEN 12-15%. IN ORDER TO REDUCE THAT SLOPE, BUNKER HILL COURT WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED AT 10% MAX SLOPE. ADDITIONAL

GRADING AT BACK OF LOTS REQUIRED TO MATCH EXISTING GROUND

EXISTING LONGITUDINAL SLOPE ALONG BUNKER HILL BLVD VARIES UP TO 12%. IN ORDER TO REDUCE THAT SLOPE BUNKER HILL BLVD WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED AT 10% MAX SLOPE
FOR EACH "DOWNHILL" PRODUCT TYPE, A 12' MIN RETAINING WALL SEPARATES THE SPLIT LEVEL ARCHITECTURE. BOTTOM OF WALL ELEVATION

IS SET AT EXISTING GROUND OR THE AS GRADED ELEVATION IF AT A LOCATION WHERE BUNKER HILL BLVD/COURT IS BEING RAISED. IN MOST

CASES, NO GRADING IS TO OCCUR DOWNHILL OF THAT RETAINING WALL (EXCEPT AS NOTED IN AREA OF CORRECTIVE GRADING - COLLUVIUM REMOVAL) FOR EACH "UPHILL" PRODUCT TYPE, A 5' MIN RETAINING WALL AND 2:1 SLOPE SEPARATES THE SPLIT LEVEL ARCHITECTURE. "HIGH FF" WILL THEN BE GRADED/RETAINED (WHERE NEEDED) TO MATCH EXISTING GROUND (TYP.)

CENTRAL BLVD TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED TO MATCH EX FINISH GRADE ELEVATION. PROPOSED CURB TO JOG TO AVOID CONFLICT WITH

EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY POLES TO REMAIN
RETAINING AT BACK OF LOT (TYP.)
DUAL RETAINING AT BACK OF LOT WITH 2:1 SLOPE BETWEEN RETAINING (TYP.) BUNKER HILL EXTENSION TO CARLOS BEE BLVD AT 10% MAX SLOPE. CONFORM

TO EXISTING CARLOS BEE BLVD CURB ELEVATION AT CONNECTION POINT RETAINING AT TRAIL WHERE NEEDED (TYP.)

BACK OF LOT AREA TO REMAIN IN EXISTING CONDITION

OPEN SPACE TO REMAIN IN EXISTING CONDITION

TRAIL CONNECTION TO EXISTING TRAIL AT CSUEB

PROPOSED TRAIL ALONG RIDGE LINE INTENDED TO FOLLOW EXISTING GROUND AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE, WHILE MAINTAINING A 2% MAX CROSS SLOPE.

RETAIN/GRADE TO EXISTING WHERE NEEDED. TRAIL JOGS TO AVOID EXISTING TREES WHERE POSSIBLE.

BUNKER HILL BLVD EXTENSION GRADE TO CATCH EXISTING GROUND (2:1 MAX SLOPE)
LEGEND:

EXISTING CONTOUR

EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION
PROPOSED 2:1 SLOPE

PROPOSED RETAINING WALL

RIPARIAN FOREST & STREAM (HATCHING REPRESENTS EDGE

OF EXISTING TREE CANOPY)
TRAIL LOOKOUT WITH RETAINING. SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR DETAILS

PHASE CUT (CY)
RAW

FILL (CY)
RAW SHRINK AT 10% NET (CY)
1 -65,000 75,000 10,000

CONCEPTUAL EARTHWORK TABLE

CONSOLIDATION
TBD

UTILITY TRENCH

EXCAVATION (CY)
TBD
(CY) OVER FILL AREA (CY)
NOTE:

1. QUANTITIES ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST THOUSAND

2. QUANTITIES ILLUSTRATE A DIRT BALANCE IS NOT ACHIEVED AND THAT IMPORT OF MATERIAL WILL BE REQUIRED BASED ON PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN. EARTHWORK QUANTITIES SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH FINAL DESIGN.

TBD

DETAIL B

DETAIL C
5' RETAINING WALL UNDER HIGH FF BUILDING FOOTPRINT. SEE

SECTION FOR DETAILS

EXISTING ALIGNMENT OF BUNKER HILL COURT TO BE MODIFIED TO ALLOW FOR 96' CUL-DE-SAC DIAMETER PER FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUEST

MAITLAND DRIVE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED TO MATCH EXISTING

FINISH GRADE ELEVATION

EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY POLE
B
8 50
49 47
24 25
26 LOW FF 369.8 HIGH FF 379.8
LOW FF 375.1 HIGH FF 385.1
LOW FF 377.8
HIGH FF 393.4
HIGH FF 387.8
13' MAX PONY
14' MAX PONY
9' MAX PONY
13+33.64 GB 373.72
13+83.64 GB 372.11
14+33.64 GB 368.11
14+83.64 GB 366.11
15+33.64 GB
364.61
15+83.64 GB
363.61
GFF 366.0
GFF
374.2
LOW FF 354.0
LOW FF 362.2
LOW FF 357.1
TC 373.7
TC 372.1
TC 368.1
TC 366.1
TC 363.5

2.0%

8.5%
LOW FF 368.7
LOW FF 383.4
HIGH FF 378.7
8' MAX PONYLOW FF 351.6
GFF
363.6
TC 364.6
A
8 BW 381.0
BW 375.5
BW 372.8
BW 367.4 BW 366.3
18'
19'
18'
18'
18'
16' MULTIUSE TRAIL AREA (SEE LS PLANS FOR DETAILS)
2:1
2:1
2:1
2:1
2:1
21'
7'
21'
7'
20'

3.22%

8.0%

4.0%

3.0%

2.0%
GFF 369.1
BW 377.9
BW 374.0
BW 370.0
BW 367.1
TC 364.9
TC 367.2
TC 372.6
TC 377.8

2.0%

2.0%

2.0%

2.0%
27 25'
6' PRKG
4' SWLK 3' ESMT

PROJECT BOUNDARY
(MATCH EXISTING

GROUND)

RETAINING AGAINST
GARAGE WALL (5' MAX)

MATCH EXISTING GROUND
ELEVATION @ BOTTOM OF WALL
(TYP.)

EXTENTS OF GRADING FOR
DOWNHILL UNITS (TYP.)

RETAINING BETWEEN
LOTS (TYP.) DUAL RETAINING AT
BACK OF LOT (TYP.)

EXTENTS OF

GRADING (MATCH

EXISTING GROUND)

RETAINING AT MULTIUSE
TRAIL (5' MAX)

FRONT YARD DRAINAGE

RELEASES TO BACK OF LOT

PROPOSED ROW

BACK OF LOT REMAINS IN

EXISTING CONDITION

RETAINING AT BACK
OF LOT (TYP.)

LOT NUMBER
(TYP.)
2:1 SLOPE

BETWEEN LOTS
(TYP.)
HINGE LINE (TYP.)
2:1
2:1
2:1
2:1
2:1
RETAINING WALL UNDER HIGH FF BUILDING FOOTPRINT. SEE SECTION FOR DETAILS (TYP.) FLAT BACKYARD AT HIGH FF ELEV (TYP.)
2:1 SLOPE AT IN SIDE YARD FROM RETAINING WALL TO BACKYARD HIGH FF ELEV

RETAINING WALL
BETWEEN LOTS (TYP.)

DRAINAGE

DIRECTION
(TYP.)

RETAINING AGAINST
GARAGE WALL (5' MAX)

RETAINING AGAINST
GARAGE WALL (5' MAX)

RETAINING AT ROW
WHERE NEEDED (2:1

SLOPE WHERE POSSIBLE)
FRONT
YARD

DRAINAGE

RELEASES

TO BACK

OF LOT EX EDGE OF PVMT
B
8 69
46 70
71 LOW FF 307.0
LOW FF 307.0 HIGH FF 317.0
LOW FF 303.0
LOW FF 299.0
HIGH FF 308.0
HIGH FF 313.0
HIGH FF 309.0
EP 302.0 HIGH FF 317.0
EP 298.0
EP 296.1
PONY
LOW FF 351.6
48 47
67 68
23'
18'
18'
2:1
2:1
2:1
2:1

6.4%
5'
11'
6'
13'
18'
2:1 SLOPE

BETWEEN LOTS
(TYP.)

RETAINING

BETWEEN LOTS
(TYP.)

LOT NUMBER
(TYP.)

RETAINING AT BACK
OF LOT (TYP.)

EXISTING ROW

TO REMAIN

BACK OF LOT REMAINS IN

EXISTING CONDITION

EXTENTS OF

GRADING
2:1
2:1
2:1
2:1
2:1

PROPOSED CURB

PROPOSED CURB
LOW FF 298.0

RETAINING WALL UNDER

HIGH FF BUILDING
FOOTPRINT. SEE SECTION FOR DETAILS (TYP.)
HIGH FF ELEV (TYP.) FLAT BACKYARD AT
2:1 SLOPE AT IN SIDE

YARD FROM RETAINING WALL TO BACKYARD HIGH FF ELEV
PROPOSED 4'

SIDEWALK

EX CURB
4' SWLK 6' PRKG
26' PROP

TRAVEL WAY
30' EX TRAVEL WAY
NOTES:

1. GRADES ARE PRELIMINARY AND WILL CHANGE WITH FINAL DESIGN.

2. SEE SHEET 9 FOR GRADING SECTION A & B.

3. VERTICAL CURVES WILL BE USED ALONG BUNKER HILL AS REQUIRED BY CITY OF HAYWARD STANDARDS.

4. THE DETAILS HEREON ARE EXAMPLES OF TYPICAL LOT GRADING. ACTUAL GRADING DETAILS VARY BY LOT. SEE OVERALL GRADING PLAN FOR AVAILABLE PLANNING DETAILS.

5. EXISTING LONGITUDINAL SLOPE AT MAITLAND DRIVE EXCEEDS 10%. PROPOSED CURB AND

ADDITIONAL PAVEMENT WIDTH PROPOSED TO FOLLOW EXISTING LONGITUDINAL SLOPE EXCEEDING 10%.
8 DETAIL A
LEGEND:

EXISTING CONTOUR

EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION
PROPOSED 2:1 SLOPE

HEIGHT OF RETAINING WALL

PROPOSED RETAINING WALL

LOT DRAINAGE (AWAY FROM HOUSE)

SEE DETAIL B TO THE RIGHT FOR CONTINUATION DETAIL B

SEE DETAIL A TO THE LEFT FOR CONTINUATION
CL
R/W

FACE OF
CURB

FACE OF
CURB

BLDG SETBACK
3' RETAINING AT FRONT OF
LOT WHERE NEEDED OR 2:1

SLOPE WHERE POSSIBLE

RETAINING AT BACK OF
GARAGE. BOTTOM OF WALL

SET AT EXISTING GROUND

ELEVATION
8-20' PONY WALL

GARAGE FF
"GFF"
LOW FF
LOW FF

HIGH FF (BUILT OVER SLAB) BACKYARD

AT HIGH FF
5' RETAINING AT BACKYARD
5' RETAINING AT BACKYARD

EXISTING GROUND

CONFORM TO

EXISTING GROUND
5' RETAINING AT

SPLIT LEVEL OF

ARCHITECTURE
EXISTING GROUND PROJECT BOUNDARY 3' RETAINING AT TRAIL
WHERE NEEDED OR 2:1

SLOPE WHERE POSSIBLE

CONFORM TO

EXISTING GROUND

LOT DRAINAGE
3' PUE
R/W
2:1 SLOPE AT SIDEYARD TO

HIGH FF ELEVATION AT
BACKYARD (1' OVERBUILD AT

TOP AND BOTTOM OF SLOPE)
SLAB
EXPOSED 5' RETAINING WALL

UNDER HIGH FF FOOTPRINT
*ALTERNATIVE GRADING
SITUATION: RETAIN

AGAINST GARAGE WALL
(5'+/-)
R/W
LOW FF

BACKYARD

AT HIGH FF
4' RETAINING AT BACKYARD

EXISTING GROUND

CONFORM TO

EXISTING GROUND
R/W

HIGH FF (BUILT OVER SLAB)
5' RETAINING AT

SPLIT LEVEL OF

ARCHITECTURE
2:1 SLOPE AT SIDEYARD TO

HIGH FF ELEVATION AT
BACKYARD (1' OVERBUILD AT

TOP AND BOTTOM OF SLOPE)
SLAB
EXPOSED 5' RETAINING WALL

UNDER HIGH FF FOOTPRINT

R/W R/W
PROP

FACE OF
CURB
PROP

FACE OF
CURB
CL
NOTES:

1. GRADES ARE PRELIMINARY AND WILL CHANGE WITH
FINAL DESIGN.

2. VERTICAL CURVES WILL BE USED ALONG BUNKER

HILL AS REQUIRED BY CITY OF HAYWARD
STANDARDS.

3. THE SECTIONS HEREON ARE EXAMPLES OF TYPICAL
LOT GRADING. ACTUAL GRADING DETAILS VARY BY
LOT. SEE OVERALL GRADING PLAN FOR AVAILABLE
PLANNING DETAILS. 9
SCALE:1"=10" A

LOT GRADING SECTION A
LEGEND:

EXISTING CONTOUR

EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION
PROPOSED 2:1 SLOPE

HEIGHT OF RETAINING WALL

PROPOSED RETAINING WALL

LOT DRAINAGE (AWAY FROM HOUSE)

CUT AREA (SECTION)

FILL AREA (SECTION) SEE SECTION B BELOW FOR CONTINUATION SCALE:1"=10" B

LOT GRADING SECTION B SEE SECTION A ABOVE FOR CONTINUATION FLAT
FF 361.5 FLAT
FF 367.5 FLAT
FF 374.0
FLAT
FF 362.0
1 4+00.00 GB
378.51
4+50.00 GB
377.76
5+00.00 GB 378.76
TC 379.3
TC 378.4

1.0%
1+50.00 GB 373.82
2+00.00 GB 368.82 2+50.00 GB 363.82 3+00.00 GB 358.82

2.0%
2:1
10%
2:1 SLOPE

BETWEEN LOTS
(TYP.)

RETAINING

BETWEEN LOTS
(TYP.)
LOT
NUMBER
(TYP.)

PROPOSED ROW

BACK OF LOT REMAINS IN

EXISTING CONDITION
2:1 SLOPE

BETWEEN LOTS
(TYP.)
12 13

BACK OF LOT REMAINS IN

EXISTING CONDITION

RETAINING

BETWEEN LOTS
(TYP.)1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%

2.0%

2.0%
2:1
2:1
2:1 2:1
10%
18'
15'
20'
20'
20' 10' 10'
10'
10'
10'
C
10 PROJECT BOUNDARY

EXTENTS OF

GRADING (MATCH

EX GROUND)

EXTENTS OF

GRADING
(MATCH

EXISTING

GROUND)
FLAT
FF 368.5
6' PRKG 26' BOW 358.54 TC 358.69 TC 365.54 TC 375.81
3' ESMT TC 375.47
365±
361± BOW 364.86 BOW 371.19
BOW 373.56
BOW 367.17
BOW 360.85 370±
367± 12% 12% 12%
TC 378.3 376±
374±
374±

RETAINING
WALL

TRANSITIONS
FROM 3' TO 0'

RETAINING
WALL

TRANSITIONS
FROM 3' TO 0'

RETAINING
WALL

TRANSITIONS
FROM 3' TO 0' 12% 18' 12% 21'

PROPOSED
CURB

PROPOSED
CURB

RIPARIAN FOREST
TC 361.30 TC 368.08 TC 371.82
368±
372±

RETAINING
WALL

TRANSITIONS
FROM 3' TO 0'
D
10 TC 364.93
362±
365± EX 12-15%
EX 12-15%

RETAINING
WALL 5'

EX EDGE OF

PAVEMENT
2 3
CL
PROP
R/W

FACE OF
CURB

FACE OF
CURB

CONFORM TO

EXISTING GROUND

EXISTING GROUND
3' ESMT

CONFORM TO

EXISTING GROUND

EXISTING GROUND PROJECT BOUNDARY
PROP
R/W
CL
PROP
R/W

FACE OF
CURB

FACE OF
CURB

EXISTING GROUND

EXISTING GROUND
PROP

R/W PUE
3' RETAINING AT FRONT YARD
(TRANSITIONS FROM 3' TO 0')
3' RETAINING AT FRONT YARD
(TRANSITIONS FROM 3' TO 0')
NOTES:

1. GRADES ARE PRELIMINARY AND WILL CHANGE WITH
FINAL DESIGN.

2. VERTICAL CURVES WILL BE USED AS REQUIRED BY
CITY OF HAYWARD STANDARDS.

3. THE DETAIL AND SECTION HEREON ARE EXAMPLES OF
TYPICAL LOT GRADING. ACTUAL GRADING DETAILS
VARY BY LOT. SEE OVERALL GRADING PLAN FOR
AVAILABLE PLANNING DETAILS. 10

DETAIL C
SCALE:1"=10" C

LOT GRADING SECTION C
LEGEND:

EXISTING CONTOUR

EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION
PROPOSED 2:1 SLOPE

HEIGHT OF RETAINING WALL

PROPOSED RETAINING WALL

LOT DRAINAGE (AWAY FROM HOUSE)

FILL AREA (SECTION)
D SCALE:1"=10"

LOT GRADING SECTION D
1 69
14 67
74 73
70 68
64 66
65 63
62 72
71 61
15 16
24 17
19 21
22 20
18 23
25 26 28
32 27
29 30
31 PARCEL G
33 8
35 37
36 34
53 59
55 60
58 57
56 54
52 51
50 49 48 47 46
43 38
39 40
41 45
44 42
7 PARCEL B

PARCEL D

PARCEL J

PARCEL F

PARCEL C

PARCEL I

PARCEL A

PARCEL E

PARCEL L

PARCEL H

PAE ROAD
TEMP CONS 2
9 10
11 12
13 TEMP CONS 1
2 3
4 5
6 PARCEL K

PARCEL N PARCEL M
350
DMA #2
DMA #3
DMA #4
AREA: 171,434 SF
PARCEL J 330
320
310
300
290
270
260
250
240
230
220
210
200
190
180
350
340
320
310 300 290
280
270
260
320 330340 350360
420
410
400
390 380
410
400
440
430
410
400
390
380
340
330
320
295 300
290
280
270
260
250
240
260
250
240
230
280
290
300
310
320
350
340
370
380 370
360
350
340
330
320
310
300
290 280
310
300295
280
270
340 330
305320 310
360370
380 390
400
270
260
250
240
230
DMA #1
TREATMENT BASIN #2
10,000 SF

RETAINING ON BOTH SIDES
(SEE SECTION A HEREON)

RIPARIAN FORESTS

AND STREAM EXTENTS

RIPARIAN FORESTS

AND STREAM EXTENTS

OUTFALL AT EDGE

OF TREE CANOPY
(POST TREATMENT)

CONNECTION TO EXISTING

STORM DRAIN SYSTEM
(POST TREATMENT)

CONNECTION TO EXISTING

STORM DRAIN SYSTEM
(POST TREATMENT)

OUTFALL AT EDGE

OF TREE CANOPY
(POST TREATMENT)
TREATMENT BASIN #1
2180 SF

RETAINING BOTH SIDES
(SEE SECTION A HEREON)
TREATMENT BASIN #5
700 SF

NO RETAINING
(SEE SECTION B HEREON)
410

RIPARIAN FOREST

AND STREAM EXTENTS

EX OUTFALL AT HARDER ROAD
AREA: 65461 SF
TREATMENT BASIN #4
1,300 SF

NO RETAINING (SEE

SECTION B HEREON)
AREA: 114273 SF
TREATMENT BASIN #3
1,590 SF

NO RETAINING (SEE

SECTION B HEREON)
AREA: 616880 SF
DMA #5
AREA: 29557 SF

PARCEL K

CONNECT TO EXISTING

STORM DRAIN SYSTEM
(POST TREATMENT)
A
B
TREATMENT BASIN #6
460 SF

NO RETAINING (SEE

SECTION C HEREON)
14 PARCEL F
69 PARCEL C
59 60
58 57
56 53
55 54
52 51
50 49 48 47 46 45
61 67 70 68
64 66
63 62
72 73
71 38
39 40
41 42
74 43
44 37
36 34
35 26
28 32
27 29 30
31 33
24 21
22 23
25 16 17
19 18
7 8
1 65
15 20
61 62

PARCEL L

PARCEL E

PARCEL D

PARCEL B

PARCEL H
9 10
11 12
13 3
4 5
6 2
DMA #6
AREA: 47176 SF

PARCEL N PARCEL M

SEE TYPICAL BIORETENTION

DETAIL HEREON

MATCH EX GROUND
MATCH
EX
GROUND

SEE TYPICAL

BIORETENTION

DETAIL HEREON

MATCH EX GROUND
MATCH
EX
GROUND

TYPICAL BIORETENTION DETAIL
NTS 18"
6-12" PONDING
3:1 SLOPE

BIO-TREATMENT SOIL(BSM)
MIX PER SPECS. 12"

NATIVE SOIL
12" MIN OF CLASS II PERMEABLE

ROCK (A THICKER SECTION OF CLASS

II PERMEABLE ROCK MAY BE USED TO

INCREASE INDIVIDUAL BASIN'S

HYDROMODIFICATION ABILITY)

UNDERDRAIN
OVERFLOW RISER 6"-12"

ABOVE FINISH GRADE

LINER PER GEOTECHNICAL

RECOMMENDATION

MATCH EX GROUND

CURB OPENING AND

TRENCH DRAIN

UNDER SIDEWALK

MAITLAND DRIVE
11 STORMWATER TREATMENT AREA CALCULATIONS
LEGEND

EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION

PROJECT BOUNDARY

LOT LINE

FACE OF CURB

EDGE OF PAVEMENT

STORM DRAIN, INLET & MANHOLE

DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA (DMA)

BOUNDARY

BIORETENTION BASIN
NOTES:

1. REQUIRED TREATMENT AREA WAS CALCULATED BASED ON 4% OF THE TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA SHOWN. IMPERVIOUS CALCULATIONS AND BASIN AREAS/LOCATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT FINAL DESIGN.

2. STORMWATER QUALITY AND HYDROMODIFICATION DESIGNED PER ALAMEDA COUNTY CLEAN WATER PROGRAM DETAILS AND STANDARDS.

3. STORMWATER QUALITY TREATMENT AREAS ARE OVERSIZED FROM THAT REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO HYDROMODIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.

4. ADDITIONAL PAVEMENT WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF MAITLAND DRIVE AND CENTRAL BLVD IS EXCLUDED FROM THIS STORMWATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS. SEE THE BUNKER HILL PARCEL GROUP 5 TENTATIVE MAP DRAINAGE ANALYSIS MEMO FOR HYDROMODIFICATION CALCULATIONS.

NOT A PART - EXISTING ADJACENT PROPERTY

NOT A PART OF THIS APPLICATION

IMPERVIOUS AREA

DRAINAGE

MANAGEMENT AREA
"IMPERVIOUS AREA:

ROOF (SF)"
"IMPERVIOUS AREA:

DRIVEWAYS (SF)"
"IMPERVIOUS AREA:

ROADWAYS (SF)"
"IMPERVIOUS AREA:

SIDEWALK (SF)"

TOTAL IMPERVIOUS

AREA (SF)

TOTAL DMA AREA
(SF)

TOTAL IMPERVIOUS

AREA / TOTAL DMA
AREA
(IMPERVIOUS PERCENTAGE)

REQUIRED

TREATMENT AREA (SF)
(4% OF IMPERVIOUS AREA)

PROPOSED

TREATMENT

AREA (SF)
DMA #1
30,331 6,274 15,793 1,835 54,233 171,434 32% 2,169 2,180 DMA #2
95,423 25,721 65,241 9,653 196,038 616,880 32% 7,842 10,000 DMA #3
10,568 3,892 SEE NOTE 4 989 15,449 114,273 14% 618 1,590 DMA #4
12,851 4,888 SEE NOTE 4 1,335 19,074 65,461 29% 763 1,300 DMA #5 2,293 298 9,697 1,556 13,844 29,557 47% 554 700
DMA #6
6,002 1125 SEE NOTE 4 263 7,390 47,176 16% 296 460
PROPOSED 2:1 SLOPE
1 69
14 67
74 73
70 68
64 66
65 63
62 72
71 61
15 16
24 17
19 21
22 20
18 23
25 26 28
32 27
29 30
31 PARCEL G
33 8
35 37
36 34
53 59
55 60
58 57 56
54 52
51 50 49 48 47 46
43 38
39 40
41 45
44 42
7 PARCEL B

PARCEL D

PARCEL J

PARCEL F

PARCEL C

PARCEL I

PARCEL A

PARCEL E

PARCEL L

PARCEL H

PAE ROAD
TEMP CONS 2
9 10
11 12
13 TEMP CONS 1
2 3
4 5
6 PARCEL K

PARCEL N PARCEL M

PROPOSED
MH (TYP.)

CONNECT TO

EXISTING SEWER
*
*
*

REMOVE EX
8" VCP
(NOTE 1)
330
300
280
260
230
340
320
310
290
300
270
260
250
220 200
190
180
290
300 290
280
270
260
250 240
230
220
210
350 340360
410
400
350
380
370
410
400
390
380
280
290
300
310
390
380370
360
330 320
300
310
300
290
280
290
280
270 260 250
270
270
260
250
240
230
280

REMOVE EX
8" VCP
NOTE 1
290

RIPARIAN FOREST

AND STREAM EXTENTS

RIPARIAN FOREST

AND STREAM EXTENTS

EX SS TO BE

ABANDONED IN PLACE

EX ROW TO BE

ABANDONED

PARCEL I
*

EX MH (TYP.)

TO BE ABANDONED

IN PLACE

EX SS TO

BE ABANDONED

IN PLACE
REMOVE EX 8"
VCP

CONNECT TO

EXISTING SEWER

PROPOSED MH
(TYP)
1 13
2 3
4 6 5

PARCEL K

PARCEL N
PROPOSED MH (TYP.)

FORCEMAIN CONNECTION TO

GRAVITY SYSTEM IN BUNKER

HILL BLVD

PROPOSED
RIGHT
OF WAY

PARCEL K
11 4 3 2 1 5
12 6
7 8
13 9 10

SEE SEWER PUMP
STATION DETAIL HEREON PROPOSED CURB (TYP.)
7' 10'

PARCEL N

SANITARY SEWER

FORCE MAIN PUMP AND

APPURTENANCES
(SERVING ONLY 13 HOMES)

EXISTING RIGHT

OF WAY TO BE

ABANDONED
6 PARCEL K

PARCEL N
PROPOSED ROW (TYP.)
PROPOSED CURB (TYP.)

SEWER PUMP
(SUBSURFACE)

RETAINING WALL AT

BIORETENTION
(RECONFIGURED TO ALLOW

FOR PUMP SPACE)

FENCE AROUND PUMP

MAINTENANCE AREA
29'
18'
- 14' ACCESS

DRIVEWAY
21'

PROPOSED
MANHOLE (TYP.)

PARCEL K

PARCEL N

CONTROL PANEL AND BACKUP

GENERATOR (ANY ADDITIONAL

EQUIPMENT IF REQUIRED)
12 LEGEND

EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION

PROJECT BOUNDARY

LOT LINE

FACE OF CURB

EDGE OF PAVEMENT

SANITARY SEWER & MANHOLE

SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN & PUMP

SEE INSERT BELOW

BUNKER HILL COURT
SCALE:1"=40'
NOTE:

EXISTING HOMES ON MAITLAND DRIVE CURRENTLY CONNECTED TO OLD 8" VCP SYSTEM TO BE PROVIDED NEW LATERAL CONNECTION TO NEW 8" PVC SYSTEM.

1. EXISTING 8" VCP SEWER TO BE REPLACED INKIND WITH NEW 8" PVC PIPE AT MAITLAND DRIVE.

2. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM TO BE PUBLICLY OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF HAYWARD.

3. SANITARY SEWER MAINS AND APPURTENANCES TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF HAYWARD'S "SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEWER MAINS AND APPURTENANCES (12" IN
DIAMETER OR LESS)".

4. CURVED PIPE TO BE USED IN THE LOCATIONS APPLICABLE. MINIMUM RADII TO BE CONFIRMED WITH FINAL DESIGN.
*

RIPARIAN FOREST

AND STREAM EXTENTS

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EAST

TRACE HAYWARD FAULT PER ENGEO

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF

EAST TRACE HAYWARD FAULT

PER ENGEO

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF

EAST TRACE HAYWARD FAULT

PER ENGEO

PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYP)

NOT A PART - EXISTING ADJACENT

PROPERTY NOT A PART OF THIS

APPLICATION

OVERHEAD UTILITY POLE

SEWER PUMP STATION DETAIL
SCALE:1"=20'
SEWER PUMP STATION NOTES:

1. LEVEL PAVED SURFACE LARGE ENOUGH FOR

MAINTENANCE VEHICLE PARKING AND POLE

MOUNTED SWITCH CONTROLLED AREA LIGHT(S)
PROVIDED.

2. PERIMETER FENCE TO BE STURDY AND VISUALLY
COMPATIBLE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT. LOCKABLE
GATE WITH PAVED DRIVEWAY TO STREET PROVIDED.

3. RETAINING WALLS AROUND PUMP STATION TO

EXTEND ABOVE GROUND TO CONTAIN ACCIDENTAL
ON-SITE SEWER SPILLAGE.

4. SECONDARY PUMP FOR ALTERNATING OPERATION
AND BACKUP PROVIDED.

5. CAPACITY OF WET WELL/SUMP SHALL BE ADEQUATE

AND SIZED APPROPRIATELY FOR HOLDING FLOWS

WITH PUMP OUT OF SERVICE DURING PEAK DEMAND
PERIOD (5-11AM).

6. PROVIDE SCADA AT CONTROL PANEL. TO BE

COMPATIBLE WITH THE CITY OF HAYWARD'S
CURRENT TELEMETRY SYSTEM.
290
320
1 69
14 67
74 73
70 68
64 66
65 63
62 72
71 61
15 16
24 17
19 21
22 20
18 23
25 26 28
32 27
29 30
31 PARCEL G
33 8
35 37
36 34
53 59
55 60
58 57
56 54
52 51
50 49 48 47 46
43 38
39 40
41 45
44 42
7 PARCEL B

PARCEL D

PARCEL J

PARCEL F

PARCEL C

PARCEL I

PARCEL A

PARCEL E

PARCEL L

PARCEL H

PAE ROAD
TEMP CONS 2
9 10
11 12
13 TEMP CONS 1
2 3
4 5
6 PARCEL K

PARCEL N PARCEL M

EX STORAGE
TANK

CONNECT TO EXISTING
WATER SYSTEM #2
CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER SYSTEM #3
EX 6" ACP TO BE ABANDONED IN
PLACE, INSTALL NEW 12" PVC

LINE, RE-CONNECT EXISTING

SERVICE LINES
EX 6" ACP TO BE ABANDONED IN
PLACE, INSTALL NEW 12" PVC
LINE
ABANDON EXISTING 8"

WATER LINE IN PLACE AND
REPLACE WITH 12" LINE

PARCEL D
69 PARCEL C

PARCEL J

PARCEL F
14 350
330
290
270
250
230
210
190
170
300
280
260
240
220
200
190
140
360 340 320
440
430
420
410
400
350
330
320
280
330
320
310
350
290
270
300
310
290
350
330
310
390
400
380
420
410
400
390
CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER SYSTEM #4

RIPARIAN FOREST

AND STREAM EXTENTS

RIPARIAN FOREST

AND STREAM EXTENTS
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF INTERFACE.

CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER SYSTEM

AT HERE (SEE NOTE)
EX 6" ACP TO BE ABANDONED
IN PLACE, INSTALL NEW 12"

PVC LINE, RE-CONNECT

EXISTING SERVICE LINES
EX 6" ACP TO BE ABANDONED
IN PLACE, INSTALL NEW 12"

PVC LINE, RE-CONNECT

EXISTING SERVICE LINES

PARCEL A

PARCEL I

PARCEL K

PARCEL L

PARCEL E

PARCEL H

PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT
AND VALVE (TYP.)

PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT
AND VALVE (TYP.)

EX ROW TO BE

ABANDONED
EX 6" ACP TO BE ABANDONED
IN PLACE, INSTALL NEW 12"

PVC LINE, RE-CONNECT

EXISTING SERVICE LINES
67 73 74
68 70
64 66
65 63
62 71 72
8 15
16 24
17 19
21 22
20 18
23 25 26 28
32 27
29 30
31 PARCEL G
33 35
37 36
34 53
59 55
60 58
57 56
54 52
51 50 49 48 47 46
43 38
39 40
41 45
44 42
61 1
7 PARCEL B
2 3
4 5
6 9
10 11
12 13

PARCEL M

PARCEL N

EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT

EXISTING ALIGNMENT OF WATER MAIN

PER THE CITY OF HAYWARD WATER MAP
(PAGE 50). LOCATION IS APPROXIMATE

AND SHOULD BE VERIFIED IN FIELD

APPROXIMATE LOCATION

OF EXISTING ZONE VALVE
LEGEND

EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION

PROJECT BOUNDARY

LOT LINE

FACE OF CURB

EDGE OF PAVEMENT

WATER LINE, VALVE & FIRE HYDRANT
13 NOTES:

CONNECT PROPOSED WATER LINE TO EXISTING INTERFACE AT THE INTERSECTION OF CARLOS BEE BLVD / TANGLEWOOD. EXISTING INTERFACE

TO BE IMPROVED AS NECESSARY

WATER LINE IMPROVEMENTS PER CITY OF HAYWARD HYDRAULIC EVALUATION OF BUNKER HILL DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 3 ALTERNATIVE BY WEST YOST

ASSOCIATES

ALL PUBLIC WATER MAINS AND APPURTENANCES TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF HAYWARD'S "SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WATER MAINS AND FIRE HYDRANTS." ALL EXISTING HYDRANTS TO BE REMOVED.

ALL PROPOSED WATER MAINS AND APPURTENANCES TO BE PUBLICLY OWNED AND MAINTAINED.

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF

EAST TRACE HAYWARD FAULT

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PER ENGEO

EAST TRACE HAYWARD FAULT

PER ENGEO

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EAST

TRACE HAYWARD FAULT PER ENGEO

NOT A PART - EXISTING ADJACENT PROPERTY

NOT A PART OF THIS APPLICATION

1. 2.

OVERHEAD UTILITY POLE
50 49
48 47
46 43
38 39
40 41
45 44
42 7

PARCEL L
61 1
8 15
16 PARCEL A
67 74
73 70
68 64
66 65
63 62
72 71
24 17
19 21
22 20
18 23
25 26
28 32
27 29 30
31 PARCEL G
33 35
37 36
34 53
59 55
60 58
57 56
54 PARCEL E
52 51
14 PARCEL I

PARCEL F
69 PARCEL C

PARCEL B

PARCEL D

PARCEL J
9 10 11
12 13

PARCEL K

PARCEL M
2 3
4 5
6 FLAT
FLAT
FLAT
FLAT
UPHILL 3 UPHILL 3 UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4 UPHILL 3
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4 UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3 UPHILL 3
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
FLAT
UPHILL 3
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
UPHILL 3 UPHILL 4 UPHILL 3 UPHILL 4
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 1
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
DOWNHILL 2 DOWNHILL 1 DOWNHILL 1 DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 2
UPHILL 3
UPHILL 3 UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4 UPHILL 3
UPHILL 3
FLAT
FLAT
FLAT
DOWNHILL 1 UPHILL 4
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 2 DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 2 DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 2
FLAT
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 1 DOWNHILL 1 DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 1
FLAT
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 1

MAITLAND DRIVE (EX)

BUNKER HILL BLVD

BUNKER HILL COURT

CARLOS BEE BLVD (EX)

LINDBERG (EX)

CENTRAL BLVD (EX) PARCEL H

PARCEL N

BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
11/17/2021 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT G.0
LEGEND
UPHILL FLOORPLAN (34)
DOWNHILL FLOORPLAN (30)
FLAT FLOORPLAN (10)
TOTAL UNITS: 74 UNITS
TRAIL 2200 LF; 44,000 SF (1.0± ACRES)

SITE SUMMARY
GROSS PROJECT AREA: 37.75± ACRES
NET DEVELOPMENT AREA: 19.24 ± ACRES
OPEN SPACE AREA: 18.51± ACRES (2)
NET DENSITY: 2.0 DU/AC (74 UNITS/37.75 AC)
EXISTING ZONING: RESIDENTIAL NATURAL PRESERVE (RNP)
PROPOSED ZONING: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SHEET
INDEX

GENERAL
G.0: Cover Sheet
G.1: Typical Setback Exhibits
CIVIL
C.1: Site Plan
C.2: Parking Plan
C.3: Refuse Plan
C.4: Fire Truck Circulation Plan
C.5: Phasing Plan
C.6: HARD Foothill Trail Signing and Striping Plan
NOTES:
1) REFER TO TENTATIVE MAP FOR LOT DIMENSIONS.
2) OPEN SPACE AREA INCLUDES PORTION OF HAYWARD
FOOTHILL TRAIL WITHIN PROJECT BOUNDARY. OPEN
SPACE DOES NOT INCLUDE APPROXIMATE 1.1± ACRE

STORMWATER QUALITY AREA WITHIN PROJECT
BOUNDARY.

OWNERSHIP/MAINTENANCE
SEWER: CITY OF HAYWARD
STORM DRAIN: CITY OF HAYWARD
WATER: CITY OF HAYWARD
ELECTRIC: PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC (PG&E)
GAS: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC (PG&E)
TELEPHONE: AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH (AT&T)
CABLE: COMCAST CORPORATION
Attachment VII

MAITLAND DRIVE

BUNKER HILL BLVD

BUNKER HILL COURT

CARLOS BEE BLVD (EX)

LINDBERG (EX)

CENTRAL BLVD (EX)
7 67
74 73
70 68
64 66
65 63 62

PARCEL L
37 36
34 53
59 55
60 58 57 56
54 PARCEL E
52 51 50 49
48 47
46 43
38 39
40 41
45 44
42 8
15 16 17
19 21
22 20
18 23
25 26
28 32
27 29 30
31 PARCEL G
33 35
61 1
71 72

PARCEL B

PARCEL D

PARCEL J

PARCEL F
69 PARCEL C
14 PARCEL I

PARCEL A

PARCEL H
9 10 11
12 13
2 3
4 5
6 PARCEL K

PARCEL M

PARCEL N
5' MIN(3)
(5' TYP)
10' MIN(3)
(10'-21'
TYP) 14' MIN TO ROW (2) 18' MIN TO CURB (2) (15'-22' TYP TO ROW) 8' MIN 10' MIN (21'-241' TYP)

BUNKER HILL COURT
10' MIN
(2)
(10'-45' TYP) 5' MIN
(2)
(5'-14' TYP) 10' MIN (15'-178' TYP) 1' MIN TO ROW (1'-128' TYP) 10' MIN
(2)
(10'-20' TYP) 18' MIN TO ROW (18'-80' TYP) 10' MIN (10'-74' TYP) 5' MIN
(2)
(10'-20' TYP) 10' MIN (36'-137' TYP)

BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
11/17/2021 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT G.1

TYPICAL SETBACKS PROPERTY LINE
FLAT

DOWNHILL UPHILL

PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
(1) PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY (1)

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
(1)
(1) RIGHT-OF-WAY ON DOWNHILL SIDE OF STREET IS 4' FROM FACE OF CURB; RIGHT-OF-WAY ON

UPHILL SIDE OF STREET IS AT BACK OF WALK
(2) LOTS ALONG UPHILL SIDE OF STREET HAVE 18' MIN DRIVEWAYS TO BACK OF WALK/ROW; LOTS ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF STREET HAVE 18' MIN DRIVEWAY TO BACK OF CURB (4' OF DRIVEWAY WITHIN RIGHT-OF-WAY) REFER TO SHEET C.2 FOR DRIVEWAY PARKING DETAILS (3) 5' MINIMUM SIDE YARD ON ONE SIDE; 10' MINIMUM SIDE YARD ON THE OTHER SIDE (1) RIGHT OF WAY ON DOWNHILL SIDE OF STREET IS 4' FROM FACE OF CURB;

RIGHT OF WAY ON UPHILL SIDE OF STREET IS AT BACK OF WALK (2) 5' MINIMUM SIDE YARD ON ONE SIDE; 10' MINIMUM SIDE YARD ON THE OTHER SIDE
(1) RIGHT OF WAY ON DOWNHILL SIDE OF STREET IS 4' FROM FACE OF CURB;

RIGHT OF WAY ON UPHILL SIDE OF STREET IS AT BACK OF WALK (2) 5' MINIMUM SIDE YARD ON ONE SIDE; 10' MINIMUM SIDE YARD ON THE OTHER

SIDE PROPERTY LINE

MAITLAND DRIVE

BUNKER HILL BLVD

BUNKER HILL COURT

CARLOS BEE BLVD (EX)

LINDBERG (EX)

CENTRAL BLVD (EX)
14 7
6 5
60 59 58 57
43 38
39 40
41 13 42
12 8
9 10
16 31 32
33 35
37 36
34 4
1 2
3 11
74 73
69 55
56 54
52 51 50 49 48
47 46 45 44
24 17
19 20 21 22
18 23 25 26
28 27
29 30
53 61
67 70
68 64
66 65
63 62
71 72
15 CONNECT TO EXISTING TRAIL

AT CSU EAST BAY

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, EAST BAY

PARCEL B

PARCEL D

PARCEL I

PARCEL J

PARCEL F

PARCEL C

PARCEL A

PARCEL E PARCEL L

PARCEL G

PARCEL H

DOWNHILL
FLAT
FLAT

FLAT FLAT

DOWNHILL DOWNHILL

DOWNHILLDOWNHILL
FLAT

FLAT FLAT FLAT UPHILL UPHILL

UPHILL UPHILL UPHILL UPHILL UPHILL UPHILL UPHILL UPHILL UPHILL UPHILL UPHILL UPHILL UPHILL UPHILL UPHILL UPHILL UPHILL UPHILL

DOWNHILLDOWNHILLDOWNHILLDOWNHILL DOWNHILL DOWNHILL DOWNHILL DOWNHILL DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL DOWNHILL DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL DOWNHILLDOWNHILL DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL FLAT
FLAT

DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL

DOWNHILL

UPHILL UPHILL UPHILL

UPHILL UPHILL UPHILL

UPHILL UPHILL

UPHILL UPHILL

UPHILL UPHILL

UPHILL UPHILL

PARCEL K

PARCEL M

PARCEL N

BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
11/17/2021 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT C.1

SITE PLAN

PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY
LEGEND

BICYCLE CONNECTIVITY

VEHICULAR CONNECTIVITY

TRAIL ACCESS AND CONNECTIVITY
NOTE:

1. TRAIL ACCESS IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AN

ACCESSIBLE ROUTE

2. TRAIL SIGNAGE AND BICYCLE STRIPING (SHARROWS) TO
BE PROVIDED ALONG BUNKER HILL BLVD.

MAITLAND DRIVE

BUNKER HILL BLVD

BUNKER HILL COURT

CARLOS BEE BLVD

CENTRAL BLVD (EX)
7 67
74 73
70 68
64 66
65 63
62 PARCEL L
37 36
34 53
59 55
60 58 57 56
54 PARCEL E
52 51 50 49
48 47
46 43
38 39
40 41
45 44
42 8
15 16
24 17
19 21
22 20
18 23
25 26
28 32
27 29 30
31 PARCEL G
33 35
61 1
71 72

PARCEL B

PARCEL D

PARCEL J

PARCEL F
69 PARCEL C
14 PARCEL I

PARCEL A

PARCEL H
9 10 11
12 13

PARCEL M

PARCEL K
2 3
4 5
6 PARCEL N 18' MIN 18' MIN
4 BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
11/17/2021 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT C.2

PARKING PLAN
LEGEND

ON-STREET PARKING

PARKING SUMMARY

ON-STREET
ALWAYS AVAILABLE 92

OBSTRUCTED ON GARBAGE DAY N/A
TOTAL ON STREET PARKING 92

OFF-STREET
DRIVEWAY (2/LOT @ 18' DEEP)148
GARAGE (2/LOT) 128
TOTAL OFF STREET PARKING 306
TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 398
NUMBER OF UNITS 74
NOTES:
1) ALL STREETS ARE PUBLIC
2) A MINIMUM OF 2 DRIVEWAY PARKING SPACES
ARE PROVIDED PER UNIT. LONGER DRIVEWAYS

MAY PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SPACES PER

HOMEOWNER'S DISCRETION
3) PARKING ALONG CENTRAL BLVD TO AVOID

EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY POLES

UPHILL UPHILL

DOWNHILL DOWNHILL

TYPICAL PARKING DETAIL

PUBLIC STREET
FLAT
GARAGE (3/LOT) 30
FLAT

SIDEWALK

PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY

PROPOSED BACK OF CURB
(NO SIDEWALK ALONG SOUTH SIDE OF ROAD)

PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY

MAITLAND DRIVE

BUNKER HILL BLVD

BUNKER HILL COURT

CARLOS BEE BLVD

LINDBERG (EX)

CENTRAL BLVD (EX)
7 67
74 73
70 68
64 66
65 63 62

PARCEL L
37 36
34 53
59 55
60 58 57 56
54 PARCEL E
52 51 50 49
48 47
46 43
38 39
40 41
45 44
42 8
15 16
24 17
19 21
22 20
18 23
25 26
28 32
27 29 30
31 PARCEL G
33 35
61 1
71 72

PARCEL B

PARCEL D

PARCEL J

PARCEL F
69 PARCEL C
14 PARCEL I

PARCEL A

PARCEL H
9 10 11
12 13

PARCEL M
2 3
4 5
6 PARCEL K

PARCEL N

BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
11/17/2021 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT C.3

REFUSE PLAN
FLAT

WASTE BIN PICK UP

LOCATIONS
LEGEND:

TRASH/RECYCLE/GREEN WASTE BINS PICK UP
NOTES:

1. ALL STREETS ARE PUBLIC

2. WASTE BINS TO BE PLACED AT CURB ALONG PUBLIC STREET FOR

PICK UP

3. WASTE BIN PICK UP LOCATIONS AVOID ON-STREET PARKING
STALLS

4. REFER TO ARCHITECTURE PLANS FOR ON-LOT WASTE BIN

STORAGE

TRASH ROUTE

DOWNHILL

WASTE BIN PICK UP

LOCATIONS
UPHILL

WASTE BIN PICK UP

LOCATION

CARLOS BEE BLVD

CENTRAL BLVD (EX)
7 67
74 73
70 68
64 66
65 63
62 PARCEL L
37 36
34 53
59 55
60 58 57 56
54 PARCEL E
52 51 50 49
48 47
46 43
38 39
40 41
45 44
42 8
15 16
24 17
19 21
22 20
18 23
25 26
28 32
27 29 30
31 PARCEL G
33 35
61 1
71 72

PARCEL B

PARCEL D

PARCEL J

PARCEL F
69 PARCEL C
14 PARCEL I

PARCEL A
SEE INTERSECTION 3 DETAIL
SEE INTERSECTION 1 DETAIL
SEE INTERSECTION 2 DETAIL
PARCEL H 26' TRAVEL WAY

BUNKER HILL BLVD

BUNKER HILL COURT
26' TRAVEL WAY

LINDBERG (EX)
96' DIAMETER CUL-DE-SAC PER

FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUEST
EX 20' TRAVEL WAY

TO REMAIN
9 10 11
12 13 32' TRAVEL WAY

MAITLAND DRIVE

PARCEL M

PARCEL K
2 3
4 5
6 PARCEL N

CARLOS BEE BLVD (EX)

BUNKER HILL BLVD

EXISTING CURB TO
REMAIN (TYP.)
PROPOSED CURB (TYP.) CENTRAL BLVD (EX)

BUNKER HILL BLVD
PROPOSED CURB (TYP.)

EXISTING CURB TO
REMAIN(TYP.)

BUNKER HILL BLVD BUNKER HILL COURT
PROPOSED CURB (TYP.)
PROPOSED CURB (TYP.)

BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
11/17/2021 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT C.4

FIRE ACCESS

FIRE ACCES ROUTE

41.15 8.033 18.467 4.167
Fire-Pierce Arrow XT 105 ladder
Overall Length 41.150ft
Overall Width 8.000ft
Overall Body Height 11.554ft
Min Body Ground Clearance 1.335ft
Track Width 8.000ft
Lock-to-lock time 6.00s
Max Steering Angle (Virtual) 39.90°

BUNKER HILL COURT / BUNKER HILL BLVD
INTERSECTION 1

BUNKER HILL BLVD / CARLOS BEE BLVD (EX)
INTERSECTION 2

BUNKER HILL BLVD / CENTRAL BLVD (EX)
INTERSECTION 3
30°
60° 90°
120°
150°
180° (Outer Wheel) 35.275ftMin Radius

20.683ftMin Radius
(Inner Wheel)

40.419ftMin Radius
(Outer Body)

20.257ft
Max Kickout 1.923ft Vehicle Tracking V20.00.2188(20190304) (c) Autodesk, Inc. www.Autodesk.com Title: Fire-Pierce Arrow XT 105 ladderNotes: Turn(s) based upon a design speed of 5.00mph.

LEGEND:

NOTES:

1. ALL STREETS ARE PUBLIC.

2. EXISTING STREET GRADES AT BUNKER HILL BLVD AND BUNKER HILL COURT EXCEED 10%. STREETS WILL BE REMOVED AND
REPLACED AT 10% STREET SLOPE TO COMPLY WITH CITY OF
HAYWARD FIRE ACCESS ROAD REQUIREMENTS.

FIRE HYDRANT LOCATION

BUNKER HILL COURT

CARLOS BEE BLVD

LINDBERG (EX)
7 67
74 73
70 68
64 66
65 63 62

PARCEL L
37 36
34 53
59 55
60 58 57 56
54 PARCEL E
52 51 50 49
48 47
46 43
38 39
40 41
45 44
42 8
15 16
24 17
19 21
22 20
18 23
25 26
28 32
27 29 30
31 PARCEL G
33 35
61 1
71 72

PARCEL B

PARCEL D

PARCEL J

PARCEL F
69 PARCEL C
14 PARCEL I

PARCEL A

PARCEL H
9 10 11
12 13

BUNKER HILL BLVD

MAITLAND DRIVE

CENTRAL BLVD (EX)
2 3
4 5
6 PARCEL K

PARCEL M

PARCEL N

BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
11/12/2021 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT C.5

PRELIMINARY PHASING PLAN
LEGEND:

NOTES:

1. ALL STREETS ARE PUBLIC

2. BACKBONE PHASES INCLUDE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND UTILITIES WITHIN

RIGHT-OF-WAY

3. BACKBONE PHASES ARE PLANNED TO BE BUILT BEFORE ADJACENT

DEVELOPMENT PHASE

4. SITE GRADING IS PLANNED TO OCCUR IN ONE PHASE
PHASE 2 BACKBONE
PHASE 1 BACKBONE
PHASE 3 BACKBONE
PHASE 4 BACKBONE
PHASE 5 BACKBONE
PHASE 2 VERTICAL: MAITLAND DRIVE CONSTRUCTION
PHASE 1 VERTICAL: BUNKER HILL BOULEVARD CONSTRUCTION
PHASE 3 VERTICAL: BUNKER HILL COURT CONSTRUCTION

BUNKER HILL COURT

CARLOS BEE BLVD

LINDBERG (EX)
7 67
74 73
70 68
64 66
65 63 62

PARCEL L
37 36
34 53
59 55
60 58 57 56
54 PARCEL E
52 51 50 49
48 47
46 43
38 39
40 41
45 44
42 8
15 16
24 17
19 21
22 20
18 23
25 26
28 32
27 29 30
31 PARCEL G
33 35
61 1
71 72

PARCEL B

PARCEL D

PARCEL J

PARCEL F
69 PARCEL C
14 PARCEL I

PARCEL A

PARCEL H
9 10 11
12 13

BUNKER HILL BLVD

MAITLAND DRIVE

CENTRAL BLVD (EX)
2 3
4 5
6 PARCEL K

PARCEL M

PARCEL N

BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
11/17/2021 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT C.5

PRELIMINARY PHASING PLAN
LEGEND:

NOTES:

1. ALL STREETS ARE PUBLIC

2. BACKBONE PHASES INCLUDE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND UTILITIES WITHIN

RIGHT-OF-WAY

3. BACKBONE PHASES ARE PLANNED TO BE BUILT BEFORE ADJACENT

DEVELOPMENT PHASE

4. SITE GRADING IS PLANNED TO OCCUR IN ONE PHASE
PHASE 2 BACKBONE
PHASE 1 BACKBONE
PHASE 3 BACKBONE
PHASE 4 BACKBONE
PHASE 5 BACKBONE
PHASE 2 VERTICAL: MAITLAND DRIVE CONSTRUCTION
PHASE 1 VERTICAL: BUNKER HILL BOULEVARD CONSTRUCTION
PHASE 3 VERTICAL: BUNKER HILL COURT CONSTRUCTION

BUNKER HILL COURT

CARLOS BEE BLVD

LINDBERG (EX)
7 67
74 73
70 68
64 66
65 63 62

PARCEL L
37 36
34 53
59 55
60 58 57 56
54 PARCEL E
52 51 50 49
48 47
46 43
38 39
40 41
45 44
42 8
15 16
24 17
19 21
22 20
18 23
25 26
28 32
27 29 30
31 PARCEL G
33 35
61 1
71 72

PARCEL B

PARCEL D

PARCEL J

PARCEL F
69 PARCEL C
14 PARCEL I

PARCEL A

PARCEL H
9 10 11
12 13

BUNKER HILL BLVD

MAITLAND DRIVE

CENTRAL BLVD (EX)
2 3
4 5
6 PARCEL K

PARCEL M

PROPOSED FOOTHILL TRAIL

PROPOSED FOOTHILL TRAIL

PROPOSED FOOTHILL

TRAIL ACCESS

PARCEL N

BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
11/17/2021 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT C.6

HARD FOOTHILL TRAIL SIGNING AND STRIPING PLA
LEGEND:

NOTES:

1. PER THE INTENT OF THE HAYWARD AREA RECREATION AND PARKS DISTRICT (HARD) FOOTHILL TRAIL MASTERPLAN.

SHARROW PAVEMENT MARKING

FOOTHILL TRAIL SIGNAGE
Architecture + Planning
The Leamington Building
1814 Franklin St., Suite 400
Oakland, CA 94612 510.272.2910 ktgy.com # BUNKER HILL HAYWARD, CA 2019-0663 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING MAY 10, 2021 A0.0.1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN STYLISTIC AND COLOR VARIATIONS NOTES 1. REFER TO CIVIL SHEETS FOR ALL PROPERTY LINES, SITE DIMENSIONS AND ETC. 2. REFER TO LANDSCAPE SHEETS FOR LANDSCAPE INFORMATION LEGEND JULY 22, 2021 CONCEPTUAL SEPTEMBER 24, 2021 CONCEPTUA NOVEMBER 18, 2021 CONCEPTU NOVEMBER 17, 2021 Attachment VIII +/-15'-0" T.O. ROOF
+/-13'-0" T.O. ROOF T.O. PL
10'-3/4"
varies
Pony wall HT
varies per lots
(min. 8' - max. 20')
11'-3/4" 10'-3/4"
Height varies per lots (min 36'-4" to max. 48'-4") T.O. ROOF T.O. ROOF +/-15'-0" T.O. PL
28'-4"
Pony wall HT
varies per lots
(min. 8' - max. 20')
11'-3/4" 10'-3/4"
Height varies per lots (min 36'-4" to max. 48'-4") T.O. ROOF T.O. PL 28'-4" T.O. ROOF
+/-15'-0"
Pony wall HT
varies per lots
(min. 8' - max. 20')
11'-3/4" 10'-3/4"
Height varies per lots (min 36'-4" to max. 48'-4") T.O. ROOF T.O. PL 28'-4" A1.0.0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PLAN 1- A STYLE Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin St., Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 510.272.2910 ktgy.com # BUNKER HILL HAYWARD, CA 2019-0663 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING NOVEMBER 17, 2021 NTS Not To Scale FRONT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION FRONT LEFT PERSPECTIVE 12 1 12 1 5 4 2 MATERIAL LEGEND: 1. Stucco 2. Fiber Cement Lap Siding 3. Fiber Cement Panel 4. Entry Door 5. Light Fixture 6. Unit Address 7. Garage Door 8. Stone Veneer 9. Metal Railing 10. Vinyl Window 11. Wood Post 12. Canopy 10 1 6 3 10 9 9 10 2 1 7 RIGHT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION REAR RIGHT PERSPECTIVE 12 1 12 1 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 2 4 8 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" NTS Not To Scale 2 1 1 2 1 +/- 15'-0" T.O. ROOF
+/-16'-0" T.O. ROOF T.O. PL
10'-3/4"
varies
+/- 15'-0" T.O. ROOF
Pony wall HT
varies per lots
(min. 8' - max. 20')
11'-3/4" 10'-3/4"
Height varies per lots (min 36'-8" to max. 48'-8") T.O. ROOF T.O. PL 28'-8"
Pony wall HT
varies per lots
(min. 8' - max. 20')
11'-3/4" 10'-3/4"
Height varies per lots (min 36'-8" to max. 48'-8") T.O. ROOF T.O. PL 28'-8"
+/- 15'-0" T.O. ROOF
Pony wall HT
varies per lots
(min. 8' - max. 20')
11'-3/4" 10'-3/4"
Height varies per lots (min 36'-8" to max. 48'-8") T.O. ROOF T.O. PL 28'-8" A1.0.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PLAN 1- B STYLE Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin St., Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 510.272.2910 ktgy.com # BUNKER HILL HAYWARD, CA 2019-0663 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING NOVEMBER 17, 2021 NTS Not To Scale FRONT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION FRONT LEFT PERSPECTIVE 5 4 MATERIAL LEGEND: 1. Stucco 2. Fiber Cement Lap Siding 3. Fiber Cement Panel 4. Entry Door 5. Light Fixture 6. Unit Address 7. Garage Door 8. Stone Veneer 9. Metal Railing 10. Vinyl Window 11. Wood Post 12. Canopy 10 1 6 1 10 9 9 10 2 1 7 2 RIGHT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION REAR RIGHT PERSPECTIVE 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 2 4 8 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" NTS Not To Scale 1 2 1 1 1 2 Lower Floor 1157 SQ. FT. Primary Bath Primary Bedroom 14'-6" x 16'-3" Bedroom 2 11'-2" x 11'-6" W.I.C. 26'-9" L.F. Laund. Bedroom 3 11'-0" x 11'-6" storage UP Terrace 14'-3" x 11'-4" 173 s.f. 2 FEET CANTILEVER FROM PONY WALL 2'-0" First Floor 1249 SQ. FT. Great Room 23'-9" x 24'-1" Kitchen Bedroom 4 11'-8" x 12'-0" Walk-in Pantry Garage 22'-0" x 20'-0" (19' x 20' Req'd.) elec. meter / tv / tele. elec. w.h. 3x9 trash pad 50'-0"
20'-6" 17'-8" 10'-10"
28'-6" 20'-6"
49'-0" 36'-8" 13'-4" Driveway
1'-0" Terrace 12'-10" x 11'-4" 158 s.f. Entry media wall drop zone DN 9'-0" 7'-0"
4'-6" 6'-0"3'-7"
5'-4"
Architecture + Planning
The Leamington Building
1814 Franklin St., Suite 400
Oakland, CA 94612 510.272.2910 ktgy.com # BUNKER HILL HAYWARD, CA 2019-0663 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING JULY 13, 2021 A1.1.0 DOWNHILL PLAN 1 4 BEDROOMS 3 BATHS 2,406 S.F. 0 2 4 8 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" JULY 22, 2021 CONCEPTUAL SEPTEMBER 24, 2021 CONCEPTUA NOVEMBER 18, 2021 CONCEPTU NOVEMBER 17, 2021 +/-15'-8" T.O. ROOF
+/-15'-8" T.O. ROOF T.O. PL
10'-3/4"
varies
+/-15'-8" T.O. ROOF
Pony wall HT
varies per lots
(min. 8' - max. 20')
11'-3/4" 10'-3/4"
Height varies per lots (min 36'-8" to max. 48'-8") T.O. ROOF T.O. PL 28'-8"
Pony wall HT
varies per lots
(min. 8' - max. 20')
11'-3/4" 10'-3/4"
Height varies per lots (min 36'-8" to max. 48'-8") T.O. ROOF T.O. PL 28'-8"
+/-15'-8" T.O. ROOF
Pony wall HT
varies per lots
(min. 8' - max. 20')
11'-3/4" 10'-3/4"
Height varies per lots (min 36'-8" to max. 48'-8") T.O. ROOF T.O. PL 28'-8" A2.0.0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PLAN 2- A STYLE Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin St., Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 510.272.2910 ktgy.com # BUNKER HILL HAYWARD, CA 2019-0663 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING NOVEMBER 17, 2021 NTS Not To Scale FRONT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION FRONT LEFT PERSPECTIVE 5 4 MATERIAL LEGEND: 1. Stucco 2. Fiber Cement Lap Siding 3. Fiber Cement Panel 4. Entry Door 5. Light Fixture 6. Unit Address 7. Garage Door 8. Stone Veneer 9. Metal Railing 10. Vinyl Window 11. Wood Post 12. Canopy 10 1 6 1 10 2 9 10 1 7 RIGHT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION REAR RIGHT PERSPECTIVE 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 2 4 8 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" NTS Not To Scale 1 1 1 12 2 11 10 2 12 +/- 15'-0" T.O. ROOF
+/-16'-0" T.O. ROOF T.O. PL
10'-3/4"
varies
+/- 15'-0" T.O. ROOF
Pony wall HT
varies per lots
(min. 8' - max. 20')
11'-3/4" 10'-3/4"
Height varies per lots (min 36'-8" to max. 48'-8") T.O. ROOF T.O. PL 28'-8"
Pony wall HT
varies per lots
(min. 8' - max. 20')
11'-3/4" 10'-3/4"
Height varies per lots (min 36'-8" to max. 48'-8") T.O. ROOF T.O. PL 28'-8"
+/- 15'-0" T.O. ROOF
Pony wall HT
varies per lots
(min. 8' - max. 20')
11'-3/4" 10'-3/4"
Height varies per lots (min 36'-8" to max. 48'-8") T.O. ROOF T.O. PL 28'-8" A2.0.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PLAN 2- B STYLE Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin St., Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 510.272.2910 ktgy.com # BUNKER HILL HAYWARD, CA 2019-0663 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING NOVEMBER 17, 2021 NTS Not To Scale FRONT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION FRONT LEFT PERSPECTIVE 5 4 MATERIAL LEGEND: 1. Stucco 2. Fiber Cement Lap Siding 3. Fiber Cement Panel 4. Entry Door 5. Light Fixture 6. Unit Address 7. Garage Door 8. Stone Veneer 9. Metal Railing 10. Vinyl Window 11. Wood Post 12. Canopy 10 6 1 1 10 2 9 10 1 7 RIGHT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION REAR RIGHT PERSPECTIVE 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 2 4 8 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" NTS Not To Scale 1 1 1 2 2 1 9 11 11 10 2 2 Lower Floor 1281 SQ. FT. Primary Bath UP Terrace 25'-8" x 9'-5" 260 s.f. Primary Bedroom 18'-11" x 15'-0" Bedroom 3 11'-0" x 11'-0" Bedroom 2 11'-0" x 11'-0" Bath2 Laund. W.I.C. 27'-10" L.F. 3'-7" 2 FEET CANTILEVER FROM PONY WALL
2'-0" First Floor 1352 SQ. FT. Great Room 23'-9" x 15'-10" elec. meter / tv / tele. elec. w.h. 3x9 trash pad 50'-0"
20'-6" 23'-2" 8'-10"
32'-0" 20'-6"
52'-5" 24'-8" 25'-4" Driveway
1'-0" Terrace 24'-10" x 9'-5" 250 s.f. Entry media wall Kitchen Walk-in Pantry Bedroom 4 11'-0" x 11'-0" coats Garage 22'-0" x 20'-0" (19' x 20' Req'd.) Bath3 Dining DN 6'-0"
9'-0" 4'-6" 6'-0" Architecture + Planning
The Leamington Building
1814 Franklin St., Suite 400
Oakland, CA 94612 510.272.2910 ktgy.com # BUNKER HILL HAYWARD, CA 2019-0663 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING JULY 13, 2021 A2.1.0 DOWNHILL PLAN 2 4 BEDROOMS 3 BATHS 2,633 S.F. 0 2 4 8 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" JULY 22, 2021 CONCEPTUAL SEPTEMBER 24, 2021 CONCEPTUA NOVEMBER 18, 2021 CONCEPTU NOVEMBER 17, 2021 +/- 37'-0" T.O. ROOF
9'-3/4" 10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies
31'-5"
+/- 37'-0" T.O. ROOF
9'-3/4" 10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies
30'-9"
+/- 26'-8" T.O. ROOF
10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies 20'-5"
+/- 26'-8" T.O. ROOF
10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies 20'-5"
+/- 16'-0" T.O. ROOF
10'-3/4" T.O. PL
varies
+/- 26'-8" T.O. ROOF
10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies
20'-5"
+/- 37'-0" T.O. ROOF
9'-3/4" 10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies 30'-9" A3.0.0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PLAN 3- A STYLE Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin St., Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 510.272.2910 ktgy.com # BUNKER HILL HAYWARD, CA 2019-0663 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING NOVEMBER 17, 2021 FRONT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION 4 5 MATERIAL LEGEND: 1. Stucco 2. Fiber Cement Lap Siding 3. Fiber Cement Panel 4. Entry Door 5. Light Fixture 6. Unit Address 7. Garage Door 8. Stone Veneer 9. Metal Railing 10. Vinyl Window 11. Wood Post 12. Canopy 1 10 6 1 10 10 RIGHT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION FRONT RIGHT PERSPECTIVE 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 2 4 8 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" NTS Not To Scale 1 1 2 1 10 12 8 7 9 +/- 36'-0" T.O. ROOF
9'-3/4" 10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies
31'-5"
+/- 36'-0" T.O. ROOF
9'-3/4" 10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies
30'-9"
+/- 25'-4" T.O. ROOF
10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies 20'-5"
+/- 14'-8" T.O. ROOF
10'-3/4" T.O. PL
varies
+/- 25'-4" T.O. ROOF
10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies 20'-5"
+/- 25'-4" T.O. ROOF
10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies
20'-5"
+/- 36'-0" T.O. ROOF
9'-3/4" 10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies 30'-9" A3.0.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PLAN 3- B STYLE Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin St., Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 510.272.2910 ktgy.com # BUNKER HILL HAYWARD, CA 2019-0663 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING NOVEMBER 17, 2021 FRONT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION 4 5 MATERIAL LEGEND: 1. Stucco 2. Fiber Cement Lap Siding 3. Fiber Cement Panel 4. Entry Door 5. Light Fixture 6. Unit Address 7. Garage Door 8. Stone Veneer 9. Metal Railing 10. Vinyl Window 11. Wood Post 12. Canopy 1 10 6 1 10 10 RIGHT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION FRONT RIGHT PERSPECTIVE 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 2 4 8 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" NTS Not To Scale 1 1 2 1 10 12 7 9 Entry
Garage 21'-10" x 21'-1" (20' x 19' Req'd.)
504 sq.ft. Porch First Floor 688 SQ. FT.
1'-6" 2'-6" 22'-0" 12'-5"
38'-5" 50'-0"
12'-5" 26'-0" elec. w.h. 3x9 trash pad elec. meter / tv / tele. Living 16'-3" x 11'-6" media wall barn door coats UP Bath3 Bedroom 4 10'-6" x 11'-0" Drop Zone 17'-3" 52 sq.ft. 618 sq.ft. Second Floor 1686 SQ. FT. Great Room 21'-10" x 18'-0" Bedroom 2 14'-0" x 11'-0" Dining 15'-5" x 13'-0" Kitchen Walk-in Pantry 4'-6" 9'-0" Terrace 21'-10" x 9'-0" 213 s.f. Laund. Bath 2 Hall Bedroom 3 11'-2" x 12'-0" up DN5'-6" 7'-11" A3.1.0 UPHILL PLAN 3 0 2 4 8 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin St., Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 510.272.2910 ktgy.com # BUNKER HILL HAYWARD, CA 2019-0663 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING JULY 13, 2021 4 BEDROOMS + LOFT OPT. BED 5 3.5 BATHS / OPT. BATH 4 3,293 S.F. JULY 22, 2021 CONCEPTUAL SEPTEMBER 24, 2021 CONCEPTUA NOVEMBER 18, 2021 CONCEPTU NOVEMBER 17, 2021 Third Floor 919 SQ. FT. Primary Bedroom 16'-3" x 15'-0" Loft / Opt. Bedroom 5 / Bath 4 16'-6" x 15'-1" Primary Bath W.I.C 29'-0" L.F. DN A3.1.1 UPHILL PLAN 3 0 2 4 8 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin St., Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 510.272.2910 ktgy.com # BUNKER HILL HAYWARD, CA 2019-0663 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING JULY 13, 2021 4 BEDROOMS + LOFT OPT. BED 5 3.5 BATHS / OPT. BATH 4 3,293 S.F. JULY 22, 2021 CONCEPTUAL SEPTEMBER 24, 2021 CONCEPTUA NOVEMBER 18, 2021 CONCEPTU NOVEMBER 17, 2021 Entry
Garage 21'-10" x 21'-1" (20' x 19' Req'd.)
504 sq.ft. Porch First Floor 251 SQ. FT.
1'-6" 2'-6" 22'-0" 12'-5"
38'-5" 50'-0"
12'-5" 26'-0" elec. w.h. 3x9 trash pad elec. meter / tv / tele. Living 16'-3" x 13'-2" coats UP Bath3 Sleeping 11'-0" x 11'-5" Drop Zone 17'-3" 52 sq.ft. 618 sq.ft. ADU 1 Bed 1 Bath 433 s.f. Kitchenette A3.1.2 UPHILL PLAN 3 0 2 4 8 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin St., Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 510.272.2910 ktgy.com # BUNKER HILL HAYWARD, CA 2019-0663 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING JULY 22, 2021 3 BEDROOMS + LOFT OPT. BED 4 2.5 BATHS / OPT. BATH 3 2,856 S.F. 3,289 S.F. W/ ADU CONCEPTUAL SEPTEMBER 24, 2021 CONCEPTUA NOVEMBER 18, 2021 CONCEPTU NOVEMBER 17, 2021 +/- 38'-0" T.O. ROOF
9'-3/4" 10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies
31'-5"
+/- 38'-0" T.O. ROOF
9'-3/4" 10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies
30'-9" T.O. ROOF
10'-3/4" T.O. PL
varies
+/- 16'-10" T.O. ROOF
10'-3/4" T.O. PL
varies
+/- 16'-10" T.O. ROOF
10'-3/4" T.O. PL
varies
+/- 16'-0" T.O. ROOF
+/- 27'-10" T.O. ROOF
+/- 24'-8"
+/- 38'-0" T.O. ROOF
9'-3/4" 10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies 30'-9" T.O. ROOF
10'-3/4" T.O. PL
varies
+/- 16'-10" A4.0.0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PLAN 4- A STYLE Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin St., Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 510.272.2910 ktgy.com # BUNKER HILL HAYWARD, CA 2019-0663 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING NOVEMBER 17, 2021 FRONT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION 4 5 MATERIAL LEGEND: 1. Stucco 2. Fiber Cement Lap Siding 3. Fiber Cement Panel 4. Entry Door 5. Light Fixture 6. Unit Address 7. Garage Door 8. Stone Veneer 9. Metal Railing 10. Vinyl Window 11. Wood Post 12. Canopy 1 10 6 1 10 10 RIGHT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION FRONT RIGHT PERSPECTIVE 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 2 4 8 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" NTS Not To Scale 1 1 2 1 10 12 7 9 9 8 8 T.O. ROOF
+/- 36'-0"
9'-3/4" 10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies
31'-5"
+/- 36'-0" T.O. ROOF
9'-3/4" 10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies
30'-9" T.O. ROOF
10'-3/4" T.O. PL
varies
+/- 14'-10" T.O. ROOF
10'-3/4" T.O. PL
varies
+/- 14'-10" T.O. ROOF
+/- 25'-8"T.O. ROOF
10'-3/4" T.O. PL
varies
+/- 14'-10"
+/- 36'-0" T.O. ROOF
9'-3/4" 10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies 30'-9" A4.0.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PLAN 4- B STYLE Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin St., Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 510.272.2910 ktgy.com # BUNKER HILL HAYWARD, CA 2019-0663 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING NOVEMBER 17, 2021 FRONT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION 4 5 MATERIAL LEGEND: 1. Stucco 2. Fiber Cement Lap Siding 3. Fiber Cement Panel 4. Entry Door 5. Light Fixture 6. Unit Address 7. Garage Door 8. Stone Veneer 9. Metal Railing 10. Vinyl Window 11. Wood Post 12. Canopy 1 10 6 1 10 10 RIGHT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION FRONT RIGHT PERSPECTIVE 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 2 4 8 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" NTS Not To Scale 1 1 2 1 10 12 7 9 9 11 12 barn door Porch 3x9 trash pad elec. meter / tv / tele. First Floor 707 SQ. FT. Drop Zone 26'-9" 16'-7"
52'-5" 50'-0"
48'-5"
9'-1" elec. Garage w.h. 21'-0" x 21'-1" (20' x 19' Req'd.) 479 sq.ft. 17'-1" Bath4 Living 16'-1" x 11'-0" Bedroom 4 10'-10" x 11'-5" coats 11'-0" UP 55 sq.ft.

1.035 sq.ft. Kitchen Dining Room 18'-0" x 15'-8" Great Room 21'-0" x 17'-0" Terrace 21'-0" x 9'-6" 216 s.f. pantry Primary Bedroom 16'-7" x 14'-4" Second Floor 1976 SQ. FT.W.I.C 29'-0" L.F. 8'-0" 4'-6"
Office / Opt. Bedroom 5 11'-0" x 13'-0" Primary Bath Laund. UP open to below Bath 3 DN 6'-0" 4'-2" 6'-0" stor. A4.1.0 UPHILL PLAN 4 0 2 4 8 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 BEDROOMS + OFFICE OPT. BED 5 4 BATHS 3,525 S.F. Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin St., Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 510.272.2910 ktgy.com # BUNKER HILL HAYWARD, CA 2019-0663 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING JULY 22, 2021 JULY 13, 2021 CONCEPTUAL SEPTEMBER 24, 2021 CONCEPTUA NOVEMBER 18, 2021 CONCEPTU NOVEMBER 17, 2021 Third Floor 842 SQ. FT. Bedroom 3 12'-0" x 11'-0"Bath 2 Hall DN Bedroom 2 11'-0" x 13'-3" Loft 13'-1" x 12'-0" A4.1.1 UPHILL PLAN 4 0 2 4 8 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin St., Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 510.272.2910 ktgy.com # BUNKER HILL HAYWARD, CA 2019-0663 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING JULY 13, 2021 4 BEDROOMS + OFFICE OPT. BED 5 4 BATHS 3,525 S.F. JULY 22, 2021 CONCEPTUAL SEPTEMBER 24, 2021 CONCEPTUA NOVEMBER 18, 2021 CONCEPTU NOVEMBER 17, 2021 Porch 3x9 trash pad elec. meter / tv / tele. First Floor 274 SQ. FT. Drop Zone 26'-9" 16'-7"
52'-5" 50'-0"
48'-5"
9'-1" elec. Garage w.h. 21'-0" x 21'-1" (20' x 19' Req'd.) 479 sq.ft. 17'-1" coats 11'-0" UP 55 sq.ft.

1.035 sq.ft.

Sleeping 10'-10" x 11'-3" Living 16'-1" x 13'-4" Kitchenette Bath ADU 1 Bed 1 Bath 429 s.f. A4.1.2 UPHILL PLAN 4 0 2 4 8 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin St., Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 510.272.2910 ktgy.com # BUNKER HILL HAYWARD, CA 2019-0663 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING JULY 22, 2021 3 BEDROOMS + OFFICE OPT. BED 4 3 BATHS 3,093 S.F. 3,522 W/ ADU CONCEPTUAL SEPTEMBER 24, 2021 CONCEPTUA NOVEMBER 18, 2021 CONCEPTU NOVEMBER 17, 2021 T.O. ROOF
+/- 28'-6"
10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies
20'-5"
+/- 28'-6" T.O. ROOF
10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies
20'-5"
+/- 28'-6" T.O. ROOF
10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies 20'-5"
+/- 28'-6" T.O. ROOF
10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies
20'-5" Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin St., Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 510.272.2910 ktgy.com # BUNKER HILL HAYWARD, CA 2019-0663 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING NOVEMBER 17, 2021 FRONT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION 5 4 MATERIAL LEGEND: 1. Stucco 2. Fiber Cement Lap Siding 3. Fiber Cement Panel 4. Entry Door 5. Light Fixture 6. Unit Address 7. Garage Door 8. Stone Veneer 9. Metal Railing 10. Vinyl Window 11. Wood Post 12. Canopy 1 6 10 1 10 10 RIGHT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION FRONT RIGHT PERSPECTIVE 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 2 4 8 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" NTS Not To Scale 1 1 2 1 10 7 9 12 9 8 2 2 8 12 1 11 12 8 11 A5.0.0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PLAN 5-A STYLE T.O. ROOF
+/- 28'-0"
10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies
20'-5"
+/- 28'-0" T.O. ROOF
10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies 20'-5"
+/- 28'-0" T.O. ROOF
10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies 20'-5"
+/- 28'-0" T.O. ROOF
10'-3/4" T.O. PL9'-3/4"
varies
20'-5" A5.0.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PLAN 5-B STYLE Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin St., Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 510.272.2910 ktgy.com # BUNKER HILL HAYWARD, CA 2019-0663 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING NOVEMBER 17, 2021 FRONT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION 5 4 MATERIAL LEGEND: 1. Stucco 2. Fiber Cement Lap Siding 3. Fiber Cement Panel 4. Entry Door 5. Light Fixture 6. Unit Address 7. Garage Door 8. Stone Veneer 9. Metal Railing 10. Vinyl Window 11. Wood Post 12. Canopy 1 6 10 1 10 10 RIGHT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION FRONT RIGHT PERSPECTIVE 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 2 4 8 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" NTS Not To Scale 1 1 2 1 10 7 9 1 2 2 69'-0" Multi Gen Suite 10'-0" x 11'-10" Entry Pdr. Bedroom 4 11'-0" x 11'-0" W.I.C. Bath 3 Great Room 23'-0" x 17'-3" Dining Room 12'-10" x 12'-4" Opt. Outdoor Rm 23'-2" x 9'-8" 242 sq.ft. Garage 20'-1" x 20'-1" 12'-0" x 20'-0" Kitchen UP 18R First Floor 1,577 s.f. Porch 41'-0" 8'-0"
electrical /
telephone Zone Drop
Pantry Walk-in
47'-1" 8'-0"
6'-1" 50'-0"90 sq.ft. 680 sq.ft.

DN
18R Second Floor 1,623 s.f. Linen Linen W.I.C 31'-0" L.F. Primary Bath Bath 2 Laund. Loft / Opt. Bedroom 5 Suite 11'-0" x 19'-6" Primary bedroom 15'-0" x 16'-0" Bedroom 2 12'-8" x 11'-3" Bedroom 3 11'-5" x 11'-3" Covered Deck 19'-2" x 8'-0" A5.1.0 FLAT LOT PLAN 5 0 2 4 8 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 BEDROOMS + LOFT 3.5 BATHS OPT. BEDROOM 5 3,200 S.F. Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin St., Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 510.272.2910 ktgy.com # BUNKER HILL HAYWARD, CA 2019-0663 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING JULY 22, 2021 JULY 13, 2021 CONCEPTUAL SEPTEMBER 24, 2021 CONCEPTUA NOVEMBER 18, 2021 CONCEPTU NOVEMBER 17, 2021 10'-1" 11'-1"
Plan 1 Down (Lot 57) Kitchen Attic
9'-1" 10'-1" 9'-1"
+/- 38'-0"
Plate Height Beyond
Finish Floor Beyond
Plate Height Finish Floor Plate Height Finish Floor Plan 4 Up (Lot 16) Finish Floor Plate Height Finish Floor Plate Height Attic 10'-0" MIN. 4'-0" 6'-0" 26'-0" 4'-0" SETBACK SIDEWALK PARKING STREET ROW ROW FACE OF 2% slope 18" clear to F.G Terrace garage Bath 2 Bed 2 2 1 (approx.) Primary Bed Garage Terrace Kitchen Great Room Terrace slope to drain slope to drain slope to drain 9'-1" 12 1 12 1 12 1 12 1 CURB TO ROW 1'-0" ROW TO BLDG SETBACK 18'-0" TO GARAGE A6.0.0 SITE SECTIONS 0 4 8 12 Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0" Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin St., Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 510.272.2910 ktgy.com # BUNKER HILL HAYWARD, CA 2019-0663 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING JULY 19, 2021 JULY 22, 2021 CONCEPTUAL SEPTEMBER 24, 2021 CONCEPTUA NOVEMBER 18, 2021 CONCEPTU NOVEMBER 17, 2021 Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin St., Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 510.272.2910 ktgy.com # BUNKER HILL HAYWARD, CA 2019-0663 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING JULY 22, 2021 A7.0.0 STREET SCENE-DOWNHILL NTS Not To Scale CONCEPTUAL SEPTEMBER 24, 2021 CONCEPTUA NOVEMBER 18, 2021 CONCEPTU NOVEMBER 17, 2021 Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin St., Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 510.272.2910 ktgy.com # BUNKER HILL HAYWARD, CA 2019-0663 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING JULY 22, 2021 A7.0.1 STREET SCENE-UPHILL NTS Not To Scale CONCEPTUAL SEPTEMBER 24, 2021 CONCEPTUA NOVEMBER 18, 2021 CONCEPTU NOVEMBER 17, 2021

BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
11/17/2021 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
0 0" 1
2" 1" 2" L0.0

OVERALL SITE PLAN
Attachment IX

PARCEL G
33 35
37 36
34 38
39 40
41 PARCEL F

PARCEL E PARCEL L

PARCEL G
33 35
37 36
34 38
39 40
41 PARCEL F

PARCEL E PARCEL L
FLAT
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 1
UPHILL 4
FLAT
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 1
122
123
70 69
33 34
576
577
579
580 582
578
583
584
585
590
592
594
595
598
597
600
602
603
605
604
575
571
574
570
539
534
535
536
537
568
569
538
557
555
558
493
494
495
491
490
581
572 573
554
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
##

BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
11/17/2021 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
0 0" 1
2" 1" 2" L1.1

LANDSCAPE PLAN
20' 40' 80'
69 67
74 73
70 68
66 72
71 22 23 24 25
26 28
32 27
29 30
31 33
51 50 49
48 47
46 43
41 45
44 42

PARCEL D

PARCEL C

PARCEL H

PARCEL M
69 67
74 73
70 68
66 72
71 22 23 24 25
26 28
32 27
29 30
31 33
51 50 49
48 47
46 43
41 45
44 42

PARCEL D

PARCEL C

PARCEL H

PARCEL M
UPHILL 3 UPHILL 3
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
UPHILL 3 UPHILL 4 UPHILL 3 UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
UPHILL 3
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 1 DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 1
149
148
147
141 142
105
70 69
494
495
476
448
85 AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
##

BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
11/17/2021 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
0 0" 1
2" 1" 2" L1.2

LANDSCAPE PLAN
20' 40' 80'
1 14
64 66
65 63
62 61
15 16 17
19 21 22
20 18
53 59
55 60
58 57
56 54
52 PARCEL B

PARCEL I

PARCEL A
11 12
13 2
1 14
64 66
65 63
62 61
15 16 17
19 21 22
20 18
53 59
55 60
58 57
56 54
52 PARCEL B

PARCEL I

PARCEL A
11 12
13 2
FLAT
FLAT
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3 UPHILL 3
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
DOWNHILL 2 DOWNHILL 1 DOWNHILL 1 DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 2
UPHILL 3 UPHILL 4
FLAT
FLAT
UPHILL 4
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 1
164
412 448
411
404
402
400 381
377
376
389
390
384
385
388
196
325
165
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
##

BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
11/17/2021 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
0 0" 1
2" 1" 2" L1.3

LANDSCAPE PLAN
20' 40' 80'
1 14
8 60
7 PARCEL J

PARCEL I

PAE ROAD
TEMP CONS 2
9 10
11 12
13 TEMP CONS 1
2 3
4 5
6 PARCEL K

PARCEL N
1 14
8 60
7 PARCEL J

PARCEL I

PAE ROAD
TEMP CONS 2
9 10
11 12
13 TEMP CONS 1
2 3
4 5
6 PARCEL K

PARCEL N
FLAT
FLAT
FLAT
FLAT
DOWNHILL 2
FLAT
FLAT
FLAT
DOWNHILL 1
UPHILL 4
FLAT
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 1
381
377
376
384
385
196
614
325
338 339
336
335
331 337
330
334
332
329
333
327 328
326
313
314
312
311
309
310
298
290
289
288
287
286
277
273
267 268
266 265
264
263
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA AA
##

BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
11/17/2021 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
0 0" 1
2" 1" 2" L1.4

LANDSCAPE PLAN
20' 40' 80'
38 PARCEL L
FLAT
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
‘ ’

BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
11/17/2021 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
0 0" 1
2" 1" 2"
8' 16' 32' L2.1

ENTRY ENLARGEMENT
UPHILL 3
32 PARCEL G
33 UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
AA

BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
11/17/2021 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
0 0" 1
2" 1" 2"
8' 16' 32' L2.2

FOOTHILL TRAIL ENLARGEMENT
15 16
17 19
18 55
58 54
15 16
17 19
18 55
58 54
UPHILL 3
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 4
UPHILL 3
DOWNHILL 1 DOWNHILL 1 DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 1
DOWNHILL 2
DOWNHILL 2
AA
AA
AA

BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
11/17/2021 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
0 0" 1
2" 1" 2"
8' 16' 32' L2.3

RESIDENTIAL PLANTING CONCEPT
Great Room
23'-9" x 24'-1"
Kitchen
Bedroom 4
11'-8" x 12'-0"
Walk-in
Pantry
Garage
22'-0" x 20'-0"
(19' x 20' Req'd.)
elec. meter /
tv / tele.
elec. w.h.

Driveway
3x9 trash pad
Terrace
12'-10" x 11'-4"
158 s.f.

Entry
media wall
drop
zone
DN
Multi Gen
Suite
10'-0" x 11'-10"
Entry
Pdr.

Bedroom 4
11'-0" x 11'-0"
Bath 3
Great Room
23'-0" x 17'-3"
Dining Room
12'-10" x 12'-4"
Opt. Outdoor
Rm
23'-2" x 9'-8"
Garage
20'-1" x 20'-1"
Kitchen
Porch
electrical /
telephone
Entry
Garage
21'-10" x 21'-1"
(20' x 19' Req'd.)
504 sq.ft.

Porch
elec. w.h.
elec. meter /
tv / tele.

Living
16'-3" x 11'-6"
media wall
barn
door
coats
UP
Bath
3 Bedroom 4
10'-6" x 11'-0"
Drop
Zone
52 sq.ft.
618 sq.ft.
elec. meter /
tv / tele.

Porch
barn
door
Drop
Zone
elec. Garage w.h.
21'-0" x 21'-1"
(20' x 19' Req'd.)
Bath4 479 sq.ft.

Living
16'-1" x 11'-0"
Bedroom 4
10'-10" x 11'-5"
coats
UP
55 sq.ft.

1.035 sq.ft.

Great Room
23'-9" x 15'-10"
elec. meter /
tv / tele.
elec. w.h.
3x9 trash pad
Terrace
24'-10" x 9'-5"
250 s.f.

Entry
media wall
Kitchen
Walk-in
Pantry
Bedroom 4
11'-0" x 11'-0"
coats
Garage
22'-0" x 20'-0"
(19' x 20' Req'd.)
Bath
3 Dining
DN

BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
11/17/2021 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
0 0" 1
2" 1" 2"
8' 16' 32' L3.1

TYPICAL PLANTING PLAN
Great Room
23'-9" x 24'-1"
Kitchen
Bedroom 4
11'-8" x 12'-0"
Walk-in
Pantry
Garage
22'-0" x 20'-0"
(19' x 20' Req'd.)
elec. meter /
tv / tele.
elec. w.h.

Driveway
3x9 trash pad
Terrace
12'-10" x 11'-4"
158 s.f.

Entry
media wall
drop
zone
DN
Multi Gen
Suite
10'-0" x 11'-10"
Entry
Pdr.

Bedroom 4
11'-0" x 11'-0"
Bath 3
Great Room
23'-0" x 17'-3"
Dining Room
12'-10" x 12'-4"
Opt. Outdoor
Rm
23'-2" x 9'-8"
Garage
20'-1" x 20'-1"
Kitchen
Porch
electrical /
telephone
Entry
Garage
21'-10" x 21'-1"
(20' x 19' Req'd.)
504 sq.ft.

Porch
elec. w.h.
elec. meter /
tv / tele.

Living
16'-3" x 11'-6"
media wall
barn
door
coats
UP
Bath
3 Bedroom 4
10'-6" x 11'-0"
Drop
Zone
52 sq.ft.
618 sq.ft.
elec. meter /
tv / tele.

Porch
barn
door
Drop
Zone
elec. Garage w.h.
21'-0" x 21'-1"
(20' x 19' Req'd.)
Bath4 479 sq.ft.

Living
16'-1" x 11'-0"
Bedroom 4
10'-10" x 11'-5"
coats
UP
55 sq.ft.

1.035 sq.ft.

Great Room
23'-9" x 15'-10"
elec. meter /
tv / tele.
elec. w.h.
3x9 trash pad
Terrace
24'-10" x 9'-5"
250 s.f.

Entry
media wall
Kitchen
Walk-in
Pantry
Bedroom 4
11'-0" x 11'-0"
coats
Garage
22'-0" x 20'-0"
(19' x 20' Req'd.)
Bath
3 Dining
DN

BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
11/17/2021 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
0 0" 1
2" 1" 2" L4.1

TYPICAL IRRIGATION PLAN

BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
11/17/2021 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
0 0"
1 2
" 1" 2" L4.2

WATER USE CALCULATIONS
1 2
3 4
5 BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
11/17/2021 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
0 0" 1
2" 1" 2"

PLANTING DETAILS
L5.1
6 1
2 3
4 BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
11/17/2021 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
0 0" 1
2" 1" 2"
CL CL
5 6

CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
L5.2
Affordable Housing Plan for Parcel Group 5 Bunker Hill
Planning Application No. 202003054
Project Information
ProjectDeveloper/Owner Trumark Homes
Project Address Parcel Group 5 Bunker Hill Development (PG 5) located at Bunker Hill Road between Harder Road & Carlos Bee
Boulevard Hayward, California
Assessor’s Parcel Number(s) 445-260-109-3&4; 445-250-41-1; 445-270-54-2; 445-250- 60-1; 445-260-84-3
Gross Project Site Area 37. 75 +/- Acre(s)
Minimum Density PD Development 2.0 +/- (DU/ Acre(s)
Maximum Density 2.0 +/- Acre(s)
Project Residential Type
Select all that apply.

Single Family Homes (SFH)
Accessory Dwelling Units(ADU)
Total Units: 74 SFH and 18 deed-restricted ADUs
Project Tenure Type Hybrid – Rental and ownership
Target Population
(i.e.seniors, multifamily,supportive
housing, large families)
Market-Rate & Below Market Rate
Phasing Plan See Attachment 1 - Phasing Plan
Project Amenities
Access to 18.51 +/- acres of open space, and an approximate 3,000 linear feet of a 16-foot wide Hayward Foothill Trail.

Affordable Housing Compliance
Pursuant to Section 10.17.205(d) of the Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO), the City Council on July 9, 2019 approved an Alternative Plan under which the Developer agreed to provide both onsite deed-restricted ADUs as inclusionary units and pay a reduced affordable housing in-lieu fee as set forth in the project’s Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). Specifically, the Developer will comply with the AHO by providing:
• 18 deed-restricted ADUs in an amount equal to 10% of the total unit count (74 units) to Very Low Income households in perpetuity; and
• Payment of 50% of the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee on 90% of the total habitable square footage of the project.

The proposal, consistent with Master Development Plan (Resolution 19-163), meets the requirements set forth in Ordinance No. 17-20 and satisfies the Project Proponents inclusionary and affordable housing obligations
Attachment X
Unit Mix Summary Table
Unity Type
(bedroom)
Size
(sq ft)
Extremely Low
Income Units
Very Low
Income Units
Low Income Units Moderate
Income Units
Market
Rate Units
AHO Density
Bonus
AHO Density
Bonus
AHO Density
Bonus
AHO Density
Bonus
1-Bedroom
ADU
433 - - 18 - - - -
Single Family
Home
2,406-
3,293
(with
ADU)
- - - - - - - - 74
Site Plan
Attachment 1 is a Site Plan of the projectshowing the proposed location for each of the (18) rental affordable units.

Phasing Plan
The vertical construction will be completed in approximately 10 phases (see Attachment 1). The first 9 vertical phases contain at a minimum one deed-restricted ADU unit. Any restrictions on the dwelling units within that phase will be lifted pursuant to the DDA. No final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy (COO) will be issued for the market-rate units in phase 10, unless all deed-restricted ADUs have been issued COO.

Marketing Plan
The Developer will submit final Marketing and Management Plans per the schedule in the DDA.

Attachment 1

CARLSBAD
FRESNO
IRVINE
LOS ANGELES
PALM SPRINGS
POINT RICHMOND

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE
SAN LUIS OBISPO
157 Park Place, Pt. Richmond, California  94801     510.236.6810     www.lsa.net

MEMORANDUM
DATE:  June 19, 2019
TO:  Jennifer Ott, Deputy City Manager
John Stefanski, Management Analyst II
FROM:  Theresa Wallace, AICP, Principal
Shanna Guiler, AICP, Associate/Environmental Planner
SUBJECT:  California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Addendum for the Route 238 Development Project ‐ Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5)
This document, prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the regulations and policies of the City of Hayward, provides information and analysis concerning the Route 238 Development Project – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) (proposed project). This document is an Addendum to the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report1 (GP EIR),
which was certified by the City of Hayward in July 2014. This Addendum to the GP EIR evaluates whether changes to development assumptions included in the General Plan associated with the proposed project would result in new or substantially more adverse significant effects or require new mitigation measures not identified in the GP EIR. See Attachment A for a full description of the proposed project. The City of Hayward is the Lead Agency under CEQA. In accordance with CEQA Section 21093(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15152(a), this Addendum tiers off the GP EIR, certified in July 2014, which is hereby incorporated by reference.

INTRODUCTION
The proposed project area is approximately 37 acres in size and is comprised of several parcels bound by Carlos Bee Boulevard to the north, Harder Road to the south/east, Central Boulevard to the south and undeveloped land to the west.

The proposed project would result in the construction of up to 74 single‐family residential units plus 8 accessory dwelling units (ADUs), approximately 10.5 acres of open space, a new segment of the Hayward Foothill Trail, and associated roadway and infrastructure improvements to serve the project site. The project would require a Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Precise Plan Review, Improvement Plans Review, Final Map, Grading Permit and Building Permit.

This Addendum is prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 which states: “The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some 1 Hayward, City of, 2014. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Hayward General Plan. May.

Attachment XI
6/19/19 (\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\Memo_PG 5 Addendum.docx)   2 changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Section 15162 specifies that “no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines … one or more of the following:”

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e), the purpose of this Addendum is to describe and evaluate the proposed project (Route 238 Development Project – Bunker Hill), assess the proposed modifications to the project evaluated in the GP EIR, and identify the reasons for the City's conclusion that changes to the proposed project and associated environmental effects do not meet the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

Attachment A to this Addendum provides a complete description of the proposed project, its location, existing site characteristics, proposed development, and required approvals and entitlements.

Attachment B to this Addendum provides the Environmental Checklist prepared for the project. This checklist provides information to: (1) compare the environmental impacts of the proposed project with impacts expected to result from development approved in the City of Hayward 2040 General Attachment XI
6/19/19 (\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\Memo_PG 5 Addendum.docx)   3 Plan and evaluated in the GP EIR; (2) demonstrate that the proposed project would not result in new or more severe significant environmental impacts; (3) provide new or revised mitigation measures not identified in the GP EIR; and (4) conclude that no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project would be undertaken since the GP EIR  was certified resulted in new or more severe significant environmental effects.

COMPARISON TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15162 AND 15163
The following discussion summarizes the reasons that a subsequent or supplemental EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, is not required and an Addendum to the GP EIR is the appropriate CEQA document.

Substantial Changes
Per the analysis included in Attachment B, Environmental Checklist, the proposed modifications to the project evaluated in the GP EIR would not result in new significant impacts beyond those identified in the GP EIR, would not substantially increase the severity of impacts identified in the GP EIR, and would not require major revisions to the GP EIR. Therefore, the proposed changes to the project would be minor modifications, not substantial changes, and an Addendum is the appropriate document to address these minor modifications rather than a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

Substantial Changes in Circumstances
As described in the Environmental Checklist for each topic, environmental conditions in and around the project site have not changed such that implementation of the proposed minor modifications to the GP EIR would result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of environmental effects identified in the GP EIR, and thus would not require major revisions to the GP EIR.

New Information
No new information of substantial importance, which was not known or could not have been known when the GP EIR was certified, has been identified which shows that the proposed modifications to the GP EIR associated with the proposed project would be expected to result in: (1) new significant environmental effects not identified in the GP EIR; (2) substantially more severe environmental effects than shown in the GP EIR; (3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously determined to be infeasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (4) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the GP EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. As described through the Environmental Checklist, no new or substantially more severe impacts are expected beyond those identified in the GP EIR.

Impacts identified as a result of the proposed project, including potential impacts in different locations than were analyzed in the GP EIR, are not more severe than the impacts identified in the GP EIR, and therefore, fall under the previously identified impacts in the GP EIR. Mitigation measures Attachment XI
6/19/19 (\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\Memo_PG 5 Addendum.docx)   4 from the GP EIR have been modified to mitigate identified impacts; however, these mitigation measures are not considerably different than those analyzed in the GP EIR.

STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Standard Conditions of Approval (SCAs) have been identified that incorporate development policies and standards from various plans, policies, and ordinances (e.g., Hayward Municipal Code, California Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Municipal Regional Permit, etc.), which have been found to substantially mitigate environmental effects. The City of Hayward applies SCAs for all projects and amends these conditions as needed. As applicable, the SCAs are adopted as requirements of an individual project when it is approved by the City, and are designed to, and will, avoid or substantially reduce a project’s environmental effects.

In reviewing project applications, the City determines which SCAs apply based upon the zoning district, community plan, and the type of permits/approvals required for the project. Depending on the specific characteristics of the project type and/or project site, the City will determine which SCAs apply to a specific project. Because these SCAs are mandatory requirements imposed on a citywide basis, environmental analyses assume that these SCAs will be imposed and implemented by the project, and are not imposed as mitigation measures under CEQA.

CONCLUSION
The proposed modifications to the GP EIR described in this Addendum would not require major revisions to the GP EIR due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects. The analysis contained in the Environmental Checklist confirms that the modified project is within the scope of the GP EIR and will have no new or more severe significant effects and no new mitigation measures are required. Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or further CEQA review is required prior to approval of the proposed project, as described in this Addendum.

Attachments:  A – Project Description
B – Environmental Checklist
Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT A: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\A_Project Description_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  A‐1 ATTACHMENT A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following describes the proposed Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) project (proposed project) that includes residential uses, new public streets, infrastructure improvements, and installation of a portion of the Hayward Foothill Trail on approximately 37 acres of land owned by the City of Hayward (City). In addition to the description of the proposed project itself, this section includes a summary description of the project’s location and existing site characteristics. This project description is part of the preparation of an Addendum to the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report1
(GP EIR), certified by the City of Hayward
in July 2014. The City is the CEQA lead agency for the proposed project.

PROJECT BACKGROUND
In the 1960s, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) purchased over 400 parcels in the Hayward foothills, east of Foothill and Mission Boulevards, for the construction of the Route 238 Bypass Freeway project. However, in 1971 the community filed a lawsuit to stop the project and it was eventually abandoned. Caltrans has been selling the State‐owned properties within the right‐of‐ way because they are no longer required for the freeway project.

In January 2016, the City of Hayward (City) negotiated a purchase and sale agreement with Caltrans to acquire several remaining parcel groups along the former freeway alignment. The City’s goal is to develop these properties with uses that would be consistent with the comprehensive vision of the City’s General Plan and to integrate these properties with the rest of the community. The acquisition and development of each of these parcel groups is independent from one another, and no part of any one development is related to or dependent on the development of any other group of parcels.

PROJECT SITE
The following section describes the location and site characteristics for the proposed project area and provides a brief overview of the existing land uses within and in the vicinity of the site.

Location and Surrounding Land Uses
The City of Hayward occupies approximately 64 square miles in southwestern Alameda County, approximately 14 miles south of Downtown Oakland, 20 miles southeast of Downtown San Francisco, and 25 miles north of Downtown San Jose. The City’s planning area (Sphere of Influence) encompasses approximately 72 square miles and includes all land within the Hayward City limits and adjacent unincorporated county land, including Garin Regional Park, open space areas east of the City, portions of San Lorenzo and Castro Valley, and the communities of Hayward Acres, Cherryland, and Fairview.
1 Hayward, City of, 2014. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Hayward General Plan. May.

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT A: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
JUNE 2019
A‐2 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\A_Project Description_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) The proposed project is located on the site known as Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5), located northwest of Harder Road, approximately 1,000 feet east of Mission Boulevard and adjacent to and southwest of California State University, East Bay (CSU East Bay).

Regional vehicular access to the project site is provided by Interstate 580 (I‐580) located approxi‐ mately 2.5 miles north of the project site and State Highway 238 (SR 238) that traverses the City.

Figures 1 and 2 (attached) show the regional and local context of the proposed project site.

Parcel Group 5 is primarily surrounded by low‐density residential uses to the west and southwest.

Several independently owned parcels are located within and adjacent to this parcel group. CSU East Bay sports fields are located east of the site, and multifamily residential uses are located north of the site, across Carlos Bee Boulevard.

Site Characteristics and Current Site Conditions
The proposed project area is approximately 37 acres in size and is comprised of several parcels bound by Carlos Bee Boulevard to the north, Harder Road to the southeast, Central Boulevard to the south, and undeveloped land to the west.

The project site primarily consists of undeveloped land with scattered residential development along Maitland Drive, Bunker Hill Boulevard, and Bunker Hill Court. Existing structures on the site include single‐family homes and associated driveways, landscaping, and utilities. Some of the dwellings are vacant, while others are occupied by tenants. A total of 32 existing residences will be demolished in 2019 as part of a separate project. The buildings would be demolished prior to commencement of the development project described herein.

The project site includes undeveloped open space covered with mature trees. Two drainages are located on site; one drainage flows across the northwestern end of the site adjacent to Carlos Bee Boulevard, and the other drainage is located in the southeastern portion of the site, north of Harder Road. This small creek flows into Zeile Creek.  The project site is characterized by steep terrain that slopes downhill to the west.

General Plan
The General Plan Land Use Map designates Parcel Group 5 as Suburban Density Residential (1.0 to

4.3 dwelling units per net acre) with a natural drainage designated as Parks and Recreation at the southern end of the site. The site is within the Hayward Foothills Trail Special Design District and is zoned as Residential Natural Preserve (minimum lot size 20,000 square feet, up to 2 dwelling units per acre), with the drainage zoned as Open Space. The purpose of the Hayward Foothills Trail Special Design District is to ensure development of a continuous trail along the 238 Bypass Land Use Study properties. The City of Hayward Zoning Ordinance outlines specific development standards and design guidelines for the trail with a general location.

The GP EIR analyzed implementation and buildout of the General Plan over a 26‐year planning period. Although no specific development projects were proposed in conjunction with the General Plan, the GP EIR analyzed a development potential of approximately 7,475 additional single‐family Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT A: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\A_Project Description_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  A‐3 dwelling units; 7,339 additional multi‐family dwelling units; and 25,787 additional jobs. The jobs are generally categorized as follows: retail, service, manufacturing, wholesale, agricultural, and other.

As a largely built‐out community, future development opportunities are limited to relatively small infill sites and the redevelopment of underutilized parcels. The development capacity assumptions are derived from already adopted plans and initiatives as well as housing, population, and employment projections issued by the Association of Bay Area Governments. Table A identifies the Hayward 2040 General Plan development capacity assumptions used in the GP EIR.

Table A: Existing and Proposed Development in the General Plan Planning Period Land Use  Existing 2010  Proposed Through 2040  Net New Development Single‐Family Housing  30,989  38,461  7,472
Multi‐Family Housing  20,395  27,794  7,399
Employment  76,067  101,854  25,787
Source: City of Hayward (July 2014).

PROPOSED PROJECT
The Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) Project would consist of the following components, described in greater detail below. The land use concept for the proposed project is shown in Figure 3 (attached).  Up to 74 single‐family residential units with 8 accessory dwelling units (ADUs);  Approximately 10.50 acres of open space to preserve riparian areas;  A new cul‐de‐sac road extending from Maitland Drive;
 A new roadway connection from Bunker Hill Road to Carlos Bee Boulevard;  A new segment of the Hayward Foothill Trail, a 16‐foot‐wide multi‐use trail; and  Additional street improvements such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, on‐street parking bulb‐outs, utilities, and lighting.

The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Suburban Density designation and would provide a complete, walkable, sustainable neighborhood that would preserve view corridors and open space areas, and provide infrastructure and circulation improvements. No changes in General Plan land use designations would be required for the proposed project. Minor revisions to the Zoning Ordinance that are consistent with the General Plan may be needed to accommodate the proposed development intensity (e.g., minimum lot sizes), distribution, and layout within the project site.

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT A: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
JUNE 2019
A‐4 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\A_Project Description_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) Housing
The proposed project would include 74 single‐family residential units with lots ranging in size from approximately 5,000 square feet to 24,000 square feet within the central portion of the project site.

The average housing size would be 3,500 square feet and the average lot size would be 10,000 square feet, consistent with the City’s General Plan. As described above, the project site contains 32 residential units, which will be demolished as part of a separate project, resulting in a net increase of approximately 50 residential units.

As part of the proposed project, the City is proposing that a portion of the units (approximately 10 percent or 8 units) be classified as “moderate income” affordable housing units, to be provided either as deed‐restricted ADUs or through payment of affordable housing in‐lieu fees.

Parking
Each housing unit would have a minimum two‐car garage. In addition, approximately 50 on‐street parking spaces would be provided on Bunker Hill Boulevard and 25 on‐street parking spaces would be provided on Maitland Street. On‐street parking would only be provided on the uphill side of the street.

Open Space and Pedestrian/Bicycle Connections
The proposed project would include 10.50 acres of dedicated open space located around the drainages at the northern and southern portions of the project site. Tree‐lined streets with sidewalks would provide north/south connections throughout the project site.

Approximately 2,993 linear feet of the Hayward Foothill Trail would run along the northern boundary of the project site, connect to the CSUEB campus and then extend south along Bunker Hill Road to terminate at Harder Road. The trail would consist of a 16‐foot‐wide multi‐use trail to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists.

On‐Site Pedestrian and Vehicle Circulation
Primary access to and through the project site would be via Bunker Hill Road, an existing two‐lane road. Bunker Hill Road would be improved to provide two wider drive lanes, a 4‐foot‐wide sidewalk on one side of the roadway, landscaped planting strips on both sides of the roadway, and retaining walls, where required. In some locations, bulb‐outs would be provided to accommodate on‐street parking.  A new access point at the intersection of Bunker Hill Road and Carlos Bee Boulevard would be provided, approximately 200 feet from the existing Tanglewood intersection.

Residential units in the southern portion of the project site would have access via Maitland Drive, which would be improved to provide two wider drive lanes, a sidewalk and planting strip on the north side of the roadway and a parking lane on the south side of the road. A new cul de sac extending off Maitland Drive would be provided to access several residential units proposed in the southwestern portion of the site.

Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT A: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\A_Project Description_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  A‐5 Infrastructure Requirements
Bunker Hill Boulevard contains existing public utilities and would transect the site; therefore, the majority of the parcels have frontage on a public right‐of‐way containing public utilities. A description of utilities and infrastructure associated with the project is provided below.

Water
The project site is located in the 750‐foot pressure zone of the City’s water system. Existing 6‐inch mains are located in Bunker Hill Boulevard, Central Boulevard, and Maitland Drive roadways, and an 8‐inch main is located in Carlos Bee Boulevard. No water mains are located in Harder Road.

Approximately 2,400 linear feet of new 8‐inch water main would be installed in Maitland Drive, connecting to the existing 6‐inch water main in Central Boulevard at both ends of Maitland Drive.

Approximately 2,500 linear feet of new 8‐inch water main would be installed in Bunker Hill Drive, connecting to the existing 6‐inch water main in Central Boulevard and to the existing 8‐inch water main in Carlos Bee Boulevard at each end of Bunker Hill Drive and the proposed extension to Carlos Bee Boulevard.

Sewer Service
Wastewater collection is provided by the City. An existing 10‐inch vitrified clay pipe (VCP) main is located in Carlos Bee Boulevard; however, it does not appear to be accessible from the site.

Approximately 150 feet of 8‐inch sanitary sewer pipe is located in Bunker Hill Boulevard and connects to the sewer main in Maitland Drive, approximately 160 feet lower in elevation. The existing homes on Bunker Hill Boulevard are currently on private septic systems.

Sewer improvements in Bunker Hill Boulevard would require the installation of 3,235 linear feet of 6‐ or 8‐inch sewer main within the roadway and replacement of the existing 8‐inch sewer main in the hillside between Bunker Hill Boulevard and Maitland Drive. The new sewer main would maintain the existing connection to Maitland Drive. An analysis of the available sewer capacity in the downstream mains has not been performed, but the additional capacity from the proposed development would not be a significant amount, and would be partially offset by the replacement of the existing mains. The existing downstream main is an 8‐inch line.

Stormwater/Drainage
No storm drain infrastructure is located within Carlos Bee Boulevard or Harder Road. An existing 12‐ inch metal storm drain line is located in Maitland Drive below the project site. A natural drainage channel located in the northern end of the site currently captures runoff from Carlos Bee Boulevard.

Development would be required to avoid the drainage channel.

Proposed development would be required to provide hydromodification of all proposed runoff, to ensure post‐construction runoff levels are the same as existing runoff. Hydromodification would include stormwater detention located either in detention ponds along Bunker Hill Boulevard, downstream of the proposed project, or within oversized storm drain pipes within Bunker Hill Boulevard.

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT A: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
JUNE 2019
A‐6 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\A_Project Description_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) Gas and Electrical Improvements
Electric service is distributed to the site by overhead electric lines on joint utility poles. Bunker Hill Boulevard contains electric and communication lines. A Pacific Gas & Electric overhead transmission line is located within a 200‐foot‐wide easement adjacent to the northern boundary of the site.

Gas service is distributed to the site by underground mains. Bunker Hill Boulevard contains a 2‐inch gas main, and a 1.25‐inch gas main is located in Bunker Hill Court. A majority of the existing residences are served by a 0.75‐inch gas line.

For the proposed project, approximately 100 feet of 2‐inch gas main would need to be installed to complete the gas service in the south end of Maitland Drive by connecting to the 3‐inch gas main in Central Boulevard.

Outdoor Lighting
Outdoor lighting would be in conformance with the City’s Municipal Code. Lighting would be provided at intersections and along roadways where lighting is needed for public safety due to topographic constraints. Limited safety and security lighting and indirect shielded lighting would also be provided for the proposed trail, including but not limited to parking areas and walkways/trails, where appropriate.

Grading
Approximately 500 cubic yards of grading would be required within the public right‐of‐way for the proposed roadway section. Approximately 500 feet of 4‐foot‐high retaining wall would be required along the uphill side of Bunker Hill Boulevard, and approximately 300 feet of 4‐foot‐high retaining wall would be required along the uphill side of Maitland Drive. The resulting earthwork would consist primarily of cut material, which would need to be exported off site. Additional earthwork would likely be required for construction of the proposed residential units, depending on the design of the proposed units.

Construction
Development of the project would require removal of any remnants of the previous buildings located on the site (e.g., foundations, septic tanks) and the removal of all paving. Construction is anticipated to occur over 24 to 36 months starting in spring 2021. For the purpose of this Addendum, it is assumed that project construction would not require pile driving, but would utilize a typical mix of construction equipment for projects of a similar type and size, including graders, bulldozers, jackhammers, and cement mixers.

RELATED PROJECTS
When evaluating cumulative impacts, CEQA requires the use of either a list of past, present, and probable future projects, including projects outside the control of the lead agency, or a summary of projections in an adopted planning document, or some reasonable combination of the two approaches.

Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT A: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\A_Project Description_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  A‐7 The cumulative analysis of this Addendum is consistent with Section 15130(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines as it is based on both a list of past, present and probable future development projects in the area (short‐term cumulative development) and a summary of development projections.

Cumulative impacts would most likely result from short‐term and long‐term development in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. Where appropriate, this Addendum assesses the short‐ term and long‐term cumulative impacts that would result from the project plus other projected development in the project vicinity. The following sections discuss the anticipated short‐term and long‐term development in the project vicinity.

Short‐Term Development
As described above, the proposed project is anticipated to start construction in spring 2021, extending approximately 24 to 36 months. Other projects anticipated to be under construction concurrent with the proposed project, include other projects located within the Route 238 Study Area. These projects are located in the vicinity of the proposed project and could contribute to cumulative construction impacts. These projects are described below.  Parcel Group 6 (Quarry Site). Parcel Group 6 is located north of Carlos Bee Boulevard, south of Highland Boulevard, approximately 1,000 feet northeast of Mission Boulevard and approximately 2,000 feet northwest of California State University East Bay (CSU East Bay).

Proposed development at this site would include a maximum of 500 townhomes/multi‐family units and 500 student‐housing units, up to 10,000 square feet of retail/commercial space, passive open space, a neighborhood park, and associated roadway and infrastructure connections.
 Parcel Group 7 (Mission Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard). Parcel Group 7 is located at the southeastern corner of Mission Boulevard and Carlos Bee Boulevard. Proposed development at this site would include a new auto dealership. The new auto dealership would consist of an approximately 65,000‐square‐foot facility that will include sales, service, and display. The new dealership would be located on the lower five acres of the site towards Mission Boulevard.  Parcel Group 8 (Grove Way/Foothill Boulevard). Parcel Group 8 is located at the northern end of the City, south of Grove Way and east of Foothill Boulevard. Proposed development at this site would include a mix of townhomes, commercial, multifamily high density residential and a large open space parkland.
 Parcel Group 9 (Apple Avenue/Oak Street). Parcel Group 9 is located at the northern end of the City, immediately east of the I‐580/SR 238 interchange, north of the Apple Avenue and Oak Street intersection. Proposed development at this site would include a 150‐room hotel.

Long‐Term Development
The potential development outlined in the 2014 General Plan was considered in the cumulative analysis in this Addendum, along with the specific projects identified above. Because the 2014 General Plan and the GP EIR developed growth forecasts through 2040 to account for growth within the General Plan Planning Area, including the project site, use of the development projections from these two documents is inherently cumulative, in that the projection considers impacts of Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT A: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
JUNE 2019
A‐8 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\A_Project Description_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) development generated by future planned uses. Since 2014, updated growth forecasts have projected slightly less growth within the City than was estimated in 2014, therefore use of the 2014 General Plan’s assumptions is conservative, potentially overstating growth potential and intensity of environmental effects. Moreover, projects approved within the General Plan Planning Area have not exceeded the growth forecasts or developed in a way that would change the likely environmental impacts associated with future growth. Therefore, the cumulative effects of long‐term development are fully reflected in the 2014 General Plan’s growth forecasts and analyzed within this Addendum accordingly.

AMENDMENTS AND PERMITS
As part of the proposed project evaluated in this Addendum, the following approvals and permits would be required:
 Zone Change from RNP to PD to allow for an average lot size of 10,000 sq. ft.  Site Plan Review
 Tentative Tract Map
 Precise Plan Review
 Improvement Plans review
 Final Map
 Grading Permit
 Building Permit
Attachment XI
Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5)
SOURCE: Google Streets Map (2019); National Geographic (2019).

I:\DEW1701\GIS\Maps\CEQA - Parcel Group 5\Figure 1_Regional Location and Overview Map.mxd (5/15/2019) FIGURE 1
Route 238 Property Dev elopment Project –
Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5)
Hayward, California
Regional Location and Overview Map
LEGEND
Parcel Group
0 1000 2000
FEET
Project Location
Project Vicinity
Attachment XI
SOURCE: Microsoft Bing Base m ap.

I:\DEW1701\GIS\Maps\CEQA - Parce l Group 5\Figure 2_Parce l Group 5 - Bunke r Hill Ae rial.m xd (5/15/2019) FIGURE 2
Route 238 Property Dev elopment Project –
Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5)
Hayward, California
Parce l Group 5 – Bunke r Hill: Ae rial
LEGEND
Parce l Group
Parce l
0 200 400
FEET
5a
Attachment XI
FEET
0 200 400
• Total Units: 74• Lot Size Range:
5,000-24,000 sf
• Average Housing
Size: 3,500 sf
SOURCE: DESIGN WORKSHOP, 2019.P:\DEW1701 Route 238 ProperƟes Master Plan\g\Environmental Constraints\Fig_3_Conceptual Plan-Bunker Hill\.ai (5/16/19) FIGURE 3
Route 238 Property Development Project
Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5)
Conceptual Plan
Attachment
X
I
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT A: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
JUNE 2019
A‐12 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\A_Project Description_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) This page intentionally left blank.

Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐1 ATTACHMENT B
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15168
CEQA Guidelines 15168(c)(4) recommends using a written checklist or similar device to confirm whether the environmental effects of a subsequent activity were adequately covered in a program EIR. This checklist confirms that the Route 238 Property Development Project – Bunker Hill (proposed project) described in Attachment A is within the scope of the City of Hayward 2040 General  Plan EIR1
(GP EIR), certified by the City of Hayward in July 2014. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant effects, and no new mitigation measures are required for the proposed project.

In accordance with CEQA Section 21093(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15152(a), this Addendum tiers off the GP EIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference.

This environmental checklist is used to: (1) compare the environmental impacts of the proposed project with impacts expected to result from the development approved in the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan and evaluated in the GP EIR; (2) identify whether the proposed project would result in new or more severe significant environmental impacts; (3) identify if new or revised mitigation measures would be required by the project sponsor; and (4) identity if substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project would be undertaken since the GP EIR was certified would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects.

In summary, no new or more severe significant impacts were identified for the proposed project that were not identified and mitigated in the GP EIR, and no new mitigation measures would be required for the proposed project. In some cases, Standard Conditions of Approval have been identified to ensure compliance with development policies and standards from various plans, policies, and ordinances, which have been found to substantially mitigate environmental effects. For all environmental topics addressed in the following checklist, there have been no substantial changes in environmental circumstances that would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects than were identified and evaluated in the GP EIR. Therefore, no subsequent EIR or CEQA evaluation is required for the Route 238 Development Project – Bunker Hill project. 1 Hayward, City of, 2014a. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Hayward General Plan. May.

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐2 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) This page intentionally left blank
Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐3

1. AESTHETICS
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Reduced
Impact
No New
Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion
Scenic Vistas
The project area is within the heavily developed central portion of the City. However, approximately half of the land within the City of Hayward consists of water, baylands, and open space. Marshland along the shoreline creates the western boundary of the City, and rolling hills form the eastern boundary of the City. The higher elevation hillside areas and portions of the shoreline provide scenic vistas of San Francisco Bay. The developed areas of the City can block scenic views, including views of the East Bay Hills. The hillside areas of the City are generally characterized as having a rural character with larger lots and fewer tract‐home developments.

The project site is located within the hillside area and is surrounded by residential, commercial, and university uses. Trees are scattered throughout the site. Dense riparian vegetation surrounds the natural drainages in the northwestern and southeastern ends of the site. The hillside location provides expansive views of the San Francisco Bay. In addition, due to its higher elevation, the currently vacant project site can be seen from Mission Boulevard, Carlos Bee Boulevard, and other surrounding roadways and residential uses.

Implementation of the proposed project would alter views toward the hillsides from nearby roadways. Due to the site topography, proposed residential development would be visible from area roadways and would change the existing vistas from undeveloped hillside to residential development. Similar to other development proposed with the City and within the City’s hillside areas, the proposed project would be required to comply with General Plan policies related to scenic vistas, the City’s Design Guidelines, and the City’s Hillside Design and Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines. Therefore, impacts associated with the proposed project would not result in new impacts to scenic vistas or substantially increase the severity of impacts identified in the GP EIR.

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐4 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) Scenic Resources
County designated‐scenic highways within the City include I‐580, I‐880, and SR‐92.2 In addition,
I‐580, located just north of Hayward, is also eligible for State Scenic Highway designation.3 None of
these routes is located within proximity of the project site. Therefore, impacts associated with the proposed project would not result in new impacts to scenic resources or substantially increase the severity of impacts identified in the GP EIR.

Visual Character
The project site primarily consists of undeveloped land with scattered residential development and concentrated stands of mature trees. Existing structures on site include single‐family homes and associated driveways, landscaping, and utilities. Two drainages are located on site; one drainage flows across the northwestern end of the site adjacent to Carlos Bee Boulevard, and the other drainage is located in the southeastern portion of the site, north of Harder Road. Development of the site with 82 new residential units (74 single‐family residential units and 8 ADUs), along with associated landscaping and roadway improvements would alter the existing visual character of the site, changing from an open rural landscape to suburban development.

As outlined in the project description, the proposed project would include 10.50 acres of dedicated open space located around the drainages at the northern and southern portions of the project site, providing for the physical and visual separation of the proposed development from adjacent residential communities. All of the proposed lots would consist of larger, medium‐density lots ranging in size from approximately 5,000 square feet to 24,000 square feet, within the central portion of the project site. Internal roadways would have landscaping. Pedestrian and circulation amenities would also contribute to the visual character and quality of the new development.

Existing trees would be retained to maintain the existing natural character of the site, where feasible. Incorporation of existing natural elements into project design, as proposed by the project, is typical of residential subdivisions in the City of Hayward and is required by policies included in the City’s 2040 General Plan. Tree removal and replacement would be consistent with the City’s Policy HQL‐8.3 and the City’s Hillside Design Guidelines.

In addition, much of the existing topography on the site would be retained, where feasible. The proposed project would comply with General Plan Policies LU‐7.2, LU‐7.3, LU‐7.4, LU‐7.5, NR‐8.1 and NR‐8.2, which require hillside developments to adhere to design guidelines that respect natural topography, minimize site grading, preserve scenic resources, and mitigate visual impacts.

Existing topographical and landscape features would be maintained and enhanced where feasible and open space buffers would visually separate the new development from existing adjacent developments. The change in character of the project site, once developed, would be visually compatible with surrounding development, particularly surrounding residential neighborhoods. 2 Hayward, City of, 2014b. Hayward 2040 General Plan Background Report. 3 California Department of Transportation, 2018. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, Alameda County. Website: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm (accessed June 19, 2019).

Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐5 Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings and this impact would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new impacts to visual character beyond those less‐than‐ significant impacts identified in the GP EIR.

Light and Glare
Most homes emit some light and glare during day and evening hours, as is typical in a suburban environment. The proposed residential development would include indoor lighting and outdoor lighting for safety purposes. The proposed roadways, and pathways would also include outdoor lighting for safety purposes. At night these new sources of light would be visible from a distance; however, the addition of new light sources associated with the proposed project would generally blend in with surrounding development and would represent a continuation of existing residential development within this area of the City. Design Review of the proposed project would ensure that lighting within the project site is sufficient to protect public safety but does not excessively illuminate the surrounding area. Therefore, the proposed project would not create impacts related to light and glare that would be more severe than those identified in the GP EIR.

Applicable Mitigation
As described in the GP EIR, 2040 General Plan, impacts on aesthetics and visual resources were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation measures were identified. No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred related to visual resources. In addition, no revisions to the project or new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified would lead to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.

Applicable Policies
General Plan Policies
 Policy LU‐1.7 Design Guidelines. The City shall maintain and implement commercial, residential, industrial, and hillside design guidelines to ensure that future development complies with General Plan goals and policies.
 Policy LU‐3.6 Residential Design Strategies. The City shall encourage residential developments to incorporate design features that encourage walking within neighborhoods by:
○ Creating a highly connected block and street network. ○ Designing new streets with wide sidewalks, planting strips, street trees, and pedestrian‐ scaled lighting.
○ Orienting homes, townhomes, and apartment and condominium buildings toward streets or public spaces.

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐6 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) ○ Locating garages for homes and townhomes along rear alleys (if available) or behind or to the side of the front façade of the home.
○ Locating parking facilities below or behind apartment and condominium buildings. ○ Enhancing the front façade of homes, townhomes, and apartment and condominium buildings with porches, stoops, balconies, and/or front patios. ○ Ensuring that windows are provided on facades that front streets or public spaces.  Policy LU‐7.2 Ridgelines. The City shall discourage the placement of homes and structures near ridgelines to maintain natural open space and preserve views. If ridgeline development cannot be avoided, the City shall require grading, building, and landscaping designs that mitigate visual impacts and blend development with the natural features of the hillside.  Policy LU‐7.3 Hillside Street Layouts. The City shall require curvilinear street patterns in hillside areas to respect natural topography and minimize site grading.  Policy LU‐7.4 Hillside Street Design. The City shall encourage narrow streets in hillside areas.

Streets should be designed with soft shoulders and drainage swales (rather than sidewalks with curb and gutters) to maintain the rural character of hillside areas and minimize grading impacts.

The City shall prohibit parking along narrow street shoulders to provide space for residents to walk and ride horses.
 Policy LU‐7.5 Clustered Developments. The City shall encourage the clustering of residential units on hillsides to preserve sensitive habitats and scenic resources as natural open space. Sensitive areas and scenic resources include woodlands, streams and riparian corridors, mature trees, ridgelines, and rock outcroppings.
 Policy NR‐1.7 Native Tree Protection. The City shall encourage protection of mature, native tree species to the maximum extent practicable, to support the local ecosystem, provide shade, create windbreaks, and enhance the aesthetics of new and existing development.  Policy NR‐8.1 Hillside Residential Design Standards. The City shall regulate the design of streets, sidewalks, cluster home development, architecture, site design, grading, landscaping, utilities, and signage in hillside areas to protect aesthetics, natural topography, and views of surrounding open space through the continued Hillside Design and Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines.  Policy NR‐8.2 Hillside Site Preparation Techniques. The City shall require low‐impact site grading, soils, repair, foundation design, and other construction methods to be used on new residential structures and roadways above 250 feet in elevation to protect aesthetics, natural topography, and views of hillsides and surrounding open space.

Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐7  Policy M‐3.6 Context Sensitive. The City shall consider the land use and urban design context of adjacent properties in both residential and business districts as well as urban, suburban, and rural areas when designing complete streets.
 Policy M‐3.11 Adequate Street Canopy. The City shall ensure that all new roadway projects and major reconstruction projects provide for the development of an adequate street tree canopy.  Policy M‐5.5 Streetscape Design. The City shall require the pedestrian‐oriented streets be designed and maintained to provide a pleasant environment for walking including shade trees; plantings; well‐designed benches, trach receptacles, and other furniture; pedestrian‐scaled lighting fixtures; wayfinding signage; integrated transit shelters; public art; and other amenities.  Policy HQL‐8.3 Trees of Significance. The City shall require the retention of trees of significance (such as heritage trees) by promoting stewardship and ensuring that project design provides for the retention of these trees wherever possible. Where tree removal cannot be avoided, the City shall require tree replacement or suitable mitigation.
 Policy ED‐5.5 Quality Development. The City shall require new development to include quality site, architectural, and landscape design features to improve and protect the appearance and reputation of Hayward.
 Policy CS‐1.10 Lighting. The City shall encourage property owners to use appropriate levels of exterior lighting to discourage criminal activity, enhance natural surveillance opportunities and reduce fear.

Conclusion
The GP EIR adequately evaluated the aesthetic impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, potential impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant and additional mitigation is not required.

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐8 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Reduced
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?
Discussion
The City of Hayward and surrounding areas primarily consist of developed, urban land, with pockets of vacant properties; undeveloped bayshore and open space exists on the western and eastern margins of the City. No farmland designated by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMPP) is located within the City limits. Grazing land is located east of the City limits.4
No forest lands or timberlands are located on or adjacent to the site.

4 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 2014. Alameda County Important Farmland 2014. Available online at: www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Alameda.aspx (accessed June 19, 2019).

Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐9 The project site is not used for agricultural production or forestry use nor is it located on a parcel under a Williamson Act contract. Additionally, the project site is not zoned for agricultural use.

Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts on agriculture or forestry resources.

Applicable Mitigation
No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.

Conclusion
The GP EIR adequately evaluated the agriculture and forestry impacts of the proposed project.

Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant and additional mitigation is not required.

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐10 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)

3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Reduced
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non‐ attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people?
Discussion
Parcel Group 5 is located with the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional government agency that monitors and regulates air pollution within the air basin. The Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act mandate the control and reduction of specific air pollutants. Under these Acts, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have established ambient air quality standards for specific “criteria” pollutants, designed to protect public health and welfare. Primary criteria pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM10), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). Secondary criteria pollutants include ozone (O3), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).

Based on the BAAQMD attainment status and ambient air quality monitoring data, ambient air quality in the vicinity of the project site has basically remained unchanged since approval of the GP EIR. However, the BAAQMD has made two key regulatory changes since the GP EIR was certified in 2014. The updated Clean Air Plan was adopted in April 2017 and revised BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines were adopted in May 2017. These changes in the project circumstances, as well as changes to the proposed project itself, are discussed and evaluated in the following section.

Clean Air Plan Consistency
An air quality plan describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or region classified as a non‐attainment area. The main purpose of an air quality plan is to bring an area into compliance with the requirements of federal and State air quality standards.

Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐11 The GP EIR referenced the BAAQMD Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan to determine if the General Plan would conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. The GP EIR found that the General Plan would be substantially consistent with all applicable control measures in the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. However, the GP EIR determined that the General Plan would still have significant and unavoidable impacts associated with short‐term construction and long‐term operational emissions, as well as health risk exposure associated with toxic air contaminants and PM2.5, and therefore, would not be considered to be fully consistent with the Clean Air Plan goals. As such, potential conflicts with the applicable air quality plan were considered to be significant.

The current BAAQMD clean air plan is the 2017 Clean Air Plan, adopted on April 19, 2017.5 The 2017
Clean Air Plan provides a regional strategy to protect public health and protect the climate. To protect public health, the plan describes how the BAAQMD will continue progress toward attaining all State and federal air quality standards and eliminating health risk disparities from exposure to air pollution among Bay Area communities. To protect the climate, the plan defines a vision for transitioning the region to a post‐carbon economy needed to achieve ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2030 and 2050, and provides a regional climate protection strategy that will put the Bay Area on a pathway to achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets.

The 2017 Clean Air Plan includes a wide range of control measures designed to decrease emissions of the air pollutants that are most harmful to Bay Area residents, such as particulate matter, ozone, and toxic air contaminants. It also includes control measures to reduce emissions of methane and other “super‐GHGs” that are potent climate pollutants in the near‐term, and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion.

Consistency with the Clean Air Plan can be determined if a project does the following: (1) supports the goals of the Clean Air Plan; (2) includes applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan; and (3) would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan.

Because the 2017 Clean Air Plan is the most current clean air plan applicable to the region, the proposed project is evaluated for compliance with this plan below.

As discussed in the Project Description, the proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Suburban Density designation and would provide a complete, walkable, sustainable neighborhood with preservation of view corridors and open space areas, as well as infrastructure and circulation improvements. No changes in General Plan land use designations would be required for the proposed project. Minor revisions to the Zoning Ordinance that are consistent with the General Plan may be needed to accommodate the proposed development intensity (e.g. minimum lot sizes), distribution, and layout within the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase population, vehicle trips, or vehicle miles traveled (VMT). As such, the proposed project would not hinder the goals of the Clean Air Plan.

In addition, the proposed project would comply with all applicable control measures from the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan, as follows:

5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19.

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐12 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) Stationary Source Control Measures. The stationary source measures, designed to reduce emissions from stationary sources such as metal melting facilities, cement kilns, refineries, and glass furnaces, are incorporated into rules adopted by the BAAQMD and then enforced by BAAQMD Permit and Inspection programs. Since implementation of the proposed project would not include any stationary sources, the Stationary Source Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable.

Transportation Control Measures. The BAAQMD identifies control measures as part of the Clean Air Plan to reduce ozone precursor emissions from stationary, area, mobile, and transportation sources.

The Transportation Control Measures are designed to reduce emissions from motor vehicles by reducing vehicle trips and VMT in addition to vehicle idling and traffic congestion. The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Suburban Density designation and would provide a complete, walkable, sustainable neighborhood with preservation of view corridors and open space areas, as well as infrastructure and circulation improvements. The proposed project would also include a new segment of the Hayward Foothill Trail, a 16‐foot‐wide multi‐use trail, and additional street improvements such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, on‐street parking bulb‐outs, utilities, and lighting. Therefore, the proposed project would support the ability to use alternative modes of transportation, would promote initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled, and would increase the use of alternate means of transportation. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the identified Transportation and Mobile Source Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan.

Energy Control Measures. The Clean Air Plan also includes Energy and Climate Control Measures, designed to reduce ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants and to reduce emissions of CO2.

Implementation of these measures is intended to promote energy conservation and efficiency in buildings throughout the community, promote renewable forms of energy production, reduce the “urban heat island” effect by increasing reflectivity of roofs and parking lots, and promote the planting of (low‐volatile organic compound [VOC]‐emitting) trees to reduce biogenic emissions, lower air temperatures, provide shade, and absorb air pollutants. The measures include voluntary approaches to reduce the heat island effect by increasing shading in urban and suburban areas through the planting of trees. Implementation of the proposed project would include paved areas that could result in a heating effect. The proposed project would include approximately 10.50 acres of open space to preserve riparian areas and would include a new segment of the Hayward Foothill Trail, a 16‐foot‐wide multi‐use trail. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the latest CALGreen standard building measures and Title 24 standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the Energy and Climate Control Measures.

Building Control Measures. The BAAQMD has authority to regulate emissions from certain sources in buildings such as boilers and water heaters, but has limited authority to regulate buildings themselves. Therefore, the strategies in the control measures for this sector focus on working with local governments that do have authority over local building codes, to facilitate adoption of best GHG control practices and policies. As identified above, the proposed project would be required to comply with the latest CALGreen standard building measures and Title 24 standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with these measures.

Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐13 Agriculture Control Measures. The Agriculture Control Measures are designed to primarily reduce emissions of methane. Since the proposed project does not include any agricultural activities, the Agriculture Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable.

Natural and Working Lands Control Measures. The Natural and Working Lands Control Measures focus on increasing carbon sequestration on rangelands and wetlands, as well as encouraging local governments to adopt ordinances that promote urban‐tree plantings. Since implementation of the proposed project would not include the disturbance of any rangelands or wetlands, the Natural and Working Lands Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan would not be applicable.

Waste Management Control Measures. The Waste Management Measures focus on reducing or capturing methane emissions from landfills and composting facilities, diverting organic materials away from landfills, and increasing waste diversion rates through efforts to reduce, reuse, and recycle. The proposed project would comply with local requirements for waste management (e.g., recycling and composting services). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the Waste Management Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan.

Water Control Measures. The Water Control Measures focus on reducing emissions of criteria pollutants, TACs, and GHGs by encouraging water conservation, limiting GHG emissions from publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), and promoting the use of biogas recovery systems. Since these measures apply to POTWs and local government agencies, the Water Control Measures are not applicable to the proposed project.

Super GHG Control Measures. The Super‐GHG Control Measures are designed to facilitate the adoption of best GHG control practices and policies through the BAAQMD and local government agencies. As identified above, the proposed project would be required to comply with the latest CALGreen standard building measures and Title 24 standards reducing GHG emissions. In addition, as discussed in Section 8 of this Environmental Checklist, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the Super‐GHG Control Measures.

As discussed above, implementation of the proposed project would not disrupt or hinder imple‐ mentation of the applicable measures outlined in the Clean Air Plan, including Transportation and Mobile Source Control Measures, Land Use and Local Impact Measures, and Energy Measures.

Therefore, the proposed project supports the goals of the Clean Air Plan and would not conflict with any of the control measures identified in the plan or designed to bring the region into attainment.

The proposed project’s potential conflicts with the applicable air quality plan would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not create impacts related to clean air plan consistency that would be more severe than impacts identified in the GP EIR.

Construction‐Related Impacts
The GP EIR did not quantify construction emissions; however the GP EIR determined that implemen‐ tation of the General Plan would involve construction of development projects that would result in the temporary generation of ROG, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from site preparation (e.g., excavation, grading, and clearing), off‐road equipment, material import/export, worker commute Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐14 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) exhaust emissions, paving, and other miscellaneous activities. The GP EIR found that emissions from individual construction projects could exceed BAAQMD project‐level significance thresholds, and therefore, would result in a significant impact. The GP EIR determined that no additional measures are available that would reduce impacts from short‐term construction emissions. All feasible construction emission reduction measures have been incorporated into the General Plan. Therefore, the GP EIR determined that this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

During construction of the proposed project, short‐term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate matter emissions (e.g., fugitive dust) generated by grading, hauling, and other activities. Emissions from construction equipment are also anticipated and would include CO, NOx, ROG, directly‐emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as diesel exhaust particulate matter.

Site preparation and project construction would involve grading, paving, and other activities.

Construction‐related effects on air quality from the proposed project would be greatest during the site preparation phase due to the disturbance of soils. If not properly controlled, these activities would temporarily generate particulate emissions. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit dirt and mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. PM10 emissions would depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of operating equipment. Larger dust particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site.

Water or other soil stabilizers can be used to control dust, resulting in emission reductions of 50 percent or more. The BAAQMD has established standard measures for reducing fugitive dust emissions (PM10). With the implementation of these Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would not result in adverse air quality impacts.

In addition to dust‐related PM10 emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment powered by gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, SO2, NOx, ROGs and some soot particulate (PM2.5 and PM10) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic congestion in the area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles are delayed.

These emissions would be temporary and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction site.

Construction emissions were estimated for the proposed project using the current California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod), consistent with BAAQMD recommenda‐ tions. Project construction would begin in spring 2021 and would continue for approximately 24 to 36 months; therefore, to be conservative, this analysis assumes construction would occur for 24 months. Other specific construction details are not yet known; therefore, default assumptions (e.g., construction fleet activities) from CalEEMod were used. Construction‐related emissions are presented in Table 1. CalEEMod output sheets are included in Appendix 1.

Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐15 Table 1: Project Construction Emissions in Pounds Per Day Project Construction   ROG   NOx
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Dust PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Fugitive
Dust PM2.5
Average Daily Emissions  4.8  18.2  0.7  1.8  0.6  0.6
BAAQMD Thresholds  54.0  54.0  54.0  BMP  82.0  BMP
Exceed Threshold?  No  No  No  No  No  No
Source: LSA (May 2019).

Notes: BMP = Best Management Practices
As shown in Table 1, construction emissions associated with the project would be less than significant for ROG, NOx, PM2.5, and PM10 exhaust emissions. The BAAQMD requires the implementa‐ tion of BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (Best Management Practices), which would be required as a Standard Condition of Approval, to minimize construction fugitive dust impacts. These measures are required for all construction projects:
 In order to meet the BAAQMD fugitive dust threshold, the following BAAQMD Basic Construc‐ tion Mitigation Measures shall be implemented:
○ All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
○ All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off‐site shall be covered. ○ All visible mud or dirt tracked‐out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
○ All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. ○ All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. ○ Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
○ Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. ○ All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐16 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) ○ A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Hayward regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

The proposed project would not create impacts related to construction‐related air quality more severe than impacts identified in the GP EIR.

Regional Air Pollutant Emissions
The proposed project would develop the site with new housing, as well as new roadways and street improvements, a multi‐use trail, and open space uses. The proposed project would result in mobile air quality emissions from increased vehicle trips and area source air quality impacts such as emissions generated from the use of landscaping equipment and water heating. The GP EIR determined that project‐related operational emissions of the ozone precursors ROG and NOX would be reduced on an annual basis over the General Plan implementation period, as compared with existing conditions. However, the GP EIR also determined that operational PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would increase compared to baseline conditions. According to the GP EIR, while the General Plan would be consistent with all applicable control measures in the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, the rate of increase in VMT and vehicle trips under the General Plan would be higher than the rate of population increase by 2035. Therefore, the GP EIR found that impacts associated with long‐term operational emissions under the General Plan would be a significant impact.

The GP EIR determined that no additional measures would substantially reduce impacts from long‐ term operational emissions. All feasible long‐term operational emission reduction measures have been incorporated into the goals, policies, and programs in the General Plan. Therefore, the GP EIR determined that this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Emission estimates for operation of the proposed project were calculated using CalEEMod. The daily and annual emissions associated with project operational trip generation, energy, and area sources are identified in Table 2 below for ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. CalEEMod output sheets are included in Appendix 1.

The results shown in Table 2 indicate that the proposed project would not exceed the significance criteria for daily or annual ROG, NO2, PM10 or PM2.5 emissions; therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant effect on regional air quality and mitigation would not be required.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more significant operation‐related air quality impacts, and these impacts would be less than significant.

Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐17 Table 2: Project Operational Emissions
ROG NOx  CO PM10  PM2.5
Emissions in Pounds Per Day
Area Source Emissions  4.1  1.2  7.2  0.1  0.1
Energy Source Emissions  0.1  0.9  0.4  0.1  0.1
Mobile Source Emissions  1.2  4.7  12.1  3.9  1.1
Total Emissions  5.4  6.7  19.7  4.4  1.3
BAAQMD Threshold  54.0  54.0  N/A  82.0  54.0
Exceed?  No  No  N/A  No  No
Emissions in Tons Per Year
Area Source Emissions  0.7  <0.1  0.6  <0.1  <0.1
Energy Source Emissions  <0.1  0.2  0.1  <0.1  <0.1
Mobile Source Emissions  0.2  0.8  2.1  0.7  0.2
Total Emissions  0.9  1.0  2.8  0.7  0.2
BAAQMD Threshold  10.0  10.0  N/A  15.0  10.0
Exceed?  No  No  N/A  No  No
Source: LSA (May 2019).

Local CO Impacts
The BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Guidelines establishes a screening methodology that provides a conservative indication of whether the implementation of a proposed project would result in significant CO emissions. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, a proposed project would result in a less‐than‐significant impact to localized CO concentrations if the following screening criteria are met:
 The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, and the regional transportation plan and local congestion management agency plans;  Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; and
 The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, or below‐grade roadway).

Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) for designated roads or highways, a regional transportation plan, or other agency plans. Additionally, the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 63 AM peak hour trips and approximately 84 PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. The project site is not located in an area where mixing of air is limited. Therefore, because the project does not exceed the screening criteria, the project would not result in localized CO concentrations that would exceed State or federal standards and this potential impact would be less than significant. Therefore, the Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐18 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) proposed project would not create impacts related to local CO more severe than impacts identified in the GP EIR.

Local Community Risk and Hazard Impacts to Sensitive Receptors Sensitive receptors are defined as residential uses, schools, daycare centers, nursing homes, and medical centers. Individuals particularly vulnerable to diesel particulate matter are children, whose lung tissue is still developing, and the elderly, who may have serious health problems that can be aggravated by exposure to diesel particulate matter. Exposure from diesel exhaust associated with construction activity contributes to both cancer and chronic non‐cancer health risks.

According to the BAAQMD, a project would result in a significant impact if it would: individually expose sensitive receptors to TACs resulting in an increased cancer risk greater than 10.0 in one million, increased non‐cancer risk of greater than 1.0 on the hazard index (chronic or acute), or an annual average ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3 ). A
significant cumulative impact would occur if the project, in combination with other projects located within a 1,000‐foot radius of the project site, would expose sensitive receptors to TACs resulting in an increased cancer risk greater than 100.0 in one million, an increased non‐cancer risk of greater than 10.0 on the hazard index (chronic), or an ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.8 µg/m3 on an
annual average basis. Impacts from substantial pollutant concentrations are discussed below.

As discussed in the GP EIR, implementation of development projects consistent with the General Plan could involve siting of sensitive receptors near major roadways or near major stationary sources of TAC and PM2.5 emissions, as well as the siting of potential new sources of these emissions. Such actions could increase community health risk exposure associated with these emissions. The GP EIR found that impacts associated with health risk exposure to TACs and PM2.5 would be a significant impact.

The GP EIR included a Community Risk Reduction Strategy (CRRS) to address health risk exposure from existing and future sources of TAC and PM2.5 within the Hayward Planning Area. As part of the development of the CRRS, an inventory of emissions sources was collected and dispersion modeling conducted to determine which areas of the Hayward Planning Area are exposed to higher concentrations of cancer risk associated with the inhalation of TACs and/or higher concentrations of PM2.5. The modeling produced four maps for understanding how levels of cancer risk and PM2.5 concentrations vary throughout the City, which is shown in Exhibits 1 through 4 in the Hayward Community Risk Reduction Plan Technical Support Documentation in the GP EIR Air Quality appendix. Based on Exhibits 1 through 4 of the Community Risk Reduction Plan Technical Support Documentation, Parcel Group 5 is located within a low health risk exposure area.

Parcel Group 5 is surrounded by residential and university uses. Construction of the proposed project may expose these surrounding sensitive receptors to airborne particulates, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel‐fueled vehicles and equipment).

However, construction contractors would be required to implement BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. With implementation of the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, project construction emissions would be below BAAQMD significance thresholds. Once the project is constructed, the project would not be a source of substantial emissions. Therefore, implementation Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐19 of the proposed project would not result in new sources of TACs. In addition, as identified above, Parcel Group 5 is not located near existing major sources of TACs. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors or the general public to substantial levels of TACs and would remain a less‐than‐significant impact. The proposed project would not result in new or more significant air quality‐related impacts to sensitive receptors.

Objectionable Odors
As discussed in the GP EIR, implementation of the General Plan could result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to odors, as well as the siting of new sources of odor. As discussed in the GP EIR, existing potential sources of odor in Hayward include the Hayward Wastewater Treatment Plant and Oro Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant. No other major odor sources are identified. Other minor sources of odor associated with typical land uses located in commercial and industrial areas in urban communities are currently present in Hayward, such as restaurants, auto repair facilities, gasoline stations, manufacturing plants, and other similar uses. However, the General Plan would not introduce new sensitive receptors adjacent to or near the wastewater treatment plants. In addition, no major new sources of odor are proposed or designated in the General Plan. Therefore, the GP EIR found that since the General Plan would contain specific policies that avoid or minimize odor‐related air quality impacts associated with new development, odor‐related impacts would be less than significant.

During construction of the proposed project, some odors may be present due to diesel exhaust.

However, these odors would be temporary and limited to the construction period. The proposed project would not include any activities or operations that would generate objectionable odors and once operational, the project would not be a source of odors. Therefore, the proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, similar to the General Plan, the proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and no mitigation is required.

Applicable Mitigation
As described in the GP EIR, impacts related to air quality significant and unavoidable, after application of feasible mitigation. With implementation of BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, which would be required as a Standard Condition of Approval, the proposed project would not create impacts related to construction‐related air quality more severe than impacts identified in the GP EIR and no mitigation is required.

Applicable Policies
General Plan Policies
 Policy NR‐2.1: Ambient Air Quality Standards. The City shall work with the California Air Resources Board and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to meet State and Federal ambient air quality standards in order to protect all residents, from the health effects of air pollution.

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐20 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  Policy NR‐2.2: New Development. The City shall review proposed development applications to ensure projects incorporate feasible measures that reduce construction and operational emissions for reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) through project location and design.
 Policy NR‐2.7: Coordination with Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The City shall coordinate with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to ensure projects incorporate feasible mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution if not already provided for through project design.
 Policy NR‐2.9: Fleet Operations. The City shall continue to purchase low‐emission or zero‐ emission vehicles for the City’s fleet and to use available clean fuel sources such as bio‐diesel for trucks and heavy equipment.
 Policy NR‐2.10: Zero‐Emission and Low‐Emission Vehicle Use. The City shall encourage the use of zero‐emission vehicles, low‐emission vehicles, bicycles and other non‐motorized vehicles, and car‐sharing programs by requiring sufficient and convenient infrastructure and parking facilities throughout the City.
 Policy NR‐2.12: Preference for Reduced‐Emission Equipment. The City shall give preference to contractors using reduced‐emission equipment for City construction projects and contracts for services (e.g., garbage collection), as well as businesses that practice sustainable operations.  Policy NR‐2.15: Community Risk Reduction Strategy. The City shall maintain and implement the General Plan as Hayward’s community risk reduction strategy to reduce health risks associated with toxic air contaminants (TACs) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in both existing and new development.
 Policy NR‐2.16: Sensitive Uses. The City shall minimize exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TAC), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and odors to the extent possible, and consider distance, orientation, and wind direction when siting sensitive land uses in proximity to TAC‐ and PM2.5‐emitting sources and odor sources in order to minimize health risk.  Policy NR‐2.17: Source Reduction Measures. The City shall coordinate with and support the efforts of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the California Air Resources Board, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and other agencies as appropriate to implement source reduction measures and best management practices that address both existing and new sources of toxic air contaminants (TAC) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and odors.  Policy NR‐2.18: Exposure Reduction BMPs for New Receptors. The City shall require development projects to implement all applicable best management practices that will reduce exposure of new sensitive receptors (e.g., hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing and convalescent facilities) to odors, toxic air contaminants (TAC), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).

Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐21  Policy NR‐2.19: Exposure Reduction Measures for both Existing and New Receptors. The City shall work with area businesses, residents and partnering organizations to provide information about best management practices that can be implemented on a voluntary basis to reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TAC) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).  Policy LU‐1.1: Jobs‐Housing Balance. The City shall support efforts to improve the jobs‐housing balance of Hayward and other communities throughout the region to reduce automobile use, regional and local traffic congestion, and pollution.
 Policy LU‐1.5: Transit‐Oriented Development. The City shall support high‐density transit‐oriented development within the City’s Priority Development Areas to improve transit ridership and to reduce automobile use, traffic congestion, and greenhouse gas emissions.  Policy LU‐1.6: Mixed‐Use Neighborhoods. The City shall encourage the integration of a variety of compatible land uses into new and established neighborhoods to provide residents with convenient access to goods, services, parks and recreation, and other community amenities.  Policy LU‐1.9: Development Standards and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The City shall explore the use of zoning and development standards that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions when preparing or updating plans and ordinances.
 Policy LU‐1.12: Regional Planning. The City shall coordinate with regional and local agencies to prepare updates to regional growth plans and strategies, including the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan, Sustainable Communities Strategy, and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
 Policy LU‐6.5: Incompatible Uses. The City shall protect the Industrial Technology and Innovation Corridor from the encroachment of uses that would impair industrial operations or create future land use conflicts.
 Policy PFS‐2.5: Alternative Fuels. The City shall, wherever possible, require the use of alternative fuels in new services provided by City franchisees.
 Policy PFS‐2.6: City Facilities Near Transit. When making decisions about where to rent or build new City facilities, the City shall give preference to locations that are accessible to an existing public transit line or ensure that public transit links (e.g. bus lines) are extended to the new locations.
 Policy HQL‐7.5: Proximity to Pollution Sources. The City shall avoid locating new sensitive uses such as schools, childcare centers, and senior housing, to the extent feasible, in proximity to sources of pollution, odors, or near existing businesses that handle toxic materials. Where such uses are located in proximity to sources of air pollution, odors, or toxic materials, the City shall encourage building design, construction safeguards, and technological techniques to mitigate the negative impacts of hazardous materials and/or air pollution on indoor air quality.

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐22 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) Conclusion
As previously discussed, based on the BAAQMD attainment status and ambient air quality monitoring data, ambient air quality in the vicinity of the project site has remained unchanged since approval of the GP EIR; therefore, baseline conditions related to air quality remain essentially unchanged. In addition, no new or more severe significant impacts would result from development of the proposed project as compared to the GP EIR. The GP EIR adequately evaluated the air quality impacts of the proposed project and with implementation of BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, air quality impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.

Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to air quality would be associated with the proposed project.

Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐23

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Reduced
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c. Have 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?
d. 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?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Discussion
Special‐Status Species
Approximately 40 percent of the lands within the City are developed, recently disturbed, or ruderal.

These developed, disturbed, and/or ruderal lands generally do not provide suitable habitat for special‐status species. The Hayward Hills on the eastern side of the City and the baylands/salt marsh adjacent to the bay shoreline on the west provide suitable habitat for special‐status species, as well as the riparian and woodland areas that cross through the City.6

The project site primarily consists of undeveloped land with scattered vacant structures, which will be removed as part of a separate project. Five vegetation communities or land cover types were identified to occur on the parcel group and include: non‐native annual grassland, disturbed/ruderal, exotic woodland, developed (urban/landscaping), and riparian forest. Riparian forest is considered a

6 Hayward, City of, 2014b, op. cit.

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐24 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) sensitive biological community. In addition, some purple needle grass (Stipa pulchra), was observed at the project site.

The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) review conducted by LSA identified 47 special‐ status plant species that could potentially occur within 5 miles of the project site. However, the project site lacks suitable habitat for 36 of these special‐status plant species. The remaining 11 special‐status plant species that could potentially occur within the project site include: bent‐ flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris), Big‐scale balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis), round‐ leaved filaree (California macrophylla), Mount Diablo fairy‐lantern (Calochortus pulchellus), Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi subsp. congdonii), western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis), Diablo helianthella (Helianthella castanea), Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia), Northern California black walnut (Juglans hindsii), robust monardella (Monardella villosa subsp. globosa), and oval‐leaved viburnum (Viburnum ellipticum).

The CNDDB review also identified special‐status wildlife species that could potentially occur on the project site. Due to the previously disturbed nature of the project site, only two special‐status wildlife species have the potential to occur on the project site: pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) and western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis).

The grassland habitat within the project site was identified as having the potential to support rare plants including bent‐flowered fiddleneck and round‐leaved filaree. To determine if these plants were present on site, LSA conducted a rare plant survey at the site on April 20, 2018, to verify the potential for these plants. The survey included all grasslands on the site with the exception of those on the edges of woodlands. Grasslands on the edges of woodlands have the potential to provide habitat for big‐scale balsamroot, Diablo helianthella, and robust monardella. However, these areas would not be developed as part of the proposed project, therefore, a rare plant survey for these species was not warranted.

The rare plant survey concluded that the grasslands on the site are dominated by non‐native species including wild oats (Avena barbata), false brome (Brachypodium distachyon), rip gut brome (Bromus diandrus), and rose clover (Trifolium hirtum). Associated plant species include native plants, but their densities are less than what would constitute a natural community (>15% relative cover). None of the plants observed during the survey are considered rare. The associated plants include soap plant (Chlorogalum pomeridianum), buckwheat (Eriogonum nudum), California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), cut‐leaf geranium (geranium dissectum), prickly‐ox tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), wild turnip (Raphanus sativus), blue eye grass (Sisyrinchium bellum) purple needle grass (Stipa pulchra), and vetch (Vicia sativa). These grasslands were classified as annual brome grasslands according to the second edition of A Manual of California Vegetation (California Native Plant Society 2009). Therefore, the on‐site grasslands are not consisted a sensitive natural community and do not include rare plants that would require mitigation.

Trees associated with the riparian areas, and other landscaping trees and shrubs may provide nesting habitat for raptors, passerines, and other birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. Activities that may result in nest abandonment or mortality of eggs or young could result in significant impacts to protected bird species.

Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐25 Implementation of the following Standard Condition of Approval, in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code, would ensure that potential impacts to nesting birds and raptors during construction would be less than significant:
 Prior to any vegetation removal activities, the Project Applicant shall provide written evidence to the City that, if feasible, all vegetation removal shall be undertaken during the non‐breeding season (i.e., September 1 to January 31) to avoid direct impacts to nesting birds. If such work is scheduled during the breeding season, and per the direction of the City, the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist or ornithologist to conduct a pre‐construction survey of all trees, shrubs, and other suitable nesting habitat in and within 200 feet of the limits of work to search for active nests of native birds. The pre‐construction survey shall be conducted within 15 days prior to the start of work from March through May (since there is a higher potential for birds to initiate nesting during this period), and within 30 days prior to start of work from June through July. If active nests are found during the survey, the biologist or ornithologist shall determine an appropriately‐sized buffer around the nest. No work shall be allowed within this buffer until the young have successfully fledged and are foraging independently. The size of the nest buffer shall be determined by a qualified biologist based on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. In general, buffer sizes of 250 feet for raptors and 50 feet for other birds have been used to prevent disturbance. These buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate, depending on the bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated or observed near the nest. Buffers shall be identified with environmentally sensitive area fencing placed at the edge of the buffer whenever possible. Given the urban nature of the site and high degree of disturbance already present, buffers may be adjusted to avoid blocking traffic, as needed.

If bats are roosting in buildings or trees within the project area or in the trees that are planned to be removed, potential disturbance or loss of roosting habitat could occur as a result of construction activity. Implementation of the following Standard Condition of Approval, in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code, would ensure that potential impacts to roosting bats during construction would be less than significant:
 Before the spring breeding season and prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for roosting bat habitat. The survey shall include work areas adjacent to appropriate roosting habitat that are accessible from public or project areas within 200 feet of a work area.

For trees considered to have a high or moderate probability for bat roosting, acoustic monitoring shall be conducted before any construction activities begin during the breeding season to determine if there are any roosting sites present. Surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate times to maximize detectability. If an active roost or maternity roost is found within 100 feet of a work area, the limits of the work area will be clearly marked and a qualified biological monitor shall remain onsite during construction activities within the vicinity of the roost or maternity roost.

The biologist shall ensure that construction activities to do not encroach upon the 100‐foot buffer around an active roost or maternity colony site. Buffers shall remain in place until the qualified biologist has determined that bats have vacated the occupied roost sites. If buffer reductions are requested and approved, a monthly report shall be submitted to CDFW with all Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐26 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) of the information in the buffer reduction requests, monitoring results, and effects on bats.

Reports shall be submitted for the duration of construction activities within buffer areas.

Trees containing maternity roosts shall not be removed during the breeding season (March 1 through August 31) to avoid disturbing females with young that cannot fly. No trees containing maternity roosts may be removed until the qualified biologist determines that breeding is complete and young are able to fly.

If fall/winter hibernacula cannot be avoided, humane techniques may be implemented to passively vacate bats from roosts. Methods to passively evict bats from tree roosts may include incrementally trimming limbs to alter the air flow and temperature around the roost feature where slight changes to the surrounding environment of roost features encourage bats to vacate roost features on their own. If acoustic monitoring detects that bats are using trees that need to be cut down, these trees shall be removed only after it has been confirmed that roosting bats have departed.

Sensitive Natural Communities
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) tracks the occurrences of plant communities that are either known or believed to be of high priority for inventory in the CNDDB. As described above, the riparian forest associated with the existing drainages on the site is considered a sensitive natural community. The proposed project has been designed to largely avoid the riparian forest areas within the project site. However, the proposed extension of Bunker Hill Road to connect to Carlos Bee Boulevard would require crossing of the existing drainage, and encroachment into the riparian area. The exact configuration of this crossing has not yet been determined.

Consistent with General Plan Policy NR‐1.3, Sensitive Species Identification, Mapping, and Avoidance, the City will require a qualified biologist to identify, map, and make recommendations for avoiding all sensitive biological resources on the project site, including riparian vegetation and wetlands. In accordance with state and federal requirements, impacts to waters of the U.S. or State (e.g., fill in the creek) would require appropriate permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition, if any vegetation removal or other work within the channel occurs, a Streambed Alteration Agreement would be required from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Regulatory permits would require compensation of wetlands at a minimum 1:1 ratio, to be compliant with the national “no net loss” policy. Potential indirect impacts to the drainage (e.g., degraded water quality  due to construction‐related runoff) would be avoided through implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in accordance with RWQCB guidelines and the Construction General Permit (see Section 10.0, Hydrology and Water Quality).

Required compliance with federal, State and local regulations regarding sensitive biological resources and wetland areas would ensure that the proposed project would result in less‐than‐ significant impacts related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities.

Wetlands
Although a formal delineation of the project site was not conducted as part of this assessment, the two creeks are likely jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. No other wetlands are Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐27 located within the project site. As described above, the project has been designed to avoid largely avoid the riparian forest areas within the project site. As described above, the proposed roadway connection between Bunker Hill Road and Carlos Bee Boulevard would require crossing of the existing drainage and encroachment into the riparian area. Required compliance with federal, State and local regulations regarding sensitive biological resources and wetland areas would ensure that the proposed project would result in less‐than‐significant impacts to federally protected wetlands.

Wildlife Movement
On a local level, a variety of wildlife may use the riparian corridors on the project site to move through this section of the City, but residential activity, fences, and the general disturbance associated with urban life limit the value of this area to local wildlife. As described above, the proposed project has been designed to preserve the existing riparian corridors within the project site. Wildlife can continue to move through the area using the open space lands that would remain undeveloped. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact 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.

Existing trees are located throughout and around the project site. Trees and other landscape vegetation generally have the potential to support nests of common native bird species. All native birds, regardless of their regulatory status, are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Wildlife Code. If conducted during the breeding season (February through August), vegetation removal and construction activities could directly impact nesting birds by removing trees or vegetation that support active nests. Implementation of the Standard Condition of Approval described above would ensure that potential impacts to nesting birds and raptors during construction would be less than significant.

Local Polices or Ordinances
The City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, Article 15 (Tree Preservation Ordinance) requires a permit for any person to remove any protected tree within the City of Hayward. As defined by the City’s Municipal Code, Protected Trees include:
 Trees having a minimum trunk diameter of eight inches measured 54 inches above the ground.

When measuring a multi‐trunk tree, the diameters of the largest three trunks shall be added together.
 Street trees or other required trees such as those required as a condition of approval, Use Permit, or other Zoning requirement, regardless of size.  All memorial trees dedicated by an entity recognized by the City, and all specimen trees that define a neighborhood or community.
 Trees of the following species that have reached a minimum of four inches diameter trunk size:

Big Leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum), California Buckeye (Aesculus californica), Madrone (Arbutus menziesii), Western Dogwood (Cornus nuttallii), California Sycamore (Platanus Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐28 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) racemosa), Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Canyon Live Oak (Quercus chrysolepis), Blue Oak (Quercus douglassii), Oregon White Oak (Quercus garryana), California Black Oak (Quercus kelloggi), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Interior Live Oak (Quercus wislizeni), California Bay (Umbellularia californica).
 A tree or trees of any size planted as a replacement for a Protected Tree.

Any proposed tree removal on private property in conjunction with new development would be required to comply with Chapter 10, Article 15 of the Hayward Municipal Code (Tree Preservation Ordinance) which requires submittal of an Arborist Report and the issuance of a Tree Removal Permit. If approved, the project will be required to submit a landscaping plan that identifies replacement trees of equal value and other replacement measures. Compliance with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance would ensure that the proposed project does not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. This impact would be less than significant.

Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan The project site is not within any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact.

Applicable Mitigation
As described in the GP EIR, 2040 General Plan impacts on biological resources were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation measures were identified. No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.

Applicable Policies
General Plan Policies
 Policy LU‐1.2 Urban Limit Lines. The City shall maintain its established Urban Limit Lines to protect the Hayward shoreline and hillsides as natural open space and recreational resources.  Policy LU‐1.7 Design Guidelines. The City shall maintain and implement commercial, residential, industrial, and hillside design guidelines to ensure that future development complies with General Plan goals and policies.
 Policy LU‐7.5 Clustered Developments. The City shall encourage the clustering of residential units on hillsides to preserve sensitive habitats and scenic resources as natural open space. Sensitive areas and scenic resources include woodlands, streams and riparian corridors, mature trees, ridgelines, and rock outcroppings.

Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐29  Policy NR‐1.1 Native Wildlife Habitat Protection. The City shall limit or avoid new development that encroaches into important wildlife habitat; limits the range of 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 rate, threatened, and endangered plant, fish and wildlife species and their habitats from urban development and incompatible 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, including 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 Services, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and California Native Plant Society for all development applications proposed within sensitive biological resource areas.
 Policy NR‐1.9 Native Plant Species Protection and Promotion. The City shall protect and promote native plant species in natural areas we well as in public landscaping.  Policy NR‐1.12 Riparian Corridor Habitat Protection. The City shall protect creek riparian habitats by:
○ Requiring sufficient setbacks for new development adjacent to creek slopes, ○ Requiring sensitive flood control designs to minimize habitat disturbance, ○ Maintaining natural and continuous creek corridor vegetation, ○ Protecting/replanting native trees, and
○ Protecting riparian plant communities from the adverse effects of increased stormwater runoff, sedimentation, erosion, pollution that may occur from improper development in adjacent areas.
 Policy PFS‐5.8 Enhance Recreation and Habitat. The City shall require new stormwater drainage facilities to be designed to enhance recreation and habitat and shall work with HARD to integrate such facilities into existing parks and open space features.  Policy HQL‐8.3 Trees of Significance. The City shall require the retention of trees of significance (such as heritage trees) by promoting stewardship and ensuring that project design provides for the retention of these trees wherever possible. Where tree removal cannot be avoided, the City shall require tree replacement or suitable mitigation.

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐30 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) Conclusion
The GP EIR adequately evaluated the biological resources impacts of the proposed project.

Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant and additional mitigation is not required.

Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐31

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Reduced
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
As part of the Environmental Constraints Analysis prepared for the proposed project (LSA 2018), LSA conducted background research to identify cultural resources within, and cultural resources studies of, the five parcel groups. The background research consisted of a cultural resources records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), a records search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File, and a literature review. Subsequent to this background research a cultural resources field survey was conducted. LSA’s findings are documented in a cultural resources report7
and are summarized below.

Significant cultural resources in the City include structures that may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or otherwise listed on the City of Hayward List of Officially‐Designated Architecturally and Historically Significant Buildings. Currently, 20 structures have been officially designated by the City as Historically or Architecturally Significant. Additionally, one structure is listed on the national register of historic landmarks.8
The City of Hayward is located within the historic territory of the Ohlone tribe. Native Americans occupied the general area between 5,000 and 7,000 years or possibly longer. The modern city of Hayward was settled in the 1850s due to the Gold Rush. The City contains one officially designated historic district and several other areas that could potentially be designated as historic districts.9 Based on a records search at NWIC, no cultural resources were recorded on Parcel Group 5.

However, a review of previous cultural resources studies on file at the NWIC indicates a Caltrans cultural resources survey of Parcel Group 5. The 1986 Caltrans study, which reported the results of a historical architectural and archaeological field inventory, did not identify any cultural resources in Parcel Group 5. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted in regards to the

7 LSA, 2018. Cultural Resources Constraints Study, Route 238 Properties.  8 Hayward, City of, 2014b, op. cit.
9 Ibid.

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐32 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) project. Frank Lienert, NAHC Associate Government Program Analyst, stated in a letter sent to LSA via email on March 1, 2018, that a search of the Sacred Lands File “had negative results” for the parcel groups.

LSA reviewed archaeological and environmental data for the project area to assess the potential for buried pre‐contact archaeological deposits in the parcel groups. An inverse relationship exists between landform age and the potential for buried cultural deposits. Some landforms predate human occupation of the region and, as such, archaeological deposits on these landforms, if present, would occur at or near the surface. Parcel Group 5 is located on landforms that were formed before human occupation (Coast Range Ophiolite Complex [rh and gb]; Knoxville Formation [JKk]), and have a low potential for buried archaeological deposits.

Historic Resources
For a cultural resource to be considered a historical resource (i.e., eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources [CRHR]), it generally must be 50 years or older. Under CEQA, historical resources can include pre‐contact (i.e., Native American) archaeological deposits, historic‐ period archaeological deposits, historic buildings, and historic districts.

No known historic resources are associated with the project site or the adjacent parcels (City of Hayward Background Conditions Report, Figures 1‐3 and 1‐4, and Table 1‐2). However, several mid‐ century single‐family residences are located within this parcel group, however, which have not been formally evaluated for listing in either the NRHP and/or CRHR.

The City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, Article 11 (Historic Preservation Ordinance) requires that development projects, involving structures or buildings at least 50 years in age or which are located within an historic district, conduct additional analysis to determine if an historical alteration permit and/or historical resource demolition or relocation permit is required. Such analysis includes an evaluation prepared by a qualified historic consultant consistent with the California Register Criteria for Evaluation and the adopted Hayward Historic Context Statement to determine historical significance. Consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, it is unlawful for any person to tear down, demolish, remove or relocate an historical resource, a potentially significant historical resource, a designated historical resource, a resource that has been listed on the City's adopted survey list, or a resource that lies within an historic district, without first obtaining an historical resource demolition or relocation permit.

In the unlikely event that historic or archaeological resources are discovered during excavation, Standard Conditions of Approval for all development projects require the contractor to stop all work adjacent to the find and contact the City of Hayward Development Services Department to preserve and record the uncovered materials so it can be safely removed. Compliance with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance would ensure that the proposed project would not result in an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐33 Prehistoric and Historical Archaeological Resources
No archaeological resources have been identified on the project site and the project site is not considered to be sensitive for archaeological resources. As described above, In the unlikely event that historic or archaeological resources are discovered during excavation, Standard Conditions of Approval for all development projects require the contractor to stop all work adjacent to the find and contact the City of Hayward Development Services Department to preserve and record the uncovered materials so it can be safely removed. Therefore, the proposed project would not lead to new or more severe impacts to archaeological resources beyond those identified in the GP EIR.

Disturbance of Human Remains
The potential to uncover human remains exists at locations throughout the Bay Area. Due to the existing urban nature of the area, it is not expected that the project would unearth artifacts or resources during project construction. However, as required by the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 10, Article 11 of the City of Hayward Municipal Code), the discovery of human remains shall be treated with respect and dignity and must fully comply with the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and other appropriate laws. In the unlikely event that artifacts are uncovered during the construction of the proposed project the City would implement standard conditions of approval that are required of all ground‐disturbing development projects within the City. Specifically, if human remains are encountered during construction activities, work would cease and the County Coroner would be notified immediately. A qualified archaeologist would also be contacted to assess the situation in consultation with the appropriate agencies. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission would provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. The City of Hayward would follow the recommendations from the Native American Heritage Commission or the archaeologist, as required. Therefore, no impacts to human remains interred outside of formal cemeteries would occur.

Applicable Mitigation
As described in the GP EIR, 2040 General Plan impacts on historic and cultural resources were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation measures were identified. No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.

Applicable Policies
General Plan Policies
 Policy LU‐8.3 Historic Preservation Ordinance. The City shall maintain and implement its Historic Preservation ordinance to safeguard the heritage of the City and to preserve historic resources.  Policy LU‐8.4 Survey and Historic Reports. The City shall maintain and expand its records of reconnaissance surveys, evaluations, and historic reports completed for properties located within the City.

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐34 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  Policy LU‐8.6 Historic Preservation Standards and Guidelines. The City shall consider The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards of the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings when evaluating development applications and City projects involving historic resources or development applications that may affect scenic views of the historic context of nearby historic resources.  Policy LU‐8.14 Demolition of Historic Resources. The City shall prohibit the demolition of historic resources unless one of the following findings can be made:
○ The rehabilitation and reuse of the resource is not structurally or economically feasible. ○ The demolition is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. ○ The public benefits of demolition outweigh the loss of the historic resource.  Policy NR‐7.1 Paleontological Resource Protection. The City shall prohibit any new public or private development that damages or destroys a historically‐ or prehistorically‐significant fossil, ruin, or monument or any object of antiquity.
 Policy NR‐7.2 Paleontological Resource Mitigation. The City shall develop or ensure compliance with protocols that protect or mitigate impacts to paleontological resources, including requiring grading and construction projects to cease activity when a paleontological resource is discovered so it can be safely removed.

Conclusion
The GP EIR adequately evaluated the potential cultural resources impacts of the proposed project.

Therefore, potential impacts would be less‐than‐significant and additional mitigation is not required.

Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐35

6. ENERGY
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Reduced
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Discussion
Energy usage was evaluated in the GP EIR in Chapter 21.6, Energy, and the environmental and regulatory setting of the Hayward Planning Area with respect to energy conservation was described in detail in Section 7.6 Natural Resources: Energy Resources and Efficiency of the General Plan Background Report (City of Hayward, 2013). Pursuant to Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Background Report was incorporated into the GP EIR by reference.

Similar to build out of the General Plan, the proposed project would increase the demand for electricity, natural gas, and gasoline. The discussion and analysis provided below is based on data included in the CalEEMod output, which is included in Appendix A.

Construction‐Period Energy Use
The anticipated construction schedule assumes that the proposed project would be built over 24 to 36 months. The proposed project would require grading, site preparation, and building activities during construction.

Construction of the proposed project would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, preparation of the site for grading activities, and building construction.

Petroleum fuels (e.g., diesel and gasoline) would be the primary sources of energy for these activities. In order to increase energy efficiency on the site during project construction, the project would restrict equipment idling times to 5 minutes or less and would require construction workers to shut off idle equipment, as required by BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. Energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to energy than were identified in the GP EIR.

Operational Energy Use
Energy use consumed by the proposed project would be associated with natural gas use, electricity consumption, and fuel used for vehicle trips associated with the project. LSA estimated energy and natural gas consumption using default energy intensities by land use type in CalEEMod. In addition, the proposed buildings would comply with the latest CALGreen standard building measures and Title Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐36 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) 24 standards, which were included in CalEEMod. Electricity and natural gas usage estimates associated with the proposed project are shown in Table 3.

In addition, the proposed project would result in energy usage associated with gasoline to fuel project‐related trips. Based on CalEEMod, the proposed project would result in approximately 1,835,750 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per year. The average fuel economy for light‐duty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and SUVs) in the United States has steadily increased from about 14.9 miles per gallon (mpg) in 1980 to 22.0 mpg in 2015.10 Therefore, using the USEPA fuel economy estimates for 2015, the proposed project would result in the consumption of approximately 83,443 gallons of gasoline per year. Table 3, below, shows the estimated potential increased electricity and natural gas demand associated with the proposed project.

Table 3: Estimated Annual Energy Use of Proposed Project Land Use  Electricity Use
(kWh per year)
Natural Gas Use
(therms per year)
Gasoline
(gallons per year)
Residential   654,564  34,714  83,443
Parking  10,500  0  0
Open Space  0 0 0
Total  665,064  34,717  83,443
Source: LSA (May 2019).

As shown in Table 3, the estimated potential increased electricity demand associated with the proposed project would be 665,064 kilowatt‐hours (kWh) per year. In 2017, California consumed approximately 288,614 gigawatt‐hours (GWh) or 288,614,000,000 kWh.11 Of this total, Alameda County consumed 11,113 GWh or 11,112,655,423 kWh.12 Therefore, electricity demand associated with the proposed project would  be approximately 0.01 percent of Alameda County’s total electricity demand.

In addition, as shown in Table 3, the estimated potential increased natural gas demand associated with the proposed project would be 34,714 therms per year. In 2017, California consumed approximately 12,571 million terms or 12,571,000,000 therms, while Alameda County consumed approximately 379 million therms or approximately 379,032,277 therms.13 Therefore, natural gas demand associated with the proposed project would only be approximately 0.01 percent of Alameda County’s total natural gas demand.

10   U.S. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. “Table 4‐23: Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles.” Website: www.bts.gov/archive/publications/national _transportation_statistics/table_04_23 (accessed June 19, 2019).  11   California Energy Commission, 2017a. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Electricity Consumption by County. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed June 19, 2019).  12   Ibid.
13   California Energy Commission, 2017b. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Gas Consumption by County. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx (accessed June 19, 2019).

Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐37 In addition, the proposed project would result in energy usage associated with gasoline to fuel project‐related trips. As shown above in Table 3, vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would consume approximately 83,443 gallons of gasoline per year. In 2015, vehicles in California consumed approximately 15.1 billion gallons of gasoline.14 Therefore, gasoline demand generated by vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would be a minimal fraction of gasoline and diesel fuel consumption in California.

The proposed project would develop the site with new housing, as well as new roadways and street improvements, a multi‐use trail, and open space. The expected energy consumption during operation of the proposed project would be consistent with typical usage rates for single‐family residential uses; however, energy consumption is largely a function of personal choice and the physical structure and layout of buildings. The proposed project would be consistent with the intent of the Suburban Density designation and would provide a complete, walkable, sustainable neighborhood with preservation of view corridors and open space areas, as well as infrastructure and circulation improvements. The proposed project would also include a new segment of the Hayward Foothill Trail, a 16‐foot‐wide multi‐use trail, and additional street improvements such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, on‐street parking bulb‐outs, utilities, and lighting. Therefore, the proposed project would support the ability to use alternative modes of transportation, would promote initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled, and would increase the use of alternate means of transportation, which would allow for a decreased dependence on nonrenewable energy resources.

In addition, as indicated above, the proposed project would be constructed to the latest CALGreen standard building measures and Title 24 standards, which would help to reduce energy and natural gas consumption. Therefore, the proposed project would implement the General Plan’s energy‐ related policies that promote jobs‐housing balance, growth and infill development, green building and landscaping, complete neighborhoods, energy efficiency, and bicycling, walking, and transit amenities, and parks access. As such , the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of fuel or energy and would incorporate renewable energy or energy efficiency measures into building design, equipment use, and transportation. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to energy than were identified in the GP EIR.

Conflict or Obstruct a State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency In 2002, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1389, which required the California Energy Commission (CEC) to develop an integrated energy plan every two years for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels, for the California Energy Policy Report. The plan calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for zero emission (ZE) vehicles and their

14   California Energy Commission, 2017c. California Gasoline Data, Facts, and Statistics. Available online at:
www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/transportation_data/gasoline (accessed June 19, 2019).

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐38 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban designs that reduce VMT and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.

The CEC recently adopted the 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report.15 The 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report provides the results of the CEC’s assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California. Many of these issues will require action if the State is to meet its climate, energy, air quality, and other environmental goals while maintaining energy reliability and controlling costs. The 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report covers a broad range of topics, including implementation of Senate Bill 350, integrated resource planning, distributed energy resources, transportation electri‐ fication, solutions to increase resiliency in the electricity sector, energy efficiency, transportation electrification, barriers faced by disadvantaged communities, demand response, transmission and landscape‐scale planning, the California Energy Demand Preliminary Forecast, the preliminary transportation energy demand forecast, renewable gas (in response to Senate Bill 1383), updates on Southern California electricity reliability, natural gas outlook, and climate adaptation and resiliency.

As indicated above, energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature. In addition, energy usage associated with operation of the proposed project would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources and energy impacts would be negligible at the regional level. Because California’s energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the project’s total impact to regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed project would not conflict with California’s energy conservation plans as described in the CEC’s 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Thus, as shown above, the project would avoid or reduce the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy and not result in any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of energy. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to energy efficiency than were identified in the GP EIR.

Applicable Mitigation
As described in the GP EIR, 2040 General Plan impacts on energy were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation measures were identified. No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.

Applicable Policies
General Plan Policies
 Policy LU‐1.1: Jobs‐Housing Balance. The City shall support efforts to improve the jobs‐housing balance of Hayward and other communities throughout the region to reduce automobile use, regional and local traffic congestion, and pollution.

15   California Energy Commission, 2017d. 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report, Publication Number: CEC‐ 100‐2017‐001‐CMF.

Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐39  Policy LU‐1.3: Growth and Infill Development. The City shall direct local population and employment growth toward infill development sites within the City, especially the catalyst and opportunity sites identified in the Economic Development Strategic Plan.  Policy LU‐1.6: Mixed‐Use Neighborhoods. The City shall encourage the integration of a variety of compatible land uses into new and established neighborhoods to provide residents with convenient access to goods, services, parks and recreation, and other community amenities.  Policy LU‐1.8: Green Building and Landscaping Requirements. The City shall maintain and implement green building and landscaping requirements for private‐ and public‐sector development to:
○ Reduce the use of energy, water, and natural resources. ○ Minimize the long‐term maintenance and utility expenses of infrastructure, buildings, and properties.
○ Create healthy indoor environments to promote the health and productivity of residents, workers, and visitors.
○ Encourage the use of durable, sustainably‐sourced, and/or recycled building materials. ○ Reduce landfill waste by promoting practices that reduce, reuse, and recycle solid waste.  Policy LU‐3.1: Complete Neighborhoods. The City shall promote efforts to make neighborhoods more complete by encouraging the development of a mix of complementary uses and amenities that meet the daily needs of residents. Such uses and amenities may include parks, community centers, religious institutions, daycare centers, libraries, schools, community gardens, and neighborhood commercial and mixed‐use developments.
 Policy NR‐2.6: Greenhouse Gas Reduction in New Development. The City shall reduce potential greenhouse gas emissions by discouraging new development that is primarily dependent on the private automobile; promoting infill development and/or new development that is compact, mixed use, pedestrian friendly, and transit oriented; promoting energy‐efficient building design and site planning; and improving the regional jobs/housing balance ratio.  Policy NR‐4.1: Energy Efficiency Measures. The City shall promote the efficient use of energy in the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of public and private facilities, infrastructure, and equipment.
 Policy NR‐4.3: Efficient Construction and Development Practices. The City shall encourage construction and building development practices that maximize the use of renewable resources and minimize the use of non‐renewable resources throughout the life‐cycle of a structure.

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐40 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  Policy NR‐4.11: Green Building Standards. The City shall require newly constructed or renovated public and private buildings and structures to meet energy efficiency design and operations standards with the intent of meeting or exceeding the State’s zero net energy goals by 2020.  Policy NR‐4.12: Urban Forestry. The City shall encourage the planting of native and diverse tree species to reduce heat island effect, reduce energy consumption, and contribute to carbon mitigation.
 Policy NR‐4.13: Energy Use Data. The City shall consider requiring disclosure of energy use and/or an energy rating for single family homes, multifamily properties, and commercial buildings at certain points or thresholds. The City shall encourage residents to voluntarily share their energy use data and/or ratings with the City as part of collaborative efficiency efforts.  Policy NR‐4.15: Energy Efficiency Programs. The City shall promote the use of the Energy Star Portfolio Manager program and energy benchmarking training programs for nonresidential building owners.
 Policy PFS‐2.7: Energy Efficient Buildings and Infrastructure. The City shall continue to improve energy efficiency of City buildings and infrastructure through implementation of the Municipal Green Building Ordinance, efficiency improvements, equipment upgrades, and installation of clean, renewable energy systems.
 Policy M‐1.6: Bicycling, Walking, and Transit Amenities. The City shall encourage the development of facilities and services, (e.g., secure term bicycle parking, street lights, street furniture and trees, transit stop benches and shelters, and street sweeping of bike lanes) that enable bicycling, walking, and transit use to become more widely used modes of transportation and recreation.
 Policy M‐3.8: Connections with New Development. The City shall ensure that new commercial and residential development projects provide frequent and direct connections to the nearest bikeways, pedestrian ways, and transit facilities.
 Policy M‐3.9: Private Complete Streets. The City shall encourage large private developments (e.g., office parks, apartment complexes, retail centers) to provide internal complete streets that connect to the existing public roadway system and provide a seamless transition to existing and planned transportation facilities.
 Policy M‐6.2: Encourage Bicycle Use. The City shall encourage bicycle use in all neighborhoods, especially where short trips are most common.
 Policy M‐6.5: Connections between New Development and Bikeways. The City shall ensure that new commercial and residential development projects provide frequent and direct connections to the nearest bikeways and do not interfere with existing and proposed bicycle facilities.

Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐41  Policy HQL‐2.1: Physical Activity and the Built Environment. The City shall support new developments or infrastructure improvements in existing neighborhoods that enable people to drive less and walk, bike, or take public transit more.  Policy HQL‐10.7: Parks Access. The City shall work with HARD to ensure that new parks are accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists, and are connected with transit, to the extent feasible.

Conclusion
The GP EIR adequately evaluated the energy impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant and additional mitigation is not required.

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐42 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Reduced
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating direct or indirect substantial risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Discussion
Information for this section was obtained from maps and publications published from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the California Geological Survey (CGS), the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the City of Hayward General Plan, the GP EIR, and the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project site.16 A portion of the City is underlain with soft alluvial soils and artificial fill along the bay and on slopes in the Hayward Hills. During large earthquakes, saturated fill is susceptible to ground shaking and liquefaction‐associated hazards and the slopes are susceptible to earthquake‐induced landslides.

16   ENGEO, 2017. Route 238 Bypass – Group 5, Hayward, California, Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration.

May 17.

Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐43 Potential seismic hazards in the City also include surface rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading, and fault creep.17, 18
A Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration19 prepared for the site included soil borings, excavation of test pits, and excavation of exploratory trenches to evaluate subsurface conditions and geologic hazards. The Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration provided preliminary recommendations that have been incorporated into the planning of the project to address geologic hazards, including maintaining a setback of 50 feet from identified fault traces for structures intended for human occupancy. Other preliminary geotechnical recommendations were provided for selection of engineered fill materials, site preparation (e.g., removal of debris and loose/compressible soil), removal of existing fill and landslide materials, construction on slopes (e.g., grading of slopes, slope setbacks, debris benches and drainage terraces, toe keyways, and subsurface drainage facilities), placement of fill, and surface drainage.

Seismicity and Seismic Hazards
Fault Rupture. The City is located within a seismically active region of the San Francisco Bay area.

Several major earthquake faults in the region, including the San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras Faults, could generate strong earthquakes in the vicinity of the parcel groups. The Hayward Fault traverses the City in a northwest to southeast direction and is considered a seismically active fault under the Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The Alquist‐Priolo program requires the California Geologic Survey (CGS) to establish regulatory zones around fault traces that are considered active and sufficiently defined (i.e., located). These active faults are considered to have the potential for surface fault rupture hazards and pose a hazard to structures. The Chabot and Carlos Bee Faults run parallel to the Hayward Fault and are located approximately 0.6 and 0.2 mile east of the Hayward Fault, respectively. These two faults are considered inactive. 20 The site is adjacent to and within the designated Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for the Hayward Fault. Fault‐related ground rupture is likely at the site, and relatively narrow zones of faulting have been observed in exploratory trenches at the site. The observed faulting is likely occurring on secondary fault splays associated with the eastern extension of the Hayward fault.

Consistent with the Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act requirements and the City’s General Plan Policy HAZ‐2.4, the proposed project has been designed to maintain a setback of 50 feet from identified fault traces for structures intended for human occupancy.

Further, the City requires projects to comply with the 2016 California Building Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations),21 which provides for stringent construction requirements on projects in areas of high seismic risk based on numerous inter‐related factors. Seismic hazards cannot be completely eliminated, even with implementation of advanced building practices.

17   Hayward, City of, 2014b, op. cit.
18   Fault creep is slow, constant slippage that can occur on some active faults without there being an earthquake.  19   ENGEO, 2017, op. cit.
20   Hayward, City of, 2014b, op. cit.
21   Hayward, City of. Municipal Code, Chapter 9, Article 1.

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐44 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) However, the seismic design standards of the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) are intended to prevent catastrophic building failure in the most severe earthquakes currently anticipated.

A site‐specific geotechnical investigation would be performed for the proposed project as required by State regulations, and the City of Hayward General Plan policies. Implementation of a site‐specific geotechnical investigation, and compliance with geotechnical recommendations and the CBC during design and construction would ensure that the potential impacts associated with fault rupture would be less than significant.

Strong Seismic Ground Shaking. As described above, multiple active faults have the potential to generate strong to very strong ground shaking at the project site. The Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities and the USGS have predicted a 14.3 percent probability of a 6.7 magnitude (Mw, or Moment Magnitude) or greater earthquake on the Hayward Fault, a 7.4 percent chance on the Calaveras Fault, and a total probability of 72 percent that an earthquake of that magnitude will occur on one of the regional San Francisco Bay Area faults during that time. The risk of ground shaking impacts is reduced through adherence to the design and materials standards set forth in building codes.

As described above, the proposed project would be required to comply with the 2016 California Building Code and the geotechnical recommendations identified in the site‐specific geotechnical investigation. Compliance with geotechnical recommendations and the CBC during design and construction would ensure that the potential impacts associated with ground shaking would be less than significant.

Seismic‐Related Ground Failure and Liquefaction. The potential for different types of ground failure to occur during a seismic event is discussed below.

Liquefaction Potential. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon primarily associated with saturated soil layers located close to the ground surface. These soils lose strength during ground shaking.

Due to the loss of strength, the soil may move both horizontally and vertically. In areas where sloping ground or open slope faces are present, this mobility can result in lateral spreading. Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, saturated, fine‐ grained sands that are relatively close to the ground surface. However, loose sands that contain a significant amount of fines (silt and clay) may also liquefy. Potentially liquefiable soil was not identified within any of the borings drilled at the site as part of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map does not show areas susceptible to liquefaction within the project site. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction at the project site is considered low and impacts related to liquefaction would be less‐than‐significant.

Lateral Spreading. Lateral spreading involves lateral ground movements caused by seismic shaking. These lateral ground movements are often associated with a weakening or failure of an embankment or soil mass overlying a layer of liquefied or weak soils. Due to the presence of shallow bedrock at the majority of the site, the potential for lateral spreading is considered to be low. Therefore, the potential for impacts related to lateral spreading would be less than significant.

Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐45 Ground Lurching Ground lurching is a result of the rolling motion imparted to the ground surface during energy released by an earthquake. Such rolling motion can cause ground cracks to form in weaker soils. The potential for the formation of these cracks is considered greater at contacts between deep alluvium and bedrock. Such an occurrence is possible at the site as in other locations in the Bay Area, but based on the site location, the offset is expected to be minor. Therefore, potential impacts related to ground lurching would be less than significant.

Landslides. Slope failure can occur as either rapid movement of large masses of soil or imperceptibly slow movement of soils on slopes. The project site is located on sloped terrain with known landslides. The State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map shows the majority of the project site with areas susceptible to earthquake‐induced landslides.

The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation includes recommendations to reduce the potential impacts associated with landslides, including: (1) removal of landslide material; (2) over excavation and rebuilding of graded slopes, as needed; and/or (3) slope setbacks for habitable structures. The design and construction of the project in accordance with geotechnical recommendations would reduce potential impacts related to landslides to a less‐than‐significant level.

Erosion/Loss of Top Soil
The development of the project site would involve construction activities such as grading and excavation, which could result in temporary soil erosion when the disturbed soils are exposed to wind or rainfall. Because the proposed project would involve over one acre of land disturbance, it would be required to comply with the State Water Resources Control Board’s Construction General Permit, which requires the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would include erosion control best management practices that would minimize erosion during construction. Policy NR‐6.5 of the General Plan also requires that the City control site preparation procedures and construction phasing to reduce erosion and exposure of soils to the maximum extent possible. Upon completion of construction, the project site would be covered with structures, pavement, and landscaping and would not include areas of exposed soil.

Therefore, the proposed project would result in less‐than‐significant impacts related to soil erosion or loss of top soil.

Unstable and Expansive Soils
Unstable Soil. The project site would not be subject to lateral spreading, but does have the potential for seismically‐induced landslides. The design and construction of the project in accordance with geotechnical recommendations would reduce potential impacts related to landslides to a less‐than‐ significant level.

Subsidence/Soil Collapse. Subsidence can result from the removal of subsurface water resulting in either gradual depression or catastrophic collapse of the ground surface. The proposed project would not utilize groundwater at the project site. Dewatering is not anticipated during project construction. Therefore, potential impacts related to subsidence/soil collapse would be less than significant.

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐46 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) Expansive Soils. Expansive soils are characterized by the potential for shrinking and swelling as the moisture content of the soil decreases and increases, respectively. The changes in soil volume can result in substantial cosmetic and structural damage to buildings and hardscape developed over expansive soils. Expansive soils are typically fine grained with high clay content. Potentially expansive clay has been observed in various locations at the surface and in several test pits. In addition, existing fill at the project site could undergo vertical movement that is not easily characterized and could ultimately be inadequate to effectively support potential building and fill loads.

The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation includes recommendations to reduce the potential impacts associated with expansive soil, including: (1) using a rigid mat foundation that is designed to resist the settlement and heave of expansive soil; (2) deepening the foundations to below the zone of moisture fluctuation (i.e., by using deep footings or drilled piers); and/or (3) using mat or footings at normal shallow depths but bottomed on a layer of select fill having a low expansion potential. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the 2016 California Building Code and the geotechnical recommendations identified in the site‐specific geotechnical investigation.

Compliance with geotechnical recommendations and the CBC during design and construction would ensure that the potential impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant.

Septic Tanks/Wastewater Disposal
Development of the proposed project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore the proposed project would have no impact related to septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems.

Paleontological Resources
The project site rests upon sediments and bedrock comprised of Holocene to Late Pleistocene Surficial Sediments, the Late Jurassic to early Cretaceous Knoxville Formation, the Late Jurassic to Cretaceous Franciscan Assemblage, and the Late Jurassic Coast Range Ophiolite Complex. The geology of the project site primarily consists of igneous and metamorphic rock units from the Franciscan Assemblage and Coast Range Ophiolite Complex. The most northern section of this site, between Carlos Bee Boulevard and Bunker Hill Court, contains the Knoxville Formation. The Coast Range Ophiolite Complex and the Franciscan Assemblage igneous and metamorphic rocks have no paleontological sensitivity, while the Knoxville Formation has high paleontological sensitivity.

Only ground disturbance in areas of the Knoxville Formation would reach paleontologically sensitive deposits and have the potential to impact scientifically significant paleontological resources. In the event that paleontological resources are discovered during construction, Standard Conditions of Approval for all development projects require the contractor to stop all work adjacent to the find and contact the City of Hayward Development Services Department to preserve and record the uncovered materials so it can be safely removed. Compliance with the City’s standard conditions of approval would ensure that the proposed project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐47 Applicable Mitigation
As described in the GP EIR, 2040 General Plan impacts related to geology, soils, minerals and paleontological resources were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation measures were identified. No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.

Applicable Policies
General Plan Policies
 Policy LU‐7.1 Slopes. The City shall prohibit the construction of buildings on unstable and steep slopes (slopes greater than 25 percent).
 Policy LU‐7.2 Ridgelines. The City shall discourage the placement of homes and structures near ridgelines to maintain natural open space and preserve views. If ridgeline development cannot be avoided, the City shall require grading, building, and landscaping designs that mitigate visual impacts and blend development with the natural features of the hillside.  Policy LU‐7.3 Hillside Street Layouts. The City shall require curvilinear street patterns in hillside areas to respect natural topography and minimize site grading.  Policy LU‐7.4 Hillside Street Design. The City shall encourage narrow streets in hillside areas.

Streets should be designed with soft shoulders and drainage swales (rather than sidewalks with curb and gutters) to maintain the rural character of hillside areas and minimize grading impacts.

The City shall prohibit parking along narrow street shoulders to provide space for residents to walk and ride horses.
 Policy NR‐6.4 Minimizing Grading. The City shall minimize grading and, where appropriate, consider requiring onsite retention and settling basins.  Policy NR‐6.5 Erosion Control. The City shall concentrate new urban development in areas that are the least susceptible to soil erosion into water bodies in order to reduce water pollution.  Policy NR‐8.2 Hillside Site Preparation Techniques. The City shall require low‐impact site‐grading, soils repair, foundation design, and other construction methods to be used on new residential structures and roadways above 250 feet in elevation to protect aesthetics, natural topography, and views of hillsides and surrounding open space.
 Policy HAZ‐2.1 Seismic Safety Codes and Provisions. The City shall enforce the seismic safety provisions of the Building Code and Alquist‐Priolo Special Studies Zone Act to minimize earthquake‐related hazards in new construction, particularly as they relate to high occupancy structures or buildings taller than 50 feet in height.

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐48 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  Policy HAZ‐2.2 Geologic Investigations. The City shall require a geologic investigation for new construction on sites within (or partially within) the following zones:
○ Fault Zone (see Figure 9.2‐1 in the Hazards Background Report) ○ Liquefaction Zone (see Figure 9.2‐2 in the Hazards Background Report) ○ Landslide Zone (see Figure 9.2‐3 in the Hazards Background Report) A licensed geotechnical engineer shall conduct the investigation and prepare a written report of findings and recommended mitigation measures to minimize potential risks related to seismic and geologic hazards.
 Policy HAZ‐2.3 Fault Zone Assumption. The City shall assume that all sites within (or partially within) any fault zone are underlain by an active fault trace until a geotechnical investigation by a licensed geotechnical engineer provides otherwise.
 Policy HAZ‐2.4 New Buildings in a Fault Zone. The City shall prohibit the placement of any building designed for human occupancy over active faults. All buildings shall be set back from active faults by at least 50 feet. The City may require a greater setback based on the recommendations of the licensed geotechnical engineer evaluating the site and the project.  Policy HAZ‐2.6 Infrastructure and Utilities. The City shall require infrastructure and utility lines that cross faults to include design features to mitigate potential fault displacement impacts and restore service in the event of major fault displacement. Mitigation measures may include plans for damage isolation or temporary bypass by using standard isolation valves, flexible hose or conduit, and other techniques and equipment.

Conclusion
The GP EIR adequately evaluated the geology and soils impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant and additional mitigation is not required.

Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐49

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Reduced
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
g. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
h. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Discussion
Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) associated with the General Plan are evaluated in Chapter 10, Global Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the GP EIR. The following includes a discussion of the potential impacts related to GHG emissions associated with the General Plan as compared to the proposed project.

GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, and are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. However, over the last 200 years, human activities have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to be released into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, and enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global climate change. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human‐induced global climate change are:
 Carbon dioxide (CO2)
 Methane (CH4)
 Nitrous oxide (N2O)
 Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
 Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)
While GHGs produced by human activities include naturally‐occurring GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O, some gases, like HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are completely new to the atmosphere. Certain other gases, such as water vapor, are short‐lived in the atmosphere compared to those GHGs that remain in the atmosphere for significant periods of time, contributing to climate change in the long term.

Water vapor is generally excluded from the list of GHGs because it is short‐lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation. For the purposes of this analysis, the term “GHGs” will refer collectively to the six gases identified in the bulleted list provided above.

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐50 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As discussed in the GP EIR, construction activities would generate GHG emissions through the use of on‐ and off‐road construction equipment in new development projects. While no project‐specific details were known at the time the GP EIR was prepared, short‐term construction emissions were estimated for worst‐case, average annual levels of development assumed to occur under the General Plan through the year 2040. Average annual development assumptions were estimated by dividing the net increase in residential units and commercial building square feet associated with build out of the General Plan by 25 years. Construction emissions were estimated for this annualized average level development within the first full calendar year after anticipated General Plan adoption in order to obtain a “worst case” estimate of average annual construction‐related GHG emissions.

The GP EIR determined that total construction‐related GHG emissions in 2015 would be approximately 1,186 metric tons (MT) of CO2e per year.

The BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction‐related GHG emissions. However, lead agencies are encouraged to quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction. Using CalEEMod, it is estimated that the proposed project would generate approximately 1,369.6 MT CO2e during construction of the project and approximately 684.8 MT CO2e per year. In addition, when considered over the 30‐year life of the project, the amortized construction emissions would be approximately 45.7 MT of CO2e per year. Annual construction‐related GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be lower than the estimated average annual construction‐related GHG emissions identified in the GP EIR. In addition, implementation of BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures would reduce construction‐ related GHG emissions by reducing the amount of construction vehicle idling and by requiring the use of properly maintained equipment. As noted above, the BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction‐related GHG emissions; therefore, project construction impacts associated with GHG emissions would be considered less than significant. Construction of the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to construction‐period GHG emissions than identified in the GP EIR.

Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The GP EIR estimated operational emissions from existing development in Hayward in the years 2005 and 2010, as well as projected “Business As Usual” GHG emissions associated with forecasted growth in the City’s population and employment in 2020, 2040 and 2050. The 2020, 2040 and 2050 projections reflect both existing and proposed land uses and population and employment growth assumed in the proposed General Plan, but do not take into account any specific GHG reduction measures associated with State or federal legislative actions or the City’s 2009 CAP. The GP EIR found that any impacts resulting from GHG associated with implementation of the General Plan would be less than significant.

Development of the proposed project would contribute to the GHG emissions identified in the GP EIR. Long‐term operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions from area and mobile sources, and indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption. Mobile‐ source emitters of GHGs would include project‐generated vehicle trips associated with visitor trips Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐51 to the project site. Area‐source emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping and maintenance on the project site, and other sources.

The proposed project would develop the site with new housing as well as new roadways and street improvements, a multi‐use trail, and open space uses. The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Suburban Density designation and would provide a complete, walkable, sustainable neighborhood with preservation of view corridors and open space areas, as well as infrastructure and circulation improvements. The proposed project would also include a new segment of the Hayward Foothill Trail, a 16‐foot‐wide multi‐use trail, and additional street improvements such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, on‐street parking bulb‐outs, utilities, and lighting. Therefore, the proposed project would support the ability to use alternative modes of transportation, would promote initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled, and would increase the use of alternate means of transportation, which would help reduce GHG emissions.

Following guidance from the BAAQMD, GHG emissions were estimated for the proposed project using CalEEMod. Table 4 shows the calculated GHG emissions for the proposed project. Motor vehicle emissions are the largest source of GHG emissions for the project at approximately 66 percent of the total. Energy use is the next largest category at 27 percent of CO2e emissions. Solid waste and water use are about 3 percent and 1 percent of the total emissions, respectively. In addition, area sources are approximately 1 percent of the total emissions. CalEEMod output sheets are included in Appendix 1.

Table 4: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source
Category
Operational Emissions (Metric Tons per Year)
CO2  CH4  N2O  CO2e
Percent of Total
Project Emissions
Area  8.0  <0.1  <0.1  8.0  1
Energy  284.4  <0.1  <0.1  286.2  27
Mobile  706.5  <0.1  0.0  707.1  66
Waste  20.2  1.2  0.0  50.1  4
Water  14.3  0.2  <0.1  20.0  2
Total Operational  1,071.4  100
BAAQMD Threshold  1,100  ‐
Exceed?  No  ‐
Source: LSA (May 2019).

According to the BAAQMD, a project would result in a less‐than‐significant GHG impact if it would:
 Result in operational‐related greenhouse gas emissions of less than 1,100 metric tons of CO2e a year; or
 Result in operational‐related greenhouse gas emissions of less than 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per service population (residents plus employees).

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐52 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) Based on the analysis results, the proposed project would generate approximately 1,071.4 MT CO2e which would be below the BAAQMD’s numeric threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not generate significant GHG emissions that would have a significant effect on the environment and would have a less than significant impact related to operational GHG emissions. Operation of the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to GHG emissions than identified in the GP EIR.

Consistency with Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans
The City of Hayward adopted the 2009 Climate Action Plan (CAP) to reduce GHG emissions communitywide. The 2009 CAP was designed to reduce communitywide emissions 12.5 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020, and to set the City on a course to achieve a long‐term emission reduction goal of 82.5 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2050.

As discussed in the GP EIR, the General Plan integrates and updates the comprehensive, community‐ wide GHG emission reduction strategy contained in the City’s 2009 CAP to achieve a GHG emission reduction target of 20 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020. The proposed General Plan also recommends longer‐term goals for GHG reductions of 61.7 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2040 and 82.5 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2050. The GP EIR summarizes the total GHG emission reductions from both State and Federal regulatory actions, as well as locally based GHG emission reductions required to achieve the targets for 2020, 2040 and 2050 in Table 10.2 of the GP EIR. Legislative‐adjusted projected emissions take into account GHG emission reductions as a result of State and Federal regulatory actions. Additional net GHG emission reductions would be required to meet the proposed targets for 2020, 2040 and 2050; however, the GP EIR determined that the scale of reductions required to achieve the much more aggressive longer‐term emission reduction goals will require significant improvements in the availability and/or cost of technology, as well as potential increased reductions from ongoing State and Federal legislative actions.

As discussed in the GP EIR, the General Plan contains a comprehensive strategy that achieves a communitywide GHG emission reduction target of 20 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020, and sets the City on course toward achieving ongoing GHG emission reductions in the future through the year 2050. Thus, the GP EIR determined that the General Plan would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. In addition, the GP EIR determined that estimated GHG emissions per service population in 2020, 2040 and 2050 would be below the BAAQMD‐recommended threshold of 6.6 MT CO2e per service population per year. Thus, the GP EIR determined that the General Plan would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment and impacts would be less than significant.

As indicated above, the proposed project would develop the site with new housing as well as new roadways and street improvements, a multi‐use trail, and open space.. The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Suburban Density designation and would provide a complete, walkable, sustainable neighborhood with preservation of view corridors and open space areas, as well as infrastructure and circulation improvements. The proposed project would also include a new segment of the Hayward Foothill Trail, a 16‐foot‐wide multi‐use trail, and additional street improvements such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, on‐street parking bulb‐outs, utilities, and lighting.

Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐53 Therefore, the proposed project would support the ability to use alternative modes of transporta‐ tion, would promote initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled, and would increase the use of alternate means of transportation, which would help reduce GHG emissions.

Therefore, the proposed project would implement appropriate GHG reduction strategies and would not conflict with applicable plan, policy, or regulations pertaining to GHGs. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts beyond those identified in the GP EIR. No new mitigation measures are required.

Applicable Mitigation
As described in the GP EIR, 2040 General Plan impacts on greenhouse gas emissions were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation measures were identified. No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.

Applicable Policies
General Plan Objectives
 Policy NR‐2.6: Greenhouse Gas Reduction in New Development. The City shall reduce potential greenhouse gas emissions by discouraging new development that is primarily dependent on the private automobile; promoting infill development and/or new development that is compact, mixed use, pedestrian friendly, and transit oriented; promoting energy‐efficient building design and site planning; and improving the regional jobs/housing balance ratio.  Policy NR‐2.7: Coordination with Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The City shall coordinate with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to ensure projects incorporate feasible mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution if not already provided for through project design.
 Policy NR‐2.10: Zero‐Emission and Low‐Emission Vehicle Use. The City shall encourage the use of zero‐emission vehicles, low‐emission vehicles, bicycles and other non‐motorized vehicles, and car‐sharing programs by requiring sufficient and convenient infrastructure and parking facilities throughout the City.
 Policy NR‐4.1: Energy Efficiency Measures. The City shall promote the efficient use of energy in the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of public and private facilities, infrastructure, and equipment.
 Policy NR‐4.3: Efficient Construction and Development Practices. The City shall encourage construction and building development practices that maximize the use of renewable resources and minimize the use of nonrenewable resources throughout the life‐cycle of a structure.

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐54 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  Policy NR‐4.11: Green Building Standards. The City shall require newly constructed or renovated public and private buildings and structures to meet energy efficiency design and operations standards with the intent of meeting or exceeding the State’s zero net energy goals by 2020.  Policy NR‐4.12: Urban Forestry. The City shall encourage the planting of native and diverse tree species to reduce heat island effect, reduce energy consumption, and contribute to carbon mitigation.
 Policy NR‐4.1:3 Energy Use Data. The City shall consider requiring disclosure of energy use and/or an energy rating for single family homes, multifamily properties, and commercial buildings at certain points or thresholds. The City shall encourage residents to voluntarily share their energy use data and/or ratings with the City as part of collaborative efficiency efforts.  Policy LU‐1.1: Jobs‐Housing Balance. The City shall support efforts to improve the jobs‐housing balance of Hayward and other communities throughout the region to reduce automobile use, regional and local traffic congestion, and pollution.
 Policy LU‐1.6: Mixed‐Use Neighborhoods. The City shall encourage the integration of a variety of compatible land uses into new and established neighborhoods to provide residents with convenient access to goods, services, parks and recreation, and other community amenities.  Policy LU‐1.8: Green Building and Landscaping Requirements. The City shall maintain and implement green building and landscaping requirements for private‐ and public‐sector development to:
○ Reduce the use of energy, water, and natural resources. ○ Minimize the long‐term maintenance and utility expenses of infrastructure, buildings, and properties.
○ Create healthy indoor environments to promote the health and productivity of residents, workers, and visitors.
○ Encourage the use of durable, sustainably‐sourced, and/or recycled building materials. ○ Reduce landfill waste by promoting practices that reduce, reuse, and recycle solid waste.  Policy M‐1.4: Multimodal System Extensions. The City shall require all new development that proposes or is required to construct or extend streets to develop a transportation network that complements and contributes to the City’s multimodal system, maximizes connections, and minimizes barriers to connectivity.
 Policy M‐1.6: Bicycling, Walking, and Transit Amenities. The City shall encourage the development of facilities and services, (e.g., secure term bicycle parking, street lights, street furniture and trees, transit stop benches and shelters, and street sweeping of bike lanes) that Attachment XI
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐55 enable bicycling, walking, and transit use to become more widely used modes of transportation and recreation.
 Policy M‐5.1: Pedestrian Needs. The City shall consider pedestrian needs, including appropriate improvements to crosswalks, signal timing, signage, and curb ramps, in long‐range planning and street design.
 Policy M‐5.2: Pedestrian System. The City shall strive to create and maintain a continuous system of connected sidewalks, pedestrian paths, creekside walks, and utility greenways throughout the City that facilitates convenient and safe pedestrian travel, connects neighborhoods and centers, and is free of major impediments and obstacles.
 Policy M‐5.4: Sidewalk Design. The City shall require that sidewalks, wherever possible, be developed at sufficient width to accommodate pedestrians including the disabled; a buffer separating pedestrians from the street and curbside parking; amenities; and allow for outdoor uses such as cafes.
 Policy M‐5.5: Streetscape Design. The City shall require that pedestrian‐oriented streets be designed and maintained to provide a pleasant environment for walking including shade trees; plantings; well‐designed benches, trash receptacles, and other furniture; pedestrian‐scaled lighting fixtures; wayfinding signage; integrated transit shelters; public art; and other amenities.  Policy M‐6.5: Connections between New Development and Bikeways. The City shall ensure that new commercial and residential development projects provide frequent and direct connections to the nearest bikeways and do not interfere with existing and proposed bicycle facilities.  Policy PFS‐7.12: Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling. The City shall require demolition, remodeling and major new development projects to salvage or recycle asphalt and concrete and all other non‐hazardous construction and demolition materials to the maximum extent practicable.

Conclusion
The GP EIR adequately evaluated the greenhouse gas emissions impacts of the proposed project.

Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant and additional mitigation is not required.

Attachment XI
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐56 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Reduced
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b. 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?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. 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 it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Discussion
Transport, Use, Storage, and Disposal of Hazardous Materials The proposed project would demolish the existing structures on the project site and construct, a residential subdivision that includes single‐family homes, dedicated open space, and a trail.

Residential land uses typically do not involve transport, use, or disposal of significant quantities of hazardous materials. Generally, small quantities of hazardous materials, such as paints, cleaning chemicals, and fertilizers, are used in residential subdivisions for routine maintenance. Therefore, a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would not occur and potential impacts related to operational use of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

During project construction, hazardous materials such as fuel, lubricants, paint, sealants, and adhesives would be transported and used at the project site. The proposed project would be required to comply with federal, State, and local regulations regarding the transportation, use, and Attachment IX
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐57 disposal of hazardous materials, including preparation and implementation of an SWPPP, which requires implementation of control measures for hazardous material storage and soil stockpiles, inspections, maintenance, and training, and containment of releases to prevent runoff into existing storm collection systems or waterways. In addition, Policy HAZ‐6.8 of the City’s General Plan indicates that the City shall promote the safe transport of hazardous materials through Hayward by maintaining formally‐designated hazardous material carrier routes to direct hazardous materials away from populated and other sensitive areas, and prohibiting the parking of vehicles transporting hazardous materials on City streets. Compliance with existing regulations and implementation of the SWPPP during construction would ensure that potential impacts associated with hazardous material use, transport, and disposal are considered less than significant.

Release of Hazardous Materials and Risk of Upset
The proposed residential subdivision would not involve storage or use of hazardous materials (except for small quantities for routine maintenance as described above) or generation of significant hazardous wastes. As such, potential significant impacts related to a foreseeable upset would not be expected.

During construction, hazardous materials such as fuel, lubricants, paint, sealants, and adhesives would be transported and used at the project site. Management of these materials at the project site would be subject to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit. Compliance with the Construction General Permit would require preparation and implementation of an SWPPP designed to reduce the risk of spills or leaks from the reaching the environment. The SWPPP would also include a Spill Response Plan to address minor spills of hazardous materials. Compliance with SWPPP requirements would ensure that potential significant hazards associated with routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during and after construction would be less than significant.

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment22 (ESA) was prepared for the project site. The Phase I ESA evaluated the potential for past land uses to have impacted the environmental condition of the site through the review of historical information sources (e.g., historic aerial photos and maps) and government databases that list hazardous materials release sites and facilities that handle hazardous materials.

The Phase I ESA recommended that a Phase II ESA be conducted to evaluate the potential presence of contaminated fill materials on the site that would be disturbed during construction. The Phase II ESA should include testing of the site for the presence of Naturally‐Occurring Asbestos (NOA) based on the proximity of the project site to nearby parcels where the potential for NOA to be present was identified as a potential concern. If NOA is identified, project development would be required to comply with the BAAQMD’s Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. The BAAQMD would be required to approve an asbestos dust mitigation plan.

22   ENGEO, 2016. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Route 238 Bypass, Group 5, Hayward, California.

April 1.

Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐58 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) If the Phase II ESA identifies soil and/or groundwater contamination at levels exceeding regulatory screening levels for the proposed land use (e.g., the Regional Water Board’s Environmental Screening Levels [ESLs]), the Project Applicant would be required to submit it to the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (e.g., Alameda County Environmental Health Department [ACDEH], Regional Water Board, or DTSC) for review. The Phase II ESA would recommend corrective actions to address the identified contamination, including developing and implementing a Soil Management Plan (SMP) and/or a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the remediation of contaminated soil and/or groundwater, if required by a regulatory oversight agency. Any corrective actions would be performed under the oversight of the applicable regulatory oversight agencies, and clearance for the proposed land use would need to be obtained from the applicable regulatory oversight agencies.

Construction and /or operation of the proposed project could expose workers and/or the public to potentially contaminated soil, groundwater, and vapors associated with. ..The public and/or the environment could be affected by the release of hazardous materials from the project site into the environment, by: (1) exposing workers and/or the public to potentially contaminated soil, groundwater, and vapors during construction and/or operation of the project; or (2) exposing workers and/or the public to hazardous building materials during demolition of existing structures.

Policy HAZ‐6.2 of the City’s General Plan requires that environmental investigations be prepared before discretionary project approvals are issued by the City in order to ensure that the presence of hazardous materials and/or waste contamination would not have the potential to affect the environment or the health and safety of future property owners or users.

Compliance with all applicable local, State, and federal regulations and standards pertaining to the release of hazardous materials and risk of upset would ensure that impacts associated with the release of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Emission of Hazardous Materials within 0.25 miles of a School Harder Elementary School, located at 495 Wyeth Road, is approximately 2,800 feet southwest of the project site and California State University East Bay (CSU East Bay) is located adjacent to the project site on the east. Other schools in the vicinity of the project site include Bret Hart Middle School, Hayward High School, Moreau Catholic High School, and St. Clement Elementary School. No other schools were identified within a quarter‐mile of the project site.23 As discussed above, the potential for a hazardous materials release during construction and operation activities would be less than significant following required compliance with existing regulations. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less‐than‐significant impact to existing or proposed school facilities from the emission of hazardous materials.

Hazardous Materials Site Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the Cal/EPA to develop, at least annually, an updated list of hazardous materials release sites known as the Cortese List. The project site was not identified on the Cortese List or other hazardous material release databases during review of regulatory

23   Hayward, City of, 2014. Hayward 2040 General Plan Background Report. January.

Attachment IX
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐59 records for the Phase I ESA. Therefore, no impacts associated with locating a project on a site included on a list of hazardous materials is expected to occur.

Aviation Hazards
The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip or within the Airport Influence Area of the Hayward Executive Airport, and therefore the project would not result in impacts related to aviation hazards.

Emergency Response or Evacuation Plan
The proposed project involves a residential subdivision on contiguous parcels and would not impair implementation of or interfere with the City of Hayward Local Hazard Mitigation Plan or the Alameda County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The proposed project would not impair implementa‐ tion of, or interfere with, emergency response or evacuation plans because the proposed project would not alter the existing streets surrounding the project site, which could be used for emergency access or evacuation. If the City is successful in negotiating the acquisition of land from CSU East Bay for construction of the Bunker Hill road extension to Carlos Bee Boulevard, the proposed project would add this emergency response and/or evacuation route to/from the Bunker Hill neighborhood.

The proposed project would involve limited short‐term use of City streets for delivery of construc‐ tion equipment and supplies, and commuting workers. During construction activities, all construction equipment would be stored on the project site. Therefore, potential impacts to emergency evacuation routes or emergency response plans from the proposed project are considered less than significant.

Wild Fire
The project site is located within the wildland urban interface as identified by the Hayward Fire Department.24 In 1993, the City adopted the Hillside Design and Wildland/Urban Interface Guidelines25 to address potential fire hazards for developments in the hills. The Guidelines include standards for street and sidewalks that allow for fire truck access, cluster home development to make efficient use of hillside space, and architectural and site design that allow for fire setbacks and environmental disaster mitigation. The Guidelines also establish two structure categories for the urban/wildland interface: Category I structures located on sites where maximum built‐in fire protection measures are necessary due to nearby steep slopes for wildland fuel loading, and Category II structures located on sites within the remaining portions of the urban/wildland interface.

Both Category I and II structures must meet or exceed the minimum California Fire Safe Guidelines and include sprinkler systems, double‐paned windows, decks made from non‐combustible materials, fire‐resistant planting, and other fire safe design elements. The Fire Department designates which sites or lots should comply with the Category I or Category II building construction standards.

Compliance with the City’s Hillside Design and Wildland/Urban Interface Guidelines would ensure potential impacts related to wildland fires would be less than significant.

24   Hayward, City of, 2014b, op. cit.
25   Hayward, City of, 1993. Hillside Design and Wildland/Urban Interface Guidelines. February 16.

Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐60 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) Applicable Mitigation
As described in the GP EIR, 2040 General Plan impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation measures were identified. No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.

Applicable Policies
General Plan Policies
 Policy NR‐6.15 Native Vegetation Planting. The City shall encourage private property owners to plant native or drought‐tolerant vegetation in order to preserve the visual character of the area and reduce the need for toxic sprays and groundwater supplements.  Policy HAZ‐5.1 Wildland/Urban Interface Guidelines. The City shall maintain and implement Wildland/Urban Interface Guidelines for new development within fire hazard areas.  Policy HAZ‐5.2 Fire Prevention Codes. The City shall enforce fire prevention codes that require property owners to reduce wildfire hazards on their property.  Policy HAZ‐5.3 Defensible Space and Fuel Reduction. The City shall promote defensible space concepts to encourage property owners to remove overgrown vegetation and to reduce fuel loads on hillside properties, especially near structures and homes.  Policy HAZ‐6.1 Hazardous Materials Program. The City shall maintain its status as a Certified Unified Program agency and implement the City’s Unified Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management Program, which includes:
○ Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (Hazardous Materials Business Plans – HBMP);
○ California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program; ○ Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program;
○ Above‐ground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA) Program, including Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans;
○ Hazardous Waste Generator Program;
○ On‐site Hazardous Waste Treatment (Tiered Permit) Program; and ○ California Fire Code Hazardous Material Management Plans (HMMP) and Hazardous Materials Inventory Statements (HMIS).

Attachment IX
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐61  Policy HAZ‐6.2 Site Investigations. 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 users and the greater Hayward community.  Policy HAZ‐6.3 Permit Requirements. The City shall direct the Fire Chief (or their designee) and the Planning Director (or their designee) to evaluate all project applications that involve hazardous materials, electronic waste, medical waste, and other hazardous waste to determine appropriate permit requirements and procedures.
 Policy HAZ‐6.7 Agency Coordination. 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.
 Policy HAZ‐6.8 Truck Routes. The City shall maintain designated truck routes for the transportation of hazardous materials through the City of Hayward. The City shall discourage truck routes passing through residential neighborhoods to the maximum extent feasible.  Policy HQL‐7.3 Home Use of Hazardous Materials. The City shall encourage and educate residents, non‐profits, and businesses to implement integrated pest management principles, and reduce or discontinue the use of pesticides, herbicides, and toxic cleaning substances.  Policy HQL‐7.5 Proximity to Pollution Sources. The City shall avoid locating new sensitive uses such as schools, childcare centers, and senior housing, to the extent feasible, in proximity to sources of pollution, odors, or near existing businesses that handle toxic materials, Where such uses are located in proximity to sources of air pollution, odors, or toxic materials, the City shall encourage building design, construction safeguards, and technological techniques to mitigate the negative impacts of hazardous materials and/or air pollution on indoor air quality.  Policy HQL‐9.5 Hazards Resiliency. The City shall continue to assess and monitor risks from local environmental (e.g., flooding, earthquake) and man‐made hazards and work with community groups and State and regional agencies to prepare residents, businesses, and visitors in the event of an incident.
 Policy HQL‐9.8 Climate Adaptation in Plans. The City shall address climate adaptation in all disaster preparedness and emergency response plans.
 Policy M‐4.5 Emergency Access. The City shall develop a roadway system that is redundant (i.e., include multiple alternative routes) to the extent feasible to ensure mobility in the event of emergencies.

Conclusion
The GP EIR adequately evaluated the impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant and additional mitigation is not required.

Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐62 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Reduced
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater management
of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site?
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on‐
or offsite;

iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or

iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Discussion
Water Quality Standards
Construction. Construction and demolition activities for the proposed project would involve disturbing, grading, and excavating soil, which could result in temporary erosion and movement of sediments into the storm drain system, particularly during precipitation events. The potential for chemical releases is present at most construction sites due to the use of paints, solvents, fuels, lubricants, and other hazardous materials associated with heavy construction equipment. Once released, these hazardous materials could be transported to nearby surface waterways in stormwater runoff, wash water, and dust control water, potentially reducing the quality of the receiving waters. The release of sediments and other pollutants during construction and demolition could adversely affect water quality in receiving waters.

Attachment IX
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐63 The proposed project would disturb greater than 1 acre of land, and therefore would be required to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit (State Water Board Order 2009‐0009‐DW).26 On‐site construction activities subject to the Construction General Permit include clearing, grading, excavation, and soil stockpiling. As stated above, State Water Resources Control Board’s Construc‐ tion General Permit also requires the development of an SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer.

An SWPPP identifies all potential pollutants and their sources, including erosion, sediments, and construction materials and must include a list of BMPs to reduce the discharge of construction‐ related stormwater pollutants. An SWPPP must include a detailed description of controls to reduce pollutants and outline maintenance and inspection procedures. Typical sediment and erosion BMPs include protecting storm drain inlets, establishing and maintaining construction exits and perimeter controls to avoid tracking sediment off‐site onto adjacent roadways. An SWPPP also defines proper building material staging and storage areas, paint and concrete washout areas, describes proper equipment/vehicle fueling and maintenance practices, measures to control equipment/vehicle washing and allowable non‐stormwater discharges, and includes a spill prevention and response plan.

Temporary dewatering may be required during construction activities involving excavation.

Dewatering effluent may have high turbidity and could contain contaminants. Turbid and/or contaminated groundwater could cause degradation of the receiving water quality if discharged directly to storm drains or surface water without treatment. The discharge of dewatering effluent would be subject to permits from the City of Hayward or the Regional Water Board, depending if the discharge were to the sanitary sewer or storm drain system, respectively. The Construction General Permit allows the discharge of dewatering effluent if the water is properly filtered or treated, using appropriate technology. If the dewatering activity is deemed by the Regional Water Board not to be covered by the Construction General Permit, then the discharger could potentially prepare a Report of Waste Discharge, and if approved by the Regional Water Board, be issued site‐specific Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) under NPDES regulations. If it is infeasible to meet the require‐ ments of the Construction General Permit, acquire site‐specific WDRs, or meet the City of Hayward’s wastewater discharge requirements, the construction contractor would be required to transport the dewatering effluent off‐site for treatment and disposal.

Required compliance with State and local regulations regarding stormwater and dewatering during construction would ensure that the proposed project would result in less‐than‐significant impacts to water quality during construction.

Operation. Because the project would replace over 10,000 square feet of existing impervious surface area, the project would be required to comply with Provision C.3 requirements of the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP).27 The project would result in alteration of over 50 percent of the existing impervious surface of the project site, and

26   State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Quality, 2009. Construction General Permit Fact Sheet. 2009‐0009‐DWQ amended by 2010‐0014‐DWQ & 2012‐0006‐DWQ.  27   San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2015. San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2‐2015‐0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, November

19. Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐64 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) therefore all new and replaced impervious surfaces would require treatment under the MRP.

Provision C.3 of the MRP requires implementation of low impact development (LID) source control, site design, and stormwater treatment for regulated projects. LID employs principles such as preserving and recreating natural landscape features and minimizing impervious surfaces to create functional and appealing site drainage that treats stormwater as a resource, rather than a waste product. Practices used to adhere to these LID principles include measures such as rain barrels and cisterns, green roofs, permeable pavement, preserving undeveloped open space, and biotreatment through rain gardens, bioretention units, bioswales, and planter/tree boxes. Additionally, Policy NR‐

6.6 of the City’s General Plan requires the City to promote stormwater management techniques that minimize surface water runoff and impervious ground surface, including requiring LID techniques.

Provision C.3.g of the MRP pertains to hydromodification management.28 The MRP requires that regulated projects which create and/or replace over 1 acre of impervious surface and increase the amount of impervious surface compared to the existing condition include measures to address hydromodification to ensure that stormwater discharges do not cause an increase in the erosion potential of the receiving stream. Increases in runoff flow and volume must be managed so that the post‐project runoff does not exceed estimated pre‐project rates and durations, where such increased flow and/or volume is likely to cause increased potential for erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollutant generation, or other adverse impacts on beneficial uses due to increased erosive force. The proposed project would be subject to hydromodification management require‐ ments because the proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surface compared to the existing condition, and stormwater runoff from the project site is eventually discharged into natural creeks, which are susceptible to erosion. Hydromodification management controls may include the installation of retention/detention systems (e.g., swales, basins, ponds, or cisterns) which would reduce runoff rates and volumes.

Additionally, Policies NR‐6.4, NR‐6.5, and NR‐6.6 of the City’s General Plan requires the implementa‐ tion of BMPs to minimize erosion, sedimentation, and water quality degradation resulting from the construction of new impervious surfaces. Policy PFS‐5.3 of the City’s General Plan requires new development projects to prepare drainage studies to assess storm runoff impacts on the local and regional storm drain and flood control system, and to develop recommended detention and drainage facilities to ensure that increased risks of flooding do not result from development and to prevent increased erosion and siltation of creek beds and banks.

Required compliance with applicable regulations and implementation of City policies, as described above, would reduce potential impacts to water quality from operation of the project to a less‐than significant level.

28 Hydromodification or hydrograph modification causes streambank erosion, channelization, increased flood flows, and other physical modifications that can adversely impact aquatic ecosystems due to increased sedimentation and reduced water quality (e.g., higher water temperatures, lower dissolved oxygen concentrations).

Attachment IX
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐65 Deplete Groundwater Supplies
Due to site topography, dewatering during construction activities is unlikely to be required. If performed, construction‐related dewatering would be temporary and limited to areas of excavation on the project site and would not substantially contribute to depletion of groundwater supplies.

Operation of the proposed project would not involve dewatering or the use of groundwater as potable water, because potable water is supplied to the project site by the City of Hayward. The project site is predominantly undeveloped, and partially covering undeveloped areas with impervious surfaces, as proposed by the project, could reduce infiltration of rainfall and runoff, which in turn could adversely affect aquifer recharge and groundwater supplies. In accordance with the requirements of Provision C.3 of the MRP, site design and treatment measures must be implemented at the project site to encourage infiltration of storm water runoff. Site design and treatment measures may include detention and retention basins, stormwater harvesting, vegetated swales and planters, and pervious pavements. A Storm Water Control Plan that specifies the types of infiltration‐based site design and treatment measures to be incorporated into the project would be required by the City prior to construction. Implementation of infiltration‐based site design and treatment measures, as required by the MRP and the City, would reduce potential impacts to groundwater supplies to a less‐than‐significant level.

Drainage Pattern and Surface Run‐off
The proposed project would not alter the course of a stream or river. The proposed project has been designed to preserve the existing drainages on the project site. However, the project would alter drainage patterns by creating new landscaped areas and impermeable pavement surfaces. As discussed above, the proposed project would be required to comply with the hydromodification requirements of the MRP and Policies NR‐6.6 and NR‐6.8 of the City’s General Plan. The Project Applicant would be required to prepare a drainage study to ensure that the changes in drainage patterns resulting from the project would not adversely impact storm drain and flood control systems or cause erosion and siltation of creek beds and banks.

Required compliance with applicable regulations and implementation of City policies, as described above, would reduce potential impacts of the project related to changes in drainage patterns to a less‐than‐significant level.

Flood Hazard, Tsunami, Seiche Zones
Based on the distance from the Bay and elevation of the project site, coastal hazards, such as sea level rise, seiche, tsunami, or extreme high tides, would not pose a threat of flooding for the proposed project. The project site is not located within 100‐year flood hazard zones as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA);29 however, 100‐year flood hazard zones mapped by FEMA are located along Ward Creek, downstream of the project site. The project site is

29   Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2018. Flood Map Services Center, Hayward CA. Website:
msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=Hayward%20CA#searchresultsanchor (accessed June 19, 2019).

Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐66 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) also not located within a dam failure inundation area.30 Therefore, the project would not result in impacts related to flooding, inundation by tsunami, or seiche.

Conflict with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan As discussed above, due to the size of the proposed project, construction and operation of the project would be subject to State and regional requirements related to stormwater runoff and any contaminated groundwater. Required compliance with State and local regulations regarding stormwater and dewatering during construction would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. As a result, a less‐than‐significant impact would occur.

Applicable Mitigation
As described in the GP EIR, 2040 General Plan impacts related to hydrology and water quality were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation measures were identified. No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.

Applicable Policies
General Plan Policies and Actions
 Policy LU‐1.8 Green Building and Landscaping Requirements. The City shall maintain and implement green building and landscaping requirements for private‐ and public‐sector development to:
○ Reduce the use of energy, water, and natural resources. ○ Minimize the long‐term maintenance and utility expenses of infrastructure, buildings, and properties.
○ Create healthy indoor environments to promote the health and productivity of residents, workers, and visitors.
○ Encourage the use of durable, sustainably‐sources, and/or recycled building materials. ○ Reduce landfill waste by promoting practices that reduce, reuse, and recycle solid waste.  Policy NR‐1.12 Riparian Corridor Habitat Protection. The City shall protect creek riparian habitats by:
○ Requiring sufficient setbacks for new development adjacent to creek slopes, ○ Requiring sensitive flood control designs to minimize habitat disturbance,

30   Hayward, City of, 2014b, op. cit.

Attachment IX
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐67 ○ Maintaining natural and continuous creek corridor vegetation, ○ Protecting/replanting native trees, and
○ Protecting riparian plant communities from the adverse effects of increased stormwater runoff, sedimentation, erosion, pollution that may occur from improper development in adjacent areas.
 Policy LU‐1.10 Infrastructure Capacities. The City shall ensure that adequate infrastructure capacities are available to accommodate planned growth throughout the City.  Policy NR‐6.4 Minimize Grading. The City shall minimize grading and, where appropriate, consider requiring onsite retention and settling basins.  Policy NR‐6.5 Erosion Control. The City shall concentrate new urban development in areas that are least susceptible to soil erosion into water bodies in order to reduce water pollution.  Policy NR‐6.6 Stormwater Management. The City shall promote stormwater management techniques that minimize surface water runoff and impervious ground surfaces in public and private developments, including requiring the use of Low‐Impact Development (LID) techniques to best manage stormwater through conservation, onsite filtration, and water recycling.  Policy NR‐6.8 NPDES Permit Compliance. The City shall continue to comply with the San Francisco Bay Region National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit.
 Policy NR‐6.15 Native Vegetation Planting. The City shall encourage private property owners to plant native or drought‐tolerant vegetation in order to preserve the visual character of the area and reduce the need for toxic sprays and groundwater supplements.  Policy HAZ‐2.7 Dam Failure. The City shall coordinate with agencies responsible for the maintenance of the South Reservoir Dam, the Del Valle Dam, and other small dams along Alameda Creek to ensure that dam infrastructure is maintained and enhanced to withstand potential failure during an earthquake.
 Policy HAZ‐3.2 Development in Flood Plains. The City shall implement Federal, State, and local requirements related to new construction in flood plain areas to ensure that future flood risks to life and property are minimized.
 Policy HAZ‐3.3 Flood Plain Management Ordinance. The City shall maintain and enforce a Flood Plain Management Ordinance to:
○ Promote public health, safety, and general welfare by minimizing public and private losses due to floods;
○ Implement the Cobey‐Alquist Flood Plain Management Act, and Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐68 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) ○ Comply with the eligibility requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program.  Policy PFS‐3.9 High Quality Service Provision. The City shall provide water service that meets or exceeds State and Federal drinking water standards.
 Policy PFS‐4.1 Sewer Collection System Master Plan. The City shall maintain and implement the Sewer Collection System Master Plan.
 Policy PFS‐4.2 Water Pollution Control Facility Master Plan. The City shall maintain and implement the Water Pollution Control Facility Master Plan.  Policy PFS‐5.1 Accommodate New and Existing Development. The City shall work with the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to expand and maintain major stormwater drainage facilities to accommodate the needs of existing and planned development.  Policy PFS‐5.3 Watershed Drainage Plans. The City shall require developers of proposed large development projects to prepare watershed drainage plans. Drainage plans shall define needed drainage improvements per City standards, estimate construction costs for these improvements, and be implemented through the Stormwater Management and Urban Runoff Control Program and Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program.
 Policy PFS‐5.4 Green Stormwater Infrastructure. The City shall encourage “green infrastructure” design and Low Impact Development (LID) techniques for stormwater facilities (i.e., using vegetation and soil to manage stormwater) to achieve multiple benefits (e.g., preserving and creating open space, improving runoff water quality).
 Policy PFS‐5.6 Grading Projects. The City shall impose appropriate conditions on grading projects performed during the rainy season to ensure that silt is not conveyed to storm drainage.  Policy PFS‐5.7 Diversion. The City shall require new development to be designed to prevent the diversion of stormwater onto neighboring parcels.
 Policy PFS‐5.8 Enhance Recreation and Habitat. The City shall require new stormwater drainage facilities to be designed to enhance recreation and habitat and shall work with HARD to integrate such facilities into existing parks and open space features.  Policy HQL‐7.3 Home Use of Hazardous Materials. The City shall encourage and educate residents, non‐profits, and businesses to implement integrated pest management principles, and reduce or discontinue the use of pesticides, herbicides, and toxic cleaning substances.

Conclusion
The GP EIR adequately evaluated the impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant and additional mitigation is not required.

Attachment IX
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐69

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Reduced
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Discussion
Divide an Established Community
Projects that have the potential to physically divide an established community include projects such as new freeways and highways, major arterials, streets, and railroad lines. The proposed project would result in the development of vacant parcels within the project site. The proposed project would not remove any public access, including pedestrian and bicycle access. The proposed project would not result in a barrier within the project site that would impede access, nor would it result in a removal of a major means of access. Therefore, the proposed project would not inhibit public connectivity, and would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, this impact would not result in new or more significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the GP EIR.

Conformance with Land Use Plans
The General Plan Land Use Map designates the project site as Suburban Density Residential (1.0 to

4.3 dwelling units per net acre) with a natural drainage designated as Parks and Recreation at the southern end of the site. The site is within the Hayward Foothills Trail Special Design District and is zoned as Residential Natural Preserve (minimum lot size 20,000 square feet, up to 2 dwelling units per acre), with the drainage zoned as Open Space. The purpose of the Hayward Foothills Trail Special Design District is to ensure development of a continuous trail along the 238 Bypass Land Use Study properties.

The proposed project is consistent with the type and intensity of development allowed within the General Plan Land Use Designation. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with the City’s Hillside Design and Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines, as well as, General Plan policies, which promote grading, landscaping, street design, and clustering of development in hillside areas to protect aesthetics, natural topography and views of surrounding open space. The proposed project would not require changes to General Plan land use designations; however, minor revisions to the Zoning Ordinance that are consistent with the General Plan may be needed to accommodate the proposed development intensity (e.g. minimum lot sizes), distribution, and layout within the project site. The City of Hayward Planning Commission and City of Hayward City Council would consider approving these minor zoning revisions as part of their review of the proposed project. Therefore, Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐70 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to conformity with land use plans beyond those already analyzed in the GP EIR.

Applicable Mitigation
As described in the GP EIR, 2040 General Plan impacts related to land use and planning were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation measures were identified. No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.

Applicable Policies
 Policy LU‐1.3 Growth and Infill Development. The City shall direct local population and employment growth toward infill development sites within the City, especially the catalyst and opportunity sites identified in the Economic Development Strategic Plan.  Policy LU‐1.7 Design Guidelines. The City shall maintain and implement commercial, residential, industrial, and hillside design guidelines to ensure that future development complies with General Plan goals and policies.
 Policy LU‐2.14 University‐Oriented Uses. The City shall support the development of university‐ oriented uses, including student and faculty housing, satellite campuses and university‐oriented retail and service uses, within the City’s Priority Development Areas (excluding the Cannery Transit Neighborhood).
 Policy LU‐3.1 Complete Neighborhoods. The City shall promote efforts to make neighborhoods more complete by encouraging the development of a mix of complementary uses and amenities that meet the daily needs of residents. Such uses and amenities may include parks, community centers, religious institutions, daycare centers, libraries, schools, community gardens, and neighborhood commercial and mixed‐use developments.
 Policy LU‐3.6 Residential Design Strategies. The City shall encourage residential developments to incorporate design features that encourage walking within neighborhoods by:
○ Creating a highly connected block and street network. ○ Designing new streets with wide sidewalks, planting strips, street trees, and pedestrian‐ scaled lighting.
○ Orienting homes, townhomes, and apartment and condominium buildings toward streets or public spaces.
○ Locating garages for homes and townhomes along rear alleys (if available) or behind or to the side of the front façade of the home.
○ Locating parking facilities below or behind apartment and condominium buildings.

Attachment IX
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐71 ○ Enhancing the front façade of homes, townhomes, and apartment and condominium buildings with porches, stoops, balconies, and/or front patios. ○ Ensuring that windows are provided on facades that front streets or public spaces.  Policy LU‐3.6 Residential Design Strategies. The City shall encourage residential developments to incorporate design features that encourage walking within neighborhoods by:
○ Creating a highly connected block and street network. ○ Designing new streets with wide sidewalks, planting strips, street trees, and pedestrian‐ scaled lighting.
○ Orienting homes, townhomes, and apartment and condominium buildings toward streets or public spaces.
○ Locating garages for homes and townhomes along rear alleys (if available) or behind or to the side of the front façade of the home.
○ Locating parking facilities below or behind apartment and condominium buildings. ○ Enhancing the front façade of homes, townhomes, and apartment and condominium buildings with porches, stoops, balconies, and/or front patios. ○ Ensuring that windows are provided on facades that front streets or public spaces.  Policy LU‐7.2 Ridgelines. The City shall discourage the placement of homes and structures near ridgelines to maintain natural open space and preserve views. If ridgeline development cannot be avoided, the City shall require grading, building, and landscaping designs that mitigate visual impacts and blend development with the natural features of the hillside.  Policy LU‐7.3 Hillside Street Layouts. The City shall require curvilinear street patterns in hillside areas to respect natural topography and minimize site grading.  Policy LU‐7.4 Hillside Street Design. The City shall encourage narrow streets in hillside areas.

Streets should be designed with soft shoulders and drainage swales (rather than sidewalks with curb and gutters) to maintain the rural character of hillside areas and minimize grading impacts.

The City shall prohibit parking along narrow street shoulders to provide space for residents to walk and ride horses.
 Policy LU‐7.5 Clustered Developments. The City shall encourage the clustering of residential units on hillsides to preserve sensitive habitats and scenic resources as natural open space. Sensitive areas and scenic resources include woodlands, streams and riparian corridors, mature trees, ridgelines, and rock outcroppings.

Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐72 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  Policy NR‐6.8 NPDES Permit Compliance. The City shall continue to comply with the San Francisco Bay Region National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit.
 Policy NR‐8.1 Hillside Residential Design Standards. The City shall regulate the design of streets, sidewalks, cluster home development, architecture, site design, grading, landscaping, utilities, and signage in hillside areas to protect aesthetics, natural topography, and views of surrounding open space through the continued Hillside Design and Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines.  Policy NR‐8.2 Hillside Site Preparation Techniques. The City shall require low‐impact site grading, soils, repair, foundation design, and other construction methods to be used on new residential structures and roadways above 250 feet in elevation to protect aesthetics, natural topography, and views of hillsides and surrounding open space.
 Policy M‐1.3 Multimodal Connections. The City shall implement a multimodal system that connects residents to activity centers throughout the City, such as commercial centers and corridors, employment centers, transit stops/stations, the airport, schools, parks, recreation area, and other attractions.
 Policy M‐1.4 Multimodal System Extensions. The City shall require all new development that proposes or is required to construct or extend streets to develop a transportation network that complements and contributes to the City’s multimodal system, maximizes connections, and minimizes barriers to connectivity.
 Policy M‐1.6 Bicycling, Walking and Transit Amenities. The City shall encourage the development of facilities and services (e.g., secure term bicycle parking, street lights, street furniture and trees, transit stop benches and shelters, and street sweeping of bike lanes) that enable bicycling, walking, and transit use to become more widely used modes of transportation and recreation.  Policy M‐1.7 Eliminate Gaps. The City shall strive to create a more comprehensive multimodal transportation system by eliminating gaps in roadways, bikeways, and pedestrian networks, increasing transit access in underserved areas, and removing natural and man‐made barriers to accessibility and connectivity.
 Policy M‐3.6 Context Sensitive. The City shall consider the land use and urban design context of adjacent properties in both residential and business districts as well as urban, suburban, and rural areas when designing complete streets.
 Policy M‐3.8 Connections with New Development. The City shall ensure that new commercial and residential development projects provide frequent and direct connections to the nearest bikeways, pedestrian ways and transit facilities.
 Policy M‐5.2 Pedestrian System. The City shall strive to create and maintain a continuous system of connected sidewalks, pedestrian paths, creekside walks, and utility greenways through the Attachment IX
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐73 City that facilitates convenient and safe pedestrian travel, connects neighborhoods and centers, and is free of major impediments and obstacles.
 Policy M‐6.1 Bikeway System. The City shall maintain and implement the Hayward Bicycle Master Plan.
 Policy M‐6.5 Connections between New Development and Bikeways. The City shall ensure that new commercial and residential development projects provide frequent and direct connections to the nearest bikeways, and do not interfere with existing and proposed bicycle facilities.  Policy HAZ‐2.7 Dam Failure. The City shall coordinate with agencies responsible for the maintenance of the South Reservoir Dam, the Del Valle Dam, and other small dams along Alameda Creek to ensure that dam infrastructure is maintained and enhanced to withstand potential failure during an earthquake.
 Policy HAZ‐3.3 Flood Plain Management Ordinance. The City shall maintain and enforce a Flood Plain Management Ordinance to:
○ Promote public health, safety, and general welfare by minimizing public and private losses due to floods;
○ Implement the Cobey‐Alquist Flood Plain Management Act, and ○ Comply with the eligibility requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program.  PFS‐1.3 Public Facility Master Plans. The City shall maintain and implement public facility master plans to ensure compliance with appropriate regional, State, and Federal laws; the use of modern and cost‐effective technologies and best management practices; and compatibility with current land use policy.
 PFS‐3.2 Urban Water Management Plan. The City shall maintain and implement the Urban Water Management Plan, including water conservation strategies and programs, as required by the Urban Water Management Planning Act.
 PFS‐3.14 Water Conservation Standards. The City shall comply with provisions of the State’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan (California Water Resources Control Board, 2010).  Policy PFS‐5.1 Accommodate New and Existing Development. The City shall work with the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to expand and maintain major stormwater drainage facilities to accommodate the needs of existing and planned development.  Policy PFS‐5.3 Watershed Drainage Plans. The City shall require developers of proposed large development projects to prepare watershed drainage plans. Drainage plans shall define needed drainage improvements per City standards, estimate construction costs for these improvements, Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐74 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) and be implemented through the Stormwater Management and Urban Runoff Control Program and Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program.
 Policy PFS‐5.8 Enhance Recreation and Habitat. The City shall require new stormwater drainage facilities to be designed to enhance recreation and habitat and shall work with HARD to integrate such facilities into existing parks and open space features.  Policy PFS‐7.3 Landfill Capacity. The City shall continue to coordinate with the Alameda County Waste Management Authority to ensure adequate landfill capacity in the region of the duration of the contract with its landfill franchise.
 Policy PFS‐7.4 Solid Waste Diversion. The City shall comply with State goals regarding diversion from landfill, and strive to comply with the provisions approved by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority.

Conclusion
The GP EIR adequately evaluated the potential land use impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant and additional mitigation is not required.

Attachment IX
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐75

12. MINERAL RESOURCES
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Reduced
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Discussion
Mineral resources that exist or existed within the City limits include stone, limestone, clay, fire clay, halite, and salt. The La Vista Quarry, located to the east of Mission Boulevard and Tennyson Road, is designated as a mineral resource site of regional significance; however, all operations at the La Vista Quarry site have been terminated due to depletion of aggregate resources. No other significant mineral resources are located within the City. 31 As such, implementation of the proposed project would have no impacts on mineral resources.

Applicable Mitigation
As described in the GP EIR, 2040 General Plan, impacts related to mineral resources were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation measures were identified. No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.

Applicable Policies
 Policy NR‐5.1 Mineral Resource Protection. The City shall protect mineral resources in undeveloped areas that have been classified by the State Mining and Geology Board as having statewide or regional significance for possible future extraction by limiting new residential or urban uses that would be incompatible with mining and mineral extraction operations.

Conclusion
The GP EIR adequately evaluated the mineral resource impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant and additional mitigation is not required.

31   Hayward, City of, 2014b, op. cit.

Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐76 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)

13. NOISE
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Reduced
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
The predominant sources of noise include traffic noise from major roadways, freight and passenger trains, and aircraft. Noise generated by industrial facilities and other stationary sources contribute to the ambient noise levels in their general area.32 Table 5 summarizes the modeled existing traffic noise levels on roadway segments that are in close proximity to Parcel Group 5. The information in Table 5 is summarized from Table 9‐11 in the Hayward 2040 General Plan Background Report. The segment of Mission Boulevard from Carlos Bee Boulevard to Harder Road is in close proximity to Parcel Group 5. Existing noise levels along this stretch of roadway are 72 dB from 50 feet from the roadway centerline. The segment of Carlos Bee Boulevard from Mission Boulevard to CSU East Bay/Hayward Boulevard runs along the northern side of Parcel Group 5.

Table 5: Summary of Modeled Existing Traffic Noise Levels of Roadways Adjacent to Parcel Group 5
Roadway
Segment  Location  dB at 50 feet from Roadway Centerline Feet from Roadway Centerline
(Distance to Noise Contours)
70 dBA  65 dBA  60 dBA  55 dBA
Mission
Boulevard
Carlos Bee Boulevard to
Harder Road  72  74  234  739  2,337
Carlos Bee
Boulevard
Mission Boulevard to CSU
East Bay/Hayward Boulevard  67  25  80  254  804
Source: Hayward 2040 General Plan Background Report (2014).

32   Hayward, City of, 2014b, op. cit.

Attachment IX
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐77 As shown in Table 5, existing uses along Mission Boulevard experience relatively high levels of ambient noise due to heavy vehicular traffic.

Certain land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others. Examples of these include residential areas, educational facilities, hospitals, childcare facilities, and senior housing. Parcel Group 5 is surrounded by residential and university uses.

The Hayward Executive Airport, located in the northwestern portion of the City, also generates noise from flight operations. However, the parcel group is located outside of the Hayward Executive Airport influence area.33
Construction‐Period Impacts
The Hayward Municipal Code limits construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Monday through Saturday and between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. In addition, the Hayward Municipal Code limits noise levels generated by an individual device or piece of equipment to no more than 83 dBA at a distance of 25 feet from the source and the noise level at any point outside of the property plane34 shall not exceed 86 dBA.

The GP EIR determined that implementation of projects under the General Plan would involve construction that would result in temporary noise generated primarily from the use of heavy‐duty construction equipment. The GP EIR identified that construction activities associated with future planned development could include site preparation (e.g., excavation, grading), laying of concrete foundations, paving, equipment installation, finishing, and cleanup. These activities typically involve the use of noise‐generating equipment such as cranes, excavators, dozers, graders, dump trucks, generators, backhoes, compactors, and loaders.

As discussed in the GP EIR, with regard to construction noise, the site preparation phase typically results in the most noise generated from the use of heavy‐duty equipment such as excavators, graders, dozers, loaders, and trucks. Based on typical equipment noise levels and accounting for typical usage factors of individual pieces of equipment associated with a typical site preparation phase of construction, the GP EIR determined that construction noise could result in noise levels of up to 93 dB Leq and 97 dB Lmax at 25 feet from a typical construction site, which would exceed the limits allowed by the adopted Municipal Code.

The GP EIR identified Mitigation 15‐1, which would limit construction activities to the less sensitive times of the day, require site‐specific noise studies to reduce potential impacts, and preparation and adoption of a Construction Noise Control Ordinance that would apply to all construction projects, including discretionary projects. With adoption of the General Plan Policies and implementation program, the GP EIR concluded that exposure of sensitive receptors located near construction activities to excessive noise levels would be avoided or reduced to a less‐than significant level.

33   Alameda County Community Development Agency, 2012. Hayward Executive Airport ‐ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.   34   According to the City of Hayward Municipal Code, “property plane” means a vertical plane including the property line, which determines the property boundaries in space.

Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐78 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) Parcel Group 5 is primarily surrounded by low‐density residential uses to the west and southwest.

Several independently owned parcels are located within and adjacent to this parcel group. CSU East Bay sports fields are located east of the site, and multifamily residential uses are located north of the site, across Carlos Bee Boulevard.

The Hayward Municipal Code also limits noise levels generated by an individual device or piece of equipment to no more than 83 dBA at a distance of 25 feet from the source and the noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed 86 dBA. The project’s construction noise levels could result in an exceedance of the City’s allowable construction noise levels from construction equipment and could result in a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Consistent with Mitigation 15‐1 identified in the GP EIR, and General Plan Policies HAZ‐8.17, Community Noise Control Ordinance, HAZ‐8.20, Construction Noise Study, HAZ‐8.21, Construction and Maintenance Noise Limits, and HAZ‐

8.24, Construction Noise Control Ordinance, the City will require a noise impact assessment for the proposed project, which will determine construction noise impacts, will limit the hours of construction to less sensitive hours of the day, and will enforce the Construction Noise Control Ordinance to minimize noise impacts associated with construction. In compliance with these policies and Mitigation 15‐1, the following Standard Condition of Approval for project construction would be implemented to ensure potential construction period noise impacts for the indicated sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
 The project contractor shall implement the following best management practice measures during construction of the project:
○ Equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards.
○ Place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the active project site.
○ Locate equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest possible distance between construction‐related noise sources and noise‐sensitive receptors nearest the active project site during all project construction.
○ Construction haul trucks and materials delivery traffic shall avoid residential areas whenever feasible.
○ Prohibit extended idling time of internal combustion engines. ○ Ensure simultaneous operation of multiple pieces of construction equipment would not occur near noise‐sensitive receptors. The construction contractor shall limit the use of construction equipment within 20 feet of noise‐sensitive receptors to one piece of equipment at a time.

Attachment IX
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐79 ○ Ensure that all general construction related activities are restricted to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Monday through Saturday and between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays.
○ Temporary noise control blanket barriers shall be installed in a manner to shield adjacent land uses
○ All noise‐sensitive receptors located within 500 feet of the project site shall be sent a notice regarding the construction schedule. A sign legible at a distance of 50 feet shall also be posted at the project site. All notices and the signs shall indicate the dates and durations of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number for a “noise disturbance coordinator.”
○ Designate a “disturbance coordinator” at the City of Hayward who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and would determine and implement reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem, and ensure noise levels do not exceed noise ordinance standards.

Implementation of the above best management practices would limit construction activities to the less noise‐sensitive periods of the day and would reduce construction impacts to the extent feasible.

With implementation of this Standard Condition of Approval, the proposed project would not create impacts related to construction noise more severe than impacts identified in the GP EIR.

Vibration Impacts
The GP EIR determined that construction activities due to implementation of the General Plan could result in the temporary ground vibration from the use of heavy‐duty construction equipment as well as long‐term exposure to ground vibration from sources such as trains, busses, and the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). The GP EIR also indicated that the General Plan contains policies that require construction activities located in close proximity to existing sensitive land uses, as well as new development projects located in close proximity to vibration noise sources, to conduct vibration noise studies. Noise studies would determine vibration impacts, and the City would require all feasible mitigation to be implemented to ensure that no damage or disturbance to structures or sensitive receptors would occur. Therefore, the GP EIR determined that new development would not be exposed to excessive levels of vibration and this impact would be less than significant.

Typical sources of groundborne vibration are construction activities (e.g., pavement breaking and operating heavy‐duty earthmoving equipment), and occasional traffic on rough roads. In general, groundborne vibration from standard construction practices is only a potential issue when within 25 feet of sensitive uses. Groundborne vibration levels from construction activities very rarely reach levels that can damage structures; however, these levels are perceptible near the active construc‐ tion site. With the exception of old buildings built prior to the 1950s or buildings of historic significance, potential structural damage from heavy construction activities rarely occurs. When roadways are smooth, vibration from traffic (even heavy trucks) is rarely perceptible.

Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐80 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) The proposed project is not located within  close proximity to major vibration sources (e.g., railroads, freeways, BART lines). In addition, the streets surrounding the project area are paved, smooth, and unlikely to cause significant groundborne vibration. In addition, the rubber tires and suspension systems of buses and other on‐road vehicles make it unusual for on‐road vehicles to cause groundborne noise or vibration problems. It is, therefore, assumed that no such vehicular vibration impacts would occur and, therefore, no vibration impact analysis of on‐road vehicles is necessary. Therefore, once constructed, the proposed project would not contain uses that would generate groundborne vibration. This impact would be less than significant.

Construction Vibration. Construction of the project could result in the generation of groundborne vibration. This construction vibration impact analysis discusses the level of human annoyance using vibration levels in VdB and will assess the potential for building damages using vibration levels in PPV (in/sec) because vibration levels calculated in RMS are best for characterizing human response to building vibration, while vibration level in PPV is best used to characterize potential for damage.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment  guidelines indicate that a vibration level up to 102 VdB (an equivalent to 0.5 in/sec in PPV) is considered safe for buildings consisting of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster), and would not result in any construction vibration damage. For a non‐engineered timber and masonry building, the construction vibration damage criterion is 94 VdB (0.2 in/sec in PPV).

Table 6 shows the PPV and VdB values at 25 feet from a construction vibration source. As shown in Table 6, bulldozers and other heavy‐tracked construction equipment (except for pile drivers and vibratory rollers) generate approximately 87 VdB of groundborne vibration when measured at 25 feet, based on the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. At this level, groundborne vibration has the potential to result in annoyance to residents and workers, but would not cause any damage to the buildings.

Table 6: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment Equipment
Reference PPV/LV at 25 feet
PPV (in/sec)  LV (VdB)a
Pile Driver (Impact), Typical  0.644  104
Pile Driver (Sonic), Typical  0.170  93
Vibratory Roller  0.210  94
Hoe Ram  0.089  87
Large Bulldozer 0.089  87
Caisson Drilling  0.089  87
Loaded Trucks  0.076  86
Jackhammer  0.035  79
Small Bulldozer  0.003  58
Sources: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2018).  a RMS vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) is 1 µin/sec.
µin/sec = micro‐inches per second
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
in/sec = inches per second
LV = velocity in decibels
PPV = peak particle velocity
RMS = root‐mean‐square
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
Attachment IX
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐81 Construction vibration, similar to vibration from other sources, would not have any significant effects on outdoor activities (e.g., those outside of residential buildings in the project vicinity).

Outdoor site preparation for the proposed project is expected to include the use of bulldozers and loaded trucks. The greatest levels of vibration are anticipated to occur during the site preparation phase. All other phases are expected to result in lower vibration levels. The distance to the nearest buildings for vibration impact analysis is measured between the nearest off‐site buildings and the project boundary (assuming the construction equipment would be used at or near the project boundary) because vibration impacts occur normally within the buildings. The formula for vibration transmission is provided below.

LvdB (D)  =   LvdB (25 feet) – 30 Log (D/25)
PPVequip  =  PPVref x (25/D)1.5
As identified above, Parcel Group 5 is primarily surrounded by low‐density residential uses to the west and southwest. Several independently owned parcels are located within and adjacent to this parcel group. CSU East Bay sports fields are located east of the site, and multifamily residential uses are located north of the site, across Carlos Bee Boulevard. Based on distance attenuation, groundborne vibration levels associated with heavy construction equipment would exceed the FTA threshold of 94 VdB (0.2 in/sec PPV) for building damage when heavy construction equipment is used within 15 feet of existing structures.

Consistent with General Plan Policy HAZ‐8.22, Vibration Impact Assessment, the City will require a vibration impact assessment for the proposed project, which will determine vibration impacts.

Under this policy, the City would require all measures to reduce impacts associated with vibration noise and vibration damage to buildings, if deemed necessary. In compliance with General Plan Policy HAZ‐8.22, as a Standard Condition of Approval for the proposed project, the City will require that the use of heavy construction equipment within 15 feet of existing structures be prohibited.

With implementation of this Standard Condition of Approval, potential construction‐related vibration impacts would not occur and therefore would not result in a new or worsening impact than those identified in the GP EIR.

Implementation of the Standard Condition of Approval described above would ensure that construction vibration levels would be below the FTA threshold of 94 VdB (0.2 in/sec PPV) for building damage. Although construction vibration levels at the adjacent sensitive receptors would have the potential to result in annoyance, these vibration levels would no longer occur once construction of the project is completed. Therefore, impacts associated with construction vibration would be considered less than significant. With implementation of Standard Conditions of Approval, the proposed project would not create impacts related to construction vibration more severe than impacts identified in the GP EIR.

Traffic Noise Impacts
As identified in the GP EIR, future planned development with implementation of the General Plan could be exposed to existing community noise as well as increases in traffic noise due to anticipated traffic increases on transportation networks within the Planning Area. In addition, existing develop‐ Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐82 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) ment within the Planning Area may also be exposed to increases in traffic noise as a result of the General Plan.

The GP EIR modeled existing and future traffic noise levels throughout the City to determine the anticipated traffic noise levels along major roadways. Based on the modeling, future projected traffic volumes on modeled roadways would result in some level of traffic noise increase in most cases (in some cases traffic‐related noise decreases slightly). The GP EIR identified increases in traffic noise that ranges from 3 dB up to an approximate 15 dB increase. Based on human perception of noise increase, 3 decibels is perceived as barely noticeable. Thus, with regard to traffic noise specifically, a noticeable increase in noise (i.e., 3 dB or greater), for the purposes of this analysis, would be considered a substantial increase in noise.

The GP EIR identified Mitigation 15‐2, which requires all new development to comply with the City’s noise standards, noise mitigation procedures, and sensitive land use siting policies. Mitigation 15‐2 would require new projects to evaluate noise exposure and provide mitigation measures to reduce noise exposure at sensitive land uses and meet noise standards for the specific project type.

Therefore, Mitigation 15‐2 requires project‐level noise studies to comply with adopted noise standards to ensure that individuals are not exposed to excessive noise levels.

Implementation of the proposed project would result in new daily trips on local roadways in the project site vicinity. As indicated above, a characteristic of sound is that a doubling of a noise source is required in order to result in a perceptible (3 dBA or greater) increase in the resulting noise level.

The proposed project would generate approximately 866 average daily trips. Based on the Hayward 2040 General Plan Background Report, the adjacent Carlos Bee Boulevard carries approximately 16,100 average daily trips. Project trips would represent a small increase in noise level, up to approximately 0.2 dBA CNEL based on the following equation:

Project daily trips would not result in a perceptible noise increase along any roadway segment in the project vicinity and therefore, would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not create impacts related to traffic noise more severe than impacts identified in the GP EIR.

Stationary Noise Impacts
Stationary and area sources include landscape and building maintenance activities, stationary mechanical equipment (e.g., pumps, generators, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] units), garbage collection activities, commercial and industrial activities, and other stationary and area sources such as people's voices, amplified music, and public address systems.

As discussed in the GP EIR, adoption of the General Plan would include policies that require project‐ level noise studies to be conducted for projects prone to high noise exposure. The noise studies would evaluate noise standard compliance of the project as well as provide mitigation measures to reduce noise exposure and meet City noise goals, policies, and standards. Based on the type of Attachment IX
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐83 development that would occur with implementation of the proposed General Plan (e.g., mostly residential and commercial), it is anticipated that stationary sources would be generally minor (e.g., HVAC units, loading docks, yard maintenance equipment) and would be able to meet adopted noise standards and policies with implementation of feasible mitigation, as recommended by project‐level studies. Therefore, the GP EIR determined that additional stationary sources that result from implementation of the General Plan would comply with all City noise standards, and future or existing sensitive receptors would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from these types of sources.

Implementation of the proposed project would generate minimal onsite stationary noise sources, primarily from mechanical equipment, including HVAC equipment, as HVAC equipment is typically the primary noise source associated with residential uses. HVAC equipment is often mounted on rooftops, located on the ground, or located within mechanical rooms. The noise sources could take the form of fans, pumps, air compressors, chillers, or cooling towers. HVAC operations would be required to meet all noise standards.

Precise details of HVAC equipment, including future location and sizing, are unknown at this time; therefore, for purposes of this analysis, 75 dBA at 3 feet was assumed to represent HVAC‐related noise.35 As identified above, Parcel Group 5 is primarily surrounded by low‐density residential uses to the west and southwest. Several independently owned parcels are located within and adjacent to this parcel group. CSU East Bay sports fields are located east of the site, and multifamily residential uses are located north of the site, across Carlos Bee Boulevard. This analysis assumes that the closest existing sensitive receptors would be located approximately 20 feet from proposed new residences. Adjusted for distance to the nearest off‐site sensitive receptors, the off‐site residences would be exposed to a noise level of 59 dBA Lmax generated by HVAC equipment. It is assumed that, as a worst‐case scenario, HVAC equipment would operate continuously through the day, evening, and night, however this noise level would not exceed the City’s noise level standards for residential land uses. The proposed project could also generate noise associated with landscaping and garbage collection activities; however, these noise levels would be required to comply with the Municipal Code. Therefore, the project would not expose persons to noise levels in excess of noise standards and noise impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not create impacts related to stationary noise sources more severe than impacts identified in the GP EIR.

Land Use Compatibility
The City sets forth normally acceptable noise level standards for exterior noise and land use compatibility and interior noise exposure of new development. The normally acceptable exterior noise level for single‐family residential land uses is up to 60 dBA Ldn. The normally acceptable interior noise level for residential units is 45 dBA Ldn. The noise environment at Parcel Group 5 is dominated by vehicle traffic on Carlos Bee Boulevard and Mission Boulevard. The traffic noise modeling presented in Table 5 indicates that traffic noise level would be approximately 72 dBA Ldn at 50 feet from Mission Boulevard and approximately 67 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from Carlos Bee Boulevard. Parcel Group 5 is located approximately 150 feet south of Carlos Bee Boulevard and over 1,000 feet east of Mission Boulevard. Therefore, based on distance attenuation, the closest proposed residence would

35   Trane, 2002. Sound Data and Application Guide for the New and Quieter Air‐Cooled Series R Chiller.

Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐84 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) be subject to traffic noise levels of approximately 57 dBA Ldn. Based on the City’s noise compatibility standards, this noise level is considered normally acceptable for single‐family residential land uses, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would meet the City’s noise compatibility standards for single‐family residential land uses. Therefore, the proposed project would meet the City’s exterior noise compatibility standards for single‐family residential land uses and would be considered to have an acceptable exterior noise level for the primary open space areas for the residences. In addition, based on standard exterior to interior noise attenuation rates, with windows closed, the interior noise level of 45 dBA Ldn would be met. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not create impacts related to noise and land use compatibility more severe than impacts identified in the GP EIR.

Aircraft Noise Source Impacts
The Hayward Executive Airport, located in the northwestern portion of the City, also generates noise from flight operations. However, the parcel group is located outside of the Hayward Executive Airport influence area.36 Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels due to the proximity of a public or public use airport. This impact would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not create impacts related to aircraft noise more severe than impacts identified in the GP EIR.

Applicable Mitigation
Mitigation 15‐1. The proposed General Plan includes Goal HAZ‐8; Policies HAZ‐8.17, HAZ‐8.20, HAZ‐

8.21, and HAZ‐8.24; and Implementation Program HAZ 7, which establish the overall goal and intentions of the City with regards to construction‐related noise. Policy HAZ‐8.17 refers to a community noise control ordinance for the purposes of regulating community noise levels. The City has adopted Section 4‐1.03.4 of the Municipal Code (Construction and Alteration of Structures; Landscaping Activities), which states that individual devices/pieces of construction equipment are not to exceed 83 dB at a distance of 25 feet from the source and 86 dB at any point of the property plane Monday through Saturday from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM and Sundays from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM, “unless otherwise provided pursuant to a duly‐issued permit or a condition of approval.” Thus, while the code establishes specific standards to reduce construction noise from typical construction activities, it may not apply to all development projects requiring discretionary approval. However, Policy HAZ‐8.24 establishes the City’s intent to develop specific construction noise standards, and Implementation Program HAZ‐7 would result in the preparation and adoption of a Construction Noise Control Ordinance that would apply to all construction projects, including discretionary projects.

Policy HAZ‐8.20 establishes that a site‐specific noise study may be required by the City for discretionary projects requiring land use entitlements. In addition, Policy HAZ‐8.21 establishes limits on construction noise‐generating activities to the less sensitive times of the day, when people are less likely to be disturbed.

36   Alameda County Community Development Agency, 2012, op. cit.

Attachment IX
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐85 Adoption of these proposed General Plan policies and implementation program would ensure that exposure of sensitive receptors located near construction activities to excessive noise levels would be avoided or reduced to a less‐than significant level.

Mitigation 15‐2. The implementation of the proposed policies and standards included in Tables 15.5 and 15.6 above would require all new development to comply with the City’s noise standards, noise mitigation procedures, and sensitive land use siting policies. The proposed policies would require new projects to evaluate noise exposure and provide mitigation measures, if applicable, to reduce noise exposure at sensitive land uses and meet noise standards for the specific project type.

Therefore, conducting project‐level noise studies to comply with adopted noise standards would ensure that individuals are not exposed to excessive noise levels.

Although adoption of the proposed policies would ensure that new development would comply with adopted noise standards and, therefore, would not expose new receptors to excessive noise levels, the proposed General Plan would still result in increases in traffic‐related noise (i.e., increases of 3 or more dB and up to 15 dB in some areas of the City). As a result, project‐generated increases in noise would result in a substantial permanent increase in community noise levels that could adversely affect existing receptors.

Much of the City is already built out, and anticipated growth under the proposed General Plan is expected to occur as infill, primarily in PDAs located near transit stations, in the City’s downtown, and along major corridors. The ability of the City to reduce adverse effects of increased traffic noise on existing receptors by either constructing sound barriers or walls, or requiring new development to construct these sound walls, is constrained by a number of factors. First, many existing homes and other sensitive uses front on major traffic corridors from which the increased traffic noise is generated, and construction of new sound walls would be infeasible or incompatible with these developed uses. Second, the proposed General Plan contains Policy LU‐4.10 (New Sound Walls and Fences), which discourages the construction of new sound walls and fences along corridors, and encourages new developments to front corridors whenever feasible. There are no additional, feasible measures or policies that would reduce this impact. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Applicable Policies
General Plan Policies
 Policy HAZ‐8.1: Locating Noise Sensitive Uses. The City shall strive to locate noise sensitive uses, (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals, libraries, religious institutions, and convalescent homes) away from major sources of noise.
 Policy HAZ‐8.2: Noise Study and Mitigation. The City shall require development projects in areas where they may be exposed to major noise sources (e.g., roadways, rail lines, and aircraft or other non‐transportation noise sources) to conduct a project level environmental noise analysis.

The noise analysis shall determine noise exposure and noise standard compatibility with respect to the noise standards identified in Table HAZ‐1 and shall incorporate noise mitigation when Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐86 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) located in noise environments that are not compatible with the proposed uses of the project. The City shall use Table HAZ‐1 (Exterior Noise Standards for Various Land Uses) and Figure HAZ‐1 (Future Noise Contour Maps) to determine potential noise exposure impacts, noise compatibility thresholds, and the need for mitigation. The City shall determine mitigation measures based on project‐specific noise studies, and may include sound barriers, building setbacks, the use of closed windows and the installation of heating and air conditioning ventilation systems, and the installation of noise attenuating windows and wall/ceiling insulation.  Policy HAZ‐8.5: Residential Noise Standards. The City shall require the design of new residential development to comply with the following noise standards:
○ The maximum acceptable interior noise level for all new residential units (single‐family, duplex, mobile home, multi‐family, and mixed use units) shall be an Ldn of 45 dB with windows closed.
○ For project locations that are primarily exposed to aircraft, train, and BART noise, the maximum instantaneous noise level in bedrooms shall not exceed 50dB(A) at night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), and the maximum instantaneous noise level in all interior rooms shall not exceed 55dB(A) during the day (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) with windows closed. ○ The maximum acceptable exterior noise level for the primary open space area of a detached single‐family home, duplex or mobile home, which is typically the backyard or a fenced side yard, shall be an Ldn of 60 dB. This standard shall be measured at the approximate center of the primary open space area. This standard does not apply to secondary open space areas, such as front yards, balconies, stoops, and porches.
○ The maximum acceptable exterior noise level for the primary open space area of townhomes and multi‐family apartments or condominiums (private rear yards for townhomes; and common courtyards, roof gardens, or gathering spaces for multi‐family projects) shall be an Ldn of 65 dB. This standard shall be measured at the approximate center of the primary open space area. This standard does not apply to secondary open space areas, such as front yards, balconies, stoops, and porches.
○ The maximum acceptable exterior noise level for the primary open space area of urban residential infill and mixed‐use projects (private rear yards for townhomes; and common courtyards, roof gardens, or gathering spaces for multi‐family or mixed‐use projects) shall be an Ldn of 70 dB. Urban residential infill would include all types of residential development within existing or planned urban areas (such as Downtown, The Cannery Neighborhood, and the South Hayward BART Urban Neighborhood) and along major corridors (such as Mission Boulevard). This standard shall be measured at the approximate center of the primary open space area. This standard does not apply to secondary open space areas, such as front yards, balconies, stoops, and porches.

Attachment IX
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐87  Policy HAZ‐8.8: Park Noise. The City shall coordinate with the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District (HARD) and the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) to establish and enforce hours of operation for park and recreational facilities near residential homes.  Policy HAZ‐8.17: Community Noise Control Ordinance. The City shall maintain, implement, and enforce a community noise control ordinance to regulate noise levels from public and private properties, vehicles, construction sites, and landscaping activities.  Policy HAZ‐8.20: Construction Noise Study. The City may require development projects subject to discretionary approval to assess potential construction noise impacts on nearby sensitive uses and to minimize impacts on those uses, to the extent feasible.  Policy HAZ‐8.21: Construction and Maintenance Noise Limits. The City shall limit the hours of construction and maintenance activities to the less sensitive hours of the day (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays).  Policy HAZ‐8.22: Vibration Impact Assessment. The City shall require a vibration impact assessment for proposed projects in which heavy‐duty construction equipment would be used (e.g., pile driving, bulldozing) within 200 feet of an existing structure or sensitive receptor. If applicable, the City shall require all feasible mitigation measures to be implemented to ensure that no damage or disturbance to structures or sensitive receptors would occur.  Policy HAZ‐8.24: Construction Noise Control Ordinance. The City shall develop noise control standards to regulate noise levels generated from temporary construction and landscaping activities.
 Implementation Program HAZ 7: Construction Noise Control Ordinance. The City shall prepare and adopt a Construction Noise Control Ordinance to regulate the noise levels generated from temporary construction and landscaping activities. The ordinance shall include decibel level thresholds that should not be exceeded for construction equipment as well as establish appropriate hours and reduction measures for construction and landscaping activities to minimize impacts on nearby sensitive receptors.

Conclusion
The GP EIR adequately evaluated the potential noise impacts of the proposed project and, with implementation of Standard Conditions of Approval, the proposed project would not result in significant noise impacts and there would be no new or more severe impacts related to noise than those analyzed in the GP EIR.

Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐88 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Reduced
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Discussion
Population Growth
The proposed project would generate housing‐related population growth by adding up to 82 single‐ family residential units (74 single‐family residential units and 8 ADUs) to the City’s housing stock. The Housing Element states that the City had an average of 3.12 persons per household. Based upon an average of 3.12 persons per household, the proposed project would increase the City’s population by approximately 256 residents. This increase represents about 0.17 percent of the City’s total estimated 2012 population (147,119). The estimated population generated by the project (256 residents) would represent approximately 0.14 percent of the City’s projected 2040 population (183,533). The population growth anticipated between 2012 and 2040 is expected to be 36,420; population associated with the project would represent 0.70 percent of the anticipated growth.

The proposed project is located within the city limits of the City of Hayward. The site is identified in the General Plan for mixed‐use development and the density and intensity of development is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation. The extension of infrastructure onto the project site, including roadways and utilities that would only serve the proposed development, would not contribute to or cause additional growth to occur outside of the City boundaries or elsewhere within the vicinity of the project site, as the project site is surrounded by existing development.

The proposed project would not induce substantial unanticipated population growth in the City, and the population increase would fall within the increase identified in the City’s General Plan, including the Housing Element. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more significant population growth than was analyzed and described in the GP EIR.

Displacement of Existing People or Housing
As outlined in the project description, existing structures on site include single‐family homes and associated driveways, landscaping, and utilities; however, these structures would be demolished as part of a separate project. Demolition would be completed prior to commencement of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing Attachment IX
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐89 or people, such that replacement housing would need to be constructed elsewhere. This potential impact would be considered less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more significant housing impacts than were analyzed and described in the GP EIR.

Applicable Mitigation
As described in the GP EIR, 2040 General Plan impacts related to population and housing were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation measures were identified. No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.

Applicable Policies
General Plan Policies
 Policy LU‐1.2 Urban Limit Lines. The City shall maintain its established Urban Limit Lines to protect the Hayward shoreline and hillsides as natural open space and recreational resources.  Policy LU‐1.3 Growth and Infill Development. The City shall direct local population and employment growth toward infill development sites within the City, especially the catalyst and opportunity sites identified in the Economic Development Strategic Plan.

Conclusion
The GP EIR adequately evaluated the potential population and housing impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant and additional mitigation is not required.

Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐90 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)

15. PUBLIC SERVICES
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Reduced
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
Discussion
Fire and Police Protection
The proposed project would increase demand for fire protection, police and emergency medical services due to the increased population and development at the project site. However, the increase in demand is expected to be incremental, and is not expected to require construction of a new police or fire station to serve the project.

Development associated with the proposed project would be constructed in conformance with current building codes, which require features to reduce potential fire hazards. The Hayward Police Department (HPD) would also review project design to ensure it incorporates appropriate safety features to minimize criminal activity.

General Plan policies ensure that the City reviews HPD and HPFD staffing levels to ensure the availability of adequate police and fire manpower and service facilities. Additionally, General Plan policies would prevent future growth that exceeds the community capability to provide service, including fire and police services. The implementation of these policies would ensure that adequate capital improvements are made to accommodate the increased demand for police and fire protection services. Therefore, because development associated with the proposed project is within the amount analyzed by the GP EIR, potential impacts associated with an increase in demand for police and fire protection services are considered less than significant and need no further mitigation.

Attachment IX
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐91 Schools
The proposed project would include 82 new residential units (74 single‐family residential units and 8 ADUs). Using student yield rates provided by HUSD37 (see Table 7), the project site could generate approximately 35 students.

Table 7: Student Generation Rates
Grade Level  Proposed
Dwelling Units
Student Generation Rate Used
by School District for
Residential Developments
Additional Students
Generated by Proposed
Project
Elementary (K‐6)  82  0.243  20
Middle (7‐8)  82  0.063  5
High (9‐12)  82  0.119  10
Total  82  0.425  35
Source: Government Financial Strategies, Inc. (2007).

As described in the Background Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan, HUSD operates 22 elementary, five middle, and four high schools. Burbank Elementary School and Cherryland Elementary School are the only overcrowded schools. However, the total number of elementary students is far below capacity, similar to middle and high schools.

The additional 35 school students would not likely exceed the current capacities available within HUSD District. Due to RUSD’s recent declining enrollment, planned new facilities would not likely be needed to accommodate additional students generated by the proposed project. In order to fund the development and construction of new school facilities, HUSD receives $3.20 per square foot of new residential development and $0.51 per square foot of new commercial development. These fees were adopted on December 12, 2012, and are the maximum allowed by State law.

New residential projects in Hayward are subject to statutory fees established by the State, which in turn would be used to fund new school facilities. General Plan policies would require the City to ensure that schools are available to serve new development, to the extent allowed by State law. The implementation of these policies would ensure the planning of new school facilities to accommo‐ date projected increases in student enrollment. The payment by developers of statutory fees would provide funding for planned school projects. Therefore, because the level of development and projected population growth associated with the proposed project is consistent with that analyzed in the GP EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not result in demand for school services beyond existing or planned capacity of the Hayward Unified School District.

37   Government Financial Strategies, Inc. 2007. Hayward Unified School District Developer Fee Justification Study. January. Available online at: haywardusd‐ca.schoolloop.com/file/1285481586257/1431759928851/ 1644746751803374982.pdf (accessed June 19, 2019).

Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐92 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) Parks
The proposed project would include approximately 10.5‐acres of dedicated open space located around the drainage at the northern and southern portions of the project and approximately 2,993 linear feet of the Hayward Foothill Trail. The Hayward Area Recreation District (HARD) uses a standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents district‐wide (see Policy HQL‐10.2). The proposed project would generate an estimated population of 256; given the HARD park standards, as well as the amount of park acreage included in the project, the proposed project would meet the City’s standard and would increase the amount of parks acreage available to City residents. Therefore, because the proposed project would contribute to the total open space within the City and would not result in an increase in population above what was already analyzed in the GP EIR, the proposed project would result in a reduced impact related to the provision of parks.

Applicable Mitigation
As described in the GP EIR, 2040 General Plan impacts related to public services were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation measures were identified. No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.

Applicable Policies
General Plan Policies
 Policy LU‐1.3 Growth and Infill Development. The City shall direct local population and employment growth toward infill development sites within the City, especially the catalyst and opportunity sites identified in the Economic Development Strategic Plan.  Policy LU‐3.1 Complete Neighborhoods. The City shall promote efforts to make neighborhoods more complete by encouraging the development of a mix of complementary uses and amenities that meet the daily needs of residents. Such uses and amenities may include parks, community centers, religious institutions, daycare centers, libraries, schools, community gardens, and neighborhood commercial and mixed‐use developments.
 Policy LU‐3.2 Centralized Amenities. The City shall encourage the development of neighborhood amenities and complementary uses in central locations of the neighborhood whenever feasible.  Policy LU‐7.6 Open Space Access. The City shall require new hillside development to provide public trail access (as appropriate) to adjacent greenways, open space corridors, and regional parks.
 Policy HAZ‐5.1 Wildland/Urban Interface Guidelines. The City shall maintain and implement Wildland/Urban Interface Guidelines for new development within fire hazard areas.  Policy HAZ‐5.2 Fire Prevention Codes. The City shall enforce fire prevention codes that require property owners to reduce wildfire hazards on their property.

Attachment IX
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐93  Policy HAZ‐5.3 Defensible Space and Fuel Reduction. The City shall promote defensible space concepts to encourage property owners to remove overgrown vegetation and to reduce fuel loads on hillside properties, especially near structures and homes.  Policy CS‐1.9 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. The City shall continue to include the Police Department in the review of development projects to promote the implementation of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles.  Policy CS‐1.10 Lighting. The City shall encourage property owners to use appropriate levels of exterior light to discourage criminal activity, enhance natural surveillance opportunities, and reduce fear.
 Policy CS‐1.11 Technology. The City shall encourage and support the use of technology (such as private surveillance cameras, deployed public camera systems, theft‐prevention devices, emergency call boxes, alarms, and motion‐sensor lighting) to discourage crime.  Policy CS‐2.2 Police Strategic Plan. The City shall maintain and implement a Police Department Strategic Plan to:
○ Set near‐term goals for the Department in response to a dynamic and changing environment.
○ Align police services with the community’s desires and expectations. ○ Accurately assess the operational needs of the Police Department to best serve the Hayward community.
 Policy CS‐2.3 Police Staffing. The City shall maintain optimum staffing levels for both sworn police officers and civilian support staff in order to provide quality police services to the community.
 Policy CS‐2.4 Response Time for Priority 1 Calls. The City shall strive to arrive at the scene of Priority 1 Police Calls within 5 minutes of dispatch, 90 percent of the time.  Policy CS‐2.5 Police Equipment and Facilities. The City shall ensure that Police equipment and facilities are provided and maintained to meet modern standards of safety, dependability, and efficiency.
 Policy CS‐2.6 Police Facilities Master Plan. The City shall maintain and implement a Police Department Facilities Master Plan that serves as the long‐term plan for providing the Police Department with state‐of‐the‐art equipment and facilities, including police headquarters, polices substations, training facilities, detention facilities, shooting ranges, and emergency operations centers.

Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐94 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  Policy CS‐2.13 Community Facilities Districts. The City shall consider the establishment of community facilities districts to ensure the new development does not constrain the City’s ability to provide adequate police services to the Hayward community.  Policy CS‐2.14 Development Fees. The City shall consider the establishment of development impact fees to help fund Police Department operations.
 Policy CS‐3.2 Fire and Building Codes. The City shall adopt and enforce fire and building codes.  Policy CS‐3.3 Development Review. The City shall continue to include the Fire Department in in the review of development proposals to ensure projects adequately address fire access and building standards.
 Policy CS‐3.4 Adequate Water Supply for Fire Suppression. The City shall require new development projects to have adequate water supplies to meet the fire‐suppression needs of the project without compromising existing fire suppression services to existing uses.  Policy CS‐3.5 Water Supply Infrastructure. The City shall require development to construct and install fire suppression infrastructure and equipment needed to serve the project.  Policy CS‐3.7 Removal of Fire Hazards. The City shall maintain code enforcement programs that require private and public property owners to minimize fire risks by:
○ Maintaining buildings and properties to prevent blighted conditions, ○ Removing excessive or overgrown vegetation (e.g., trees, shrubs, weeds), and ○ Removing litter, rubbish, and illegally dumped items from properties.  Policy CS‐4.1 Fire Strategic Plan. The City shall maintain and implement a Fire Department Strategic Plan to:
○ Set near‐term goals for the Department in response to a dynamic and changing environment.
○ Align fire and emergency medical services with the community’s desires and expectations. ○ Accurately assess the operational needs of the Fire Department to best serve the Hayward community.
 Policy CS‐4.2 Fire Department Staffing. The City shall maintain optimum staffing levels for sworn, civilian, and support staff, in order to provide quality fire protection and emergency medical services to the community.
 Policy CS‐4.3 Fire Department Response Times. The City shall maintain the ability to respond to fire and emergency medical calls based on the following standards:

Attachment IX
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐95 ○ The first unit shall arrive on scene within five minutes of dispatch, 90 percent of the time. ○ All remaining units shall arrive on scene within 8 minutes of dispatch.  Policy CS‐4.4 Timing of Services. The City shall ensure that growth and development does not outpace the expansion of Hayward Fire Department staffing and the development of strategically located and fully equipped fire stations.  Policy CS‐4.7 Fire Facilities Master Plan. The City shall develop, maintain, and implement Fire Department Facilities Master Plan that serves as the long‐term for providing the Fire Department with state‐of‐the‐art equipment and facilities.
 Policy CS‐4.11 Community Facilities Districts. The City shall consider the establishment of community facilities districts to ensure the new development does not constrain the City’s ability to provide adequate fire services to the Hayward community.  Policy CS‐4.12 Development Fees. The City shall consider the establishment of development impact fees to help fund Fire Department operations.
 Policy HQL‐5.3 Eyes on the Street. The City shall promote urban design principles that support active use of public spaces in neighborhoods, commercial areas, and employment centers at all times of day. Active use of public spaces provides “eyes‐on‐the‐street” to enhance public safety in these areas.
 Policy HQL‐5.4 Safety Measures. The City shall improve safety and the perception of safety by requiring adequate lighting, street visibility, and defensible spaces within new development projects.
 Policy HQL‐10.1 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The City shall with HARD to maintain and implement the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
 Policy HQL‐10.2 Parks Standard. The City shall seek to increase the number of parks throughout the City by working with HARD to achieve and maintain the following park standards per 1,000 Hayward residents:
○ Two acres of local parks,
○ Two acres of school parks,
○ Three acres of regional parks,
○ One mile of trails and linear parks, and
○ Five acres of parks district‐wide.

Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐96 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  Policy HQL‐10.3 Miniparks and Tot Lots. The City shall encourage the creation and maintenance of neighborhood “miniparks” and tot lots through partnerships with private, non‐profit, and business interests in areas where it is not possible to meet HARD standards related to park size.  Policy HQL‐10.12 Maximum Park Dedications. The City shall maintain park dedication requirements and in lieu fees for new residential development at the maximum allowed under State law.
 Policy HQL‐11.1 Recreational Corridors. The City shall establish and maintain an integrated recreational corridor system that connects regional trails (e.g., Bay Trail, the San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail, San Lorenzo Creek Trail, Ridge Trail, the Juan Bautista DeAnza National Historic Trail), Baylands (i.e., Hayward Regional Shoreline), local creeks and open space corridors, hillside areas, and EBRPD and HARD parks.
 Policy HQL‐11.2 Greenway Corridors. The City shall coordinate with HARD and the EBRPD to consider additional greenway linkages along fault line corridors and in other areas (e.g., rail line, creek, and utility corridors) to encourage walking and cycling and to provide improved access to activity centers.
 Policy HQL‐11.3 Creekside Paths and Trails. The City shall seek to accentuate, “daylight”, and “green” creeks, culverts, and underground drainage infrastructure through infrastructure improvements and the development review process to establish or extend pathways and trails.  Policy EDL‐3.11 School Impact Fees. The City shall coordinate with school districts to ensure that the impacts of new development are identified and mitigated through the payment of school impact fees in accordance with State law.
 Policy EDL‐6.1 Standard for Library Space. The City shall strive to expand library space within the community to meet t maintain a minimum standard of 0.75 square feet of space per 1,000 residents (excluding school and college libraries).
 Policy EDL‐6.8 Library Impact Fee. The City shall consider the establishment of a library impact fee for new residential construction.

Conclusion
The GP EIR adequately evaluated the potential public services impacts of the proposed project.

Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant and additional mitigation is not required.

Attachment IX
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐97

16. RECREATION
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Reduced
Impact
No New
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Discussion
As discussed in Section 14 of this Environmental Checklist, Public Services, the proposed project would include 10.5 acres of open space, which would include dedicated open space along the site’s drainages, tree‐lined streets with sidewalks, and approximately 2,993 linear feet of the Hayward Foothill Trail. Therefore, the proposed project would result in reduced impacts to existing neighborhood and regional park facilities compared to those identified in the GP EIR.

Applicable Mitigation
No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.

Conclusion
The GP EIR adequately evaluated the potential recreation impacts of the proposed project.

Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant and additional mitigation is not required.

Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐98 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)

17. TRANSPORTATION
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Reduced
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Discussion
This section summarizes the findings of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)38 completed for the proposed project, as well as the analysis included in the GP EIR. The TIA report is available as part of the project file. As discussed in more detail below, no new or substantially more severe impacts related to traffic or circulation impacts were identified for the proposed project as compared to the 2040 General Plan.

Significance Criteria
The City of Hayward has not yet adopted VMT impact criteria per S.B. 743 legislation, which has set a 2020 date for adoption. Therefore, this analysis uses level of service according to the City’s criteria.

Policy M‐4.3 in the City’s 2040 General Plan requires intersections to maintain a peak‐hour level of service (LOS) of E or better for signalized intersections during the peak commute periods, except when a LOS F may be acceptable due to costs of mitigation or when there would be other unacceptable impacts (e.g., right‐of‐way acquisition, degradation of the pedestrian environment). In addition, the proposed project would have a significant impact on traffic and circulation of an intersection already operating at LOS F under an Existing or No Project scenario if the addition of project traffic results in an increase of 5.0 seconds or more in the intersections average control delay.

At unsignalized intersections, the proposed project’s impact is based on LOS and delay, and whether any of the following are met: (1) traffic signal warrant; (2) pedestrian signal warrant; or (3) all‐way stop warrant. Note that solely triggering a warrant does not constitute a significant impact, but the relevant jurisdiction at an intersection will, at its discretion, determine whether or not a signal will be installed.

38   Kittleson & Associates, Inc., 2019. Transportation Impact Analysis, Route 238 Property Development Project (Parcel Group 5 and Parcel Group 6), Hayward, California. June 18.

Attachment IX
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐99 GP EIR
The GP EIR analyzed transportation and circulation conditions in the Plan Area under four different scenarios, which represent two time periods (existing conditions and Year 2035) using the Alameda County Transportation Commission (CTC) Countywide Model with Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2009 to forecast regional growth totals. In addition, the traffic model was adjusted to include network modifications as part of the 2035 baseline conditions that were not previously included in the Alameda CTC countywide model assumptions.

The impact analysis included AM and PM Peak hour traffic conditions at 42 key intersections, 13 freeway segments and 32 roadway segments. The following scenarios were analyzed for the intersection analysis: (1) Existing Conditions; (2) 2035 No Project Conditions (includes anticipated future cumulative growth under the previous City of Hayward GP, as well as future planned local and regional transportation improvements); and (3) 2035 Project Conditions (includes cumulative growth under the 2040 GP, as well as future planned local and regional transportation improvements).

As noted in the GP EIR, the development program represents buildout of the adopted GP through 2035. The land use data for the 2040 GP was categorized into total households, single‐family dwelling units, multi‐family dwelling units, total employment, and employment by sector (retail, service, manufacturing, wholesale, and other) by traffic analysis zone (TAZ) for input to the model. A memorandum detailing the assumed development levels at all the sites, comparisons to land use densities assumed as part of the GP EIR, and changes to TAZs used in the City’s traffic model is provided in Appendix H of the TIA.

The GP EIR identified two significant transportation and circulation impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan:
 Impact 18‐1: Project Intersection Impacts. Under the 2035 Project condition, implementation of the GP would result in traffic volumes that exceed the City standard for intersection performance. According to City guidelines, this change due to the proposed General Plan would potentially constitute a considerable project contribution to the significant cumulative impact.  Impact 18‐2: Cumulative Intersection Impacts. Future growth in Hayward and the region would result in substandard intersection LOS under 2035 conditions with or without the project. These changes constitute a significant cumulative impact.

Mitigation Measures 18‐1 and 18‐2 identified intersection improvements to reduce traffic impacts; however, even with implementation of mitigation, impacts at some intersections remained significant and unavoidable.

Parcel Group 5
As outlined in Attachment A, Project Description, the proposed project would include development of up to 82 residential units (74 single‐family residential units and 8 ADUs). Vehicular access would be provided via two intersections along Central Boulevard/Westview Way, which allow access to Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐100 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) Mission Boulevard (via a side‐street‐stop right‐in‐right‐out intersection) and Harder Road (via a side‐ street‐stop full‐access intersection). In addition, two separate evacuation lanes to Carlos Bee Boulevard would be provided.

Automobile trip generation for the proposed project was derived from average rates, regression equations, and adjustments contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition. As shown in Table 8, the proposed project would generate about 63 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 84 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour.

Table 8: Project Vehicle Trip Generation
Land Use  Size  Daily  Weekday AM Peak Hour  Weekday PM Peak Hour In  Out  Total  In  Out  Total
Single‐Family Detached
Housing (ITE Code 210)  82  DU  866  16  47  63  53  31  84 Source: Kittleson & Associates (2019).

DU = Dwelling Units
Automobile Level of Service. The results of the twelve intersections analyzed for the AM and PM peak hour are presented in Table 9. The table also compares the change in delay between the Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions.

As shown in Table 9, Intersection 10 (Mission Blvd. and Torrano Avenue South) operates unacceptably at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hour under Existing Conditions. No increase in delay is expected under Existing Plus Project conditions. Therefore, the impact at this intersection would be less than significant.

Intersection 7 (Overlook Ave. & Carlos Bee Blvd.) degrades from an acceptable LOS E to an unacceptable LOS F during the AM peak hour. However, peak hour signal warrants are not met.

Therefore, the impact at this intersection would be less than significant.

All other study intersections continue to operate acceptably during both the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of project traffic. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts at any of the study intersections under Existing Plus Project conditions.

Attachment IX
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐101 Table 9: LOS Analysis  ‐ Existing  and Existing Plus Project #  Intersection  Control1 Peak
Hour
Existing  Existing Plus Project  Delay
Delta2 Delay2   LOS  Delay2  LOS
1  Mission Blvd. & Fletcher Ln.  Signal  AM  27.8  C  28.1  C  0.3 PM  24.4  C  24.6  C  0.2
2  Mission Blvd. & Highland
Blvd./Sycamore Ave.  Signal  AM  11.0  B  11.0  B  0.0
PM  12.4  B  12.4  B  0.0
3  Mission Blvd. & Palisade St.  TWSC  AM  19.9  C  20.2  C  0.3 PM  28.3  D  28.6  D  0.3
4  Mission Blvd & Carlos Bee
Blvd/Orchard Ave.  Signal  AM  41.3  D  42.1  D  0.8
PM  37.6  D  38.9  D  1.3
5  Overlook Ave. & Carlos Bee Blvd.  TWSC  AM  48.7  E  52.7  F  4.0 PM  25.7  D  27.1  D  1.4
6  Carlos Bee Blvd. & Hayward Blvd.  Signal  AM  29.5  C  29.6  C  0.1 PM  29.4  C  29.4  C  0.0
7  Mission Blvd. & Central Blvd.  TWSC  AM  16.0  C  16.0  C  0.0 PM  23.4  C  23.4  C  0.0
8  Mission Blvd. & Berry Ave.  Signal  AM  14.4  B  14.4  B  0.0 PM  13.1  B  13.0  B  ‐0.1
9  Mission Blvd. & Torrano Ave. (N)  TWSC  AM  20.8  C  20.8  C  0.0 PM  15.8  C  15.8  C  0.0
10  Mission Blvd. & Torrano Ave. (S)  TWSC  AM  143.0 F 143.0  F  0.0 PM  611.0 F 611.0  F  0.0
11  Mission Blvd. & Harder Rd.  Signal  AM  45.3  D  45.7  D  0.4 PM  46.7  D  47.0  D  0.3
12  Westview Way & Harder Rd.  TWSC  AM  9.2  A  10.1  B  0.9 PM  11.6  B  12.1  B  0.5
Source: Kittleson & Associates, Inc. (2019).

Bold signifies unacceptable operations. Shading signifies a significant impact.  1 AWSC = All‐way stop control; TWSC = Two‐way stop control 2 Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.

Cumulative Year 2035 Conditions. The potential impacts to the transportation system were evaluated for the Cumulative Year 2035 Condition using projected peak hour traffic volumes derived from the Hayward General Plan Update version of the Alameda CTC Countywide Model.39 Given that some level of development at the project site was assumed for the General Plan buildout and the City model, the Cumulative 2035 Plus Project analysis assesses the difference in development under the proposed project as compared to General Plan land use densities. Therefore, the increase in traffic between Cumulative 2035 and Cumulative 2035 Plus Project scenarios has the potential to be less than the increases experienced under the Existing Plus Project scenario.

Both Parcel Group 5 and Parcel Group 6 were analyzed as a single project under the Cumulative Plus Project scenario. A memorandum detailing the assumed development levels at all the sites,

39   Note that while the model version used for the TIA is the 2035 Citywide General Plan Model with ABAG Projections 2009, the Alameda CTC Countywide Model has been extended to 2040 and includes less conservative ABAG Plan Bay Area projections. However, to compare impacts to those identified in the GP EIR, it was determined, in coordination with City staff, that the GP Model should be used for this study.

Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐102 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) comparisons to land use densities assumed as part of the GP EIR, and changes to TAZs used in the City’s traffic model are provided in Appendix H of the TIA.

Table 10 presents the Cumulative 2035 and Cumulative 2035 Plus Project delays and LOS for the study intersections. The table also compares the change in delay between the two scenarios. The traffic generated by the proposed Projects is expected to result in significant impacts at several additional intersections under the Cumulative 2035 Plus Project condition than were identified in the 2014 GP EIR. Mitigation Measures 18‐1 and 18‐2 identified in the GP EIR will be updated to address these additional intersections, as described below.

As shown in Table 10, significant cumulative impacts are as follows:
 Intersection 1 (Mission Blvd & Fletcher Ln) would operate unacceptably (LOS F) under Cumulative 2035 conditions and under Cumulative 2035 Plus Project conditions, with a delay increase of more than 5 seconds in the AM peak hour.
 Intersection 3 (Mission Blvd & Palisade St) is unsignalized with right‐in and right‐out stop control and would operate unacceptably (LOS F) under Cumulative 2035 conditions and under Cumulative 2035 Plus Project conditions, with a delay increase of more than 5 seconds in the AM and PM peak hour. In the AM peak hour, the signal warrant is met. The peak hour signal warrant is not met during the PM peak hour; therefore, the PM peak hour impact at this intersection would be less than significant.
 Intersection 4 (Mission Blvd & Carlos Bee Blvd./Orchard Ave.) would operate acceptably (LOE E) under Cumulative 2035 conditions; under Cumulative 2035 Plus Project conditions, the LOS would degrade to LOS F in the PM peak hour.
 Intersection 11 (Mission Blvd. & Harder Road) would operate unacceptably (LOS F) under Cumulative 2035 conditions and Cumulative 2035 Plus Project conditions, with a delay increase of more than 5 seconds in the PM peak hour.

All other study intersections continue to operate acceptably during both the AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative 2035 Plus Project conditions.

The traffic generated by the proposed project is expected to result in significant impacts at four intersections under the Cumulative 2035 Plus Project condition. These impacts fall under the significant cumulative transportation impacts identified in the GP EIR as Impact 18‐1, Project Intersection Impacts, and Impact 18‐2, Cumulative Intersection Impacts. Mitigation Measure 18‐2 identified in the GP EIR have been modified to incorporate mitigation for these impacts, as described below. Mitigated LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix J of the TIA.

Attachment IX
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
\\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  B‐103 Table 10: LOS Analysis – Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project #  Intersection  Control1 Peak
Hour
Cumulative  Cumulative Plus Project  Delay
Delta2 Delay2   LOS  Delay2  LOS
1  Mission Blvd. & Fletcher Ln.  Signal  AM  117.8  F  129.7  F  11.9 PM  57.7  E  68.0  E  10.3
2  Mission Blvd. & Highland Blvd./
Sycamore Ave.   Signal  AM  12.7  B  12.9  B  0.2
PM  10.2  B  10.5  B  0.3
3  Mission Blvd. & Palisade St.  TWSC  AM  63.6  F  178.2  F  114.6 PM  112.8  F  181.8  F  69.0
4  Mission Blvd & Carlos Bee
Blvd/Orchard Ave.  Signal  AM  54.5  D  57.5  E  3.0
PM  78.7  E  83.9  F  5.2
5  Overlook Ave. & Carlos Bee Blvd.3  TWSC  AM  144.7  F  15.8  C  ‐128.9 PM  69.4  F  12.6  B  ‐56.8
6  Carlos Bee Blvd. & Hayward Blvd.  Signal  AM  51.2  D  51.7  D  0.5 PM  40.7  D  42.0  D  1.3
7  Mission Blvd. & Central Blvd.  TWSC  AM  26.8  D  26.9  D  0.1 PM  31.8  D  32.2  D  0.4
8  Mission Blvd. & Berry Ave.  Signal  AM  77.9  E  78.9  E  1.0 PM  16.0  B  17.2  B  1.2
9  Mission Blvd. & Torrano Ave. (N)  TWSC  AM  40.4  E  42.3  E  1.9 PM  19.4  C  19.5  C  0.1
10  Mission Blvd. & Torrano Ave. (S)  TWSC  AM  2352.8  F  2352.8  F  0.0 PM  1994.5  F  1994.5  F  0.0
11  Mission Blvd. & Harder Rd.  Signal  AM  93.7  F  96.0  F  2.3 PM  96.2  F  101.9  F  5.7
12  Westview Way & Harder Rd.  TWSC  AM  10.1  B  10.2  B  0.1 PM  21.1  C  21.6  C  0.5
Source: Kittleson & Associates, Inc. (2019).