City Council Packet 220419.pdf — Hayward City Council, April 19, 2022 (part 3 of 4)

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. 3 This intersection will be a right‐in‐right‐out intersection with project implementation. A new signalized full‐access intersection will be constructed approximately 250 feet to the east.

New Project Access Points. The proposed project would include a new roadway connection from Bunker Hill Road to Carlos Bee Boulevard (a new side‐street, stop‐controlled intersection). Table 11 shows the delays and LOS for this new roadway connection under Existing Plus Project and Cumulative 2035 Plus Project conditions. As shown in Table 11, the proposed project intersection is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS during both the AM and PM peak hours.

Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐104 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) Table 11: LOS Analysis – New Project Intersection
Scenario Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Delay2 LOS Existing Plus Project Bunker Hill Blvd. & Carlos Bee Blvd. TWSC AM 17.4 C PM 15.8 C
Cumulative Year 2035
Plus Project Bunker Hill Blvd. & Carlos Bee Blvd. TWSC AM 17.8 C PM 15.9 C
Source: Kittleson & Associates, Inc. (2019) 1
TWSC = Two‐way stop control
2 Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.

Transit, Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The proposed project would include installation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and connections to existing facilities to promote alternative modes of transportation. As described in Attachment A, the proposed project would include installation of a new segment of the Hayward Foothill Trail, which would be located along the northern boundary of the project site, connecting to the CSU East Bay campus and then extending 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. In addition, street improvements such as curbs, sidewalks, on‐street parking bulb‐outs, and lighting would be included. Tree‐lined streets with sidewalks would provide north/south connections throughout the project site. The new access at Bunker Hill Road would be improved to a 4‐foot‐wide sidewalk on one side of the roadway and landscaped planting strips on both sides of the roadway. In some locations, bulb‐outs would be provided.

The City of Hayward is currently preparing the Hayward Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update, with an expected completion date of October 2019. At this time, planned bikeways are preliminary, however, current plans include proposed Class IV (separated bikeways) along Carlos Bee Boulevard and along Harder Road, which intersects with Westview Way and provides access to the project site.

The proposed project would include direct vehicular access points and generate additional vehicle trips along roadways with these planed bikeways. Consistent with General Plan policies supporting alternative modes, the City would require implementation of treatments to improve bicyclist conditions in these locations, as part of the design review process and conditions of approval for the proposed project. Potential treatments could include: (1) installation of driveway conflict paint along bikeways at intersections along Carlos Bee Boulevard and Harder Road; and (2) installation signage at project access points.

As noted in the GP EIR, buildout of the General Plan area is not anticipated to generate transit ridership that would exceed the available capacity of the transit system. In addition, the proposed project is not expected to result in any impacts at intersections used by local transit, such as AC Transit buses, that cannot be feasibly mitigated with signal timing adjustments, restriping within the existing right‐of‐way, or signalization.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with plans, programs and policies regarding bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities, or decrease the performance and safety of such facilities. Therefore, impacts to bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit service providers resulting 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‐105 from implementation of the proposed project would remain less than significant and the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to alternative forms of transportation beyond those identified in the GP EIR.

Air Traffic Patterns
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 air traffic patterns.

Design Features
As described in Attachment A, Project Description, the proposed project would include tree‐lined streets with sidewalks to provide north/south connections throughout the project site. 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 wall, 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.

Maitland Drive 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 of Maitland Drive would be installed to provide access to several residential units proposed in the southwestern portion of the site.

As described in the TIA, the proposed project would include a new roadway connection from Bunker Hill Road to Carlos Bee Boulevard, providing direct access to the project site. Alternative access points are also available via Westview Way and Central Boulevard to Maitland Drive. Given the multiple access routes to and from the project site along local residential roads, the proposed project could increase diverted or pass‐through traffic on these adjacent roadways. Generally, pass‐ through vehicle concerns can be addressed with traffic calming measures to slow vehicles down to safer speeds. The City of Hayward would explore options for implementing traffic calming techniques (such as narrowing lanes or roadways, installing lateral shifts, or installing speed bumps) on streets surrounding the project sites, as part of the design review process and conditions of approval for the proposed project.

The proposed project would be required to comply with General Plan policies promoting a safe, multi‐modal transportation system, the City’s Design Guidelines, and the City’s Hillside Design and Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines. Potential design issues would be addressed through the design review process of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐ than‐significant impact related to design hazards.

Emergency Access
General Plan Policies M‐1.1, M‐1.2, M‐1.3, M‐1.7, M‐3.8 and M‐4.5 would require the management and development of the local roadway system to support the Land Use Element, which would mitigate impacts to the emergency access system. Specifically, General Plan Policy M‐4.5 requires Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐106 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) the City to develop a roadway system that is redundant (i.e., includes multiple alternative routes) to the extent feasible to ensure mobility in the event of emergencies. Additionally, the City has implemented, and will continue to implement, traffic signal system upgrades that help to facilitate more efficient emergency vehicle access and give priority to emergency vehicles. In addition, through design review, emergency services would review proposed plans to ensure that emergency vehicle access and circulation is adequate. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those already analyzed in the GP EIR.

Consistency with Adopted Policies
The Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan provides the policy framework for the regulation and development of transportation systems, balancing demands for moving people and goods through the City while promoting multi‐modal transportation. The General Plan contains goals and specific recommendations for facilitating traffic circulation, maintaining an acceptable level of service at signalized intersections, traffic demand management programs, parking management, and improving transit service and facilities for non‐motorized transportation.

Policy M‐4.3 established that the lowest acceptable LOS at a signalized intersection is LOS E (delay per vehicle greater than 55 seconds but less than 80 seconds) 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. Additionally, Policy M‐1.5 allows for flexible LOS standards as part of a multimodal system approach. Hayward does not have an LOS standard for unsignalized intersections.

The proposed project would be required to abide by these and all other applicable goals and policies in the adopted General Plan.

Applicable Mitigation
Below are mitigation measures that were included in the GP EIR. In some cases, the language of the mitigation measures has been updated or modified as a result of the project, or because specific mitigation measures have already been implemented. Double‐underlined text represents language that has been added to the mitigation measure, and text with strikethrough represents language that has been deleted from the mitigation measure. Mitigation for intersections that are not relevant to the proposed project have not been included below for the sake of brevity and clarity.

Only mitigation for those intersections affected by the proposed project have been described below.

Mitigation 18‐2. Make the following intersection improvements:
(c) Intersection 8: Mission Boulevard / Carlos Bee Boulevard. (1) Optimize signal cycle length to 115 seconds.
(2) Restripe the outer westbound through lane as a shared through/right turn lane.

With implementation of this mitigation the intersection would operate at acceptable and better than pre‐project conditions at LOS E (61.1 seconds of delay) during the PM peak hour reduce conditions to LOS E with 73.8 seconds of delay during the PM peak hour and reduce the impact to a 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‐107 less‐than‐significant level with the new General Plan Policy of allowing LOS E. This mitigation measure can be implemented within the existing curb‐to‐curb right‐of‐way. The proposed mitigation is considered feasible. Implementing this mitigation would result in a less‐than‐significant cumulative impact.
(n) Intersection 9: Mission Blvd. / Harder Rd (Parcel Groups 5 and 6 TIA Intersection #11). Re‐ optimize signal timing splits to provide additional green time for eastbound left turn and westbound left turn movements. With this improvement, the intersection would operate at better than pre‐ project conditions at LOS F (91.4 seconds of delay) during the PM peak hour. The proposed mitigation is considered feasible. Implementing this mitigation would result in a less‐than‐ significant cumulative impact.
(o) Intersection 30: Mission Blvd. / Fletcher Lane (Parcel Groups 5 and 6 TIA Intersection #1).

Install an eastbound left turn pocket and restripe the current eastbound shared left/through lane to a dedicated through lane. With this improvement, the intersection would operate at better than pre‐project conditions at LOS F (100.8 seconds of delay) during the AM peak hour. The proposed mitigation is considered feasible. Implementing this mitigation would result in a less‐than‐ significant cumulative impact.
(p) Intersection 43: Mission Blvd. / Palisade St. (Parcel Groups 5 and 6 TIA Intersection #3).

Signalize northbound and westbound (right‐out) movements at the intersection (southbound direction remains uncontrolled with the Mission Boulevard median retained). With this improvement, the intersection would operate at acceptable and better than pre‐project conditions at LOS A (7.0 seconds of delay) during the AM peak hour. In addition, signalization would result in acceptable operations during the PM peak hour. Implementing this mitigation would result in a less‐ than‐significant cumulative impact.

Applicable Policies
 Policy M‐1.1 Transportation System. The City shall provide a safe and efficient transportation system for the movement of people, goods, and services through and within Hayward.  Policy M‐1.2 Multimodal Choices. The City shall promote the development of an integrated, multi‐modal transportation system that offers desirable choices among modes including pedestrian ways, public transportation, roadways, bikeways, rail and aviation.  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.

Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐108 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  Policy M‐1.5 Flexible LOS Standard. The City shall consider flexible Level of Service (LOS) standards, as part of a multimodal system approach for projects that increase transit‐ridership, biking, and walking in order to reduce air pollution, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.
 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‐3.1 Serving All Users. The City shall provide safe, comfortable, and convenient travel along and across streets to serve all users, including pedestrians, the disabled, bicyclists, and motorists, movers of commercial goods, and users, and operators of public transportation.  Policy M‐3.2 Non‐Auto Needs. The City shall consider the needs of transit riders, pedestrians, people in wheelchairs, cyclists, and others in long‐range planning and street design.  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‐3.10 Motorists, Bicyclists, and Pedestrian Conflicts. The City shall develop safe and convenient bikeways and pedestrian crossings that reduce conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles on streets, multi‐use trails and sidewalks.  Policy M‐312 Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance. The City shall continue to implement the Americans with Disabilities Act when designing, constructing, or improving transportation facilities.
 Policy M‐4.3 Level of Service. The City shall maintain a minimum vehicle Level of Service E at 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, such as right‐of‐way acquisition or degradation of the pedestrian environment due to increased crossing distances or unacceptable crossing delays.

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‐109  Policy M‐4.5 Emergency Access. The City shall develop a roadway system that is redundant (i.e., includes multiple alternative routes) to the extent feasible to ensure mobility in the event of emergencies.
 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 through the City that facilitates convenient and safe pedestrian travel, connects neighborhoods and centers, and is free of major impediments and obstacles.
 Policy M‐5.7 Safe Sidewalks. The City shall develop safe and convenient pedestrian facilities that are universally accessible, adequately illuminated, and properly designed to reduce conflicts between motor vehicles and pedestrians.
 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 M‐7.1 Transit System. The City shall support a connected transit system by improving connections between transit stops/stations and roadways, bikeways, and pedestrian facilities.  Policy M‐7.6 Safe System. The City shall work with AC Transit, BART, and Amtrak to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable, and rider‐friendly waiting environment at all transit stops within the City.
 Policy M‐7.9 Development Impacts on Transit. The City shall require developers of large projects to identify and address, as feasible, the potential impacts of their projects on AC Transit ridership and bus operations as part of the project review and approval process.  Policy M‐11.1 Good Movement. The City shall provide an efficient transportation system for the movement of goods and services through and within Hayward, while meeting the safety and mobility needs of all roadway users.

Conclusion
The GP EIR adequately evaluated the transportation impacts of the proposed project. Significant impacts under the Cumulative 2035 Plus Project Condition were identified at three intersections previously evaluated in the GP EIR and one intersection not analyzed as part of the GP EIR. These impacts fall under the significant cumulative transportation impacts identified in the GP EIR as Impact 18‐1 and Impact 18‐2.Mitigation Measures 18‐1 and 18‐2, as modified above, are proposed Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐110 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) to reduce significant impacts at study area intersections to less than significant. Where mitigation measures have been determined to be infeasible, impacts remain significant and unavoidable, consistent with the findings in the GP EIR. Therefore, there would be no new impacts related to traffic and circulation associated with the proposed project.

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‐111

18. TRIBAL 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 tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k)? Or
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Discussion
As previously discussed in Section 5 of this Environmental Checklist, Cultural Resources, the GP EIR determined that impacts to cultural and historic resources would be reduced to less‐than‐significant levels with implementation of General Plan policies. This finding applies to tribal cultural resources.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts to tribal cultural resources than were 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.

Applicable Policies
General Plan Policies
 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.

Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐112 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  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 tribal cultural resources impacts for 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‐113

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Reduced
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion
Construction of New or Expanded Utility Facilities
The City is responsible for collection and treatment of wastewater within the community and the East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA) is responsible for disposal of the treated wastewater.

Wastewater is collected and transported via underground sewer lines to the City of Hayward Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) located at the terminus of Enterprise Avenue in western Hayward.

The City’s wastewater collection system includes about 320 miles of sewer mains, 9 sewage lift stations, and 4.2 miles of force mains.

Wastewater from the proposed project would be treated at the WPCF in accordance with the existing NPDES permit. The approximately 82 new project residences (74 single‐family residential units and 8 ADUs) would contribute an estimated additional average base wastewater flow of 29,520 gallons per day (gpd). The City of Hayward 2015 Urban Water Management Plan estimates that Hayward currently collects and treats 10.1 mgd of wastewater.40 The Hayward WPCF is permitted to provide treatment for up to 18.5 million gallons per day (mgd), which is anticipated to be reached by 2035. The proposed project would generate less than 0.2 percent of the total permitted daily treatment capacity of the WPFC. Therefore, the Hayward WPFC has adequate capacity to serve the project site.

40 Hayward, City of, 2016. City of Hayward Urban Management Plan. June.

Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐114 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) As described in Attachment A, 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. Site‐specific plans would be reviewed and approved by the City, consistent with the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan Policy PFS‐4.9, to ensure the provision of adequate wastewater service prior to issuance of building permits. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant environmental impact related to the extension of water or wastewater lines.

Refer to Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a discussion of impacts to the storm drain system, which would be less than significant for the proposed project. As such, the proposed project would not result in any new or more significant impacts than identified in the GP EIR.

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. Bunker Hill Boulevard contains electric and communication lines.

The proposed project is consistent with the type and intensity of development analyzed in the GP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to expanded water, wastewater, stormwater, electric power natural gas, or telecommunication facilities beyond those analyzed in the GP EIR.

Water Supply
The City of Hayward provides water service for residential, commercial, industrial, governmental, and fire suppression uses. The City owns and operates its own water distribution system. The water supplied to Hayward is predominantly from the Sierra Nevada Range, delivered through the Hetch‐ Hetchy aqueducts, but also includes some treated water produced by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) from its local watershed and facilities in Alameda County. The City’s agreement with SPUC allows the City of Hayward to buy sufficient water to serve its needs.

However, during drought years the City has to reduce water use based on a formula established by SFPUC. The City has emergency water supplies through connections with the Alameda County Water District (ACWD) and the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), and short‐term use emergency wells, in case of disruption of delivery from SFPUC.

The 2015 City of Hayward Urban Management Plan41 estimates the projected demand for potable water for the City to be 8,820 million gallons (approximately 24.2 million gallons per day [mgd]) in 2035. The proposed project would generate approximately 32,800 gallons per day (gpd) of water demand. The proposed project’s increase in water demand would represent less than 0.14 percent of the demand anticipated through the year 2035 in the City’s Urban Management Plan. Water demand projections identified in the City’s Urban Management Plan incorporate anticipated development factors within the City, affecting both residential and non‐residential sectors, including the potential development of approximately 1,250 new housing units within the Route 238 Planning Area, in which the proposed project is located.

41 Hayward, City of, 2016, 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‐115 As outlined in Attachment A, Project Description, 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.

General Plan Policies NR‐4.3, NR‐6.9, NR‐6.15, and NR‐6.16 require water conservation, use of renewable resources, and native landscaping to reduce water use. The City has also adopted indoor water use efficiency standards for new construction, which mandate installation of the most water‐ conserving fixtures that are available and which have been shown to work effectively. In addition, the City must approve all connections to the water and sewer system, and new water meters need to be installed before water service can be activated. Compliance with the approval and permitting requirements of the City, which would be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the proposed project, would ensure that no new impacts associated with water services would result from the proposed project.

The GP EIR determined that buildout of the General Plan would have a less‐than‐significant impact on water supplies. Therefore, because the proposed project would include development consistent with the type and intensity of development evaluated in the GP EIR and the City’s 2015 Urban Management Plan, the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than those already identified by the GP EIR.

Solid Waste
The California Integrated Waste Management Board estimates waste generation of approximately 12 pounds per day for single‐family homes.42 Using this rate, the proposed project would generate 888 pounds of waste per day. This waste generation represents approximately 0.004 percent of the permitted daily throughput (11,150 tons/day) at the Altamont Landfill facility43 and approximately

0.018 percent of the permitted daily throughput (2,150 tons/day) at the Vasco Road Landfill.44 Additionally, the proposed project’s solid waste contribution would be minimized by the provision of recycling and green waste collection service. Therefore, because the proposed project would include development consistent with the type and intensity of development evaluated in the GP EIR, the proposed project would not result in greater impacts than those already identified by the GP EIR.

Applicable Mitigation
As described in the GP EIR, 2040 General Plan impacts related to utilities and service systems 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,

42 CalRecyle. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates Website: www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/ WasteCharacterization/General/Rates (accessed June 19, 2019). 43 CalRecycle, 2019a. SWIS Facility Detail: Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery (01‐AA‐0009). Website:
www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/01‐AA‐0009 (accessed June 19, 2019). 44 CalRecycle, 2019b. SWIS Facility Detail: Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill (01‐AA‐001). Website:
www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/01‐AA‐0010 (accessed June 19, 2019).

Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐116 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) 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‐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.  Policy NR‐6.9 Water Conservation. The City shall require water customers to actively conserve water year‐round, and especially during drought years.
 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 NR‐6.16 Landscape Ordinance Compliance. The City shall continue to implement the Bay‐ Friendly Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
 Policy PFS‐1.2 Priority for Infrastructure. The City shall give high priority in capital improvement programming to funding rehabilitation or replacement of critical infrastructure that has reached the end of its useful life or has capacity constraints.  Policy 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.
 Policy PFS‐1.4 Development Fair Share. The City shall, through a combination of improvement fees and other funding mechanisms, ensure that new development pays its fair share of providing new public facilities and services and/or the costs of expanding/upgrading existing facilities and services impacted by new development (e.g., water, wastewater, stormwater drainage).
 Policy PFS‐3.1 Water Distribution System Master Plan. The City shall maintain and implement the Water Distribution System Master Plan.
 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.
 Policy PFS‐3.8 Water Treatment Capacity and Infrastructure. In the event that San Francisco Public Utilities Commission is unable to provide water that meets drinking water standards, the City shall plan, secure funding for, and procure sufficient water treatment capacity and infrastructure to meet projected water demands.

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‐117  Policy PFS‐3.13 New Development. The City shall ensure that water supply capacity is in place prior to granting building permits for new development.  Policy 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‐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‐4.9 Service New and Existing Development. The City shall ensure the provision of adequate wastewater service to all new development, before new developments are approved, and support the extension of wastewater service to existing developed areas where this service is lacking.
 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‐7.1 Mandatory Collection. The City shall continue to require weekly solid waste collection through the City.
 Policy PFS‐7.2 Adequate Services. The City shall monitor its solid waste and recycling services franchisee to ensure that services provided are adequate to meet the needs of the community and to meet the provisions of the City’s Franchise Agreement.

Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐118 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19)  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 for the duration of the contract with its landfill franchisee.
 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.
 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.
 Policy PFS‐7.13 Residential Recycling. The City shall encourage increased participation in residential recycling programs, and strive to comply with the recycling provisions approved by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority Board. The City shall work with StopWaste.org to monitor participation in residential recycling programs and educate the community regarding actual composition of waste sent to landfills.  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 projects without compromising existing fire suppression services to existing uses.

Conclusion
The GP EIR adequately evaluated the potential utilities impacts for 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‐119

20. WILDFIRE
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Reduced
Impact
No New
Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post‐fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Discussion
As previously discussed in Section 9 of this Environmental Checklist, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the proposed project would be located within the wildland urban interface as identified by the Hayward Fire Department. The proposed project would be required to comply with the Hillside Design and Wildland/Urban Interface Guidelines,45 which 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. 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.

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

45 Hayward, City of, 1993, op. cit.

Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐120 \\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 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‐121 LIST OF PREPARERS
LSA Associates, Inc.
157 Park Place
Point Richmond, California 94801
Laura Lafler, Principal‐in‐Charge
Shanna Guiler, AICP, Associate, Project Manager
Patty Linder, Graphics and Production
Charis Hanshaw, Document Management
5084 N. Fruit Avenue, Suite 103
Fresno, California 93711
Amy Fischer, Principal, Air Quality & Noise Specialist
Cara Carlucci, Air Quality and Noise Specialist
Kittleson & Associates, Inc.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 900
Oakland, California 94612
Damian Stefanakis, Principal Planner
Michael Sahimi, Transportation Engineer
Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐122 \\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 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‐123

REFERENCES
Alameda County Community Development Agency, 2012. Hayward Executive Airport ‐ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

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

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).

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).

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).

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).

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).

California Energy Commission, 2017d. 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report, Publication Number:

CEC‐100‐2017‐001‐CMF.

CalRecycle, 2019a. SWIS Facility Detail: Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery (01‐AA‐0009).

Website: www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/01‐AA‐0009 (accessed June 19, 2019).

CalRecycle, 2019b. SWIS Facility Detail: Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill (01‐AA‐001). Website:
www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/01‐AA‐0010 (accessed June 19, 2019).

CalRecyle. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates Website: www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/ WasteCharacterization/General/Rates (accessed June 19, 2019).

ENGEO, 2016. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Route 238 Bypass, Group 5, Hayward, California. April 1.

ENGEO, 2017. Route 238 Bypass – Group 5, Hayward, California, Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration. May 17.

Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
B‐124 \\ptr11\projects\DEW1701 Route 238 Properties Master Plan\CEQA\Final Draft\B_Env Checklist_PG 5.docx (06/19/19) 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).

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).

Hayward, City of, 1993. Hillside Design and Wildland/Urban Interface Guidelines. February 16.

Hayward, City of, 2014. Hayward 2040 General Plan Background Report. January.

Hayward, City of, 2014a. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Hayward General Plan. May.

Hayward, City of, 2014b. Hayward 2040 General Plan Background Report.

Hayward, City of, 2016. City of Hayward Urban Management Plan. June.

Hayward, City of. Municipal Code, Chapter 9, Article 1.

Kittleson & Associates, Inc., 2019. Transportation Impact Analysis, Route 238 Property Development Project (Parcel Group 5 and Parcel Group 6), Hayward, California. June 18.

LSA, 2018. Cultural Resources Constraints Study, Route 238 Properties.

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.

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.

Trane, 2002. Sound Data and Application Guide for the New and Quieter Air‐Cooled Series R Chiller.

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).

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) APPENDIX 1
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS DATA
Attachment IX
ROUTE 238 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‐ BUNKER HILL

HAYWARD, CA
ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
JUNE 2019
\\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 IX

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 82.00 Dwelling Unit 26.00 147,600.00 235 Parking Lot 75.00 Space 0.50 30,000.00 0
City Park 10.50 Acre 10.50 457,380.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 64

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Operational Year 2023
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
328.8 CH4 Intensity 0.029
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.006
(lb/MWhr)
Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX
Project Characteristics - CO2 intensity factor based on 5-year average, PG&E, 2015 Land Use - The project would include up to 82 single-family residential units, 75 onstreet parking spaces, and approxiamtely 10.5 acres of open space Construction Phase - Construction is anticipated to occur over 24 to 36 months starting in spring 2021.

Grading - Approximately 1,300 cubic yards of exported soil Vehicle Trips - Based on trip generation for proposed project Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Area Mitigation -
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 55.00 30.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 740.00 370.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 50.00 30.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 75.00 30.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 55.00 30.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/7/2025 4/28/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/4/2024 2/3/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/9/2021 6/11/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/3/2021 9/3/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/20/2024 3/17/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/20/2021 7/23/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/21/2024 3/20/2023 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/4/2021 9/6/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/21/2021 7/26/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/5/2024 2/6/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/10/2021 6/14/2021 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 75.00 187.50
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 1,300.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 26.62 26.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.68 0.50
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 328.8 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 22.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.91 10.56
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 16.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 8.62 10.56
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.89 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.52 10.56
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.2949 2.9512 2.1516 5.0900e0030.5715 0.1259 0.6974 0.2394 0.1169 0.3563 0.0000 456.0618 456.0618 0.0874 0.0000 458.2478 2022 0.3431 3.2323 3.0379 8.7500e0030.3163 0.1090 0.4252 0.0859 0.1025 0.1884 0.0000 794.1144 794.1144 0.0904 0.0000 796.3732 2023 1.0967 0.4437 0.5465 1.2800e0030.0378 0.0178 0.0555 0.0102 0.0166 0.0268 0.0000 114.4711 114.4711 0.0185 0.0000 114.9325 Maximum 1.0967 3.2323 3.0379 8.7500e0030.5715 0.1259 0.6974 0.2394 0.1169 0.3563 0.0000 794.1144 794.1144 0.0904 0.0000 796.3732 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.2949 2.9512 2.1516 5.0900e0030.3181 0.1259 0.4440 0.1243 0.1169 0.2412 0.0000 456.0614 456.0614 0.0874 0.0000 458.2475 2022 0.3431 3.2323 3.0379 8.7500e0030.3163 0.1090 0.4252 0.0859 0.1025 0.1884 0.0000 794.1140 794.1140 0.0904 0.0000 796.3728 2023 1.0967 0.4437 0.5465 1.2800e0030.0378 0.0178 0.0555 0.0102 0.0166 0.0268 0.0000 114.4710 114.4710 0.0185 0.0000 114.9325 Maximum 1.0967 3.2323 3.0379 8.7500e0030.3181 0.1259 0.4440 0.1243 0.1169 0.2412 0.0000 794.1140 794.1140 0.0904 0.0000 796.3728 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.38 0.00 21.51 34.32 0.00 20.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 5-3-2021 8-2-2021 1.2790 1.2790
2 8-3-2021 11-2-2021 1.2170 1.2170
3 11-3-2021 2-2-2022 0.9626 0.9626
4 2-3-2022 5-2-2022 0.8751 0.8751
5 5-3-2022 8-2-2022 0.9000 0.9000
6 8-3-2022 11-2-2022 0.9025 0.9025
7 11-3-2022 2-2-2023 0.8654 0.8654
8 2-3-2023 5-2-2023 1.1905 1.1905
Highest 1.2790 1.2790
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 1.1889 0.0176 1.3126 1.4800e0030.1047 0.1047 0.1047 0.1047 10.4231 3.5553 13.9784 0.0207 6.0000e00414.6723 Energy 0.0187 0.1599 0.0681 1.0200e0030.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 284.3901 284.3901 0.0123 5.2100e003286.2488 Mobile 0.1970 0.8721 2.2372 8.3200e0030.7443 6.8100e0030.7511 0.1998 6.3600e0030.2061 0.0000 764.4965 764.4965 0.0266 0.0000 765.1602 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 20.2179 0.0000 20.2179 1.1948 0.0000 50.0890 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6950 12.6001 14.2951 0.1752 4.3400e00319.9686 Total 1.4046 1.0497 3.6178 0.0108 0.7443 0.1245 0.8687 0.1998 0.1240 0.3238 32.3360 1,065.042 1 1,097.378
0 1.4295 0.0102 1,136.138
9 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.7063 0.0130 0.6123 7.0000e0053.8600e0033.8600e0033.8600e0033.8600e0030.0000 7.9571 7.9571 1.0900e0031.3000e0048.0225 Energy 0.0187 0.1599 0.0681 1.0200e0030.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 284.3901 284.3901 0.0123 5.2100e003286.2488 Mobile 0.1912 0.8373 2.1026 7.6900e0030.6832 6.3300e0030.6895 0.1834 5.9100e0030.1893 0.0000 706.4570 706.4570 0.0250 0.0000 707.0812 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 20.2179 0.0000 20.2179 1.1948 0.0000 50.0890 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6950 12.6001 14.2951 0.1752 4.3400e00319.9686 Total 0.9163 1.0102 2.7830 8.7800e0030.6832 0.0231 0.7063 0.1834 0.0227 0.2061 21.9129 1,011.404 4 1,033.317
3 1.4084 9.6800e0031,071.410
1 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

34.77 3.76 23.07 18.85 8.21 81.42 18.70 8.21 81.70 36.36 32.23 5.04 5.84 1.48 4.63 5.70 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 5/3/2021 6/11/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/14/2021 7/23/2021 5 30 3 Grading Grading 7/26/2021 9/3/2021 5 30
4 Building Construction Building Construction 9/6/2021 2/3/2023 5 370 5 Paving Paving 2/6/2023 3/17/2023 5 30
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/20/2023 4/28/2023 5 30 OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 298,890; Residential Outdoor: 99,630; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 1,800 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 187.5
Acres of Paving: 0.5
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e0040.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e0040.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 129.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 234.00 89.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 47.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.9000e0044.8000e0045.0500e0032.0000e0051.7800e0031.0000e0051.7900e0034.7000e0041.0000e0054.8000e0040.0000 1.5030 1.5030 3.0000e0050.0000 1.5038 Total 6.9000e0044.8000e0045.0500e0032.0000e0051.7800e0031.0000e0051.7900e0034.7000e0041.0000e0054.8000e0040.0000 1.5030 1.5030 3.0000e0050.0000 1.5038 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e0040.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e0040.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 8.3000e0045.7000e0046.0600e0032.0000e0052.1300e0031.0000e0052.1500e0035.7000e0041.0000e0055.8000e0040.0000 1.8036 1.8036 4.0000e0050.0000 1.8046 Total 8.3000e0045.7000e0046.0600e0032.0000e0052.1300e0031.0000e0052.1500e0035.7000e0041.0000e0055.8000e0040.0000 1.8036 1.8036 4.0000e0050.0000 1.8046 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1220 0.0000 0.1220 0.0670 0.0000 0.0670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0583 0.6075 0.3173 5.7000e0040.0307 0.0307 0.0282 0.0282 0.0000 50.1535 50.1535 0.0162 0.0000 50.5590 Total 0.0583 0.6075 0.3173 5.7000e0040.1220 0.0307 0.1526 0.0670 0.0282 0.0952 0.0000 50.1535 50.1535 0.0162 0.0000 50.5590 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1898 0.0000 0.1898 0.0604 0.0000 0.0604 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0629 0.6960 0.4632 9.3000e0040.0298 0.0298 0.0274 0.0274 0.0000 81.7425 81.7425 0.0264 0.0000 82.4034 Total 0.0629 0.6960 0.4632 9.3000e0040.1898 0.0298 0.2195 0.0604 0.0274 0.0878 0.0000 81.7425 81.7425 0.0264 0.0000 82.4034 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 5.1000e0040.0174 3.7100e0035.0000e0051.0900e0035.0000e0051.1400e0033.0000e0045.0000e0053.5000e0040.0000 4.8797 4.8797 2.5000e0040.0000 4.8859 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.2000e0046.4000e0046.7300e0032.0000e0052.3700e0032.0000e0052.3900e0036.3000e0041.0000e0056.4000e0040.0000 2.0040 2.0040 4.0000e0050.0000 2.0051 Total 1.4300e0030.0181 0.0104 7.0000e0053.4600e0037.0000e0053.5300e0039.3000e0046.0000e0059.9000e0040.0000 6.8837 6.8837 2.9000e0040.0000 6.8910 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0854 0.0000 0.0854 0.0272 0.0000 0.0272 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0629 0.6960 0.4632 9.3000e0040.0298 0.0298 0.0274 0.0274 0.0000 81.7424 81.7424 0.0264 0.0000 82.4033 Total 0.0629 0.6960 0.4632 9.3000e0040.0854 0.0298 0.1152 0.0272 0.0274 0.0546 0.0000 81.7424 81.7424 0.0264 0.0000 82.4033 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0808 0.7409 0.7045 1.1400e0030.0407 0.0407 0.0383 0.0383 0.0000 98.4458 98.4458 0.0238 0.0000 99.0396 Total 0.0808 0.7409 0.7045 1.1400e0030.0407 0.0407 0.0383 0.0383 0.0000 98.4458 98.4458 0.0238 0.0000 99.0396 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0120 0.3951 0.0986 1.0200e0030.0248 8.6000e0040.0257 7.1700e0038.2000e0048.0000e0030.0000 98.0969 98.0969 4.8200e0030.0000 98.2174 Worker 0.0305 0.0211 0.2231 7.3000e0040.0786 5.1000e0040.0791 0.0209 4.7000e0040.0214 0.0000 66.4316 66.4316 1.4900e0030.0000 66.4689 Total 0.0425 0.4161 0.3217 1.7500e0030.1034 1.3700e0030.1048 0.0281 1.2900e0030.0294 0.0000 164.5285 164.5285 6.3100e0030.0000 164.6863 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0808 0.7409 0.7044 1.1400e0030.0407 0.0407 0.0383 0.0383 0.0000 98.4457 98.4457 0.0238 0.0000 99.0395 Total 0.0808 0.7409 0.7044 1.1400e0030.0407 0.0407 0.0383 0.0383 0.0000 98.4457 98.4457 0.0238 0.0000 99.0395 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2218 2.0300 2.1272 3.5000e0030.1052 0.1052 0.0990 0.0990 0.0000 301.2428 301.2428 0.0722 0.0000 303.0471 Total 0.2218 2.0300 2.1272 3.5000e0030.1052 0.1052 0.0990 0.0990 0.0000 301.2428 301.2428 0.0722 0.0000 303.0471 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0343 1.1445 0.2836 3.0900e0030.0759 2.2800e0030.0782 0.0220 2.1800e0030.0241 0.0000 297.1187 297.1187 0.0141 0.0000 297.4711 Worker 0.0870 0.0578 0.6270 2.1600e0030.2404 1.5400e0030.2419 0.0640 1.4100e0030.0654 0.0000 195.7529 195.7529 4.0900e0030.0000 195.8550 Total 0.1213 1.2023 0.9106 5.2500e0030.3162 3.8200e0030.3201 0.0859 3.5900e0030.0895 0.0000 492.8716 492.8716 0.0182 0.0000 493.3261 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2218 2.0300 2.1272 3.5000e0030.1052 0.1052 0.0990 0.0990 0.0000 301.2425 301.2425 0.0722 0.0000 303.0467 Total 0.2218 2.0300 2.1272 3.5000e0030.1052 0.1052 0.0990 0.0990 0.0000 301.2425 301.2425 0.0722 0.0000 303.0467 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0197 0.1798 0.2031 3.4000e0048.7500e0038.7500e0038.2300e0038.2300e0030.0000 28.9756 28.9756 6.8900e0030.0000 29.1479 Total 0.0197 0.1798 0.2031 3.4000e0048.7500e0038.7500e0038.2300e0038.2300e0030.0000 28.9756 28.9756 6.8900e0030.0000 29.1479 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.4700e0030.0849 0.0244 2.9000e0047.3000e0031.0000e0047.3900e0032.1100e0039.0000e0052.2000e0030.0000 27.7684 27.7684 1.1600e0030.0000 27.7973 Worker 7.8200e0034.9900e0030.0555 2.0000e0040.0231 1.4000e0040.0233 6.1500e0031.3000e0046.2800e0030.0000 18.1015 18.1015 3.5000e0040.0000 18.1104 Total 0.0103 0.0898 0.0799 4.9000e0040.0304 2.4000e0040.0307 8.2600e0032.2000e0048.4800e0030.0000 45.8700 45.8700 1.5100e0030.0000 45.9077 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0197 0.1798 0.2031 3.4000e0048.7500e0038.7500e0038.2300e0038.2300e0030.0000 28.9756 28.9756 6.8900e0030.0000 29.1479 Total 0.0197 0.1798 0.2031 3.4000e0048.7500e0038.7500e0038.2300e0038.2300e0030.0000 28.9756 28.9756 6.8900e0030.0000 29.1479 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0155 0.1529 0.2188 3.4000e0047.6500e0037.6500e0037.0400e0037.0400e0030.0000 30.0403 30.0403 9.7200e0030.0000 30.2832 Paving 6.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0162 0.1529 0.2188 3.4000e0047.6500e0037.6500e0037.0400e0037.0400e0030.0000 30.0403 30.0403 9.7200e0030.0000 30.2832 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.0000e0043.8000e0044.2700e0032.0000e0051.7800e0031.0000e0051.7900e0034.7000e0041.0000e0054.8000e0040.0000 1.3924 1.3924 3.0000e0050.0000 1.3931 Total 6.0000e0043.8000e0044.2700e0032.0000e0051.7800e0031.0000e0051.7900e0034.7000e0041.0000e0054.8000e0040.0000 1.3924 1.3924 3.0000e0050.0000 1.3931 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0155 0.1529 0.2188 3.4000e0047.6500e0037.6500e0037.0400e0037.0400e0030.0000 30.0403 30.0403 9.7200e0030.0000 30.2832 Paving 6.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0162 0.1529 0.2188 3.4000e0047.6500e0037.6500e0037.0400e0037.0400e0030.0000 30.0403 30.0403 9.7200e0030.0000 30.2832 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.8900e0031.2000e0030.0134 5.0000e0055.5700e0033.0000e0055.6100e0031.4800e0033.0000e0051.5100e0030.0000 4.3629 4.3629 8.0000e0050.0000 4.3651 Total 1.8900e0031.2000e0030.0134 5.0000e0055.5700e0033.0000e0055.6100e0031.4800e0033.0000e0051.5100e0030.0000 4.3629 4.3629 8.0000e0050.0000 4.3651 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 1.0453 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.8700e0030.0195 0.0272 4.0000e0051.0600e0031.0600e0031.0600e0031.0600e0030.0000 3.8299 3.8299 2.3000e0040.0000 3.8356 Total 1.0481 0.0195 0.0272 4.0000e0051.0600e0031.0600e0031.0600e0031.0600e0030.0000 3.8299 3.8299 2.3000e0040.0000 3.8356 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Increase Density
Improve Walkability Design
Improve Destination Accessibility
Integrate Below Market Rate Housing
Improve Pedestrian Network

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.8900e0031.2000e0030.0134 5.0000e0055.5700e0033.0000e0055.6100e0031.4800e0033.0000e0051.5100e0030.0000 4.3629 4.3629 8.0000e0050.0000 4.3651 Total 1.8900e0031.2000e0030.0134 5.0000e0055.5700e0033.0000e0055.6100e0031.4800e0033.0000e0051.5100e0030.0000 4.3629 4.3629 8.0000e0050.0000 4.3651 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.1912 0.8373 2.1026 7.6900e0030.6832 6.3300e0030.6895 0.1834 5.9100e0030.1893 0.0000 706.4570 706.4570 0.0250 0.0000 707.0812 Unmitigated 0.1970 0.8721 2.2372 8.3200e0030.7443 6.8100e0030.7511 0.1998 6.3600e0030.2061 0.0000 764.4965 764.4965 0.0266 0.0000 765.1602

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Single Family Housing 865.92 865.92 865.92 1,999,935 1,835,750 Total 865.92 865.92 865.92 1,999,935 1,835,750
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by City Park 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6
Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Single Family Housing 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3

4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 99.1885 99.1885 8.7500e0031.8100e00399.9465 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 99.1885 99.1885 8.7500e0031.8100e00399.9465 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0187 0.1599 0.0681 1.0200e0030.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 185.2017 185.2017 3.5500e0033.4000e003186.3022 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0187 0.1599 0.0681 1.0200e0030.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 185.2017 185.2017 3.5500e0033.4000e003186.3022

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH City Park 0.578638 0.038775 0.193686 0.110919 0.015677 0.005341 0.018293 0.026358 0.002641 0.002200 0.005832 0.000891 0.000749 Parking Lot 0.578638 0.038775 0.193686 0.110919 0.015677 0.005341 0.018293 0.026358 0.002641 0.002200 0.005832 0.000891 0.000749 Single Family Housing 0.578638 0.038775 0.193686 0.110919 0.015677 0.005341 0.018293 0.026358 0.002641 0.002200 0.005832 0.000891 0.000749 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

3.47055e
+006

0.0187 0.1599 0.0681 1.0200e0030.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 185.2017 185.2017 3.5500e0033.4000e003186.3022 Total 0.0187 0.1599 0.0681 1.0200e0030.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 185.2017 185.2017 3.5500e0033.4000e003186.3022 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Single Family
Housing

3.47055e
+006

0.0187 0.1599 0.0681 1.0200e0030.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 185.2017 185.2017 3.5500e0033.4000e003186.3022 Total 0.0187 0.1599 0.0681 1.0200e0030.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 185.2017 185.2017 3.5500e0033.4000e003186.3022 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 10500 1.5660 1.4000e0043.0000e0051.5780
Single Family
Housing
654564 97.6225 8.6100e0031.7800e00398.3686
Total 99.1885 8.7500e0031.8100e00399.9465
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 10500 1.5660 1.4000e0043.0000e0051.5780
Single Family
Housing
654564 97.6225 8.6100e0031.7800e00398.3686
Total 99.1885 8.7500e0031.8100e00399.9465
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX
Use only Natural Gas Hearths

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.7063 0.0130 0.6123 7.0000e0053.8600e0033.8600e0033.8600e0033.8600e0030.0000 7.9571 7.9571 1.0900e0031.3000e0048.0225 Unmitigated 1.1889 0.0176 1.3126 1.4800e0030.1047 0.1047 0.1047 0.1047 10.4231 3.5553 13.9784 0.0207 6.0000e00414.6723 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.1045 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.5827 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.4833 0.0106 0.7028 1.4500e0030.1014 0.1014 0.1014 0.1014 10.4231 2.5592 12.9823 0.0197 6.0000e00413.6522 Landscaping 0.0184 7.0300e0030.6098 3.0000e0053.3700e0033.3700e0033.3700e0033.3700e0030.0000 0.9961 0.9961 9.6000e0040.0000 1.0201 Total 1.1890 0.0176 1.3126 1.4800e0030.1047 0.1047 0.1047 0.1047 10.4231 3.5553 13.9784 0.0207 6.0000e00414.6723 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.1045 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.5827 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 7.0000e0046.0100e0032.5600e0034.0000e0054.9000e0044.9000e0044.9000e0044.9000e0040.0000 6.9610 6.9610 1.3000e0041.3000e0047.0024 Landscaping 0.0184 7.0300e0030.6098 3.0000e0053.3700e0033.3700e0033.3700e0033.3700e0030.0000 0.9961 0.9961 9.6000e0040.0000 1.0201 Total 0.7063 0.0130 0.6123 7.0000e0053.8600e0033.8600e0033.8600e0033.8600e0030.0000 7.9571 7.9571 1.0900e0031.3000e0048.0225 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 14.2951 0.1752 4.3400e00319.9686
Unmitigated 14.2951 0.1752 4.3400e00319.9686

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
City Park 0 /

12.5106

6.5304 5.8000e0041.2000e0046.5804
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Single Family
Housing

5.34263 /

3.36818

7.7647 0.1746 4.2200e00313.3883
Total 14.2951 0.1752 4.3400e00319.9686
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
City Park 0 /

12.5106

6.5304 5.8000e0041.2000e0046.5804
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Single Family
Housing

5.34263 /

3.36818

7.7647 0.1746 4.2200e00313.3883
Total 14.2951 0.1752 4.3400e00319.9686
Mitigated

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 20.2179 1.1948 0.0000 50.0890
Unmitigated 20.2179 1.1948 0.0000 50.0890
Category/Year

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
City Park 0.9 0.1827 0.0108 0.0000 0.4526
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Single Family
Housing

98.7 20.0352 1.1841 0.0000 49.6364
Total 20.2179 1.1949 0.0000 50.0890
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 36 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
City Park 0.9 0.1827 0.0108 0.0000 0.4526
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Single Family
Housing

98.7 20.0352 1.1841 0.0000 49.6364
Total 20.2179 1.1949 0.0000 50.0890
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 37 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

11.0 Vegetation
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 38 of 38 Date: 5/1/2019 11:42 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Attachment IX

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 64

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Operational Year 2023
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
328.8 CH4 Intensity 0.029
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.006
(lb/MWhr)
Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX
Project Characteristics - CO2 intensity factor based on 5-year average, PG&E, 2015 Land Use - The project would include up to 82 single-family residential units, 75 onstreet parking spaces, and approxiamtely 10.5 acres of open space Construction Phase - Construction is anticipated to occur over 24 to 36 months starting in spring 2021.

Grading - Approximately 1,300 cubic yards of exported soil Vehicle Trips - Based on trip generation for proposed project Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Area Mitigation -
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 55.00 30.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 740.00 370.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 50.00 30.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 75.00 30.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 55.00 30.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/7/2025 4/28/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/4/2024 2/3/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/9/2021 6/11/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/3/2021 9/3/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/20/2024 3/17/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/20/2021 7/23/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/21/2024 3/20/2023 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/4/2021 9/6/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/21/2021 7/26/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/5/2024 2/6/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/10/2021 6/14/2021 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 75.00 187.50
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 1,300.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 26.62 26.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.68 0.50
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 328.8 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 22.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.91 10.56
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 16.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 8.62 10.56
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.89 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.52 10.56
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2890 47.5752 31.6096 0.0698 18.2141 2.0454 20.2595 9.9699 1.8818 11.8517 0.0000 6,978.280 2 6,978.280
2 1.9643 0.0000 6,997.733
8 2022 2.6640 24.7267 23.6994 0.0689 2.5247 0.8381 3.3628 0.6833 0.7886 1.4719 0.0000 6,886.194 8 6,886.194
8 0.7646 0.0000 6,905.308
6 2023 70.0079 21.4758 22.9649 0.0675 2.5247 0.7190 3.2437 0.6833 0.6764 1.3597 0.0000 6,746.992 8 6,746.992
8 0.7399 0.0000 6,765.489
9 Maximum 70.0079 47.5752 31.6096 0.0698 18.2141 2.0454 20.2595 9.9699 1.8818 11.8517 0.0000 6,978.280 2 6,978.280
2 1.9643 0.0000 6,997.733
8 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2890 47.5752 31.6096 0.0698 8.2777 2.0454 10.3231 4.5080 1.8818 6.3898 0.0000 6,978.280 2 6,978.280
2 1.9643 0.0000 6,997.733
8 2022 2.6640 24.7267 23.6994 0.0689 2.5247 0.8381 3.3628 0.6833 0.7886 1.4719 0.0000 6,886.194 8 6,886.194
8 0.7646 0.0000 6,905.308
6 2023 70.0079 21.4758 22.9649 0.0675 2.5247 0.7190 3.2437 0.6833 0.6764 1.3597 0.0000 6,746.992 8 6,746.992
8 0.7399 0.0000 6,765.489
9 Maximum 70.0079 47.5752 31.6096 0.0698 8.2777 2.0454 10.3231 4.5080 1.8818 6.3898 0.0000 6,978.280 2 6,978.280
2 1.9643 0.0000 6,997.733
8 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.71 0.00 36.99 48.18 0.00 37.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 88.9483 1.7143 116.6790 0.2073 15.5784 15.5784 15.5784 15.5784 1,671.023 8 518.6706 2,189.694
4 2.0779 0.1179 2,276.780
4 Energy 0.1025 0.8763 0.3729 5.5900e0030.0709 0.0709 0.0709 0.0709 1,118.629 6 1,118.629
6 0.0214 0.0205 1,125.277
1 Mobile 1.2450 4.6460 12.8009 0.0484 4.2486 0.0374 4.2860 1.1366 0.0349 1.1715 4,897.413 6 4,897.413
6 0.1618 4,901.458
5 Total 90.2959 7.2365 129.8528 0.2613 4.2486 15.6867 19.9353 1.1366 15.6842 16.8208 1,671.023 8 6,534.713
8 8,205.737
6 2.2611 0.1384 8,303.516
0 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 4.0965 1.1572 7.2345 7.2500e0030.1247 0.1247 0.1247 0.1247 0.0000 1,389.800 0 1,389.800
0 0.0382 0.0253 1,398.280
5 Energy 0.1025 0.8763 0.3729 5.5900e0030.0709 0.0709 0.0709 0.0709 1,118.629 6 1,118.629
6 0.0214 0.0205 1,125.277
1 Mobile 1.2129 4.4665 11.9668 0.0447 3.8998 0.0347 3.9345 1.0433 0.0324 1.0757 4,525.100 1 4,525.100
1 0.1518 4,528.895
1 Total 5.4120 6.4999 19.5742 0.0575 3.8998 0.2303 4.1301 1.0433 0.2280 1.2713 0.0000 7,033.529 7 7,033.529
7 0.2114 0.0458 7,052.452
6 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 5/3/2021 6/11/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/14/2021 7/23/2021 5 30 3 Grading Grading 7/26/2021 9/3/2021 5 30
4 Building Construction Building Construction 9/6/2021 2/3/2023 5 370 5 Paving Paving 2/6/2023 3/17/2023 5 30
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/20/2023 4/28/2023 5 30 OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

94.01 10.18 84.93 77.98 8.21 98.53 79.28 8.21 98.55 92.44 100.00 -7.63 14.29 90.65 66.93 15.07 Residential Indoor: 298,890; Residential Outdoor: 99,630; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 1,800 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 187.5
Acres of Paving: 0.5
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944 9 3,747.944
9 1.0549 3,774.317
4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944 9 3,747.944
9 1.0549 3,774.317
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 129.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 234.00 89.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 47.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0482 0.0282 0.3685 1.1900e0030.1232 7.8000e0040.1240 0.0327 7.1000e0040.0334 118.7939 118.7939 2.6600e003118.8603 Total 0.0482 0.0282 0.3685 1.1900e0030.1232 7.8000e0040.1240 0.0327 7.1000e0040.0334 118.7939 118.7939 2.6600e003118.8603 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944 9 3,747.944
9 1.0549 3,774.317
4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944 9 3,747.944
9 1.0549 3,774.317
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0579 0.0338 0.4421 1.4300e0030.1479 9.3000e0040.1488 0.0392 8.6000e0040.0401 142.5527 142.5527 3.1900e003142.6324 Total 0.0579 0.0338 0.4421 1.4300e0030.1479 9.3000e0040.1488 0.0392 8.6000e0040.0401 142.5527 142.5527 3.1900e003142.6324 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.1298 0.0000 8.1298 4.4688 0.0000 4.4688 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 8.1298 2.0445 10.1743 4.4688 1.8809 6.3497 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 12.6502 0.0000 12.6502 4.0259 0.0000 4.0259 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 12.6502 1.9853 14.6356 4.0259 1.8265 5.8524 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0335 1.1378 0.2398 3.3700e0030.0751 3.5700e0030.0787 0.0206 3.4100e0030.0240 361.1612 361.1612 0.0179 361.6092 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0643 0.0376 0.4913 1.5900e0030.1643 1.0300e0030.1653 0.0436 9.5000e0040.0445 158.3919 158.3919 3.5400e003158.4804 Total 0.0978 1.1754 0.7311 4.9600e0030.2394 4.6000e0030.2440 0.0642 4.3600e0030.0685 519.5531 519.5531 0.0215 520.0896 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 5.6926 0.0000 5.6926 1.8117 0.0000 1.8117 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 5.6926 1.9853 7.6779 1.8117 1.8265 3.6382 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.2760 9.1974 2.1688 0.0243 0.6025 0.0199 0.6224 0.1734 0.0191 0.1925 2,571.731 0 2,571.731
0 0.1207 2,574.748
6 Worker 0.7524 0.4397 5.7478 0.0186 1.9223 0.0121 1.9344 0.5099 0.0111 0.5210 1,853.185 3 1,853.185
3 0.0414 1,854.220
9 Total 1.0284 9.6371 7.9166 0.0429 2.5247 0.0320 2.5567 0.6833 0.0302 0.7135 4,424.916 3 4,424.916
3 0.1621 4,428.969
5 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 0.0000 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 0.0000 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.2574 8.7167 2.0397 0.0240 0.6025 0.0173 0.6197 0.1734 0.0165 0.1900 2,546.686 1 2,546.686
1 0.1154 2,549.571
2 Worker 0.7003 0.3944 5.2963 0.0179 1.9223 0.0118 1.9341 0.5099 0.0109 0.5208 1,785.175 2 1,785.175
2 0.0372 1,786.105
2 Total 0.9577 9.1111 7.3360 0.0419 2.5247 0.0291 2.5538 0.6833 0.0274 0.7107 4,331.861 2 4,331.861
2 0.1526 4,335.676
4 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1929 6.7362 1.8363 0.0233 0.6025 7.6600e0030.6102 0.1734 7.3300e0030.1808 2,475.044 7 2,475.044
7 0.0986 2,477.510
7 Worker 0.6538 0.3547 4.8846 0.0172 1.9223 0.0116 1.9338 0.5099 0.0107 0.5205 1,716.738 1 1,716.738
1 0.0334 1,717.573
2 Total 0.8467 7.0909 6.7209 0.0405 2.5247 0.0192 2.5440 0.6833 0.0180 0.7013 4,191.782 9 4,191.782
9 0.1320 4,195.083
8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Paving 0.0437 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0764 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0419 0.0227 0.3131 1.1000e0030.1232 7.4000e0040.1240 0.0327 6.8000e0040.0334 110.0473 110.0473 2.1400e003110.1009 Total 0.0419 0.0227 0.3131 1.1000e0030.1232 7.4000e0040.1240 0.0327 6.8000e0040.0334 110.0473 110.0473 2.1400e003110.1009 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Paving 0.0437 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0764 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 69.6849 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 69.8766 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1313 0.0713 0.9811 3.4600e0030.3861 2.3200e0030.3884 0.1024 2.1400e0030.1046 344.8149 344.8149 6.7100e003344.9827 Total 0.1313 0.0713 0.9811 3.4600e0030.3861 2.3200e0030.3884 0.1024 2.1400e0030.1046 344.8149 344.8149 6.7100e003344.9827 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 69.6849 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 69.8766 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Increase Density
Improve Walkability Design
Improve Destination Accessibility
Integrate Below Market Rate Housing
Improve Pedestrian Network

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1313 0.0713 0.9811 3.4600e0030.3861 2.3200e0030.3884 0.1024 2.1400e0030.1046 344.8149 344.8149 6.7100e003344.9827 Total 0.1313 0.0713 0.9811 3.4600e0030.3861 2.3200e0030.3884 0.1024 2.1400e0030.1046 344.8149 344.8149 6.7100e003344.9827 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.2129 4.4665 11.9668 0.0447 3.8998 0.0347 3.9345 1.0433 0.0324 1.0757 4,525.100 1 4,525.100
1 0.1518 4,528.895
1 Unmitigated 1.2450 4.6460 12.8009 0.0484 4.2486 0.0374 4.2860 1.1366 0.0349 1.1715 4,897.413 6 4,897.413
6 0.1618 4,901.458
5 4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.1025 0.8763 0.3729 5.5900e0030.0709 0.0709 0.0709 0.0709 1,118.629 6 1,118.629
6 0.0214 0.0205 1,125.277
1 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.1025 0.8763 0.3729 5.5900e0030.0709 0.0709 0.0709 0.0709 1,118.629 6 1,118.629
6 0.0214 0.0205 1,125.277
1 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH City Park 0.578638 0.038775 0.193686 0.110919 0.015677 0.005341 0.018293 0.026358 0.002641 0.002200 0.005832 0.000891 0.000749 Parking Lot 0.578638 0.038775 0.193686 0.110919 0.015677 0.005341 0.018293 0.026358 0.002641 0.002200 0.005832 0.000891 0.000749 Single Family Housing 0.578638 0.038775 0.193686 0.110919 0.015677 0.005341 0.018293 0.026358 0.002641 0.002200 0.005832 0.000891 0.000749 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Single Family
Housing
9508.35 0.1025 0.8763 0.3729 5.5900e0030.0709 0.0709 0.0709 0.0709 1,118.629 6 1,118.629
6 0.0214 0.0205 1,125.277
1 Total 0.1025 0.8763 0.3729 5.5900e0030.0709 0.0709 0.0709 0.0709 1,118.629 6 1,118.629
6 0.0214 0.0205 1,125.277
1 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Single Family
Housing

9.50835 0.1025 0.8763 0.3729 5.5900e0030.0709 0.0709 0.0709 0.0709 1,118.629 6 1,118.629
6 0.0214 0.0205 1,125.277
1 Total 0.1025 0.8763 0.3729 5.5900e0030.0709 0.0709 0.0709 0.0709 1,118.629 6 1,118.629
6 0.0214 0.0205 1,125.277
1 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX
Use only Natural Gas Hearths

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 4.0965 1.1572 7.2345 7.2500e0030.1247 0.1247 0.1247 0.1247 0.0000 1,389.800 0 1,389.800
0 0.0382 0.0253 1,398.280
5 Unmitigated 88.9483 1.7143 116.6790 0.2073 15.5784 15.5784 15.5784 15.5784 1,671.023 8 518.6706 2,189.694
4 2.0779 0.1179 2,276.780
4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.5728 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

3.1928 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 84.9780 1.6362 109.9037 0.2070 15.5409 15.5409 15.5409 15.5409 1,671.023 8 506.4706 2,177.494
4 2.0662 0.1179 2,264.286
4 Landscaping 0.2047 0.0781 6.7753 3.6000e0040.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 12.2000 12.2000 0.0118 12.4941 Total 88.9483 1.7143 116.6790 0.2073 15.5784 15.5784 15.5784 15.5784 1,671.023 8 518.6706 2,189.694
4 2.0779 0.1179 2,276.780
4 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

8.0 Waste Detail

0.5728 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

3.1928 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.1263 1.0791 0.4592 6.8900e0030.0873 0.0873 0.0873 0.0873 0.0000 1,377.600 0 1,377.600
0 0.0264 0.0253 1,385.786
4 Landscaping 0.2047 0.0781 6.7753 3.6000e0040.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 12.2000 12.2000 0.0118 12.4941 Total 4.0965 1.1572 7.2345 7.2500e0030.1247 0.1247 0.1247 0.1247 0.0000 1,389.800 0 1,389.800
0 0.0382 0.0253 1,398.280
5 Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:43 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Attachment IX

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 64

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Operational Year 2023
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
328.8 CH4 Intensity 0.029
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.006
(lb/MWhr)
Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX
Project Characteristics - CO2 intensity factor based on 5-year average, PG&E, 2015 Land Use - The project would include up to 82 single-family residential units, 75 onstreet parking spaces, and approxiamtely 10.5 acres of open space Construction Phase - Construction is anticipated to occur over 24 to 36 months starting in spring 2021.

Grading - Approximately 1,300 cubic yards of exported soil Vehicle Trips - Based on trip generation for proposed project Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Area Mitigation -
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 55.00 30.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 740.00 370.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 50.00 30.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 75.00 30.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 55.00 30.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/7/2025 4/28/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/4/2024 2/3/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/9/2021 6/11/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/3/2021 9/3/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/20/2024 3/17/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/20/2021 7/23/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/21/2024 3/20/2023 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/4/2021 9/6/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/21/2021 7/26/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/5/2024 2/6/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/10/2021 6/14/2021 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 75.00 187.50
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 1,300.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 26.62 26.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.68 0.50
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 328.8 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 22.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.91 10.56
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 16.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 8.62 10.56
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.89 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.52 10.56
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2937 47.6106 31.5956 0.0677 18.2141 2.0454 20.2595 9.9699 1.8818 11.8517 0.0000 6,766.961 3 6,766.961
3 1.9649 0.0000 6,786.591
9 2022 2.7228 24.8851 23.6415 0.0668 2.5247 0.8387 3.3635 0.6833 0.7892 1.4725 0.0000 6,680.533 2 6,680.533
2 0.7713 0.0000 6,699.815
0 2023 70.0165 21.5917 22.8571 0.0655 2.5247 0.7193 3.2441 0.6833 0.6767 1.3600 0.0000 6,549.252 5 6,549.252
5 0.7447 0.0000 6,567.869
9 Maximum 70.0165 47.6106 31.5956 0.0677 18.2141 2.0454 20.2595 9.9699 1.8818 11.8517 0.0000 6,766.961 3 6,766.961
3 1.9649 0.0000 6,786.591
9 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2937 47.6106 31.5956 0.0677 8.2777 2.0454 10.3231 4.5080 1.8818 6.3898 0.0000 6,766.961 3 6,766.961
3 1.9649 0.0000 6,786.591
9 2022 2.7228 24.8851 23.6415 0.0668 2.5247 0.8387 3.3635 0.6833 0.7892 1.4725 0.0000 6,680.533 2 6,680.533
2 0.7713 0.0000 6,699.815
0 2023 70.0165 21.5917 22.8571 0.0655 2.5247 0.7193 3.2441 0.6833 0.6767 1.3600 0.0000 6,549.252 5 6,549.252
5 0.7447 0.0000 6,567.869
9 Maximum 70.0165 47.6106 31.5956 0.0677 8.2777 2.0454 10.3231 4.5080 1.8818 6.3898 0.0000 6,766.961 3 6,766.961
3 1.9649 0.0000 6,786.591
9 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.71 0.00 36.98 48.18 0.00 37.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 88.9483 1.7143 116.6790 0.2073 15.5784 15.5784 15.5784 15.5784 1,671.023 8 518.6706 2,189.694
4 2.0779 0.1179 2,276.780
4 Energy 0.1025 0.8763 0.3729 5.5900e0030.0709 0.0709 0.0709 0.0709 1,118.629 6 1,118.629
6 0.0214 0.0205 1,125.277
1 Mobile 1.0714 4.8843 12.8605 0.0453 4.2486 0.0376 4.2862 1.1366 0.0351 1.1717 4,586.652 5 4,586.652
5 0.1648 4,590.771
7 Total 90.1222 7.4749 129.9124 0.2582 4.2486 15.6869 19.9354 1.1366 15.6844 16.8210 1,671.023 8 6,223.952
7 7,894.976
5 2.2641 0.1384 7,992.829
2 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 4.0965 1.1572 7.2345 7.2500e0030.1247 0.1247 0.1247 0.1247 0.0000 1,389.800 0 1,389.800
0 0.0382 0.0253 1,398.280
5 Energy 0.1025 0.8763 0.3729 5.5900e0030.0709 0.0709 0.0709 0.0709 1,118.629 6 1,118.629
6 0.0214 0.0205 1,125.277
1 Mobile 1.0397 4.6843 12.1183 0.0419 3.8998 0.0349 3.9347 1.0433 0.0326 1.0759 4,237.216 4 4,237.216
4 0.1552 4,241.096
5 Total 5.2388 6.7178 19.7257 0.0547 3.8998 0.2305 4.1303 1.0433 0.2282 1.2715 0.0000 6,745.646 0 6,745.646
0 0.2148 0.0458 6,764.654
0 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

94.19 10.13 84.82 78.82 8.21 98.53 79.28 8.21 98.55 92.44 100.00 -8.38 14.56 90.51 66.93 15.37 Residential Indoor: 298,890; Residential Outdoor: 99,630; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 1,800 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 187.5
Acres of Paving: 0.5
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 129.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 234.00 89.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 47.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0511 0.0348 0.3447 1.1000e0030.1232 7.8000e0040.1240 0.0327 7.1000e0040.0334 109.4305 109.4305 2.4800e003109.4924 Total 0.0511 0.0348 0.3447 1.1000e0030.1232 7.8000e0040.1240 0.0327 7.1000e0040.0334 109.4305 109.4305 2.4800e003109.4924 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944 9 3,747.944
9 1.0549 3,774.317
4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944 9 3,747.944
9 1.0549 3,774.317
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0613 0.0418 0.4137 1.3200e0030.1479 9.3000e0040.1488 0.0392 8.6000e0040.0401 131.3166 131.3166 2.9700e003131.3909 Total 0.0613 0.0418 0.4137 1.3200e0030.1479 9.3000e0040.1488 0.0392 8.6000e0040.0401 131.3166 131.3166 2.9700e003131.3909 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.1298 0.0000 8.1298 4.4688 0.0000 4.4688 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 8.1298 2.0445 10.1743 4.4688 1.8809 6.3497 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 12.6502 0.0000 12.6502 4.0259 0.0000 4.0259 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 12.6502 1.9853 14.6356 4.0259 1.8265 5.8524 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0344 1.1644 0.2575 3.3200e0030.0751 3.6300e0030.0788 0.0206 3.4700e0030.0241 355.0556 355.0556 0.0188 355.5254 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0681 0.0464 0.4596 1.4600e0030.1643 1.0300e0030.1653 0.0436 9.5000e0040.0445 145.9073 145.9073 3.3000e003145.9899 Total 0.1025 1.2108 0.7171 4.7800e0030.2394 4.6600e0030.2441 0.0642 4.4200e0030.0686 500.9629 500.9629 0.0221 501.5152 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 5.6926 0.0000 5.6926 1.8117 0.0000 1.8117 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 5.6926 1.9853 7.6779 1.8117 1.8265 3.6382 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.2924 9.2765 2.4928 0.0237 0.6025 0.0206 0.6231 0.1734 0.0197 0.1931 2,506.481 6 2,506.481
6 0.1306 2,509.746
2 Worker 0.7971 0.5431 5.3776 0.0171 1.9223 0.0121 1.9344 0.5099 0.0111 0.5210 1,707.115 7 1,707.115
7 0.0386 1,708.081
4 Total 1.0894 9.8196 7.8704 0.0408 2.5247 0.0327 2.5574 0.6833 0.0309 0.7142 4,213.597 4 4,213.597
4 0.1692 4,217.827
7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 0.0000 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 0.0000 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.2727 8.7824 2.3434 0.0234 0.6025 0.0179 0.6204 0.1734 0.0171 0.1906 2,481.666 3 2,481.666
3 0.1247 2,484.784
8 Worker 0.7439 0.4870 4.9348 0.0165 1.9223 0.0118 1.9341 0.5099 0.0109 0.5208 1,644.533 3 1,644.533
3 0.0346 1,645.398
0 Total 1.0166 9.2694 7.2781 0.0399 2.5247 0.0297 2.5544 0.6833 0.0280 0.7113 4,126.199 6 4,126.199
6 0.1593 4,130.182
7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.2050 6.7690 2.0809 0.0227 0.6025 8.0100e0030.6105 0.1734 7.6500e0030.1811 2,412.487 8 2,412.487
8 0.1059 2,415.135
2 Worker 0.6969 0.4378 4.5322 0.0159 1.9223 0.0116 1.9338 0.5099 0.0107 0.5205 1,581.554 9 1,581.554
9 0.0310 1,582.328
6 Total 0.9018 7.2068 6.6131 0.0386 2.5247 0.0196 2.5443 0.6833 0.0183 0.7016 3,994.042 6 3,994.042
6 0.1369 3,997.463
8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Paving 0.0437 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0764 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0447 0.0281 0.2905 1.0200e0030.1232 7.4000e0040.1240 0.0327 6.8000e0040.0334 101.3817 101.3817 1.9800e003101.4313 Total 0.0447 0.0281 0.2905 1.0200e0030.1232 7.4000e0040.1240 0.0327 6.8000e0040.0334 101.3817 101.3817 1.9800e003101.4313 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Paving 0.0437 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0764 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 69.6849 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 69.8766 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1400 0.0879 0.9103 3.1900e0030.3861 2.3200e0030.3884 0.1024 2.1400e0030.1046 317.6627 317.6627 6.2200e003317.8181 Total 0.1400 0.0879 0.9103 3.1900e0030.3861 2.3200e0030.3884 0.1024 2.1400e0030.1046 317.6627 317.6627 6.2200e003317.8181 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 69.6849 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 69.8766 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Increase Density
Improve Walkability Design
Improve Destination Accessibility
Integrate Below Market Rate Housing
Improve Pedestrian Network

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1400 0.0879 0.9103 3.1900e0030.3861 2.3200e0030.3884 0.1024 2.1400e0030.1046 317.6627 317.6627 6.2200e003317.8181 Total 0.1400 0.0879 0.9103 3.1900e0030.3861 2.3200e0030.3884 0.1024 2.1400e0030.1046 317.6627 317.6627 6.2200e003317.8181 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.0397 4.6843 12.1183 0.0419 3.8998 0.0349 3.9347 1.0433 0.0326 1.0759 4,237.216 4 4,237.216
4 0.1552 4,241.096
5 Unmitigated 1.0714 4.8843 12.8605 0.0453 4.2486 0.0376 4.2862 1.1366 0.0351 1.1717 4,586.652 5 4,586.652
5 0.1648 4,590.771
7 4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.1025 0.8763 0.3729 5.5900e0030.0709 0.0709 0.0709 0.0709 1,118.629 6 1,118.629
6 0.0214 0.0205 1,125.277
1 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.1025 0.8763 0.3729 5.5900e0030.0709 0.0709 0.0709 0.0709 1,118.629 6 1,118.629
6 0.0214 0.0205 1,125.277
1 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH City Park 0.578638 0.038775 0.193686 0.110919 0.015677 0.005341 0.018293 0.026358 0.002641 0.002200 0.005832 0.000891 0.000749 Parking Lot 0.578638 0.038775 0.193686 0.110919 0.015677 0.005341 0.018293 0.026358 0.002641 0.002200 0.005832 0.000891 0.000749 Single Family Housing 0.578638 0.038775 0.193686 0.110919 0.015677 0.005341 0.018293 0.026358 0.002641 0.002200 0.005832 0.000891 0.000749 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

6.0 Area Detail

9.50835 0.1025 0.8763 0.3729 5.5900e0030.0709 0.0709 0.0709 0.0709 1,118.629 6 1,118.629
6 0.0214 0.0205 1,125.277
1 Total 0.1025 0.8763 0.3729 5.5900e0030.0709 0.0709 0.0709 0.0709 1,118.629 6 1,118.629
6 0.0214 0.0205 1,125.277
1 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX
Use only Natural Gas Hearths

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 4.0965 1.1572 7.2345 7.2500e0030.1247 0.1247 0.1247 0.1247 0.0000 1,389.800 0 1,389.800
0 0.0382 0.0253 1,398.280
5 Unmitigated 88.9483 1.7143 116.6790 0.2073 15.5784 15.5784 15.5784 15.5784 1,671.023 8 518.6706 2,189.694
4 2.0779 0.1179 2,276.780
4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

0.5728 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

3.1928 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 84.9780 1.6362 109.9037 0.2070 15.5409 15.5409 15.5409 15.5409 1,671.023 8 506.4706 2,177.494
4 2.0662 0.1179 2,264.286
4 Landscaping 0.2047 0.0781 6.7753 3.6000e0040.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 12.2000 12.2000 0.0118 12.4941 Total 88.9483 1.7143 116.6790 0.2073 15.5784 15.5784 15.5784 15.5784 1,671.023 8 518.6706 2,189.694
4 2.0779 0.1179 2,276.780
4 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

8.0 Waste Detail

0.5728 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 32 Date: 5/1/2019 11:44 AM Route 238 Property Development – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Attachment IX

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: January 15, 2021
TO: Leigha Schmidt, City of Hayward
FROM: Shanna Guiler, AICP, Associate/Environmental Planner Theresa Wallace, AICP, Principal
SUBJECT: Environmental Review of Modifications to the Hayward Route 238 Properties Project – Parcel Group 5, City of Hayward, California
This memorandum, prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), describes the proposed modifications to the Hayward Route 238 Properties Project – Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5) Project (modified project) and confirms through supplemental analysis that the potential environmental effects of the modified project are within the scope of the Addendum for the Route 238 Development Project ‐ Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5).1

INTRODUCTION
In June 2019, LSA prepared an Addendum to the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report2 (GP EIR), to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with development of the Parcel Group 5 Project (PG 5 Project). The PG 5 project, evaluated in the Addendum, included a Master Plan detailing 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 on the project site. The project site encompasses 37 acres over several parcels, which were obtained by the City from Caltrans. The Final Addendum was considered by the City of Hayward Planning Commission and City Council as part of the PG 5 Project approvals, including the Master Plan. On July 9, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 19‐162 adopting and certifying the Addendum.

PROPOSED PROJECT
On August 6, 2020, Trumak Homes submitted Zone Change, Tentative Map, and Site Plan Review Application No. 202003054 to develop the site in accordance with the adopted Master Plan. The City proposes to expand the Zone Change entitlement to incorporate four privately‐owned parcels that are located within the PG 5 Project area. Under this proposal, the four privately owned parcels would be 1 LSA. 2019. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Addendum for the Route 238 Development Project ‐ Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5). June. 2
Hayward, City of. 2014. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Hayward General Plan. May.

Attachment XII
1/15/21 (\\ptr11\projects\HAY2002 PG 5 Addendum\PRODUCTS\PG 5_CEQA Memo_011521.docx) 2 incorporated into the proposed PD (Planned Development) District rather than creating isolated lots within the PG 5 Project area with differentiated and more stringent zoning requirements.

These four privately owned properties are currently developed with single‐family residential homes and are shown in the attached Figure 1. The subject properties are zoned RNP (Residential Natural Preserve) District, which requires a minimum 20,000‐square foot lot and are designated Suburban Residential in the City’s General Plan, which allows development of up to four units per acre.

The proposed Zone Change would permit each of these four parcels to be subdivided and subject to the same development standards as the other properties within the PG 5 Project area, potentially resulting in an additional four units in the project area. The proposed PD District would remain consistent with the applicable Suburban Residential General Plan designation in that the average lot size across the entire PD District would be 10,000 square feet.

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The following includes an evaluation of the potential environmental effects of incorporating the four additional parcels into the PD District, compared to the impacts associated with implementation of the PG 5 Project as identified in the Environmental Checklist included in the Addendum.

Aesthetics
Section 1 of the Environmental Checklist analyzed the visual conditions of the project area. Similar to the PG 5 Project, the modified project would not substantially impact a scenic vista nor would it substantially damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway. Similar to other development proposed with the City and within the City’s hillside areas, any development proposed on the four additional parcels 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. In addition, proposed development would be required to 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. Design Review of any proposed development would ensure that any lighting proposed within the project site is sufficient to protect public safety but does not excessively illuminate the surrounding area. No new impacts or increase in the severity of impacts would occur.

Agricultural Resources
Section 2 of the Environmental Checklist analyzed impacts to agricultural resources. No impacts to agricultural resources were identified. Similar to the PG 5 Project, the modified project would not result in the conversion of agricultural land nor would it conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contract. No new impacts or increase in the severity of impacts would occur.

Air Quality
Section 3 of the Environmental Checklist analyzed impacts to air quality. The Addendum identified temporary short‐term, construction‐related impacts to air quality. No long‐term operational impacts were identified. Similar to the PG 5 Project, the rezoning and potential subdivision of the four additional parcels would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, violate air Attachment X
1/15/21 (\\ptr11\projects\HAY2002 PG 5 Addendum\PRODUCTS\PG 5_CEQA Memo_011521.docx) 3 quality standards, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant.

Construction of any potential structures would utilize similar construction techniques as identified in the Environmental Checklist. All development projects would be required to implement the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Basic Construction Mitigation Measures to minimize construction fugitive dust impacts. No new impacts or increase in the severity of impacts would occur.

Biological Resources
Section 4 of the Environmental Checklist analyzed impacts to biological resources associated with implementation of the PG 5 Project. The Addendum identified areas of potential impact, including adverse effects on nesting birds and roosting bats, indirect effects to wetlands/riparian areas, and tree removal. The additional four parcels are located within the same area as the PG 5 Project and would be subject to the same biological conditions. Therefore, impacts to biological resources would be similar to those analyzed for the PG 5 Project in the Environmental Checklist. Implementation of Standard Conditions of Approval and Best Management Practices (BMPs) in compliance with regulatory requirements, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the California Fish and Game Code, Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines, City of Hayward General Plan policies, and the City of Hayward Municipal Code, would ensure that impacts of the proposed project as a whole would be reduced to less than significant levels. No new impacts or increase in the severity of impacts would occur.

Cultural Resources
As described in Section 5 of the Environmental Checklist, the Addendum identified potential impacts to previously unidentified archaeological deposits as a result of ground disturbing activities. No known or previously identified cultural resources were identified in the project area. Similar to the PG 5 Project, potential development resulting from the rezoning and subdivision of the four additional parcels has the potential to encounter unidentified cultural deposits during construction activities. 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. No new impacts or increase in the severity of impacts would occur.

Energy
Section 6 of the Environmental Checklist evaluated potential project impacts related to energy. Like the PG 5 project, construction of any future development resulting from the rezoning and subdivision of the additional four parcels would require the use of energy to fuel grading vehicles, trucks, and other construction vehicles. All or most of this energy would be derived from non‐renewable resources.

However, implementation of BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, as required for all development projects, would improve energy efficiency by reducing idling times for vehicle equipment.

In addition, construction activities are not anticipated to result in an inefficient use of energy as gasoline and diesel fuel would be supplied by construction contractors who would conserve the use of their supplies to minimize project costs. 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.

Attachment X
1/15/21 (\\ptr11\projects\HAY2002 PG 5 Addendum\PRODUCTS\PG 5_CEQA Memo_011521.docx) 4 Energy use consumed by the PG 5 Project would be associated with electricity consumption and fuel used for vehicle trips associated with the project. The Addendum determined that potential operational energy use associated with the PG 5 Project would be less than significant. Like the PG 5 Project, any proposed development on the four additional parcels would be required to implement the latest CALGreen standard building measures and Title 24 standards, which would help to reduce energy and natural gas consumption. Therefore, the modified project would not use non‐renewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. No new impacts or increase in the severity of impacts would occur.

Geology and Soils
Section 7 of the Environmental Checklist analyzed the geological, seismic, and soil conditions within the project area. The Addendum identified areas of potential impact, including damage due to seismic ground shaking, seismic‐related liquefaction, soil erosion, and expansive soils. The four additional parcels are located within the PG 5 Project area and would be subject to similar geological and soil conditions. Like the PG 5 Project, any potential development on the four additional parcels would be required to comply with the current California Building Code ([CBC] Title 24, California Code of Regulations). In addition, a site‐specific geotechnical investigation would be performed as required by State regulations, and the City of Hayward General Plan policies in the event of future subdivision and development of any new structures on the subject properties. Completion of a site‐specific geotechnical investigation, and compliance with geotechnical recommendations and the CBC during design and construction would ensure that the potential impacts related to geology and soils would be reduced to less than significant levels. No new impacts or increase in the severity of impacts would occur.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Section 8 of the Environmental Checklist analyzed impacts associated with global climate change and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the implementation of the PG 5 Project. No potentially significant GHG impacts were identified. Similar to the PG 5 Project, future development on the four additional parcels could generate greenhouse gas emissions during construction, as well as, long‐term GHG emissions associated with project‐generated vehicle trips to and from the project site, as well as landscaping and maintenance on the project site. Incorporation of the four additional parcels into the Planned Development District would result in limited additional development beyond what was evaluated for the PG 5 Project. Therefore, like the PG 5 Project, the modified project is not anticipated to generate significant GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. No new impacts or increase in the severity of impacts would occur.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Section 9 of the Environmental Checklist analyzed impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that would be associated with implementation of the PG 5 Project. The Addendum identified potential impacts related to transport, handling, and disposal of potentially contaminated soil and/or groundwater during excavation and grading activities at the PG 5 Project site, as well as potential risks related to wildfire. Any potential development on the four additional parcels would use similar construction techniques identified for the PG 5 Project and would be subject to the same conditions with respect to hazards. Like the PG 5 Project, development of the four additional parcels would be required to comply with all applicable local, State, and federal regulations and standards pertaining to Attachment X
1/15/21 (\\ptr11\projects\HAY2002 PG 5 Addendum\PRODUCTS\PG 5_CEQA Memo_011521.docx) 5 the release of hazardous materials, including the City of Hayward General Plan, which requires that site‐ specific environmental investigations be prepared before discretionary project approvals are issued by the City. Like the PG 5 Project, the additional four parcels would be located within the wildland urban interface as identified by the Hayward Fire Department. Any development on these parcels would be required to comply with the Hillside Design and Wildland/Urban Interface Guidelinesto address potential fire hazards for developments in the hills. Compliance with these regulatory requirements would ensure that impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant. No new impacts or increase in the severity of impacts would occur.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Section 10 of the Environmental Checklist analyzed impacts to hydrology and water quality associated with implementation of the PG 5 Project. The Addendum determined that the PG 5 Project would have a less than significant effect on water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, groundwater recharge, and alteration of drainage patterns. Like the PG 5 Project, construction activities associated with potential development on the additional four parcels could disturb site soils and could introduce pollutants into the stormwater. Implementation of construction BMPs would be required to comply with the Statewide Phase II Permit (Water Quality Order No. 2013‐0001‐DWQ, NPDES General Permit No.

CAS000004), and the City’s General Plan. In addition, like the PG 5 Project, the modified project would be required to comply with Provision C.3 requirements of the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, which requires implementation of low impact development (LID) source control, site design, and stormwater treatment for regulated projects. Adherence to regulatory requirements would ensure that potential impacts of the modified project are less than significant with respect to water quality. No new impacts or increase in severity of impacts would occur.

Land Use
Section 11 of the Environmental Checklist analyzed impacts to land use and planning associated with implementation of the PG 5 Project. The four additional parcels are located within the boundaries of the PG 5 Project area and would be subject to the same land use plans discussed in the Addendum, including the City of Hayward General Plan. Incorporation of these four additional parcels into the Planned Development District would bring these properties into conformity with the surrounding parcels, which are part of the PG 5 Project. The proposed Planned Development District zoning is consistent with the site’s existing General Plan land use designation, which is Suburban Density Residential. Similar to the PG 5 Project, the modified project would not physically divide an established community or conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No new impacts or increase in severity of impacts would occur.

Mineral Resources
No impacts to mineral resources were identified in the Addendum. Similar to the PG 5 Project, the modified project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or a locally‐ important mineral resource recovery site. No new impacts or increase in the severity of impacts would occur.

Attachment X
1/15/21 (\\ptr11\projects\HAY2002 PG 5 Addendum\PRODUCTS\PG 5_CEQA Memo_011521.docx) 6 Noise
Section 13 of the Environmental Checklist analyzed noise impacts associated with implementation of the PG 5 Project. The Addendum identified potential temporary, short‐term, construction‐related noise and vibration impacts. Operational noise impacts were determined to be less than significant. Construction period noise would be short‐term and intermittent and subject to measures that restrict the hours of construction and impose maintenance and operation restrictions on construction equipment, consistent with Mitigation 15‐1 and Mitigation 15‐2 identified in the GP EIR as well as policies in the City’s General Plan. In addition, like the PG 5 Project, any proposed development on the four additional parcels would be required to implement best management practices to ensure potential construction‐period noise impacts would be less than significant. No new impacts or increase in the severity of impacts would occur.

Population and Housing
Section 14 of the Environmental Checklist analyzed impacts to population and housing associated with implementation of the PG 5 Project. No impacts to population and housing were identified in the Addendum. Similar to the PG 5 Project, incorporation of the four additional parcels into the Planned Development District could result in the development of four additional residential units within the PG 5 Project area; however, as described in the Environmental Checklist, this growth would fall within the increase identified in the City’s General Plan, including the Housing Element. Therefore, the modified project would not induce substantial growth, displace any existing housing units or people, and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No new impact or increase in the severity of impacts would occur.

Public Services
Section 15 of the Environmental Checklist analyzed impacts to public services associated with implementation of the PG 5 Project. No significant impacts were identified. Similar to the PG 5 Project, incorporation of the four additional parcels into the Planned Development District could result in the development of limited (four) additional residential units within the PG 5 Project area, which would result in a proportionate increase in demand for police, fire and school services. However, General Plan policies ensure that the City reviews Hayward Police Department and Hayward Fire Department staffing levels to ensure the availability of adequate police and fire manpower and service facilities. Consistent with the City of Hayward General Plan policies, any new development would be required to pay development fees to ensure adequate provision of fire and police services, schools, and other public facilities (e.g., libraries). Implementation of these policies would ensure the planning of new school facilities to accommodate projected increases in student enrollment. Public services impacts would be less than significant. No new impacts or increase in severity of impacts would occur.

Recreation
Section 16 of the Environmental Checklist analyzed impacts to recreation associated with implementation of the PG 5 Project. No significant impacts were identified. Limited new development would result from incorporation of the four additional parcels into the Planned Development District; therefore, the modified project is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in use of recreation facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be facilitated. Further, any new development would be subject to Park Impact Fees intended to mitigate any potential impacts Attachment X
1/15/21 (\\ptr11\projects\HAY2002 PG 5 Addendum\PRODUCTS\PG 5_CEQA Memo_011521.docx) 7 from new development. Therefore, impacts associated with existing parks and other recreational facilities would be less than significant. No new impacts or increase in the severity of impacts would occur.

Transportation
Section 17 of the Environmental Checklist analyzed impacts to transportation/traffic associated with implementation of the PG 5 Project. The Addendum identified significant level of service (LOS) impacts at four intersections under the Cumulative 2035 Plus Project condition. The Addendum concluded that these impacts fell 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, as identified in the GP EIR, was modified to incorporate mitigation for these impacts.

As described in the attached memorandum, the previous traffic analysis conservatively analyzed the 74 single‐family units and eight ADUs as 82 single‐family units; however, ADUs are exempt from CEQA analysis. Therefore, with the four additional parcels, the total number of single‐family units associated with the modified project would be 78. As a result, the modified project is expected to generate fewer vehicle trips than was disclosed in the previous Addendum. Specifically, it is expected to generate 39 fewer daily vehicle trips, three fewer AM peak hour vehicle trips, and four fewer PM peak hour vehicle trips compared to what was analyzed in the previous traffic analysis. Therefore, the incorporation of the four additional parcels into the Planned Development District is not expected to generate any new LOS impacts or worsen impacts at the study intersections. In addition, no additional traffic calming, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements would be required beyond what was recommended in the previous traffic analysis. Supporting data and documentation is included as an attachment to this memorandum. No new impacts or increase in the severity of impacts would occur.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Section 18 of the Environmental Checklist analyzed impacts to tribal cultural resources associated with the PG 5 Project. No significant impacts to tribal resources were identified. As stated in the Addendum, impacts of the PG 5 Project on potential archaeological and human remains, which are considered both tribal and cultural resources, were evaluated and were identified as less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies. Similar to the PG 5 Project, the modified project would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources. No new impacts or increase in the severity of impacts would occur.

Utilities and Service Systems
Section 19 of the Environmental Checklist analyzed impacts to utilities and service systems associated with the PG 5 Project. No potentially significant impacts were identified in the Addendum. Limited new development could result from incorporation of the four additional parcels into the Planned Development District; therefore, the modified project is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in the demand for utilities and service systems that would exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new/expansion of existing water or wastewater treatment facilities, result in the construction or expansion of storm water drainage facilities, or generate substantial amounts of solid waste that would exceed landfill capacity. No new impacts or increase in severity of impacts would occur.

Attachment X
1/15/21 (\\ptr11\projects\HAY2002 PG 5 Addendum\PRODUCTS\PG 5_CEQA Memo_011521.docx) 8 Wildfire
Risks associated with wildfire were evaluated in Section 20 of the Environmental Checklist. The four additional parcels are located within the PG 5 Project area. As described in Section 20 of the Environmental Checklist, the PG 5 Project would be located within the wildland urban interface as identified by the Hayward Fire Department. Like the PG 5 Project, any development proposed on the four additional parcels would be required to comply with the Hillside Design and Wildland/Urban Interface Guidelines,which include standards for streets 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. 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. No new impacts or increase in severity of impacts would occur.

CONCLUSION
Although not specifically identified as part of the PG 5 Project, the incorporation of the four additional parcels into the Planned Development District is within the scope of the PG 5 Project as evaluated in the Addendum. On the basis of the evaluation presented above, the incorporation of the four additional parcels into the Planned Development District, if implemented, would not trigger any of the conditions listed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

Thus, this memorandum satisfies the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15164.

Incorporation of the four additional parcels into the Planned Development District would not introduce new significant environmental effects, substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant environmental effects, or demonstrate that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible. The proposed changes that would be implemented as part of the modified project would not alter the findings in the Addendum. In addition, no change has occurred with respect to the circumstances surrounding the project that would cause new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than identified in the Addendum, and no new information has become available that shows that the project would cause significant environmental effects not already analyzed in the Addendum. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Attachments: Figure 1 ‐ Parcels to be Incorporated into the Planned Development District Traffic Memorandum prepared by Kittelson & Associates, dated December 15, 2020 Attachment X
SOURCE: Microsoft Bing Basemap.

I:\HAY2002\GIS\Maps\CEQA - Parcel Group 5\Figure 2_Parcel Group 5 - Bunker Hill Aerial.mxd (12/15/2020) FIGURE 2
Route 238 Property Development Project –
Bunker Hill (Parcel Group 5)
Hayward, California
Parcel Group 5 – Bunker Hill: Aerial
LEGEND
Parcel Group
Proposed Parcels to be Incorporated
Parcel
0 200 400
FEET
5a
Parcels to be Incorporated into the Planned Development District 1 Attachment X

MEMORANDUM
Date: December 15, 2020 Project #25690
To: Theresa Wallace and Shanna Guiler – LSA
City of Hayward
From: Michael Sahimi and Damian Stefanakis – Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Project: Hayward Parcel Group 5 Master Plan Amendment
Subject: Updated PG 5 Project Description and Traffic Impacts In June 2019, Kittelson & Associates (Kittelson) prepared the Route 238 Property Development Project (Parcel Group 5 and Parcel Group 6) Transportation Impact Analysis Report. The report assessed potential near-term transportation impacts resulting from the proposed Parcel Group 5 (PG 5) development, as well as long-term cumulative transportation impacts resulting from the combined development of PG 5 and Parcel Group 6 (PG 6). Since the preparation of the report, the City of Hayward has requested a traffic memo for PG 5 to document changes in the transportation findings resulting from the addition of four parcels as single-family units to the project. Prior to this, Kittelson had analyzed PG 5 assuming 82 single-family dwelling units. This memorandum documents the effects of the four additional parcels on the previous Parcel 5 Addendum analysis and is organized into the following sections:
• Original and Updated Project Description
• June 2019 Traffic Study Findings
• Effects on Traffic Study Findings
• Summary and Conclusion

ORIGINAL AND UPDATED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PG 5 is located on the site known as Bunker Hill, which is situated 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). As of June 2019, the project would consist of up to 74 single-family residential units and eight accessory dwelling units (ADUs), or 82 total units; note, Kittelson conservatively analyzed PG 5 as consisting of 82 single-family residential units in the June 2019 traffic study. Additional project elements include 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, and additional street improvements such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, on-street parking bulb-outs, utilities, and lighting.

Attachment X
Hayward Parcel Group 5 Master Plan Amendment Project #25690 December 15, 2020 Page 2
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California
Since the preparation of the June 2019 report, the project boundary has been updated to include an additional four parcels which would allow for the development of four additional single-family units.

The final project would thus consist of 78 single-family residential units and eight accessory dwelling units, or 86 total units.

Note, legislation categorically exempts ADUs from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis; therefore, this memo analyzes 78 units as the revised project.

JUNE 2019 TRAFFIC STUDY FINDINGS
The PG 5 trip generation estimate used for the June 2019 transportation analysis is shown in Table 1 below; note, Kittelson conservatively analyzed the entirety of the project (including the ADUs) as 82 single-family residential units in the June 2019 traffic study. As shown in the table, PG 5 was estimated to generate 866 daily vehicle trips, 63 AM peak hour vehicle trips and 84 PM peak hour vehicle trips.

Table 1: Parcel Group 5 Trip Generation (June 2019 Traffic Study) Trip Generation Rates
Land Use Rate Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Single-Family Detached
Housing (ITE Code 210) per du Ln(T)=0.92*Ln(X)+2.71 25% 75% T=0.71(X)+4.80 63% 37% Ln(T)=0.96*Ln(X)+0.20 Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use Size Daily
AM Peak Hour 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: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Notes:

DU = dwelling units
Kittelson and Associates, Inc., 2019
No Existing Plus Project level of service (LOS) impacts were found at any of the 12 study intersections in the project vicinity. For the Cumulative 2035 Plus Project LOS analysis, PG 5 was analyzed together with PG 6 as a single project. Significant LOS impacts were found at four study intersections, which are listed with their mitigation measures below. The June 2019 traffic study recommended folding these mitigation measures into the 2014 Hayward General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (GPU EIR) mitigation program.
• Mission Boulevard & Fletcher Lane (AM peak hour): Install an eastbound left turn pocket and restripe the current eastbound shared left/through lane to a dedicated through lane. • Mission Boulevard & Palisade Street (AM and PM peak hours): Signalization of the intersection.

The northbound and westbound directions should be signalized. The southbound direction should remain uncontrolled with the Mission Blvd. median retained. • Mission Boulevard & Carlos Bee Boulevard/Orchard Avenue (PM peak hour): Restripe the outer westbound through lane as a shared through/right turn lane.

Attachment X
Hayward Parcel Group 5 Master Plan Amendment Project #25690 December 15, 2020 Page 3
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California
• Mission Boulevard & Harder Road (PM peak hour): Re-optimization of signal timing splits to provide additional green time for eastbound left turn and westbound left turn movements.

The 2019 traffic study also included the following non-CEQA recommendations:
• Coordinate with the City of Hayward to install driveway conflict paint along bikeways at the impacted intersections along Carlos Bee Blvd. and Harder Rd. • Coordinate with the City of Hayward to install signage (such as bikeway signage and caution signage) at and approaching the project access points.
• Work with the City of Hayward to explore options for implementing traffic calming techniques (such as narrowing lanes or roadways, installing lateral shifts, or installing speed bumps) on local roads that provide access to the project as part of design review and conditions of approval.

EFFECTS ON TRAFFIC STUDY FINDINGS
Since the preparation of the June 2019 traffic study, the project description has been updated and project boundaries expanded to consist of 78 single-family residential units (an increase of four) and eight ADUs (no increase). This section examines the implications of the updated project description in terms of additional or worsened transportation impacts compared to the 2019 traffic study.

The trip generation estimates for the updated project are shown in Table 2 below. Given that ADUs are exempt from CEQA environmental analysis, trip generation has only been estimated for the 78 singlefamily units. As shown in the table, the project is expected to generate 827 daily vehicle trips, 60 AM peak hour vehicle trips, and 80 PM peak hour trips.

Table 2: Parcel Group 5 Trip Generation (Updated Project Description) Trip Generation Rates
Land Use Rate Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Single-Family Detached
Housing (ITE Code 210) per du Ln(T)=0.92*Ln(X)+2.71 25% 75% T=0.71(X)+4.80 63% 37% Ln(T)=0.96*Ln(X)+0.20 Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use Size Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Single-Family Detached
Housing (ITE Code 210) 78 DU 827 15 45 60 50 30 80
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Notes:

DU = dwelling units
Kittelson and Associates, Inc., 2020
As shown in the table, the updated project is expected to generate fewer vehicle trips for environmental impact analysis purposes. Specifically, it is expected to generate 39 fewer daily vehicle trips, three fewer AM peak hour vehicle trips, and four fewer PM peak hour vehicle trips compared to Attachment X
Hayward Parcel Group 5 Master Plan Amendment Project #25690 December 15, 2020 Page 4
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California
what was analyzed in the June 2019 traffic study. As noted earlier in this memo, the June 2019 traffic study conservatively analyzed all 74 single-family units and eight ADUs as 82 single-family units; however, ADUs are exempt from CEQA analysis.

Given that the updated project is expected to generate fewer vehicle trips compared to what was analyzed for the June 2019 traffic study, this change is not expected to generate any new LOS impacts or worsen impacts at the study intersections. In addition, additional traffic calming, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements would not be required beyond what was recommended in the June 2019 study.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The findings detailed in this memorandum are summarized below:
• Per City request, this memorandum analyzed the transportation impact implications of adding four single-family units to the project. Prior to this, Kittelson had analyzed PG 5 assuming 82 single-family dwelling units (including the eight ADUs). • Previously, the 2019 traffic study found cumulative LOS impacts and provided mitigation measures at fourstudy intersections. The study also recommended traffic calming, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements.
• With the change in the number of units, the updated project is expected to generate 39 fewer daily vehicle trips, three fewer AM peak hour vehicle trips, and four fewer PM peak hour vehicle trips compared to what was analyzed in the June 2019 traffic study. • Since ADUs are categorically exempt from CEQA analysis, this memo analyzed 78 units as the revised project.
• Due the lower expected vehicle trips, the updated project is not expected to generate any new LOS impacts or worsen impacts at the study intersections, nor require any additional traffic calming, bicycle, or pedestrian improvements.

Attachment X
February 17, 2022
PARCEL GROUP 5 ENTITLEMENTS

LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS

HAYWARD, CA
Attachment XIII
1 Oakland, California
Inside front cover
Page Intentionally blank
Attachment XI 2
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements
Local Transportation Analysis
Hayward, CA
Prepared for:

LSA Associates, Inc.
2215 Fifth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
Prepared by:

Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
510.839.1742
Project Manager:

Michael Sahimi
Senior Planner
Project Principal:

Damian Stefanakis
Principal Planner
Project Number 26151
City of Hayward Planning Application #202003054
February 17, 2022
Attachment XI 3
Page Intentionally blank
Attachment XI 4

CONTENTS
Executive Summary..........................................................................................................................................2 Summary of Findings and Recommendations...........................................................................................2 Methodologies and Existing Conditions .........................................................................................................5 Intersection Level of Service Standards......................................................................................................5 Signalized Intersections............................................................................................................................7 Unsignalized Intersections........................................................................................................................7 Level of Service Definitions ......................................................................................................................7 Study Intersections....................................................................................................................................8 Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE).....................................................................................10 Existing Network..........................................................................................................................................11 Roadway Network..................................................................................................................................11 Transit Service .........................................................................................................................................14 Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District .............................................................................................14 Bay Area Rapid Transit .......................................................................................................................14 Other Transit Services .........................................................................................................................14 Pedestrian Facilities................................................................................................................................16 Bicycle Facilities......................................................................................................................................19 Existing Traffic Volumes ..........................................................................................................................22 Automobile Traffic Volumes...............................................................................................................22 Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes.......................................................................................................24 Existing Traffic Operations and Performance.......................................................................................25 Traffic Signal Warrants........................................................................................................................25 Automobile Level of Service..............................................................................................................26 Queue Storage...................................................................................................................................27 Existing Residential Street Environment.................................................................................................28 Project Description .........................................................................................................................................30 Project Trip Generation/ Distribution/Assignment........................................................................................33 Trip Generation...........................................................................................................................................33 Trip Distribution and Assignment................................................................................................................33 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions...........................................................................................................38 Existing Plus Project Automobile Level of Service.....................................................................................38 Existing Plus Project Queue Storage..........................................................................................................40 New Carlos Bee Blvd./Bunker Hill Blvd. Intersection.................................................................................42 Residential Street Environment..................................................................................................................43 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Public Transit Assessment .....................................................................................45 Pedestrian Assessment...............................................................................................................................45 Bicycle Assessment.....................................................................................................................................46 Public Transit Assessment ...........................................................................................................................46 Parking Analysis ..............................................................................................................................................48 Circulation and Access .................................................................................................................................51 Sight Distance.............................................................................................................................................51 Traffic Controls............................................................................................................................................52 Truck Access...............................................................................................................................................53 Passenger Vehicle Access.........................................................................................................................53 Pedestrians and Bicyclists ..........................................................................................................................53 Traffic Calming ...............................................................................................................................................59 VMT Reduction Measures..............................................................................................................................65 Project Features..........................................................................................................................................65 Recommended Off-Site Improvements ...................................................................................................66 Summary of Findings and Recommendations.............................................................................................69 Recommended Multimodal Improvements.............................................................................................69 Recommended Traffic Calming Treatments............................................................................................69 Recommended VMT Reduction Measures..............................................................................................70 Attachment XI 5
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis February 17, 2022
Kittelson & Associates

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Study Area and Project Site ........................................................................................................................6 Figure 2: Intersection Study Locations .......................................................................................................................9 Figure 3: Existing Traffic Signals .................................................................................................................................13 Figure 4: Existing Transit Network ..............................................................................................................................15 Figure 5: Existing Crosswalk Ramps...........................................................................................................................18 Figure 6: Existing Bikeway Network...........................................................................................................................20 Figure 7: Recommended Bicycle Network (BPMP) ................................................................................................21 Figure 8: Existing Automobile Peak Hour Volumes..................................................................................................23 Figure 9: Project Site Plan..........................................................................................................................................31 Figure 10: Project Trip Distribution Percentages......................................................................................................35 Figure 11: Project-Only Trips (Updated)...................................................................................................................36 Figure 12: Existing Plus Project Turning Movement Forecasts (Updated) .............................................................41 Figure 13: Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Volumes (Carlos Bee Blvd./Bunker Hill Blvd.) .....................................42 Figure 14: Parking Plan ..............................................................................................................................................49 Figure 15: Bunker Hill Blvd./Carlos Bee Blvd. Departure Sight Triangles ................................................................52 Figure 16: Fire Truck Turning (Southbound)..............................................................................................................54 Figure 17: Fire Truck Turning (Northbound)..............................................................................................................55 Figure 18: Garbage Truck Turning (Southbound) ...................................................................................................56 Figure 19: Garbage Truck Turning (Northbound)....................................................................................................57 Figure 20: Westview Way at Harder Road Traffic Calming Concept Plan...........................................................61 Figure 21: Central Boulevard at Westview Way Traffic Calming Concept Plan .................................................62 Figure 22: Central Boulevard at Belmont Avenue and Del Mar Avenue Potential Traffic Calming Improvements............................................................................................................................................................63

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Recommended VMT Reduction Measures Fair Share Contributions.......................................................3 Table 2: Level of Service Standards ...........................................................................................................................7 Table 3: Study Intersections.........................................................................................................................................8 Table 4: TIRE Index Factors ........................................................................................................................................10 Table 5: Existing AC Transit Weekday Service .........................................................................................................14 Table 6: Pedestrian Facility Conditions....................................................................................................................16 Table 7: Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes (Weekday AM Peak Hour) .................................................................24 Table 8: Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes (Weekday PM Peak Hour)..................................................................25 Table 9: Automobile Level of Service, Existing Conditions.....................................................................................27 Table 10: Queue Lengths in Excess of Capacity, Existing Conditions...................................................................27 Table 11: Existing TIRE Index ......................................................................................................................................28 Table 12: Project Trip Generation Estimate .............................................................................................................33 Table 13: Automobile Level of Service, Existing Plus Project Conditions (June 2019 Report).............................39 Table 14: Automobile Level of Service, Existing Plus Project Conditions (Updated)...........................................39 Table 15: Queue Lengths in Excess of Capacity, Existing Plus Project Conditions (June 2019 report)..............40 Table 16: Automobile Level of Service, Carlos Bee Blvd./Bunker Hill Blvd. Intersection......................................42 Table 17: 95th Percentile Queues, Carlos Bee Blvd./Bunker Hill Blvd. Intersection..............................................42 Table 18: Existing Plus Project TIRE Index ..................................................................................................................43 Table 19: Project Parking Supply ..............................................................................................................................48 Table 20: Anticipated Project Trip Contribution (Westview Way and Central Avenue) ....................................59 Table 21: Recommended VMT Reduction Measures Fair Share Contributions...................................................70 Attachment XI 6
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis February 17, 2022
Kittelson & Associates

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 — Traffic Counts
Appendix 2 — Existing Level of Service, Queuing, and Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheets Appendix 3 — Intersection Queuing Analysis Spreadsheets (June 2019 and Updated) Appendix 4 — Existing Plus Project Level of Service, Queuing, and Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheets (June 2019 Report)
Appendix 5 — Existing Plus Project Level of Service and Queuing Worksheets (Updated) Appendix 6 — VMT Reduction Strategies
Attachment XI 7
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis February 17, 2022
Kittelson & Associates
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment XI 8
Section 1 — Executive Summary
Attachment XI 9
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Executive Summary Kittelson & Associates Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the findings and conclusions of the local transportation analysis (LTA) conducted by Kittelson & Associates for the proposed Parcel Group 5 (PG 5) project (the Project) located in Hayward, California. This report documents the non-California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) local transportation analysis conducted for this project and complements the CEQA transportation impact analysis documented in the Route 238 Property Development Project (Parcel Group 5 and Parcel Group 6) Transportation Impact Analysis Report (June 2019).

Parcel Group 5 is located on the site known as Bunker Hill, which is 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). The Parcel Group 5 Project would consist of:
▪ 74 single-family dwelling units and 8 accessory dwelling units (ADUs); ▪ Approximately 10.50 acres of open space to preserve riparian areas; ▪ A new roadway connection from Bunker Hill Boulevard to Carlos Bee Boulevard; ▪ A new connection to and segment of the Hayward Foothill Trail, a 16-foot wide multi-use trail.

In June 2019, Kittelson conducted a transportation impact analysis of PG 5 in combination with PG 6 as part of the 238 Entitlements analysis. Since then, the City has requested an LTA which would include analysis and recommendations focused on pedestrian and bicyclist access and safety, vehicular access, cut-through traffic effects on adjacent residences, and strategies to reduce project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The City has also requested an update to the project trip assignment to assume that some projectgenerated vehicle trips may travel to/from the project through the adjacent neighborhood via Maitland Drive to Central Boulevard, and to determine if this assumption would result in unacceptable Existing Plus Project delay or queuing at the study intersections.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
The Route 238 Property Development Project (Parcel Group 5 and Parcel Group 6) Transportation Impact Analysis Report previously did not determine any Existing Plus Project traffic impacts resulting from PG 5 vehicle trips under Existing Plus Project conditions.

Additionally, this LTA report did not find any additional deficiencies in study area traffic operations and queuing, project access and circulation for trucks and passenger vehicles, and parking supply.

To address pedestrian, bicyclist, and transit user accessibility and conditions, the project applicant should work with the City to implement the following multimodal improvements:
▪ Install crossing facilities such as a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) or a pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) at the planned unsignalized Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard intersection to give pedestrians access to the sidewalk on the north side of Carlos Bee Boulevard. Should the City install sidewalks on the south side of Carlos Bee Boulevard at a later time, then a high visibility crosswalk should be installed across Bunker Hill Boulevard at Carlos Bee Boulevard. ▪ Implement Class III bike routes with sharrows along Westview Way and Central Boulevard. ▪ Given that Class IV separated bike lanes are planned along Carlos Bee Boulevard and Harder Road and the project is expected to increase vehicle volumes at these locations, improvements should be installed at the Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard and Westview Way/Harder Road intersections. Recommended improvements include green conflict paint along the Harder Road bike lanes crossing Westview Way and along the Carlos Bee Boulevard bike lanes crossing Attachment XI 10
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Executive Summary Kittelson & Associates Page 3
Bunker Hill Boulevard, and bikeway signage and caution signage at and approaching these intersections for all intersection legs.
▪ To improve sight distance for exiting vehicles at the planned Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard intersection, it is recommended that when the intersection is being constructed, visual obstructions such as brush and landscaping should be cleared from the sight triangle area. ▪ Improve the Westview Way/Central Boulevard T-intersection by adding a stop sign at the southbound approach. At the westbound approach, the westbound stop sign and stop bar should be moved approximately 35 feet closer to the intersection and the right turn tightened. ▪ Improve the Westview Way/Harder Road intersection by adding a dedicated right turn lane (to allow deceleration) and tightening the curb.

To manage vehicle speeds and volumes along residential roads, the project applicant should work with the City to implement traffic calming strategies along local residential streets, which can also improve multimodal conditions. Concept design plans are provided for two locations with potential traffic calming improvements also developed for a third location: Westview Way at Harder Road, Central Boulevard at Westview Way, and Central Boulevard at Belmont Avenue and Del Mar Avenue. Note, traffic calming measures and designs are subject to further Engineering review. ▪ Westview Way at Harder Road: Install a centerline, stop sign and speed limit warning signage, and sharrows. At the Westview Way/Harder Road intersection, tighten curbs, install a dedicated westbound right turn lane, and add a green bike conflict zone. ▪ Central Boulevard at Westview Way: Install a centerline and sharrows. Move the westbound stop sign and stop bar approximately 35 feet closer to the intersection and tighten the curb radius.

Install warning signage. Install a stop sign and stop bar to the southbound approach. ▪ Central Boulevard at Belmont Avenue and Del Mar Avenue: Install a centerline and sharrows along Central Boulevard until Mission Boulevard along with traffic circles at both intersections, paired with striping and high-visibility continental crosswalks. Other potential traffic calming improvements that could be applied at this location include speed legends, signage, high visibility continental crosswalks, and speed lumps.
▪ Centerline striping and sharrows should be provided along the entirety of Westview Way as well as Central Boulevard from Westview Way to Mission Boulevard. Signage should be added along Central Boulevard near its intersection with Maitland Drive (north) warning drivers of the speed limit and upcoming stop signs; speed cushions should also be considered given the long distance between stop signs along this segment.

To reduce project-generated vehicle trips and VMT, the project applicant should contribute fair share costs to the following off-site improvements, for which cost estimates and fair share contributions are shown in the table below:
▪ Fill in the sidewalk gap on the north side of Harder Road between Bryn Mawr Avenue and Westview Way.
▪ Construct planned protected bike lanes along Harder Road between Mission Boulevard and Westview Way.
▪ Construct planned protected bike lanes along Carlos Bee Boulevard between Mission Boulevard and Bunker Hill Boulevard.

Table 1: Recommended VMT Reduction Measures Fair Share Contributions Improvement Total Cost Project Contribution
(%)
Project Fair Share
Contribution ($)
Harder Road Sidewalk $152,000 2.1% $3,200
Harder Road Bike Lanes $293,000 2.1% $6,100.

Carlos Bee Boulevard Bike Lanes $561,000 1.6% $9,000
Attachment XI 11
Section 2 — Methodologies and Existing
Conditions
Attachment XI 12
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Methodologies and Existing Conditions Kittelson & Associates Page 5

METHODOLOGIES AND EXISTING

CONDITIONS
Parcel Group 5 is located on the site known as Bunker Hill, which is 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) and Carlos Bee Boulevard. The proposed project consists of 74 singlefamily dwelling units and 8 accessory dwelling units (ADUs), as well as a new roadway connection from Bunker Hill Boulevard to Carlos Bee Boulevard. The study area and project site are shown in Figure 1.

This local transportation analysis is therefore subject to the regulations and standards in place in the City of Hayward. These standards are outlined in the Hayward 2040 General Plan – Mobility Element (2014) and the City of Hayward Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (2020).

The analysis methodology used in this report was approved by City Transportation Staff prior to commencement of the study.

INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
Under Senate Bill (SB) 743, a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact. Therefore, level of service (LOS) and other similar vehicle delay or capacity metrics may no longer serve as transportation impact metrics for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) impact analyses. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has updated the CEQA Guidelines and provided a final technical advisory in December 2018 which recommends vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts under CEQA. For land use and transportation projects, SB 743-compliant CEQA analysis became mandatory on July 1, 2020.

This report documents LOS analysis considered as part of non-CEQA analysis conducted to determine any negative project effects on local roadway operations.

Goal 4 Local Circulation‐M‐4.3 of the City of Hayward’s 2040 General Plan requires intersections to maintain a peak‐hour level of service (LOS) of E or better for signalized intersections. M-4.3 describes this as follows:

The City shall maintain a minimum Level of Service E at 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, such as right-of-way acquisition or degradation of the pedestrian environment due to increased crossing distances or unacceptable crossing delays.

Under SB 743, a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact. Therefore, LOS is included for non-CEQA purposes to determine if local intersections operate acceptably and if the project would result in any operational deficiencies on the local roadway network.

This approach is consistent with the City's guidelines.

Attachment XI 13
E St
Campus Dr
2nd St
Soto Rd
W Harder Rd
Muir St
Thomas Ave
Lund Ave
Silva Ave
Tioga Rd
Alves St
C St
Berry Ave
Hermes Ct
East Ave
Sally CreekCir
Sycamore Ave
Walpert St
Culp Ave
Frederic Ave
Harder Rd
D St
Orchard Ave
Main St
Austin Ave
Osborn Ave
Stanwood Ave
Carlos Bee Blvd
1st St
Athert on St
Highland Blvd
Gading
Rd
Park St
Pinedale Ct
Sutro St
Alice St
Devon Dr
Pontiac St
WatkinsSt
Cypress Ave
Grand St
Colette St
Grand
Ter
Whitman St
Meek Ave
Luvena Dr
Margaret Dr
FujiWay
Silverthorne
Pl
Central Blvd
O'Neil Ave
Marie Dr
Mocine Ave
Jane Ave Belmont Ave
Gushue St
Palisade St
Willis Ave
Sublett Dr
Torrano Ave
Tarragon St
Evelyn Ln
Leona Dr
Wyeth R d
Carmelita
Dr
SpringDr
Edith St
Bryn Mawr Ave
Mardie St
Armstrong St
Southwic kDr
Pleasant Way
Roxanne Ave
Huntwood Ave
del Mar Ave
Groom St
Montgomery Ave
Tiegen Dr
Dover Ln
Dale St
Dollar St
WeirDr
GladeSt
Bunker Hill Blvd
Newton St
Lyell W ay
Modo c C t
Magna Ave
Arvilla Ln
Lander Ave
Lewis Dr
Dean St
Redstone Pl
Spire St
Lucien Way
A rb orcrest C i r
Kingsford Way
W Loop Rd
Traynor St
Westview Way
Joyce St
Ramos Ave
Joanne St
Eastman St
Goodrich St
Donald Ave
Bel Aire Dr
Fletc her L n
Franklin Ave
Mait landDr
Virginia St
Atherton
Pl
∙þ185
∙þ92
∙þ238
¯
Figure
1 Study Area and Project Site
Hayward, California
H:\26\26151 - Parcel 5 Local Transportation Analysis\gis\Figure 01- Study Area and Project Site.mxd - msahimi - 2:38 PM 7/16/2021 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California III FIPS 0403 Feet Project Site
Hayward City Boundary
0 1,000 Feet
Attachment XI 14
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Methodologies and Existing Conditions Kittelson & Associates Page 7

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Signalized intersection improvements should be identified if the project would degrade the AM or PM peak hour conditions from an acceptable LOS E or better under the No Project scenario to an unacceptable LOS F under the Plus Project scenario. The exception to this criterion is when LOS F is determined by the City of Hayward as acceptable due to right-of-way constraints or when there would be unacceptable impacts to other modes of travel, such as bicycle, pedestrian, or transit.

In addition, improvements should be identified at 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 to the intersection’s average control delay.

UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
At unsignalized intersections, the need for improvements is based on LOS and delay, and whether any of the following are met:
▪ Traffic signal warrant,
▪ Pedestrian signal warrant, or
▪ All-way stop warrant
Note that solely triggering a warrant does not trigger the need for an intersection improvement, but the City will at its discretion require or not require a signal be installed, where warranted.

LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
In this report, LOS is based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th edition definitions, included as Table 2 for ease of reference. The HCM methodology assigns a level of service (LOS) grade to an intersection based on the delay for vehicles at the intersection, ranging from LOS A to LOS F; LOS A signifies very slight delay with no approach phase fully utilized, while LOS F signifies very high delays and congestion, frequent cycle failures, and long queues. For signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections, the average control delay for all vehicles is assessed; for two-way stop-controlled intersections, the intersection approach with the highest delay is utilized.

Table 2: Level of Service Standards
Level of Service Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds)
Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection
A < 10.0 < 10.0
B > 10.0 to 20.0 > 10.0 to 15.0
C > 20.0 to 35.0 > 15.0 to 25.0
D > 35.0 to 55.0 > 25.0 to 35.0
E > 55.0 to 80.0 > 35.0 to 50.0
F > 80.0 > 50.0
SOURCE: HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL
Attachment XI 15
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Methodologies and Existing Conditions Kittelson & Associates Page 8

STUDY INTERSECTIONS
The June 2019 analysis examined a total of 12 study intersections (listed in Table 3 and shown in Figure 2). All study intersections are under the City of Hayward’s jurisdiction. For the purposes of this LTA, these 12 intersections are included to determine if changes to the project trip assignment assumptions would result in delay or queuing deficiencies.

Table 3: Study Intersections
Intersection Traffic Control
1 Mission Blvd. & Fletcher Ln. Signal
2 Mission Blvd. & Highland Blvd./Sycamore Ave. Signal
3 Mission Blvd. & Palisade St. TWSC
4 Mission Blvd. & Carlos Bee Blvd./Orchard Ave. Signal
5 Overlook Ave. & Carlos Bee Blvd. TWSC
6 Carlos Bee Blvd. & Hayward Blvd. Signal
7 Mission Blvd. & Central Blvd. TWSC
8 Mission Blvd. & Berry Ave. Signal
9 Mission Blvd. & Torrano Ave. (N) TWSC
10 Mission Blvd. & Torrano Ave. (S) TWSC
11 Mission Blvd. & Harder Rd. Signal
12 Westview Way & Harder Rd. TWSC
NOTE: TWSC SIGNIFIES A TWO-WAY STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTION.

Attachment XI 16
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
E St
Campus Dr
2nd St
Soto Rd
W Harder Rd
Muir St
Thomas Ave
Lund Ave
Silva Ave
Tioga Rd
Alves St
C St
Berry Ave
Hermes Ct
East Ave
Sally CreekCir
Sycamore Ave
Walpert St
Culp Ave
Frederic Ave
Harder Rd
D St
Orchard Ave
Main St
Austin Ave
Osborn Ave
Stanwood Ave
Carlos Bee Blvd
1st St
Athert on St
Highland Blvd
Gading
Rd
Park St
Pinedale Ct
Sutro St
Alice St
Devon Dr
Pontiac St
WatkinsSt
Cypress Ave
Grand St
Colette St
Grand
Ter
Whitman St
Meek Ave
Luvena Dr
Margaret Dr
FujiWay
Silverthorne
Pl
Central Blvd
O'Neil Ave
Marie Dr
Mocine Ave
Jane Ave
Belmont Ave
Gushue St
Palisade St
Willis Ave
Sublett Dr
Torrano Ave
Tarragon St
Evelyn Ln
Leona Dr
Wyeth R d
Carmelita
Dr
SpringDr
Edith St
Bryn Mawr Ave
Mardie St
Armstrong St
Southwic kDr
Pleasant Way
Roxanne Ave
Huntwood Ave
del Mar Ave
Groom St
Montgomery Ave
Tiegen Dr
Dover Ln
Dale St
Dollar St
WeirDr
GladeSt
Bunker Hill Blvd
Newton St
Lyell W ay
Modo c C t
Magna Ave
Arvilla Ln
Lander Ave
Lewis Dr
Dean St
Redstone Pl
Spire St
Lucien Way
A rb orcrest C i r
Kingsford Way
W Loop Rd
Traynor St
Westview Way
Joyce St
Ramos Ave
Joanne St
Eastman St
Goodrich St
Donald Ave
Bel Aire Dr Fletcher Ln
Franklin Ave
Mait landDr
Virginia St
Atherton
Pl
∙þ185
∙þ92
∙þ238
4 5
6 11
3 12
7 1
2 8
9 10
¯
Figure
2 Intersection Study Locations
Hayward, California
H:\26\26151 - Parcel 5 Local Transportation Analysis\gis\Figure 02- Intersection Study Locations.mxd - msahimi - 2:40 PM 7/16/2021 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California III FIPS 0403 Feet Project Site
!! Study Intersections
Hayward City Boundary
0 1,000 Feet
Attachment XI 17
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Methodologies and Existing Conditions Kittelson & Associates Page 10

TRAFFIC INFUSION ON RESIDENTIAL

ENVIRONMENT (TIRE)
The City has requested a TIRE analysis of local residential roads surrounding the project site. Note, this analysis was not conducted as part of the June 2019 report.

The TIRE index, developed by Donald Goodrich, Fellow of the Institute of Traffic Engineers, provides a structured basis for determining environmental capacity. According to TIRE, the environmental capacity is reached when the hourly traffic volume along a residential street increases to a level such that the people living along the street perceive that the character of the road has changed from a residential to nonresidential in character. The TIRE index was applied to the streets serving the project to address the infusion of the project trips on these facilities.

TIRE is a numerical representation of a resident's perception of the effect of street traffic on activities such as walking, cycling, and playing, and on daily tasks such as maneuvering an auto out of a residential driveway. An acronym for "Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment", TIRE is expressed by index values that range from zero, representing the least effect of traffic, to five, representing the severest affect.

TIRE is based on a logarithmic association between traffic volume and residential environment and as such predicts three interesting relationships. According to TIRE, a given change in street traffic volume will cause a greater impact on residential environment on a street with low pre-existing volume than it will on a street with a higher pre-existing volume. Yet, any traffic change of 0.1 or more would be noticeable to street residents. Streets with TIRE levels above the mid-range index of three are traffic-dominated while those with indexes below three are better suited for residential activities. The TIRE index of 3.0 is normally used to determine that point at which a residential street changes character and operates as a traffic facility.

Table 4: TIRE Index Factors
Existing Volume Range (vpd) TIRE Index .1 Change in Index .2 Change in Index 29-35 1.5 +6 +15
36-44 1.6 +8 +20
45-56 1.7 +10 +25
57-70 1.8 +13 +32
71-89 1.9 +17 +41
90-110 2 +22 +52
111-140 2.1 +29 +65
141-180 2.2 +40 +80
181-220 2.3 +52 +100
221-280 2.4 +65 +125
281-350 2.5 +79 +160
351-450 2.6 +94 +205
451-560 2.7 +114 +260
561-710 2.8 +140 +330
711-890 2.9 +170 +415
891-1100 3 +220 +520
1,101-1,400 3.1 +290 +650
1,401-1,800 3.2 +380 +800
1,801-2,200 3.3 +500 +1,000
2,201-2,800 3.4 +650 +1,300
2,801-3,500 3.5 +825 +1,700
3,501-4,500 3.6 +1,025 +2,200
4,501-5,600 3.7 +1,250 +2,800
5,601-7,100 3.8 +1,500 +3,500
7,101-8,900 3.9 +1,800 +4,300
8,901-11,000 4 +2,300 +5,300
Attachment XI 18
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Methodologies and Existing Conditions Kittelson & Associates Page 11
Existing Volume Range (vpd) TIRE Index .1 Change in Index .2 Change in Index 11,001-14,000 4.1 +3,000 +6,500
14,001-18,000 4.2 +4,000 +8,000
18,001-22,000 4.3 +5,200 +10,000
22,001-28,000 4.4 +6,600 +13,000
28,001-35,000 4.5 +8,200 +17,000
35,001-45,000 4.6 +10,000 +22,000
45,001-56,000 4.7 +12,200 +28,000
56,001-71,000 4.8 +14,800 +35,000
71,001-89,000 4.9 +18,000 +43,000
SOURCE: DONALD GOODRICH, 1975.

EXISTING NETWORK
Existing multimodal transportation facilities are discussed in this section.

ROADWAY NETWORK
The roadway system in the study area consists of arterial, collector, and local roadways as well as regional freeways that serve local and regional traffic demand. The vehicular facilities in the study area are discussed below. Signalized intersections in the study area are shown in Figure 3.

Interstate 880 (I-880) is a north-south freeway providing a connection between Oakland and San Jose as well as connectivity to Interstate 80 (I-80), State Route 92 (SR-92), and US-101. West of the study area, there are five 11- to 12-foot lanes in each direction; these consist of four general purpose lanes and one highoccupancy vehicle (HOV) (2+ persons) lane in each direction. Near the study area, access to and from I880 is provided via A Street, Winton Avenue, and Jackson Street. The posted speed limit on I-880 is 65 mph.

Mission Boulevard is classified as a Principal Arterial and a truck route by the City of Hayward and also known as State Route 185 (SR 185) north of Foothill Boulevard and formerly as SR 238 south of Foothill Boulevard; it provides connectivity to destinations such as San Leandro, downtown Hayward, and California State University, East Bay. From A Street to Foothill Boulevard, Mission Boulevard forms the western edge of the Loop and is a one-way southbound street with four to five 11-foot through lanes and street parking. North of the Loop, there are two 12- to 18-foot through lanes in each direction, with street parking.

South of the Loop, there are three 10- to 13- foot travel lanes in each direction with street parking and a median; one travel lane is reduced from each direction south of Carlos Bee Boulevard. The curb-to-curb right of way is approximately 60 feet wide north of Foothill Boulevard and 85 feet wide south of Foothill Boulevard. The posted speed limit varies between 25 and 35 mph.

Hayward Boulevard is classified as a Minor Arterial by the City of Hayward. It runs east-west between Carlos Bee Boulevard and Fairview Avenue and provides access to California State University, East Bay and to the unincorporated Fairview District. Hayward Boulevard consists of two 11- to 14-foot travel lanes in each direction with a curb-to-curb right of way of approximately 55 to 65 feet. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.

Carlos Bee Boulevard is classified as a Minor Arterial by the City of Hayward. It runs from the California State University, East Bay campus to Mission Boulevard, where it continues west as Orchard Avenue. There are two 11- to 14-foot travel lanes in each direction, with a median west of the intersection with Overlook Avenue. The curb-to-curb right of way varies from 55 to 90 feet wide. East of Mission Boulevard there is a significant uphill grade of 14% traveling eastbound. The posted speed limit is 30 mph.

Harder Road is classified as a Collector east of Mission Boulevard and a Minor Arterial west of Mission Boulevard; it is also classified as a truck route west of Mission Boulevard. There are two 11- to 16-foot travel lanes in each direction as well as a median. The curb-to-curb right of way varies from 80 to 90 feet. East of Mission Boulevard there is a significant uphill grade of 8% traveling eastbound. Trucks are prohibited on Harder Road. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.

Attachment XI 19
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Methodologies and Existing Conditions Kittelson & Associates Page 12
Westview Way is classified as a local road. There are two travel lanes (one in each direction) with on-street parking. The curb-to-curb width is approximately 36 feet. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.

Central Boulevard is classified as a local road. There are two travel lanes (one in each direction) with onstreet parking allowed on some portions. The curb-to-curb width generally varies from 28 to 36 feet. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.

Berry Avenue is classified as a local road. There is one travel lane in each direction, with on-street parking.

The curb-to-curb width varies between approximately 35 and 40 feet. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.

Torrano Avenue is classified as a local road. There is one travel lane in each direction, with on-street parking. The curb-to-curb width is approximately 45 feet. Torrano Avenue forms an offset intersection with Mission Boulevard. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.

Bunker Hill Boulevard is classified as a local road. There are two travel lanes (one in each direction) with onstreet parking. The paved width varies from approximately 15 to 20 feet. The speed limit is 25 mph (note, there are no posted speed limit signs). At this time, Bunker Hill Boulevard does not connect to Carlos Bee Boulevard.

Maitland Drive is classified as a local road. There are two travel lanes (one in each direction). The paved width varies from approximately 30 to 35 feet. The speed limit is 25 mph (note, there are no posted speed limit signs).

Attachment XI 20
E St
Campus Dr
2nd St
Soto Rd
W Harder Rd
Muir St
Thomas Ave
Lund Ave
Silva Ave
Tioga Rd
Alves St
C St
Berry Ave
Hermes Ct
East Ave
Sally CreekCir
Sycamore Ave
Walpert St
Culp Ave
Frederic Ave
Harder Rd
D St
Orchard Ave
Main St
Austin Ave
Osborn Ave
Stanwood Ave
Carlos Bee Blvd
1st St
Athert on St
Highland Blvd
Gading
Rd
Park St
Pinedale Ct
Sutro St
Alice St
Devon Dr
Pontiac St
WatkinsSt
Cypress Ave
Grand St
Colette St
Grand
Ter
Whitman St
Meek Ave
Luvena Dr
Margaret Dr
FujiWay
Silverthorne
Pl
Central Blvd
O'Neil Ave
Marie Dr
Mocine Ave
Jane Ave Belmont Ave
Gushue St
Palisade St
Willis Ave
Sublett Dr
Torrano Ave
Tarragon St
Evelyn Ln
Leona Dr
Wyeth R d
Carmelita
Dr
SpringDr
Edith St
Bryn Mawr Ave
Mardie St
Armstrong St
Southwic kDr
Pleasant Way
Roxanne Ave
Huntwood Ave
del Mar Ave
Groom St
Montgomery Ave
Tiegen Dr
Dover Ln
Dale St
Dollar St
WeirDr
GladeSt
Bunker Hill Blvd
Newton St
Lyell W ay
Modo c C t
Magna Ave
Arvilla Ln
Lander Ave
Lewis Dr
Dean St
Redstone Pl
Spire St
Lucien Way
A rb orcrest C i r
Kingsford Way
W Loop Rd
Traynor St
Westview Way
Joyce St
Ramos Ave
Joanne St
Eastman St
Goodrich St
Donald Ave
Bel Aire Dr
Fletc her L n
Franklin Ave
Mait landDr
Virginia St
Atherton
Pl
∙þ185
∙þ92
∙þ238
¯
Figure
3 Existing Traffic Signals
Hayward, California
H:\26\26151 - Parcel 5 Local Transportation Analysis\gis\Figure 03- Existing Traffic Signals.mxd - msahimi - 2:41 PM 7/16/2021 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California III FIPS 0403 Feet Project Site
Traffic Signals
Hayward City Boundary
0 1,000 Feet
Attachment XI 21
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Methodologies and Existing Conditions Kittelson & Associates Page 14

TRANSIT SERVICE
The transit system in the study area consists of local bus and regional rail service. The transit facilities in the study area are discussed below and shown in Figure 4. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, transit services were reduced and are subject to change. The information in this section is updated as of June 30, 2021.

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) provides bus service in the study area. AC Transit bus routes and local bus stops are shown in Figure 4. In addition, weekday bus service near the project site is documented in Table 5. Service changes are in effect due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The following table is up to date as of June 30, 2021.

Table 5: Existing AC Transit Weekday Service
Route Beginning and End Points Peak / Off-Peak Frequency (in Minutes)
North/West South/East
41 Hayward BART Union Landing Transit Center 60 / 60
60 Chabot College CSU East Bay 40 / 40
99 Hayward BART Fremont BART 25 / 25
801 San Leandro BART Fremont BART N/A / 60
SOURCE: AC TRANSIT, AS OF JUNE 30, 2021.

Generally, curbside transit stops in the study area are identified with posted signs and do not include passenger amenities such as a shelter, seating, landscaping, bicycle parking, or pedestrian-scale lighting.

However, there are a limited number of bus stops along Mission Boulevard that provide benches. In addition, there are a number of bus stops with covered shelters around the California State University, East Bay campus.

Bay Area Rapid Transit
The Downtown Hayward Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station serves as the location of AC Transit Intermodal Terminal, a key transfer point for BART-to-bus and bus-to-bus connections. The Intermodal Terminal currently has 20 bus bays serving 15 AC Transit routes. BART operates regional heavy rail service connecting San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. The Hayward BART station is located to the west of the study area and is part of the Berryessa-Richmond and Berryessa-Daly City lines.

An additional station is located at the South Hayward BART station at Tennyson Drive that may serve travel towards Fremont and San Jose. Each line currently operates at 30-minute headways during peak periods, resulting in an average peak period frequency of 15 minutes at the Hayward and South Hayward stations.

Service was reduced due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Other Transit Services
The Hayward Amtrak station is located on A Street approximately 1.2 miles west of Foothill Boulevard. The Hayward Amtrak station is part of the Capitol Corridor operating between San Jose and Sacramento.

Additionally, the Hayward Greyhound bus station is located at the Hayward BART station.

Attachment XI 22
E St
Campus Dr
2nd St
Soto Rd
W Harder Rd
Muir St
Thomas Ave
Lund Ave
Silva Ave
Tioga Rd
Alves St
C St
Berry Ave
Hermes Ct
East Ave
Sally CreekCir
Sycamore Ave
Walpert St
Culp Ave
Frederic Ave
Harder Rd
D St
Orchard Ave
Main St
Austin Ave
Osborn Ave
Stanwood Ave
Carlos Bee Blvd
1st St
Athert on St
Highland Blvd
Gading
Rd
Park St
Pinedale Ct
Sutro St
Alice St
Devon Dr
Pontiac St
WatkinsSt
Cypress Ave
Grand St
Colette St
Grand
Ter
Whitman St
Meek Ave
Luvena Dr
Margaret Dr
FujiWay
Silverthorne
Pl
Central Blvd
O'Neil Ave
Marie Dr
Mocine Ave
Jane Ave Belmont Ave
Gushue St
Palisade St
Willis Ave
Sublett Dr
Torrano Ave
Tarragon St
Evelyn Ln
Leona Dr
Wyeth R d
Carmelita
Dr
SpringDr
Edith St
Bryn Mawr Ave
Mardie St
Armstrong St
Southwic kDr
Pleasant Way
Roxanne Ave
Huntwood Ave
del Mar Ave
Groom St
Montgomery Ave
Tiegen Dr
Dover Ln
Dale St
Dollar St
WeirDr
GladeSt
Bunker Hill Blvd
Newton St
Lyell W ay
Modo c C t
Magna Ave
Arvilla Ln
Lander Ave
Lewis Dr
Dean St
Redstone Pl
Spire St
Lucien Way
A rb orcrest C i r
Kingsford Way
W Loop Rd
Traynor St
Westview Way
Joyce St
Ramos Ave
Joanne St
Eastman St
Goodrich St
Donald Ave
Bel Aire Dr
Fletc her L n
Franklin Ave
Mait landDr
Virginia St
Atherton
Pl
∙þ185
∙þ92
∙þ238
¯
Figure
4 Existing Transit Network
Hayward, California
H:\26\26151 - Parcel 5 Local Transportation Analysis\gis\Figure 04- Existing Transit Network.mxd - msahimi - 2:42 PM 7/16/2021 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California III FIPS 0403 Feet Project Site
AC Transit Stops
³BART Stations
AC Transit Routes
BART
Hayward City
Boundary
0 1,000 Feet
Attachment XI 23
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Methodologies and Existing Conditions Kittelson & Associates Page 16

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
The study area offers several types of facilities and amenities that support walking. The availability and quality of pedestrian facilities can be analyzed using seven key factors as shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Pedestrian Facility Conditions
Factor Description Assessment
Sidewalk availability is core to
supporting walkability and
safety separating pedestrians
from vehicles and other modes.

In addition, it is important that
sidewalks are present on both
sides of the roadway and are
available along the entire
segment rather than end
midblock.

Sidewalks are generally provided on both sides of arterial and local streets. However, a number of sidewalk
coverage gaps exist, including on the south side of
Carlos Bee Blvd. between Mission Blvd. and Hayward
Blvd., on the north side of Hayward Blvd. between Carlos Bee Blvd. and Campus Dr., and along Harder Road east
of Bryn Mawr Rd. Sidewalks are also missing along Central Blvd. southeast of Del Mar Ave. and along Westview
Way, Maitland Dr., and Bunker Hill Blvd.

Cracked, broken, or otherwise
damaged sidewalks can pose a
safety hazard and discourage
walking.

Sidewalks along arterial roads are in good condition, free of cracks or uplifts. However, some local neighborhood
roads may have sidewalks with cracks or other damage.

Marked crosswalks can safely
accommodate pedestrians that
need to cross streets. A lack of
marked crosswalks could hinder
walkability since pedestrians
need to travel greater distances
to reach a safe marked crossing
point. Drivers may also be less
likely to yield to intersections at
unmarked crossings.

Crosswalks, including continental crosswalks, are
consistently provided at major intersections along Mission Blvd. Crosswalks are also generally provided at other
arterial intersections. At minor street intersections along arterial roadways, marked crosswalks are lacking, with
the exception of continental crosswalks along Mission
Blvd.

As shown in Figure 5, within the study area, curb ramps are typically provided at arterial intersections. However, several residential street intersections lack curb ramps, especially those near the project site.

Shading, whether natural or
artificial, can encourage
walking in areas such as
Southern California which are
relatively warm with limited
rainfall, especially in the
summer.

Pedestrian shading is provided in the study area in the form of abundant tree landscaping along arterials and
local residential streets.

Steep hills and ravines can
discourage walking, especially
for pedestrians with limited
mobility.

There is a substantial eastward slope along roads such as Harder Road, Carlos Bee Boulevard, and other roads
east of Mission Blvd.

Buffers which provide separation
between pedestrians and
moving vehicles can help
improve the walking
experience, and can include
Along arterials and local roads, buffers primarily consist of parked vehicles. Within residential neighborhoods in the study area, buffers in the form of street landscaping are also present.

Attachment XI 24
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Methodologies and Existing Conditions Kittelson & Associates Page 17
Factor Description Assessment
landscaping, parked vehicles,
and bulbouts, which serve to
both reduce pedestrian crossing
distances at intersections and as
a traffic calming measure.

In addition to physical facilities
that accommodate walking,
useful or interesting amenities
along sidewalks create a more
friendly walking environment
and increase pedestrian
comfort. Amenities can include
sidewalk-adjacent retail and
restaurants, landscaping, and
street furniture.

Pedestrian amenities primarily consist of street
landscaping. Some pedestrian-facing retail is present
along portions of Mission Blvd.

SOURCE: KITTELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC., 2021.

Attachment XI 25
E St
Campus Dr
2nd St
Soto Rd
W Harder Rd
Muir St
Thomas Ave
Lund Ave
Silva Ave
Tioga Rd
Alves St
C St
Berry Ave
Hermes Ct
East Ave
Sally CreekCir
Sycamore Ave
Walpert St
Culp Ave
Frederic Ave
Harder Rd
D St
Orchard Ave
Main St
Austin Ave
Osborn Ave
Stanwood Ave
Carlos Bee Blvd
1st St
Athert on St
Highland Blvd
Gading
Rd
Park St
Pinedale Ct
Sutro St
Alice St
Devon Dr
Pontiac St
WatkinsSt
Cypress Ave
Grand St
Colette St
Grand
Ter
Whitman St
Meek Ave
Luvena Dr
Margaret Dr
FujiWay
Silverthorne
Pl
Central Blvd
O'Neil Ave
Marie Dr
Mocine Ave
Jane Ave Belmont Ave
Gushue St
Palisade St
Willis Ave
Sublett Dr
Torrano Ave
Tarragon St
Evelyn Ln
Leona Dr
Wyeth R d
Carmelita
Dr
SpringDr
Edith St
Bryn Mawr Ave
Mardie St
Armstrong St
Southwic kDr
Pleasant Way
Roxanne Ave
Huntwood Ave
del Mar Ave
Groom St
Montgomery Ave
Tiegen Dr
Dover Ln
Dale St
Dollar St
WeirDr
GladeSt
Bunker Hill Blvd
Newton St
Lyell W ay
Modo c C t
Magna Ave
Arvilla Ln
Lander Ave
Lewis Dr
Dean St
Redstone Pl
Spire St
Lucien Way
A rb orcrest C i r
Kingsford Way
W Loop Rd
Traynor St
Westview Way
Joyce St
Ramos Ave
Joanne St
Eastman St
Goodrich St
Donald Ave
Bel Aire Dr
Fletc her L n
Franklin Ave
Mait landDr
Virginia St
Atherton
Pl
∙þ185
∙þ92
∙þ238
¯
Figure
5 Existing Crosswalk Ramps
Hayward, California
H:\26\26151 - Parcel 5 Local Transportation Analysis\gis\Figure 05- Existing Crosswalk Ramps.mxd - msahimi - 2:43 PM 7/16/2021 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California III FIPS 0403 Feet Project Site
ADA Compliant Ramp
Non-ADA Compliant
Ramp
No Ramp
Hayward City
Boundary
0 1,000 Feet
Attachment XI 26
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Methodologies and Existing Conditions Kittelson & Associates Page 19

BICYCLE FACILITIES
The study area contains a bicycle facilities network that consists of both dedicated and shared street space for bicyclists. Figure 6 displays the existing designated bicycle facilities in the study area.

Bicycle facilities are categorized into four types, as described below:
▪ Class I Bikeway (Bike Path). Also known as a shared path or multi-use path, a bike path is a paved right-of-way for bicycle travel that is completely separate from any street or highway. ▪ Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane). A striped and stenciled lane for one-way bicycle travel on a street or highway. This facility could include a buffered space between the bike lane and vehicle lane and the bike lane could be adjacent to on-street parking.
▪ Class III Bikeway (Bike Route). A signed route along a street where the bicyclist shares the right-ofway with motor vehicles. This facility can also be designated using a shared-lane marking (sharrow).
▪ Class IV Bikeway (Separated Bike Lane). A bikeway for the exclusive use of bicycles including a separation required between the separated bikeway and the through vehicular traffic. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking.

As shown in Figure 6, the existing bicycle facilities near the project site include:
▪ Class II bike lanes on Harder Road, west of West Loop Road (eastbound-only bike lane between Westview Way and West Loop Road).
▪ Class II bike lanes on Whitman Street, south of Harder Road ▪ Class II bike lanes on Campus Drive, between 2nd Street and Highland Boulevard. ▪ Class III bike routes on Whitman Street (north of Harder Road) and on Carlos Bee Boulevard The City of Hayward Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) includes the following bicycle improvements in the study area, as shown in Figure 7:
▪ Class IV separated bike lanes along Mission Boulevard, Harder Road (west of W. Loop Road), Carlos Bee Boulevard (between Mission Boulevard and Hayward Boulevard), Hayward Boulevard, and Whitman Street
▪ Class II bike lanes along Orchard Avenue (west of Mission Boulevard), Harder Road (east of W.

Loop Road), W. Loop Road, and E. Loop Road.
▪ Class I bike path
▪ Railroad-adjacent Class I bike path parallel to Whitman Road ▪ Hayward Foothill Trail, which will be a Class I multi-use path east of Bunker Hill Boulevard Attachment XI 27
E St
Campus Dr
2nd St
Soto Rd
W Harder Rd
Muir St
Thomas Ave
Lund Ave
Silva Ave
Tioga Rd
Alves St
C St
Berry Ave
Hermes Ct
East Ave
Sally CreekCir
Sycamore Ave
Walpert St
Culp Ave
Frederic Ave
Harder Rd
D St
Orchard Ave
Main St
Austin Ave
Osborn Ave
Stanwood Ave
Carlos Bee Blvd
1st St
Athert on St
Highland Blvd
Gading
Rd
Park St
Pinedale Ct
Sutro St
Alice St
Devon Dr
Pontiac St
WatkinsSt
Cypress Ave
Grand St
Colette St
Grand
Ter
Whitman St
Meek Ave
Luvena Dr
Margaret Dr
FujiWay
Silverthorne
Pl
Central Blvd
O'Neil Ave
Marie Dr
Mocine Ave
Jane Ave Belmont Ave
Gushue St
Palisade St
Willis Ave
Sublett Dr
Torrano Ave
Tarragon St
Evelyn Ln
Leona Dr
Wyeth R d
Carmelita
Dr
SpringDr
Edith St
Bryn Mawr Ave
Mardie St
Armstrong St
Southwic kDr
Pleasant Way
Roxanne Ave
Huntwood Ave
del Mar Ave
Groom St
Montgomery Ave
Tiegen Dr
Dover Ln
Dale St
Dollar St
WeirDr
GladeSt
Bunker Hill Blvd
Newton St
Lyell W ay
Modo c C t
Magna Ave
Arvilla Ln
Lander Ave
Lewis Dr
Dean St
Redstone Pl
Spire St
Lucien Way
A rb orcrest C i r
Kingsford Way
W Loop Rd
Traynor St
Westview Way
Joyce St
Ramos Ave
Joanne St
Eastman St
Goodrich St
Donald Ave
Bel Aire Dr
Fletc her L n
Franklin Ave
Mait landDr
Virginia St
Atherton
Pl
∙þ185
∙þ92
∙þ238
¯
Figure
6 Existing Bikeway Network
Hayward, California
H:\26\26151 - Parcel 5 Local Transportation Analysis\gis\Figure 06- Existing Bikeway Network.mxd - msahimi - 2:45 PM 7/16/2021 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California III FIPS 0403 Feet Project Site
Bike Lane (Class II)
Bike Route (Class III)
Hayward City
Boundary
0 1,000 Feet
Attachment XI 28
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Methodologies and Existing Conditions Kittelson & Associates Page 21
Figure 7: Recommended Bicycle Network (BPMP)
Project Location
Attachment XI 29
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Methodologies and Existing Conditions Kittelson & Associates Page 22

EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Automobile Traffic Volumes
As part of the June 2019 analysis, automobile turning movement counts at the 12 study intersections were collected in the field in May 2018 and April 2019 during the weekday morning (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak periods. The weather conditions that day were clear, and no rain or accidents were observed. Due to Covid conditions, the traffic counts are still considered current, so no further adjustments were made.

Figure 8 shows the existing automobile peak hour volumes at the study intersections. Intersection control (i.e., signalized or stop-controlled) and lane geometries are also shown. Field-collected count sheets are provided in the appendix to this report.

Attachment XI 30
C:\Users\msahimi\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_15816\26151_VolumeFigures_PG5LTA.dwg Aug 18, 2021 - 10:25am - msahimi Layout Tab: existing Existing Automobile Peak Hour Volumes Hayward, California 8
Figure
10 Mission Blvd. & Torrano Ave. (S)11 Mission Blvd. & Harder Rd. 12 Westview Way & Harder Rd. 7 Mission Blvd. & Central Blvd. 8 Mission Blvd. & Berry Ave. 9 Mission Blvd. & Torrano Ave. (N) 4 Mission Blvd. & Carlos Bee Blvd. 5 Overlook Ave. & Carlos Bee Blvd. 6 Carlos Bee Blvd. & Hayward Blvd. 1 Mission Blvd. & Fletcher Ln. 2 Mission Blvd. & Highland Blvd. 3 Mission Blvd. & Palisade St. - Stop Sign
- Traffic Signal
AM(PM) - Traffic Volume
STOP - All-Way Stop 26(15) 1(1)
477(475)
1(26)
166(586)
1(7) 227(310) 951(1572) 128(198) 1563(1142) 31(55)
333(320)
226(188)
257(273)
111(191)
92(239)
30(53) 10(18) 1296(1912) 15(36) 1(3) 1739(1363) 34(73)
0(0)
0(1)
0(8)
0(0)
8(6)
29(20) 1335(1960) 120(52) 1753(1403)
6(11) 32(49) 1289(1944) 3(5) 52(39) 1836(1404) 38(60)3(2) 52(30)
34(20)
1(1)
21(15)
5(6) 1354(1958) 6(21) 0(0) 1950(1581)
0(2)
40(38) 42(337) 1(11) 59(388) 2(9) 13(9) 1(0)
383(196)
468(585)
0(7)
370(182)
858(336)
2(1) 5(3) 18(6)
851(896)
6(3)
982(711)
28(18) 52(74) 1158(1643) 170(318) 181(154) 1545(1324) 384(390) 50(65)
277(259)
190(119)
348(170)
445(229)
273(342) 1586(2090) 47(44) 0(0) 2149(1870)
0(0)
21(18) 39(53) 1551(2009) 12(36) 25(39) 2020(1685) 165(191) 18(16)
60(52)
49(35)
88(68) 246(297) 1475(1819) 60(63) 32(70) 1859(1610) 39(73) 111(175)
84(86)
90(74)
151(94)
127(68)
15(13) 137(171)
Attachment XI 31
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Methodologies and Existing Conditions Kittelson & Associates Page 24
Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes
Pedestrian and bicycle volumes were also collected at the study intersections as part of the data collection effort for the June 2019 analysis. Table 7 and Table 8 present the pedestrian and bicycle volume data for the weekday AM and weekday PM peak hours, respectively. Generally, the study area experienced higher levels of bicycle and pedestrian activity during the PM peak hour.

Table 7: Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes (Weekday AM Peak Hour) Intersection Pedestrian
Crossings (by
intersection leg)
Northbound
Bicycles
Southbound
Bicycles
Eastbound
Bicycles
Westbound
Bicycles

N S E W L T R L T R L T R L T R
1 Mission Blvd. &
Fletcher Ln.
5 4 8 11 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
2 Mission Blvd. &
Highland
Blvd./Sycamore
Ave.
0 18 12 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
3 Mission Blvd. &
Palisade St.
1 0 6 9 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 Mission Blvd. &
Carlos Bee
Blvd./Orchard Ave.
9 1 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
5 Overlook Ave. &
Carlos Bee Blvd.
12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
6 Carlos Bee Blvd. &
Hayward Blvd.
3 0 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 Mission Blvd. &
Central Blvd.
0 0 0 7 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 Mission Blvd. & Berry
Ave.
2 9 6 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 Mission Blvd. &
Torrano Ave. (N)
0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 Mission Blvd. &
Torrano Ave. (S)
0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 Mission Blvd. &
Harder Rd.
0 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
12 Westview Way &
Harder Rd.
0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SOURCE: QUALITY COUNTS MANUAL TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS (MAY 2018 AND APRIL 2019).

Attachment XI 32
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Methodologies and Existing Conditions Kittelson & Associates Page 25
Table 8: Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes (Weekday PM Peak Hour) Intersection Pedestrian
Crossings (by
intersection leg)
Northbound
Bicycles
Southbound
Bicycles
Eastbound
Bicycles
Westbound
Bicycles

N S E W L T R L T R L T R L T R
1 Mission Blvd. &
Fletcher Ln.
4 5 10 6 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
2 Mission Blvd. &
Highland
Blvd./Sycamore
Ave.
1 12 15 8 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
3 Mission Blvd. &
Palisade St.
0 0 7 6 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 Mission Blvd. &
Carlos Bee
Blvd./Orchard Ave.
5 0 10 6 0 3 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
5 Overlook Ave. &
Carlos Bee Blvd.
6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 Carlos Bee Blvd. &
Hayward Blvd.
5 5 5 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
7 Mission Blvd. &
Central Blvd.
0 0 5 4 0 3 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 Mission Blvd. & Berry
Ave.
2 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
9 Mission Blvd. &
Torrano Ave. (N)
0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 Mission Blvd. &
Torrano Ave. (S)
4 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 Mission Blvd. &
Harder Rd.
3 2 0 42 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
12 Westview Way &
Harder Rd.
1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SOURCE: QUALITY COUNTS MANUAL TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS (MAY 2018 AND APRIL 2019).

EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS AND PERFORMANCE
Traffic Signal Warrants
Traffic signal warrants are standards that provide guidelines in the determination of the need for a traffic signal. A traffic signal should not be installed if no warrants are met, since the installation of traffic signals may increase delays for the majority of through traffic and may increase the potential for accidents.

As stated in the FHWA/Caltrans 2014 California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD), “An engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the location shall be performed to determine whether installation of a traffic control signal is justified at a particular location. The investigation of the need for a traffic control signal shall include an analysis of the applicable factors contained in the following traffic signal warrants and other factors related to existing operation and safety at the study location:
▪ Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume.
▪ Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume.
▪ Warrant 3, Peak Hour.
▪ Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume.
▪ Warrant 5, School Crossing.
▪ Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System.

Attachment XI 33
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Methodologies and Existing Conditions Kittelson & Associates Page 26
▪ Warrant 7, Crash Experience.
▪ Warrant 8, Roadway Network.

The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.

This local transportation assessment did not evaluate the full panoply of warrants for traffic signals, but instead focused on the peak hour warrant. The peak hour warrant is being used in this study as an “indicator” of the likelihood of an existing or future unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal.

Intersections that fail to exceed the peak hour warrant are considered (for the purposes of this impact analysis) to be unlikely to meet one or more of the other signal warrants (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). However, this does not mean that a signal is definitely unwarranted. A signal may be warranted by other criteria, some of which cannot be known until the intersection is constructed and operational. This peak hour analysis is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction.

As discussed earlier in this report, the need for improvements at unsignalized intersections is based on LOS and delay, and whether any of the following are met:
▪ Traffic signal warrant,
▪ Pedestrian signal warrant, or
▪ All-way stop warrant
Note that solely triggering a warrant does not trigger the need for an intersection improvement, but the City will at its discretion require or not require a signal be installed, where warranted.

Regardless of intersection control, per City guidelines, improvements would be required at 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 intersection’s average control delay. Unsignalized intersections were evaluated using the Peak Hour Volume Warrant (Warrant No. 3) in the CA-MUTCD. Even if the Peak Hour Volume Warrant is met, a more detailed signal warrant study is recommended before a signal is installed. The more detailed study should consider volumes during the daily peak hours of roadway traffic, pedestrian traffic, and collision histories.

None of the six unsignalized study intersections meet peak hour traffic signal warrants under existing conditions for either the AM or PM peak hour. Existing traffic signal warrant worksheets are provided in the appendix to this report.

Automobile Level of Service
As part of the June 2019 report, LOS at the study intersections were evaluated based on the HCM 6th Edition methodology,1 as implemented in the Synchro 10 software package. LOS analysis was performed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours using traffic counts and peak hour factors collected in the field. Table 9 provides a summary of the existing automobile level of service from the June 2019 report. As shown in the table, all intersections except for the intersection of Mission Blvd. & Torrano Ave. (S) operate acceptably (LOS E or better) during the AM and PM peak hours. The Existing Conditions LOS worksheets for the study intersections are provided in the appendix to this report. 1 Note, HCM 2000 was used for the intersection of Mission Blvd. & Berry Ave. due to its unique signal phasing.

Attachment XI 34
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Methodologies and Existing Conditions Kittelson & Associates Page 27
Table 9: Automobile Level of Service, Existing Conditions Intersection Traffic
Control
Weekday AM Weekday PM
Delay
(sec)
LOS Delay
(sec)
LOS
1 Mission Blvd. & Fletcher Ln. Signal 27.8 C 24.4 C
2 Mission Blvd. & Highland
Blvd./Sycamore Ave.

Signal 11.0 B 12.4 B
3 Mission Blvd. & Palisade St. TWSC 19.9 C 28.3 D
4 Mission Blvd. & Carlos Bee
Blvd./Orchard Ave.

Signal 41.3 D 37.6 D
5 Overlook Ave. & Carlos Bee Blvd. TWSC 48.7 E 25.7 D
6 Carlos Bee Blvd. & Hayward Blvd. Signal 29.5 C 29.4 C 7 Mission Blvd. & Central Blvd. TWSC 16.0 C 23.4 C
8 Mission Blvd. & Berry Ave. Signal 14.4 B 13.1 B
9 Mission Blvd. & Torrano Ave. (N) TWSC 20.8 C 15.8 C
10 Mission Blvd. & Torrano Ave. (S) TWSC 143.0 F 611.0 F 11 Mission Blvd. & Harder Rd. Signal 45.3 D 46.7 D
12 Westview Way & Harder Rd. TWSC 9.2 A 11.6 B
SOURCE: KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2021
BOLD SIGNIFIES UNACCEPTABLE OPERATIONS. TWSC DELAY IS BASED ON THE WORST APPROACH DELAY Queue Storage
As part of the June 2019 report, the 95th percentile queues at the study intersections were reviewed for informational purposes to identify locations where these may exceed the available storage. The 95th percentile queue lengths represent queues that have only a 5% probability of occurring within the analyzed peak hour. This measure is typically used in traffic engineering as a conservative measure of queuing. The average driver would experience shorter queue lengths than the reported 95th percentile queues.

For through movements and turning movements without a dedicated lane, the available storage is assumed to be the distance from the stop bar to the departure point of the nearest upstream stopcontrolled or signalized intersection. For turning movements with an exclusive turn lane, the length of the turn bay is assumed to be the available storage. Table 10 details the movements which were found to queue beyond their available storage capacity at the 95th percentile demand level under Existing Conditions.

Table 10: Queue Lengths in Excess of Capacity, Existing Conditions # Intersection Movement Peak
Hour
Description
1 Mission Blvd. &
Fletcher Ln.

NBL PM
This movement spills back beyond the length of its
exclusive turn lane during the PM peak hour. However, the queue does not spill back to adjacent intersections.

WBL AM This movement spills back beyond the length of its lane during the AM peak hour.
2 Mission Blvd. &
Highland
Blvd./Sycamore
Ave.

WBT/R PM This movement spills back to the adjacent intersection during the PM peak hour.

SBL AM &
PM
This movement spills back beyond the length of its
exclusive turn lane during the AM and PM peak hours.

However, the queues do not spill back to adjacent
intersections.
4 Mission Blvd. &
Carlos Bee
Blvd./Orchard Ave.

WBL AM
This movement spills back beyond the length of its lane during the AM peak hour. However, the queue does not
spill back to adjacent intersections.

Attachment XI 35
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Methodologies and Existing Conditions Kittelson & Associates Page 28
# Intersection Movement Peak
Hour
Description
6 Carlos Bee Blvd. &
Hayward Blvd. WBL AM
This movement spills back beyond the length of its lane during the AM peak hour. However, the queue does not
spill back to adjacent intersections.
11 Mission Blvd. &
Harder Rd. EBL AM & PM
This movement spills back beyond the length of its
exclusive turn lane during the AM and PM peak hours.

However, the queues do not spill back to adjacent
intersections. Extending the length of turn lanes to
accommodate the 95th percentile queues at this location is not feasible due to the proximity with the westbound leftturn lane pocket at the intersection of Dollar St. & Harder Rd.

SOURCE: KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2021.

EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STREET ENVIRONMENT
Existing TIRE index factors for three residential streets as requested by the City are shown in the table below.

Note, this analysis was not previously conducted as part of the June 2019 report.

Daily vehicle volumes were estimated by multiplying existing PM peak hour volumes along the segments by

10. Given that counts are not available along Bunker Hill Boulevard, it was conservatively assumed that the street has the lowest index factor, given that there are few dwelling units currently in the roadway segment’s vicinity.

Table 11: Existing TIRE Index
Roadway Daily Volume
(approximate)
Index Category
Central Boulevard 590 2.8 Residential
Westview Way 490 2.7 Residential
Bunker Hill Boulevard N/A 1.5 Residential
SOURCE: KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2021.

Attachment XI 36
Section 3 — Project Description
Attachment XI 37
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Project Description Kittelson & Associates Page 30

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Parcel Group 5 Project will consist of up to 74 single-family dwelling units and 8 accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The single-family homes will each have four bedrooms, and the ADUs will be a mix of studios and one-bedroom units. A total of 406 parking spaces will be provided, consisting of 100 on-street spaces, 148 driveway spaces, and 158 garage spaces.

Additional project elements include approximately 10.50 acres of open space to preserve riparian areas, a new roadway connection from Bunker Hill Boulevard to Carlos Bee Boulevard, a new segment of the Hayward Foothill Trail, and additional street improvements such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, on-street parking bulb-outs, utilities, and lighting. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 9.

Attachment XI 38
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Project Description Kittelson & Associates Page 31
Figure 9: Project Site Plan
Source: MacKay & Somps
Dated May 12, 2021; Received May 18, 2021
Attachment XI 39
Section 4 — Project Trip Generation/
Distribution/Assignment
Attachment XI 40
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Project Trip Generation/ Distribution/Assignment Kittelson & Associates Page 33

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION/

DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT
This section provides the vehicle trip generation and distribution estimates for the proposed project from the June 2019 report as well as modifications for this LTA.

TRIP GENERATION
In the June 2019 report, project trip generation was estimated for the following three time periods, as shown in Table 12:
▪ Weekday daily
▪ Weekday AM peak hour
▪ Weekday PM peak hour
Trip generation for the project was conservatively estimated using rates for the Single-Family Detached Housing (Code 210) in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, for all 82 dwelling units including the ADUs. This LTA will remain consistent with the 2019 report’s trip generation assumptions. As shown in the table, the project is expected to generate 866 weekday daily vehicle trips, 63 weekday AM peak hour vehicle trips, and 84 weekday PM peak hour vehicle trips.

Table 12: Project Trip Generation Estimate
Trip Generation Rates
Land Use Rate Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Single-Family
Detached Housing
(ITE Code 210)
Per unit Ln(T)=0.92*
Ln(X)+2.71
25% 75% T=0.71(X)
+4.80
63% 37% Ln(T)=0.96*
Ln(X)+0.20
Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use Size Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Single-Family
Detached Housing
(ITE Code 210)
82 units 866 16 47 63 53 31 84
SOURCE: KITTELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC., 2021; INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, 2017.

TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
Project trip distribution was developed for the June 2019 report using the City of Hayward General Plan Update travel demand model. The project trip distribution is based on the model’s distribution of trips in and out of the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) representing the project site, as well as adjustments to reflect local travel patterns and circulation conditions. The project trip distribution and intersection count locations are shown in Figure 10.

Figure 11 presents the weekday AM and PM project-only turning movements that were derived from the trip generation and trip distribution discussed in this section. In the June 2019 report, it was assumed that 100% of all project trips to/from the south would utilize Westview Way and Harder Road to access the site, while 100% of project trips to/from the north would utilize Bunker Hill Boulevard and Carlos Bee Boulevard.

For this LTA, the City has also requested an update to the project trip assignment to assume that some project-generated vehicle trips may travel to/from the project through the adjacent neighborhood via Attachment XI 41
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Project Trip Generation/ Distribution/Assignment Kittelson & Associates Page 34
Maitland Drive to Central Boulevard. Therefore, the trip assignment has been updated for this LTA so that 50% of trips to/from the north would utilize streets such as Central Boulevard, Berry Avenue, and Mission Boulevard. The trip assignments for project trips to/from the south has remained unchanged, since neighborhood streets would not provide a direct or logical path of travel.

Attachment XI 42
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
E St
Campus Dr
2nd St
Soto Rd
W Harder Rd
Muir St
Thomas Ave
Lund Ave
Silva Ave
Tioga Rd
Alves St
C St
Berry Ave
Hermes Ct
East Ave
Sally CreekCir
Sycamore Ave
Walpert St
Culp Ave
Frederic Ave
Harder Rd
D St
Orchard Ave
Main St
Austin Ave
Osborn Ave
Stanwood Ave
Carlos Bee Blvd
1st St
Athert on St
Highland Blvd
Gading
Rd
Park St
Pinedale Ct
Sutro St
Alice St
Devon Dr
Pontiac St
WatkinsSt
Cypress Ave
Grand St
Colette St
Grand
Ter
Whitman St
Meek Ave
Luvena Dr
Margaret Dr
FujiWay
Silverthorne
Pl
Central Blvd
O'Neil Ave
Marie Dr
Mocine Ave
Jane Ave
Belmont Ave
Gushue St
Palisade St
Willis Ave
Sublett Dr
Torrano Ave
Tarragon St
Evelyn Ln
Leona Dr
Wyeth R d
Carmelita
Dr
SpringDr
Edith St
Bryn Mawr Ave
Mardie St
Armstrong St
Southwic kDr
Pleasant Way
Roxanne Ave
Huntwood Ave
del Mar Ave
Groom St
Montgomery Ave
Tiegen Dr
Dover Ln
Dale St
Dollar St
WeirDr
GladeSt
Bunker Hill Blvd
Newton St
Lyell W ay
Modo c C t
Magna Ave
Arvilla Ln
Lander Ave
Lewis Dr
Dean St
Redstone Pl
Spire St
Lucien Way
A rb orcrest C i r
Kingsford Way
W Loop Rd
Traynor St
Westview Way
Joyce St
Ramos Ave
Joanne St
Eastman St
Goodrich St
Donald Ave
Bel Aire Dr Fletcher Ln
Franklin Ave
Mait landDr
Virginia St
Atherton
Pl
∙þ185
∙þ92
∙þ238
4 5
6 11
3 12
7 1
2 8
9 10
¯
Figure
10 Project Trip Distribution Percentages
Hayward, California
H:\26\26151 - Parcel 5 Local Transportation Analysis\gis\Figure 10- Project Trip Distribution Percentages.mxd - msahimi - 10:11 AM 8/18/2021 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California III FIPS 0403 Feet Legend
Project Site
!! Study Intersections
Hayward City Boundary
0 1,000 Feet
20%
#% Percent of Trips
10%
5%
20%
33%
10%
2%
Attachment XI 43
C:\Users\msahimi\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_15816\26151_VolumeFigures_PG5LTA.dwg Aug 18, 2021 - 10:25am - msahimi Layout Tab: PO PG5 Project-Only Trips (Updated) Hayward, California 11
Figure
- Stop Sign
- Traffic Signal
AM(PM) - Traffic Volume
STOP - All-Way Stop
10 Mission Blvd. & Torrano Ave. (S)11 Mission Blvd. & Harder Rd. 12 Westview Way & Harder Rd. 7 Mission Blvd. & Central Blvd. 8 Mission Blvd. & Berry Ave. 9 Mission Blvd. & Torrano Ave. (N) 4 Mission Blvd. & Carlos Bee Blvd. 5 Overlook Ave. & Carlos Bee Blvd. 6 Carlos Bee Blvd. & Hayward Blvd. 1 Mission Blvd. & Fletcher Ln. 2 Mission Blvd. & Highland Blvd. 3 Mission Blvd. & Palisade St. 11(8) 2(1) 0(0)
4(14)
0(0)
0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 3(11) 0(0) 0(0)
0(0)
1(3)
0(0)
9(6)
2(2)
0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 4(16) 0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0) 0(0) 2(8) 0(0) 4(16)
0(0)
14(9) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)
0(0)
5(3)
0(0)
0(0)
2(5)
0(0) 0(0) 0(0)
6(18)
0(0)
15(10)
0(0) 4(3) 10(6) 0(0) 0(0) 3(11) 4(12)
1(5)
2(6)
0(0)
0(0)
5(3)
10(7) 20(13) 0(0) 0(0) 7(23)
0(0)
0(0) 0(0) 20(13) 0(0) 0(0) 7(23) 0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0) 5(30) 15(10) 0(0) 0(0) 5(18) 0(0)
2(5)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0) 0(0)
Attachment XI 44
Section 5 — Existing Plus Project Traffic
Conditions
Attachment XI 45
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions Kittelson & Associates Page 38

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC

CONDITIONS
This chapter discusses the results of the Existing Plus Project traffic operations analysis, which has been updated from the June 2019 report to reflect the updated trip assignment.

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT AUTOMOBILE LEVEL OF

SERVICE
The automobile turning movement counts for the Existing Plus Project scenario were updated to reflect the sum of the Existing Conditions turning movement counts (Figure 8) and the updated Project Only turning movements (Figure 11). Figure 12 presents the updated Existing Plus Project turning movements.

Table 13 presents the Existing Conditions and Existing Plus Project delays and LOS for the study intersections from the June 2019 report. As shown in the table, the June 2019 report concluded that:
▪ Intersection #10 (Mission Blvd. & Torrano Ave. S) operates unacceptably at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours under Existing conditions. No increase in delay is expected under Existing Plus Parcel Group 5 conditions. Therefore, no operational improvements were recommended. ▪ Intersection #5 (Overlook Ave. & Carlos Bee Blvd.) degrades from an acceptable LOS E to an unacceptable LOS F during the AM peak hour, based on the worst approach delay. However, peak hour signal warrants are not met. Therefore, no operational improvements were recommended.
▪ All other study intersections continue to operate acceptably with the addition of project trips.

Therefore, no operational improvements were recommended.

Table 14 presents the updated Existing Plus Project delays and LOS for the study intersections to reflect the changes in the project trip assignment. Note, updated delay and LOS are only shown for study intersections which experienced changes in project trips. As shown in the table, results do not differ from the June 2019 report and therefore no operational improvements are recommended.

Attachment XI 46
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions Kittelson & Associates Page 39
Table 13: Automobile Level of Service, Existing Plus Project Conditions (June 2019 Report) Intersection Traffic
Control
Peak
Hour
Existing Existing Plus
Project
Change
in Delay
Delay
(sec)
LOS Delay
(sec)
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 B 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: KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2021
BOLD SIGNIFIES UNACCEPTABLE OPERATIONS. TWSC DELAY IS BASED ON THE WORST APPROACH DELAY.

Table 14: Automobile Level of Service, Existing Plus Project Conditions (Updated) Intersection Traffic
Control
Peak
Hour
Existing Existing Plus
Project
Change
in Delay
Delay
(sec)
LOS Delay
(sec)
LOS
4 Mission Blvd. & Carlos
Bee Blvd./Orchard Ave.

Signal AM 41.3 D 41.8 D 0.5
PM 37.6 D 38.4 D 0.8
5 Overlook Ave. & Carlos
Bee Blvd.

TWSC AM 48.7 E 50.9 F 2.2
PM 25.7 D 26.6 D 0.9
7 Mission Blvd. & Central
Blvd.

TWSC AM 16.0 C 16.6 C 0.6
PM 23.4 C 24.5 C 1.1
8 Mission Blvd. & Berry Ave. Signal AM 14.4 B 14.7 B 0.3 PM 13.1 B 14.4 B 1.3
SOURCE: KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2021
BOLD SIGNIFIES UNACCEPTABLE OPERATIONS. TWSC DELAY IS BASED ON THE WORST APPROACH DELAY Attachment XI 47
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions Kittelson & Associates Page 40

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT QUEUE STORAGE
The 95th percentile queues at the study intersections were reviewed in the June 2019 report to identify locations where these may exceed the available storage. Table 15 details the movements which were found to queue beyond their available storage capacity at the 95th percentile demand level under Existing Plus Project conditions in the June 2019 report.

Table 15: Queue Lengths in Excess of Capacity, Existing Plus Project Conditions (June 2019 report) # Intersection Movement Peak
Hour
Description
1 Mission Blvd. &
Fletcher Ln.

NBL PM
This movement, which was already over capacity in the
No Project scenario, continues to spill back beyond the length of its exclusive turn lane during the PM peak hour.

With the addition of Parcel Group 5 trips, this queue is estimated to increase by three feet (less than one car).

WBT/R PM
This movement, which was already over capacity in the
No Project scenario, continues to spill back to the
adjacent intersection during the PM peak hour. With the addition of Parcel Group 5 trips, this queue is estimated to increase by nine feet (less than one car).

SBL AM &
PM
This movement, which was already over capacity in the
No Project scenario, continues to spill back beyond the length of its exclusive turn lane during the AM and PM
peak hours. With the addition of Parcel Group 5 trips,
these queues are not estimated to increase.
4 Mission Blvd. &
Carlos Bee
Blvd./Orchard Ave.

WBL AM
This movement, which was already over capacity in the
No Project scenario, continues to spill back beyond the length of its lane during the AM peak hour. With the
addition of Parcel Group 5 trips, this queue is not
estimated to increase.
6 Carlos Bee Blvd. &
Hayward Blvd. WBL AM
This movement, which was already over capacity in the
No Project scenario, continues to spill back beyond the length of its lane during the AM peak hour. With the
addition of Parcel Group 5 trips, this queue is not
estimated to increase.
11 Mission Blvd. &
Harder Rd. EBL AM & PM
This movement, which was already over capacity in the
No Project scenario, continues to spill back beyond the length of its exclusive turn lane during the AM and PM
peak hours. However, the queues do not spill back to
adjacent intersections. With the addition of Parcel Group 5 trips, these queues are not estimated to increase.

SOURCE: KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2021.

Of the five intersections in Table 15 that experienced excess queuing under Existing Plus Project conditions in the June 2019 report, one intersection (#4 Mission Boulevard & Carlos Bee Boulevard/Orchard Avenue) has updated trip assignment and Existing Plus Project volumes for this LTA. However, the change in project trip assignment does not change the Existing Plus Project queuing results for that intersection; the westbound left turn queuing continues to exceed capacity in the AM peak hour, with no increase in queue length anticipated due to the addition of project trips. Updated queuing spreadsheets are provided in the appendix to this report.

Attachment XI 48
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions Kittelson & Associates Page 41
Figure 12: Existing Plus Project Turning Movement Forecasts (Updated) Attachment XI 49
C:\Users\msahimi\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_15816\26151_VolumeFigures_PG5LTA.dwg Aug 18, 2021 - 10:25am - msahimi Layout Tab: Ex+PG5 Existing Plus Project Turning Movement Forecasts (Updated) Hayward, California 12
Figure
- Stop Sign
- Traffic Signal
AM(PM) - Traffic Volume
STOP - All-Way Stop
10 Mission Blvd. & Torrano Ave. (S)11 Mission Blvd. & Harder Rd. 12 Westview Way & Harder Rd. 7 Mission Blvd. & Central Blvd. 8 Mission Blvd. & Berry Ave. 9 Mission Blvd. & Torrano Ave. (N) 4 Mission Blvd. & Carlos Bee Blvd. 5 Overlook Ave. & Carlos Bee Blvd. 6 Carlos Bee Blvd. & Hayward Blvd. 1 Mission Blvd. & Fletcher Ln. 2 Mission Blvd. & Highland Blvd. 3 Mission Blvd. & Palisade St. 28(23) 12(2) 477(475)
5(40)
166(586)
1(7) 227(310) 951(1572) 131(209) 1563(1142) 31(55)
333(320)
227(191)
257(273)
120(197)
94(241)
30(53) 10(18) 1296(1912) 15(36) 1(3) 1739(1363) 34(73)
0(0)
0(1)
0(8)
0(0)
8(6)
29(20) 1335(1960) 120(52) 1753(1403)
6(11) 32(49) 1289(1944) 3(5) 52(39) 1836(1404) 42(76)3(2) 52(30)
34(20)
1(1)
21(15)
5(6) 1354(1958) 8(29) 0(0) 1954(1597)
0(2)
54(47) 42(337) 1(11) 59(388) 2(9) 13(9) 1(0)
383(196)
473(588)
0(7)
370(182)
860(341)
2(1) 5(3) 18(6)
857(914)
6(3)
997(721)
28(18) 56(77) 1168(1649) 170(318) 181(154) 1548(1335) 388(402) 51(70)
279(265)
190(119)
348(170)
450(232)
283(349) 1606(2103) 47(44) 0(0) 2156(1893)
0(0)
21(18) 39(53) 1571(2022) 12(36) 25(39) 2027(1708) 165(191) 18(16)
60(52)
49(35)
88(68) 251(300) 1490(1829) 60(63) 32(70) 1864(1628) 39(73) 113(180)
84(86)
90(74)
151(94)
127(68)
15(13) 137(171)
Attachment XI 50
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions Kittelson & Associates Page 42
NEW CARLOS BEE BLVD./BUNKER HILL BLVD.

INTERSECTION
As detailed in the project description, the project will include a new roadway connection from Bunker Hill Boulevard to Carlos Bee Boulevard (a new side-street stop-controlled intersection). The June 2019 report assessed Existing Plus Project LOS and queuing at this intersection. According to the June 2019 report, operations would be acceptable at the new intersection during both peak hours, and queues would not exceed available storage.

Figure 13 shows the updated Existing Plus Project AM and PM peak hour volumes at the intersection, to reflect this LTA’s update to the project trip assignment.

Table 15 and Table 16 show the updated LOS and queuing results for this intersection. As shown in the tables, delay decreases at the intersection and queues are expected to remain below 25 feet, since the update LTA trip assignment reduces the number of project trips using this intersection.

Figure 13: Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Volumes (Carlos Bee Blvd./Bunker Hill Blvd.) Table 16: Automobile Level of Service, Carlos Bee Blvd./Bunker Hill Blvd. Intersection Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(sec)
LOS Delay
(sec)
LOS
Existing Plus Project (June 2019 Report) 17.4 C 15.8 C
Existing Plus Project (Updated LTA Trip Assignment) 16.1 C 14.9 B SOURCE: KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2021
Table 17: 95th Percentile Queues, Carlos Bee Blvd./Bunker Hill Blvd. Intersection Scenario Northbound Left Queue
(feet)
Northbound Right Queue
(feet)

AM PM AM PM
Existing Plus Project (June 2019 Report) < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 Existing Plus Project (Updated LTA Trip Assignment) < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 SOURCE: KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2021
Attachment XI 51
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions Kittelson & Associates Page 43

RESIDENTIAL STREET ENVIRONMENT
Table 18 shows the existing TIRE index along local residential streets as well as the change resulting from the addition of daily project trips along the segments; note, this analysis was not previously conducted as part of the June 2019 report. As shown in the table, all three segments are expected to experience a traffic change of 0.1 or more, which would be noticeable to street residents. However, all three segments would continue to operate as residential streets. Given the traffic increase would be noticeable to existing residents, traffic calming strategies are recommended. Additional information on recommended traffic calming treatments for the study area is provided in Section 9.

Table 18: Existing Plus Project TIRE Index
Roadway Existing Existing Plus Project
Daily
Volume
Index Category Daily
Project
Trips
Total
Daily
Volume
Index
Change
New
Index
Category
Central
Boulevard
590 2.8 Residential 273 863 0.1 to 0.2 2.9 Residential
Westview
Way
490 2.7 Residential 234 724 0.1 to 0.2 2.9 Residential
Bunker Hill
Boulevard
N/A 1.5 Residential 359 359 greater
than 0.2

2.6 Residential
SOURCE: KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2021.

Note, there are few occupied residences along Bunker Hill Boulevard at this time. Since traffic data was not collected along this road, existing daily volume is not available. However, the existing daily volume along Bunker Hill Boulevard is expected to be fewer than 30 daily vehicles (based on the expected existing trip generation). Thus, the estimated index change for Bunker Hill Boulevard is a function of it transitioning from a low-use road serving three existing houses, to a road serving as the primary vehicular facility for this new development.

Attachment XI 52
Section 6 — Pedestrian, Bicycle, and
Public Transit Assessment
Attachment XI 53
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Public Transit Assessment Kittelson & Associates Page 45

PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND PUBLIC

TRANSIT ASSESSMENT
This section discusses potential project effects on pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit, as well as overall multimodal accessibility for project users.

PEDESTRIAN ASSESSMENT
As previously discussed, the implementation of the Parcel Group 5 project includes a new segment of the Hayward Foothill Trail, a 16-foot wide multi-use trail, running along the northern boundary of the project site, connecting to the CSUEB campus and then extend south along Bunker Hill Boulevard to terminate at Harder Road. The trail would consist of a 16-foot wide multi-use trail to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. In addition, street improvements such as curbs, sidewalks, on-street parking bulb-outs, and lighting will be included along the project roadways. Parcel Group 5 improvements would also include

10.50 acres of dedicated open space located around the drainages at the northern and southern portions of the project site along with tree-lined streets with sidewalks would provide north/south connections throughout the project site. The new access at Bunker Hill Boulevard would be improved to a four-foot wide sidewalk on one side of the roadway and landscaped planting strips on both sides of the roadway. In some locations, bulbouts would be provided.

Outside of the project site, there are limited sidewalks on local residential roads, which are characterized by narrow right-of-way and steep grades. For example, there are no sidewalks (and accompanying facilities such as crosswalks and curb ramps) along Westview Way and along Central Boulevard southeast of Del Mar Avenue. Given the narrow curb-to-curb width, it would not be feasible to install sidewalks along these roads without removing on-street residential parking.

The new project access point along Carlos Bee Boulevard allows people walking to and from the project from the north to avoid local residential roads that do not have pedestrian facilities. However, it may not be the most direct walking route to and from destinations along Mission Boulevard and to the south of the project site. In addition, there are no sidewalks on the south side of Carlos Bee Boulevard. Given that this would serve as a key access point, the project applicant should consider installing crossing facilities such as a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) or a pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) at the new intersection to give pedestrians access to the sidewalk on the north side of Carlos Bee Boulevard. Should the City install sidewalks on the south side of Carlos Bee Boulevard at a later time, then the project should contribute toward including a high visibility crosswalk across Bunker Hill Boulevard at Carlos Bee Boulevard.

In addition to project users, existing residents may continue to walk along these local residential streets that do not have pedestrian facilities, which would experience increased vehicle volumes due to the project.

Since it would not be feasible to add sidewalks along these roads, traffic calming measures should be implemented along Westview Way and along Central Boulevard (southeast of Del Mar Avenue) to reduce vehicle speeds. Specific traffic calming recommendations and concept plans are detailed in Section 9 of this report.

Central Boulevard west of Del Mar Avenue may be used by project users to walk to and from Mission Boulevard. In addition, project trips may result in increased traffic along this segment, affecting existing pedestrians along this segment. Currently, there are sidewalks along this segment as well as a continental crosswalk at the intersection with Mission Boulevard. Improved and additional crosswalks should be implemented in combination with traffic calming measures. Additional information is provided in Section 9 of this report.

The Westview Way/Harder Road intersection would serve as a key access point for pedestrians traveling to and from the south, and serves as an existing route for pedestrians to and from existing houses in the study Attachment XI 54
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Public Transit Assessment Kittelson & Associates Page 46
area. Traffic calming measures described in Section 9 can address the pedestrian experience along Westview Way.

BICYCLE ASSESSMENT
As previously discussed, existing bike facilities near the project include Class II bike lanes on Harder Road west of West Loop Road (eastbound-only bike lane between Westview Way and West Loop Road).

Planned bikeways include Class IV separated bike lanes along Mission Boulevard, Harder Road (west of W.

Loop Road), and Carlos Bee Boulevard (between Mission Boulevard and Hayward Boulevard).

The conditions for bicyclists navigating the residential roads within and adjacent to the project site are similar to the pedestrian conditions described earlier in this section. There are currently no dedicated bike facilities along streets such as Westview Way and Central Boulevard. Existing residents as well as project users accessing the project on a bike would need to navigate narrow steep residential roads. Installing bike lanes on these roads would likely be infeasible due to the narrow curb-to-curb width as well as the presence of on-street parking. However, given the relatively low volumes and speeds on these roads, bicyclists can be accommodated by implementing Class III bike routes along Westview Way and Central Boulevard, with the appropriate signage and shared lane markings (sharrows). Bike routes should be implemented alongside traffic calming measures to manage vehicle speeds; more information is provided in Section 9 of this report.

Given that Class IV separated bike lanes are planned along Carlos Bee Boulevard and Harder Road and the project is expected to increase vehicle volumes at these locations, improvements should be installed at the Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard and Westview Way/Harder Road intersections.

Recommended improvements include green conflict paint along the Harder Road bike lanes crossing Westview Way and along the Carlos Bee Boulevard bike lanes crossing Bunker Hill Boulevard, and bikeway signage and caution signage at and approaching these intersections for all intersection legs.

PUBLIC TRANSIT ASSESSMENT
The Project is not expected to increase traffic levels at intersections serving local AC Transit buses to levels that would require improvements under the Existing Plus Project scenario. In addition, pedestrian access to local bus stops can be addressed by implementing the pedestrian-oriented improvements detailed earlier in this section.

Attachment XI 55
Section 7 — Parking Analysis
Attachment XI 56
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Parking Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 48

PARKING ANALYSIS
Given the potential for spillover parking onto adjacent residential streets, this chapter compares the proposed project’s parking supply (including on-street parking) to the expected demand, including demand generated by the project’s ADUs.

The project’s supply is shown in Figure 14 and Table 19. As shown in the table, a total of 406 spaces will be provided, of which 100 are on-street spaces, 148 are driveway spaces, and 158 are garage spaces.

Table 19: Project Parking Supply
Type of Space Number of Spaces
On-Street 100
Driveway 148
Garage 158
Total 406
The Urban Land Institute (ULI) publishes typical parking demand rates for various land uses based on data collected in the field. The ULI observed weekend peak parking demand rates for residential projects are listed below:
▪ Studio – 1.00 spaces per unit
▪ 1 bedroom – 1.05 per unit
▪ 2 bedroom – 1.80 per unit
▪ 3 or more bedrooms– 2.65 per unit
Given that each single-family home in the project will have four bedrooms and conservatively assuming that each ADU will have one bedroom, the weekend peak parking demand for the project is estimated to be 205 spaces. Therefore, the projects supply of 406 parking spaces will adequately accommodate peak demand. Should garage spaces not be included in the calculation (e.g., used by residents for storage) the supply of on-street and driveway spaces (248) should still be sufficient to meet the peak demand of 205.

Attachment XI 57
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Parking Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 49
Figure 14: Parking Plan
Source: MacKay & Somps
Dated May 14, 2021; Received May 19, 2021
Attachment XI 58
Section 8 — Circulation and Access
Attachment XI 59
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Circulation and Access Kittelson & Associates Page 51

CIRCULATION AND ACCESS
This section provides an overview of site access and on-site and local circulation.

SIGHT DISTANCE
Sight distance was assessed at the proposed access point at the new Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard intersection.

The line of sight for the exiting stop-controlled movements at this location was analyzed to ensure that adequate sight distances are provided for vehicles to see pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles approaching the driveway. Line of sight was analyzed using standards and methodologies described in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. AASHTO standards were used to develop departure sight triangles at the intersection that should be unobstructed for vehicles to provide sufficient view of approaching vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.

AASHTO recommends that the driver decision point of the sight triangle (the short side) should be 14.5 feet from the major road traveled way. However, where practical, AASHTO recommends increasing the distance to 18 feet. Given that protected bike lanes are planned along Carlos Bee Boulevard, a decision point of 18 feet was assumed for the intersection.

The following formula was used to calculate the necessary intersection sight distance:

ISD = 1.47 * Vmajor * tg
where:

ISD = intersection sight distance (length of the leg of sight distance triangle along major road) (ft) Vmajor = design speed of major road (mph)
tg = time gap for minor road vehicle to enter the major road (s) Assuming a passenger car time gap of 8.5 seconds (based on AASHTO) and a speed limit of 30 mph along Carlos Bee Boulevard, the intersection sight distances were calculated and recommended departure sight triangles are shown in Figure 15. As shown in the figure, 375 feet of sight distance is needed to the left (for exiting right-turning vehicles) and to the right (for exiting left-turning vehicles). Obstructions consist of trees.

Therefore, it is recommended that when the Bunker Hill Boulevard intersection is being constructed, visual obstructions such as brush and landscaping should be cleared from the sight triangle area as shown in Figure 15.

Attachment XI 60
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Circulation and Access Kittelson & Associates Page 52
Figure 15: Bunker Hill Blvd./Carlos Bee Blvd. Departure Sight Triangles

TRAFFIC CONTROLS
Intersection traffic controls in and around the project site were reviewed to determine if changes would be needed (e.g., due to limited visibility).

Residential street intersections in and around the project site consist of two-way stop controls (in other words only the minor approach must stop). This type of intersection control is present at intersections such as:
▪ Bunker Hill Court/Bunker Hill Boulevard
▪ Central Court/Central Boulevard
▪ Central Boulevard/Maitland Drive (north)
▪ Central Boulevard/Maitland Drive (south)
▪ Westview Way/Harder Road
▪ Del Mar Avenue/Central Boulevard
▪ Belmont Avenue/Central Boulevard
▪ Mission Boulevard/Central Boulevard
▪ Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard (proposed project access point) The T-intersection of Westview Way and Central Boulevard has a unique intersection control configuration in that northbound and westbound traffic must stop, but southbound vehicles are not controlled.

Generally, this type of intersection control is appropriate for residential street intersections in and around the project site due to the relatively low traffic volumes and vehicle speeds as well as good visibility.

However, the following intersections should be improved:
▪ Westview Way/Central Boulevard: This T-intersection has a unique configuration where southbound vehicles do not stop. In addition, the westbound stop sign and stop bar are set back from the intersection, potentially limiting visibility; westbound vehicles also have a very wide right turn, which can result in drivers missing the stop sign and driving at high speeds. To improve visibility and safety Attachment XI 61
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Circulation and Access Kittelson & Associates Page 53
for all approaches, as well as address vehicle speeds and multimodal safety, improvements should be implemented at this intersection. A stop sign should be added at the southbound approach, and the westbound stop sign and stop bar should be moved approximately 35 feet closer to the intersection and the right turn tightened. This configuration is illustrated as part of the traffic calming concept plans in Section 9 of this report.
▪ Westview Way/Harder Road: The Westview Way approach is stop-controlled, while vehicles approaching along Harder Road are not; this includes vehicles traveling downhill towards Mission Boulevard. Vehicles exiting from Westview Way onto Harder Road may have difficulty seeing downhill vehicles due to the grade crest; in addition, exiting left-turning vehicles may have difficulty seeing approaching uphill vehicles due to median trees. These left-turning vehicles would need to be mindful of both of these approaches since the intersection is not fully controlled. In addition, the wide northeast curb at this intersection could result in downhill vehicles making a right turn from Harder Road onto Westview Way traveling at unsafe speeds. This intersection approach could be improved by adding a dedicated right turn lane (to allow deceleration) and tightening the curb.

This configuration is illustrated as part of the traffic calming concept plans in Section 9 of this report.

TRUCK ACCESS
Given the narrow roads and presence of on-street parking, the project access points and roadway network was assessed to see if there would be sufficient curb-to-curb space for fire trucks and garbage trucks. The analysis was conducted using AutoCAD AutoTurn templates. The fire truck templates are shown in Figure 16 and Figure 17; the garbage truck templates are shown in Figure 18 and Figure 19. As shown in the figures, standard fire trucks and garbage trucks can navigate the project site to and from Carlos Bee Boulevard and Harder Road, including roadway segments with on-street parking.

PASSENGER VEHICLE ACCESS
AutoTurn templates were not prepared for passenger vehicles, since the fire truck and garbage truck templates represent the largest vehicles expected to enter and exit the site. Given the results of the truck turning templates, it is expected that the access points and roadway network are sufficient to accommodate passenger vehicles. In addition, the exiting vehicle queues at the Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard and Westview Way/Harder Road intersections are not expected to exceed 25 feet. In addition, a single outbound lane at the planned Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard intersection is sufficient, especially since exiting vehicles are expected to primarily turn left to exit.

PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS
As detailed in Section 6, the project will include access to the Hayward Foothill Trail as well as facilities such as sidewalks, curb ramps, and on-street parking bulbouts. However, connectivity to the project is limited due to factors such as limited sidewalk coverage on local residential roads and adjacent arterial roads.

Recommended pedestrian-oriented improvements are detailed in Section 6; in addition, traffic calming measures to reduce vehicles streets on local residential roads are detailed in Section 9.

Similar to pedestrians, bicyclists face a lack of suitable facilities to access the project site, since existing bike lanes are limited. However, protected bike lanes are planned along Carlos Bee Boulevard and along Harder Road. Recommended bicycle-oriented improvements are detailed in Section 6; in addition, traffic calming measures to reduce vehicles streets on local residential roads are detailed in Section 9.

Attachment XI 62
© 2021 Microsoft Corporation © 2021 Maxar ©CNES (2021) Distribution Airbus DS PARCEL B

PARCEL D

PARCEL J
PARCEL F 69 PARCEL C 14 PARCEL I
PARCEL A 67 74 73 70 68 64 66 65 63 62 72 71 61 4 1 2 3 11 13 12 8 9 10 15 16 24 17 19 20 21 22 18 23 25 26 28 32 27 29 30 31 PARCEL G 33 35 3736 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 6 5 7 PARCEL K PARCEL L PARCEL H SDE PAE TRAIL PAE ROAD TEMP CONS TEMP CONS 2 H:\26\26151 - Parcel 5 Local Transportation Analysis\Analysis\AutoTurn\26151-Hayward Parcel 5 Auto Turn.dwg Jun 15, 2021 - 3:47pm - bhelm Layout Tab: 1 Hayward Parcel 5 AutoTurn Analysis June 2021 N Turning Movements Analysed at 5 MPH. 200 100 0 200 Scale: 1" = 200' Legend:Parked Car Existing Top of Curb Proposed Top of Curb Truck Centerline Fire Truck Turning (Southbound) Hayward, CA 15 Figure 16 Figure Attachment XI
63 © 2021 Microsoft Corporation © 2021 Maxar ©CNES (2021) Distribution Airbus DS PARCEL B

PARCEL D

PARCEL J
PARCEL F 69 PARCEL C 14 PARCEL I
PARCEL A 67 74 73 70 68 64 66 65 63 62 72 71 61 4 1 2 3 11 13 12 8 9 10 15 16 24 17 19 20 21 22 18 23 25 26 28 32 27 29 30 31 PARCEL G 33 35 3736 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 6 5 7 PARCEL K PARCEL L PARCEL H SDE PAE TRAIL PAE ROAD TEMP CONS TEMP CONS 2 H:\26\26151 - Parcel 5 Local Transportation Analysis\Analysis\AutoTurn\26151-Hayward Parcel 5 Auto Turn.dwg Jun 15, 2021 - 3:45pm - bhelm Layout Tab: 2 Hayward Parcel 5 AutoTurn Analysis June 2021 Turning Movements Analysed at 5 MPH. 200 100 0 200 Scale: 1" = 200' N Legend:Parked Car Existing Top of Curb Proposed Top of Curb Truck Centerline Fire Truck Turning (Northbound) Hayward, CA 16 Figure 17 Figure Attachment XI
64 © 2021 Microsoft Corporation © 2021 Maxar ©CNES (2021) Distribution Airbus DS PARCEL B

PARCEL D

PARCEL J
PARCEL F 69 PARCEL C 14 PARCEL I
PARCEL A 67 74 73 70 68 64 66 65 63 62 72 71 61 4 1 2 3 11 13 12 8 9 10 15 16 24 17 19 20 21 22 18 23 25 26 28 32 27 29 30 31 PARCEL G 33 35 3736 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 6 5 7 PARCEL K PARCEL L PARCEL H SDE PAE TRAIL PAE ROAD TEMP CONS TEMP CONS 2 H:\26\26151 - Parcel 5 Local Transportation Analysis\Analysis\AutoTurn\26151-Hayward Parcel 5 Auto Turn.dwg Jun 15, 2021 - 3:44pm - bhelm Layout Tab: 3 Hayward Parcel 5 AutoTurn AnalysisTurning Movements Analysed at 5 MPH. 200 100 0 200 Scale: 1" = 200' N Legend:Parked Car Existing Top of Curb Proposed Top of Curb Truck Centerline Garbage Truck Turning (Southbound) Hayward, CA 17 Figure 18 Figure Attachment XI
65 © 2021 Microsoft Corporation © 2021 Maxar ©CNES (2021) Distribution Airbus DS PARCEL B

PARCEL D

PARCEL J
PARCEL F 69 PARCEL C 14 PARCEL I
PARCEL A 67 74 73 70 68 64 66 65 63 62 72 71 61 4 1 2 3 11 13 12 8 9 10 15 16 24 17 19 20 21 22 18 23 25 26 28 32 27 29 30 31 PARCEL G 33 35 3736 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 6 5 7 PARCEL K PARCEL L PARCEL H SDE PAE TRAIL PAE ROAD TEMP CONS TEMP CONS 2 H:\26\26151 - Parcel 5 Local Transportation Analysis\Analysis\AutoTurn\26151-Hayward Parcel 5 Auto Turn.dwg Jun 15, 2021 - 4:56pm - bhelm Layout Tab: 4 Hayward Parcel 5 AutoTurn Analysis June 2021 Turning Movements Analysed at 5 MPH. 200 100 0 200 Scale: 1" = 200' Legend:Parked Car Existing Top of Curb Proposed Top of Curb Truck Centerline N Garbage Truck Turning (Southbound) Hayward, CA 18 Figure (Northbound) Hayward, CA 19 Figure Attachment XI
66 Section 9 — Traffic Calming
Attachment XI 67
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Traffic Calming Kittelson & Associates Page 59

TRAFFIC CALMING
Given the potential for project trips to cut through adjacent residential areas via Central Boulevard and Westview Way, the City has requested examining opportunities to implement traffic calming measures to reduce effects on adjacent residences. These measures can also manage vehicle speeds to address pedestrian and bicyclist safety concerns.

Generally, pass-through vehicle concerns can be addressed with traffic calming measures to slow vehicles down to safer speeds.

Examples of traffic calming measures included in the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP) are as follows:
▪ Edgeline/Centerline Striping
▪ Target Speed Enforcement
▪ Speed Legends
▪ Signage
▪ Botts Dots/Raised Reflectors
▪ High Visibility Crosswalks
▪ Increased Patrol and Warning/Citations
▪ Speed Feedback Signs
▪ Flashing Beacons
▪ Road Diet
▪ Angled Parking
▪ Bulbouts
▪ Two Lane Chokers
▪ Center Island Narrowing/Pedestrian Refuge
▪ Traffic Circles
▪ Roundabouts (Single lane)
▪ Lateral Shifts
▪ Chicanes
▪ Speed Lumps
▪ Raised Crosswalks
▪ Raised Intersections
▪ Diagonal Diverters
▪ Partial Closures
▪ Full Closures
▪ Forced Turn Islands
Three locations along Westview Way and Central Boulevard were examined for traffic calming opportunities. Existing traffic volumes and the estimated project contributions are provided in Table 20.

Note, daily vehicle volumes were estimated by multiplying existing PM peak hour volumes along the segments by 10.

Table 20: Anticipated Project Trip Contribution (Westview Way and Central Avenue) Street Existing Daily Volume Project Contribution Total Daily Volume Central Boulevard 590 273 863
Westview Way 490 234 724
Given the constrained right-of-way and the presence of on-street parking, the number of applicable traffic calming techniques for the study area is limited. Most measures included in the NTCP are not applicable due to this area’s land use and transportation context as well as the severe physical constraints; therefore, applicable measures are generally limited to striping, marked pedestrian crossings, and signage. Traffic Attachment XI 68
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Traffic Calming Kittelson & Associates Page 60
calming concept plans were developed for two locations and potential traffic calming improvements developed for one location listed below. As part of the measures to reduce vehicle speeds, the concept plans also include improvements recommended earlier in this report to address bike access, pedestrian access, and intersection controls.
▪ Westview Way at Harder Road: Figure 20 presents the recommendations for Westview Way at Harder Road. As shown in the figure, a centerline is recommended for the entire length of Westview Way, to delineate the path of travel and reduce the perceived width. Signage is recommended to increase driver awareness of upcoming stop signs and the roadway’s speed limit. Sharrows are also recommended, both to provide a marked facility for bicyclists and to also increase driver awareness of bicyclists along that segment. At the Westview Way/Harder Road intersection, the concept plan includes tightening both curbs. This can help reduce inbound and outbound vehicle speeds, especially for incoming southbound vehicles. In addition, a dedicated right turn lane is recommended to allow deceleration. Once the planned protected bike lanes along Harder Road are built, a green conflict zone should be included at the intersection. ▪ Central Boulevard at Westview Way: Figure 21 presents the recommendations for Central Boulevard at Westview Way. Similar to the Westview Way recommendations, a centerline and sharrows are recommended along Central Boulevard. To reduce westbound vehicle speeds and improve visibility, the westbound stop sign and stop bar should be moved approximately 35 feet closer to the intersection, paired with tightening the curb radius to reduce westbound right-turn speeds. Warning signage should also be added ahead of the westbound stop sign. In addition, a stop sign and stop bar should be added to the southbound approach (currently uncontrolled) to reduce confusion, reduce speeds, and improve safety and visibility at the intersection. ▪ Central Boulevard at Belmont Avenue and Del Mar Avenue: Figure 22 presents the recommendations for Central Boulevard at Belmont Avenue and Del Mar Avenue. o A centerline and sharrows are recommended along Central Boulevard until Mission Boulevard. Traffic circles at both intersections, paired with striping to reduce the approach lane width and laterally shift the approach, can help reduce vehicle speeds. In addition, traffic circles provide the opportunity to add high-visibility continental crosswalks on all four intersection legs to accommodate pedestrian crossings and increase driver awareness.

Other traffic calming measures could be considered at this location either in combination with those recommended in Figure 22, or as alternate measures. However, the selected traffic calming measures should provide the same benefit as the measures recommended in Figure 22 (centerline, sharrows, traffic circles). Other traffic calming measures could include:
▪ Speed legends
▪ Signage
▪ High visibility continental crosswalks
▪ Speed lumps
While not shown in the three concept plans, centerline striping and sharrows should be provided along the entirety of Westview Way as well as Central Boulevard from Westview Way to Mission Boulevard. In addition, signage should be added along Central Boulevard near its intersection with Maitland Drive (north) warning drivers of the speed limit and upcoming stop signs; speed cushions should also be considered given the long distance between stop signs along this segment.

Note, traffic calming measures and designs are subject to further Engineering review.

Attachment XI 69
© 2021 Microsoft Corporation © 2021 Maxar ©CNES (2021) Distribution Airbus DS N H:\26\26151 - Parcel 5 Local Transportation Analysis\report\figs\DWGs\Traffic Calming - 26151.dwg Aug 25, 2021 - 9:04am - bcullimore Layout Tab: Figure 20 Westview Way at Harder Road Traffic Calming Concept Plan 20
Figure
50 25 0 50
Scale: 1" = 50'
Westview Way
LEGEND
Harder Rd Install Stop Ahead Sign
Install Speed Limit 25mph Sign
Install Sharrow Pavement Legend
Attachment XI 70
© 2021 Microsoft Corporation © 2021 Maxar ©CNES (2021) Distribution Airbus DS H:\26\26151 - Parcel 5 Local Transportation Analysis\report\figs\DWGs\Traffic Calming - 26151.dwg Aug 25, 2021 - 9:04am - bcullimore Layout Tab: Figure 21 Central Boulevard at Westview Way Traffic Calming Concept Plan 21
Figure
50 25 0 50
Scale: 1" = 50' N
Westview Way Central Blvd
Central Blvd
LEGEND
Install Stop Ahead Sign
Install Stop Sign
Install Sharrow Pavement Legend
Attachment XI 71
© 2021 Microsoft Corporation © 2021 Maxar ©CNES (2021) Distribution Airbus DS H:\26\26151 - Parcel 5 Local Transportation Analysis\report\figs\DWGs\Traffic Calming - 26151.dwg Jan 28, 2022 - 11:15am - bcullimore Layout Tab: Figure 22 Central Boulevard at Belmont Avenue and Del Mar Avenue Potential Traffic Calming Improvements 22
Figure
50 25 0 50
Scale: 1" = 50'
N
Central Blvd Belmont Ave Del Mar Ave
LEGEND
Install Yield to Pedestrians Sign
Install Stop Sign
Install Sharrow Pavement Legend
Install Yield Line
Install Traffic Circle Island
Attachment XI 72
Section 10 — VMT Reduction Measures
Attachment XI 73
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis VMT Reduction Measures Kittelson & Associates Page 65

VMT REDUCTION MEASURES
The City has asked that this project’s LTA include recommended measures and improvements to potentially reduce vehicle trips generated by the project. These recommendations are primarily associated with City requirements for the project applicant and could potentially be included as part of any conditions of approval requested by the City. Therefore, this analysis will be qualitative and quantified trip reductions will not be included.

The City’s Transportation Impact Guidelines include relevant VMT reduction measures from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Alameda CTC, and the City of San Jose; the City’s VMT mitigation matrix is included as Appendix 6 to this LTA.

Given that this project consists entirely of single-family residential uses, the recommendations in this chapter will primarily focus on strategies for trip reductions from multimodal improvements to the community. On-site reduction strategies that are generally used for multifamily or office projects would not be applicable. In addition, it is assumed that this project’s placement and density/land use mix would not be modified; measures to reduce VMT through land use mix or location are therefore not included.

Potential VMT reduction measures for the project include:
▪ Parking Management
▪ Parking Pricing (e.g., residential permit programs)
▪ Parking Supply Reduction
▪ Neighborhood Enhancements
▪ Street Connectivity Improvement
▪ Pedestrian Facility Improvement
▪ Bikeway Network Expansion
▪ Bike Facility Improvement
▪ Bikeshare
▪ Carshare
▪ Community-Based Travel Planning
▪ Transit Strategies
▪ Transit Service Expansion
▪ Transit Frequency Improvements
▪ Transit-Supportive Treatments
▪ Transit Fare Reduction
▪ Microtransit NEV Shuttle
▪ Residential Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Measures ▪ Transit Pass for Residents
▪ School Pool
▪ Voluntary TDM Marketing

PROJECT FEATURES
The proposed project includes features that can help reduce project-generated VMT:
▪ Street Connectivity Improvement: The project includes replacing the existing Bunker Hill Boulevard cul-de-sac with a full-access unsignalized intersection at Carlos Bee Boulevard, improving accessibility.
▪ Pedestrian Facility Improvement: The project includes pedestrian-oriented improvements along Bunker Hill Boulevard and Maitland Drive such as sidewalks and on-street parking bulbouts (which can help increase the sidewalk buffer).

Attachment XI 74
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis VMT Reduction Measures Kittelson & Associates Page 66

RECOMMENDED OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Other measures can also be applied to reduce project-generated VMT. However, the majority of the measures included in the City’s guidelines would not be applicable or feasible for this project, as noted below:
▪ Parking pricing or supply reductions are likely not feasible as a standalone measure due to the potential parking demand spillover into adjacent residential streets. ▪ Transit strategies are either outside of the City’s control or beyond the scope and area of this project.
▪ Bikeshare station implementation is not feasible since it would not be in proximity of a bikeshare network.
▪ Carshare would not be feasible since the project is generally isolated and low-density.

However, pedestrian and bicycle improvements in the project’s vicinity can help reduce the project’s vehicle trip generation and VMT. Several opportunities exist, as detailed below. Approximate costs are included (sourced from Appendix F of the City’s BPMP) as well as the proposed project’s fair share percentages.
▪ Pedestrian Facility Improvement: Currently, the sidewalk on the north side of Harder Road runs from Mission Boulevard to Bryn Mawr Avenue; there are no sidewalks between Bryn Mawr Avenue and Westview Way. Filling in this key sidewalk gap would improve pedestrian accessibility between Westview Way and Mission Boulevard, with its numerous destinations. This improvement could be used by both the proposed project as well as existing residents in the area. ▪ The approximate cost for this improvement would be $152,000, based on unit costs from Appendix F of the City’s BPMP. This assumes 428 cubic yards of excavation at a unit cost of $15, 3,850 square feet of concrete sidewalk at a unit cost of $17, and one ADA curb ramp at a unit cost of $4,700. This cost also includes soft costs such as traffic control, construction management, mobilization, and design/inspection (65% of material costs) and contingency (20% of the subtotal).
▪ The existing daily vehicular volume along this segment of Harder Road is approximately 10,130 cars (assuming PM peak hour volumes represent 10% of daily volumes). The project is expected to increase daily volumes on this segment by 217, resulting in an existing plus project volume of 10,347. The project share of daily volumes (and its percent contribution to this improvement’s cost) is therefore approximately 2.1%. The project’s fair share contribution to this improvement (including soft costs and contingency) would be approximately $3,200.
▪ Bike Facility Improvement: The City’s BPMP includes planned Class IV protected bike lanes along Harder Road. This project should contribute its fair share to building the portion of the protected bike lanes between Mission Boulevard and Westview Way. This way, project users and local residents have a way to get to and from Mission Boulevard on bike, and can connect to planned protected bike lanes along Mission Boulevard.
▪ The BPMP includes a low-cost assumption for protected bike lanes ($336,000 per mile) and a high-cost assumption ($1,219,000 per mile). Given present constraints such as a steep incline and curve, it is assumed that the higher-end cost is more applicable. Assuming a length of 0.24 miles, the cost would be approximately $293,000. ▪ The existing daily vehicular volume along this segment of Harder Road is approximately 10,130 cars (assuming PM peak hour volumes represent 10% of daily volumes). The project is expected to increase daily volumes on this segment by 217, resulting in an existing plus project volume of 10,347. The project share of daily volumes (and its percent contribution to this improvement’s cost) is therefore approximately 2.1%. The project’s fair share contribution to this improvement (including soft costs and contingency) would be approximately $6,100.

Attachment XI 75
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis VMT Reduction Measures Kittelson & Associates Page 67
▪ Bike Facility Improvement: The City’s BPMP also includes planned Class IV protected bike lanes along Carlos Bee Boulevard. The project should contribute its fair share to building the portion of the protected bike lanes between Mission Boulevard and Bunker Hill Boulevard, to improve local bicycling connectivity to Mission Boulevard.
▪ The BPMP’s high-cost assumption ($1,219,000 per mile) would be applicable, given the steep incline and curve. Assuming a length of 0.46 miles, the cost would be approximately $561,000.
▪ The existing daily vehicular volume along this segment of Harder Road is approximately 16,507 cars (assuming PM peak hour volumes represent 10% of daily volumes). The project is expected to increase daily volumes on this segment by 273, resulting in an existing plus project volume of 16,779. The project share of daily volumes (and its percent contribution to this improvement’s cost) is therefore approximately 1.6%. The project’s fair share contribution to this improvement (including soft costs and contingency) would be approximately $9,000.

In total, the project’s fair share contribution for these pedestrian and bicycle projects is approximately $18,300.

Attachment XI 76
Section 11 — Summary of Findings and
Recommendations
Attachment XI 77
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Summary of Findings and Recommendations Kittelson & Associates Page 69

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDED MULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS
To address pedestrian, bicyclist, and transit user accessibility and conditions, the project applicant should work with the City to implement the following multimodal improvements:
▪ Install crossing facilities such as a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) or a pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) at the planned unsignalized Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard intersection to give pedestrians access to the sidewalk on the north side of Carlos Bee Boulevard. Should the City install sidewalks on the south side of Carlos Bee Boulevard at a later time, then a high visibility crosswalk should be installed across Bunker Hill Boulevard at Carlos Bee Boulevard. ▪ Implement Class III bike routes with sharrows along Westview Way and Central Boulevard. ▪ Given that Class IV separated bike lanes are planned along Carlos Bee Boulevard and Harder Road and the project is expected to increase vehicle volumes at these locations, improvements should be installed at the Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard and Westview Way/Harder Road intersections. Recommended improvements include green conflict paint along the Harder Road bike lanes crossing Westview Way and along the Carlos Bee Boulevard bike lanes crossing Bunker Hill Boulevard, and bikeway signage and caution signage at and approaching these intersections for all intersection legs.
▪ To improve sight distance for exiting vehicles at the planned Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard intersection, it is recommended that when the intersection is being constructed, visual obstructions such as brush and landscaping should be cleared from the sight triangle area as shown in Figure 15.
▪ Improve the Westview Way/Central Boulevard T-intersection by adding a stop sign at the southbound approach. At the westbound approach, the westbound stop sign and stop bar should be moved approximately 35 feet closer to the intersection and the right turn tightened. ▪ Improve the Westview Way/Harder Road intersection by adding a dedicated right turn lane (to allow deceleration) and tightening the curb.

RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC CALMING TREATMENTS
To manage vehicle speeds and volumes along residential roads, the project applicant should work with the City to implement traffic calming strategies along local residential streets, which can also improve multimodal conditions. Concept design plans are provided for two locations with potential traffic calming improvements also developed for a third location: Westview Way at Harder Road, Central Boulevard at Westview Way, and Central Boulevard at Belmont Avenue and Del Mar Avenue. Note, traffic calming measures and designs are subject to further Engineering review.

Attachment XI 78
February 17, 2022
Parcel Group 5 Entitlements Local Transportation Analysis Summary of Findings and Recommendations Kittelson & Associates Page 70
▪ Westview Way at Harder Road: Install a centerline, stop sign and speed limit warning signage, and sharrows. At the Westview Way/Harder Road intersection, tighten curbs, install a dedicated westbound right turn lane, and add a green bike conflict zone. ▪ Central Boulevard at Westview Way: Install a centerline and sharrows. Move the westbound stop sign and stop bar approximately 35 feet closer to the intersection and tighten the curb radius.

RECOMMENDED VMT REDUCTION MEASURES
To reduce project-generated vehicle trips and VMT, the project applicant should contribute fair share costs to the following off-site improvements:
▪ Fill in the sidewalk gap on the north side of Harder Road between Bryn Mawr Avenue and Westview Way.
▪ Construct planned protected bike lanes along Harder Road between Mission Boulevard and Westview Way.
▪ Construct planned protected bike lanes along Carlos Bee Boulevard between Mission Boulevard and Bunker Hill Boulevard.

Cost estimates and fair share contributions for these improvements are shown in the table below.

Table 21: Recommended VMT Reduction Measures Fair Share Contributions Improvement Total Cost Project Contribution
(%)
Project Fair Share
Contribution ($)
Harder Road Sidewalk $152,000 2.1% $3,200
Harder Road Bike Lanes $293,000 2.1% $6,100.

Carlos Bee Boulevard Bike Lanes $561,000 1.6% $9,000
Attachment XI 79
Appendix 1 — Traffic Counts
Attachment XI 80
Appendix 2 — Existing Level of
Service, Queuing,
and Peak Hour
Traffic Signal
Warrants
Worksheets
Attachment XI 81
Appendix 3 — Intersection
Queuing Analysis
Spreadsheets (June
2019 and Updated)
Attachment XI 82
Appendix 4 — Existing Plus Project
Level of Service,
Queuing, and Peak
Hour Traffic Signal
Warrants
Worksheets (June
2019 Report)
Attachment XI 83
Appendix 5 — Existing Plus Project
Level of Service and
Queuing
Worksheets
(Updated)
Attachment XI 84
Appendix 6 — VMT Reduction
Strategies
Attachment XI 85
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Technical Memorandum
Kittelson & Associates (Kittelson) recently prepared a local transportation analysis (LTA) for the Parcel Group 5 (PG 5) project which consists of analysis and recommendations focused on multimodal access and safety, traffic controls, traffic calming, and strategies to reduce project-generated vehicle trips. Due to resident concerns, Kittelson has also prepared this separate memo to analyze the proposed project access point at Bunker Hill Boulevard and Carlos Bee Boulevard (the project includes extending Bunker Hill Boulevard from its current terminus). The purpose of this memo is to provide recommendations on the appropriate access control for the proposed intersection.

This memorandum is organized into the following sections:
▪ Project Description
▪ Local Transportation Assessment (LTA) Traffic Operations Analysis ▪ LTA Sight Distance Analysis
▪ Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis
▪ Traffic Control Recommendation and Conceptual Driveway Design ▪ Traffic Operations Analysis w/ Bunker Hill/Carlos Bee Access Control ▪ Summary of Findings

Additional project elements include approximately 10.50 acres of open space to preserve riparian areas, a new segment of the Hayward Foothill Trail, and additional street improvements such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, on-street parking bulb-outs, utilities, and lighting.

The project site is shown in Figure 1. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 2.

The proposed project includes extending Bunker Hill Boulevard to Carlos Bee Boulevard to form a new intersection that would provide access to the northern portion of the project site. The PG 5 LTA analyzed this proposed access point as a side-street stop-controlled intersection, with vehicles exiting Bunker Hill Boulevard onto Carlos Bee Boulevard needing to stop.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
February 22, 2022 Project# 26855
To: Steven Chang and Leigha Schmidt – City of Hayward
From: Michael Sahimi and Damian Stefanakis – Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

RE: Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Attachment XIV
February 22, 2022 Page 2
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 1: Project Site
Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 3
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 2: Project Site Plan
SOURCE: MACKAY & SOMPS
DATED MAY 12, 2021; RECEIVED MAY 18, 2021
Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 4
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

PG 5 LTA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
In the PG 5 LTA, Kittelson analyzed the proposed access point at Bunker Hill Boulevard and Carlos Bee Boulevard as a full access side-street stop-controlled intersection. The traffic operations analysis included a determination of the proportion of project traffic that will use the new access point plus assessments of level of service (LOS) and queuing with project trips added on top of existing weekday morning and evening peak hours. Figure 3 shows the Existing Plus Project AM and PM peak hour volumes at the intersection.

Based on project trip distribution developed using the City of Hayward General Plan Update travel demand model, the project traffic anticipated to use the new access point at Bunker Hill Boulevard and Carlos Bee Boulevard is lower than the amount anticipated to use the other two access points at Harder Road and Mission Boulevard. It was assumed that 20 outbound and 8 inbound vehicles would use the access point during the AM peak hour and 13 outbound and 23 inbound vehicles would use it during the PM peak hour.

Figure 3: Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Volumes (Bunker Hill Blvd./Carlos Bee Blvd.) LOS is used to describe the quality of intersection operations. LOS grades range from A to F, with LOS A representing free-flow conditions and LOS F indicating high levels of congestion. According to City guidelines, the acceptable level of service at an intersection is LOS E. Additional information regarding City methodologies and standards are provided in the PG 5 LTA.

As shown in Table 1, based on the assessment conducted in the PG 5 LTA, it is anticipated that the Bunker Hill Boulevard access point would operate with acceptable LOS during both peak hours as a side-street stop-controlled intersection.

Table 1: Automobile Level of Service, Existing Plus Project Conditions (Bunker Hill Blvd./Carlos Bee Blvd.) Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Acceptable LOS?
AM 16.1 C Yes
PM 14.9 B Yes
SOURCE: KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, 2022.

Table 2 shows the anticipated 95th percentile queues at the Bunker Hill Boulevard access point. As shown in the table, none of the queues are expected to exceed the available storage.

Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 5
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 2: Queues, Existing Plus Project Conditions (Bunker Hill Blvd./Carlos Bee Blvd.) Peak Hour Movement Storage Length
(ft)
Queue (ft) Exceed
Storage?
AM NB Left 300 < 25 No
Right 70 < 25 No
WB Left 600 < 25 No
PM NB Left 300 < 25 No
Right 70 < 25 No
WB Left 600 < 25 No
SOURCE: KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, 2022.

PG 5 LTA SIGHT DISTANCE ANALYSIS
The PG 5 LTA included an assessment of sight distance at the proposed access point at the new Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard intersection. The line of sight for the exiting stop-controlled movements at this location was analyzed to ensure that adequate sight distances are provided for vehicles to see pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles approaching the driveway. Line of sight was analyzed using standards and methodologies described in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. AASHTO standards were used to develop departure sight triangles at the intersection that should be unobstructed for vehicles to provide sufficient view of approaching vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.

Assuming a passenger car time gap of 8.5 seconds (based on AASHTO) and the posted speed limit of 30 mph along Carlos Bee Boulevard, the intersection sight distances were calculated, and recommended departure sight triangles are shown in Figure 4. As shown in the figure, 375 feet of sight distance is needed to the left (for exiting right-turning vehicles) and to the right (for exiting left-turning vehicles). Obstructions currently consist of trees. Therefore, the PG 5 LTA included a recommendation that when the Bunker Hill Boulevard intersection is being constructed, visual obstructions such as brush and landscaping should be cleared from the sight triangle area as shown in Figure 4 to provide adequate visibility.

Figure 4: Bunker Hill Blvd./Carlos Bee Blvd. Departure Sight Triangles Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 6
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
In response to local resident concerns about the proposed traffic controls, Kittelson evaluated the proposed intersection against traffic signal warrants from the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD). Traffic signal warrants are standards that provide guidelines in the determination of the need for a traffic signal (warrants studied are highlighted in bold).

The CA-MUTCD states: “An engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the location shall be performed to determine whether installation of a traffic control signal is justified at a particular location…The investigation for a traffic control signal shall include an analysis of the applicable factors contained in the following traffic signal warrants:
▪ Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
▪ Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
▪ Warrant 3, Peak Hour
▪ Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
▪ Warrant 5, School Crossing
▪ Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System
▪ Warrant 7, Crash Experience
▪ Warrant 8, Roadway Network
▪ Warrant 9, Intersection near a Grade Crossing
…The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.”1
This evaluation used available data (peak hour turning movement volumes and crash history) to conduct an analysis with respect to Warrant 3 (Peak Hour) and Warrant 7 (Crash Experience). Additionally, typical assumptions about the distribution of traffic throughout the day, based on peak hour counts, allowed for Warrant 1 (Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume) and Warrant 2 (Four-Hour Vehicular Volume) to be studied.

Warrants 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 were not applicable to this location and were not studied.2 Warrants 1 and 2, the eight-hour and four-hour volume warrants, are computed based on approach geometry (number of lanes) and vehicle volumes. Warrant 3, the peak hour signal warrant, is a function of approach geometry, volume, and vehicle delay. The CA-MUTCD advises that Warrant 3 “shall be applied only in unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or highoccupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time.” 3 Based on the available data, the intersection does not meet Warrants 1, 2, or 3 in the AM peak hour or the PM peak hour. Warrant sheets are provided in Attachment 1.

For an intersection to meet Warrant 7 (crash experience), the intersection needs to have observed at least five crashes “of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal” within a 12-month period.4 Kittelson obtained the ten most recent years of crash data (January 2011 through December 2020) for the proposed access point location as well as the existing Tanglewood/Carlos Bee Boulevard intersection, which is located approximately 100 feet away from the proposed Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard access point; reported crashes were obtained from the University of California, Berkeley, 1 CA-MUTCD, Section 4C.01
2 Warrants 4 and 5 are applicable for crossings without existing traffic control (i.e., STOP sign or traffic signal) to assist pedestrian crossings. Warrant 6 pertains to intersections that are part of a coordinated signal system, which this location is not. Warrants 8 and 9 are applicable to contexts not matching this site’s context. 3 CA-MUTCD, Section 4C.04, 02
4 CA-MUTCD, Section 4C.08, 02B
Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 7
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) database and the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database. This data is shown in Table 3; based on the reported crash history, the proposed access point location does not meet Warrant 7.

Note that while the Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard intersection currently does not exist, this crash analysis still includes crashes along the adjacent roadway segment which involve factors and traits that would be faced by vehicles using the proposed access point. In addition, it conservatively includes crashes at the adjacent Tanglewood intersection, since the two locations are linked and may need to be signalized as a single location.

Table 3: Reported Crash History, 2011-2020
Crash
Year
Road Users Involved Fatal Severe
Injury
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain
Property
Damage
Only
Total
2011-
2020
Pedestrian Involved 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycle Involved 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vehicle Only or
Vehicle-Fixed Object
0 0 0 5 2 7
All Reported Crashes 0 0 0 5 2 7
2011 All Reported Crashes 0 0 0 0 0 0
2012 All Reported Crashes 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 All Reported Crashes 0 0 0 0 0 0
2014 All Reported Crashes 0 0 0 0 0 0
2015 All Reported Crashes 0 0 0 2 0 2
2016 All Reported Crashes 0 0 0 1 1 2
2017 All Reported Crashes 0 0 0 0 0 0
2018 All Reported Crashes 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 All Reported Crashes 0 0 0 2 1 3
2020 All Reported Crashes 0 0 0 0 0 0
SOURCE: SWITRS, TIMS, KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, 2022.

In conclusion, the proposed access point at Bunker Hill Boulevard and Carlos Bee Boulevard does not meet the analyzed traffic signal warrants. As such, a traffic signal is not recommended at this location.

Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 8
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

TRAFFIC CONTROL RECOMMENDATION AND CONCEPTUAL DRIVEWAY
DESIGN
While the proposed project access point location does not trigger a traffic signal warrant, triggering a warrant is not the sole determinant for an intersection improvement. The City can at its discretion require or not require a signal be installed, based on other factors. Relevant conditions around the access point location are discussed below.
▪ Visibility: It could be difficult for exiting left-turning drivers waiting at a stop sign to see and anticipate westbound vehicles along Carlos Bee Boulevard due to the curve in the road to the east; this can present additional safety concerns when combined with the grade and downhill speeds (discussed below).
▪ Grade and downhill speeds: There is a significant grade along Carlos Bee Boulevard, which could result in higher downhill speeds for westbound vehicles. This could cause conflicts for exiting leftturning vehicles at a stop sign that are waiting for a gap in eastbound and westbound vehicles to exit the project site.
▪ Proximity of Carlos Bee Boulevard/Hayward Boulevard intersection: The proposed Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard intersection would be approximately 700 feet away from the signalized Carlos Bee Boulevard/Hayward Boulevard intersection, and approximately 500 feet away from that intersection’s channelized eastbound right-turn. It is not recommended to install a traffic signal in such close proximity.
▪ Proximity of future Parcel Group 6 intersection: The proposed Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard intersection would be approximately 950 feet away from the proposed signalized PG 6 access point. It is not recommended to install another traffic signal in such close proximity. ▪ Proximity of Tanglewood/Carlos Bee Boulevard intersection: Tanglewood is located approximately 100 feet west of the proposed project access point and consists of a full-access side-street stopcontrolled intersection. o It is not recommended to signalize the Bunker Hill Boulevard intersection with the unsignalized full-access Tanglewood intersection in such close proximity. o It may be infeasible to align Bunker Hill Boulevard with Tanglewood in order to construct a standard four-legged signalized intersection.
o Installing a traffic signal would require an offset signalized intersection that would control Bunker Hill Boulevard and Tanglewood with a single traffic signal. However, signalizing access to and from the City View Apartments via Tanglewood may face hurdles related to public/resident support, cost, and fair share contributions. o Implementing the Bunker Hill Boulevard access point as full-access side-street stopcontrolled could result in conflicts in the two-way left-turn lane for vehicles entering and leaving both sites due to the close proximity.
o Implementing the Bunker Hill Boulevard access point as right-in-right-out with a median would conflict with exiting vehicles from Tanglewood.

Based on these conditions, the recommendation for the City is to implement limited access at the Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard access point, allowing inbound left‐turns and right‐turns but restricting exiting vehicles to right‐turn only. With this approach, the City can address potential safety concerns for exiting left-turning vehicles while still allowing full access for vehicles entering from the east or from the west.

Drivers that want to exit the project site and travel west along Carlos Bee Boulevard towards Mission Boulevard would need to make a right turn from Bunker Hill Boulevard followed by a U-turn at the adjacent Carlos Bee Boulevard/Hayward Boulevard intersection or another location upstream to continue westbound along Carlos Bee Boulevard. This would add approximately a quarter mile of additional travel for project traffic making the U-turn at the Carlos Bee Boulevard/Hayward Boulevard intersection.

Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 9
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Potential conflicts between eastbound left-turning vehicles exiting Tanglewood onto Carlos Bee Boulevard and PG 5 trips turning westbound from Carlos Bee Boulevard onto Bunker Hill Boulevard, both using the twoway left-turn lane, are not anticipated. This is because there would be approximately 140 feet of storage available between Tanglewood and the new intersection, which is anticipated to be sufficient for vehicles exiting Tanglewood eastbound onto Carlos Bee Boulevard.

A conceptual layout is shown in Figure 5. As shown in the figure, exiting vehicles should be stop-controlled and restricted to right-turns only with a channelized right-turn lane that is physically separated by the inbound lane with a raised median. The channelization would orient vehicles to exit with a right turn into the eastbound direction and prevent a left-turn. The raised median should be mountable to ensure emergency vehicles can freely enter and exit Bunker Hill Boulevard. The inclusion of a channelized right-turn exit lane would require widening Bunker Hill Boulevard at Carlos Bee Boulevard. In addition, since there is a striped shoulder lane on the south side of Carlos Bee Boulevard, a merge lane should be included so that vehicles can merge onto the thru-lanes in advance of the eastbound right-turn lane at the adjacent Carlos Bee Boulevard/Hayward Boulevard intersection. There is also sufficient space to include an inbound eastbound right-turn lane at the access point, to further aid visibility and safety.

As shown in the figure, a merge is recommended instead aligning the channelized right-turn with the third eastbound lane along Carlos Bee Boulevard. This is due to three reasons:
▪ To avoid extending an additional obstruction (the curbed channelization) into the road. ▪ To prevent the loss of the taper for eastbound cars to gradually enter the third through/right lane. ▪ To avoid weaving movements as cars enter and exit the third eastbound lane.

Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 10
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 5: Bunker Hill Blvd./Carlos Bee Blvd. Conceptual Layout Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 11
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS W/ BUNKER HILL/CARLOS BEE ACCESS

CONTROL
LOS and queuing at the project access point were reassessed given the recommended changes. In addition, due to the additional U-turns at the intersection of Carlos Bee Boulevard and Hayward Boulevard, LOS and queuing at that intersection were also reassessed. The updated LOS and queuing information is provided in Tables 4 and 5. As shown in Table 4, both intersections would operate with acceptable LOS.

Additional delay added to the Carlos Bee Boulevard and Hayward Boulevard intersection associated with project U-turns would be minimal.

Table 4: Updated Automobile Level of Service
Intersection Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Acceptable LOS?
Bunker Hill Blvd./
Carlos Bee Blvd
AM 11.9 B Yes
PM 11.4 B Yes
Carlos Bee Blvd./
Hayward Blvd.

AM 32.7 C Yes
PM 29.7 C Yes
SOURCE: KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, 2022.

Table 5 shows the queues at both intersections, updated to reflect the recommended changes to the Bunker Hill Boulevard access point. As shown in the table, queues at the Bunker Hill Boulevard access point would continue to remain below the available storage. At the Carlos Bee Boulevard/Hayward Boulevard intersection, the westbound left queue length would exceed the length of the turn pocket during the PM peak hour. However, the queue does not increase as a result of project trips and would exceed the turn pocket lane under no project conditions. In addition, while the left-turn pocket is approximately 185 feet long, vehicles can also use the two-way left-turn lane which runs for the entirety of the block.

Table 5: Updated Queues
Intersection Peak Hour Movement Storage
Length (ft)
Queue (ft) Exceed
Storage?
Bunker Hill Blvd./
Carlos Bee Blvd AM NB Right 300 < 25 NoWB Left 600 < 25 No PM NB Right 300 < 25 No
WB Left 600 < 25 No
Carlos Bee Blvd./
Hayward Blvd.

AM
NB Left 530 46 No
Thru/Right 530 33 No
SB Left/Thru/Right 60 29 No
EB
Left 80 31 No
Thru 600 142 No
Right 185 < 25 No
WB Left 285 426 Yes
Thru/Right 1,440 325 No
PM
NB Left 530 253 No
Thru/Right 530 95 No
SB Left/Thru/Right 60 25 No
EB
Left 80 31 No
Thru 625 157 No
Right 185 < 25 No
WB Left 285 174 No
Thru/Right 1,440 117 No
SOURCE: KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, 2022.

Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 12
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

In addition, an AutoTurn template was prepared to determine if passenger vehicles exiting from Bunker Hill Boulevard can make a U-turn at the Carlos Bee Boulevard/Hayward Boulevard intersection to travel westbound towards Mission Boulevard; the AutoTurn template is provided as Attachment 3 to this memo.

As shown in the attachment, it is possible for a full-size passenger vehicle to complete a U-turn movement to continue westbound; a U-turn can be made if the vehicle utilizes the extra width within the intersection, since the existing curb limits a U-turn. Relatively few project trips are expected to conduct this maneuver, based on the project trip distribution (15 in the AM peak hour and 10 in the PM peak hour). It is possible that some vehicles might make their U-turn maneuver elsewhere by utilizing the two-way left-turn lane west of the Carlos Bee Boulevard/Hayward Boulevard intersection or by circling back at intersections further downstream and to the east.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The following summarizes the findings based on the analysis Kittelson conducted related to the proposed PG 5 access point at Bunker Hill Boulevard and Carlos Bee Boulevard. ▪ The proposed access point does not meet eight-hour vehicular volume (Warrant 1), four-hour vehicular volume (Warrant 2), peak hour (Warrant 3), or crash experience (Warrant 7) traffic signal warrants. As such, a traffic signal is not recommended. ▪ Based on a review of conditions at the proposed access point such as visibility, grade and downhill speeds, and the proximity to other intersections, the recommendation for the City is to implement limited access at the Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard access point, allowing inbound left‐turns and right‐turns but restricting exiting vehicles to right‐turn only. With this approach, the City can address potential safety concerns for exiting left-turning vehicles while still allowing full access for vehicles entering from the east or from the west. Potential conflicts between eastbound leftturning vehicles exiting Tanglewood onto Carlos Bee Boulevard and PG 5 trips turning westbound from Carlos Bee Boulevard onto Bunker Hill Boulevard, both using the two-way left-turn lane, are not anticipated due to the 140 feet of available storage. Drivers that want to exit the project site and travel west along Carlos Bee Boulevard towards Mission Boulevard would need to make a right turn from Bunker Hill Boulevard followed by a U-turn at the adjacent Carlos Bee Boulevard/Hayward Boulevard intersection to continue westbound along Carlos Bee Boulevard.

The attached AutoTurn template shows that this U-turn maneuver is achievable by passenger vehicles; it is possible that some vehicles might make their U-turn maneuver by utilizing the two-way left-turn lane west of the intersection or by circling back at intersections further downstream/east. ▪ A conceptual layout of the access point was prepared, which shows that exiting vehicles should be stop-controlled and restricted to right-turns only with a channelized right-turn lane that is physically separated by the inbound lane with a raised median. The channelization would orient vehicles to exit with a right turn into the eastbound direction and prevent a left-turn. The raised median should be mountable to ensure emergency vehicles can freely enter and exit Bunker Hill Boulevard. The inclusion of a channelized right-turn exit lane would require widening Bunker Hill Boulevard at Carlos Bee Boulevard. In addition, since there is a striped shoulder lane on the south side of Carlos Bee Boulevard, a merge lane should be included so that vehicles can merge onto the thru-lanes in advance of the eastbound right-turn lane at the adjacent Carlos Bee Boulevard/Hayward Boulevard intersection (aligning the channelized right-turn with the third eastbound lane along Carlos Bee Boulevard is not recommended). There is also sufficient space to include an inbound eastbound right-turn lane at the access point, to further aid visibility and safety. ▪ This recommended change to the Bunker Hill access point traffic control would not negatively affect traffic operations at that intersection nor at the intersection of Carlos Bee Boulevard/Hayward Boulevard.
▪ The change would add approximately a quarter mile of additional travel for project traffic making the U-turn at the Carlos Bee Boulevard/Hayward Boulevard intersection.

Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 13
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Traffic Signal Warrant Sheets
Attachment 2 – Updated Existing Plus Project Level of Service and Queuing Worksheets Attachment 3 – U-Turn at Intersection of Carlos Bee Blvd. and Hayward Blvd.

Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 14
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Attachment 1 – Traffic Signal Warrant
Sheets
Attachment XII
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
610 SW Alder, Suite 700
Portland, Oregon 97205 Begin End EB WB NB SB
(503) 228-5230 7:45 AM 8:45 AM 857 904 20 0
2nd Highest Hour 811 856 16 0
3rd Highest Hour 800 844 15 0
Project #: 4th Highest Hour 766 808 13 0
Project Name: 5th Highest Hour 754 796 12 0
Analyst: 6th Highest Hour 754 796 11 0
Date: 7th Highest Hour 720 759 11 0
File: 8th Highest Hour 708 747 10 0
9th Highest Hour 686 723 10 0
Intersection: 10th Highest Hour 640 675 10 0
Scenario: 11th Highest Hour 617 651 9 0
12th Highest Hour 606 639 9 0
13th Highest Hour 583 615 7 0
14th Highest Hour 503 530 7 0
15th Highest Hour 400 422 7 0
Warrant Name Analyzed? Met? 16th Highest Hour 377 398 6 0 #1 Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Yes No 17th Highest Hour 263 277 4 0 #2 Four-Hour Vehicular volume Yes No 18th Highest Hour 217 229 4 0 #3 Peak Hour Yes No 19th Highest Hour 114 121 1 0
#4 Pedestrian Volume No - 20th Highest Hour 80 84 1 0
#5 School Crossing No - 21st Highest Hour 69 72 1 0
#6 Coordinated Signal System No - 22nd Highest Hour 46 48 0 0 #7 Crash Experience Yes No 23rd Highest Hour 23 24 0 0
#8 Roadway Network No - 24th Highest Hour 23 24 0 0
#9 Intersection Near a Grade Crossing No -
Volume Adjustment Factor = 1.0
North-South Approach = Minor
East-West Approach = Major
Major Street Thru Lanes = 2
Minor Street Thru Lanes = 1 A 600 150 0 No
Speed > 40 mph? No B 900 75 0 No
Population < 10,000? No A 480 120 0 No
Warrant Factor 100% B 720 60 0 No
Peak Hour or Daily Count? Peak Hour A 420 105 0 No
B 630 53 0 No
Major Street: 4th-Highest Hour / Peak Hour 89% A 336 84 0 No Major Street: 8th-Highest Hour / Peak Hour 83% B 504 42 0 No Minor Street: 4th-Highest Hour / Peak Hour 66%
Minor Street: 8th-Highest Hour / Peak Hour 52%
26151
Hayward Parcel Group 5
MZS
Hour Major Street Minor Street
Analysis Traffic Volumes
1/20/2022
Warrant #1 - Eight Hour
Warrant
Factor
Condition Major Street
Requirement
Minor Street
Requirement
Hours That
Condition Is
Met
Condition for
Warrant Factor
Met?
Signal Warrant
Met?
H:\26\26151 - Parcel 5 Local Transportation
Analysis\Analysis\Access Point Additional
Analysis\warrants\peak hour\[ExistingPP_AM.xlsm]War
Input Parameters
Bunker Hill Blvd. & Carlos Bee Blvd.

Warrant Summary
Existing Plus Project AM
56% No
70% No
100% No
80% No
0 100
200
300
400
500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Higher Minor Street
Combined Major Street
Warrant #2 - Four-Hour
100% Warrant Factor
2 Major / 2 Minor
2 Major / 1 Minor
1 Major / 2 Minor
1 Major / 1 Minor
Traffic Volumes
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Higher Minor Street
Combined Major Street
Warrant #3 - Peak Hour
100% Warrant Factor
2 Major / 2 Minor
2 Major / 1 Minor
1 Major / 2 Minor
1 Major / 1 Minor
Traffic Volumes
Attachment XII
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
610 SW Alder, Suite 700
Portland, Oregon 97205 Begin End EB WB NB SB
(503) 228-5230 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 799 687 13 0
2nd Highest Hour 756 650 10 0
3rd Highest Hour 746 641 10 0
Project #: 4th Highest Hour 714 614 9 0
Project Name: 5th Highest Hour 703 605 8 0
Analyst: 6th Highest Hour 703 605 7 0
Date: 7th Highest Hour 671 577 7 0
File: 8th Highest Hour 661 568 7 0
9th Highest Hour 639 550 7 0
Intersection: 10th Highest Hour 597 513 7 0
Scenario: 11th Highest Hour 575 495 6 0
12th Highest Hour 565 485 6 0
13th Highest Hour 543 467 5 0
14th Highest Hour 469 403 4 0
15th Highest Hour 373 321 4 0
Warrant Name Analyzed? Met? 16th Highest Hour 352 302 4 0 #1 Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Yes No 17th Highest Hour 245 211 2 0 #2 Four-Hour Vehicular volume Yes No 18th Highest Hour 202 174 2 0 #3 Peak Hour Yes No 19th Highest Hour 107 92 1 0
#4 Pedestrian Volume No - 20th Highest Hour 75 64 1 0
#5 School Crossing No - 21st Highest Hour 64 55 0 0
#6 Coordinated Signal System No - 22nd Highest Hour 43 37 0 0 #7 Crash Experience Yes No 23rd Highest Hour 21 18 0 0
#8 Roadway Network No - 24th Highest Hour 21 18 0 0
#9 Intersection Near a Grade Crossing No -
Volume Adjustment Factor = 1.0
North-South Approach = Minor
East-West Approach = Major
Major Street Thru Lanes = 2
Minor Street Thru Lanes = 1 A 600 150 0 No
Speed > 40 mph? No B 900 75 0 No
Population < 10,000? No A 480 120 0 No
Warrant Factor 100% B 720 60 0 No
Peak Hour or Daily Count? Peak Hour A 420 105 0 No
B 630 53 0 No
Major Street: 4th-Highest Hour / Peak Hour 89% A 336 84 0 No Major Street: 8th-Highest Hour / Peak Hour 83% B 504 42 0 No Minor Street: 4th-Highest Hour / Peak Hour 66%
Minor Street: 8th-Highest Hour / Peak Hour 52%
56% No
70% No
100% No
80% No
1/20/2022
Warrant #1 - Eight Hour
Warrant
Factor
Condition Major Street
Requirement
Minor Street
Requirement
Hours That
Condition Is
Met
Condition for
Warrant Factor
Met?
Signal Warrant
Met?
H:\26\26151 - Parcel 5 Local Transportation
Analysis\Analysis\Access Point Additional
Analysis\warrants\peak hour\[ExistingPP_PM.xlsm]War
Input Parameters
Bunker Hill Blvd. & Carlos Bee Blvd.

Warrant Summary
Existing Plus Project PM
26151
Hayward Parcel Group 5
MZS
Hour Major Street Minor Street
Analysis Traffic Volumes
0 100
200
300
400
500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Higher Minor Street
Combined Major Street
Warrant #2 - Four-Hour
100% Warrant Factor
2 Major / 2 Minor
2 Major / 1 Minor
1 Major / 2 Minor
1 Major / 1 Minor
Traffic Volumes
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Higher Minor Street
Combined Major Street
Warrant #3 - Peak Hour
100% Warrant Factor
2 Major / 2 Minor
2 Major / 1 Minor
1 Major / 2 Minor
1 Major / 1 Minor
Traffic Volumes
Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 15
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Attachment 2 – Updated Existing Plus
Project Level of Service and Queuing
Worksheets
Attachment XII
HCM 6th TWSC Existing (AM) + PG5
91: Bunker Hill Blvd. & Carlos Bee Blvd.

Synchro 10 Report
Kittelson & Associates Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 851 6 2 917 0 20
Future Vol, veh/h 851 6 2 917 0 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 100 150 - - 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 2 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 925 7 2 997 0 22
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 932 0 - 463
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - - 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - - 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 730 - 0 546
Stage 1 - - - - 0 -
Stage 2 - - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 730 - - 546
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 11.9

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 546 - - 730 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.04 - - 0.003 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.9 - - 9.9 -
HCM Lane LOS B - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
Attachment XII
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing (AM) + PG5 6: Carlos Bee Blvd. & Hayward Blvd.

Synchro 10 Report
Kittelson & Associates Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 15 473 383 370 860 2 42 1 59 1 13 2 Future Volume (veh/h) 15 473 383 370 860 2 42 1 59 1 13 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1900 1856 1870 1900 1693 1900 1752 418 1441 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 17 550 0 430 1000 2 49 1 0 1 15 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 0 3 2 0 14 0 10 100 31 0
Cap, veh/h 35 777 466 1443 3 530 624 3 47 6
Arrive On Green 0.02 0.15 0.00 0.26 0.40 0.40 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 5106 1610 1767 3639 7 1612 1900 0 78 1167 156 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 17 550 0 430 488 514 49 1 0 18 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1702 1610 1767 1777 1869 1612 1900 0 1400 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 8.6 0.0 19.8 19.1 19.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 8.6 0.0 19.8 19.1 19.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.06 0.11
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 35 777 466 705 741 530 624 56 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.71 0.92 0.69 0.69 0.09 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 108 1098 496 775 815 530 624 301 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.6 33.7 0.0 30.0 21.0 21.0 19.4 18.9 0.0 39.1 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.8 1.2 0.0 22.1 2.4 2.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 3.5 0.0 10.9 8.0 8.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.4 34.9 0.0 52.1 23.4 23.3 19.8 18.9 0.0 42.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C D C C B B D A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 567 A 1432 50 A 18
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.4 32.0 19.8 42.3
Approach LOS D C B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 32.0 26.6 17.2 7.9 6.1 37.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.5 23.5 18.0 18.0 5.0 36.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.8 21.8 10.6 3.0 2.8 21.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.3 2.2 0.0 0.0 5.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.7
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Attachment XII
Queues Existing (AM) + PG5
6: Carlos Bee Blvd. & Hayward Blvd.

Synchro 10 Report
Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 17 550 445 430 1002 44 75 18
v/c Ratio 0.16 0.62 0.28 0.87 0.60 0.09 0.15 0.16
Control Delay 45.1 35.9 0.4 51.5 20.5 23.4 8.4 39.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 45.1 35.9 0.4 51.5 20.5 23.4 8.4 39.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 8 91 0 196 156 14 2 8
Queue Length 95th (ft) 31 142 0 #426 325 46 33 29
Internal Link Dist (ft) 851 575 459 181
Turn Bay Length (ft) 80 165 290
Base Capacity (vph) 107 1095 1615 492 1666 494 503 306
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.16 0.50 0.28 0.87 0.60 0.09 0.15 0.06 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Attachment XII
HCM 6th TWSC Existing (PM) + PG5
91: Bunker Hill Blvd. & Carlos Bee Blvd.

Synchro 10 Report
Kittelson & Associates Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 781 18 5 692 0 13
Future Vol, veh/h 781 18 5 692 0 13
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 100 150 - - 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 2 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 849 20 5 752 0 14
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 869 0 - 425
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - - 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - - 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 771 - 0 578
Stage 1 - - - - 0 -
Stage 2 - - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 771 - - 578
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 11.4

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 578 - - 771 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.024 - - 0.007 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.4 - - 9.7 -
HCM Lane LOS B - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
Attachment XII
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing (PM) + PG5 6: Carlos Bee Blvd. & Hayward Blvd.

Synchro 10 Report
Kittelson & Associates Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 17 588 196 182 341 1 337 11 388 0 9 9 Future Volume (veh/h) 17 588 196 182 341 1 337 11 388 0 9 9 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1885 1885 1841 1870 1900 1870 1900 1885 1900 1248 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 20 676 0 209 392 1 387 13 0 0 10 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 1 1 4 2 0 2 0 1 0 44 0
Cap, veh/h 41 908 251 1080 3 625 666 0 51 51
Arrive On Green 0.02 0.18 0.00 0.14 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 5147 1598 1753 3636 9 1781 1900 0 0 532 532 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 20 676 0 209 192 201 387 13 0 0 0 20 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1716 1598 1753 1777 1869 1781 1900 0 0 0 1065 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 9.6 0.0 8.9 6.5 6.5 13.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 9.6 0.0 8.9 6.5 6.5 13.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.50
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 41 908 251 528 555 625 666 0 0 102 V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.74 0.83 0.36 0.36 0.62 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.20 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 118 1110 351 623 655 625 666 0 0 249 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.2 30.1 0.0 32.1 21.3 21.3 20.7 16.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.8 2.2 0.0 11.3 0.4 0.4 4.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 4.0 0.0 4.5 2.7 2.8 6.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.0 32.3 0.0 43.4 21.7 21.7 25.3 16.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 LnGrp LOS D C D C C C B A A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 696 A 602 400 A 20
Approach Delay, s/veh 32.6 29.2 25.0 33.0
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 31.5 15.5 18.1 11.9 6.2 27.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.0 15.4 16.6 18.0 5.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.9 10.9 11.6 3.3 2.8 8.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.0 0.2 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.7
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Attachment XII
Queues Existing (PM) + PG5
6: Carlos Bee Blvd. & Hayward Blvd.

Synchro 10 Report
Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 20 676 225 209 393 348 498 20
v/c Ratio 0.16 0.64 0.14 0.67 0.28 0.56 0.59 0.15
Control Delay 39.7 31.0 0.2 41.3 17.6 24.9 7.0 27.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 39.7 31.0 0.2 41.3 17.6 24.9 7.0 27.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 8 96 0 84 48 122 14 4
Queue Length 95th (ft) 31 157 0 #174 117 253 95 25
Internal Link Dist (ft) 783 575 459 181
Turn Bay Length (ft) 80 165 290
Base Capacity (vph) 124 1175 1577 368 1436 625 844 354
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.16 0.58 0.14 0.57 0.27 0.56 0.59 0.06 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 16
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Attachment 3 – U-Turn at Intersection of
Carlos Bee Blvd. and Hayward Blvd.

Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 17
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Attachment XII
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

RB RB RA RA
Attachment XV
PAD

CONFORM TO
EX. GROUND
EX. GROUND
(TYP)
FILL

RIPARIAN FOREST LIMITS

PER WRA
STREAM
LIMITS

PER WRA
38'±
64'±
33'± 23'±
87'±
120'±

PROPOSED LIMITS OF

DOWNHILL STRUCTURE

PROPOSED

PROPERTY LINE EDGE OF RIPARIAN

FOREST TREE CANOPY

PER WRA

LIMITS OF

IMPROVEMENTS

RETAINING
WALL
STREAM
LIMITS

PER WRA
92'±

RIPARIAN FOREST LIMITS

PER WRA

BIORETENTION AREA
2'±
FILL
CUT

CONFORM TO
EX. GROUND
FILL
EX. GROUND
(TYP)

PROPOSED

PROPERTY LINE

EDGE OF RIPARIAN

FOREST TREE CANOPY

PER WRA RETAINING
WALL

SEWER PUMP

STATION
BUNKER
HILL
COURT

TOP OF BANK PER

WRA DELINEATION

TOP OF BANK PER

WRA DELINEATION

ORDINARY HIGH

WATER MARK PER WRA

DELINEATION

ORDINARY HIGH

WATER MARK PER WRA

DELINEATION

BUNKER HILL

LIMITS OF GRADING
@ RIPARIAN FOREST

SECTION AT BUNKER HILL BLVD
RA SCALE:1"=20'

SECTION AT BUNKER HILL COURT
RB SCALE:1"=20'
1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, March 24, 2022, 7:00 p.m.

The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Oquenda.

The Planning Commission held a virtual meeting with teleconference participation by members of the Planning Commission, staff and public.

ROLL CALL

Present: COMMISSIONERS: Ali-Sullivan, Bonilla, Goldstein, Lowe, Roche, Stevens CHAIRPERSON: Oquenda

Absent: COMMISSIONER: None
Staff Members Present: Brick, Chan, Chang, Lochirco, Ott, Parras, Schmidt, Wikstrom PUBLIC COMMENT:

There were none.

PUBLIC HEARING:

1. Proposed Development of a New Residential Subdivision with 74 New Single-Family Homes and Eighteen Accessory Dwelling Units and Related Site Improvements, Including Construction of a Segment of the Foothill Trail, and a New Roadway Connector from Bunker Hill Boulevard to Carlos Bee Boulevard, Requiring a Zone Change and Tentative Tract Map Application No. 202003054 for Caltrans Parcel Group 5. Trumark Properties LLC (applicant), City of Hayward (Owner).

Acting Principal Planner Schmidt provided a synopsis of the staff report.

Transportation Planner Chang spoke about transportation study and traffic calming measures and traffic management plan.

Ms. Pamela Nieting and Mr. Garrett Hinds, applicant Trumark Homes, spoke about the Bunker Hill project.

Commissioner Stevens disclosed that he works with the proposed project’s architects, environmental analyst, and landscape architect and this does not pose a conflict of interest and will participate in the item.

Commissioner Stevens asked if the development rendering from Mission Boulevard was provided to Planning Commissioners; Acting Principal Planner Schmidt said this was not part of the applicant’s submittal to staff and believes it was shared with the community at Attachment XVI
2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, March 24, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
the last community meeting. In response to Mr. Stevens’ questions about design and architecture, Mr. Hinds said that Trumark’s design to is to have the homes step down the hill and chose the contemporary style which will work well with roof solar panels; and the maximized terracing and minimized massing. Mr. Stevens said in viewing the elevations the appearance looks cold, Mr. Hinds said they are working with the stucco facades, stones, and warm earth tone materials to have a richer texture and smooth out the sides and have smaller trees. Mr. Stevens asked about the pony wall on the downhill lots, Mr. Hinds responded the pony walls will have vegetation and other elements to eliminate that impact.

Commissioner Goldstein asked about access to the accessory dwelling units (ADU), Mr.

Hinds responded that the ADUs will have their own access doors, the developer cannot guarantee that all 18 units will meet the universal design criteria as this is a sloped lot, and each home has open parking in front of the units. In response to Mr. Goldstein’s question about the affordable ADUs; Acting Principal Planner Schmidt said if rented, the ADUs will be deed restricted; the Housing Division will monitor the deed restricted ADUs for compliance. Assistant City Manager Ott added there will be a recorded agreement on the property regarding the deed restriction with annual reporting and monitoring to ensure compliance. In response to Mr. Goldstein’s question if the just cause eviction restrictions also apply to ADUs attached to single family homes as with ADUs that are separate units; Ms. Ott said that Housing Manager Morales confirmed that “just cause eviction restrictions” also apply to attached ADUs. Mr. Goldstein stated that low and very low-income populations depend on public transportation and if the traffic study took this into consideration; Mr. Sahimi, the City’s traffic consultant with Kittelson responded about the availability of bus stops along Mission Boulevard between Carlos Bee and Harder.

Transportation Planner Chang responded that the traffic generation took into consideration both the single-family homes and ADUs and looks at a worst-case scenario.

Mr. Goldstein strongly encouraged the applicant to build the rooftop entertainment areas and ensure that units are re-enforced appropriately. Ms. Pamela Nieting responded to Mr.

Goldstein that the London Tree had low suitability for preservation and the new trees being planted will be protected trees.

Commissioner Roche asked why an extension from Bunker Hill to Harder Road was not considered; Assistant City Manager Ott responded that both City staff, City consultants and Trumark engineers looked at this option, but the slopes were too steep. Ms. Roche said the sentiment from the community meetings for the Parcel Group 5 Master Plan and the neighborhood letter that was received, was to maintain a rural characteristic and she finds the design severe and more suited for a downtown housing corridor. Mr. Hinds responded that one neighbor liked the design, and one did not; he spoke about the research Trumark conducted and that the contemporary design is well received at this time. Ms. Roche said the design is not a good fit as there are unnatural straight lines as one looks across the hill. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, March 24, 2022, 7:00 p.m.

Acting Principal Planner Schmidt responded to Ms. Roche that all the hillsides have been rezoned Planned Development (PD) and spoke about the intent to preserve the large lots.

Ms. Roche noted that parking could be a concern in this area and asked about a condition To restrict garages so that this space cannot be used for extra living space or storage; Ms.

Schmidt said there is not a condition for this. Assistant City Attorney Brick responded that according to state law an ADU can be added in the garage and the City would need to research further regarding placing this restriction on the units. Ms. Ott said that staff’s recommendation is not to have traditional onsite inclusionary housing; there is no guarantee that the ADUs will be rented; this site is near California State University East Bay (CSUEB) with a potential student rental market and noted the ADUs that are not deed restricted are still considered moderate income units which can address the housing crisis.

Ms. Ott added that this is a new pilot program and City will evaluate the program to see how successful it is. Ms. Roche suggested the following options: compact townhouses/condominium complexes and SB 9; Ms. Ott responded that staff did look at the townhome option, but this would require a General Plan amendment; staff wanted to rely on the existing General Plan; noting that the community was vested in the General Plan designation. Ms. Ott responded that staff is researching the SB 9 option; Assistant City Attorney Brick confirmed that staff is looking into the SB 9 option and that the SB 9 split might not be allowed for Parcel 5 lots. Transportation Planner Chang responded to Ms.

Roche’s question about the impact to the traffic analysis if all the ADUs were occupied; Mr.

Chang said CEQA only looks at land uses for the residential impacts and noted that for the local transportation analysis, staff used the industry standard which is the Institute of Transportation Manual which were inclusive of the ADUs.

Commissioner Ali-Sullivan commented that it will be interesting to see the outcome of the new ADUs pilot program. Mr. Hinds responded to Mr. Ali-Sullivan’s question regarding building options for the ADUs and that not every lot can have an ADU because of lot limitations and access; Ms. Neiting said because of accessibility, the placement of the deed restricted ADUs was intentional. Mr. Ali-Sullivan stated that compliance on the deed restricted ADUs is important. Mr. Hinds responded that they are prepared to break ground as soon as Trumark receives approvals. Assistant City Manager Ott added that the City will have a contract with Trumark that will have a performance schedule and Parcel Group 5 will only be transferred out of the City when certain benchmarks are completed. Ms. Ott shared that Trumark is very professional and has been great to work with. Mr. Ali-Sullivan appreciated the variety of scale and that the design reflects the architectural style in the area. He also appreciated the developer’s work on integrating the design with the topography of the area.

Commissioner Lowe disclosed visiting the site. Assistant City Manager Ott provided a background for the size of the lots to give the developer flexibility and assure the community that the new development would be compatible with the existing 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, March 24, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
neighborhood. Ms. Lowe was very concerned about the ADUs being rented as affordable units as opposed to having a certain number of moderately priced houses; Ms. Ott said that the City was balancing several objectives such as keeping the development low density as that was preferred by the community; paying Caltrans; generating excess land value that can go back to the City for the cost of demolition of the existing buildings; helping pay for CSUEB easement and funds to go towards other City projects; and noting this site was very expensive because of all of the geotechnical work. Ms. Lowe asked if there were any plans for play structures along the trail; Mr. Hinds said the planning for the trail was for viewing and less kid friendly. Ms. Lowe asked if there were any traffic plans for Carlos Bee to prevent drivers from veering to the right and then making a left turn; Transportation Planner Chang responded that staff looked at this thoroughly and the existing issue is that there are two left turn lanes in the median and several driveways close to where the connector will be located, he added that existing residents needed to access their neighborhoods. Ms. Lowe asked if Hayward residents can have priority to the deed restricted ADUs; Ms. Ott said staff is finalizing the inclusionary agreement and that usually residents and employees will be given preference. Ms. Lowe asked how is it that the existing four homeowners are included in the zone change; Ms. Schmidt responded that one of the homeowners approached the City and wanted to build an addition/or another home and it became apparent that even though the existing neighborhood would be surrounded by a PD district they would not benefit from this change; staff then approached Trumark and asked if the existing four parcels could be included; Trumark was not opposed to this and staff prepared the addendum for the existing parcels.

Commissioner Bonilla was very concerned about the uncertainty that the deed restricted ADUs would be rented as affordable housing; he asked about having the developer pay the entire in-lieu fee to provide more affordable housing opportunities for the community.

Assistant City Manager Ott responded that staff provided options to the City Council and Council felt that since this was public land that there should be an onsite affordable housing component.

Commissioner Roche asked about trail access that can include bikes and wheelchairs and noted the concerns about the parking location and requested that the applicant work with the neighbors; Acting Principal Planner Schmidt responded there is a sloped area for alternate trail access that will work for bicycles and wheelchairs.

Chair Oquenda asked what the constraints for affordable housing developers are; Assistant City Manager Ott responded that Parcel Group 5 is a very expensive site to develop; parcels must be looked at individually; other sites were better for affordable housing and noted that Eden Housing shared this consensus; the need to work with community partners and staff did not feel this site was viable for 100 percent affordable housing. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, March 24, 2022, 7:00 p.m.

Chair Oquenda opened the public hearing at 8:41 p.m.

Ms. Mary Ann Higgs, Hayward resident, supported the proposed project; likes the singlefamily homes and inclusion of the ADUs and feels this is a creative solution to the housing crisis; and shared that in the existing neighborhood many existing ADUs are rented to students. Ms. Higgs said that Trumark has been incredibly collaborative with the community and open to new ideas.

Ms. Debbie Fredericks, Hayward resident, spoke about a bus stop that is not used that can be pursued; thanked Commissioners and applicant for reading her comments and her email that asked that the area be left open space; asked that existing gas lines be maintained; said the traffic report had left hand turns coming into Bunker Hill Boulevard from the campus; the housing architecture is not compatible with the neighborhood as they look like warehouses and would like the applicant to soften the design as Trumark indicated.

Mr. William Craven, Hayward resident, expressed disappointment with the traffic plan and asked why residents are not able to make left hand turns and what is the timetable of the building of Parcel Group 5.

Mr. Thomas Birt, Hayward resident, had concerns about public parking; the parking density around the loop; asked how this will work for trash pickup trucks and fire trucks and requested more discussion about this.

Chair Oquenda closed the public hearing at 8:56 p.m.

Transportation Planner Chang responded to the left turn question; Mr. Chang said due to the proximity of Tanglewood which is less than 100 feet away from the proposed intersection, there would be a conflict for cars coming out or going into Tanglewood.

Acting Principal Planner Schmidt said the connector from Bunker Hill to Carlos Bee will be the first phase of development and the rest will come after.

Commissioner Goldstein commented that he is excited about this project; he favors the onsite inclusionary housing element as a pilot program; this is an excellent site to appeal to students; the ADUs will be built into very nice homes of high quality; hopes that this will work out and hopes for positive feedback. Mr. Goldstein likes the style and variation of the architectural design, the visual aspect; and the housing and ADU variations. He favored the collection of inlieu fees that will benefit other affordable housing projects. Mr. Goldstein commended staff and applicant on this project. Mr. Goldstein asked staff to put Ms. Fredericks in touch with HARD about the land she wants to donate.
6 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, March 24, 2022, 7:00 p.m.

Commissioner Roche appreciated the collaboration effort to get to this point; would have preferred a duet model for affordable housing; it is helpful to know that existing ADUs are rented to students; recommended to applicant to market the ADUs to the affordable housing population and students. Ms. Roche said this is a good project for the City; encouraged the softening of the design; liked the community benefit of the trail and connecting with other properties; and encouraged the applicant to continue discussions with neighbors especially about the traffic impacts.

Commissioner Lowe commented that she liked the modern architecture; there are a lot of great qualities; liked the dog parks; it is positive that the trail is a loop; is very concerned that the 18 ADUs would not be rented out but is encouraged that the original plan was for eight ADUs; the project does a good job of having a variety of low income housing types and creating student housing especially in this area that is so close to CSUEB; the $2 million dollars in-lieu fees is significant; and recommended that there needs to be oversight that the ADUs be rented to low and very-low income individuals.

Commissioner Stevens does not favor the architectural plans; the product is generic and a poor choice for this location; and noted this is a prominent site with amazing views. Mr.

Stevens said in reviewing the architecture in the Master Plan for this area, it was very different and questioned developing a Master Plan if it is not followed; another misuse is cramming ADU units in these houses that will cost about $1 million dollars and the practicality of staff having to monitor the renting of the affordable units. Mr. Stevens recommended asking the applicant to develop an amazing product that will generate a tremendous amount of revenue for the City which can then be invested in other City projects.

Commissioner Ali-Sullivan commented that the Commission has seen two Route 238 projects; the projects are unique, intricate and complex; the ADU and affordable housing is a massive problem and this proposed project addresses this issue in two ways, the developer is paying in-lieu fees and also building potential affordable housing ADUs; which is a unique and novel approach; the Commission has raised concerns about enforcement; and is confident that through the City and developer agreements and the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, this will be monitored. The design has taken in the topography very well; and suggested that the rooftop desks be included this in the project. Mr. Ali-Sullivan supports the project and made a motion to approve the staff recommendation.

Commissioner Lowe seconded the motion.

Commissioner Bonilla stated that he likes the project; the community benefit of the trails; likes the design; it will be a beautiful community but has serious concerns regarding the City’s commitment to affordable housing. Mr. Bonilla said that the $2 million of in-lieu fees is significant but what about the other $2 million that can be used for other projects; he is 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, March 24, 2022, 7:00 p.m.
hoping that this affordable housing pilot program will work but has concerns that this is too much of a risk and then there is the staff time for the enforcement to make sure the deed restricted ADUs are in compliance. Mr. Bonilla said this is not feasible given the purchase price for these homes and preferred that the developer pay 100% in-lieu fees because of the ambiguity of renting the deed restricted ADUs.

Chair Oquenda shared Commissioner Bonilla’s comments and asked how firm is requiring the deed restricted ADUs versus paying full in-lieu fees; Assistant City Manager Ott shared that this was a City Council directive that the onsite affordable housing be included in the request for proposals and to change this would have a significant economic impact on the bottom line; staff will pass along the Commission’s recommendation and concerns to Council, especially the uncertainty of whether the deed restricted units be rented and noted that the item is going to Council on April 19, 2022. Mr. Oquenda stated that the affordable housing element for this project is a mistake; it is impractical and has concerns and he stated that he has been tracking this site for a long time. Mr. Oquenda said the additional funding that can be obtained from the developer can be used for future affordable housing projects and does not agree with building single family homes on this site. Ms. Ott said with the purchase price of the land, there will be excess land value and there could be a suggestion to Council about how to obtain these funds and utilize the funds for affordable housing. Mr. Oquenda trusts that staff will convey the Commissions concerns to Council.

Commissioner Roche said that the majority of Commissioners have the same concerns about the affordable housing element and if the ADUs will be rented and asked what the rent would be; Assistant City Manager Ott responded that the rent would be from $1250 to $1500. Ms.

Roche agreed with Commissioner Bonilla about the price of these homes.

Commissioner Goldstein stated for his fellow Commissioners that for $2 million dollars a developer would not be able to build 18 ADUs; he finds this pilot program brilliant and whole heartedly supports the project.

Commissioner Ali-Sullivan echoed Commissioner Goldstein’s comments and that there is an opportunity here for the affordable housing option and this is a win-win for residents and the City.

Commissioner Lowe commented that this was not an easy decision; supports including in the staff report that the Commission wanted the in-lieu fees to go towards affordable housing and that the Commissioners would like to see all 18-deed restricted ADUs rented out and hopes that the new homeowners agree with the Commission. Ms. Lowe said this affordable housing pilot program is worth the gamble.
8 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, March 24, 2022, 7:00 p.m.

A motion was made by Commissioner Ali-Sullivan, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, to approve the staff recommendation. The motion passed with the following roll call votes:

AYES: Commissioners Ali-Sullivan, Goldstein, Lowe, Roche NOES: Commissioners Bonilla and Stevens and Chair Oquenda ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2. Approval of the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 24, 2022.

A motion was made by Commissioner Roche, seconded by Commissioner Goldstein, to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 24, 2022.

The motion passed with the following roll call votes:

AYES: Commissioners Bonilla, Goldstein, Lowe, Oquenda, Stevens Chair Roche
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Ali-Sullivan

STAFF AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
Staff announcements on Planning and Zoning Matters:

Planning Manager Lochirco made three announcements; reminded Commissioners that on Friday, March 25, 2022, there is the Decision Makers Training; the joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting scheduled for April 12, 2022, has been cancelled and that staff is working on several other efforts to get prepared for the joint meeting. Mr. Lochirco announced that staff will be releasing the Balancing Act that allows the public and Commissioners to go into the site and provide direct comments on topics. He announced that in May, staff will be releasing the Housing Draft Element and hold a community meeting. Mr.

Lochirco said the target date for the first hybrid Planning Commission meeting will be on May 12, 2022.
9 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, March 24, 2022, 7:00 p.m.

Commissioners’ Announcements, Referrals:

Commissioner Stevens announced that the CSUEB Theater Department is now offering plays and he attended a wonderful event and that CSUEB has a great venue.

ADJOURNMENT
Chair Oquenda adjourned the meeting at 9:42 p.m.

APPROVED:
______________________________________________________
Briggitte Lowe, Secretary
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
______________________________________________________
Denise Chan, Senior Secretary
Office of the City Clerk
CITY OF HAYWARD Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: PH 22-022
DATE: April 19, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works

SUBJECT
Rockaway Lane Width Realignment: Public Hearing Pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 10 of the Hayward Municipal Code and Introduction of an Ordinance to Amend the Precise Plan Line for Rockaway Lane from “A” Street to Russell Way, Reducing the Right-of-Way Width Requirement from 68 feet to 56 feet; Applicant/Owner: William Frankel, 22422 Rockaway LLC, Application No. 202105041

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council holds a public hearing as required by Article 4, Chapter 10 of the Hayward Municipal Code and introduces an Ordinance to amend the Precise Plan line for Rockaway Lane (Attachment II) based on the analysis in this report.

SUMMARY
The Council adopted Resolution 22-060 (Attachment III) on March 22, 2022 setting the date and time for a public hearing pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 10 of the Hayward Municipal Code to be held on April 19, 2022 at 7:00pm. During this public hearing, the Council shall afford persons an opportunity to be heard prior to the amendment of the precise plan line. Notice of the resolution has been published in a newspaper of general circulation and posted on Rockaway Lane as required by the Municipal Code.

The current precise plan line for Rockaway Lane requires a 20-foot-wide dedication on the east side of the roadway to create a 68-foot-wide right of way. Rockaway Lane is a short street extending north approximately 2 blocks from the intersection with A Street as shown on the Vicinity Map (Attachment IV). The precise plan line affects a total of three properties, two of which have been previously developed as apartments. William Frankel, the owner of 22422 Rockaway Lane (APN 415-0230-078-00) has a current planning application to develop the remaining vacant property and has requested the City amend the precise plan line and increase the developable area of the property (Attachment V). Staff has reviewed the request and supports a reduction in the precise plan line requirement from a 68-foot rightof-way to a 56-foot right-of-way consistent with Standard Street Sections for a Residential Public Street (Attachment VI).

Planning Commission Review
CITY OF HAYWARD Page 1 of 2 Printed on 4/15/2022
powered by Legistar™
File #: PH 22-022
The Planning Commission reviewed this request as part of a public hearing held on February 10, 2022 and recommended the reduction in width of the Rockaway Lane Precise Plan Line from 68 feet to 56 feet.

This project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15301(c) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines as an existing facility.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Ordinance Amending Precise Plan Line
Attachment III Resolution 22-060
Attachment IV Vicinity Map
Attachment V Applicant Request
Attachment VI Residential Street Standards
Attachment VII Existing Previse Plan Line
Attachment VIII Proposed Precise Plan Line
Attachment IX Route 238 Bypass Alignment
CITY OF HAYWARD Page 2 of 2 Printed on 4/15/2022
powered by Legistar™

Page 1 of 5 ends

Hayward City CouncilApril 19, 2022

Hayward City Council
April 19, 2022