Union City City Council
March 22, 2022

AGENDA

CITY OF UNION CITY/

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
Tuesday, March 22, 2022
7:00 PM
Held Via Teleconference. To access meeting please see Teleconference Guidelines.

Consistent with California State Assembly Bill 361, the City Council will be participating in public meetings via phone/video conferencing. Please see Teleconferece Guildines to learn how to view or participate in the City Council Meeting

1. CALL TO ORDER

1.a. Pledge of Allegiance

1.b. Roll Call
Mayor Carol Dutra-Vernaci
Vice Mayor Jaime Patiño
Councilmember Emily Duncan
Councilmember Pat Gacoscos
Councilmember Gary Singh

2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None

3. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

3.a. Proclaiming March 2022 as the 20th Annual March for Meals Month

3.b. Proclaiming March 2022 as American Red Cross Month

3.c. Bay Adapt: Regional Strategy for a Rising Bay Presentation; Jessica Fain, San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission

4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
City Council/RSA Agenda 1 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
An individual speaker shall have three minutes to address the Council on non-agenda items under the Oral Communications section of the agenda. The Mayor may, in their discretion, lower the time limit to less than three minutes based on the number of speakers and/or business to be conducted by the City Council.

Members of the public who wish to speak to the Council under the first Oral Communications section are requested to complete a speaker card, giving their name and city of residence. If a speaker wants further notification from the City, the speaker may include a mailing address. Neither a speaker card or identification of name, city of residence or mailing address are not required to provide public comment but are requested for record keeping purposes.

4.a. Written Public Comment

5. CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed on the Consent Calendar are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by one motion. If discussion is required on a specific item, it will be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered separately.

5.a. Waived Further Reading of Proposed Ordinance
(This permits reading the title only in lieu of reciting the entire text of any proposed Ordinance.)

5.b. Approve the Minutes of the City Council Meetings Held on March 8, 2022

5.c. Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Union City Approving the Development Agreement (DA-22-001) for the Windflower Block 2 Project for the Purpose of Extending the Project Approvals

5.d. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager or their Designee to Submit the Required Funding Application and to Execute the Certifications and Assurances and Authorized Agent Forms for the Low-Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) Project, Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure for Union City Transit Fleet, in the Amount of $215,572 and to Place the Award in the Transit Fund (5110), City Project No. 20- 04 5.e. Adopt a Resolution Accepting Work for the 2020-21 Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter Repair Project, City Project No. 20-03

5.f. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing an Amendment to the Authorized Position List of the Fiscal Year 2021-22 and 2022-23 Operating Budget to add a Finance Specialist III Position, a Human Resources Manager Position, a Human Resource Director
Position, and an Information Technology Director Position; and Remove From the Authorized Position List the Human
Resources Analyst II Position, the Chief Human Resource City Council/RSA Agenda 2 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Officer Position, and the Chief Information Officer Position

5.g. Adopt a Resolution Approving the City Manager to Authorize the Advance Purchase of Park Improvement Equipment Prior to Award of Construction Contract for the Old Alvarado/Cesar Chavez Parks Improvement Project, City Project No. 21-13

5.h. Adopt a Resolution Appointing Individuals to Serve on the Arts and Culture Commission

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS

6.a. Adopt a Resolution Approving Site Development Review (SD21-003), Use Permit (UP-21-005) and Variance (V-21-002) for a Proposed Addition to an Existing Veterinary Clinic at 33663 Mission Blvd (APN 486-6-33) in the Community Commercial (CC) Zoning District

7. CITY MANAGER REPORTS

7.a. Receive Informational Report on 2021 Fireworks Season and Education Plans for 2022 Fireworks Season

7.b. Adopt a Resolution Approving an Amendment to the
Compensation and Benefit Plan for Unrepresented Employees and Approving an Amendment to the City’s Salary Schedule in Conformance with California code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5

8. SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY -
None

9. AUTHORITIES AND AGENCIES - None

10. CITY COMMISSION / COMMITTEE REPORTS

10.a. Annual Report to the City Council from the Sales Tax &Utility Users' Tax Oversight Committee

11. SCHEDULED ORAL COMMUNICATION - None

12. ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL

13. GOOD OF THE ORDER

14. CLOSED SESSION - None

15. ADJOURNMENT
A complete agenda packet is available for review at City Hall or on our website www.unioncity.org
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of City Council members regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the City Clerk's Counter at City Hall, located at 34009 Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, California, during normal business hours.

City Council/RSA Agenda 3 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Assistance will be provided to those requiring accommodations for disabilities in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Interested person must request the accommodation at least two working days in advance of the meeting by contacting the City Clerk at (510) 675- 5348.

TELECONFERENCING GUIDELINES FOR THE CITY OF UNION CITY REGULAR COUNCIL

MEETING
COVID-19 Notice: Consistent with State of California Executive Order No. 29-20 dated March 17, 2020, the City Council will be participating in public meetings via phone/video conferencing. The City Council Chambers will not be open to the public. Members of the public can observe and address the Council using the below technological processes.

How to watch the meeting remotely:

1. Comcast TV Channel 15 (UCTV 15)

2. Live stream https: https://www.unioncity.org/199/City-Meetings-Video How to Address Council:

Written Comment: To provide written comment on an item on the agenda or to address the Council about an issue during Public Comment, you may send an email to [email protected]. Please include the phrase "public comment" in the subject line and note the agenda item number that you want to address. Written comments received before 3:00 p.m. will be e-mailed to the City Council and made publicly available. Comments received after 3:00 p.m. will be read into the record for up to the first 300 words (approximately 3 minutes consistent with the time limit provided for public speakers) and added to the official record.

Public Comment via Teleconference: Members of the public may address the Council on a matter on the agenda or during the Public Input portion of the meeting. Raise your virtual hand to notify the host that you would like to speak during that portion.

Instructions on Raising your Hand in Zoom Webinar:

1.Click Raise Hand in the webinar controls. The host will be notified that you've raised your hand.

2.If the host allows you to talk, you may be prompted to unmute yourself. While unmuted, your profile picture and name is displayed to the host and panelists. Only your name is displayed to other attendees.

3.Click Raise Hand in the webinar controls to lower it, if needed. This will not mute yourself if you are unmuted.

Zoom Shortcuts:

Windows: You can also use the AltY keyboard shortcut to raise or lower your hand.

Mac: You can also use the OptionY keyboard shortcut to raise or lower your hand.

Please click the link below to join the webinar:
http://citycouncil-live.unioncity.org/
City Council/RSA Agenda 4 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Passcode: Mr6%qH6P
Or Telephone:

Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):

US: +1 213 338 8477 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 408 638 0968 or +1 646 518 9805 Webinar ID: 928 8582 6000
Passcode: 52282697
ADA Accessibility: If you require a reasonable modification or accommodation for a disability, please email the
City Clerk at [email protected] a minimum of two (2) business days prior to the Council meeting. 3511412.1
City Council/RSA Agenda 5 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Agenda Item
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Proclamation Attachment
City Council/RSA Agenda 6 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
City Council/RSA Agenda 7 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Agenda Item
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Proclamation Attachment
City Council/RSA Agenda 8 Tuesday, March 22, 2022

CITY OF UNION CITY

PROCLAMATION

AMERICAN RED CROSS MONTH, 2022
WHEREAS, In times of crisis, people in Union City come together to care for one another. This humanitarian spirit is part of the foundation of our community and is exemplified by American Red Cross volunteers and donors; and WHEREAS,In 1881, Clara Barton founded the American Red Cross, turning her steadfast dedication for helping others into a bold mission of preventing and alleviating people’s suffering. Today, more than 140 years later, we honor the kindness and generosity of Red Cross volunteers here in Union City, who continue to carry out Clara’s lifesaving legacy.

They join the millions of people across the United States who volunteer, give blood, donate financially, or learn vital lifepreserving skills through the Red Cross; and WHEREAS, In the San Francisco Bay Area, the contributions of local Red Cross volunteers give hope to the most vulnerable in their darkest hours — whether it’s providing emergency shelter, food and comfort for families devastated by local disasters like home fires, providing first aid and CPR training, donating essential blood for accident and burn victims, heart surgery and organ transplant patients, and those receiving treatment for leukemia, cancer or sickle cell disease; supporting service members and veterans, along with their families and caregivers, through the unique challenges of military life; helping to save the lives of others with first aid, CPR and other skills; or delivering international humanitarian aid; and
WHEREAS, Their work to prevent and alleviate human suffering is vital to strengthening our community’s resilience. We dedicate this month of March to all those who continue to advance the noble legacy of American Red Cross founder Clara Barton, who lived by her words, “You must never think of anything except the need, and how to meet it.” We ask others to join in this commitment to give back in our community.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City, does hereby proclaim March 2022, as American Red Cross Month in the City of Union City, in recognition of their invaluable work and efforts not only in our community, but around the country.

DATED this 22nd day of March 2022
City Council/RSA Agenda 9 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Agenda Item
DATE: 3/22/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOAN MALLOY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: BAYADAPT: REGIONAL STRATEGY FOR A RISING BAY
PRESENTATION; JESSICA FAIN, SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION

AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Jessica Fain, Director of Planning, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, will be presenting Bay Adapt: Regional Strategy for a Rising Tide.

Attached below is a link to the four page summary of the Bay Adapt presentation.

Also attached is the link to the Bay Adapt: Regional Strategy for a Rising Tide webpage:

Joint Platform – Bay Adapt

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT

BACKGROUND

DISCUSSION

FISCAL IMPACT

RECOMMENDATION
City Council/RSA Agenda 10 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Prepared by:

Jessica Fain, Director of Planning, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Submitted by:

Joan Malloy, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Executive Summary - Bay Adapt: Regional Strategy fora Rising Bay Resolution City Council/RSA Agenda 11 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
The Bay is Rising
The time to come together to act is now.

Sea level rise is no longer a distant threat and the San Francisco Bay Area stands to be one of the hardest hit in North America.

It’s past time for us to get ready.

As we walk the dog along our favorite waterfront, the waves don’t seem any taller.

As we wait in traffic at the Bay Bridge toll plaza, the water level looks the same as ever. But the Bay has already started spilling into our highways and street during storms. Another foot or two of rise will seriously affect our homes, jobs, habitats, and safety. San Francisco Bay Area has an enormous amount at stake—and an unprecedented opportunity to address these risks.

At risk of flooding by 2040
28,000 socially vulnerable residents
13,000 existing housing units and
another 70,000 new housing units
104,000 existing jobs and another
85,000 new jobs
20,000 acres of wetlands,
lagoon and tidal marsh habitat
5 million daily highway
vehicle trips
60,000 daily rail
commuters
Impacts from flooding that could occur at 48” Total Water Level from the ART Bay Area Regional Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Adaptation Study.

Why shared solutions?
‣ Sea level rise will impact everyone in the Bay Area.
‣ A regional problem requires regional solutions.
‣ Flooding know no boundaries and doesn’t care about jurisdictional lines. ‣ Solutions should center on the most vulnerable people and environments. ‣ Bay Adapt is building regional consensus on a joint platform of nine actions that address the region’s strengths and weaknesses, enabling us to respond faster, better and together.
‣ Only with strong local and regional
actions can we ensure the safety and
welfare of all the Bay Area.

City Council/RSA Agenda 12 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
2 The Joint Platform
A regional strategy for a rising Bay
Bay Adapt has worked to establish
regional agreement on the actions
necessary to protect the Bay
Area’s people and natural and built
environments from sea level rise.

Bay Adapt is convened by the San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development
Commission, a state agency, in partnership
with a broad range of Bay Area leaders.

Through dozens of expert working groups, a
public forum, ten community and stakeholder
focus groups, over 50 presentations, an
environmental justice caucus, and led by a
Leadership Advisory Group—hundreds of
people from across the Bay came together
to achieve a consensus-driven strategy and
regional agreement on a path forward.

Rather than calling for individual projects,
the Joint Platform lays out guiding principles
and region-wide goals, actions, and tasks to
help the Bay Area achieve faster, better, and
more equitable adaptation to a rising Bay.
• Reduced flood risk for communities,
businesses, infrastructure, and habitats.
• Protection of natural areas and wildlife.
• Robust integration of adaptation into
community-focused local plans.
• Recognition and equitable support for low
income communities.
• Accelerated permitting and project
construction.
• Technical assistance for local governments.
• More funding for adaptation.

Guiding Principles
‣ Support socially-vulnerable communities
‣ Put nature first whenever possible
‣ Solve interconnected problems at the same time
‣ Practice inclusive, community-led governance and decision-making ‣ Support existing efforts but plan for the long term
‣ Pick the right strategy for the right place at the right time Working together as one region
Centering people and nature through a shared set of solutions The Bay Area is one of the most culturally and geographically diverse places in the country. The risks of sea level rise, and resources necessary to adderss them, are unequal across the Bay Area. This is why all nine actions in the Joint Platform emphasize achieving equitable outcomes for the region. We also know our region’s wetlands are essential to our wellbeing – and also first at risk.

We cannot solve these challenges alone. Bay Adapt has been working with partners across the region to integrate and embed Joint Platform actions into existing regional plans and practices. MTCABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2050, set to be published in 2021, now incorporates multi-hazards, including sea level rise. The Estuary Blueprint, a map for regional actions on the health and resilience of Bay ecosystems, is also aligning Bay Adapt actions. We need everyone to come together to help us collectively create a resilient Bay Area region.

City Council/RSA Agenda 13 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
3 The Joint Platform
9 actions, 21 tasks, 1 region moving forward together
Action 1: Collaborate on a “one Bay” vision to adapt to rising sea levels.

Task 1.1: Create a long-term regional vision rooted in communities.

Task 1.2: Lay the foundation for a proactive regional legislative agenda.

Action 2: Elevate communities to lead.

Task 2.1: Improve how communities and public agencies learn from each other and work together.

Task 2.2: Fund the participation and leadership of community-based organizations (CBOs) and frontline communities in adaptation planning.

Action 3: Broaden public understanding of climate change science and impacts.

Task 3.1: Tell local and regional stories about people and places adapting to climate change.

Task 3.2: Weave climate literacy into school programs.

Action 4: Base plans and projects on the best science, data, and knowledge.

Task 4.1: Align research and monitoring with information gaps.

Task 4.2: Make scientific data, information, and guidance easier to use.

Task 4.3: Increase access to technical consultants for local adaptation partners.

Action 5: Align local and regional plans into a unified adaptation approach.

Task 5.1: Provide incentives for robust, coordinated adaptation plans.

Task 5.2: Align state-mandated planning processes around adaptation.

Action 6: Figure out how to fund adaptation.

Task 6.1: Expand understanding of the financial costs and revenues associated with regional adaptation.

Task 6.2: Establish a framework for funding plans and projects.

Task 6.3: Help cities and counties expand ways to fund adaptation planning and projects.

Action 7: Refine and accelerate regulatory approvals processes.

Task 7.1: Accelerate permitting for equitable, multi-benefit projects.

Task 7.2: Assess environmental regulations and policies that slow down progress on projects.

Action 8: Fund and facilitate faster adaptation projects.

Task 8.1: Incentivize projects that meet regional guidelines.

Task 8.2: Encourage collaboration among people doing projects in the same places.

Task 8.3: Facilitate faster construction of nature-based projects.

Action 9: Track and report progress to guide future actions.

Task 9.1: Measure regional progress using metrics and share results.

Task 9.2: Monitor and learn from pilot projects.

PEOPLE

INFORMATION
PLANS

PROJECTS

PROGRESS
City Council/RSA Agenda 14 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
What can you do?
The Joint Platform is now ready to
share! Examine the opportunities it may
provide for help, support and guidance on
what to do next. We’re all in this together.

For local leaders
☑ Share the Joint Platform with your
staff and colleagues and identify
which actions you’d like support for
implementation.
☑ Write a letter of support for the
Bay Adapt Joint Platform to help us
advocate for regional implementation.
☑ Seek formal endorsement from
your City Council, County Board of
Supervisors, or other elected body.

For the interested public
☑ Learn more and provide feedback
on the 40-page, easy-to-read
Joint Platform. Where can the Joint
Platform help?
☑ Understand your community’s
vulnerability by using online
tools such as the ART Shoreline
Flood Explorer (www.Explorer.

AdaptingToRisingTides.org) for
exploring risks of flooding in your area
☑ Talk to your community about
resilience and preparing for climate
change.
www.BayAdapt.org
Leadership Advisory Group
Ana Alvarez, East Bay Regional Parks
Tessa Beach, Ph.D., US Army Corps of Engineers
David Behar, SF Public Utilities Commission/ Bay
Area Climate Adaptation Network (BayCAN)
John Bourgeois, Valley Water/ CHARG
Allison Brooks, Bay Area Regional Collaborative
Amanda-Brown Stevens, Greenbelt Alliance
Paul Campos, Building Industry Association
Warner Chabot, San Francisco Estuary Institute
John Coleman, Bay Planning Coalition
Dina El-Tawansy, Caltrans District 4
Tian Feng, BART
Julio Garcia, Environmental Justice Caucus Member
Ms. Margaret Gordon, West Oakland Indicators Project
Terrie Green, Shore Up Marin City
Alicia John-Baptiste, SPUR
Melissa Jones, Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative (BARHII)
David Lewis, Save the Bay
Mark Lubell, UC Davis
Therese McMillan, MTC / ABAG
Mike Mielke, Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Michael Montgomery, SF Regional Water Quality Control Board Barry Nelson, BCDC
Sheridan Noelani Enomoto, NorCal Resilience Network
David Pine, San Mateo County/ San Francisco Bay
Restoration Authority
Erika Powell, US Army Corp
Bruce Riordan, Bay Area Climate Adaptation Network (BayCAN) Amy Hutzel, State Coastal Conservancy
Caitlin Sweeney, San Francisco Estuary Partnership
Laura Tam, Resources Legacy Fund
Will Travis, Independent Consultant
Zack Wasserman, BCDC
Jim Wunderman, Bay Area Council
Photo credits | Page 1 - Side Bar photo courtesy of the California King Tides Project, middle photo by John Morgan licensed under CC BY 2.0; Page 2 - Photo by Annie Frankel; Page 3 - SF Baykeeper, Robb Most, and LightHawk; Page 4 - Photo by LEJ from Estuary News from March 2021. City Council/RSA Agenda 15 Tuesday, March 22, 2022 Agenda Item
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Written Public Comment Attachment
City Council/RSA Agenda 16 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
3/22/22, 10:14 AM Mail - Anna M. Brown - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkAGQ5M2I3MmQyLTlmNzctNGM0ZS1iMmNkLTI1YzRhYjg0ZTQ2MgBGAAAAAACM05ubLbLATamVpjYkTD… 1/1 Public comment next Tuesday city council Windflower 5c

KENDAHYL WALLACE
Fri 3/18/2022 9:11 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
WARNING: External email. Please verify sender before opening attachments or clicking on links.

Ann
Hope ur well  can you please  add this  email to next week city council meeting under public comment section.

Good Evening Madam Mayor and City Council.

I support  the developer and Development of  the Uc Bart station and the  Windflower area. I understand rising cost of construction. Union city officials  need  get this  development going forward by year 2023 or 2024 ,if the developer    cant get the permits by 2024  the city council need to select a new developer .We need affordable housing.Union city is a small city and a lot people want to move to Union city but there nothing be built.All our neighboring cities from Fremont to Hayward are all building.Station District has been  vacant for years and  the area has alot potential to be filled with high density affordable housing,restaurants and retail.Lastly the Economic development team should be taking to  tenants to local there small businesses along 11 street ground floor vacant storefronts under existing apartment complex.

Thanks Kendahyl
Sent from my iPhone
City Council/RSA Agenda 17 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Agenda Item
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Draft Min 03/08/2022 Sp Attachment
Draft Min 03/08/2022 reg Attachment
Attachment A - to reg minutes Attachment
City Council/RSA Agenda 18 Tuesday, March 22, 2022

MINUTES

CITY OF UNION CITY

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, March 8, 2022
5:00 PM
Held Via Teleconference

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci called the meeting to order at 5:01 p.m.

Roll Call Present: Councilmembers Duncan, Gacoscos, Singh, Vice Mayor Patiño, Mayor Dutra-Vernaci

Absent: None

2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None

3. CLOSED SESSION

3.a. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Gov. Code Section 54957.6
Agency designated representative for Employee Organizations:

Lilybell Nakamura, Chief Human Resources Officer
Jeff Bailey, IEDA Representative
For Unrepresented Employees: Joan Malloy, City Manager
Employee organization:

Management Employees Group (MEG)
Professional Employees Group (PEG)
Service Employees International Union, Local 1021 (SEIU) Unrepresented employees:

Employees subject to the Compensation and Benefit Plan for City Council/RSA Agenda 19 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Unrepresented Employees

4. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci adjourned the meeting at 5:50 p.m. with no reportable action.

Respectfully submitted,
Anna M. Brown, CMC
City Clerk
City Council/RSA Agenda 20 Tuesday, March 22, 2022

MINUTES

CITY OF UNION CITY

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
Tuesday, March 8, 2022
7:00 PM
Held Via Teleconference

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

1.a. Pledge of Allegiance
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci waived the pledge as the meeting was remote.

1.b. Roll Call Present: Councilmembers Duncan, Gacoscos, Singh, Vice Mayor Patiño, Mayor Dutra-Vernaci

Absent: None

2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None

3. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

3.a. Proclamation Declaring March as Women's History Month and March 8, 2022 as International Women's Day
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci read the proclamation aloud. The proclamation was accepted by Haleema Bharoocha-Jobe, District 2 Appointee to the Alameda County Commission on the Status of Women.

4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None

5. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci requested Item 5.e. be pulled for additional discussion.

It was moved by Councilmember Duncan and seconded by Councilmember Singh to adopt consent calendar items 5.a. through 5.d. and 5.f. through 5.i. The motion was carried by unanimous roll call vote.

City Council/RSA Agenda 21 Tuesday, March 22, 2022

5.a. Waived Further Reading of Proposed Ordinance
(This permits reading the title only in lieu of reciting the entire text of any proposed Ordinance.)

5.b. Approved the Minutes of the City Council Meetings Held on February 15, 2022, February 22, 2022 and February 23, 2022

5.c. Adopted Resolution No. 5900-22 Appointing Individuals to Serve on the Arts and Culture Commission, Human Relations Commission, Senior Commission and the Sales Tax and Utility Users' Tax Oversight Committee

5.d. Adopted Resolution No. 5901-22 Authorizing The City Manager To Execute An Agreement With Utility Cost Management LLC For Utility Bill Auditing Services

5.f. Adopted Resolution No. 5902-22 Approving an Amendment to The City’s Compensation Plan and Salary Schedule for Multiple Unrepresented Seasonal and Temporary Positions in Conformance with California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5

5.g. Adopted Ordinance No. 895-22 of the City Council of the City of Union City Amending Section 2.26.020 of Chapter 2.26 "Arts & Culture Commission," of the Union City Municipal Code

5.h. Adopted Resolution No. 5903-22 Finding That There Is a Proclaimed State of Emergency; Finding That Meeting in Person Would Present Imminent Risks to the Health or Safety of Attendees as a Result of the State of Emergency; and Authorizing Remote Teleconferenced Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the City of Union City for the 30-Day Period Beginning March 8 Pursuant to AB 361

5.i. Adopted Resolution No. 5904-22 of the City Council of the City of Union City Confirming the Continued Existence of a Local Emergency Due to COVID-19
Item 5.e.

5.e. Adopt a Resolution Declaring Fire Engine 529 as Surplus and Authorizing its Sale to the Alameda County Fire Department at Market Value for Training Purposes
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci requested information on the potential replacement engine and its impact on the General Fund budget.

City Manager Malloy and Alameda County Fire Division Chief Derrick Thomas provided response. Replacements for two to three vehicles will be needed in between 2024 and 2026 for approximately $2 million total.

It was moved by Mayor Dutra-Vernaci and seconded by Councilmember Gacoscos to adopt Resolution No. 5905-22 Declaring Fire Engine 529 as Surplus and Authorizing its Sale to the Alameda County Fire Department at Market Value for Training Purposes. The motion was carried by unanimous roll call vote.

City Council/RSA Agenda 22 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
With Council concurrence, Mayor Dutra-Vernaci skipped to agenda items 12 and 13 prior to the public hearings.

12. ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL
Vice Mayor Patiño reported on his attendance of the Alameda County StopWaste meeting.

Councilmember Singh reported on his attendance of the Union City Chamber of Commerce meeting.

Mayor Dutra-Vernaci reported on her attendance of the Alameda County Transportation Commission meeting.

13. GOOD OF THE ORDER
Councilmember Gacoscos provided an update on the planning of the Sister Cities Festival.

Councilmember Singh thanked staff for cleaning up the area of Whipple and Central that he had previously reported on. The person who had been occupying the space was no longer there.

Vice Mayor Patiño thanked Councilmember Singh for bringing the person to Council’s attention as he believed that led to them being contacted by Tiburcio Vasquez Health Center’s Street Medical Team.

Vice Mayor Patiño reported on his attendance of the Alameda County Health Services meeting on COVID-19 and announced he will attend the National League of Cities Congressional City Conference in Washington, DC on March 14 – 16.

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS

6.b. Public Hearing to Receive Community Input Regarding Boundaries for District-Based Elections Pursuant to Elections Code Section 21607.1 (4th Hearing) and Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Union City Adopting the Final Map of District Boundaries for District-Based Elections of Councilmembers in Accordance with the Redistricting Process for the 2020 Federal Decennial Census, and Amending Union City Municipal Code Section 2.04.510
Start Time at 7:30 p.m.

City Attorney Kristopher Kokotaylo presented the staff report, providing a summary of the redistricting process thus far. Staff responded to questions from Council.

Mayor Dutra-Vernaci opened the public hearing.

Public comment was made by Rina Thiara, Ragini Kaur, Rajni Dhaliwal, and Parleen Kaur.

City Council/RSA Agenda 23 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Written public comment submitted by Simrat Dhillon and Sukhrit Bhullar were read onto the record by the City Clerk (Attachment A).

Mayor Dutra-Vernaci closed the public hearing.

Councilmembers made additional comment. It was moved by Councilmember Singh and seconded by Councilmember Duncan to adopt Ordinance No. 896-22 Adopting the Final Map of District Boundaries for District-Based Elections of Councilmembers in Accordance with the Redistricting Process for the 2020 Federal Decennial Census, and Amending Union City Municipal Code Section 2.04.510. The motion was carried by unanimous roll call vote.

6.a. Introduce an Ordinance Approving Development Agreement (DA-22-001) for the Windflower - Block 2 Project, for the Purpose of Extending Project Approvals That Were Previously Approved by the City Council on November 14, 2017
Planning Manager Derek Farmer and Deputy City Attorney Alex Mog presented the staff report and responded to questions from Council.

Project Applicant Fei Tsen, President of Windflower Properties, was present to provide additional information and respond to questions from Council.

Mayor Dutra-Vernaci opened the public hearing. There was no public comment. Mayor Dutra-Vernaci closed the public hearing.

Councilmembers provided comment. It was moved by Councilmember Gacoscos and seconded by Councilmember Duncan to Introduce an Ordinance Approving Development Agreement (DA-22-001) for the Windflower - Block 2 Project, for the Purpose of Extending Project Approvals That Were Previously Approved by the City Council on November 14, 2017. The motion was carried by unanimous roll call vote.

7. CITY MANAGER REPORTS - None

8. SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - None

9. AUTHORITIES AND AGENCIES - None

10. CITY COMMISSION / COMMITTEE REPORTS - None

11. SCHEDULED ORAL COMMUNICATION – None

12. ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL – Item Heard Earlier

13. GOOD OF THE ORDER – Item Heard Earlier

14. CLOSED SESSION - None

15. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
City Council/RSA Agenda 24 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Anna M. Brown, CMC
City Clerk
City Council/RSA Agenda 25 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
3/17/22, 11:40 AM Mail - Anna M. Brown - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/deeplink?Print 1/1
Public Comment for Redistricting Maps (03/08/2022)
Simrat Dhillon
Tue 3/8/2022 5:00 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
WARNING: External email. Please verify sender before opening attachments or clicking on links.

Hello, my name is Simrat Dhillon, and I am a student at James Logan High. I would like to provide input on the Punjabi-Sikh community of interest in Union City, CA.

I was raised in Union City, California with my 2 siblings. Our family has been living in Union City for 17 years. I grew up extremely involved with my local community. As a Punjabi-Sikh resident of Union City I want to share my support for Map 201, and possibly Map 201b with the condition that District 2 be extended all the way down to Alvarado-Nile Rd.

For Map 201 we would like to see the Contempo Park Area be included in District 3 as many Punjabi communities live in this area, and should be kept in the same district with the Punjabi communities living along the Old Alvarado Area. For Map 201b, we would like the same, and we would like for District 2 to extend all the way down to Alvarado-Niles Road as the area South to Decoto Road also is home to a large number of Punjabi families.

I am writing today to ask the council to respect the integrity of the Punjabi community of the areas I just identified.

Doing so would allow us to receive the necessary services through our vote. Otherwise splitting us dilutes our voices and representation. I appreciate your hard work and efforts. Thank you for hearing from me today.

Sincerely,
Simrat Dhillon
City Council/RSA Agenda 26 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
3/17/22, 11:42 AM Mail - Anna M. Brown - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkAGQ5M2I3MmQyLTlmNzctNGM0ZS1iMmNkLTI1YzRhYjg0ZTQ2MgBGAAAAAACM05ubLbLATamVpjYkTD… 1/1 3/08/22 Public Comment for Redistricting Maps
Sukhprit Bhullar
Tue 3/8/2022 4:57 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
WARNING: External email. Please verify sender before opening attachments or clicking on links.

Good evening City Council Members,
My name is Sukhprit Bhullar, and I’m a student at James Logan High. I have been a resident of Union City for 15 years. Growing up in Union City, my family and I both have been really involved in our community such as volunteering, and helping host any local events.

I am writing to you all today because I am extending my support for Map 201 and/or 201b, keeping our community in the same district such as those residing around Mission Blvd, Contempo Park, South of Decoto Rd and around the Old Alvarado area. Furthermore, Map 201b could help to properly portray Union City's Punjabi American community. However, because this area is primarily Punjabi, District 2 must stretch all the way down to AlvaradoNiles Road in the area south of Decoto Rd. The Contempo Park, as well as the Old Alvarado Area, must be included in District 3 on Map 201b. The Punjabi community is well-represented in Union City. In addition, our local high school, James Logan High School, offers multiple Punjabi language classes. I hope that in today's redistricting debate and map review, a fair and truthful presentation of my community is recognized Thank you for taking the time to read this. I request all members of the council to approve Map 201 or Map 201b and make these revisions.

Sincerely,
Sukhprit Bhullar
City Council/RSA Agenda 27 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Agenda Item
DATE: 3/22/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CARMELA CAMPBELL, ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITYOF UNION CITYAPPROVING THE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA-22-001) FOR THE WINDFLOWER -
BLOCK 2 PROJECT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXTENDING THE

PROJECT APPROVALS
The City Council introduced the attached Ordinance (Attachment 1) at its March 8, 2022, meeting approving the Development Agreement (Exhibit A) for the Windflower – Block 2 project. Staff recommends that the City Council waive reading the full text of the Ordinance, conduct the second reading of the title of the proposed Ordinance, and adopt the Ordinance approving DA-22-001.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
The Strategic Plan identified the build out of the Station District as a priority:
• Goal C. Economic, Community Development and Public Safety – Institute forward-thinking business, land use development, housing, social services, and public safety strategies that promote community growth and innovation.
• Strategy 3 – Facilitate the build out of the greater Station District Area through the construction of the Quarry Lakes Parkway, upgrades to the BART station, and completion of the pedestrian railcrossing and the sale and development of City-owned land.

BACKGROUND
The applicant, Windflower Properties, LLC, has submitted a request to enter into a Development Agreement with the City to extend the project approvals for the Windflower 2 project to be coterminous with the deadline for commencement of construction provided in the Disposition and Development Agreement, which the City and the applicant entered into in June 2017. The project consists of development on Block 2 of the Station District area for a high-density, multi-family development. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 includes the draft City Council/RSA Agenda 28 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Development Agreement language.

The original projects approvals were granted for one-year and were set to expire on November 14, 2018. The applicant obtained two, one-year extensions extending the approvals to November 14, 2020. Per AB1561, which extended the life of housing entitlements in effect before March 4, 2020, the project approvals were extended an additional 18 months and are now set to expire on May 14, 2022 unless building permits have been issued, all fees paid, and construction commences.

DISCUSSION
The applicant and City have agreed to enter into a DA regarding the project. The term of the DA is five years.

This is separate from the date of December 31, 2024 which is when construction must commence. The reason for this is that there are certain provisions of the DA, such as those related to the Community Art Space, which could extend beyond the commencement of construction. This language is not meant to extend the project approvals beyond that of the DDA.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the General Fund. Per Sec. 2.6 of the DA, the applicant/developer is responsible for payment of fees related to the project approvals or subsequent approvals. These fees are established as either "Processing Fees" to cover the cost of City review of applications, or "Impact Fees" assessed to the project to defray the cost of providing City services in relation to the development impacts of the project. The applicant shall pay the Impact Fees in effect at permit issuance.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council waive reading the full text of the Ordinance, conduct the second reading of the title of the proposed Ordinance, and adopt the Ordinance approving DA-22-001. The Ordinance will become effective 30 days after the second reading on March 22, 2022.

Prepared by:

DEREK FARMER, PLANNING MANAGER
Submitted by:

DEREK FARMER, PLANNING MANAGER
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Attachment 1 - Draft Ordinance XXXX-22 Ordinance
Attachment 1, Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement Ordinance City Council/RSA Agenda 29 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Attachment 1
ORDINANCE NO. XXX-22

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, DA-22-001, BETWEEN THE

CITY OF UNION CITY AND WINDFLOWER PROPERTIES, LLC FOR THE WINDFLOWER PROJECT – BLOCK 2
WHEREAS, in accordance with California Government Code sections 65864 et seq. (the “Development Agreement Statute”), which authorizes cities to enter into agreements for the development of real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to establish certain development rights, the City of Union City (“City”) adopted Chapter

18.104, Procedures and Requirements for Consideration of Development Agreements, to implement procedures for the processing and approval of development agreements; and WHEREAS, Windflower Properties, LLC, (“Applicant”) is requesting approval of a Development Agreement (DA-22-001) for the Windflower – Block 2 – development project; and WHEREAS, the project site consists of 3.5 acres (“Property”) and is located at 34302 11th Street between Galliano Way and Berger Way (APN: 087-340-002); and WHEREAS, the Applicant previously received certain land use approvals from the City for the development of a multi-family residential development on the Property by the City Council on November 14, 2017 per Resolution No 5143-17 (the “Project Approvals”); and WHEREAS, the Applicant and the City desire to enter into a Development Agreement in order to provide the Applicant with some certainty in the land use regulatory process until the Developer commences construction of the Project and to extend the Project Approvals until December 31, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Development Agreement is labeled Exhibit A, attached hereto and made part hereof; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Windflower project is within the scope of the project and analysis in the November 2010 Station District Mixed-use Development Project EIR (City Council Resolution 4072-10) and the 2040 Union City General Plan Update EIR (City Council Resolution No. 5548-19). All adopted mitigation measures continue to apply to the project; and WHEREAS, the California Constitution, Article XI, Section 7, provides cities and counties with the authority to enact ordinances to protect the health, safety, welfare, and morals of their citizens; and
City Council/RSA Agenda 30 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
City Council Ordinance No. #XXX-22
Windflower Project – Block 2
Development Agreement

PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement on February 17, 2022, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. The Planning Commission considered a staff report dated February 17, 2022, and all written and oral testimony, and adopted Resolution No. XX-22 recommending approval of the Development Agreement. The staff report and resolution are incorporated herein by reference; and

CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement on March 8, 2022, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. The City Council considered a staff report dated March 8, 2022, and incorporated herein by reference, the Planning Commission recommendation, and all written and oral testimony before taking action on the Development Agreement.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance.

SECTION 2. CEQA. The project is within the scope of the Station District Mixed-Use Development Project EIR (certified in November 2010 by City Council Resolution No. 4072-10) and the 2040 Union City General Plan Update EIR (certified on December 10, 2019 by City Council Resolution No. 5548-19). No new information of substantial importance has been discovered requiring revisions to the impacts, mitigation measures or alternatives that were provided in either EIR. Additionally, there have not been any substantial changes with respect to City policies or requirements that would require additional environmental analysis, which determined that the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts with the incorporation of mitigation measures. All adopted mitigation measures continue to apply to the project. Thus, pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined that no further analysis is required.

SECTION 3. Findings. The City Council makes the following findings in support of approving this Ordinance, based on the whole of the record before it.

1. That the proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the CSMU (Station Mixed Use Commercial) General Plan land use designation and related policies that apply to development in the Station District. The Development Agreement would foster a highdensity, mixed use residential development, which helps support transit ridership.

Additionally, the uses and design of the project encourage transit use and minimize automobile dependence; the project helps create a vibrant, transit-oriented mixed-use area, and is pedestrian-friendly and minimizes parking impacts on the streetscape and the City Council/RSA Agenda 31 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
City Council Ordinance No. #XXX-22
Windflower Project – Block 2
Development Agreement

neighborhood; and the project will be harmonious with existing and potential uses within the Station District and surrounding areas. The project is also consistent with the DIPSA Specific Plan, which identified high-density residential and commercial development for the Station District area; and

2. That the proposed Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing in the immediate area, not be detrimental or injurious to property or persons in the general neighborhood or to the general welfare of the residents of the City as a whole because mitigation measures have been included to mitigate all potential significant environmental impacts to less than significant levels, and in addition, the project has been designed and conditioned consistent with applicable requirements to protect health and safety including the provision of adequate water supply including water used for fire suppression systems, adequate access for emergency vehicles, and that the project will also be constructed consistent with current Building Code requirements; and

3. That the proposed Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values because it includes provisions to facilitate the orderly development of the project. The complexity, enormity and long-range nature of the project would be difficult for the developer to undertake if City had not determined, through this Development Agreement, to insert a sufficient degree of certainty in the land use regulatory process to justify the substantial financial investment associated with development of the project. As a result of the execution of this Development Agreement, both parties can be certain that the project can proceed without disruption caused by a change in planning and development policies and requirements, and such assurance will reduce the actual or perceived risk of planning, financing and proceeding with construction of the project; and

4. That the proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the provisions of Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 because it provides some assurances to the applicant to proceed with the multi-year project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations in return for the provision of public benefits. A noticed public hearing on the Development Agreement was held by the Planning Commission.

SECTION 4. Approval. The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement between the City of Union City and Windflower Properties, LLC, as shown in attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by reference and available for review in the City Clerk’s office during normal business hours. The City Council further authorizes the City Manager to execute the Development Agreement, on behalf of the City, in substantially the form attached as Exhibit A, and to make revisions to such Agreement, subject to the approval of the City Attorney, which do not materially or substantially increase the City’s obligations thereunder.

City Council/RSA Agenda 32 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
City Council Ordinance No. #XXX-22
Windflower Project – Block 2
Development Agreement

SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.

SECTION 6. Publication and effective date. Within fifteen (15) days from and after adoption, this Ordinance shall be published once in the Tri-City Voice, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in Alameda County and circulated in the City of Union City, in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of March 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

CAROL DUTRA-VERNACI
Mayor
ATTESTED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ANNA M. BROWN KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council/RSA Agenda 33 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 1 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2

RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of Union City
34009 Alvarado-Niles Road
Union City, CA 94587
Attn: ECD Director
Exempt from Recording Fees
Pursuant to Government
Code Sections 6103 and 27383
____________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ APN: 087-340-002 (Space Above This Line Reserved for Recorder’s Use Only)

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF UNION CITY
AND

WINDFLOWER PROPERTIES, LLC
FOR WINDFLOWER PROJECT – BLOCK 2
City Council/RSA Agenda 34 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 2 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this “Development Agreement” or this “Agreement”) is entered into as of ____________, 2022 (the “Agreement Date”) by and between the City of Union City, a municipal corporation (“City”), and Windflower Properties, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Developer”). City and Developer are referred to individually as “Party,” and collectively as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
This Agreement is entered upon the basis of the following facts, understandings and intentions of City and Developer.

A. The lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and other development, and discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning that would make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public.

B. In order to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic costs and risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California enacted Section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code (the “Development Agreement Legislation”), which authorizes City to enter into a development agreement for real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to establish certain development rights in the property.

C. The City is the owner of certain real property located within the City and bounded by Cheeves Way, Berger Way, 11th Street, and Galliano Way, known as Alameda County Assessor’s Parcel No. 087-340-002 (“Block 2”) as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Block 2 is referred to herein as the “Property.”
D. The City and Developer previously entered into that certain Disposition and Development Agreement dated June 13, 2017 (as amended by the First Amendment, the “DDA”) pursuant to which the City agreed to sell the Property to the Developer, subject to the terms and conditions contained in the DDA. The City and Developer subsequently entered into that certain First Amendment to Disposition and Development Agreement dated June 11, 2019 (the “First Amendment”). Pursuant to the DDA, Developer has a legal or equitable interest in the Property as required by the Development Agreement Legislation. The State Department of Housing and Community Development has determined that pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(b)(2), disposition of the land to Developer pursuant to the DDA does not constitute disposition of surplus land.

E. Pursuant to the terms of the terms of the DDA, the Developer agreed to develop between approximately four hundred and forty-five (445) to five hundred and five (505) units of market-rate rental housing on the Property (the “Project”).

F. Under the DDA, the deadline for commencement of Project construction is December 31, 2024.

City Council/RSA Agenda 35 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 3 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
G. Developer has applied for, and City has granted, the Project Approvals (as defined in Section 1.5) in order to protect the interests of its residents in the quality of their community and environment. The Project Approvals (as defined herein) were issued by the City Council on November 14, 2017, and were originally scheduled to expire on November 14, 2018. The Project Approvals were subsequently extended to November 14, 2020 in accordance with the provisions the Union City Municipal Code. Thereafter, Assembly Bill 1561 (2020) automatically extended the Project Approvals by 18 months. The Project Approvals are currently scheduled to expire on May 14, 2022, unless the Project Approvals are amended or exercised before that date.

H. The City and Developer desires to ensure that the Project Approvals do not expire before the deadline for the commencement of construction of the Project under the DDA to ensure that the Project can proceed as originally approved by the City Council.

I. The complexity, magnitude and long-range nature of the Project would be difficult for Developer to undertake if City had not determined, through this Development Agreement, to inject a sufficient degree of certainty in the land use regulatory process to justify the substantial financial investment associated with development of the Project. As a result of the execution of this Development Agreement, both Parties can be assured that the Project can proceed without disruption caused by a change in City planning and development policies and requirements, and such assurance will thereby reduce the actual or perceived risk of planning, financing and proceeding with construction of the Project.

J. City has determined that by entering into this Development Agreement: (1) City will ensure the productive use of property and foster orderly growth and a quality development project in the City; (2) development will proceed in accordance with the goals and policies set forth in the City of Union City’s General Plan (the “General Plan”) and will implement City’s stated General Plan policies; (3) City will receive increased property tax revenues; and (4) City will benefit from increased housing for residents of the City that is created by the Project.

K. City has also undertaken, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., hereinafter “CEQA”), the required analysis of the environmental effects that would be caused by the Project and has determined those feasible mitigation measures which will eliminate, or reduce to a less than significant level, the adverse environmental impacts of the Project. Those mitigation measures for which Developer is responsible are incorporated into, and required by, the Project Approvals.

L. In addition to the Project Approvals, the Project may require various additional land use and construction approvals, termed Subsequent Approvals (as defined in Section 1.5.4), in connection with development of the Project.

M. City has given the required notice of its intention to adopt this Development Agreement and has conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to Government Code Section 65867. As required by Government Code Section 65867.5, City has found that the provisions of this Development Agreement and its purposes are consistent with the goals, policies, standards and land use designations specified in City’s General Plan.

City Council/RSA Agenda 36 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 4 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
N. On , 2022, the City of Union City’s Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”), the initial hearing body for purposes of development agreement review, recommended approval of this Development Agreement pursuant to Resolution No. ____.

O. On , 2022, the City Council of the City of Union City (the “City Council”) adopted its Ordinance No. ____ (the “Approving Ordinance”) approving this Development Agreement and authorizing its execution. The Approving Ordinance will take effect on , 2022 (the “Effective Date”).

P. For the reasons recited herein, City and Developer have determined that the Project is a development for which this Development Agreement is appropriate. This Development Agreement will eliminate uncertainty regarding Project Approvals (including the Subsequent Approvals), thereby encouraging planning for, investment in and commitment to develop the Property in a manner beneficial to the City and surrounding properties. Continued use and development of the Property will in turn provide substantial employment and property tax benefits, and contribute to the provision of needed infrastructure enhancements and public benefits, thereby achieving the goals and purposes for which the Development Agreement Legislation was enacted and ensuring consistency with the City’s General Plan.

Q. The terms and conditions of this Development Agreement have undergone extensive review by City staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council at publicly noticed meetings and have been found to be fair, just and reasonable and in conformance with the City’s General Plan and the Development Agreement Legislation, and, further, the City Council finds that the economic interests of City’s residents and the public health, safety and welfare will be best served by entering into this Development Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises set forth herein, City and Developer agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

1.1 Parties.

1.1.1. City. City is a California municipal corporation, with offices located at 34009 Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, CA 94587. “City,” as used in this Development Agreement, includes the City of Union City and any assignee of or successor to its rights, powers and responsibilities.

1.1.2. Developer. Developer is limited liability company located at 666 Post Street, Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 94109. “Developer,” as used in this Development Agreement, refers to Windflower Properties, LLC and includes any permitted assignee or successor-in-interest as herein provided.

1.2. Property Subject to this Development Agreement.

City Council/RSA Agenda 37 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 5 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
The Property known as Alameda County Assessor’s Parcel No. 087-340-002, as more particularly described in Exhibit A, is subject to this Development Agreement.

1.3. Term of the Agreement.

The term (“Term”) of this Development Agreement will commence upon the Effective Date and shall continue in full force and effect for a period of five (5) years, unless earlier terminated as provided in this Agreement. The Term has been established by the Parties as a reasonable estimate of the time required to develop the Project and obtain the benefits of the Project. Nothing in this Section shall extend or change the deadline for the commencement of construction of the Project, or any other deadline, set forth in the DDA.

1.4. The Project.

1.4.1. General. The Project includes those improvements as more fully set forth and described in those plans and other information approved by the City Council on November 14, 2017 by Resolution No._______, unless modified by Subsequent Approvals (defined below).

The Parties agree that the exact number of residential units, parking spaces, and the square footage of ground floor space shall be as set forth in the Project Approvals. Construction of the Project includes construction of several on- and off-site improvements, described in this Section

1.4. 1.4.2. Improvements.
a. City Use of Ground Floor Space in Lieu of Public Art. The Parties agree that Developer may satisfy the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 12.40 for the Project by one of the following alternatives mutually agreed upon by the City and Developer:
(i) paying the applicable Art Fee to City, (ii) installing public art reasonably approved by City, or (iii) providing the City with the right to use the Community Art Space (defined below) in accordance with a Community Art Agreement to be executed by Developer and City prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the Project (“Community Art Agreement”). If City and Developer mutually agree upon the Community Art Space alternative, the Community Art Agreement shall provide that City shall be entitled to use the approximately 2,000 square feet of ground floor space to be located on 11th Street shown in the Project Approvals as “Commercial Space” (referred to herein as the “Community Art Space”) for display of artworks, workshops, and public events. The Community Art Agreement shall address the obligations of City and Developer with respect to the installation of interior improvements, utility charges, maintenance, repairs, and other expenses relating to the Community Art Space, as well as the exact size of the Community Art Space. The value of any below-market rate rent for the Community Art Space and the cost of any Developer obligations regarding installation of improvements, maintenance, utilities, and other expenses for the Community Art Space shall be equivalent in value to the Art Fee that Developer would otherwise be obligated to pay pursuant to Union City Municipal Code Chapter 12.40. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, if the City and Developer are unable to mutually agree upon the terms of the Community Art Agreement, consistent with the provisions listed in Chapter 12.40 of the Union City Municipal Code, Developer shall either (i) pay the applicable Art Fee to City, or (ii) submit a proposal for public art to the City and receive approval by the City’s Art and Culture City Council/RSA Agenda 38 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 6 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
Commission. In the case of the latter, public art shall be installed prior to issuance of final certificate of occupancy for the project. If the City and Developer are unable to mutually agree upon the terms of the Community Art Agreement, building area that was to be used as Community Art Space shall revert to use identified in Project Approvals. b. Nuisance. Developer shall not use or permit the use of any portion of the Project for any, noisy or dangerous trade, business manufacturing activity or occupation; for any activity which constitutes a nuisance or violated public policy; in violation of any law, ordinance rule or regulation of any governmental authority with jurisdiction over any portion of the Project.
c. DDA. Unless expressly provided otherwise, nothing herein is intended to amend or otherwise alter any term or condition contained in the DDA.

1.5. Project Approvals.

Developer has obtained, and will apply for and obtain, various environmental and land use approvals and entitlements related to the development of the Project and the Property, as described below. For purposes of this Development Agreement, the term “Project Approvals” means all of the approvals, plans and agreements pertaining to development of the Project and the Property that are approved by City prior to, concurrently with, or subsequent to, City’s approval of this Agreement, including without limitation, those described in this Section 1.5 and the subsections thereof, and shall include all Project Approvals and Subsequent Approvals pertaining to development of the Project and the Property, as such Project Approvals may be amended from time to time during the term of this Agreement. Unless modified by Subsequent Approvals (defined below), the Parties agree that the Project will include those improvements as more fully set forth and described in those plans and other information approved by the City Council on November 14, 2017 by Resolution No._______. City and Developer agree to work diligently and in good faith toward appropriate planning entitlements and building permit approvals for each phase of construction.

1.5.1. Environmental Review. The Project is within the scope of the Station District Mixed-Use Development Project EIR (certified in November 2010 by City Council Resolution No. 4072-10) and the 2040 Union City General Plan Update EIR (certified on December 10, 2019 by City Council Resolution No. ). No new information of substantial importance has been discovered requiring revisions to the impacts, mitigation measures or alternatives that were provided in either EIR. Additionally, there have not been any substantial changes with respect to City policies or requirements that would require additional environmental analysis, which determined that the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts with the incorporation of mitigation measures. All adopted mitigation measures continue to apply to the Project. Thus, pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined that no further analysis is required.

1.5.2. Development Agreement. On , 2022, following Planning Commission review and recommendation, and after a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council, by Ordinance No. _____, approved this Development Agreement and authorized its execution.

City Council/RSA Agenda 39 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 7 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2

1.5.3. Other Project Approvals. In order to develop the Project as contemplated in this Development Agreement, the following land use approvals have been issued:
a. Site Development Review. Site Development Review is required for the construction of the Project pursuant to Chapter 18.76 of the Union City Zoning Code. The City Council has approved Site Development Review SD-17003 for the Project.
b. Use Permit. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the Project pursuant to Chapter 18.44 of the Union City Municipal Code because the Project includes development of high density residential uses and live/work units, buildings over 65 feet in height, and a variation from the development standards to allow a reduction in storage space. The City Council has approved Conditional Use Permit UP-17-005 for the Project.
c. Disposition and Development Agreement. On June 13,
2017 the City and Developer entered into the DDA (as
subsequently amended and as defined above). Among other provisions, the DDA provides that the Project is exempt from the City’s inclusionary affordable housing requirements because the requirements that would otherwise be applicable to the Project have already been satisfied by construction of affordable housing within the City’s Station District.

1.5.4. Amendments and Subsequent Approvals. In order to develop the Project as contemplated in the DDA and this Development Agreement, the Project may require issuance of land use approvals, entitlements, development permits, and use and/or construction approvals in addition to those listed in this Section 1.5, which may include, without limitation: conditional use permits, variances, subdivision approvals, street abandonments, design review approvals, demolition permits, improvement agreements, infrastructure agreements, grading permits, building permits, right-of-way permits, lot line adjustments, site plans, sewer and water connection permits, certificates of occupancy, parcel maps, lot splits, landscaping plans, master sign programs, transportation demand management programs, encroachment permits, and may require amendments to the foregoing and/or to the existing Project Approvals (all of the foregoing new and amended permits, documents, and approvals, collectively, “Subsequent Approvals”). At such time as any Subsequent Approval applicable to the Property is approved by the City, then such Subsequent Approval shall become subject to all the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement applicable to Project Approvals, including without limitation, Developer’s vested right thereto, and shall be treated as a “Project Approval” under this Development Agreement.

1.5.5 Proposed Modifications. The Parties acknowledge that Developer intends to apply for modifications to the existing Site Development Review and the existing Use Permit for the Project to address certain aspects of the Project in order to increase Project feasibility.

These include the relocation of certain amenities within the site, the reconfiguration of parking facilities, a reduction in height of certain buildings, a modification to the scope of on-site City Council/RSA Agenda 40 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 8 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
parking and storage, and changes to unit types and the total number of residential units, provided that the total number of residential units will not exceed 504 units. Without limiting the generality of the provisions of Section 1.5, if approved, such modifications shall be treated as “Project Approvals” and during the term of this Agreement, Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Project in accordance with them. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as a promise or representation regarding the City’s review of the anticipated modifications or as otherwise limiting the City’s discretion to approve, deny, or modify an application to modify the existing Site Development Review and the existing Use Permit for the Project.

ARTICLE 2.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY

2.1. Project Development.

Developer shall have a vested right to develop the Project on the Property, in accordance with the Vested Elements (defined in Section 2.2). The vested right granted by this Article 2 shall terminate December 31, 2024, unless Developer has commenced construction of the Project. Unless otherwise agreed to by City in a written instrument, this Section is not intended to extend any deadline for commencement of Project construction set forth in the DDA.

2.2. Vested Elements.

The permitted uses of the Property, the minimum and maximum density, the intensity of use, the maximum height and size of the proposed buildings, provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, the conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, the provisions for public improvements and financing of public improvements, and the other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Property are as set forth in:
a. The City of Union City General Plan as of the Effective Date, including any General Plan Amendments in effect as of the Effective Date (“Applicable General Plan”);
b. The Zoning Ordinance of City on the Effective Date (“Applicable Zoning Ordinance”);
c. Other rules, regulations, ordinances and policies of City applicable to development of the Property on the Effective Date, except for any and all fees applicable to the development, which shall be as set forth in Section 2.6.2 of this Agreement, (collectively, together with the Applicable General Plan and the Applicable Zoning Ordinance, the “Applicable Rules”); and
d. The Project Approvals, as they may be amended from time to time with Developer’s consent;
and all of the foregoing are hereby vested in Developer, subject to, and as provided in, the provisions of this Development Agreement (the “Vested Elements”). City hereby City Council/RSA Agenda 41 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 9 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
agrees to be bound with respect to the Vested Elements, subject to Developer’s compliance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement.

2.3. Development Construction Completion.

2.3.1. Timing of Development; Pardee Finding. Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later-adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over the parties’ agreement, it is the Parties’ intent to address that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that, subject to any infrastructure phasing requirements that may be required by the Project Approvals or as otherwise explicitly set forth herein, Developer shall have the right (without obligation) to develop the Property in such order and at such rate and at such times as Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment.

2.3.2. Moratorium. No City-imposed moratorium or other limitation (whether relating to the rate, timing or sequencing of the development or construction of all or any part of the Property, whether imposed by ordinance, initiative, resolution, policy, order or otherwise, and whether enacted by the City Council, an agency of City, the electorate, or otherwise) affecting parcel or subdivision maps (whether tentative, vesting tentative or final), building permits, occupancy certificates or other entitlements to use or service (including, without limitation, water and sewer) approved, issued or granted within City, or portions of City, shall apply to the Property to the extent such moratorium or other limitation is in conflict with this Development Agreement. The provisions of this Section 2.3.2 shall not affect City’s compliance with moratoria or other limitations mandated by other governmental agencies or court-imposed moratoria or other limitations; provided however, the Term of this Agreement shall be extended for the period of time during which any such moratorium or other limitation prevents or delays construction of the Project.

2.3.3. No Other Requirements. Nothing in this Development Agreement is intended to create any affirmative development obligations to develop the Project at all, or liability in Developer under this Development Agreement if the development fails to occur.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, failure of Developer to develop the Project may result in a termination of the DDA.

2.4. Effect of Project Approvals and Applicable Rules; Future Rules.

2.4.1. Governing Rules. Except as otherwise explicitly provided in this Development Agreement, development of the Property shall be subject to (a) the Project Approvals (defined in Section 1.5) and (b) the Applicable Rules (defined in Section 2.2).

2.4.2. Changes in Applicable Rules; Future Rules.
a. To the extent any changes in the Applicable Rules, or any provisions of future General Plans, Specific Plans, Zoning Ordinances or other rules, regulations, ordinances or policies (whether adopted by means of ordinance, initiative, referenda, resolution, policy, order, moratorium, or other means, adopted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or any other board, commission, agency, committee, or department of City, or any officer or employee City Council/RSA Agenda 42 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 10 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
thereof, or by the electorate) of City (collectively, “Future Rules”) are not in conflict with the Vested Elements (defined in Section 2.2), such Future Rules shall be applicable to the Project. b. No Future Rule shall invalidate or prevail over all or any part of this Development Agreement or the Project Approvals, and City shall cooperate with Developer and shall undertake such actions as may be necessary to ensure this Development Agreement remains in full force and effect. City shall not support, adopt or enact any Future Rule, or take any other action which would violate the express provisions or spirit and intent of this Development Agreement or the Project Approvals. Developer reserves the right to challenge in court any Future Rule that would conflict with the Vested Elements or this Development Agreement or reduce the development rights provided by this Development Agreement. c. A Future Rule that conflicts with the Vested Elements shall nonetheless apply to the Property if, and only if (i) consented to in writing by Developer; (ii) it is determined by City and evidenced through findings adopted by the City Council confirming that the change or provision is reasonably required in order to prevent a condition dangerous to the public health or safety, that there are no feasible alternatives to the imposition of such change or provision and how such change or provision would alleviate the dangerous condition; (iii) it is required by changes in State or Federal law as set forth in Section 2.4.3 below; (iv) it consists of changes in, or new fees permitted by, Section 2.6; or (v) it is otherwise expressly permitted by this Development Agreement.
d. Prior to the Effective Date, the Parties shall have prepared two (2) sets of the Project Approvals and Applicable Rules, one (1) set for City and one (1) set for Developer. If it becomes necessary in the future to refer to any of the Project Approvals or Applicable Rules, the contents of these sets are presumed for all purposes of this Development Agreement, absent clear clerical error or similar mistake, to constitute the Project Approvals and Applicable Rules.

2.4.3. Changes in State or Federal Laws. In accordance with California Government Code Section 65869.5, in the event that state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date (“State or Federal Law”) prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Development Agreement or render compliance with this Agreement substantially more expensive or time consuming, the Parties shall meet in good faith to determine the feasibility of any modification or suspension of this Development Agreement that may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal Law and to determine the effect such modification or suspension would have on the purposes and intent of this Development Agreement and the Vested Elements. Following the meeting between the Parties, the provisions of this Development Agreement may, to the extent feasible, and upon mutual agreement of the Parties, be modified or suspended, but only to the minimum extent necessary to comply with such State or Federal Law. In such an event, this Development Agreement, together with any required modifications, shall continue in full force and effect. In the event that the State or Federal Law operates to frustrate irremediably and materially the vesting of rights as set forth in this Agreement, Developer may terminate this Agreement. In addition, Developer shall have the right to challenge (by any method, including litigation) the State or Federal Law preventing compliance with, or performance of, the terms of this Development Agreement and, in the event that such challenge is successful, this Development Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect, unless (i) Developer fails to commence City Council/RSA Agenda 43 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 11 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
construction of the Project by December 31, 2024, or (ii) Developer fails to submit a written request to City prior to the expiration date of any construction permits for an extension of time as allowed under the Zoning Ordinance. The Term of this Development Agreement may be extended for the duration of the period during which any new State or Federal Law prevents or precludes compliance with the provisions of this Development Agreement.

2.4.4. Conflicts. In the event of an irreconcilable conflict between the provisions of the Project Approvals (on the one hand) and the Applicable Rules (on the other hand), the provisions of the Project Approvals shall apply. In the event of a conflict between the Project Approvals (on the one hand) and this Development Agreement, in particular, (on the other hand), the provisions of this Development Agreement shall control.

2.5. Processing Subsequent Approvals. City will accept, make completeness determinations, and process, promptly and diligently, to completion all applications for Subsequent Approvals for the Project, in accordance with the terms of this Development Agreement.

2.5.1. Scope of Review of Subsequent Approvals. By approving the Project Approvals, City has made a policy decision that the Project is in the best interests of the public health, safety and general welfare. Accordingly, City shall not use its authority in considering any application for a discretionary Subsequent Approval to prevent or delay development of the Project provided that such application is in substantial conformity with the original Project Approvals. Instead, the Subsequent Approvals shall be deemed to be tools to implement those policy decisions. The scope of the review of applications for Subsequent Approvals shall be limited to a review of substantial conformity with the Vested Elements and the Applicable Rules (except as otherwise provided by Section 2.4), and compliance with CEQA. Where such substantial conformity/compliance exists, City shall not deny an application for a Subsequent Approval for the Project.

2.6. Development Fees, Exactions; and Conditions.

All fees, exactions, or other monetary impositions to which the Project would be subject, but for this Development Agreement, are referred to in this Development Agreement either as “Processing Fees” (as defined in Section 2.6.1) or “Impact Fees” (as defined in Section 2.6.2).

2.6.1. Processing Fees. “Processing Fees” mean fees charged on a citywide basis to cover the cost of City review of applications for any permit or other review by City departments. Applications for Subsequent Approvals for the Project shall be charged Processing Fees applicable at the time of application per City’s Master Fee Schedule to allow City to recover its actual and reasonable costs of processing Developer’s Subsequent Approvals with respect to the Project.

2.6.2. Impact Fees. “Impact Fees” means monetary fees, monetary exactions or impositions, other than taxes or assessments, whether established for or imposed upon the Project individually or as part of a class of projects, that are imposed by City on the Project in connection with any Project Approval for any purpose, including, without limitation, defraying all or a portion of the cost of public services and/or facilities construction, improvement, or City Council/RSA Agenda 44 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 12 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
operation and maintenance attributable to the burden created by the Project. Any fee, or monetary exaction or imposition imposed on the Project which is not a Processing Fee is an Impact Fee. Developer shall pay the Impact Fees in existence at the time the Impact Fee is assessed and payable, including any Impact Fees adopted after the Effective Date. Developer shall pay the Impact Fees at the rate in effect at the time the Impact Fee is assessed and payable.

Impact fees shall be paid at the time required by the Union City Municipal Code, unless a different time is specified by this Agreement or the Project Approvals.

2.6.3. Conditions of Subsequent Approvals. In connection with any Subsequent Approvals, City shall have the right to impose reasonable conditions necessary for the Project including, without limitation, normal and customary dedications for rights of way or easements for public access, utilities, water, sewers, and drainage ; provided, however, such conditions and dedications shall not be inconsistent with the Applicable Rules or Project Approvals, nor inconsistent with the development of the Project as contemplated by this Agreement.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, no conditions imposed on Subsequent Approvals shall require dedications of, or reservations for, or construction or funding of, public infrastructure or public improvements beyond those included in the previously-approved Project Approvals. In addition, any and all conditions imposed on Subsequent Approvals for the Project must comply with Sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 herein.

2.7. Life of Project Approvals.

2.7.1. Life of Project Approvals. The term of all Project Approvals shall be automatically extended such that the Project Approvals remain in effect until December 31, 2024. Thereafter the Project Approvals shall expire, unless Developer has commenced construction of the Project. Nothing in this Section is intended to extend the deadline for commencement of Project construction set forth in the DDA. or create an expectation that the City will agree to amend the DDA.

2.7.2. Termination of Agreement. In the event that this Development Agreement is terminated prior to the expiration of the Term, the term of any Project Approval shall be the term otherwise applicable to the approval (including any extensions).

2.8. Further CEQA Environmental Review.

2.8.1. Reliance on EIRs. The EIRs referenced in Section 1.5.1 address the potential environmental impacts of the entire Project as it is described in the Project Approvals.

It is agreed that, in acting on any discretionary Subsequent Approvals for the Project, City will rely on those EIRs to satisfy the requirements of CEQA to the fullest extent permissible by CEQA and City will not require a new initial study, negative declaration, EIR or subsequent or supplemental EIR unless required by CEQA and will not impose on the Project any mitigation measures or other conditions of approval other than those specifically imposed by the Project Approvals or specifically required by the Applicable Rules.

2.8.2. Subsequent CEQA Review. In the event that any additional CEQA documentation is legally required for any discretionary Subsequent Approval for the Project, then the scope of such documentation shall be focused, to the extent possible consistent with City Council/RSA Agenda 45 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 13 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
CEQA, on the specific subject matter of the Subsequent Approval, and the City shall conduct such CEQA review as expeditiously as possible.

2.9. Developer’s Right to Rebuild. Developer may renovate or rebuild the Project within the Term of this Agreement should it become necessary due to natural disaster, casualty, changes in seismic requirements, or should the buildings located within the Project become functionally outdated, within Developer’s sole discretion, due to changes in technology. Any such renovation or rebuilding shall be processed as a Subsequent Project Approval, shall be subject to the Vested Elements, and shall comply with the Project Approvals, the building regulations existing at the time of such rebuilding or reconstruction, and the requirements of CEQA.

ARTICLE 3.

ANNUAL REVIEW

3.1. Annual Review.

The annual review required by California Government Code Section 65865.1 will be conducted for the purposes and in the manner stated in those laws as further provided herein. As part of that review, City and Developer shall have a reasonable opportunity to assert action(s) that either Party believes have not been undertaken in accordance with the other Party a justification for the other Party’s position with respect to such action(s), and to take such actions as permitted by law. The procedure set forth in this Article shall be used by Developer and City in complying with the annual review requirement. The City and Developer agree that the annual review process will review compliance by Developer and City with the obligations under this Development Agreement but will not review compliance with other Project Approvals or other agreements between City and Developer.

3.2. Commencement of Process; Developer Compliance Letter.

At least fifteen (15) days prior to the anniversary of the Effective Date each year, Developer shall submit a letter to the Director of City’s Economic & Community Development Department demonstrating Developer’s good faith compliance with the material terms and conditions of this Development Agreement and shall include in the letter a statement that the letter is being submitted to City pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 65865.1.

3.3. Economic & Community Development Director Review.

Within thirty (30) days after the receipt of Developer’s letter, the Economic & Community Development Director shall review Developer’s submission and determine whether Developer has, for the year under review, demonstrated good faith compliance with the material terms and conditions of this Development Agreement. If Developer has demonstrated good faith compliance, than the Economic & Community Development Director shall make such a finding and send a letter back to Developer describing the Economic & Community Development Director’s finding and any comments.

3.4. Economic & Community Development Director Noncompliance Finding.

City Council/RSA Agenda 46 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 14 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
If the Economic & Community Development Director finds and determines that there is substantial evidence that Developer has not complied in good faith with the material terms and conditions of this Development Agreement and that Developer is in material breach of this Development Agreement for the year under review, the Economic & Community Development Director shall issue and deliver to Developer a written “Notice of Default” specifying in detail the nature of the failures in performance that the Economic & Community Development Director claims constitutes material noncompliance, all facts demonstrating substantial evidence of material noncompliance, and the manner in which such noncompliance may be satisfactorily cured in accordance with the Development Agreement. In the event that the material noncompliance is an Event of Default pursuant to ARTICLE 5 herein, the Parties shall be entitled to their respective rights and obligations under both ARTICLE 3 and 5 herein, except that the particular entity allegedly in default shall be accorded only one of the 60-day cure periods referred to in Sections 3.5 and 5.1 herein.

3.5. Cure Period.

If the Economic & Community Development Director finds that Developer is not in compliance, the Economic & Community Development Director shall grant a reasonable period of time for Developer to cure the alleged noncompliance. The Economic & Community Development Director shall grant a cure period of at least sixty (60) days and shall extend the sixty (60) day period if Developer is proceeding in good faith to cure the noncompliance and additional time is reasonably needed. At the conclusion of the cure period, the Economic & Community Development Director shall either (i) find that Developer is in compliance; or (ii) find that Developer is not in compliance.

3.6. Referral of Noncompliance to City Council.

If Developer fails to cure the alleged noncompliance to the Economic & Community Development Director’s reasonable satisfaction during the prescribed cure period and any extensions thereto, the Economic & Community Development Director shall refer the alleged noncompliance to the City Manager who shall forward to the City Council if Developer requests a hearing before the City Council. The Economic & Community Development Director shall prepare a staff report to the City Council which shall include, in addition to Developer’s letter, (i) demonstration of City’s good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement; (ii) the Notice of Default; and (iii) a description of any cure undertaken by Developer during the cure period.

3.7. Delivery of Documents.

At least ten (10) business days prior to any City hearing regarding Developer’s compliance with this Development Agreement, City shall deliver to Developer all staff reports and all other relevant documents pertaining to the hearing.

3.8. City Council Compliance Finding.

If the City Council, following a noticed public hearing pursuant to Section 3.6, determines that Developer is in compliance with the material terms and conditions of this Development Agreement, the annual review shall be deemed concluded. City shall, at City Council/RSA Agenda 47 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 15 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
Developer’s request, issue and have recorded a Certificate of Compliance indicating Developer’s compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement.

3.9. City Council Noncompliance Finding.

If the City Council, at a properly noticed public hearing pursuant to Section 3.6, finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that Developer has not complied in good faith with the material terms or conditions of this Development Agreement and that Developer is in material breach of this Development Agreement, Developer will have a reasonable time determined by the City Council to meet the reasonable terms of compliance approved by the City Council, which time shall be not less than fifteen (15) days. If Developer does not complete the terms of compliance within the time specified, the City Council shall hold a public hearing regarding termination or modification of this Development Agreement.

Notification of intention to modify or terminate this Development Agreement shall be delivered to Developer by certified mail containing: (i) the time and place of the City Council hearing; (ii) a statement as to whether City proposes to terminate or modify this Development Agreement and the terms of any proposed modification; and (iii) any other information reasonably necessary to inform Developer of the nature of the proceedings. At the time of the hearing, Developer shall be given an opportunity to be heard. The City Council may impose conditions to the action it takes as necessary to protect the interests of City; provided that any modification or termination of this Development Agreement pursuant to this provision shall bear a reasonable nexus to, and be proportional in severity to the magnitude of the alleged breach, and in no event shall termination be permitted except in accordance with ARTICLE 5 herein.

3.10. Relationship to Default Provisions.

The above procedures supplement and do not replace that provision of Section 5.1 of this Development Agreement whereby either City or Developer may, at any time, assert matters which either Party believes have not been undertaken in accordance with this Development Agreement by delivering a written Notice of Default and following the procedures set forth in Section 5.1.

3.12. Reimbursement of City's Costs Incurred in Bringing About Cure Developer shall be obligated to reimburse to City all reasonable costs, expenses, damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of any Developer default including all costs incurred in bringing about Developer's cure of any such default.

ARTICLE 4.

AMENDMENTS

4.1. Amendments to Development Agreement Legislation.

This Development Agreement has been entered into in reliance upon the provisions of the Development Agreement Legislation as those provisions existed at the Effective Date. No amendment or addition to those provisions or any other State or Federal Law (defined in Section City Council/RSA Agenda 48 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 16 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2

2.4.3) that would materially adversely affect the interpretation or enforceability of this Development Agreement or would prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Development Agreement shall be applicable to this Development Agreement or render compliance with this Agreement substantially more expensive or time consuming, unless such amendment or addition is specifically required by the change in law, or is mandated by a court of competent jurisdiction. In the event of the application of such a change in law, the Parties shall meet in good faith to determine the feasibility of any modification or suspension that may be necessary to comply with such new law or regulation and to determine the effect such modification or suspension would have on the purposes and intent of this Development Agreement and the Vested Elements. Following the meeting between the Parties, the provisions of this Development Agreement may, to the extent feasible, and upon mutual agreement of the Parties, be modified or suspended but only to the minimum extent necessary to comply with such new law or regulation. If such amendment or change is permissive (as opposed to mandatory), this Development Agreement shall not be affected by same unless the Parties mutually agree in writing to amend this Development Agreement to permit such applicability.

Developer and/or City shall have the right to challenge any new law or regulation preventing compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement, and in the event such challenge is successful, this Development Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.

The Term of this Development Agreement may be extended for the duration of the period during which such new law or regulation precludes compliance with the provisions of this Development Agreement.

4.2 Amendments to or Cancellation of Development Agreement.

This Development Agreement may be amended from time to time or canceled in whole or in part by mutual consent of both Parties in writing in accordance with the provisions of the Development Agreement Legislation. Review and approval of an amendment to this Development Agreement shall be strictly limited to consideration of only those provisions to be added or modified. No amendment, modification, waiver or change to this Development Agreement or any provision hereof shall be effective for any purpose unless specifically set forth in writing that expressly refers to this Development Agreement and signed by the duly authorized representatives of both Parties. Except as provided in Section 4.3, 4.4.1 or 4.4.2, all amendments to this Development Agreement shall be recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council and, upon such approval, will become part of the Project Approvals.

4.3. Operating Memoranda.

The provisions of this Development Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between City and Developer and development of the Property hereunder may demonstrate that refinements and clarifications are appropriate with respect to the details of performance of City and Developer. If and when, from time to time, during the Term of this Development Agreement, City and Developer agree that such clarifications are necessary or appropriate, City and Developer shall effectuate such clarifications through operating memoranda approved by City and Developer, which, after execution, shall be attached hereto as addenda and become a part hereof, and may be further clarified from time to time as necessary with future approval by City and Developer. No such operating memoranda shall constitute an City Council/RSA Agenda 49 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 17 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
amendment to this Development Agreement requiring public notice or hearing. The City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, shall make the determination on behalf of City whether a requested clarification may be effectuated pursuant to this Section 4.3 or whether the requested clarification is of such a character to constitute an amendment hereof pursuant to Section 4.2 above. The City Manager shall be authorized to execute any operating memoranda hereunder on behalf of City.

4.4. Amendments to Project Approvals.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Development Agreement, Developer may seek and City may review and grant amendments or modifications to the Project Approvals (including the Subsequent Approvals) subject to the following (except that the procedures for amendment of this Development Agreement are set forth in Section 4.2 herein).

4.4.1. Amendments to Project Approvals. Project Approvals (except for this Development Agreement the amendment process for which is set forth in Section 4.2) may be amended or modified from time to time, but only at the written request of Developer or with the written consent of Developer (at its sole discretion) and in accordance with Section 2.4. All amendments to the Project Approvals shall automatically become part of the Project Approvals; provided however, if an amendment to the Project Approvals constitutes a “Major Amendment” as defined in Section 4.4.1or as reasonably determined by the Economic & Community Development Director, Developer consents to the review of such Major Amendment’s before the Planning Commission for approval or recommendation to the City Council, whose review and approval or denial shall be final, subject to any applicable appeal rights of Developer. The permitted uses of the Property, maximum unit count, the maximum height and size of the proposed buildings, any material variations from development standards identified in Section

18.38.250 of the Zoning Ordinance, the conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, the provisions for public improvements and financing of public improvements, and the other terms and conditions of development as set forth in all such amendments, except those constituting a Major Amendment shall be automatically vested pursuant to this Development Agreement, without requiring an amendment to this Development Agreement. Amendments to the Project Approvals shall be governed by the Project Approvals and the Applicable Rules, subject to Section 2.4. City shall not request, process or consent to any amendment to the Project Approvals that would affect the Property or the Project without Developer’s prior written consent. As used in this Agreement, the term “Major Amendment” means a modification that affects (a) the Term of this Agreement, (b) permitted uses of the Property, (c) provisions for reservation or dedication of land, (d) the density or intensity of use of the Property, (e) the maximum height or size of proposed buildings, (f) the location and maintenance of on-site or off-site public improvements, (g) any exceptions to applicable development standards as allowed by Section 18.38.250 of the Union City Municipal Code, or (h) such other modification Economic & Community Development Director reasonably determines to constitute a significant change in the Project.

4.4.2. Administrative Amendments. Upon the request of Developer for an amendment or modification of any Project Approval, the Economic & Community Development Director or his/her designee shall determine: (a) whether the requested amendment or modification is minor when considered in light of the Project as a whole; and (b) whether the requested amendment or City Council/RSA Agenda 50 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 18 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
modification substantially conforms with the material terms of this Development Agreement and the Applicable Rules. If the Economic & Community Development Director or his/her designee finds that the requested amendment or modification is both minor and substantially conforms with the material terms of this Development Agreement Project Approvals, and the Applicable Rules, the amendment or modification shall be determined to be an “Administrative Amendment,” and the Economic & Community Development Director or his or her designee may approve the Administrative Amendment, without public notice or a public hearing. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, lot line adjustments, minor alterations in vehicle circulation patterns or vehicle access points, variations in the location of structures that do not substantially alter the design concepts of the Project Approvals, ; minor changes to architectural features required to comply with applicable Building Code provisions or to address supply issues, substitution of comparable landscaping for any landscaping shown on any development plan or landscape plan, variations in the location or installation of utilities and other infrastructure connections and facilities that do not substantially alter design concepts of the Project Approvals, and minor adjustments to the Property legal description, approved building façade colors and/or exterior materials, courtyard dimensions, and location and square footage of common area amenities shall be deemed to be minor amendments or modifications that may be approved by the Economic & Community Development Director without review by the Planning Commission or City Council. Any request of Developer for an amendment or modification to a Project Approval that is determined not to be an Administrative Amendment as set forth above shall be subject to review, consideration and action pursuant to the Applicable Rules and this Agreement.

ARTICLE 5.

DEFAULT, REMEDIES AND TERMINATION

5.1 Events of Default.

Subject to any extensions of time by mutual consent of the Parties in writing, and subject to the provisions of Section 9.2 hereof regarding permitted delays and a Mortgagee’s right to cure pursuant to Section 8.3 hereof, any failure by either Party to perform any material term or provision of this Development Agreement (not including any failure by Developer to perform any term or provision of any other Project Approvals) shall constitute an “Event of Default,” (i) if such defaulting Party does not cure such failure within sixty (60) days (such sixty (60) day period is not in addition to any (60) day cure period under Section 3.6, if Section 3.6 is applicable) following written notice of default from the other Party, where such failure is of a nature that can be cured within such sixty (60) day period, or (ii) if such failure is not of a nature which can be cured within such sixty (60) day period, the defaulting Party does not within such sixty (60) day period commence substantial efforts to cure such failure, or thereafter does not within a reasonable time prosecute to completion with diligence and continuity the curing of such failure.

Any notice of default given hereunder shall specify in detail the nature of the failures in performance that the noticing Party claims constitutes the Event of Default, all facts constituting substantial evidence of such failure, and the manner in which such failure may be satisfactorily cured in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement. During the time periods herein specified for cure of a failure of performance, the Party charged therewith City Council/RSA Agenda 51 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 19 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
shall not be considered to be in default for purposes of (a) termination of this Development Agreement, (b) institution of legal proceedings with respect thereto, or (c) issuance of any approval with respect to the Project. The waiver by either Party of any default under this Development Agreement shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Development Agreement.

5.2. Meet and Confer.

During the time periods specified in Section 5.1 for cure of a failure of performance, the Parties shall meet and confer in a timely and responsive manner, to attempt to resolve any matters prior to litigation or other action being taken, including without limitation any action in law or equity; provided, however, nothing herein shall be construed to extend the time period for this meet and confer obligation beyond the 60-day cure period referred to in Section 5.1 (even if the 60-day cure period itself is extended pursuant to Section 5.1) unless the Parties agree otherwise in writing.

5.3. Remedies and Termination.

If, after notice and expiration of the cure periods and procedures set forth in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, the alleged Event of Default is not cured, the non-defaulting Party, at its option, may institute legal proceedings pursuant to Section 5.4 of this Development Agreement and/or terminate this Development Agreement pursuant to Section 5.5 herein. In the event that this Development Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 5.5 herein and litigation is instituted that results in a final decision that such termination was improper, then this Development Agreement shall immediately be reinstated as though it had never been terminated.

5.4. Legal Action by Parties.

5.4.1. Remedies. Either Party may, in addition to any other rights or remedies, institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default, enforce any covenant or agreement herein, enjoin any threatened or attempted violation thereof, enforce by specific performance the obligations and rights of the Parties hereto or to obtain any remedies consistent with the purpose of this Development Agreement. All remedies shall be cumulative and not exclusive of one another, and the exercise of any one or more of these remedies shall not constitute a waiver or election with respect to any other available remedy. Without limiting the foregoing, Developer reserves the right to challenge in court any Future Rules that would conflict with the Vested Elements or the Subsequent Approvals for the Project or reduce the development rights provided by the Project Approvals.

5.4.2. No Damages. In no event shall either Party, or its boards, commissions, officers, agents or employees, be liable in damages for any default under this Development Agreement, it being expressly understood and agreed that the sole legal remedy available to either Party for a breach or violation of this Development Agreement by the other Party shall be an action in mandamus, specific performance or other injunctive or declaratory relief to enforce the provisions of this Development Agreement by the other Party, or to terminate this Development Agreement. This limitation on damages shall not preclude actions by a Party to enforce payments of monies or the performance of obligations requiring an obligation of City Council/RSA Agenda 52 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 20 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
money from the other Party under the terms of this Development Agreement including, but not limited to obligations to pay attorneys’ fees and obligations to advance monies or reimburse monies. In connection with the foregoing provisions, each Party acknowledges, warrants and represents that it has been fully informed with respect to, and represented by counsel of such Party’s choice in connection with, the rights and remedies of such Party hereunder and the waivers herein contained, and after such advice and consultation has presently and actually intended, with full knowledge of such Party’s rights and remedies otherwise available at law or in equity, to waive and relinquish such rights and remedies to the extent specified herein, and to rely to the extent herein specified solely on the remedies provided for herein with respect to any breach of this Development Agreement by the other Party.

5.5.Termination.

5.5.1. Expiration of Term. Except as otherwise provided in this Development Agreement, this Development Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further effect upon the expiration of the Term of this Development Agreement as set forth in Section 1.3.

5.5.2. Survival of Obligations. Upon the termination or expiration of this Development Agreement as provided herein, neither Party shall have any further right or obligation with respect to the Property under this Development Agreement except with respect to any obligation that is specifically set forth as surviving the termination or expiration of this Development Agreement. The termination or expiration of this Development Agreement shall not affect the validity of the Project Approvals (other than this Development Agreement) for the Project.

5.5.3. Termination by City. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Development Agreement, City shall not have the right to terminate this Development Agreement with respect to all or any portion of the Property before the expiration of its Term unless City complies with all termination procedures set forth in the Development Agreement Legislation and there is an alleged Event of Default by Developer and such Event of Default is not cured pursuant to ARTICLE 3 herein or this ARTICLE 5 and Developer has first been afforded an opportunity to be heard regarding the alleged default before the City Council and this Development Agreement is terminated only with respect to that portion of the Property to which the default applies.

ARTICLE 6.

COOPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

6.1. Further Actions and Instruments.

Each Party to this Development Agreement shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other Party and take all actions necessary to ensure that the Parties receive the benefits of this Development Agreement, subject to satisfaction of the conditions of this Development Agreement. Upon the request of any Party, the other Party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Development Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this City Council/RSA Agenda 53 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 21 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
Development Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Development Agreement.

6.2. Regulation by Other Public Agencies.

Other public agencies not within the control of City may possess authority to regulate aspects of the development of the Property separately from or jointly with City, and this Development Agreement does not limit the authority of such other public agencies.

Nevertheless, City shall be bound by, and shall abide by, its covenants and obligations under this Development Agreement in all respects when dealing with any such agency regarding the Property. To the extent that City, the City Council, the Planning Commission or any other board, agency, committee, department or commission of City constitutes and sits as any other board, agency, commission, committee, or department, it shall not take any action that conflicts with City’s obligations under this Agreement unless required to by any State or Federal law.

6.3. Other Governmental Permits and Approvals; Grants.

Developer shall apply in a timely manner in accordance with Developer’s construction schedule for the permits and approvals from other governmental or quasi-governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the Project as may be required for the development of, or provision of services to, the Project. Developer shall comply with all such permits, requirements and approvals. City shall cooperate with Developer in its endeavors to obtain (a) such permits and approvals and (b) any grants or other financing for the Project for which Developer applies.

6.4. Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge.

6.4.1. The filing of any third party lawsuit(s) against City or Developer relating to this Agreement, the Project Approvals or other development issues affecting the Property shall not delay or stop the development, processing or construction of the Project or approval of any Subsequent Approvals, unless the third party obtains a court order preventing the activity. City shall not stipulate to or cooperate in the issuance of any such order.

6.4.2. In the event of any administrative, legal or equitable action instituted by a third party challenging the validity of any provision of this Development Agreement, the procedures leading to its adoption, the Project Approvals for the Project (“Initial Litigation Challenge”), Developer and City each shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to elect whether or not to defend such action, to select its own counsel, and to control its participation and conduct in the litigation in all respects permitted by law. If an Initial Litigation Challenge is filed, upon receipt of the petition, the Parties will have 20 days to meet and confer regarding the merits of such Initial Litigation Challenge and to determine whether to defend against the Initial Litigation Challenge, which period may be extended by the Parties’ mutual agreement so long as it does not impact any litigation deadlines.

If, after meeting and conferring, the Parties mutually agree to defend against the Initial Litigation Challenge, then the following shall apply: (i) the Parties hereby agree to affirmatively cooperate in defending said action and to execute a joint defense and confidentiality agreement in order to share and protect information, under the joint defense privilege recognized under applicable law; (ii) for the purposes of cost-efficiency and City Council/RSA Agenda 54 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 22 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
coordination, the Parties shall first consider defending the Initial Litigation Challenge jointly, with counsel and under terms of joint representation mutually acceptable to the City and Developer (each in its sole discretion), at the Developer’s sole cost and expense; and (iii) if the Parties cannot reach timely and mutual agreement on a joint counsel, and Developer continues to elect (in its sole discretion) to defend against the Initial Litigation Challenge, then Developer shall take the lead role defending such Initial Litigation Challenge and may, in its sole discretion, elect to be represented by the legal counsel of its choice, in which case, City may elect to be separately represented by the outside legal counsel of its choice in any such action or proceeding. The City Manager is authorized to negotiate and enter into a joint defense agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Such joint defense agreement shall also provide that any proposed settlement of an Initial Litigation Challenge shall be subject to City’s and Developer’s approval, each in its reasonable discretion.

As part of the cooperation in defending an action, City and Developer shall coordinate their defense in order to make the most efficient use of legal counsel and to share and protect information. Developer and City shall each have sole discretion to terminate its defense at any time. If Developer elects, in its sole and absolute discretion, not to defend against the Initial Litigation Challenge, it shall deliver written notice to the City regarding such decision. If Developer elects not to defend, the City has the right, but not the obligation, to proceed to defend against the Initial Litigation Challenge and shall take the lead role defending such Initial Litigation Challenge and may, in its sole discretion, elect to be represented by the legal counsel of its choice, at its sole cost and expense. If Developer elects not to defend, the City has the right, but not the obligation, to terminate this Agreement and consider the Developer’s application for any related Project Approvals withdrawn. The City shall not settle any third party litigation of Project Approvals without Developer’s consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed.

6.5. Indemnification
Developer shall indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to City) and hold harmless City and any City Councilmembers, commissioners and staff acting in their official capacity (“City Parties”) from and against any and all claims, costs, liabilities and damages (collectively, “Claims”), including Claims for any bodily injury, death, or property damage, arising or resulting directly or indirectly from an Initial Litigation Challenge, the development or construction of the Project or any portion thereof by or on behalf of Developer, or from any acts, omissions, negligence or willful misconduct of Developer, whether such acts, omissions, negligence or willful misconduct are by Developer or any of Developer’s contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees. The foregoing indemnity shall not apply to any Claims to the extent arising or resulting from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of City or the City Parties. Developer’s obligations under this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

6.6. Prevailing Wage
If required by applicable State or Federal Laws, Developer and its contractors and agents shall comply with California Labor Code Section 1720 et seq, and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto (“Prevailing Wage Laws”) with respect to the Project, and shall be responsible City Council/RSA Agenda 55 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 23 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
for carrying out the requirements of such provisions. Developer shall indemnify, defend (with counsel approved by City) and hold the City Parties harmless from any Claims which directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, are caused by, arise in connection with, result from the payment or requirement of payment of prevailing wages in the construction of the Project, the failure to comply with any state or federal labor laws, regulations or standards in connection with this Agreement, including but not limited to the Prevailing Wage Laws, or any act or omission of Developer related to this Agreement with respect to the payment or requirement of payment of prevailing wages or the requirement of competitive bidding, whether or not any insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any such Claims. The foregoing indemnity shall not apply to any Claims to the extent arising or resulting from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of City or the City Parties.

6.7. Revision to Project.

In the event of a court order issued as a result of a successful legal challenge, City shall, to the extent permitted by law or court order, in good faith seek to comply with the court order in such a manner as will maintain the integrity of the Project Approvals and avoid or minimize to the greatest extent possible (i) any impact to the development of the Project as provided for in, and contemplated by, the Vested Elements, or (ii) any conflict with the Vested Elements or frustration of the intent or purpose of the Vested Elements.

6.8. State, Federal or Case Law.

Where any state, federal or case law allows City to exercise any discretion or take any action with respect to that law, City shall, in an expeditious and timely manner, at the earliest possible time, (a) exercise its discretion in such a way as to be consistent with, and carry out the terms of, this Development Agreement and (b) take such other actions as may be necessary to carry out in good faith the terms of this Development Agreement.

6.9. Defense of Agreement.

City shall take all actions that are necessary or advisable to uphold the validity and enforceability of this Development Agreement. If this Development Agreement is adjudicated or determined to be invalid or unenforceable, City agrees, subject to all legal requirements, to consider modifications to this Development Agreement to render it valid and enforceable to the extent permitted by applicable law. Developer shall pay all of City’s reasonable costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and experts’ costs, incurred to modify or defend this Development Agreement.

ARTICLE 7.

TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS

7.1. Right to Assign.

During any time that the City is the owner of the Property, Developer may not sell, assign or transfer in whole or in part its rights, duties and obligations under this Agreement (“Transfer”), to any person or entity at any time during the Term of this Development City Council/RSA Agenda 56 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 24 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
Agreement without the prior consent of City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.

This prohibition shall not apply to (a) transfers of Developer’s interest in this Agreement to a limited partnership in which Developer or its affiliate is a general partner, (b) transfers of Developer’s interest in this Agreement to a limited liability company in which Developer or its affiliate is a manager or managing member, (c) transfers of limited partnership interests or membership interests in such limited partnership or limited liability company, or (d) transfers to an entity that is majority owned or controlled by the Developer or the members or affiliates of the Developer. In the event of a transfer of a portion of the Property, Developer shall have the right to Transfer its rights, duties and obligations under this Development Agreement that are applicable to the transferred portion, and to retain all rights, duties and obligations applicable to the retained portions of the Property. Upon Developer’s request, City shall cooperate with Developer and any proposed transferee to allocate rights, duties and obligations under this Development Agreement and the Project Approvals among the transferred Property and the retained Property.

7.2. Release upon Transfer.

Upon the Transfer of Developer’s rights and interests under this Development Agreement pursuant to Section 7.1, Developer shall automatically be released from its obligations and liabilities under this Development Agreement with respect to that portion of the Property transferred, and any subsequent default or breach with respect to the transferred rights and/or obligations shall not constitute a default or breach with respect to the retained rights and/or obligations under this Development Agreement, provided that (i) Developer has provided to City written notice of such Transfer, and (ii) the transferee executes and delivers to City a written agreement in which (a) the name and address of the transferee is set forth and (b) the transferee expressly and unconditionally assumes all of the obligations of Developer under this Development Agreement with respect to that portion of the Property transferred. Upon any transfer of any portion of the Property and the express assumption of Developer’s obligations under this Development Agreement by such transferee, City agrees to look solely to the transferee for compliance by such transferee with the provisions of this Development Agreement as such provisions relate to the portion of the Property acquired by such transferee.

A default by any transferee shall only affect that portion of the Property owned by such transferee and shall not cancel or diminish in any way Developer’s rights hereunder with respect to any portion of the Property retained by Developer. The transferor and the transferee shall each be solely responsible for the reporting and annual review requirements relating to the portion of the Property owned by such transferor/transferee, and any amendment to this Development Agreement between City and a transferor or a transferee shall only affect the portion of the Property owned by such transferor or transferee. Failure to deliver a written assumption agreement hereunder shall not affect the running of any covenants herein with the land, as provided in Section 7.3 below, nor shall such failure negate, modify or otherwise affect the liability of any transferee pursuant to the provisions of this Development Agreement.

7.3. Covenants Run with the Land.

All of the provisions, agreements, rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants and obligations contained in this Development Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective successors (by merger, reorganization, consolidation, or otherwise) and City Council/RSA Agenda 57 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 25 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
assigns, devisees, administrators, representatives, lessees, and all of the persons or entities acquiring the Property or any portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever, and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors (by merger, consolidation or otherwise) and assigns. All of the provisions of this Development Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable law, including but not limited to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant to do, or refrain from doing, some act on the Property hereunder (i) is for the benefit of such Property and is a burden upon such Property, (ii) runs with such Property, (iii) is binding upon each Party and each successive owner during its ownership of such Property or any portion thereof, and (iv) each person or entity having any interest therein derived in any manner through any owner of such Property, or any portion thereof, and shall benefit the Property hereunder, and each other person or entity succeeding to an interest in such Property. The provisions of this Section 7.3 shall be in effect until the expiration of the Term or sooner termination of this Agreement.

ARTICLE 8.

MORTGAGEE PROTECTION; CERTAIN RIGHTS OF CURE

8.1. Mortgagee Protection.

This Development Agreement shall not prevent or limit Developer in any manner, at Developer’s sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device securing financing with respect to the Property (“Mortgage”). This Development Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Property or any portion thereof after the date of recording this Development Agreement, including the lien of any Mortgage. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all of the terms and conditions contained in this Development Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against and inure to the benefit of any person or entity, including any deed of trust beneficiary or mortgagee (“Mortgagee”) who acquires title to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee’s sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise.

8.2. Mortgagee Not Obligated.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8.1 above, no Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Development Agreement to perform Developer’s obligations or other affirmative covenants of Developer hereunder; provided, however, that a Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote the Property to any uses or to construct any improvements thereon other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by this Development Agreement, or by the Project Approvals and Applicable Rules.

8.3. Notice of Default to Mortgagee; Right of Mortgagee to Cure.

If City receives a notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any Notice of Default given to Developer hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, then City shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to Developer, any notice given to City Council/RSA Agenda 58 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 26 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
Developer with respect to any claim by City that Developer has committed a default, and if City makes a determination of noncompliance hereunder, City shall likewise serve notice of such noncompliance on such Mortgagee concurrently with service thereof on Developer. Each Mortgagee shall have the right (but not the obligation) during the same period available to Developer to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the Event of Default claimed or the areas of noncompliance set forth in City’s notice.

8.4. No Supersedure.

Nothing in this ARTICLE 8 shall be deemed to supersede or release a Mortgagee or modify a Mortgagee’s obligations under any subdivision improvement agreement or other obligation incurred with respect to the Project outside this Development Agreement, nor shall any provision of this ARTICLE 8 constitute an obligation of City to such Mortgagee, except as to the notice requirements of Section 8.3.

8.5. Technical Amendments.

City agrees to reasonably consider and approve interpretations and/or technical amendments to the provisions of this Agreement that are required by lenders or equity investors providing financing for the acquisition of the Property and construction of the improvements on the Property or any refinancing thereof and to otherwise cooperate in good faith to facilitate Developer’s negotiations with lenders and investors.

ARTICLE 9.

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

9.1. Limitation on Liability.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Development Agreement, in no event shall any member, officer, agent or employee of City be personally liable for any breach of this Development Agreement by City or for any amount which may become due to Developer under the terms of this Development Agreement.

9.2. Force Majeure.

The Term of this Development Agreement and the Project Approvals and the time within which Developer shall be required to perform any act under this Development Agreement shall be extended by a period of time equal to the number of days during which performance of such act is delayed unavoidably and beyond the reasonable control of the Party seeking the delay by strikes, lock-outs and other labor difficulties, Acts of God, inclement weather, failure or inability to secure materials or labor by reason of priority or similar regulations or order of any governmental or regulatory body, changes in local, state or federal laws or regulations, any development moratorium or any action of other public agencies that regulate land use, development or the provision of services prevents, prohibits or delays construction of the Project, enemy action, civil disturbances, wars, terrorist acts, fire, unavoidable casualties, litigation involving this Agreement or the Project Approvals, or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of Developer which substantially interferes with City Council/RSA Agenda 59 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 27 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
carrying out the development of the Project. Such extension(s) of time shall not constitute an Event of Default and shall occur at the request of any Party. In addition, the Term of this Development Agreement and any subdivision map or any of the other Project Approvals shall not include any period of time during which (i) a development moratorium including, but not limited to, a water or sewer moratorium, is in effect; (ii) the actions of public agencies that regulate land use, development or the provision of services to the Property prevent, prohibit or delay either the construction, funding or development of the Project; or (iii) there is any mediation, arbitration, litigation or other administrative or judicial proceeding pending involving the Vested Elements, or Project Approvals. The Term of the Project Approvals shall therefore be extended by the length of any development moratorium or similar action; the amount of time any actions of public agencies prevent, prohibit or delay the construction, funding or development of the Project; or the amount of time to finally resolve any mediation, arbitration, litigation or other administrative or judicial proceeding involving the Vested Elements, or Project Approvals. Furthermore, in the event the issuance of a building permit for any part of the Project is delayed as a result of Developer’s inability to obtain any other required permit or approval, then the Term of this Development Agreement shall be extended by the period of any such delay.

9.3. Notices, Demands and Communications Between the Parties.

Formal written notices, demands, correspondence and communications between City and Developer shall be sufficiently given if delivered personally (including delivery by private courier), dispatched by certified mail, postage prepaid and return receipt requested, or delivered by nationally recognized overnight courier service to the offices of City and Developer indicated below. Such written notices, demands, correspondence and communications may be sent in the same manner to such persons and addresses as either Party may from time-to-time designate in writing at least fifteen (15) days prior to the name and/or address change and as provided in this Section 9.3.

City: City of Union City
34009 Alvarado-Niles Road
Union City, CA 94587
Attn: City Manager
with copies to: City of Union City
34009 Alvarado-Niles Road
Union City, CA 94587
Attn: City Attorney
Developer: Windflower Properties, LLC
666 Post Street, Suite 1700
San Francisco, CA 94109
Attn: Vivian Fei Tsen
Notices personally delivered shall be deemed to have been received upon delivery.

Notices delivered by certified mail, as provided above, shall be deemed to have been given and received on the first to occur of (i) actual receipt by any of the addresses designated above as the Party to whom notices are to be sent, or (ii) within five (5) days after a certified letter containing such notice, properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is deposited in the United States mail.

Notices delivered by overnight courier service as provided above shall be deemed to have been received twenty-four (24) hours after the date of deposit. Notices delivered by electronic City Council/RSA Agenda 60 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 28 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
facsimile transmission shall be deemed received upon receipt of sender of electronic confirmation of delivery, provided that a “hard” copy is delivered as provided above.

9.4. Project as a Private Undertaking; No Joint Venture or Partnership.

The Project constitutes private development, neither City nor Developer is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and City and Developer are independent entities with respect to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Nothing contained in this Development Agreement or in any document executed in connection with this Development Agreement shall be construed as making City and Developer joint venturers or partners.

9.5. Severability.

If any terms or provision(s) of this Development Agreement or the application of any term(s)or provision(s) of this Development Agreement to a particular situation, is (are) held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this Development Agreement or the application of this Development Agreement to other situations, shall remain in full force and effect unless amended or modified by mutual consent of the Parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any material provision of this Development Agreement, or the application of such provision to a particular situation, is held to be invalid, void or unenforceable, Developer (in its sole and absolute discretion) may terminate this Development Agreement by providing written notice of such termination to City.

9.6. Section Headings.

Article and Section headings in this Development Agreement are for convenience only and are not intended to be used in interpreting or construing the terms, covenants or conditions of this Development Agreement. Except as otherwise expressly stated herein, any reference to a particular section or Article of this Agreement shall mean a reference to all subsections of such section or Article.

9.7. Construction of Agreement.

Both the Developer and City had the opportunity to review with this Agreement with legal counsel, and this Development Agreement is the result of negotiations between the Parties, and no presumption or rule that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafting Party shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Development Agreement.

9.8. Entire Agreement.

This Development Agreement, including the Recitals, and exhibits attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, together with the DDA and the other Project Approvals, constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the Parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. The exhibits and appendices are as follows:

Exhibit A Legal Description of the Property
City Council/RSA Agenda 61 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 29 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2

9.9. Estoppel Certificates.

Either Party may, at any time during the Term of this Development Agreement, and from time to time, deliver written notice to the other Party requesting such Party to certify in writing that, to the knowledge of the certifying Party, (i) this Development Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the Parties, (ii) this Development Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or if amended; identifying the amendments, (iii) the requesting Party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Development Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of any such defaults, and (iv) any other information reasonably requested. The Party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate or give a written, detailed response explaining why it will not do so within twenty (20) days following the receipt thereof. The failure of either Party to provide the requested certificate within such twenty (20) day period shall constitute a confirmation that this Agreement is in full force and effect and no modification or default exists. Either the City Manager or her designee shall have the right to execute any certificate requested by Developer hereunder. City acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by transferees and Mortgagees.

9.10. Recordation.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65868.5, within ten (10) days after the later of the Parties’ execution of this Development Agreement or the Effective Date, the City Clerk shall record this Development Agreement with the Alameda County Recorder. Thereafter, if this Development Agreement is terminated, modified or amended, the City Clerk shall record notice of such action with the Alameda County Recorder.

9.11. No Waiver.

No delay or omission by either Party in exercising any right or power accruing upon noncompliance or failure to perform by the other Party under any of the provisions of this Development Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed to be a waiver thereof. A waiver by either Party of any of the covenants or conditions to be performed by the other Party shall be in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the Party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought, and any such waiver shall not be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach or non-performance of the same or other covenants and conditions hereof.

9.12. Time Is of the Essence.

Time is of the essence for each provision of this Development Agreement for which time is an element.

9.13. Applicable Law.

This Development Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

9.14. Attorneys’ Fees.

City Council/RSA Agenda 62 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 30 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
Should any legal action be brought by either Party because of a breach of this Development Agreement or to enforce any provision of this Development Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and such other costs as may be found by the court.

9.15. Third Party Beneficiaries.

Except as otherwise provided herein, City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any third party beneficiary to this Development Agreement and agree that nothing contained herein shall be construed as giving any other person or entity third party beneficiary status.

9.16. Constructive Notice and Acceptance.

Every person who now or hereafter owns or acquires any right, title or interest in or to any portion of the Property is and shall be conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to every provision contained herein, whether or not any reference to this Development Agreement is contained in the instrument by which such person acquired an interest in the Property.

9.17. Counterparts.

This Development Agreement may be executed in counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one single instrument.

9.18. Authority.

The persons signing below represent and warrant that they have the authority to bind their respective Party and that all necessary board of directors’, shareholders’, partners’, city councils’ or other approvals have been obtained.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Developer have executed this Development Agreement as of the date first set forth above.

SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE
City Council/RSA Agenda 63 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 31 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
DEVELOPER:

WINDFLOWER PROPERTIES, LLC
a California limited liability company
By: _______________________________
Vivian Fei Tsen
Its: Manager Member
CITY:

CITY OF UNION CITY
a municipal corporation
By: _______________________________
Joan Malloy, City Manager
ATTESTATION:

By: _______________________________
Anna Brown, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: _______________________________
Kristopher Kokotaylo, City Attorney

SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED
City Council/RSA Agenda 64 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 32 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California
County of __________________
On ___________________before me, _________________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared ______________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signatures(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.
______________________________________
Signature of Notary
City Council/RSA Agenda 65 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 33 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California
County of __________________
On ___________________before me, _________________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared ______________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signatures(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.
______________________________________
Signature of Notary
City Council/RSA Agenda 66 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
5063626.1 34 Development Agreement
Windflower Project – Block 2

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
5063626.1
City Council/RSA Agenda 67 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Agenda Item
DATE: 3/22/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MARILOU AYUPAN, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR THEIR

DESIGNEE TO SUBMIT THE REQUIRED FUNDING APPLICATION AND TO

EXECUTE THE CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES AND AUTHORIZED

AGENT FORMS FOR THE LOW-CARBON TRANSIT OPERATIONS

PROGRAM (LCTOP) PROJECT, ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING

INFRASTRUCTURE FOR UNION CITY TRANSIT FLEET, IN THE AMOUNT OF $215,572 AND TO PLACE THE AWARD IN THE TRANSIT FUND (5110), CITY PROJECT NO. 20-04
Staff recommends the City Counciladopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager or their designee to submit the required funding application (Attachments A and B) and to execute the certifications and assurances and authorized agent forms for the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) project, Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure for Union City Transit Fleet, in the amount of $215,572 and to place the award in the Transit Fund (5110), City Project No. 20-04.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Goal D; Strategy 9: Convert the Union City Transit fleet to electric vehicles.

BACKGROUND
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, took a long-term, comprehensive approach to addressing climate change and its effects on the environment and natural resources. The legislation allows the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to establish a quarterly auction of a limited number of greenhouse gas (GHG) tradable permits. The program is commonly referred to as the Cap-and-Trade, whereby the proceeds from these auctions fund legislated programs furthering the purpose of AB32.

The LCTOP is one of several programs that are part of the Transit, Affordable Housing, and Sustainable Communities Program established by the California Legislature in 2014 by Senate Bill 862 (SB 862) drafted to further the purpose of AB32. Senate Bill 862 (Statutes of 2014) appropriates $25 million for LCTOP for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-15 and Senate Bill 862 continuously appropriates five percent (5%) of the annualauction proceeds City Council/RSA Agenda 68 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for LCTOP beginning in FY2015-16.

Approved projects in LCTOP will support new or expanded bus or rail services, expand intermodal transit facilities, and may include equipment acquisition, fueling, maintenance and other costs to operate those services or facilities, with each project required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Funds in this program are allocated to operators by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) through the State Controller’s Office, which uses Public Utility Code (PUC) Sections 99313 and 99314 to identify funding. Funds are distributed based on revenues and, through MTC Resolutions 4123 and 4130, based on population. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans/Department) is the administering agency.

DISCUSSION
Union City will receive approximately $31,713 (PUC 99314) in direct LCTOP funds from Caltrans and $183,859 (PUC 99313) in LCTOP funds through the MTC population-based calculation for the FY2021-22 program period totaling $215,572. The MTC projects that over the course of twenty-five (25) years Union City will receive $1.5 million dollars in combined revenue and population funds from this program.

The FY2021-22 funds will be combined with last year’s LCTOP allocation as well as local transit funds for a paratransit electric vehicle and related charging equipment procurement. The attached funding application nominates the proposed project and allows Caltrans to allocate those funds towards the proposed project. The City Council approved a similar resolution for LCTOP funds in 2015 for FY2014-15, in 2016 for FY2015-16, in 2018 for FY2017-18, in 2019 for FY2018-19, in 2020 for FY2019-20, and in 2021 for FY2020-21 program funds; the City was successful in receiving all fund requests.

The City assigned project number 20-04 for this proposed project and there are no contracts being approved at this time as a result of this resolution.

Caltrans has adopted an authorized agent designation and certifications and assurances for LCTOP. As a condition to receive LCTOP funds, each project sponsor/agency must authorize an agency designee to execute these certifications and assurances. They include guidelines for project administration, reporting, cost principles, record retention and special situations.

FISCAL IMPACT
The City will receive $215,572 of pass-through LCTOP funds. These funds will be combined with federal and other local transit funds for the proposed project. There will be no impact on the General Fund. The LCTOP grant for charging stations is City Project No. 20-04 and is identified in the budget.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Counciladopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager or their designee to submit the required funding application and to execute the certifications and assurances and authorized agent forms for the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) project, Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure for Union City Transit Fleet, in the amount of $215,572 and to place the award in the Transit Fund (5110), City Project No. 20-04.

The resolution also authorizes the City Manager to designate the Transit Manager or Public Works Director to execute the required certifications and assurances for the LCTOP funds.

City Council/RSA Agenda 69 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Prepared by:

Steve Adams, Transit Manager
Submitted by:

Marilou Ayupan, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Attachment A -Allocation Request Attachment
Attachment B- Delegation ofAuthority Attachment
Resolution - LCTOP Funding Resolution
City Council/RSA Agenda 70 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
LCTOP FY 2021-2022
Allocation Request
20 15
10 2 1
07/20/21
Please provide specific area information for the project in the Lat-Long tab. 510.675.5446
Project Life: For capital projects, state the project useful life in years. For operation projects state the number of months a service will be funded.

Capital: 10 Operations:

Start date (anticipated) : 11/1/2022 End date (anticipated) : 05/31/2023 Sub-Type
Purchase, construction, and installation of equipment and facilities needed to provide expanded/enhanced transit service
Title: Assistant Transit Planner Title: Transit Manager Phone #: 510.675.5309 Phone #:

Capital
*if you have additional Districts, please provide a separate attachment Allocation Request Prepared by Contact (if different than "Prepared by") Name: Flore Mountsambote Name: Steve Adams
Name: No more than
180 characters.

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure for Union City Transit Fleet Approved LONP: LONP Approval date:

Funding: 99313:

Total Years of Rollover: Remaining Years of Rollover:

Description (Short):

No more than 375
characters.

Union City Transit requires charging infrastructure for the sixteen (16) electric vehicles that have begun deliveries through the end of 2024. These funds will assist in acquisition and installation of the necessary equipment to support an increasingly electrified fleet of vehicles for the purpose of providing public transit.

Type:

Lead Agency Information
Lead Agency Name: City of Union City - Union City Transit Address: 34009 Alvarado-Niles Road
City, State, Zip Code: Union City, CA 94587
E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Phone #: 510.675.5307 Congressional*:

E-mail [email protected]
Project Summary
Name: Marilou Ayupan Assembly*:

Title: Public Works Director Senate*:

Authorized Agent Legislative District Numbers
County: Alameda County
Regional Entity: Metropolitan Transportation Commission Title VI Attached: Yes Title VI Approval Date:
$183,859 99314: $31,713 Total: $215,572
Division of Rail and Mass Transportation
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 1 of 10
Sheet Name: Allocation Request
City Council/RSA Agenda 71 Tuesday, March 22, 2022Rev. 1-2022 LCTOP FY 2021-2022
Allocation Request
Funding Information
$0 $0 $0 $0 $471,567
PUC 99314 Amount: $37,922
FY 25-26 Total
PUC 99313 Amount: $218,073 $183,859 $401,932
LCTOP Allocation Year Prior FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 PUC Funds Type:

Total Project Cost: $255,995 $1,715,572 $0 $0 $0
$0
Other Funds: $1,500,000 $1,500,000
Other GGRF:
$69,635
Total LCTOP Funds: $255,995 $215,572
Contributing Sponsor: Metropolitan Transportation Commission Amount: PUC Funds Type:

Contact Person: Anne Spevack $183,859 99313
Contact E-mail: [email protected]
$31,713
Contact Person: Steve Adams 99313
Contact Phone #: 510.675.5446 $31,713 99314
$0 $1,971,567
Lead Agency: City of Union City - Union City Transit Amount:

Contact Person: 99313
Contact Phone #: 99314
Contributing Sponsor: Amount: PUC Funds Type:

Contact Phone #: 415.778.6611 99314
Contact E-mails: [email protected]
Contact Phone #: 99314
Contact E-mails:

Contributing Sponsor: Amount: PUC Funds Type:

Contact Person: 99313
Contact E-mails:

Contact E-mails:

Total FY 21-22 LCTOP Funding $215,572
Contact Person: 99313
Contact Phone #: 99314
Contributing Sponsor: Amount: PUC Funds Type:

Fully Funded Project: Provide a description of all the funds that will be used to complete this project and how LCTOP funds will not supplant other funding sources. Include the project ID and awarded funding amount from prior rollover years.

Secured LCTOP FY19-20 - $163,945; Secured LCTOP FY20-21 - $92,050 Application LCTOP FY21-22 - $215,572
Programmed by Alameda County Transportation Commission - $1.5 Million in Transportation for Clean Air (TFCA)/Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF) discretionary funding Secured (if Any Funds Fall Through) TDA Capital Reserve - $500,000 (Not included included in calculations) Project Changes: If this is a rollover project with an approved CAP that added funds into the project in a previous year, provide the CAP approval date, project ID, and amount transferred. The amount should be reflected in the 'Prior' column above. LCTOP FY19-20-D04-061- Programmed: $163,945. Both CAPs submitted 5/12/21, approval backdated to July 1, 2019.

See email from 5/20/21. All programmed funds and interest from projects are being applied to this proposed project.

LCTOP FY20-21-D04-055- Programmed: $92,050. All programmed funds and interest from projects are being applied to this proposed project.

Division of Rail and Mass Transportation
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 2 of 10
Sheet Name: Allocation Request
City Council/RSA Agenda 72 Tuesday, March 22, 2022Rev. 1-2022 LCTOP FY 2021-2022
Allocation Request
FY 25-26 FY 26-27 Total
PA&ED $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Component Prior FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25
Funding Plan
Proposed Total Project Cost
$0
R/W $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0
PS&E $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $1,971,567
Operations/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
Veh/Equip Purchase $255,995 $1,715,572 $0 $0 $0 $0
CON $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP)
Component Prior FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 Total $0
TOTAL $255,995 $1,715,572 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,971,567
$0
R/W
$0
PS&E
PA&ED
$471,567
Operations/Other
Veh/Equip Purchase $255,995 $215,572
$0
CON $0
$471,567
Funding Source: Alameda County Transportation Commission - TFCA/VRF Component Prior FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 $0
TOTAL $255,995 $215,572 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0
PS&E $0
FY 26-27 Total
PA&ED
$0
Veh/Equip Purchase $1,500,000
$0
CON
R/W
$0 $0 $1,500,000
Funding Source:

Component Prior FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24
TOTAL $0 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0
$1,500,000
Operations/Other $0
$0
PS&E
FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 Total
PA&ED
$0
CON $0
$0
R/W
$0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0
Operations/Other
Veh/Equip Purchase
FY 26-27 Total
PA&ED
$0
Funding Source:

Component Prior FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 $0
CON
R/W
$0
PS&E $0
$0
Operations/Other $0
$0
Veh/Equip Purchase
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Division of Rail and Mass Transportation
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 3 of 10
Sheet Name: Allocation Request
City Council/RSA Agenda 73 Tuesday, March 22, 2022Rev. 1-2022 LCTOP FY 2021-2022
Allocation Request
FY 25-26 FY 26-27 Total
PA&ED
Component Prior FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25
Funding Plan
Funding Source:
$0
R/W $0
$0
PS&E
$0
Operations/Other
$0
Veh/Equip Purchase
CON
Funding Source:

Component Prior FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0
R/W
PS&E
Total
PA&ED $0
$0
Veh/Equip Purchase $0
$0
CON
$0 $0
Funding Source:

Component Prior FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25
$0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Operations/Other
$0
PS&E
FY 25-26 FY 26-27 Total
PA&ED
$0
Veh/Equip Purchase
CON
$0
R/W $0
$0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0
Operations/Other
Total
PA&ED $0
Funding Source:

Component Prior FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 $0
CON
$0
R/W
PS&E
$0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Operations/Other
$0
Veh/Equip Purchase $0
FY 25-26 FY 26-27 Total
PA&ED
$0 $0
Funding Source:

Component Prior FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25
$0
R/W $0
$0
PS&E
$0
Operations/Other
$0
Veh/Equip Purchase
CON
$0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Division of Rail and Mass Transportation
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 4 of 10
Sheet Name: Allocation Request
City Council/RSA Agenda 74 Tuesday, March 22, 2022Rev. 1-2022 LCTOP FY 2021-2022
Allocation Request
Project costs are based on current discussions with Union City Transit's partner in submitting a LoNo Discretionary grant to FTA. The estimated cost to install the infrastructure is $1,555.370.79 using a mixture of LCTOP, LoNo, and TDA 4.0 Capital funds to cover the costs of acquisition and installation of infrastructure that will support up to twenty (20) electric vehicles charging simultaneously.
1)Fourteen (14) 75KW Momentum Dynamics Wireless Inductive Charging Equipment Depot Level Pad . 2) Six (6) 60 kW Charger and Dispenser (ChargePoint CPE250, 62.5kW) 3) PG&E Rebates may no longer apply to the project and are not included.

Project Information
1) Project Description - Provide a comprehensive project description. For operations projects, include: number of trips, span, frequency improvements, and number of days of operation. For capital projects, include: product specifications and identify all LCTOP funded components. No more than 12 lines.

Union City Transit plans to construct electric vehicle charging infrastructure for the planned vehicles it is currently attempting to procure and what is necessary for future electric transit vehicle procurements at its Public Works Maintenance Facility (CorpYard) where the current Union City Transit fleet is parked, fueled, and cleaned. The installation will include a possible dedicated transformer (as determined through engineering, not funded through LCTOP), external storage supply (ESS/Battery) to load balance and reduced peak hour costs, conduit to parking stalls, and an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) with a minimum charge rating of 50kW. Union City may consider a third party vendor that delivers a complete package.

The charging infrastructure Union City Transit is looking will support up to twenty (20) vehicles at one (1) time using load balancing technology. As currently proposed, this charging infrastructure will support specifically fourteen (14) transit buses that each travel 40,000 miles a year and six (6) vehicles used for paratransit and microtransit that will travel between 10,000 and 20,000 miles a year.
2) Project Planning - Provide a detailed explanation of the project planning process and how it was designed to avoid substantial burden on any low- income, disadvantaged, and vulnerable populations. Include any public outreach efforts, engagement events, community input, and workshops. No more than 10 lines.

This project is an upgrade to the existing Public Works Maintenance Facility (Corp Yard) and has not required any public outreach because all work is inside the walls of the facility.

No burden is being placed on priority populations or the surrounding community. There is more benefit to be had with the reduction in noise coming from quieter transit vehicles and charging infrastructure once they are delivered and installed. 3) Project Costs - Provide an itemized breakdown of project components and describe how the cost estimations were developed. Total costs must correspond to the Funding Information section above. No more than 12 lines.

Division of Rail and Mass Transportation
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 5 of 10
Sheet Name: Allocation Request
City Council/RSA Agenda 75 Tuesday, March 22, 2022Rev. 1-2022 LCTOP FY 2021-2022
Allocation Request
5) Agency Service - Describe the transit service provided and how the project plays into the overall operations. Include how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted transit service related to the project. No more than 10 lines.

Union City is a suburban city in Southern Alameda County. The developed portion of the city is approximately eighteen (18) square miles with several more in open space to the east of Mission Boulevard, State Route 238, located near the Hayward Fault. According to the American Community Survey 2016 (ACS) five (5) year estimate, the population is racially and ethnically mixed with a minority majority. The ACS 2016 five (5) year estimate also indicate that more than forty-five percent (45%) of households in the city earn more than $100,000; of those high-income earners, more than fiftyfive percent (55%) are homeowners.

According to the Air Resources Board's online "Low-Income Map", approximately a quarter of Union City's developed eighteen (18) square miles meet the definition of an SB 535 Disadvantage Community and another quarter meets the definition of an AB 1550 Low-Income Community.

Agency Information
4) Agency Fare - Describe the fare structure for your system and how the project will affect that structure if at all.

Union City Transit's fixed-route service cash fares are $2.00 for Adults (18-64), $1.25 for Youth (6-17), and $1.00 for Senior (65+), Certified Disabilities, and Medicare Card holders; cash fare payers are issued one free transfer valid for ninety (90) minutes. Paratransit rides are $2.75 for all clients; clients can request a free transfer to fixed-route service valid for ninety (90) minutes. Union City Transit offers thirty-one (31) day fixed-route passes: $55 for Adults (18-64), $35 for Youth (6-17), $26 for Senior (65+), Certified Disabilities, and Medicare Card holders, and a ten (10) ride paratransit ticket book. Union City Transit is a part of and accepts the Clipper Card fare payment system in the Bay Area. LCTOP will have no impact on the fare structure.

Division of Rail and Mass Transportation
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 6 of 10
Sheet Name: Allocation Request
City Council/RSA Agenda 76 Tuesday, March 22, 2022Rev. 1-2022 LCTOP FY 2021-2022
Allocation Request
Project GHG Benefits
Greenhouse Gas Reductions - Describe qualitatively how this project will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This project is contained within the existing Union City Corp Yard. The installation and operation of any EVSE will be quieter than the CNG compressors or the overhead high-voltage electricity lines. The CNG vehicles operate through Union City's residential neighborhoods and are perceived to be loud and polluting; the charging infrastructure proposed with this project enables the deployment of fourteen (14) battery-electric bues (BEB/ZEB) that travel on average of 40,000 Annual VMT and six (6) battery-electric vans that travel between 10,000 and 20,000 Annual VMT which will reduce tailpipe emissions through the neighborhoods. Union City Transit expects to change the perception of its munipal transit provider and hopefully appeal to choice riders that wouldn't ride otherwise through the introduction of ZEBs and infrastructure.

Project Yr. F Ridership Increase - Estimated
annual ridership contributed by the new service
or capital improvement in YrF. Refer to page 5
of the Supplemental Guidance.
0 N/A, Techonology conversion
Adjustment (A) - Adjustment factor to account for
Choice Riders. You may use defaults values listed on
page 18 of the Supplemental Guidance.

0.561
Local bus service
Year F (YrF) - Final year that the service is
funded or the final year of useful life for capital
improvements.
2033
Expectation that equipment will still function, but will be obsolete due to rapid developments in electric
vehicle charging infrastructure.

Project Yr. 1 Ridership Increase - Estimated
annual ridership contributed by the new service
or capital improvement in Yr1. Refer to page 4
of the Supplemental Guidance.
0 N/A, Techonology conversion
Greenhouse Gas Reductions - Please provide quantitative information requested below and explanations supporting the data provided.

Value Explanation
Year 1 (Yr1) - First year of service, or year
that capital improvements will be completed. 2023
Equipment begins service.

Total Project GHG Emission Reductions
(MTCO2e) 12,323.39
This number is calculated based on the values from
above and the QM-Tool tab.

LCTOP Project GHG Emission Reductions
(MTCO2e) 12,323.39
This number is calculated based on the values from
above and the QM-Tool tab.

Total Project Ridership Increased
0 This is calculated based on the values above.

Total Project VMTs Reduced
0 This number is calculated based on the values above.

Trip Length (L) - Length (miles) of average auto
trip reduced or average passenger trip length. You
may use defaults values list ed on pages 19-24 of the
Supplemental Guidance.

4.90 This is the one-way distance from where routes
converge into the primary corridor heading towards the
Union City BART Station (the primary destination for
connecting to the regional rail system).

Project Useful Life 10 This is calculated based on the values above.

Division of Rail and Mass Transportation
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 7 of 10
Sheet Name: Allocation Request
City Council/RSA Agenda 77 Tuesday, March 22, 2022Rev. 1-2022 LCTOP FY 2021-2022
Allocation Request
Job Support Benefits (Refer to LCTOP Guidelines and CARB Co-Benefits website for more information) Travel Cost Savings Benefits Refer to pages 5-6 on the Supplemental Guidance. x
x
% of Project Budget Associated with Other Activity
Value Explanation
Baseline Average One-Way Fare Cost
($/One-Way Trip/Rider) (Average fare per
way prior to project implementation)
$2.38 Average between Standard Adult Cash Fare and Paratransit Fare Other Project Activity (select from drop-down)
% of Project Budget Associated with Other Activity
Other Project Activity (select from drop-down)
Project Benefits
Primary Project Activity (select from drop-down) Procurement of electric vehicle supporting infrastructure % of Project Budget Associated with Primary Activity 100% Co-Benefits - Check all additional Benefits/Outcomes.

Improved Safety Coordination with Educational Institution Improved Public Health College Grades K-12
Avoided Parking Cost ($/Roundtrip/Rider)
(Average avoided parking cost associated with
project)
$0.00 Project does not involve parking costs
Avoided Toll Cost ($/Roundtrip/Rider)
(Average avoided toll cost associated with
project)
$0.00 Project does not involve toll costs
New Average One-Way Fare Cost
($/One-Way Trip/Rider) (Average fare per
way resulting from project implementation)
$2.38 Project does not reduce fares
Transit Facility Parking Cost
($/Roundtrip/Rider) (Average cost to park to
use transit associated with project)
$0.00 Project does not involve parking costs
Reduced Operating/Maintenance Costs Promotes Active Transportation Increase System Reliability Promotes Integration w/ other modes Co-Benefits - Describe benefits selected above and other benefits not listed.

Allows operations and maintenance staff to become familiar with electric vehicles and the equipment required to support them before additional vehicles become introduced to the fleet. Swithcing from CNG buses to ZEBs will reduce climate impacts improving public health in the long term.. Further benefits include reduced operating costs through longer preventive maintenance (PM) cycles, a reduction in fluid exchanges and disposal, a reduction in brake pad replacements, and a reduction in costs associated with troubleshooting and repairing engine and transmission issues. There is also the potential to reduce the number of road calls, which will increase the number of miles between those calls (a metric several oversight agencies monitor).

Division of Rail and Mass Transportation
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 8 of 10
Sheet Name: Allocation Request
City Council/RSA Agenda 78 Tuesday, March 22, 2022Rev. 1-2022 LCTOP FY 2021-2022
Allocation Request
Method: Select the method your agency
used for identifying an important
community or household need.

Is the project located outside of a disadvantaged community, but within 1/2 mile of a disadvantage community and within a low-income census tract?
Priority Population Community Engagement: Identify the specific assessment for the Community Engagement Co-benefit (High, Medium, Low): *See pages 26-28 Supplemental Guidance for more information
Priority Populations Benefits
Does your Agency's Service Area have a Disadvantaged Community? (as defined by SB 535) Is the project located within the boundaries of a disadvantaged community census tract? Is the project located within the boundaries of a low-income community census tract? Amount of FY 21-22 funds benefitting Disadvantaged Communities : $ Yes
No
No
No
Specific Common Need: Make a selection
only if letter D is selected above.

Priority Populations Community Needs Description: Expound on the selections above in Method and Specific Common Need to describe the process that your agency used to identify important community needs. Provide details of any public outreach efforts, engagement events, community input, and workshops.

Division of Rail and Mass Transportation
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 9 of 10
Sheet Name: Allocation Request
City Council/RSA Agenda 79 Tuesday, March 22, 2022Rev. 1-2022 LCTOP FY 2021-2022
Allocation Request
SB 1119 Project Criteria: If this is a new or expanded service project, explain how it connects to a transit service that serves a Disadvantaged Community.

SB 1119 Project Criteria: See page 7 of the LCTOP Supplemental Guidance for more information.

Is the project a transit fare subsidies or network and fare integration technology improvements, including, but not limited to, discounted or free student transit passes No
Is the project a purchase of zero-emission transit buses and/or purchase and installation of supporting infrastructure?
Yes
Is the project a new or expanded transit service that connects with transit service serving a disadvantaged communities?
No
Identify the Priority Population(s)
that will benefit from this project.

Priority Population Benefit: Select
the benefit your project provides to the
community or household.

Priority Population Benefit: Based on the selections above, explain in greater detail how the project will provide benefits to the priority populations in your service area.

Priority Populations Benefits
Division of Rail and Mass Transportation
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 10 of 10
Sheet Name: Allocation Request
City Council/RSA Agenda 80 Tuesday, March 22, 2022Rev. 1-2022 FY 2021-2022 LCTOP
Authorized Agent
AS THE City Manager
(Chief Executive Officer/Director/President/Secretary)
OF THE City of Union City
(Name of County/City/Transit Organization)
I hereby authorize the following individual(s) to execute for and on behalf of the named Regional Entity/Transit Operator, any actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) funds provided by the California Department of Transportation, Division of Rail and Mass Transportation. I understand that if there is a change in the authorized agent, the project sponsor must submit a new form. This form is required even when the authorized agent is the executive authority himself. I understand the Board must provide a resolution approving the Authorized Agent. The Board Resolution appointing the Authorized Agent is attached.

Marilou Ayupan, Public Works Director OR
(Name and Title of Authorized Agent)
Steve Adams, Transit Manager OR
(Name and Title of Authorized Agent)
Click here to enter text. OR
(Name and Title of Authorized Agent)
Click here to enter text. OR
(Name and Title of Authorized Agent)
Joan Malloy City Manager
(Print Name) (Title)
(Signature)
Approved this 22 day of March , 2022
City Council/RSA Agenda 81 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
FY 2021-2022 LCTOP
Certifications and Assurances
Lead Agency: City of Union City – Union City Transit
Project Title: Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure for Union City Transit Fleet Prepared by: Steve Adams
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has adopted the following Certifications and Assurances for the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP).

As a condition of the receipt of LCTOP funds, Lead Agency must comply with these terms and conditions.

A. General

1. The Lead Agency agrees to abide by the current LCTOP Guidelines and applicable legal requirements.

2. The Lead Agency must submit to Caltrans a signed Authorized Agent form designating the representative who can submit documents on behalf of the project sponsor and a copy of the board resolution appointing the Authorized Agent.

B. Project Administration

1. The Lead Agency certifies that required environmental documentation is complete before requesting an allocation of LCTOP funds. The Lead Agency assures that projects approved for LCTOP funding comply with Public Resources Code § 21100 and § 21150.

2. The Lead Agency certifies that a dedicated bank account for LCTOP funds only will be established within 30 days of receipt of LCTOP funds.

3. The Lead Agency certifies that when LCTOP funds are used for a transit capital project, that the project will be completed and remain in operation for its useful life.

4. The Lead Agency certifies that it has the legal, financial, and technical capacity to carry out the project, including the safety and security aspects of that project.

5. The Lead Agency certifies that they will notify Caltrans of pending litigation, dispute, or negative audit findings related to the project, before receiving an allocation of funds.

6. The Lead Agency must maintain satisfactory continuing control over the use of project equipment and facilities and will adequately maintain project equipment and facilities for the useful life of the project.

7. Any interest the Lead Agency earns on LCTOP funds must be used only on approved LCTOP projects.

8. The Lead Agency must notify Caltrans of any changes to the approved project with a Corrective Action Plan (CAP).

City Council/RSA Agenda 82 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
FY 2021-2022 LCTOP

9. Under extraordinary circumstances, a Lead Agency may terminate a project prior to completion. In the event the Lead Agency terminates a project prior to completion, the Lead Agency must (1) contact Caltrans in writing and follow-up with a phone call verifying receipt of such notice; (2) pursuant to verification, submit a final report indicating the reason for the termination and demonstrating the expended funds were used on the intended purpose; (3) submit a request to reassign the funds to a new project within 180 days of termination.

C. Reporting

1. The Lead Agency must submit the following LCTOP reports:
a. Annual Project Activity Reports October 28th each year. b. A Close Out Report within six months of project completion. c. The annual audit required under the Transportation Development Act (TDA), to verify receipt and appropriate expenditure of LCTOP funds. A copy of the audit report must be submitted to Caltrans within six months of the close of the year (December 31) each year in which LCTOP funds have been received or expended.
d. Project Outcome Reporting as defined by CARB Funding Guidelines. e. Jobs Reporting as defined by CARB Funding Guidelines.

2. Other Reporting Requirements: CARB develops and revises Funding Guidelines that will include reporting requirements for all State agencies that receive appropriations from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Caltrans and project sponsors will need to submit reporting information in accordance with CARB’s Funding Guidelines, including reporting on greenhouse gas reductions and benefits to disadvantaged communities.

D. Cost Principles

1. The Lead Agency agrees to comply with Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations 225 (2 CFR 225), Cost Principles for State and Local Government, and 2 CFR, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.

2. The Lead Agency agrees, and will assure that its contractors and subcontractors will be obligated to agree, that:
a. Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 1, Part 31, et seq., shall be used to determine the allow ability of individual project cost items and
b. Those parties shall comply with Federal administrative procedures in accordance with 2 CFR, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. Every sub-recipient receiving LCTOP funds as a contractor or sub-contractor shall comply with City Council/RSA Agenda 83 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
FY 2021-2022 LCTOP
Federal administrative procedures in accordance with 2 CFR, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.

3. Any project cost for which the Lead Agency has received funds that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under 2 CFR 225, 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31 or 2 CFR, Part 200, are subject to repayment by the Lead Agency to the State of California (State). All projects must reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as required under Public Resources Code section 75230, and any project that fails to reduce greenhouse gases shall also have its project costs submit to repayment by the Lead Agency to the State. Should the Lead Agency fail to reimburse moneys due to the State within thirty (30) days of demand, or within such other period as may be agreed in writing between the Parties hereto, the State is authorized to intercept and withhold future payments due the Lead Agency from the State or any third-party source, including but not limited to, the State Treasurer and the State Controller.

A. Record Retention

1. The Lead Agency agrees and will assure that its contractors and subcontractors shall establish and maintain an accounting system and records that properly accumulate and segregate incurred project costs and matching funds by line item for the project. The accounting system of the Lead Agency, its contractors and all subcontractors shall conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and enable the determination of incurred costs at interim points of completion. All accounting records and other supporting papers of the Lead Agency, its contractors and subcontractors connected with LCTOP funding shall be maintained for a minimum of three (3) years after the “Project Closeout” report or final Phase 2 report is submitted (per ARB Funding Guidelines, Vol. 3, page 3.A-16), and shall be held open to inspection, copying, and audit by representatives of the State and the California State Auditor. Copies thereof will be furnished by the Lead Agency, its contractors, and subcontractors upon receipt of any request made by the State or its agents. In conducting an audit of the costs claimed, the State will rely to the maximum extent possible on any prior audit of the Lead Agency pursuant to the provisions of federal and State law. In the absence of such an audit, any acceptable audit work performed by the Lead Agency’s external and internal auditors may be relied upon and used by the State when planning and conducting additional audits.

2. For the purpose of determining compliance with Title 21, California Code of Regulations, Section 2500 et seq., when applicable, and other matters connected with the performance of the Lead Agency’s contracts with third parties pursuant to Government Code § 8546.7, the project sponsor, its contractors and subcontractors and the State shall each maintain and make available for inspection all books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to the performance of such contracts, including, but not limited to, the costs of administering those various contracts. All of the above referenced parties shall make such materials available at their respective offices at all reasonable times City Council/RSA Agenda 84 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
FY 2021-2022 LCTOP
during the entire project period and for three (3) years from the date of final payment.

The State, the California State Auditor, or any duly authorized representative of the State, shall each have access to any books, records, and documents that are pertinent to a project for audits, examinations, excerpts, and transactions, and the Lead Agency shall furnish copies thereof if requested.

3. The Lead Agency, its contractors and subcontractors will permit access to all records of employment, employment advertisements, employment application forms, and other pertinent data and records by the State Fair Employment Practices and Housing Commission, or any other agency of the State of California designated by the State, for the purpose of any investigation to ascertain compliance with this document.

F. Special Situations
Caltrans may perform an audit and/or request detailed project information of the project sponsor’s LCTOP funded projects at Caltrans’ discretion at any time prior to the completion of the LCTOP.

I certify all of these conditions will be met.

Steve Adams Transit Manager
(Print Authorized Agent) (Title)
03-22-2022
(Signature) (Date)
City Council/RSA Agenda 85 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR THEIR DESIGNEE TO SUBMIT

THE REQUIRED FUNDING APPLICATION AND TO EXECUTE THE

CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES AND AUTHORIZED AGENT FORMS

FOR THE LOW-CARBON TRANSIT OPERATIONS PROGRAM (LCTOP)

PROJECT, ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR
UNION CITY TRANSIT FLEET, IN THE AMOUNT OF $215,572 AND TO PLACE THE AWARD IN THE TRANSIT FUND (5110),
CITY PROJECT NO. 20-04
WHEREAS, the City of Union City – Union City Transit is an eligible project sponsor and may receive state funding from the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) for transit projects; and
WHEREAS, the statutes related to state-funded transit projects require a local or regional implementing agency to abide by various regulations; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 862 (2014) named the Department of Transportation (Department/Caltrans) as the administrative agency for the LCTOP; and WHEREAS, the Department has developed guidelines for the purpose of administering and distributing LCTOP funds to eligible project sponsors (local agencies); and
WHEREAS, the City of Union City – Union City Transit wishes to delegate authorization to execute these documents and any amendments thereto to City Manager and/or their designees; and
WHEREAS, the City of Union City – Union City Transit wishes to implement the following LCTOP project listed above;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Union City that the fund recipient agrees to comply with all conditions and requirements set forth in the Certification and Assurances and the Authorized Agent documents and applicable statutes, regulations and guidelines for all LCTOP funded transit projects.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that City Manager and/or his designees be authorized to execute all required documents of the LCTOP program and any Amendments thereto with the California Department of Transportation.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Union City that it hereby authorizes the submittal of the following project nomination and allocation request to the Department in FY 2021-2022 LCTOP funds:

City Council/RSA Agenda 86 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
 Project Name: Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure for Union City Transit Fleet
 Amount of LCTOP funds requested: $215,572
 Short description of project: Construct required vehicle charging infrastructure for Union City Transit & Paratransit future vehicle procurements.  Benefit to a Priority Populations: Provide zero-emission vehicles for public transit access to jobs, education, services, and resources.  Amount to benefit Priority Populations: 100%
 Contributing Sponsors: Metropolitan Transportation Commission City Council/RSA Agenda 87 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Agenda Item
DATE: 3/22/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MARILOU AYUPAN, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK FOR THE 2020-21 SIDEWALK AND CURB AND GUTTER REPAIR PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 20-03 Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution accepting the 2020-21 Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter Project, completed by JJR Construction, Inc., for the finalamount of $327,500, City Project No. 20-03.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This agenda item is in alignment with the following:

Goal D, Strategy 2: Environmental Sustainability and Infrastructure – Implement the City’s capital improvement plan.

BACKGROUND
On September 28, 2021 City Council meeting, the City Councilapproved the awarded of the construction contract of the 2020-21 Union City Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter Repair Project, City Project No. 20-03 to JJR Construction, Inc., of San Mateo, California in the amount of $295,000. The Contractor has completed the work in accordance with the plans and specifications approved for this project and has supplied the City with all bonding requirements as specified in the contract.

DISCUSSION
The project work comprised of repairing uplifted or damaged sidewalks, curbs and gutters, upgrading ramps, and removing and replacing adjacent trees with less invasive species throughout the City. The locations were determined based on field inspections that showed sidewalks have been lifted due to tree roots or in response to resident inquiries about sidewalk conditions.

The project was substantially completed in February 2022 and all final project punch-list items have now been resolved with the contractor. The final construction cost for the project is $327,500. The final construction cost is City Council/RSA Agenda 88 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
$32,500 above the original contract amount. One contract change order was issued to reimburse the contractor for work outside the project scope, including additional sidewalk and curb and gutter replacement and removal of a planter strip. This cost was covered by the contingency fund that was identified at the City Council's award of contract, Resolution No. 5828-21.

The City portion of the construction contract costs include sidewalk repairs at City-owned properties, curb and gutter repairs, ramp upgrades, and tree removals. The City portion of the contract costs is estimated to be $214,500. The remaining portion of the contract costs are the responsibility of property owners and are estimated to be $113,000.

FISCAL IMPACT
This total project cost in the amount of $327,500 is funded by a combination of reimbursement from property owners in the amount of $113,000 and $136,500 from Measure B funds (Account No. 2543-3199-92003-54111) and $78,000 State Gas Tax funds (Account No. 2510-3199-92003-54111). The portion of project costs that are reimbursable from property owners will be paid for by State Gas Tax funds and deposited back into this fund upon receiving payment. There are sufficient funds in these sources to fund the project costs.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the construction contract in the total amount of $327,500 to JJR Construction Inc. of San Mateo, California, for the construction of 2020-21 Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter Repair Project, City Project No. 20-03.

Prepared by:

Eddie Yu, Civil Engineer I
Submitted by:

Marilou Ayupan, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Resolution Resolution
Exhibit A - Certificate of Completion Exhibit
Exhibit B- Notice of Completion Exhibit
City Council/RSA Agenda 89 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. ______-22

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE 2020-21 SIDEWALK AND CURB AND GUTTER REPAIR PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 20-03
WHEREAS, JJR Construction, Inc., has successfully completed the improvements for 2020-21 Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter Repair Project, City Project No. 20-03, per Plans and Specifications; and
WHEREAS, the work has been completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works; and
WHEREAS, said project budget of $327,500 is funded with a combination of reimbursement from property owners in the amount of $113,000 with the remaining costs are paid from $136,500 of Measure B funds (Fund No. 2543) and $78,000 of State Gas Tax funds (Fund No. 2510) and sufficient funds are available within said funds to accept this project; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City does hereby accept the improvements in the final amount of $327,500 for the 2020-21 Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter Repair Project, City Project No. 20-03; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk of the City of Union City be directed to record the Notice of Completion with the Office of the County Recorder of Alameda County, California; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City does hereby authorize the City to make a final retention payment in the amount of $16,358.37 to JJR Construction Inc. for the completion of improvements of City Project No. 20-03 in accordance with the plans and specifications on file at the Office of the Director of Public Works.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

CAROL DUTRA-VERNACI
Mayor
City Council/RSA Agenda 90 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTESTED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________ _________________________
ANNA M. BROWN KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council/RSA Agenda 91 Tuesday, March 22, 2022

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
(Sec. 4005 Government Code)
TITLE: 2020-21 SIDEWALK AND CURB AND GUTTER REPAIR PROJECT; CITY PROJECT NO. 20-03
I, MARILOU AYUPAN, Public Works Director of the City of Union City, County of Alameda, State of California, do hereby certify as follows:
a. That this project, sidewalk and curb and gutter repair of various streets in Union City; and b. That contract agreement was approved by the City Council for the amount of $295,000; and
c. That the adopted and approved plans and specifications have been changed in the following respects:

CCO # CONTRACT CHANGE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Original Contract $ 295,000
Increase in Quantities $ 16,560
Decrease in Quantities $ 0
1 Planter Strip and Driveway $ 15,940
Total Construction Contract Cost to City $ 327,500
d. That the work performed has been done in accordance with such plans and specifications. e. That JJR Construction Inc. performed the work, at a total cost of $327,500 including the above noted contract change description.
f. That the Final retention amount of $16,358.37 will be released after 35 days of the project’s acceptance.

Dated: , 2022. ___________________________________
MARILOU AYUPAN, P.E.

PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DocuSign Envelope ID: 24F3B3B7-DA57-4E5E-A270-149C3219FCBD 3/14/2022
City Council/RSA Agenda 92 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
[Rev. 02/23/09]
(THIS SPACE FOR RECORDER’S USE ONLY)

NOTICE OF COMPLETION

AND NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE
General Contract or Assessment Proceedings
TITLE: 2020-21 SIDEWALK AND CURB AND GUTTER REPAIR PROJECT; PROJECT NO. 20-03
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that I, MARILOU AYUPAN, as Public Works Director of the City of Union City, County of Alameda, California, on the 22nd day of March, 2022, did file with the Department of Public Works of said City, the Certificate of Completion of the following described work, the contract for which was heretofore awarded to JJR Construction Inc. of 1120 9th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94402 and entered into on September 28, 2021 , in accordance with the specifications for said work filed with said Department of Public Works and adopted by the Public Works Director of said City.

That said work and improvements, located at: Various Streets, Union City were actually accepted by the Public Works Director of the City of Union City on the 22nd day of March, 2022, and that the name of the surety on the Contractor's bond for labor and materials on said contract is Great American Insurance Company of Ohio.

That the following work has been completed: sidewalk and curb and gutter repair.

Dated: , 2022. ___________________________________

MARILOU AYUPAN

PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
THIS PAGE ADDED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR RECORDING INFORMATION (GOVT. CODE 27361.6 ) (additional recording fee applies)

PLEASE COMPLETE THIS INFORMAITON
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

The City of Union City
And is Exempt from Fee
Per Government Code
Sections 6103 and 27383
WHEN RECORDER MAIL TO:

The City Engineer
The City of Union City
34009 Alvarado Niles Road
Union City, CA 94587
City Council/RSA Agenda 93 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ﴿
﴿
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA ﴿
MARILOU AYUPAN, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:

That she is the duly appointed Public Works Director of the City of Union City, California; that she has read the foregoing Notice of Completion and Notice of Acceptance and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true of her own knowledge except as to the matters therein stated on her own information and belief, and as to those matters that she believes it to be true.

MARILOU AYUPAN, P.E.

PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
Subscribed and sworn to before me
This day of , 2022
CITY CLERK in and for the City of Union City,
County of Alameda, State of California
City Council/RSA Agenda 94 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Agenda Item
DATE: 3/22/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOAN MALLOY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE AUTHORIZED POSITION LIST OF THE FISCALYEAR 2021-22 AND 2022- 23 OPERATING BUDGET TO ADD ONE FINANCE SPECIALIST III

POSITION, AHUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER POSITION, AHUMAN

RESOURCES DIRECTOR POSITION, AND AN INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY DIRECTOR POSITION;AND REMOVE FROM THE

AUTHORIZED POSITIONS LIST THE HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST II

POSITION, THE CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCE OFFICER POSITION, AND

THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER POSITION
Staff recommends that the City Counciladopt the attached resolution authorizing an amendment to the Authorized Position List to add a Finance Specialist III position, a Human Resources Manager position, a Human Resource Director position, and an Information Technology Director position; and remove from the Authorized Position List the Human Resources Analyst II position, the Chief Human Resource Officer position, and the Chief Information Officer position.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
The successful implementation of revenue strategies under Goal A is requiring additional oversight and staf time:

GoalA. Financial Stability and Sustainability Foster fiscal health through disciplined long-term planning, cost control, heightened efficiency, increased revenue and cost recovery.

Strategy: Study the benefits and opportunity to update the City’s business license tax for voter consideration.

Strategy: Implement the City’s cannabis program to attain the anticipated revenue in new revenue with a commitment to adapting where necessary in light of evolving Statewide trends.

Strategy: Determine the level of authorization for the utility users’ tax and develop an informational plan.

Strategy: Study and prepare for placement of a revenue measure for the November 2022 election that addresses the expiration of the half-cent sales tax; or, prepare for $6 million in service cuts.

Strategy: Increase fines for illegal fireworks, develop and implement a public communication campaign about fireworks, consider banning the sale and deployment of all fireworks if the threat to community safety is not significantly reduced during the 4th of July season.

In order to support Goal B, additional staf ing resources are required:

Goal B. Governance and Organization Effectiveness Produce high-quality services to the community through a City Council/RSA Agenda 95 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
commitment to local government best practices and employee development, support and retention.

Strategy:Align the provision of criticalcity services and Strategic Plan implementation with current staffing levels.

Strategy: Establish professional development plans for each employee to optimize staff resources, support their growth and demonstrate commitment to employees’ careers through a mentoring program and cross-training assignments.

Strategy: Create a formalexit interview process to learn the reasons employees leave and obtain useful feedback for organizational improvements.

Strategy: Establish meaningful ways to recognize outstanding employee performance.

Strategy: Review and update as needed the City’s personnel policies to ensure they reflect best practices in diversity and inclusion
Strategy: Conduct a market study of competitive salary and benefits to support recruitment and retain talented staff.

BACKGROUND
The Authorized Positions List of the Fiscal Year 2021-22 and 2022-23 Operating Budget currently authorizes one Human Resource Analyst II position and three Finance Specialists position. Staff is requesting Council approval to add another full-time Finance Specialist III to support the Payroll Technician and the Accountants. The existing Human Resource Analyst II position is vacant, and staff is recommending to replace it with a Human Resources Manager position. Staff is also recommending to replace the Chief Human Resources Officer position with a Human Resources Director position and the Chief Information Officer position with the Information Technology Director. The Human Resources Director position has been vacant since early 2019 and was removed from the Authorized Positions List as a cost-cutting measure. The Information Technology Director is a new position to support the required, complex technology demands that are necessary to operate the City.

DISCUSSION
The current and anticipated workload for the Human Resource Department is high as staff continues to recruit for severalcity-wide vacancies, rebuild the Human Resource database from the cyberattack, develop and revise citywide personnel policies, provide staff training, and transition to a new human resource information technology (IT) system. The City has had a difficult time recruiting a Human Resource Analyst II in this competitive job market. Staff believes that increasing the job responsibilities and pay willattract a wider range of qualified applicants. Hiring a manager position that can oversee the day-to-day work willallow the proposed Human Resources Director position to focus on implementing city-wide initiatives including training, staff development, recruitment, and a new human resource information technology (IT) system, all of which are goals and strategies that the City Council has identified in the adopted Strategic Plan.

Staff is also recommending that the Chief Human Resources Officer position be replaced with a Human Resources Director position. The Human Resources Department has been without a Director position since the position was vacated in early 2019. Director oversight is needed to address the complex initiatives that the City will be implementing over the next several years. A Director willalso develop and implement new strategies to improve and strengthen employee and labor relations, evaluate compensation and benefits, and focus on improving overallemployee satisfaction.

The Finance Department has taken on several new duties over the past year, including: tracking the cannabis tax from the new retailer that opened in June 2021, with a second retailer expected to open in April 2022; overseeing the collection of the Utility Users’ Tax (UUT), which began in April 2021; tracking revenues and financial statements to validate accurate financial reporting from the fireworks permit holders; tracking expenditures on the purchase of City supplies, which is now mandated by SB 1383; and coordinating research and modeling to analyze the business license tax that may be considered for amendment in a future election cycle. The Finance Department also oversees the annualaudits for the UUT, the half-cent sales tax, and the City Council/RSA Agenda 96 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
cannabis tax; as wellas providing staff support to the Sales Tax and Utility Users’ Tax Oversight Committee that was recently reestablished with the passage of the UUT. Additionally, the City has only one Payroll Technician, which could be a liability if the Payroll Technician was not available to run payroll. Adding an additional Finance Specialist III position would support the Accountants and other staff who have been taking on an increasing workload. The position would also provide backup and support to the Payroll Technician.

An Information Technology Director position is also recommended to replace the Chief Information Officer position. The City Council authorized the creation of this position at the February 22, 2022 City Council meeting. An Information Technology Director is needed to direct and manage citywide information technology and systems that are required for the operations of the City. The Information Technology Director’s responsibilities include strategic planning efforts for mid- and long-term needs and to foster innovation throughout City operations. The Director would also direct and administer the overall activities of the department, assisting City departments in meeting their program responsibilities and, in conjunction with the City Manager, provide the management control necessary to guarantee the most effective and secure use of information technology resources citywide.

FISCAL IMPACT
There would be an ongoing impact to the General Fund of approximately of $136,900 for the Finance Specialist III position and an incrementalcost of $88,500 for the Human Resource Manager position. These costs include totalcompensation and benefits and are costed at the highest pay step. The existing Human Resources Analyst II will be removed from the Authorized Positions List to fund the Human Resource Manager position.

There is an incrementalcost of $34,600 per year for each Director position with totalcompensation and benefits and budgeted at the highest salary step. The Chief Human Resources Officer and the Chief Information Officer positions will be removed from the Authorized Positions List to fund the Director positions. The added cost for the current FiscalYear 2021-22 will be $8,653 for each position.

There are anticipated expenditure savings in the General Fund budget for FY 2021-22 due to existing staff vacancies and the potential that positions will likely not be filled at the highest step in the pay plan. As such, staff is not requesting any additionalappropriations at this time. Impacts to the FY 2022-23 budget will be incorporated in the mid-biennial budget review and any changes in appropriations will be identified at that time.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Counciladopt the attached resolution authorizing an amendment to the Authorized Position List to add a Finance Specialist III position, a Human Resources Manager position, a Human Resource Director position, and an Information Technology Director position; and remove from the Authorized Position List the Human Resources Analyst II position, the Chief Human Resource Officer position, and the Chief Information Officer position.

Prepared by:

Joan Malloy, City Manager
Submitted by:

Joan Malloy, City Manager
City Council/RSA Agenda 97 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Resolution -Authorized Positions List Amendment Resolution City Council/RSA Agenda 98 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-22

ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE AUTHORIZED POSITION LIST OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-22 AND 2022-23 OPERATING BUDGET TO

ADD ONE FINANCE SPECIALIST III POSITION, A HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER

POSITION, A HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR POSITION, AND AN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIRECTOR POSITION; AND REMOVE FROM THE AUTHORIZED

POSITIONS LIST THE HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST II POSITION, THE CHIEF HUMAN

RESOURCES OFFICER POSITION, AND THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER POSITION WHEREAS, amendments to the Authorized Position List are required in order to better support City services and provide the appropriate staffing levels and skills to meet the City Council’s Strategic Plan goals and strategies; and
WHEREAS, within the Human Resources Department, staff continues to recruit for several city-wide vacancies, rebuild the Human Resources data base, prepare citywide personnel policies, provide staff training, and transition to a new human resources information technology (IT) system; and WHEREAS, a Human Resources Department Director, which has been vacant since early 2019, is needed to address the complex initiatives that the City will be implementing over the next several years, and develop and implement new strategies to improve and strengthen employee and labor relations, compensation and benefits, and overall employee satisfaction; and WHEREAS, a Human Resources Manager position is needed to oversee the day-to-day human resources and personnel work so that the Human Resources Director can oversee the entire Human Resources Department and focus on city-wide initiatives; and WHEREAS, the Finance Department has taken on several new duties over the past year:
tracking the cannabis tax from the new retailer that opened in June 2021, with another retailer anticipated to open in April 2022; overseeing the collection of the Utility Users’ Tax (UUT), which began in April 2021; tracking revenues and financial statements to validate accurate financial reporting from the fireworks permit holders; implementing tracking for procurement requirements that are mandated by SB 1383; and coordinating research and modeling to analyze the business license tax that may be considered for amendment in a future election cycle; and WHEREAS, the Finance Department also oversees the annual audits for the UUT, the half-cent sales tax, and the cannabis tax, and provides staff support to the Sales Tax and Utility Users’ Tax Oversight Committee that was recently reestablished with the passage of the UUT; and
WHEREAS, adding an additional Finance Specialist III position would support the Accountants and managers, who have taken on an increasing workload, and provide a backup and support to the Payroll Technician, and
WHEREAS, an Information Technology Director is needed to direct and manage citywide information technology and systems as well as assist City departments in meeting their program responsibilities, and provide the management control necessary to guarantee the most effective and secure use of information technology resources citywide, and City Council/RSA Agenda 99 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
WHEREAS, the following positions shall be added to the Authorized Position List:
 Finance Specialist III
 Human Resources Manager
 Human Resources Director
 Information Technology Director; and
WHEREAS, the following positions shall be removed from the Authorized Position List:
 Chief Human Resources Officer (removal from the List is effective upon appointment of the Human Resources Director)
 Chief Technology Officer (removal from the List is effective upon appointment of the Information Technology Director)
 Human Resources Analyst II; and
WHEREAS, there is anticipated expenditure savings in the General Fund budget for FY 2021-22 due to existing staff vacancies and the potential that the positions may not be filled at the highest step in the pay plan; and
WHEREAS, additional appropriations are not requested at this time; and WHEREAS, impacts to the Fiscal Year 2021-22 and 2022-23 Operating Budget will be addressed in the mid-biennial budget review (FY 2022-23) and any changes in appropriations will be identified at that time.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Union City hereby authorizes an amendment to the Authorized Position List of the Fiscal Year 2021-22 and 2022- 23 Operating Budget.

City Council/RSA Agenda 100 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Agenda Item
DATE: 3/22/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MARILOU AYUPAN, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY MANAGER TO

AUTHORIZE THE ADVANCE PURCHASE OF PARK IMPROVEMENT

EQUIPMENT PRIOR TO AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR

THE OLD ALVARADO/CESAR CHAVEZ PARKS IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 21-13
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager, or her designee, to purchase park improvement equipment prior to awarding construction contract for the Old Alvarado/Cesar Chavez Parks Improvement Project, City Project No. 21-13.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This agenda item is in alignment with the following:

Goal D: Create a healthy, sustainable community and maintain and improve the City’s infrastructure.

Strategy 2: Implement the City’s capital improvement plan

BACKGROUND
At the regular meeting of the City Council on May 11, 2021, Resolution No. 5755-21 was adopted to consolidate Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) (Fund 2310) allocations for FY 2021-2022 for use with a deadline to expend funds by May 1, 2022. The Old Alvarado/Cesar Chavez Parks Improvement Project (“Project”) was identified by City staff for the CDBG funds to be used in the amount of $347,488. Subsequently, the City was notified by HUD that additional CDBG funds were available for FY 2021-2022, in the amount of $8,656, and those funds were allocated to this project, for totalavailable CDBG funding of $356,144.

Resolution No. 5788-21 was approved at the regular meeting of the City Council on June 22, 2021, authorizing the City to apply for Per Capita program grant projects with the State Department of Parks and Recreation. As a result of the City’s successful application, $275,000 in State Park Proposition 68 funds (with City match) was added to the Project. A separate action taken as part of Resolution No. 5789-21 allocated part of the CDBG funds to award City Council/RSA Agenda 101 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
a design contract with Gates & Associates in the amount of $140,000. There are $216,144 of CDBG funds remaining to be expended on eligible project costs prior to the deadline on May 1, 2022.

DISCUSSION
On February 8, 2022, City staff presented an update to City Council detailing the Project’s planned improvements which include ADA pathways, new playground equipment and surfacing, improved picnic areas, and a redesigned recreation play area.

To avoid the risk of losing unspent annual CDBG funding for FY 2021-2022 in which specific funding language outlines that City “…cannot have more than 1.5 times its annual allocation sitting in its line of credit at the U.S.

Treasury…,” staff has identified eligible project improvement equipment to be direct-purchased that would use the remaining $216,144 amount prior to the May 1, 2022, timely-use-of-funds deadline. An additional $2,856 of the Special Parks Fund (Fund 2550) allocation will be used to supplement any shortfall, if needed. See table below for equipment purchase details:

Type of Equipment Cost Source
Two (2) Playground Structures $131,500.00 Landscape Structures Inc.

Shade Sail $87,500.00 USA Shade & Fabric Structures
TOTAL $219,000.00
Both purchases will be made using a Sourcewell cooperative agreement. Sourcewell ensures competitive pricing through a national request for proposals process that leverages the purchasing power of member agencies while streamlining purchasing procedures.

The overall funding for the project is as follows:

Community Development Block Grant
(Fund 2310)
$356,144
Special Parks Fund (2550) $250,000
Prop 68 Grant Fund w/City Match $275,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $881,144
Project construction is tentatively schedule for Summer 2022 and will be performed in two (2) phases. The remaining Special Parks Fund and Prop 68 Fund allocations will be used to fund construction of this project.

FISCAL IMPACT
All funds have been programmed into the FY 2021-2022 Capital Improvements Project budget. This action will only expend up to the total $356,144 CDBG allocation (Fund 2310). Failing to perform this action will jeopardize overall project funding and future citywide funding opportunities due to CDBG funding requirements for FY 2021- 2022.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager, or her designee, to purchase the project specific equipment, in an amount not to exceed $219,000, to satisfy the CDBG spending requirements for FY 2021-2022.

City Council/RSA Agenda 102 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Prepared by:

Trieu Tran, Civil Engineer II
Submitted by:

Marilou Ayupan, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Resolution Resolution
City Council/RSA Agenda 103 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY

APPROVING THE CITY MANAGER, OR HER DESIGNEE, TO AUTHORIZE

ADVANCE PURCHASE OF PARK EQUIPMENT PRIOR TO AWARD OF

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR OLD ALVARADO/CESAR CHAVEZ
PARKS IMPROVEMENT, CITY PROJECT NO. 21-13
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2021, under Resolution No. 5755-21, the City Council approved the 2021-2022 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Action Plan and authorized the submittal of the 2021-2022 CDBG Action Plan to the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and to execute all documents and certifications necessary to secure and award funding for the City. Approximately $347,488 of CDBG grant funds are programmed for Old Alvarado/Cesar Chavez Parks Improvement Project, City Project No. 21-13; and
WHEREAS, the City was later notified by HUD that additional CDBG funds were available for FY 2021-2022, in the amount of $8,656, and those funds were allocated to this project, for total available CDBG funding of $356,144; and WHEREAS, on June 22, 2021, under Resolution No. 5788-21, the City Council approved an application for Per Capita Grant Funds for park improvements.

Approximately $275,000 of State Park Proposition 68 funds have been programmed for Old Alvarado/Cesar Chavez Parks Improvement Project; and WHEREAS, at the same meeting under No. Resolution 5789-21, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Gates + Associates, in an amount not to exceed $140,000, to provide design services for the Old Alvarado/Cesar Chavez Parks Improvement Project using CDBG funding (Fund 2310); and
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2022, under a City Manager’s Report, City staff presented the Old Alvarado/Cesar Chavez Parks Improvement Project, City Project No. 21-13, which included improved ADA pathways, new playground equipment and surfacing, improved picnic areas, and a redesigned recreation play area.; and WHEREAS, a funding requirement for the 2021-2022 CDBG funds is:
“The CDBG entitlement program rule for timeliness is that 60 days prior to the end of the program year, a grantee cannot have more than 1.5 times its annual allocation sitting in its line of credit at the U.S. Treasury. The Old Alvarado/Cesar Chavez Parks Improvement Project constitutes approximately 41% of the City's CDBG allocation for the 2021-2022. If the funding is not spent by May 1, 2022, the City runs the risk of having Department of Housing & Urban Development withhold future grants due to the City having more than 1.5 times its grant in its line of credit;” and City Council/RSA Agenda 104 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
WHEREAS, the proposed use of these 2021-2022 CDBG grant funds are for the advance purchase of the playground structure and picnic equipment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City hereby approves the advance purchase of park equipment, in an amount not to exceed $219,000, using $216,144 of 2021-2022 CDBG grant funds (Fund 2310) and $2,856 of Special Parks funds (Fund 2550), respectively, prior to award of the construction contract for Old Alvarado-Cesar Chavez Parks Improvement Project, City Project No. 21-13; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City hereby authorizes the City Manager, or her designee, to approve the advance purchase of park equipment, in an amount not to exceed $219,000, to meet the CDBG funding deadline requirement for Old Alvarado-Cesar Chavez Parks Improvement Project, City Project No. 21-13.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of March 2022, by the following vote:

City Council/RSA Agenda 105 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Agenda Item
DATE: 3/22/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ANNA M. BROWN, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPOINTING INDIVIDUALS TO SERVE ON THE

ARTS AND CULTURE COMMISSION
A Resolution has been prepared to confirm the Mayor's appointments of individuals to serve on the Arts and Culture Commission.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
There is no strategic plan alignment associated with this action.

BACKGROUND
A recruitment process was initiated for the term expirations and existing vacancies on aforementioned commission. Interested parties were asked to submit applications to the City Clerk. Councilmembers conducted interviews on February 23, 2022.

DISCUSSION
Board, commission, and committee members are appointed by the Mayor with approval of the City Council.

At the request of Mayor Dutra-Vernaci, a resolution has been prepared appointing/reappointing the following individuals:

Arts and Culture Commission
Appoint Jenny Aguilar as Alternate Commissioner to a 4-year term, beginning April 8, 2022 and expiring April 8, 2026
Appoint Anish Mohanty as Alternate Commissioner to a 4-year term, beginning April 8, 2022 and expiring April 8, 2026
City Council/RSA Agenda 106 Tuesday, March 22, 2022

FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends City Counciladopt the Resolution as submitted, appointing individuals to serve on the Arts and Culture Commission.

Prepared by:

Anna M. Brown, City Clerk
Submitted by:

Anna M. Brown, CIty Clerk
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Resolution -ACCAlternates Appointment Resolution
City Council/RSA Agenda 107 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-22

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY

APPOINTING INDIVIDUALS TO SERVE ON THE ARTS & CULTURE COMMISSION WHEREAS, a recruitment process was initiated for the term expirations and existing vacancies on the Arts and Culture Commission; and
WHEREAS, interested parties were asked to submit applications to the City Clerk and the Council conducted interviews on February 23, 2022; and WHEREAS, board, commission, and committee members are appointed by the Mayor with approval of the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the following individuals are appointed as follows:

Arts and Culture Commission
 Appoint Jenny Aguilar as Alternate Commissioner to a 4-year term, beginning April 8, 2022, and expiring April 8, 2026
 Appoint Anish Mohanty as Alternate Commissioner to a 4-year term, beginning April 8, 2022, and expiring April 8, 2026
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of March 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

CAROL DUTRA-VERNACI
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ANNA M. BROWN KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council/RSA Agenda 108 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Agenda Item
DATE: 3/22/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CARMELA CAMPBELL, ECONOMIC, AND COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SD-21-003), USE PERMIT (UP-21-005) AND VARIANCE (V-21-002) FOR A PROPOSED ADDITION TO AN EXISTING VETERINARY CLINIC AT 33663 MISSION BLVD (APN 486-6-33) IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)

ZONING DISTRICT
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment 1) approving Site Development Review (SD-21-003), Use Permit (UP-21-005), and Variance (V-21-002) for the construction of a proposed 946 square foot addition to the existing veterinary clinic and to modify the existing Use Permit for the business (UP-95-1) supporting the expansion, at 33663 Mission Blvd (APN: 486-6-33) in the Community Commercial (CC) zoning district.

The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application with modified findings and conditions to the City Councilat its February 17, 2022, meeting on a 5-0 vote. Attached to this staff report are the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 2), Planning Commission Desk Item (Attachment 3) Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Attachment 4), and Draft Planning Commission Resolution (Attachment 5).

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
While this agenda item does not have alignment with a specific Strategic Plan goal, approval of the application implements the Citywide vision included in the Strategic Plan, which is "To be a vibrant, inclusive and prosperous community where residents and businesses thrive, and innovation grows."

BACKGROUND
The site at the corner of Mission Blvd and G Street was originally developed with a single-family residence with a detached garage and a gas station. In the mid-1960s, an auto repair garage was added to the established gas station. The gas station closed sometime in the 1980s and the fuel tanks were abandoned in City Council/RSA Agenda 109 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
place; however, the auto repair garage remained, and the old gas station building was converted into a flower shop. In 1995, the Planning Commission approved UP-1-95 and SD-1-95 which allowed for the establishment of the current veterinarian clinic. In conjunction with that project all underground tanks, five (5) in total, were removed under permit by the Union City Fire Department and remediation was done to remove any possibly contaminated soils. In 1996, the Alameda County Water District (ACWD) conducted soil sampling and recommended case closure. The formal case closure for the contamination was granted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in 1998. The metal building which was used for the auto repair facility was retained and incorporated into the current veterinarian clinic. Due to the major modification, both internaland external to the metal building in 1995, this building lost any historical integrity and is not eligible as a historic resource.

This site is unique because there are four underlying historic lots associated with the Amended Plan of Decoto that comprise the current parcel, which has been jointly used as a single-family residence and commercial property. The project has been conditioned to require the four underlying lots to be merged to address conformance with development standards.

The project applicant, Dr. Surat Gill, is seeking approvals to allow for the expansion of the existing veterinarian clinic. The existing single-family residence and detached garage will not be modified as part of this proposed project The area near these structures will be upgraded as part of the project. The project includes an addition of approximately 946 square feet to the existing building which would result in a total building size of approximately 2,472 square feet.

The proposed project is seeking a variance to the 10-foot street side setback to allow the addition to match the building's existing 2-foot side setback and allow for a floor plan with practical internal access between rooms. The addition is designed to match the existing building and additional parking has been added to the rear lot to account for the additional building area. The project also includes the construction of an upgraded trash enclosure and additional on- and off-site improvements (e.g., landscaping, fencing, and paving). The project plans and Statement of Use are included as Exhibit A and Exhibit B of Attachment 1.

DISCUSSION
The project site is located in the CC, Community Commercial, Zoning District. The purpose of CC Zoning District is to stabilize, promote, and improve the commercial business environment's characteristics by providing adequate locations for stores, services, and offices that fulfill the needs of the residents of the city as a whole. Other than the standard for which the applicant is seeking the variance, the project complies with or exceeds, the relevant development standards of Chapter 18.36 and other applicable Code requirements. For a detailed overview of the project’s compliance with City requirements, see attached Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 2).

Variance Request
As noted earlier, the applicant is seeking a variance to the street side setback requirement for corner lots, to allow the addition to continue the legal-nonconforming setback of the existing structure. The existing structure is legal nonconforming to the current standards. In 1995, when the existing clinic was approved, there was not a requirement for a street-side setback. Section 18.36.100(A) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that a structure be set back 10 feet from the street side lot line. The applicant is requesting to reduce the street side setback from 10 feet to 2 feet to allow for the continuation of the existing side building. Continuing the existing elevation would result in a cohesive and practical floor plan that supports the proposed use and facilitates comprehensive veterinary care.

If applied, the current street-side setback of 10 feet would result in a structure with a disjointed internal floor plan that would be detrimental for the proposed use and pose an unnecessary physical hardship in siting the City Council/RSA Agenda 110 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
rooms and support facilities necessary for the operation of the clinic. In addition, due to the limited width of the building and the size of the proposed addition, a 10-foot jog in the building floor plan would not be attractive.

Additionally, the residence would be subject to increased impacts from the proposed veterinary clinic expansion, including noise and privacy, if the 10-foot setback was imposed. Further, it would deprive the residents of the use of a reasonably sized rear yard that they have enjoyed and that is consistent with the single-family residential development patterns seen in the surrounding neighborhood.

The incorporation of additional setback dimensions for corner side yards was intended to increase visibility and safety for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. However, in this case, the proposed mid-block location and minimal additional length of the addition would preclude potential safety concerns related to corner site lines for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic on Mission Boulevard, G Street, and Second Street.

As detailed in the attached Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 2, Section III, Required Findings), the required variance findings can be made due to the exceptional circumstances associated with the historical development pattern of the property, mitigating further impacts to the adjacent single-family residence, and precluding potential safety concerns. The factors that constrain the property can be overcome with minor relief from the zoning and will allow for a practical expansion to the veterinary clinic.

Site Design
The proposed project includes modifications to the site including the addition of a wood fence between the veterinary clinic and the residence, upgrading the fence at the rear of the lot behind the garage, and upgrading the fence along the northwestern lot line . The existing front parking lot layout will be maintained with minor adjustments to meet current ADA standards. The rear portion of the lot is currently vacant and will be developed with the proposed addition, 5 parking spaces, 2 bicycle spaces, a trash enclosure, and landscaping.

Architecture
The existing building incorporates California Mission-style elements as required by Union City Municipal Code Section (UCMC) 18.36.200(A). These elements include light tan stucco walls with a wood trim cap, terracotta roof tiles, and arched window openings. The proposed project will incorporate these same elements. The south elevation will also include a mural as part of their public art commitment, which is discussed below. The elevations are located on Sheet A-5.

The proposed trash enclosure, measuring approximately 18 feet by 11.5 feet, will accommodate bins for waste, recycling, and organics recycling. The enclosure is proposed in the rear parking lot area and has been attractively designed as wellas complements the architecture of the veterinarian clinic.

Parking and Circulation
A total of 10 parking spaces are proposed: five (5) spaces in front of the lot and five (5) spaces at the rear.

The project has been conditioned to require an additional parking space be added to the front parking lot.

Two (2) bicycle parking spaces will be provided at the rear of the clinic.

Regarding applicable parking standards, Section 18.36.150(D) of the Zoning Ordinance allows for the decision-makers to determine parking standards if a use is not specifically listed, which is the case for Veterinary clinics. In a review of the facility’s operation and discussion with the applicant, staff recommends 11 spaces be required. There will only be at most 5 employees on-site at once. Given the floor plan, at full capacity, there could be up to 5-6 clients on-site at any one time. There is on-street parking adjacent to the site, which could also be used should there be a need. Given these conditions, staff is City Council/RSA Agenda 111 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
supportive of the proposed 11 spaces as they are expected to meet the clinic’s parking demand while reducing parking impacts to neighboring businesses and residences.

Public art
Projects with construction costs exceeding $250,000 that are subject to Site Development Review approval are required to comply with the provisions listed in Chapter 12.40, The Art in Public Places Program, of the Municipal Code which requires the provision of public art as a component of the project or payment of an in-lieu fee. The applicant is proposing to incorporate a mural on the southern elevation of the building.

As conditioned, the mural shall include elements of the historic character of the Decoto Neighborhood.

Please note that the design shown on the elevation is meant to illustrate the location of the mural. The final mural design will be reviewed by the Union City Arts and Culture Commission. Staff supports the addition of public art on the south elevation as it is on a major street and will be visible to vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic along Mission Blvd. and those entering the Decoto neighborhood via G Street.

Landscaping
The applicant is proposing to upgrade and replace the existing landscaping along Mission Boulevard and add additional landscaping along the rear of the property line along 2nd Street. The project will be required to submit a landscape package that complies with Chapter 118.12, Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, and the City's Landscape Standards Policy Statement. Conceptual landscape details are shown on the plan set Sheet L-1. Given the constraints of the site, the proposed landscaping includes a generous mix of trees, shrubs, and groundcover that will provide an attractive streetscape along Mission Boulevard, as well as the corner of G Street and Second Street, and the rear frontage along Second Street.

Consistency with the General Plan
The project is generally consistent with the subject property's General Plan designation of Corridor Mixeduse Commercial, which allows for various neighborhood-serving retail and service uses. The project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU-1.2, Promote infill and enhance Neighborhoods. The project also complies with General Plan Policy CD-6.2, Placement of Public Art, which encourages the placement of public art along high visibility, high traffic areas. Additionally, the project is consistent with General Plan Policy ED-3.1, Support Local Business expansion, by upgrading and modernizing the existing site and bringing the architecture and landscaping in line with other commercial uses.

Planning Commission Meetings
The public hearing for the project was held on February 17, 2022. The Commission considered feedback from staff, the applicant, and a member of the public in support of the project. For a detailed overview of the Planning Commission discussion, see attached Meeting Minutes labeled Attachment 4. The Commissioners’ questions addressed potential issues, including security, disposal of deceased animals, and lighting in the rear parking lot. The applicant confirmed they do have a security system which will be expanded to include the new addition. The applicant also explained that they use a third-party company to dispose of any deceased animals and confirmed that the corpses would not be disposed of in the trash. To address the lighting concern, a condition was added to require a photometric plan as part of the building permit to ensure adequate lighting levels in the rear parking lot. Additional Commissioner questions concerned signage, access along Mission Boulevard and clarifications on some of the conditions of approval.

The Commission also considered a Desk Item (Attachment 3) concerning question and comments from Commissioner Lew regarding the project and staff report. The feedback addressed an addition of a condition regarding bicycle parking, modified language for the Use Permit findings, and corrections to some minor typos. The Desk Item include responses to each of these items, and any edits have been incorporated in the attachments to this staff report.

City Council/RSA Agenda 112 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
After consideration of the application materials, and testimony from staff, the applicant, and the public, the Commission voted 5-0 to recommend to the City Council to approve the project applications.

FISCAL IMPACT
All new development, including this project, will result in additional revenue to the City through a one-time payment of permit fees. The proposed work willalso result in an increase of assessed property value (exact amount to be determined by the County Assessor's Office once the project is completed), increasing the amount of property tax the City will receive.

RECOMMENDATION
Consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation, staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment 1) approving Site Development Review (SD-21-003), Use Permit (UP-21-005), and Variance (V-21-002) for the construction of a proposed 946 square foot addition to an existing veterinary clinic and to modify the existing Use Permit for the business (UP-95-1) supporting the expansion at 33663 Mission Blvd (APN: 486-6-33) in the Community Commercial (CC) Zoning District.

Prepared by:

Brandon H DeLucas, Associate Planner
Submitted by:

Brandon H DeLucas, Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Attachment 1: Draft City Council Resolution Attachment
Exhibit A: Project Plans Exhibit
Exhibit B: Statement of Use Exhibit
Attachment 2: Planning Commission Staff Report dated 02/17/2022 Attachment Attachment 3: Planning Commission Desk Itemdated 02/17/2022 Attachment Attachment 4: Draft Planning Commission Minutes dated 02/17/2022 Attachment Attachment 5: Draft Planning Commission Resolution Attachment Power Point Attachment
City Council/RSA Agenda 113 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NUMBER XXXX-22

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY APPROVING 1) USE PERMIT (UP-21-005) MODIFYING UP-95-1 ALLOWING A VETERINARY CLINIC, 2) SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SD-21-003), FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED 946 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING VETERINARY CLINIC; AND 3) VARIANCE REQUEST (V-21-002) TO

REDUCE THE STREET SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE ADDITION FROM APPROXIMATELY TEN (10) FEET TO TWO (2) FEET AT 33663 MISSION

BLVD IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) ZONING DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Dr. Surat Gill, is requesting City approval 1) Use Permit (UP-21-005) to modify UP-95-1 allowing a veterinary clinic, 2) Site Development Review (SD-21-003), for the construction of a proposed 946 square foot addition to the existing veterinary clinic; and 3) Variance request (V-21-002) to reduce the street side setback requirement for the addition from approximately ten (10) feet to two (2) feet. The proposed addition would result in a total building size of approximately 2,472 square feet.; and
WHEREAS, the project site is located at 33663 Mission Blvd (APN: 486-6-33); and WHEREAS, the project site has a General Plan designation of Corridor Mixed Use Commercial and a Zoning designation of CC (Community Commercial); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65854 of the Government Code, a duly advertised public hearing was held before the Planning Commission of the City of Union City on February 17, 2022, to consider the application and at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard.

The Planning Commission considered a staff report dated February 17, 2022, and all other recommendations, reports, and testimony before making a recommendation on the project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is exempt from environmental review CEQA exemption per Section 15301, Existing facilities the general exemption for modification to existing facilities where it can be seen with certainty that the project will have no potential for a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, after consideration of the staff report, and all other recommendations, reports, and testimony, the Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council on a vote of 5-0 with some modifications to the draft conditions of approval and findings; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Union City on March 22, 2022 to consider the application and at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. The City Council considered a staff report dated March 22, 2022, and all other recommendations, reports and testimony before making a recommendation on the project.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Union City does hereby find as follows:

1. That the project is categorically exempt under Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
City Council/RSA Agenda 114 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
City Council Resolution XX-22
UP-21-005, SD-21-003, V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd

Site Development Review

2. The project is generally consistent with the subject property's General Plan designation of Corridor Mixed-Use Commercial, which allows for various neighborhood-serving retail and service uses. Further, the project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU-1.2, Promote infill and enhance Neighborhoods. and General Plan Policy CD-6.2, Placement of Public Art, and General Plan Policy ED-3.1, Support Local Business expansion, because it is a well-designed project that improves an existing site located along a major thoroughfare and within the city and supports the expansion of a local business. There are no applicable specific plans; and

3. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the purpose of Title 18, which seeks to promote and protect the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience, and the general welfare of the people; the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the applicable requirements for the CC, Community Commercial, Zoning District; and

4. The project is consistent with the purpose of Site Development Review as it would result in an addition that incorporates the original building design, a new trash enclosure, and other site improvements such as upgraded landscaping and fencing, which are orderly and attractive; and Use Permit

5. The location of the use is in accord with the purposes of Title 18 of the Municipal Code, and the purposes of the CC, Community Commercial, Zoning District, because it will provide expanded veterinary services to our community, with minimal associated impacts, to meet the increased needs of the City's residents as a whole for veterinarian services; and

6. The location of the use, as conditioned, is not detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to properties within the vicinity. The project will adhere to all required conditions from the City and responsible agencies pertaining to public health, safety, and welfare; and

7. The use is generally consistent with the subject property's General Plan designation of Corridor Mixed Use Commercial, which allows for the construction of commercial uses and mixed-use higher-density residential development that will support the commercial uses and create vibrant places for people to live, work, shop, and play. The veterinary clinic use, as conditioned, will comply with provisions of the Municipal Code including all applicable provisions of Title 18. There are no applicable specific plans; and Variance

8. The strict or literal interpretation of the street side setback requirement would result in both a practical difficulty and an unnecessary physical hardship that are inconsistent with the purposes of the zoning title for the following reasons. Meeting the setback requirement would result in a structure with an internal floor plan that would be detrimental for the proposed use, based on the siting of rooms and support facilities necessary for the operation of the clinic. The existing adjacent single-family residence would be subject to increased impacts from the proposed veterinary clinic expansion, including noise and privacy. Additionally, meeting the required setback would deprive the residents of the use of a reasonably sized rear year that they have enjoyed and that is consistent with the single-family residential development patterns seen in the surrounding neighborhood; and
City Council/RSA Agenda 115 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
City Council Resolution XX-22
UP-21-005, SD-21-003, V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd

9. The property’s historic development pattern including the fact that the existing building was developed with a 2-foot street side setback consistent with the zoning at the time of development, however, this is inconsistent with current zoning requirements and property setbacks. The Street side setback for this zoning district was not adopted until 1996. Other lots within the zoning district generally do not have to face these same circumstances and conditions; and

10. The exceptional circumstances discussed above do not result from the actions of the applicant.

The project site was developed in phases from at least the 1960s, and the current owners purchased the property in 2006; and

11. Strict interpretation of the regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners within the CC, Community Commercial, zoning district in that the variance requests would facilitate the expansion of an existing commercial use, which owners of other properties within the same zoning district could do generally without the same exceptional circumstances; and

12. Granting the variance request will not constitute a grant of special privilege because owners of other properties within the same zoning district could build an expansion without having to take into account the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions which exist on the site; and

13. Granting of the variance request will not have a detrimental effect on public health, safety, or welfare or be materially injurious to property owners or improvements in the vicinity because the proposed development will comply with all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of Site Development Review.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of Union City hereby approves Site Development Review, SD-21-003, Use Permit, UP-21-005, and Variance, V-21-002, as set forth in Exhibit A and Exhibit B and based upon the following conditions of approval:

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

PLANNING DIVISION

1. These conditions of approval shall supersede the Conditions of Approval for UP-1-95 and SD1-95, as listed in Attachments 1 and 2

2. All actual site improvements shall be made and maintained with strict adherence to plans marked Exhibit A, except as they may be modified by other conditions of approval.

3. The applicant/property owners shall apply for and take out all required building and fire permits prior to beginning any on-site work. Plans submitted to the Building Division and Fire Department shall demonstrate compliance with all code requirements, local ordinances and State building regulations where applicable.

City Council/RSA Agenda 116 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
City Council Resolution XX-22
UP-21-005, SD-21-003, V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd

4. The Site Development Review, Use Permit and Variance approvals shall expire one year from the date of City Council approval unless building permits have been issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued, or an extension is sought and approved by the Zoning Administrator per applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance.

5. The applicant/property owner shall attach an annotated copy of the approved City Council Resolution with the conditions of approval to each set of detailed construction plans and civil and working drawings submitted for plan review prior to issuance of a building permit.

Notations to the plans shall be made to clearly indicate how the project complies or will comply, with the conditions of approval. Construction plans shall not be accepted without the annotated final conditions of approval included with each set of plans.

6. The applicant/property owner's failure to adhere to any conditions of approval shall be cause for revocation of the project approvals.

7. The applicant/property owner shall submit plans and details to the city for review for the design of the proposed public art. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the public art proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Arts and Culture Commission. The public art shall be installed and inspected by City’s planning staff prior to occupancy of the building. If the proposed public art does not fully meet the prescribed contribution requirements per Section 12.40.030 of the Municipal Code, the remaining portion shall be paid as an in-lieu fee prior to occupancy of the building.

8. The applicant/property owner shall pay a General Plan Cost Recovery Fee in the amount of $1.00 per $1,000.00 of construction valuation per City Council Resolution Number 3379-07.

9. The applicant/property owner shall obtain a business license from the City and shall maintain said license as long as it operates at this address.

10. The applicant/property owner shall be responsible for ensuring that all contractors and subcontractors have obtained a valid City of Union City business license for the duration of the project.

11. Any graffiti appearing on the site shall be removed by the applicant and/or property owner within forty-eight hours after discovery. If not removed in a timely manner, the City may, at its option, remove the graffiti and charge the applicant and/or property owner for the services performed. The applicant and/or property owner shall coordinate with neighboring property owners, as needed, to ensure adequate property maintenance.

12. The applicant/property owner shall adhere to the colors and materials shown in Exhibit A.

Prior to issuance of building permits, submit brushed out paint samples from the manufacturer for review and approval by the Economic and Community Development Department. Any future amendments or changes to the approved painting schemes or material shall be submitted to the review and approval by the Economic and Community Development Department.

City Council/RSA Agenda 117 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
City Council Resolution XX-22
UP-21-005, SD-21-003, V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd

13. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall include a detailed fencing plan and be consistent with the plans marked Exhibit A. Chain link fencing is prohibited

14. The applicant/property owner shall provide factory processed color finishes, such as baked enamel, on all exterior metal surfaces.

15. The applicant/property owner shall screen all meters, telecommunications equipment, roof equipment and appurtenant structures from public view. A detail of such screening shall be shown on the plans submitted for the issuance of building permits.

16. All signage must comply with Chapter 18.30, Sign Regulations and is subject to review and approval by the Economic and Community Development Department.

17. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall include an additional 9 ft by 18 ft parking space in the front parking lot adjacent to the northern elevation of the structure.

18. The trash enclosure shall be designed to match the main building and consistent with Section

7.04.055, Enclosures for Solid Waste, Organic Waste and Recycling Containers, of the Municipal Code. Details shall be shown on building permit plans. The trash enclosures shall be covered; be sufficient in capacity to accommodate a weekly pick-up schedule, as determined by City staff; be illuminated within the interior and exterior to a minimum lighting level of 1.0- footcandle; and feature a motion sensor which activates lighting providing required illumination per the above.
a. The trash enclosure shall consist of walls matching the material, texture and color of the building and gates of heavy gauge corrugated steel, or other material approved by the Economic and Community Development Department. A security barrier shall be added to the space between the top of wall and bottom of roof of to prevent illegal activities. The final design for the barrier is subject to the review and approval of the Economic and Community Development Department.
b. The enclosure shall not be used for any purposes other than storage of the trash bin, recycling bin, compost bin, and, if applicable, the tallow bin. All bins shall be kept within the enclosure except during servicing time.

19. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape package which shows existing landscaping upgraded to be consistent with Chapter 18.112, Water Efficient Landscape, of the Municipal Code (if applicable) and the Landscape Standards Policy Statement. The final landscape plan will be subject to review and approval by the City's consulting Landscape Architect, City Arborist, and staff. Additional fees for consultant's review and inspection are required to be paid with the building permit fees. A final inspection of the installed landscaping and irrigation shall be completed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant/property owner shall be responsible for maintaining all irrigation and landscaping and shall replace any dead or dying vegetation for the life of the project. The landscape package shall incorporate the following comments:

City Council/RSA Agenda 118 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
City Council Resolution XX-22
UP-21-005, SD-21-003, V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd

a. All new trees shall be 24-inch box.
b. The applicant and/or property owner shall ensure that trees planted within 10 feet of any public paved or concrete area include a root control barrier and deep watering sleeve, the design of which shall be subject to approval by the City’s consultant Landscape Architect. Note and detail shall be included on landscape plans. c. Any new equipment, such as back flow prevention devices, shall be adequately screened by landscaping to the extent feasible.
d. Enhanced landscaping consisting of shrubs and ground covers shall be provided at the base of any monument sign.

20. A certificate of deposit shall be submitted in the amount of 50% of the estimated installation cost of the landscaping, up to $10,000.00, in order to ensure installation of the planting shown on the approved landscape plan. The property owner shall enter into a private landscape maintenance contract for the maintenance of the required landscaping for a minimum period of two years after installation. The required certificate of deposit shall be submitted to the Economic and Community Development Department prior to the issuance of building permits.

The project landscaping shall be completed, pursuant to the above-stated requirements, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building.

21. The applicant/property owner shall provide illuminated addressing on the forwardmost portion of the building with a minimum of six-inch high numerals and painted addressing on curbs.

22. The applicant/property owner shall be responsible for staff time spent on abating any verified code violations at the site or to ensure compliance with the Conditions of Approval once the business is in operations.

23. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall show the two (2) on-site bike parking spaces meeting the design criteria listed in Section 18.28.080 of the Municipal Code.

24. Plans submitted for building permit review shall show adequate lighting levels in the rear parking lot to the satisfaction of the Police Department and Economic and Community Development Department. Plans shall also include details regarding new lighting fixtures.

BUILDING DIVISION

25. The applicant/property owner shall maintain all public and exterior private improvements to be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

26. Any construction shall fully comply with the Building Standard Codes in effect at the time of building permit issuance.

27. The applicant/property owner shall provide detailed construction plans (working drawings) and calculations to the Building Division for plan review prior to issuance of a building permit.

Plans and supporting documents shall be prepared by a state-licensed architect or engineer.

City Council/RSA Agenda 119 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
City Council Resolution XX-22
UP-21-005, SD-21-003, V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd

Upon completion of the plan check, all applicable fees shall be paid and a building permit issued prior to commencement of any actual construction work on-site.

28. The applicant/property owner shall maintain the property to be free of litter, weeds, debris, etc., both before and after issuance of building permits. Daily litter and debris collection rounds shall be conducted on the site and an adequate number of trash receptacles shall be provided to minimize litter accumulation.

29. The applicant/property owner shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Ordinance 576-01 to divert recyclable debris away from landfills. The applicant and/or property owner shall submit a completed Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan with their application for a construction or demolition permit.

30. The applicant/property owner shall not locate construction debris boxes within the public rightof-way (ROW), driveways or on adjacent private properties.

FIRE DEPARTMENT

31. The project shall comply with the California Building and Fire Codes and current local ordinances in effect at the time of building permit submittal.

32. The applicant/property owner shall provide an exit analysis plan, for review prior to issuance of building permit.

33. The applicant/property owner shall provide a KNOX BOX Mode 3200 (Lock Box) with door hinge, mounted adjacent to the front door no higher than 6 feet, prior to final inspection of building permit.

34. The applicant/property owner shall pull fire and building permits for a Fire sprinkler system.

Fire sprinkler systems for Building undergoing a change of occupancy or use, shall be designed and installed in accordance with the CFC and NFPA 13 fire Sprinkler Standard.

35. The applicant/property owner shall have the Fire Alarm system professionally monitored by a Central Monitoring Control Center

36. The applicant/property owner shall ensure access to the building under construction will not impede and/or obstruct responding personnel or workers evacuating the property.

37. The applicant/property owner shall apply for hot work permits for all welding or cutting operations.

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

38. The applicant/property owner shall secure an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for all work in the public right-of-way. The applicant shall be responsible for any repairs required adjacent to the development, including paving, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, and streetlights, or installation of same where not existing, as required by the City Engineer.

City Council/RSA Agenda 120 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
City Council Resolution XX-22
UP-21-005, SD-21-003, V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd

39. The applicant/property owner shall apply for and submit plans for a lot merger, combining lots 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Block 74, as said lots and blocks are shown upon that certain map entitled “AMENDED PLAN OF DECOTO ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA", filed December 01, 1904, Map Book 19, Page(s) 43, Alameda County Records. Excepting therefrom all those portions of lots 9 and 10, Granted to the State of California, by deed recorded January 14, 1930, in Book 2308, Page 33, Alameda County Records.

40. The applicant shall be responsible for any required repairs associated with the development, including paving, trenching, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, as determined by the City Engineer.

41. The applicant/property owner shall place a copy of the approved Public Works conditions of approval (COA) on the improvement/grading plans.

42. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for review and approval that show the existing and proposed grades on the parking lot to demonstrate how the drainage is conveyed from the private property to the public right of way. No drainage shall be allowed to enter adjacent properties. The plans shall show the location of the downspouts, any existing and proposed drainage structures, and other proposed improvements, such as trash enclosure and striping, etc.

43. The applicant shall paint the curb red for a distance of 30 ft. along G street side from the new driveway towards Second street to minimize blocking the line of sight for the vehicles exiting the new parking lot.

44. The applicant shall show the dimensions of the parking stalls (9 ft. x18 ft.) and the width of the new access aisle (26 ft. min.)

45. The applicant shall submit a signed and dated ‘Applicability of C.3 and C.6 Stormwater Requirements’ checklist demonstrating that the project meets the requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) for approval by City Staff.

46. The applicant shall ensure that the project complies with the most current requirements of the Alameda County Clean Water Program, including installing BMPs during construction, such as stabilized construction entrance, straw wattles, street sweeping to pick up mud and picking up any mud deposited in the gutters.

47. The applicant shall upgrade the existing wheelchair ramp located at the intersection of G Street and Second Street. This work may include replacing or ensuring the existing concrete apron adjacent to the ramp does not hold water and provides a positive drainage to the valley gutter.

48. The applicant shall upgrade the existing wheelchair ramp located at the intersection of Mission Blvd. and G Street.

49. The applicant shall ensure positive drainage along the gutter on Second Street. where the future through-the-curb drain from the property will discharge onto public right of way. This may require replacing a portion of curb and gutter that may be uplifted.

City Council/RSA Agenda 121 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
City Council Resolution XX-22
UP-21-005, SD-21-003, V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd

50. The applicant shall ensure that the new commercial driveway meets the City’s minimum standard of 28 ft. min. width including driveway apron.

51. The applicant shall ensure that any needed repairs are made to the existing parking lot prior to restriping the parking lot.

52. The applicant shall apply for a Grading Permit, pay a fee and post a Grading Permit Bond, which will be based upon the final estimate of the number of cubic yards of dirt estimated to be moved, including cut, fill and import, etc.

53. The applicant shall provide a structural paving section adequate to accommodate the vehicular loads, including garbage truck traffic, for the proposed parking lot.

54. The applicant shall ensure that there is sufficient lighting levels in the drive aisle and in the rear of the property.

55. The applicant shall submit a grading plan to the Public Works Department and obtain a Grading Permit prior to proceeding with any demolition and grading operations.

56. The applicant shall underground the existing overhead electrical and communication utilities across Second Street to the new building extension. No overhead lines shall remain following the completion of this project. The overhead lines to the house located on the same lot shall also be undergrounded by placing them in the same trench as the overhead lines to the clinic.

57. The applicant shall pay all Public Works Department fees such as Plan Check & Inspection fees, Grading Permit Fee (and associated bonds) and Encroachment Permit fee. Except for the Encroachment Permit fee, all other fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit.

58. The applicant shall provide a detailed breakdown of the engineer’s estimate for all on-site work including grading, storm drainage facilities, paving, sidewalk, striping and landscaping. The Plan Check & Inspection Fees will be based upon this estimate that is reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer.

59. The applicant shall contact the Alameda County Water District, Engineering Department, at (510) 659-1970 to determine water service and permit requirements and Union Sanitary District at (510) 477-7500 to determine sewer service and permit requirements.

60. Construction activity on-site shall comply with Section 9.40.053 of the Union City Municipal Code, and is limited to the following hours:

Monday through Friday - 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Saturday - 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (allowed only on a case-by-case basis) Sundays & Holidays - 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. (allowed only on a case-by-case basis)

61. The applicant/property owner will work with ACWD to ensure any existing monitoring wells on site are protected or removed following ACWD's standards.

City Council/RSA Agenda 122 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
City Council Resolution XX-22
UP-21-005, SD-21-003, V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd

62. Stormwater Post-Construction Best Management Practices a. All condensate drainage shall be routed to sanitary sewer. This shall include, but is not limited to chiller and HVAC condensate, cooling tower and boiler discharges, air compressor condensate, de-ionized water softening units, etc. Compressors: Air or liquid lines contaminated with oil/hydrocarbons shall drain to sanitary sewer. These activities shall be clearly delineated in the plans and specifications submitted for building permits. b. Metal roofs, including galvanized, shall be coated and/or treated to minimize run-off of metallic materials and salts. Lead and copper materials or solders shall not be used. c. Paved outdoor storage, staging, or lay down areas shall be designed to limit the potential for storm water runoff to contact pollutants. Bulk materials stored outdoors shall be covered.
d. Landscaping shall be designed with efficient irrigation practices to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration, and to minimize the need for fertilizers and pesticides. All landscaping shall be properly maintained.
e. Sidewalks, parking lots, driveways and other paved areas under private ownership/management shall be regularly swept to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. If water is used, it shall be collected, along with any debris before entering the storm drain system. Discharge of wash waters from parking lots, sidewalks, etc. to the sanitary sewer system requires the approval of the Union Sanitary District. f. The property owner and/or applicant is responsible for cleaning storm drains and catch basins that are located on private property at least three times each year, once prior to the rainy season (before October 1st), once in January, and once in May. The Public Works Department may require additional cleaning as warranted. Maintenance and cleaning records shall be maintained at the site.
g. On-site storm drain inlets shall be labeled "No Dumping - Drains to Bay" using a stencil approved by the Public Works Department.

63. Stormwater-"During Construction" Best Management Practices  The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) relating to construction site controls shall be implemented during construction activities.
 These best management practices shall be shown as notes on the approved grading and building permit plan sets.
a. The applicant shall ensure compliance with all of the following best management practices by making sure that all contractors, subcontractors and suppliers are aware of all storm water pollution prevention measures and their implementation requirements.

City Council/RSA Agenda 123 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
City Council Resolution XX-22
UP-21-005, SD-21-003, V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd

b. The applicant shall ensure that concrete supply trucks or concrete/plaster and finishing operations discharge washout water into a designated cleanout area, designed to prevent pollutants from entering the storm water and/or sanitary sewer system. c. Discharge restrictions shall also apply to the operation of general construction machinery including masonry cutting equipment, and the washing of tools, brushes, containers, etc.

These operations shall not be performed in the street, gutter, or where pollutants can enter the storm water system. Failure to comply with the approved construction requirements will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or project stop work orders. d. The applicant shall minimize the removal of natural vegetation or ground cover from the site in order to minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation problems. All cut and fill slopes shall be stabilized as soon as possible after completion of grading. No site grading shall take place unless approved erosion control measures are in place. e. The applicant shall install filter materials (sand bags, filter fabric, straw wattle, etc.) at the storm drain inlet nearest the downstream side of the project site prior to the start of work.

Filter materials shall be maintained and/or replaced as necessary to ensure effectiveness and prevent street flooding. Filtered particles shall be disposed of in an appropriate manner based upon constituents.
f. The applicant shall gather all construction debris on a regular basis and place in a dumpster or other container, which is emptied or removed at a minimum on a weekly basis. When appropriate, tarps shall be used on the ground to collect falling debris, paint over-spray, etc. that could contribute to storm water pollution.
g. Trash enclosures and/or recycling containers, paved outdoor storage, staging, or lay down areas shall be designed and constructed to prevent pollutants from entering storm drain system.
h. The applicant/property owner shall create a contained and covered area on the site for the storage of bags of cement, paints, flammables, oils, fertilizers, pesticides or any other materials used on the project site that have the potential of becoming a pollutant and/or being discharged to the storm drain system.
i. Dirt, gravel, debris and green waste shall be removed from the sidewalk, street pavement, and storm drains adjoining the project site. These areas shall be broom swept on a daily basis. Caked-on mud or dirt shall be scraped before sweeping. During wet weather, the applicant should avoid excavation and other activities that lead to pollutants entering storm water such as driving vehicles on unpaved areas, etc.
j. Outdoor washing or pressure washing shall be managed to prevent pollutants from getting into storm water and/or into the storm drain system.

City Council/RSA Agenda 124 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
City Council Resolution XX-22
UP-21-005, SD-21-003, V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

64. The applicant/property owner shall obtain a permit from the Environmental Programs Division for the storage, use, or handling of hazardous materials. This may include carbon dioxide, refrigerant gases, propane, gasoline or diesel. To satisfy this requirement, owner or operator shall make a complete, accepted submittal to the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) within 30 days of transferring reportable quantities onto site for business operations.

This requirement also is applicable for any amount of hazardous waste that will be generated at the facility. For more information, please contact the Environmental Programs Division at [email protected] or (510) 675-5360.

65. The applicant/property owner is hereby advised that unauthorized discharge of any kind to the storm water system, which includes the streets and gutters, is prohibited, and that such discharges, whether intentional or not, are subject to penalties up to $20,000 per violation per day. This applies both to the construction phase and to routine facility operations.

ALAMEDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (District)

66. Each non-residential and irrigation service will require a separate dedicated fire service and may require an above-ground reduced pressure backflow prevention device. Backflow prevention devices must be located in accordance with District Standard Drawings BP-1-08 through BP-3-08. The location and screening of these above-ground devices should be considered in the site design to address both District installation standards as well as aesthetic concerns of the development. Backflows located within buildings are not acceptable.

67. The applicant/property owner shall provide the minimum clearance requirements specified by ACWD between water meters, service lines, fire hydrants or mains and the nearest utilities, buildings, and trees. Reference District Standard Drawings CL-1-08 through CL-5-08.

68. The applicant/property owner shall contact the ACWD Engineering Department for modifications of existing water facilities. Any existing water services which will not be used in the new development must be removed by the district at the developer's expense.

City Council/RSA Agenda 125 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
City Council Resolution XX-22
UP-21-005, SD-21-003, V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of March 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
______________________

CAROL DUTRA-VERNACI
Mayor
ATTESTED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________ _________________________
ANNA M. BROWN KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council/RSA Agenda 126 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
date REV DATE drawn by checked by
job number sheet number
PROJECT: SHEET CONTENTS: ISSUE This drawing is the property of Palafox Architect, LLC and is not to be reproduced or copied in whole or in part. It is to be used only for the project and site specified herein, and is not to be used by any other consultant or on any other project. This drawing is to be returned to Palafox Architect, LLC upon request. SEAL:ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS 3939 SMITH STREET UNION CITY, CALIFORNIA 94587 T (510) 552-1318 WWW.PALAFOXARCHITECT.COM 08-02-21 PCC RESPONSE SEAL: VETERINARY MEDICAL CENTER

PROPOSED EXPANSION FOR

VETERINARY MEDICAL
CENTER
33663 MISSION BLVD, UNION CITY, CA. JPJR12-21-2021 20077 10-11-21 PCC RESPONSE 12-21-21 PCC RESPONSE 4A.1 12 A.1 SYMBOLS EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE PLANS/ SITE DETAILS PROJECT ANALYSIS BUILDING AREA: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ABBREVIATIONS PROJECT NOTES GENERAL NOTES CONSTRUCTION NOTES 4A.1 12 A.1 SYMBOLS ABBREVIATIONS PROJECT NOTES GENERAL NOTES VARIANCES BETWEEN ACTUAL CONDITIONS AND DRAWINGS CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1 VETERINARY MEDICAL CENTER DRAWING INDEX ARCHITECTURAL A-1 A-2 TITLE SHEET, INDEX, DATA, SCOPE, VICINITY MAP PROPOSED EXPANSION OF: APPLICABLE CODES ● 2019 California Building Code ● 2019 California Mechanical Code ● 2019 California Plumbing Code ● 2019 California Electrical Code ● 2019 California Green Building Code (if applicable) ● 2019 California Fire Code (with local amendments) ● 2019 State of California Title 24 Energy Regulations ● 2019 State of California Title 24 Handicap Accessibility Regulations ● City of Union City Local Codes and Ordinances (including local amendments to the above requirements) (E) NUMBER OF STORIES: (E) TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: BUILDING OCCUPANCY GROUP: PARKING: FORMAL REVIEW APPLICATION 08-07-2020 LOT AREA: APPROX. 15,753 SF (EXISTING) NO CHANGE 5 STANDARD (EXISTING ON SITE) 1 ACCESSIBLE (EXISTING ON SITE) 9 STANDARD (PROPOSED) 1 VAN ACCESSIBLE (PROPOSED) LOCATION MAP A-4 EXISTING AND PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS A-5 ZONING: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (C-C) 1,526 SF (EXISTING) 33663 MISSION BLVD, UNION CITY, CA. APN: 486-6-33 1 (E) - NO CHANGE B-2 - NO CHANGE V -B 946 SF (PROPOSED ADDITION) 2,472 SF (TOTAL FLOOR AREA) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

TITLE SHEET, DRAWING

INDEX, SCOPE,
GENERAL NOTES A-1 YEAR BUILT: 1963 BUILDING HEIGHT: 1 STORY - 17'-0" AT HIGHEST POINT FLOOR AREA RATIO: LOT COVERAGE: 0.3165 31.65% A-2A SITE ADA DETAILS SETBACKS: FRONT: (MISSION BLVD): (E) 42'-0" SIDES: ALIGN WITH (E) BUILDING WALL AT 2'-2" REAR: 52'-4" STATEMENT OF USE: SEPARATE SUBMITTAL A-3 EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROOF PLANS CIVIL C-1 PRELIMINARY TITLE SHEET C-2 PRELIMINARY GRADING DRAINAGE & UTILITY PLAN LANDSCAPE L-1 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 1 1 ER-1 PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL PLAN VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1" = 500' 2 2 2 OWNER: SURAT S GILL CORPORATION DBA VETERINARY MEDICAL CENTER BMP-1 CLEAN BAY BLUEPRINT SU-1 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 2 A-1A SITE PHOTOS 2 2 2 3 EXHIBIT A City Council/RSA Agenda 127 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
date REV DATE drawn by checked by
job number sheet number
PROJECT: SHEET CONTENTS: ISSUE This drawing is the property of Palafox Architect, LLC and is not to be reproduced or copied in whole or in part. It is to be used only for the project and site specified herein, and is not to be used by any other consultant or on any other project. This drawing is to be returned to Palafox Architect, LLC upon request. SEAL:ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS 3939 SMITH STREET UNION CITY, CALIFORNIA 94587 T (510) 552-1318 WWW.PALAFOXARCHITECT.COM 08-02-21 PCC RESPONSE SEAL: VETERINARY MEDICAL CENTER

PROPOSED EXPANSION FOR

VETERINARY MEDICAL
CENTER
33663 MISSION BLVD, UNION CITY, CA. JPJR12-21-2021 20077 10-11-21 PCC RESPONSE 12-21-21 PCC RESPONSE SITE PHOTOS A-1A 12 1234 5 6 8 9 1. EAST FACADE VIEW FROM MISSION BLVD 2. EAST FACADE VIEW FROM CORNER OF MISSION BLVD AND G STREET 3. VIEW LOOKING DOWN G STREET 4. VIEW LOOKING DOWN SOUTH SIDE OF G STREET 5. SOUTH FACADE VIEW LOOKING FROM SOUTH SIDE OF G STREET 6. WEST FACADE VIEW LOOKING FROM G STREET 7. WEST FACADE VIEW LOOKING FROM G STREET 8. WEST FACADE VIEW FROM 2ND STREET 9. EAST FACADE VIEW LOOKING FROM SOUTH SIDE OF G STREET 10-11 12 13 10. VIEW OF NEIGHBORING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 11. VIEW OF NEIGHBORING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 12. VIEW LOOKING TOWARD G STREET 13. VIEW LOOKING BETWEEN PROJECT SITE AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 14. VIEW LOOKING AT NEIGHBORING BUSINESSES ACROSS G STREET 14 2 7 APPROX. 10'-0" APPROX. 5'-0" 3 City Council/RSA Agenda 128 Tuesday, March 22, 2022 City Council/RSA Agenda 129 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
$ 250 MIN. FINE TYPICAL DETAIL TYPICAL PLAN TRUNCATED DOMES FIGURE 11B-705.1 SIZE & SPACING PER CBC 2016 SEC. 11B-705.1 (PER CBC 2016) DETECTABLE WARNINGS A-2A5 PRECAST CONC. PARKING BUMPER A-2A1 ACCESSIBLE TOW-AWAY SIGN A-2A2 ACCESSIBLE PARKING (VAN) SIGN A-2A3 ACCESSIBLE PARKING SYMBOL A-2A4 (TRUNCATED DOMES) TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAILS A-2A6 date REV DATE drawn by checked by job number sheet number PROJECT: SHEET CONTENTS: ISSUE This drawing is the property of Palafox Architect, LLC and is not to be reproduced or copied in whole or in part. It is to be used only for the project and site specified herein, and is not to be used by any other consultant or on any other project. This drawing is to be returned to Palafox Architect, LLC upon request. SEAL:ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS 3939 SMITH STREET UNION CITY, CALIFORNIA 94587 T (510) 552-1318 WWW.PALAFOXARCHITECT.COM 08-02-21 PCC RESPONSE SEAL: VETERINARY MEDICAL CENTER

PROPOSED EXPANSION FOR

VETERINARY MEDICAL
CENTER
33663 MISSION BLVD, UNION CITY, CA. JPJR12-21-2021 20077 10-11-21 PCC RESPONSE 12-21-21 PCC RESPONSE SITE ADA DETAILS A-2A 1 1 2 2 3 City Council/RSA Agenda 130 Tuesday, March 22, 2022 date REV DATE drawn by checked by
job number sheet number
PROJECT: SHEET CONTENTS: ISSUE This drawing is the property of Palafox Architect, LLC and is not to be reproduced or copied in whole or in part. It is to be used only for the project and site specified herein, and is not to be used by any other consultant or on any other project. This drawing is to be returned to Palafox Architect, LLC upon request. SEAL:ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS 3939 SMITH STREET UNION CITY, CALIFORNIA 94587 T (510) 552-1318 WWW.PALAFOXARCHITECT.COM 08-02-21 PCC RESPONSE SEAL: VETERINARY MEDICAL CENTER

PROPOSED EXPANSION FOR

VETERINARY MEDICAL
CENTER
33663 MISSION BLVD, UNION CITY, CA. JPJR12-21-2021 20077 10-11-21 PCC RESPONSE 12-21-21 PCC RESPONSE A-3

EXISTING & PROPOSED

ROOF PLANS
1 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" EXISTING ROOF PLAN
2 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" PROPOSED ROOF PLAN
1 1
1 23 City Council/RSA Agenda 131 Tuesday, March 22, 2022

ANIMAL STORAGE TREATMENT AREA PRESCRIPTION RM

RECEPTION
DESK FILE STORAGE EXAM ROOM 3 EXAM RM 1 OFFICE SURGERY ROOM ANIMAL STORAGE TREATMENT AREA PRESCRIPTION RM

RECEPTION
DESK FILE STORAGE UNISEX RESTROOM EXAM RM 1 EXAM RM 2 EXAM RM 3 SURGERY AND PREP UNISEX RESTROOM OFFICE BREAK ROOM EXAM RM 4 ISOLATION LAUNDRY ROOM EXTENSION OUTLINE OF EXISTING BUILDING X-RAY ROOM STORAGE WALL LEGEND: EXISTING WALL DEMOLITION WALL NEW WALL EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL PATH (EATP) ILLUMINATED EXIT SIGN EXIT DOOR EXIT EXITING LEGEND:

EXIT EXIT EXIT TACTILE SIGNAGE (EXISTING) SECTION 11B-703.3 RAISED CHARACTER AND BRAILLE EXIT SIGNS: Tactile exit signs shall be required at the following locations: 1. Each grade - level exterior exit door that is required to comply with CBC Chapter 10,shall be identified by a tactile exit sign with the word "EXIT". 2. Each exit door that is required to comply with CBC Chapter 10, and that leads directly to a grade - level exterior exit by means of stairway or ramp shall be identified by a tactile exit sign with the following words as appropriate: 2.1 "EXIT STAIR DOWN" 2.2. "EXIT RAMP DOWN" 2.3. "EXIT STAIR UP" 2.4. "EXIT RAMP UP" 3. Each exit door that is required to comply with CBC Chapter 10, and that leads directly to a grade - level exterior exit by means of an exit enclosure or an exit passageway shall be identified by a tactile exit sign with the word "EXIT ROUTE". 4. Each exit access door from an interior room or area to a corridor or hallway that is required to comply with CBC Chapter 10, shall be identified by a tactile exit sign with the words "EXIT ROUTE". 5. Each exit door through a horizontal exit that is required to comply with CBC Chapter 10, shall be identified by a sign with the words, "TO EXIT". Raised character and Braille exit signs shall comply with CBC 11B-703.3 2149/ 150 = 15 OCC. 5 OCC. 5 OCC. 5 OCC. 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 44 4 SECTION 1004.3 POSTING OF OCCUPANT LOAD: 1. Every room or space that is an assembly occupancy shall have the occupant load of the room or space posted in a conspicuous place, near the main exit access doorway from the room or space. Posted signs shall be of an approved legible permanent design and shall be maintained by the owner or authorized agent. 2. Exit signs shall be illuminated with separate source of power as an emergency system. Emergency lighting shall be provided with power for a duration of not less than 90 minutes and shall consist of storage batteries, unit equipment or an on-site generator in accordance with CBC 1008.3.4 SIGN WITH ARROW DIRECTION ROOM NAME ( MAX CAPACITY) LOCATION OF SIGNS/ POSTING OF OCCUPANT CAPACITY COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL (CPET) 7'-3" 4'-1" 5'-7"
9'-0" 24'-3"6'-3" 17'-6"
1'-8" 13'-9"
11'-11" 4'-9" FE 2A: 10BC FIRE EXTINGUISHER OCCUPANT LOAD SIGNAGE 6'-8" 10'-6"
5'-10" date REV DATE drawn by checked by
job number sheet number
PROJECT: SHEET CONTENTS: ISSUE This drawing is the property of Palafox Architect, LLC and is not to be reproduced or copied in whole or in part. It is to be used only for the project and site specified herein, and is not to be used by any other consultant or on any other project. This drawing is to be returned to Palafox Architect, LLC upon request. SEAL:ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS 3939 SMITH STREET UNION CITY, CALIFORNIA 94587 T (510) 552-1318 WWW.PALAFOXARCHITECT.COM 08-02-21 PCC RESPONSE SEAL: VETERINARY MEDICAL CENTER

PROPOSED EXPANSION FOR

VETERINARY MEDICAL
CENTER
33663 MISSION BLVD, UNION CITY, CA. JPJR12-21-2021 20077 10-11-21 PCC RESPONSE 12-21-21 PCC RESPONSE 1 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" EXISTING FLOOR PLAN

EXISTING & PROPOSED
FLOOR PLANS 2 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" A-4 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 City Council/RSA Agenda 132 Tuesday, March 22, 2022 City Council/RSA Agenda 133 Tuesday, March 22, 2022

CUBIC YARDS WITHIN BUILDING

FOOTPRINT

OUTSIDE

BUILDING

FOOTPRINT

TOTAL CUBIC
YARDS
CUT 10
FILL 15
IMPORT 5
City Council/RSA Agenda 134 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
City Council/RSA Agenda 135 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
City Council/RSA Agenda 136 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
City Council/RSA Agenda 137 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
City Council/RSA Agenda 138 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
City Council/RSA Agenda 139 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Statement of Use
Address: 33663 Mission Blvd, Union City

1. The proposed project is an extension of an existing Veterinary Medical Clinic that has been treating animal patients for routine services, wellness healthcare, illness, and surgical procedures as needed.

Currently, it is a limited facility with 2 exam rooms. The plan is to add on to the rear of the facility to allow increase in the number of exam rooms and treatment area. In doing so, the increased hours will allow later care for the community. This business is a corporation that has been serving the community for 25 years. The future plan is to have a more accommodating facility for patient care.

2. The hours of operation are between 7 am to 9 pm.

3. The maximum number of staff on site at any time is 5. We expect to have a total of 6-7 staff members

4. The total number of clients visiting the clinic on a daily basis is between 15-20. Patients are being dropped off only while parked within 5-10 minutes at any time.

Joseph Palafox, AIA
Palafox Architect

EXHIBIT B
City Council/RSA Agenda 140 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTACHMENT 2
Agenda Item
DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2022
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CARMELA CAMPBELL, ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SD-21-003), USE PERMIT (UP-21- 005) AND VARIANCE (V-21-002)
APPLICANT: Dr. Surat Gill
LEGAL OWNER: Same as Applicant
REQUEST: 1) Use Permit (UP-21-005) to modify UP-95-1 allowing a veterinary clinic, 2) Site Development Review (SD-21-003), for the construction of a proposed 946 square foot addition to the existing veterinary clinic; and 3) Variance request (V-21-002) to reduce the street side setback requirement for the addition from approximately ten (10) feet to two (2) feet. The proposed addition would result in a total building size of approximately 2,472 square feet.

LOCATION: 33663 Mission Blvd (APN: 486-6-33)
SIZE OF PARCEL: 15,848 square feet (0.36 acres)

GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE: Corridor Mixed Use Commercial
ZONING: CC (Community Commercial)
SURROUNDING LAND USES:

LOCATION GENERAL PLAN

DESIGNATION
ZONING

DISTRICT LAND USE
North Agriculture/ Corridor Mixed
Use Commercial A/ CC Agricultural field/ Vacant Commercial Building South
Residential (6-10 du/ac)/
Corridor Mixed Use
Commercial
R 5000/ CC Single-family residences/
Inline Commercial Center
East Agriculture/ Corridor Mixed
Use Commercial A/ CC Agricultural field/ Inline Commercial Center West
Residential (6-10 du/ac)/
Corridor Mixed Use
Commercial
R 5000/ CC Single-family residences/
Vacant Commercial Building
City Council/RSA Agenda 141 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is categorically exempt under Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

LOCATION MAPS:

I. BACKGROUND & PROPOSAL
The site is located at 33663 Mission Blvd., at the corner of Mission Blvd. and G Street, and extends to Second Street, within the CC, Community Commercial, Zoning District. The site is currently developed with a single-family residence and a veterinary clinic.

Figure 1 – Zoning Map of 33663 Mission Blvd
Figure 2 – Location Map of 33663 Mission Blvd
Project Site

N

N
Project Site
City Council/RSA Agenda 142 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 3 The site was originally developed with a single-family residence with a detached garage and a gas station. Then in the mid-1960s, an auto repair garage was added to the gas station. The gas station closed sometime in the 1980s and the fuel tanks were abandoned in place; however, the auto repair garage remained, and the old gas station building was converted into a flower shop. In 1995, the Planning Commission approved UP-1-95 and SD-1-95 which allowed for the establishment of the current veterinarian clinic. See Attachment 1 and 2 for copies of the approved resolutions. The flower shop building was demolished, and all underground tanks were removed under permit by the Union City Fire Department. A total of five (5) tanks were ultimately removed. Remediation was done to remove any possibly contaminated soils. The Alameda County Water District (ACWD) conducted soil sampling and recommended case closure in 1996. The formal case closure for the contamination was granted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in 1998. See Attachment 3 for a copy of the RWQCB closure letter. The metal building which was used for the auto repair facility was retained and incorporated into the current veterinarian clinic. The existing single-family residence remained, and no modifications were made to it as part of the 1995 approvals. Due to the major modification, both internal and external to the metal building in 1995, this building lost any historical integrity and is not eligible as a historic resource.

This site is unique because there are four underlying historic lots associated with the Amended Plan of Decoto that comprise the current parcel, which has been jointly used as a single-family residence and commercial property. As conditioned the four underlying lots shall be merged to address conformance with development standards.

The project applicant, Dr. Surat Gill, is seeking Site Development Review (SD-21-003), Use Permit (UP-21-005), and Variance (V-21-002) approvals to allow for the expansion of the existing veterinarian clinic. The existing single-family residence and detached garage will not be modified as part of this proposed project The area near these structures will be upgraded as part of the proposed application. The proposed project includes an addition of approximately 946 square feet to the existing building which would result in a total building size of approximately 2,472 square feet. With the addition, the internal layout will be reworked to allow for a new break room, laundry room, additional exam rooms and bathroom, expanded treatment areas, animal holding, and surgery.

The proposed project is seeking a variance to the 10-foot street side setback, to allow the addition to match the 2-foot side setback as the existing building and allow for a floor plan with practical internal access between rooms. The addition is designed to match the existing building and additional parking has been added to the rear lot to account for the additional building area. The project also includes the construction of an upgraded trash City Council/RSA Agenda 143 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 4 enclosure and additional on- and off-site improvements (e.g., landscaping, fencing, and paving). The project plans and statement of use are included as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively.

II. PROJECT ANALYSIS
A. Project Design
Site Design
The proposed project includes modifications to the site including the addition of a wood fence between the veterinary clinic and the residence, upgrading the fence at the rear of the lot behind the garage, and upgrading the fence along the northwestern lot line (Condition #13). The existing front parking lot layout will be maintained with minor adjustments to meet current ADA standards. The rear portion of the lot is currently vacant and will be developed with the proposed addition, 5 parking spaces, 2 bicycle spaces, a trash enclosure, and landscaping. The applicant is seeking a variance to the street side setback, to allow the addition to continue the legal-nonconforming setback of the current structure. The variance request is discussed further below.

Figure 3 – Proposed site plan (Sheet A-2)
City Council/RSA Agenda 144 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 5 Architecture
The existing building incorporates California Mission-style elements as required by Union City Municipal Code Section (UCMC) 18.36.200(A). These elements include light tan stucco walls with a wood trim cap, terracotta roof tiles, and arched window openings.

The proposed project will incorporate these same elements. The south elevation will also include a mural as part of their public art commitment, which is discussed below. The elevations are located on Sheet A-5. The front elevation and street-side elevations are also is included below in Figures 4 and 5.

The covered trash enclosure, measuring approximately 18 feet by 11.5 feet, will accommodate bins for waste, recycling, and organics recycling. The enclosure is proposed in the parking lot area and has been attractively designed as well as complements the architecture of the veterinarian clinic. As conditioned (Condition #18), the enclosure meets the requirements of Chapter 7.04, Solid Waste Management, of the UCMC that a security screen be added to the open area between the wall around the enclosure and the enclosure's roof to prevent illegal dumping or activities and that the enclosure is only used to store refuse and recycling bins.

Figure 4 – Proposed East Elevation (Sheet A-5)
Figure 5 – Proposed South Elevation (Sheet A-5)
City Council/RSA Agenda 145 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 6 B. Variance Request
As noted earlier, the applicant is seeking a variance to the street side setback requirement for corner lots, to allow the addition to continue the legal-nonconforming setback of the existing structure. The existing structure is legal nonconforming to the current standards.

In 1995, when the existing clinic was approved, there was not a requirement for a streetside setback. Section. 18.36.100(A) requires that a structure be set back 10 feet from the street side lot line. The applicant is requesting to reduce the street side setback from 10 feet to 2 feet to allow for the continuation of the existing side building elevation.

Continuing the existing elevation would result in a cohesive and practical floor plan that supports the proposed use and facilitates comprehensive veterinary care.

If applied, the current street-side setback of 10 feet would result in a structure with a disjointed internal floor plan that would be detrimental for the proposed use and pose an unnecessary physical hardship in siting the rooms and support facilities necessary for the operation of the clinic. In addition, due to the limited width of the building and the size of the proposed addition, a 10-foot jog in the building floor plan would not be attractive.

Additionally, the residence would be subject to increased impacts from the proposed veterinary clinic expansion, including noise and privacy, if the 10-foot setback was imposed. Further, it would deprive the residents of the use of a reasonably sized rear yard that they have enjoyed and that is consistent with the single-family residential development patterns seen in the surrounding neighborhood.

Incorporation of additional setback dimensions for corner side yards was intended to increase visibility and safety for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. However, in this case, the proposed mid-block location and minimal additional length of the addition would preclude potential safety concerns related to corner site lines for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic on Mission Boulevard, G Street, and Second Street.

It is staff’s opinion that the required variance findings can be made due to the exceptional circumstances associated with the historical development pattern of the property, mitigating further impacts to the adjacent single-family residence, and precluding potential safety concerns. The factors that constrain the property can be overcome with minor relief from the zoning and will allow for a practical expansion to the veterinary clinic.

As such, staff finds the proposal, as conditioned, to be a reasonable request and is recommending approval of the variance request. For a discussion of how the project meets each required finding, see Section III, Required Findings, below.

City Council/RSA Agenda 146 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 7 C. Development Standards Compliance
The project site is located in the CC, Community Commercial, District. The purpose of CC Districts is to stabilize, promote, and improve the commercial business environment's characteristics by providing adequate locations for stores, services, and offices that fulfill the needs of the residents of the city as a whole. Table 1, below, compares how the project complies with or exceeds the relevant development standards of Chapter 18.36 and other applicable Code requirements. A more in-depth discussion on project design, conformance with Code, and policy requirements follow.
* As conditioned- The development standards above are based on the lot being merged (Condition #39) Parking and Circulation
A total of 10 parking spaces are proposed: five (5) spaces in front of the lot and five (5) spaces at the rear. As conditioned (Condition #17) an additional parking space will be added to the front parking lot. Two (2) bicycle parking spaces will be provided at the rear of the clinic.

Regarding applicable parking standards, Section 18.36.150(D) allows for the decisionmakers to determine parking standards if a use is not specifically listed. In a review of the facility’s operation and discussion with the applicant, staff recommends 11 spaces be required. There will only be at most 5 employees on-site at once. Given the floor plan, at full capacity, there could be up to 5-6 clients on-site at any one time. There is on-street parking adjacent to the site, which could also be used should there be a need. Given these conditions, staff is supportive of the proposed 11 spaces as they are expected to meet the clinic’s parking demand while reducing parking impacts to neighboring businesses and residences.

Table 1 - Development Standards
Development Regulation Required Projects Provides Complies? Front Setback (Mission Blvd) 15 feet (min) 42 feet Yes
Side Setback (G Street) 10 feet (min) 2.2 feet No, See
discussion below
Side Setback (west) 0 feet (min) 54 feet Yes*
Rear Setback (south) 20 feet(min) 52 feet Yes*
Height 100 feet (max) 17 feet Yes
Lot Coverage 50 percent (max) 31.65 percent Yes*
Parking
Automobile
Bicycle
11 spaces (min.)
2 spaces (min.)
11 spaces
2 spaces
Yes*
Landscaping 10 percent (min.) 17.5 percent Yes*
City Council/RSA Agenda 147 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 8 Public art
Projects with construction costs exceeding $250,000 that are subject to Site Development Review approval are required to comply with the provisions listed in Chapter 12.40, The Art in Public Places Program, of the Municipal Code which requires the provision of public art as a component of the project or payment of an in-lieu fee. The applicant is proposing to incorporate a mural on the southern elevation of the building. As conditioned, the mural shall include elements of the historic character of the Decoto Neighborhood. The design shown on the elevation is to illustrate the location of the mural. The final mural design will be reviewed by the Union City Arts and Culture Commission. Staff supports the addition of public art on the south elevation as it is on a major street and will be visible to vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic along Mission Blvd. and those entering the Decoto neighborhood via G Street. Condition #7 has been added regarding the process and timing for approval of the mural.

Figure 7 – Proposed South elevation.

Landscaping & Stormwater Treatment
The applicant is proposing to upgrade and replace the existing landscaping along Mission Blvd. and add additional landscaping along the rear of the property line along Second Street. The project will be required to submit a landscape package (Condition #19) that complies with Chapter 118.12, Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, and the City's Landscape Standards Policy Statement. Conceptual landscape details are shown on the plan set Sheet L-1. Given the constraints of the site, the proposed landscaping includes a generous mix of trees, shrubs, and groundcover that will provide an attractive streetscape along Mission Blvd., as well as the corner of G Street and Second Street, and the rear frontage along Second Street.

Utility Undergrounding
Section 12.24.055 requires additions to existing developments that increase the total floor area by fifty percent or more must underground existing overhead utilities that cross or City Council/RSA Agenda 148 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 9 abut the subject property. The project is required to underground the overhead utility “service drops” from the utility distribution pole to the building. (Condition #56) Consistency with the General Plan
The project is generally consistent with the subject property's General Plan designation of Corridor Mixed-use Commercial, which allows for various neighborhood-serving retail and service uses. This designation includes a Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) range of .25-

1.0 The site's current FAR is .25, the proposed FAR is .32 which conforms to the general plan requirement
The project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU-1.2, Promote infill and enhance Neighborhoods. The project improves and expands the existing building and related improvements onto a currently underutilized portion of the site. The project offers a welldesigned addition and landscaping which will enhance the surrounding neighborhoods.

The project also complies with General Plan Policy CD-6.2, Placement of Public Art, which encourages the placement of public art along high visibility, high traffic areas. The site is on a highly visible corner of Mission Blvd. and G Street. The south elevation is highly visible from Mission (northbound), G Street, and Second Street. Further this corner serves as an entrance to the Decoto Neighborhood. As conditioned the mural will be designed to honor the historical importance of the Decoto Neighborhood.

Additionally, the project is consistent with General Plan Policy ED-3.1, Support Local Business expansion. In upgrading and modernizing the existing site and landscaping, the project helps to support the local veterinary clinic to expand service and continue to serve the Union City Community.

D. Noticing & Communication
As required by state law, on February 3, 2022, public hearing notices were published and sent to residents and property owners within 300 feet of the site to inform them of the proposal and the hearing date, as well as posted on the site. Staff has not received any public feedback regarding the project.

E. Conclusion
The City's Development Review Committee reviewed the proposal and recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of SD-21-003, UP-21- 005, and V-21-002. Findings in the next section have been prepared to affirm the project recommendations.

City Council/RSA Agenda 149 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 10 III. REQUIRED FINDINGS
Site Development Review
Section 18.76.060 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council based on the following findings in granting Site Development Review approval. Below each finding is a discussion of how the project meets the required finding.

1. Approval of this application is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans;
The project is generally consistent with the subject property's General Plan designation of Corridor Mixed-Use Commercial, which allows for the establishment of commercial uses and mixed-use higher-density residential development that will support the commercial uses and create vibrant places for people to live, work, shop, and play. Further, the project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU-1.2, Promote infill and enhance Neighborhoods. and General Plan Policy CD-6.2, Placement of Public Art, and General Plan Policy ED-3.1, Support Local Business expansion, because it is a well-designed project that improves an existing site located along a major thoroughfare and within the city and supports the expansion of a local business.

There are no applicable specific plans.

2. Approval of this application is consistent with the purpose of Title 18 and the requirements of the CC, Community Commercial, Zoning District; and The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the purpose of Title 18, which seeks to promote and protect the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience, and the general welfare of the people; the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the applicable requirements for the CC, Community Commercial, Zoning District.

3. Approval of this application is consistent with the purpose of Site Development review as outlined in Section 18.76.010.

The project is consistent with the purpose of Site Development Review as it would result in an addition that incorporates the original building design, a new trash enclosure, and other site improvements such as upgraded landscaping and fencing, which are orderly and attractive.

Use Permit
Section 18.56.060 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council based on the following findings in granting Use City Council/RSA Agenda 150 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 11 Permit approval. Below each finding is a discussion of how the project meets the required finding.

1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the purposes of this title and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; That the proposed location of the use, as conditioned, is in accord with the purposes of Title 18 and the purposes of the CC, Community Commercial, Zoning District in which the site is located; and the purpose of Site Development Review which seeks to promote orderly, attractive and harmonious development and the stability of land values and investments and the general welfare. The use will provide expanded veterinary services to the local community, with minimal associated impacts, to meet the increased needs of the City's residents as a whole for veterinary services.

2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; The location of the use, as conditioned, is not detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to properties within the vicinity. The project will adhere to all required conditions from the City and responsible agencies pertaining to public health, safety, and welfare.

3. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plans, and will comply with each of the applicable provisions of Title 18.

The use is generally consistent with the subject property's General Plan designation of Corridor Mixed Use Commercial, which allows for the establishment of commercial uses and mixed-use higher-density residential development that will support the commercial uses and create vibrant places for people to live, work, shop, and play. Further, the project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU-1.2, Promote infill and enhance Neighborhoods. and General Plan Policy CD-6.2, Placement of Public Art, and General Plan Policy ED-3.1, Support Local Business expansion, because it is a well-designed project that improves an existing site located along a major thoroughfare and within the city and supports the expansion of a local business.

The veterinary clinic use, as conditioned, will comply with provisions of the Municipal Code including all applicable provisions of Title 18. There are no applicable specific plans.

Variance
Section 18.60.060 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Planning Commission make the following findings in granting the Variance requests:

City Council/RSA Agenda 151 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 12

1. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the purposes of the zoning title;
The strict or literal interpretation of the street side setback requirement would result in both a practical difficulty and an unnecessary physical hardship that are inconsistent with the purposes of the zoning title for the following reasons. Meeting the setback requirement would result in a structure with an internal floor plan that would be detrimental for the proposed use, based on the siting of rooms and support facilities necessary for the operation of the clinic. The existing adjacent single-family residence would be subject to increased impacts from the proposed veterinary clinic expansion, including noise and privacy. Additionally, meeting the required setback would deprive the residents of the use of a reasonably sized rear year that they have enjoyed and that is consistent with the single-family residential development patterns seen in the surrounding neighborhood.

2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties classified in the same zoning district; The property’s historic development pattern including the fact that the existing building was developed with a 2-foot street side setback consistent with the zoning at the time of development, however, this is inconsistent with current zoning requirements and property setbacks. The street side setback for this zoning district was not adopted until 1996. Other lots within the zoning district generally do not have to face these same circumstances and conditions.

3. That the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions do not result from actions of the applicant;
The exceptional circumstances discussed above do not result from the actions of the applicant.

The project site was developed in phases from at least the 1960s, and the current owners purchased the property in 2006.

4. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district;
Strict interpretation of the regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners within the CC, Community Commercial, zoning district in that the variance requests would facilitate the expansion of an existing commercial use, which owners of other properties within the same zoning district could do generally without the same exceptional circumstances.

City Council/RSA Agenda 152 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 13

5. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zoning district;
Granting the variance request will not constitute a grant of special privilege because owners of other properties within the same zoning district could build an expansion without having to take into account the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions which exist on the site.

6. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

Granting of the variance request will not have a detrimental effect on public health, safety, or welfare or be materially injurious to property owners or improvements in the vicinity because the proposed development will comply with all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of Site Development Review.

IV. ALTERNATIVES

1. Recommend approval of the Site Development Review, Use Permit and Variance as proposed;

2. Recommend approval of the Site Development Review, Use Permit, and Variance with modified conditions;

3. Recommend denial of the Site Development Review, Use Permit, and Variance with stated findings; or

4. Continue the matter for further consideration.

City Council/RSA Agenda 153 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 14 V. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

PLANNING DIVISION

1. These conditions of approval shall supersede the Conditions of Approval for UP-1-95 and SD-1-95, as listed in Attachments 1 and 2

2. All actual site improvements shall be made and maintained with strict adherence to plans marked Exhibit A, except as they may be modified by other conditions of approval.

3. The applicant/property owners shall apply for and take out all required building and fire permits prior to beginning any on-site work. Plans submitted to the Building Division and Fire Department shall demonstrate compliance with all code requirements, local ordinances and State building regulations where applicable.

4. The Site Development Review, Use Permit and Variance approvals shall expire one year from the date of City Council approval unless building permits have been issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued, or an extension is sought and approved by the Zoning Administrator per applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance.

5. The applicant/property owner shall attach an annotated copy of the approved City Council Resolution with the conditions of approval to each set of detailed construction plans and civil and working drawings submitted for plan review prior to issuance of a building permit. Notations to the plans shall be made to clearly indicate how the project complies or will comply, with the conditions of approval. Construction plans shall not be accepted without the annotated final conditions of approval included with each set of plans.

6. The applicant/property owner's failure to adhere to any conditions of approval shall be cause for revocation of the project approvals.

7. The applicant/property owner shall submit plans and details to the city for review for the design of the proposed public art. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the public art proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Arts and Culture Commission. The public art shall be installed and inspected by City’s planning staff prior to occupancy of the building. If the proposed public art does not fully meet the prescribed contribution requirements per Section 12.40.030 of the Municipal Code, the remaining portion shall be paid as an in-lieu fee prior to occupancy of the building.

8. The applicant/property owner shall pay a General Plan Cost Recovery Fee in the amount of $1.00 per $1,000.00 of construction valuation per City Council Resolution Number 3379-07.

City Council/RSA Agenda 154 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 15

9. The applicant/property owner shall obtain a business license from the City and shall maintain said license as long as it operates at this address.

10. The applicant/property owner shall be responsible for ensuring that all contractors and subcontractors have obtained a valid City of Union City business license for the duration of the project.

11. Any graffiti appearing on the site shall be removed by the applicant and/or property owner within forty-eight hours after discovery. If not removed in a timely manner, the City may, at its option, remove the graffiti and charge the applicant and/or property owner for the services performed. The applicant and/or property owner shall coordinate with neighboring property owners, as needed, to ensure adequate property maintenance.

12. The applicant/property owner shall adhere to the colors and materials shown in Exhibit A. Prior to issuance of building permits, submit brushed out paint samples from the manufacturer for review and approval by the Economic and Community Development Department. Any future amendments or changes to the approved painting schemes or material shall be submitted to the review and approval by the Economic and Community Development Department.

13. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall include a detailed fencing plan and be consistent with the plans marked Exhibit A. Chain link fencing is prohibited

14. The applicant/property owner shall provide factory processed color finishes, such as baked enamel, on all exterior metal surfaces.

15. The applicant/property owner shall screen all meters, telecommunications equipment, roof equipment and appurtenant structures from public view. A detail of such screening shall be shown on the plans submitted for the issuance of building permits.

16. All signage must comply with Chapter 18.30, Sign Regulations and is subject to review and approval by the Economic and Community Development Department.

17. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall include an additional 9ft by 18 ft parking space in the front parking lot adjacent to the northern elevation of the structure.

18. The trash enclosure shall be designed to match the main building and consistent with Section 7.04.055, Enclosures for Solid Waste, Organic Waste and Recycling Containers, of the Municipal Code. Details shall be shown on building permit plans. The trash enclosures shall be covered; be sufficient in capacity to accommodate a weekly pickup schedule, as determined by City staff; be illuminated within the interior and City Council/RSA Agenda 155 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 16 exterior to a minimum lighting level of 1.0-footcandle; and feature a motion sensor which activates lighting providing required illumination per the above. a. The trash enclosure shall consist of walls matching the material, texture and color of the building and gates of heavy gauge corrugated steel, or other material approved by the Economic and Community Development Department. A security barrier shall be added to the space between the top of wall and bottom of roof of to prevent illegal activities. The final design for the barrier is subject to the review and approval of the Economic and Community Development Department.
b. The enclosure shall not be used for any purposes other than storage of the trash bin, recycling bin, compost bin, and, if applicable, the tallow bin. All bins shall be kept within the enclosure except during servicing time.

19. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape package which shows existing landscaping upgraded to be consistent with Chapter

18.112, Water Efficient Landscape, of the Municipal Code (if applicable) and the Landscape Standards Policy Statement. The final landscape plan will be subject to review and approval by the City's consulting Landscape Architect, City Arborist, and staff. Additional fees for consultant's review and inspection are required to be paid with the building permit fees. A final inspection of the installed landscaping and irrigation shall be completed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant/property owner shall be responsible for maintaining all irrigation and landscaping and shall replace any dead or dying vegetation for the life of the project.

The landscape package shall incorporate the following comments:
a. All new trees shall be 24-inch box.
b. The applicant and/or property owner shall ensure that trees planted within 10 feet of any public paved or concrete area include a root control barrier and deep watering sleeve, the design of which shall be subject to approval by the City’s consultant Landscape Architect. Note and detail shall be included on landscape plans.
c. Any new equipment, such as back flow prevention devices, shall be adequately screened by landscaping to the extent feasible.
d. Enhanced landscaping consisting of shrubs and ground covers shall be provided at the base of any monument sign.

City Council/RSA Agenda 156 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 17

20. A certificate of deposit shall be submitted in the amount of 50% of the estimated installation cost of the landscaping, up to $10,000.00, in order to ensure installation of the planting shown on the approved landscape plan. The property owner shall enter into a private landscape maintenance contract for the maintenance of the required landscaping for a minimum period of two years after installation. The required certificate of deposit shall be submitted to the Economic and Community Development Department prior to the issuance of building permits. The project landscaping shall be completed, pursuant to the above-stated requirements, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building.

21. The applicant/property owner shall provide illuminated addressing on the forwardmost portion of the building with a minimum of six-inch high numerals and painted addressing on curbs.

22. The applicant/property owner shall be responsible for staff time spent on abating any verified code violations at the site or to ensure compliance with the Conditions of Approval once the business is in operations.

23. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall show the two (2) on-site bike parking spaces meeting the design criteria listed in Section 18.28.080 of the Municipal Code.

24. Plans submitted for building permit review shall show adequate lighting levels in the rear parking lot to the satisfaction of the Police Department and Economic and Community Development Department. Plans shall also include details regarding new lighting fixtures.

BUILDING DIVISION

25. The applicant/property owner shall maintain all public and exterior private improvements to be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

26. Any construction shall fully comply with the Building Standard Codes in effect at the time of building permit issuance.

27. The applicant/property owner shall provide detailed construction plans (working drawings) and calculations to the Building Division for plan review prior to issuance of a building permit. Plans and supporting documents shall be prepared by a statelicensed architect or engineer. Upon completion of the plan check, all applicable fees shall be paid and a building permit issued prior to commencement of any actual construction work on-site.

City Council/RSA Agenda 157 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 18

28. The applicant/property owner shall maintain the property to be free of litter, weeds, debris, etc., both before and after issuance of building permits. Daily litter and debris collection rounds shall be conducted on the site and an adequate number of trash receptacles shall be provided to minimize litter accumulation.

29. The applicant/property owner shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Ordinance 576-01 to divert recyclable debris away from landfills. The applicant and/or property owner shall submit a completed Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan with their application for a construction or demolition permit.

30. The applicant/property owner shall not locate construction debris boxes within the public right-of-way (ROW), driveways or on adjacent private properties.

FIRE DEPARTMENT

31. The project shall comply with the California Building and Fire Codes and current local ordinances in effect at the time of building permit submittal.

32. The applicant/property owner shall provide an exit analysis plan, for review prior to issuance of building permit.

33. The applicant/property owner shall provide a KNOX BOX Mode 3200 (Lock Box) with door hinge, mounted adjacent to the front door no higher than 6 feet, prior to final inspection of building permit.

34. The applicant/property owner shall pull fire and building permits for a Fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler systems for Building undergoing a change of occupancy or use, shall be designed and installed in accordance with the CFC and NFPA 13 fire Sprinkler Standard.

35. The applicant/property owner shall have the Fire Alarm system professionally monitored by a Central Monitoring Control Center

36. The applicant/property owner shall ensure access to the building under construction will not impede and/or obstruct responding personnel or workers evacuating the property.

37. The applicant/property owner shall apply for hot work permits for all welding or cutting operations.

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

38. The applicant/property owner shall secure an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for all work in the public right-of-way. The applicant shall be responsible for any repairs required adjacent to the development, including paving, City Council/RSA Agenda 158 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 19 curbs and gutters, sidewalks, and streetlights, or installation of same where not existing, as required by the City Engineer.

39. The applicant/property owner shall apply for and submit plans for a lot merger, combining lots 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Block 74, as said lots and blocks are shown upon that certain map entitled “AMENDED PLAN OF DECOTO ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA", filed December 01, 1904, Map Book 19, Page(s) 43, Alameda County Records. Excepting therefrom all those portions of lots 9 and 10, Granted to the State of California, by deed recorded January 14, 1930, in Book 2308, Page 33, Alameda County Records.

40. The applicant shall be responsible for any required repairs associated with the development, including paving, trenching, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, as determined by the City Engineer.

41. The applicant/property owner shall place a copy of the approved Public Works conditions of approval (COA) on the improvement/grading plans.

42. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for review and approval that show the existing and proposed grades on the parking lot to demonstrate how the drainage is conveyed from the private property to the public right of way. No drainage shall be allowed to enter adjacent properties. The plans shall show the location of the downspouts, any existing and proposed drainage structures, and other proposed improvements, such as trash enclosure and striping, etc.

43. The applicant shall paint the curb red for a distance of 30 ft. along G street side from the new driveway towards Second street to minimize blocking the line of sight for the vehicles exiting the new parking lot.

44. The applicant shall show the dimensions of the parking stalls (9 ft. x18 ft.) and the width of the new access aisle (26 ft. min.)

45. The applicant shall submit a signed and dated ‘Applicability of C.3 and C.6 Stormwater Requirements’ checklist demonstrating that the project meets the requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) for approval by City Staff.

46. The applicant shall ensure that the project complies with the most current requirements of the Alameda County Clean Water Program, including installing BMPs during construction, such as stabilized construction entrance, straw wattles, street sweeping to pick up mud and picking up any mud deposited in the gutters.

47. The applicant shall upgrade the existing wheelchair ramp located at the intersection of G Street and Second Street. This work may include replacing or ensuring the City Council/RSA Agenda 159 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 20 existing concrete apron adjacent to the ramp does not hold water and provides a positive drainage to the valley gutter.

48. The applicant shall upgrade the existing wheelchair ramp located at the intersection of Mission Blvd. and G Street.

49. The applicant shall ensure positive drainage along the gutter on Second Street. where the future through-the-curb drain from the property will discharge onto public right of way. This may require replacing a portion of curb and gutter that may be uplifted.

50. The applicant shall ensure that the new commercial driveway meets the City’s minimum standard of 28 ft. min. width including driveway apron.

51. The applicant shall ensure that any needed repairs are made to the existing parking lot prior to restriping the parking lot.

52. The applicant shall apply for a Grading Permit, pay a fee and post a Grading Permit Bond, which will be based upon the final estimate of the number of cubic yards of dirt estimated to be moved, including cut, fill and import, etc.

53. The applicant shall provide a structural paving section adequate to accommodate the vehicular loads, including garbage truck traffic, for the proposed parking lot.

54. The applicant shall ensure that there is sufficient lighting levels in the drive aisle and in the rear of the property.

55. The applicant shall submit a grading plan to the Public Works Department and obtain a Grading Permit prior to proceeding with any demolition and grading operations.

56. The applicant shall underground the existing overhead electrical and communication utilities across Second Street to the new building extension. No overhead lines shall remain following the completion of this project. The overhead lines to the house located on the same lot shall also be undergrounded by placing them in the same trench as the overhead lines to the clinic.

57. The applicant shall pay all Public Works Department fees such as Plan Check & Inspection fees, Grading Permit Fee (and associated bonds) and Encroachment Permit fee. Except for the Encroachment Permit fee, all other fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit.

58. The applicant shall provide a detailed breakdown of the engineer’s estimate for all on-site work including grading, storm drainage facilities, paving, sidewalk, striping and landscaping. The Plan Check & Inspection Fees will be based upon this estimate that is reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer.

City Council/RSA Agenda 160 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 21

59. The applicant shall contact the Alameda County Water District, Engineering Department, at (510) 659-1970 to determine water service and permit requirements and Union Sanitary District at (510) 477-7500 to determine sewer service and permit requirements.

60. Construction activity on-site shall comply with Section 9.40.053 of the Union City Municipal Code, and is limited to the following hours:

Monday through Friday - 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Saturday - 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (allowed only on a case-by-case basis) Sundays & Holidays - 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. (allowed only on a case-by-case basis)

61. The applicant/property owner will work with ACWD to ensure any existing monitoring wells on site are protected or removed following ACWD's standards.

62. Stormwater Post-Construction Best Management Practices a. All condensate drainage shall be routed to sanitary sewer. This shall include, but is not limited to chiller and HVAC condensate, cooling tower and boiler discharges, air compressor condensate, de-ionized water softening units, etc.

Compressors: Air or liquid lines contaminated with oil/hydrocarbons shall drain to sanitary sewer. These activities shall be clearly delineated in the plans and specifications submitted for building permits.
b. Metal roofs, including galvanized, shall be coated and/or treated to minimize runoff of metallic materials and salts. Lead and copper materials or solders shall not be used.
c. Paved outdoor storage, staging, or lay down areas shall be designed to limit the potential for storm water runoff to contact pollutants. Bulk materials stored outdoors shall be covered.
d. Landscaping shall be designed with efficient irrigation practices to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration, and to minimize the need for fertilizers and pesticides. All landscaping shall be properly maintained. e. Sidewalks, parking lots, driveways and other paved areas under private ownership/management shall be regularly swept to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. If water is used, it shall be collected, along with any debris before entering the storm drain system. Discharge of wash waters from parking lots, sidewalks, etc. to the sanitary sewer system requires the approval of the Union Sanitary District.

City Council/RSA Agenda 161 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 22 f. The property owner and/or applicant is responsible for cleaning storm drains and catch basins that are located on private property at least three times each year, once prior to the rainy season (before October 1st), once in January, and once in May.

The Public Works Department may require additional cleaning as warranted.

Maintenance and cleaning records shall be maintained at the site. g. On-site storm drain inlets shall be labeled "No Dumping - Drains to Bay" using a stencil approved by the Public Works Department.

63. Stormwater-"During Construction" Best Management Practices  The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) relating to construction site controls shall be implemented during construction activities.  These best management practices shall be shown as notes on the approved grading and building permit plan sets.
a. The applicant shall ensure compliance with all of the following best management practices by making sure that all contractors, subcontractors and suppliers are aware of all storm water pollution prevention measures and their implementation requirements.
b. The applicant shall ensure that concrete supply trucks or concrete/plaster and finishing operations discharge washout water into a designated cleanout area, designed to prevent pollutants from entering the storm water and/or sanitary sewer system.
c. Discharge restrictions shall also apply to the operation of general construction machinery including masonry cutting equipment, and the washing of tools, brushes, containers, etc. These operations shall not be performed in the street, gutter, or where pollutants can enter the storm water system. Failure to comply with the approved construction requirements will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or project stop work orders. d. The applicant shall minimize the removal of natural vegetation or ground cover from the site in order to minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation problems. All cut and fill slopes shall be stabilized as soon as possible after completion of grading. No site grading shall take place unless approved erosion control measures are in place.
e. The applicant shall install filter materials (sand bags, filter fabric, straw wattle, etc.) at the storm drain inlet nearest the downstream side of the project site prior to the start of work. Filter materials shall be maintained and/or replaced as City Council/RSA Agenda 162 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 23 necessary to ensure effectiveness and prevent street flooding. Filtered particles shall be disposed of in an appropriate manner based upon constituents. f. The applicant shall gather all construction debris on a regular basis and place in a dumpster or other container, which is emptied or removed at a minimum on a weekly basis. When appropriate, tarps shall be used on the ground to collect falling debris, paint over-spray, etc. that could contribute to storm water pollution. g. Trash enclosures and/or recycling containers, paved outdoor storage, staging, or lay down areas shall be designed and constructed to prevent pollutants from entering storm drain system.
h. The applicant/property owner shall create a contained and covered area on the site for the storage of bags of cement, paints, flammables, oils, fertilizers, pesticides or any other materials used on the project site that have the potential of becoming a pollutant and/or being discharged to the storm drain system. i. Dirt, gravel, debris and green waste shall be removed from the sidewalk, street pavement, and storm drains adjoining the project site. These areas shall be broom swept on a daily basis. Caked-on mud or dirt shall be scraped before sweeping.

During wet weather, the applicant should avoid excavation and other activities that lead to pollutants entering storm water such as driving vehicles on unpaved areas, etc.
j. Outdoor washing or pressure washing shall be managed to prevent pollutants from getting into storm water and/or into the storm drain system.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

64. The applicant/property owner shall obtain a permit from the Environmental Programs Division for the storage, use, or handling of hazardous materials. This may include carbon dioxide, refrigerant gases, propane, gasoline or diesel. To satisfy this requirement, owner or operator shall make a complete, accepted submittal to the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) within 30 days of transferring reportable quantities onto site for business operations. This requirement also is applicable for any amount of hazardous waste that will be generated at the facility.

For more information, please contact the Environmental Programs Division at [email protected] or (510) 675-5360.

65. The applicant/property owner is hereby advised that unauthorized discharge of any kind to the storm water system, which includes the streets and gutters, is prohibited, and that such discharges, whether intentional or not, are subject to penalties up to City Council/RSA Agenda 163 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 24 $20,000 per violation per day. This applies both to the construction phase and to routine facility operations.

ALAMEDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (District)

66. Each non-residential and irrigation service will require a separate dedicated fire service and may require an above-ground reduced pressure backflow prevention device. Backflow prevention devices must be located in accordance with District Standard Drawings BP-1-08 through BP-3-08. The location and screening of these above-ground devices should be considered in the site design to address both District installation standards as well as aesthetic concerns of the development. Backflows located within buildings are not acceptable.

67. The applicant/property owner shall provide the minimum clearance requirements specified by ACWD between water meters, service lines, fire hydrants or mains and the nearest utilities, buildings, and trees. Reference District Standard Drawings CL-1- 08 through CL-5-08.

68. The applicant/property owner shall contact the ACWD Engineering Department for modifications of existing water facilities. Any existing water services which will not be used in the new development must be removed by the district at the developer's expense.

VI. RECOMMENDATION
The DRC recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Development Review, SD-21-003, Use Permit, UP-21-005, and Variance, V-21-002 to the City Council, subject to conditions, making the following specific findings in support of this recommendation of approval:
a. That the project is categorically exempt under Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
b. The project is generally consistent with the subject property's General Plan designation of Corridor Mixed-Use Commercial, which allows for the establishment of commercial uses and mixed-use higher-density residential development that will support the commercial uses and create vibrant places for people to live, work, shop, and play. Further, the project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU-1.2, Promote infill and enhance Neighborhoods. and General Plan Policy CD-6.2, Placement of Public Art, and General Plan Policy ED-3.1, Support Local Business expansion, because it is a well-designed project that improves an existing site located along a major thoroughfare and within the city and supports the expansion of a local business.

There are no applicable specific plans; and
City Council/RSA Agenda 164 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 25 c. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the purpose of Title 18, which seeks to promote and protect the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience, and the general welfare of the people; the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the applicable requirements for the CC, Community Commercial, Zoning District; and
d. The project is consistent with the purpose of Site Development Review as it would result in an addition that incorporates the original building design, a new trash enclosure, and other site improvements such as upgraded landscaping and fencing, which are orderly and attractive; and
e. The location of the use, as conditioned, is in accord with the purpose of Title 18 of the Municipal Code which seeks to promote and protect the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience and the general welfare of the people; and the purpose of Site Development Review which seeks to promote orderly, attractive and harmonious development and the stability of land values and investments and the general welfare.

The use will provide expanded veterinary services to our community, with minimal associated impacts, to meet the increased needs of the City's residents as a whole for veterinarian services; and
f. The location of the use, as conditioned, is not detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to properties within the vicinity. The project will adhere to all required conditions from the City and responsible agencies pertaining to public health, safety, and welfare; and
g. The use is generally consistent with the subject property's General Plan designation of Corridor Mixed Use Commercial, which allows for the establishment of commercial uses and mixed-use higher-density residential development that will support the commercial uses and create vibrant places for people to live, work, shop, and play.

Further, the project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU-1.2, Promote infill and enhance Neighborhoods. and General Plan Policy CD-6.2, Placement of Public Art, and General Plan Policy ED-3.1, Support Local Business expansion, because it is a well-designed project that improves an existing site located along a major thoroughfare and within the city and supports the expansion of a local business. The veterinary clinic use, as conditioned, will comply with provisions of the Municipal Code including all applicable provisions of Title 18. There are no applicable specific plans; and
h. The strict or literal interpretation of the street side setback requirement would result in both a practical difficulty and an unnecessary physical hardship that are inconsistent with the purposes of the zoning title for the following reasons. Meeting the setback requirement would result in a structure with an internal floor plan that City Council/RSA Agenda 165 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 26 would be detrimental for the proposed use, based on the siting of rooms and support facilities necessary for the operation of the clinic. The existing adjacent single-family residence would be subject to increased impacts from the proposed veterinary clinic expansion, including noise and privacy. Additionally, meeting the required setback would deprive the residents of the use of a reasonably sized rear year that they have enjoyed and that is consistent with the single-family residential development patterns seen in the surrounding neighborhood; and
i. The property’s historic development pattern including the fact that the existing building was developed with a 2-foot street side setback consistent with the zoning at the time of development, however, this is inconsistent with current zoning requirements and property setbacks. The street side setback for this zoning district was not adopted until 1996. Other lots within the zoning district generally do not have to face these same circumstances and conditions; and
j. The exceptional circumstances discussed above do not result from the actions of the applicant. The project site was developed in phases from at least the 1960s, and the current owners purchased the property in 2006; and
k. Strict interpretation of the regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners within the CC, Community Commercial, zoning district in that the variance requests would facilitate the expansion of an existing commercial use, which owners of other properties within the same zoning district could do generally without the same exceptional circumstances; and l. Granting the variance request will not constitute a grant of special privilege because owners of other properties within the same zoning district could build an expansion without having to take into account the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions which exist on the site; and
m. Granting of the variance request will not have a detrimental effect on public health, safety, or welfare or be materially injurious to property owners or improvements in the vicinity because the proposed development will comply with all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of Site Development Review.

It is further recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution confirming this action.

Prepared by
Brandon H DeLucas, Associate Planner
Attachments
Exhibit A: Project Plans
City Council/RSA Agenda 166 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, February 17, 2022
SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002, 33663 Mission Blvd, Page 27 Exhibit B: Statement of Use
Exhibit C: Material and Color Board
Attachment 1: Planning Commission Resolution 5-95 approving UP-1-95 Attachment 2: Planning Commission Resolution 6-95 approving SD-1-95 Attachment 3: San Francisco Bay RWQCB Closure letter
City Council/RSA Agenda 167 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTACHMENT 2
______________________________________________________________________ STAFF REPORT Veterinary Clinic SD-21-003/UP-21-005/V-21-002 City Council/RSA Agenda 168 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, July 19, 2018
SD-18-002, 3284 Santa Susana Way, Page 29
33663 Mission Blvd February 17, 2021
City Council/RSA Agenda 169 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTACHMENT 3
Desk Item
DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2022
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CARMELA CAMPBELL, ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SD-21-003), USE PERMIT (UP-21- 005) AND VARIANCE (V-21-002)
Staff received questions/comments from Commissioner Lew regarding the project. The following are the questions received and staff’s responses (in red italics) Commissioner Lew Comments

1. Staff report, page 3, the 2nd para. refers to the condition to merge “the four underlying lots.” Is there a drawing that shows the four existing lots? Will the merged lot consist of one parcel or two (one parcel for the exiting home and the other for the veterinary clinic)? Is there a drawing showing the merged lots? Will the new fence between the single-family home and the veterinary business be on the property line?
An accessor’s parcel map showing the four underlying lots has been attached to this Desk Item. All four lots will be merged into one single lot. The resulting single lot be as shown on the site plan on sheet A-2. The fence between the single-family home and veterinary business will not be on a property line.

2. Staff report, page 7, the section titled “Parking and Circulation” refers to two bicycle parking spaces to be provided. There is no condition of approval for bicycle parking. Is one needed or do Condition #2 and Exhibit A preclude the need for a separate condition?
In response to the comment, the following condition of approval is proposed “Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall show the two (2) on-site bike parking spaces meeting the design criteria listed in Section 18.28.080 of the Municipal Code.”

3. Staff report, page 9, 2nd line refers to “Condition #53.” The reference should be “Condition #54.”
Noted. The change will be reflected in the updated staff report attached to the City Council staff report.

City Council/RSA Agenda 170 Tuesday, March 22, 2022

4. Staff report, page 9, the 4th para. under “Consistency with the General Plan” is a run-on sentence. I recommend revising this paragraph for clarity and use of proper grammar and punctuation.

Noted. The paragraph will be revised to state “Additionally, the project is consistent with General Plan Policy ED-3.1, Support Local Business expansion. In upgrading and modernizing the existing site and landscaping, the project helps to support the local veterinary clinic to expand service and continue to serve the Union City Community.” The change will be reflected in the staff report version attached to the City Council staff report.

5. Staff report, page 11, I recommend revising #1 so it refers to Title 18 and the CC, Community Commercial Zoning District for clarity. For example: “That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the purposes of Title 18 and the purposes of the CC, Community Commercial Zoning District in which the site is located.”
Use permit Finding #1 has been revised to state “That the proposed location of the use, as conditioned, is in accord with the purposes of Title 18 and the purposes of the CC, Community Commercial, Zoning District in which the site is located; and the purpose of Site Development Review which seeks to promote orderly, attractive and harmonious development and the stability of land values and investments and the general welfare. The use will provide expanded veterinary services to the local community, with minimal associated impacts, to meet the increased needs of the City's residents as a whole for veterinary services.”

6. Staff report, page 14, Condition #7 requires public art be installed and inspected prior to building occupancy. Will the business continue to operate or shut down during construction? Please ensure this condition accurately reflects whether the business can remain open or must shut down until the public art is installed and inspected.

The applicant indicated that they would remain open as feasible during construction; however, they may need to close temporarily while some of the internal improvements are made. Regarding the timing of the Public Art installation, provided all of the health and safety related Building Code issues are addressed, the business can obtain a “temporary certificate of occupancy” which would allow them to operate while the mural is installed.

7. Staff report, page 14, Condition #8 refers to a fee of $1.00 per $1,000 of building valuation. Does “building” refer to the new addition or both the existing building and the new addition? Please clarify.

The condition only applies to new construction. To address the feedback, Condition 8 has been revised to reference the term “construction valuation”, which is the total cost of the new construction (including labor and materials) associated with the building permit. See below for proposed, updated wording for Condition 8.

City Council/RSA Agenda 171 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
“The applicant/property owner shall pay a General Plan Cost Recovery Fee in the amount of $1.00 per $1,000.00 of construction valuation per City Council Resolution Number 3379-

07.”

8. Staff report, page 16, Condition #18b, 1st line – I recommend deleting “to” after “used.”
Noted. The change will be reflected in the updated staff report attached to the City Council staff report.

9. Staff report, page 19, Condition #41 requires 30 feet of curb be painted red. How many on-street parking spaces will be removed under this condition? Please clarify.

Given the location of the intersection of Second street and G street, and the proposed new driveway cut only one on street space will be removed by this condition.

10. The Planning Commission Resolution Number 5-95 refers to the address of the business as “33659-33663 Mission Blvd.” which differs from the address for the current project. When was 33659 Mission Blvd. removed from the business address? Please clarify.
33659 Mission Blvd is the address for the single-family residence located on the same site.

Since this approval is focused on the business located at 33663 Mission Blvd, the other address was not included.

11. Will the storage sheds shown in Picture #13 on Sheet A-1A remain or be removed under this project? Please clarify.

The storage sheds will be removed as part of the project. Sheet A-2, 2 Existing Site Plan, notes their removal.

City Council/RSA Agenda 172 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 February 17, 2022

CITY OF UNION CITY

DRAFT MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2022, 7:00 P.M.

HELD VIA TELECONFERENCE

1. ROLL CALL: Chairperson Harpal Mann; Vice Chair Lee Guio; Commissioner JoAnn Lew;
Commissioner Scott Sakakihara
Commissioner Kevin Finnerty
STAFF: Carmela Campbell (Economic & Community Development Director); Alex Mog (Attorney); Derek Farmer (Planning Manager); Denisse Anzoategui (Moderator); Brandon DeLucas (Associate Planner); Tommy Cho (Principal Civil Engineer)

2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS:

The Commission elected Harpal Mann to serve as Chairperson and Lee Guio as Vice Chair to the Planning Commission.

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

The regular Planning Commission Meeting minutes of February 17, 2022 were approved as submitted.

4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.

5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

A. CONTINUED HEARINGS: None.

B. NEW HEARINGS:

1. VETERINARY MEDICAL CENTER, 33663 MISSION BOULEVARD (APN:
486-6-33), SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SD-21-003), USE PERMIT (UP21-005) AND VARIANCE (V-21-002) The applicant, Dr. Surat Gill is seeking approvals for 1) Use Permit (UP-21-005) to modify UP-95-1 allowing a veterinary clinic, 2) Site Development Review (SD-21-003), for the construction of a proposed 946 square foot addition to the existing veterinary clinic; and 3) Variance request (V-21-002) to reduce the street side setback requirement for the addition from approximately ten (10) feet to two (2) feet.

The proposed addition would result in a total building size of approximately 2,472 square feet. The project is located at 33663 Mission Boulevard (APN 486-6-33), within the CC (Community Commercial) Zoning District. CEQA Determination: Staff is recommending that this project be considered categorically exempt per Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

City Council/RSA Agenda 173 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 February 17, 2022
Brandon H DeLucas, Associate Planner presented the staff report. Mr. DeLucas also discussed questions submitted by Commissioner Lew prior to the meeting (Attachment 1: Desk Item) Commissioner Guio stated that he was concerned whether there would be a noise issue with animals staying overnight but noted that based upon the presentation they would only be there if necessary. Commissioner Guio asked if the City had been made aware of any noise complaints from the animals at that location overnight.

Mr. DeLucas replied that staff has not been aware of noise issues coming from that site.

Commissioner Guio asked if there would be a new lighting plan. Commissioner Guio asked how they could assure that the back area was well lit for people who would be dropping off their pets in the evening.

Mr. DeLucas replied that the applicant would be providing some lighting in the rear parking lot, but staff did not condition for a lighting plan.

Carmela Campbell, Economic & Community Development Director stated that staff could find some standard language and include it as a Conditions of Approval.

Commissioner Guio replied that it would be a good idea. Commissioner Guio asked where the new driveway would be located because he assumed it would be towards the rear left.

Mr. DeLucas replied yes and stated that there is a very small driveway gate currently on that site, but it will be expanded to meet the current standards and will be further down on the left side of the property closest to 2
nd Street.

Commissioner Guio asked if the two-foot setback was on G Street and asked if the 10-foot setback would be from the edge of the sidewalk.

Mr. DeLucas replied that the edge of the sidewalk is not the property line and that it tends to start a foot or two behind that. Mr. DeLucas added that it’s three feet from the back of the sidewalk to the building.

Commissioner Guio referred to Condition #33 and asked if the City had any requirements for the type of monitoring company that is used or if it could be any monitoring company that is used for 24-hour monitoring.

Mr. DeLucas replied that any professional fire alarm system monitoring company could monitor the facility. Mr. DeLucas added that it is a requirement from the Fire Department.

Commissioner Guio noted that in the new drawings the windows look very new and improved and asked if they would be replaced. Commissioner Guio asked if the whole building would be repainted as well.

Mr. DeLucas replied that the building will be repainted to keep consistent coloring but believed that the front windows would not be replaced as part of the application.

City Council/RSA Agenda 174 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 February 17, 2022
Commissioner Guio asked if there has been any history of parking issues in the past.

Mr. DeLucas replied that staff was not aware of any issues or complaints of parking issues on the site. Mr. DeLucas added that they had the parking that was required by the Planning Commission at the time of the original approval.

Commissioner Guio asked if staff could further explain the APN versus lot merger and how they got by with four lots and two properties for so long. Commissioner Guio asked how they would clean it up and make them all one.

Mr. DeLucas identified the location of the original lots of Decoto in the presentation. Mr.

DeLucas explained that property owners could merge the APNs so that they have one tax bill instead of the four. Mr. DeLucas further explained that the current property owner owns all the underlying lots for the APN. Mr. DeLucas added that in 1995 staff was likely not aware that there were underlying lots when the Use Permit went through. Mr. DeLucas noted that the documents included in the 1995 staff show this property as a single lot.

Commissioner Sakakihara referred to a slide in the presentation and asked to see the proposed site plan from the top-down view. Commissioner Sakakihara thanked staff for the page explaining the variance as he thought it was very useful. Commissioner Sakakihara asked if the residence was also owned by the same owner as the clinic.

Mr. DeLucas replied that they are owned by the same property owner.

Commissioner Sakakihara asked if the new variance was not approved then the new fence that would divide the parking lot from the backyard of the residence, then the line could potentially be moved up.

Mr. DeLucas replied that the proposed addition would have to move 10 feet up and the addition would be jetting into the rear yard area of the residence.

Commissioner Sakakihara asked if the unpermitted conversion would be removed or would there be something else proposed.

Mr. DeLucas replied that they are legalizing an enclosure and identified it previously as the original trash enclosure that was at some point closed in and incorporated into the building without permits. Mr. DeLucas added that they are legalizing that conversion and the plans were just identifying it as the existing unpermitted conversion.

Commissioner Finnerty referred to Condition 18, Section B, and asked if the tallow bin would be secured in such a way or have a condition that they would be able to mitigate odors or insects.

Mr. DeLucas replied that they will not be using a tallow bin and the section referenced is one of the City’s standard Conditions of Approval covering all trash enclosures, including those for food uses. Mr. DeLucas added that they would just need the trash, recycling, and compost bin. Mr.

DeLucas added that they could add language to the standard Conditions of Approval moving forward if the Planning Commission desired.

City Council/RSA Agenda 175 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4 February 17, 2022
Mr. Finnerty replied that he was thinking in terms of the disposition of deceased animals. Mr.

Finnerty noted that he had previously lived close to a tallow company and was just concerned about the odor. Mr. Finnerty noted that if staff didn’t think it was a problem, then they wouldn’t need to move forward with anything else.

Mr. DeLucas suggested asking for clarification from the applicant regarding the disposal of deceased animals. Mr. DeLucas added that they could hopefully provide clarification and if needed, staff could add a condition to address those issues.

Commissioner Finnerty replied that that it was worth asking for the neighbors that live close to the facility that could end up having some issues. Commissioner Finnerty referred to Condition of Approval #41 that speaks to the curb being painted red for a distance of 30 feet and asked to clarify if it would be on Mission Boulevard or Second Street.

Mr. DeLucas replied that it will be in the direction of 2nd Street. Mr. DeLucas added that it would be from the new driveway cut to the corner of 2nd Street and G Street.

Commissioner Finnerty asked if there would be an interest in providing some clarification or if the way it is phrased is understood by the applicant.

Mr. DeLucas confirmed that the condition has been discussed with the applicant and they understand, and that he believed it was shown on the plans. Mr. DeLucas added that if further clarification was needed then they could amend the condition.

Commissioner Finnerty replied that he couldn’t make out where it was placed on the plan itself.

Mr. DeLucas referred to the Preliminary Grading Drainage & Utility Plan on page C-2.0 Ms. Campbell read the Condition #41: “The applicant shall paint the curb red for a distance of 30 ft. on the left-hand side from the new driveway to minimize blocking the line of sight for the vehicles exiting the new parking lot”.

Ms. Campbell asked Mr. Finnerty if he needed clarification on the orientation.

Commissioner Finnerty confirmed and stated that he believed it is just relative but asked if there is a standard in the development of the plans.

Ms. Campbell replied that it depends on the situation and asked if Mr. Cho had any feedback.

Tommy Cho, Principal Civil Engineer, stated that the condition mostly applies to the left-hand side of the driveway as it’s related to the site distance issue from the traffic down 2nd Street. Mr.

Cho noted that he did not see any plan showing the condition referenced.

Ms. Campbell asked Mr. DeLucas if he identified the mentioned curb.

Mr. DeLucas noted that he could not locate it in the plan set but proposed modified language and asked the Commission if they would be in support of the change. Mr. DeLucas read the City Council/RSA Agenda 176 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 February 17, 2022
modification as, “The applicant shall paint the curb red for a distance of 30 feet from the new driveway along G Street towards 2nd Street to minimize blocking of the line of site for vehicles exiting the new parking lot.

Ms. Campbell asked Mr. Cho if he was comfortable with that change.

Mr. Cho replied yes.

Commissioner Finnerty stated that those were the only questions he had for staff that evening.

Commissioner Lew thanked Mr. DeLucas for answering the questions in the Desk Item.

Commissioner Lew asked staff to further clarify two questions. Commissioner Lew noted that the response to Condition #7 further complicated the question. Commissioner Lew added that Condition #7 does not reflect what’s anticipated to be the actual situation with the applicant that the business will probably remain open as much as possible.

Mr. DeLucas replied that when it comes to occupancy, there is an occupancy for construction, while they still may operate in the front. Mr. DeLucas added that it occurs once construction is finished and all issues are satisfied, they get their occupancy and it’s their final to close out the building permit. Mr. DeLucas added that if life and safety issues are fully addressed, they can get a temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO), which would allow them to occupy the building and start operations, but they wouldn’t get their final approval, and everything signed off until everything was done, and final occupancy issued.

Commissioner Lew replied that it should be listed in Condition #7, if they will be allowed to use it on a temporary basis.

Ms. Campbell replied that it is something that is available to them. Ms. Campbell stated that it will depend on if they can get through all the requirements of the Building Code. Ms. Campbell added that it is a temporary certificate of occupancy, and they don’t want to make any assumptions of whether they will choose to use them. Ms. Campbell explained that the applicant would be working with the Building Department on that process and that is why Planning staff chose to keep the condition simple and provide an opportunity but not necessarily get into the details of how exactly to do that.

Commissioner Lew replied that she was bothered about Condition #7 that they could not occupy the new space until they installed the public art. Commissioner Lew noted that the public art is on the exterior and when they run a business, it’s on the interior. Commissioner Lew stated that she was not sure why the occupancy of the new addition is tied to providing the public art.

Mr. Mog stated that once the City allows for occupancy, it becomes very difficult to enforce a condition like this. Mr. Mog added that if they never install the art, then the City’s method for enforcing is a revocation process which is long and difficult. Mr. Mog also added that this condition gives the City a point in time to ensure the actions have been taken.

Mr. Campbell stated that this is a common practice. Ms. Campbell recalled the project at 4600 Horner Street, that was reviewed at the last meeting, had a few items that needed to be met or the City would hold occupancy.

City Council/RSA Agenda 177 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6 February 17, 2022
Commissioner Lew asked if they would allow temporary occupancy until the public art is installed.

Ms. Campbell replied yes and added that they will be able to operate as long as they address all life safety issues similarly to how they would if they had a certificate of occupancy. Ms.

Campbell added that the certificate of occupancy really provides the City, building owner, and the insurance companies assurance that the permits have been closed.

Commissioner Lew acknowledged that the discussion would be detailed in the Minutes.

Commissioner Lew noted a spelling correction in Condition #7, specifically that “reminding” should be changed to “remaining.”
Mr. DeLucas assured Commissioner Lew that it would be corrected prior to going before the City Council.

Commissioner Lew noted a typo in the Desk Item.

Mr. DeLucas replied that he will address the typo and make sure it was corrected for the record.

Chairperson Mann asked if there was a signage plan for the building.

Mr. DeLucas replied that they currently have an existing sign on the front face of the building and a monument sign along the front of the property. Mr. DeLucas added that they were established when the vet clinic went into place originally, and they have not indicated to staff that they were planning on modifying any of their signage.

Chairperson Mann asked if they would be bringing the signage to match the neighborhood or paint.

Mr. DeLucas replied that they would not be modifying their existing signage.

Chairperson Mann asked if they would have security cameras installed in their parking lot.

Mr. DeLucas referred to the applicant but explained that when he visited the site earlier that week, they had cameras.

Chairperson Mann requested an explanation of ingress or egress of traffic flow into the facility and what the impact of traffic, especially safety, as they’re coming from Mission Boulevard.

Mr. DeLucas noted that Mission southbound drivers would only be able to make a right-hand turn onto G Street, and those leaving G Street would only be able to make the right-hand turn down to south Mission. Mr. DeLucas noted that the driveway in the front and the driveway in the rear have full access and would allow left and rights onto G Street, and 2 nd Street would have no
access onto Mission Boulevard.

Chairperson Mann asked if there would be no access to Mission Boulevard.

Mr. DeLucas confirmed that there would be no direct access to Mission Boulevard.

City Council/RSA Agenda 178 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7 February 17, 2022
Chairperson Mann opened the public hearing.

Dr. Vikraj Gill, Veterinary Medical Center, 33663 Mission Boulevard, introduced himself and his father, Dr. Surat Gill, who were in attendance that evening.

Chairperson Mann invited Dr. V. Gill and Dr. S. Gill to make a statement if they would like and also asked the Commission to ask questions that evening.

Dr. S. Gill explained that he has been in the facility since 1997 and has a well-known and established practice where they provide the best services. Dr. S. Gill added that he wants to improve and extend even better services.

Dr. V. Gill replied to an earlier question and stated that they have security cameras on the property that are managed by ADT.

Chairperson Mann asked the Commission if they had questions for Dr. V. Gill.

Commissioner Lew asked if there were plans to add a sign at the rear parking lot near the addition. Commissioner Lew also asked if there was another entrance to the building from the parking lot.

Dr. S. Gill confirmed that there will be a rear entrance into the building from the parking lot. Dr.

V. Gill asked for clarification of the sign.

Commissioner Lew replied that she was asking for a sign for the business at the top of the building, near the roof.

Dr. V. Gill replied no and that they would keep to the existing signage at the front of the building.

Commissioner Lew stated that if someone looking at their building from 2nd Street would they know it is the veterinary clinic without going to the front of the building.

Dr. V. Gill replied that they have been there for about 25 years and a lot of the neighborhood has been their clients. Dr. V. Gill added that the Decoto neighborhood knows that they are a veterinary practice. Dr. V. Gill added that if the City advised them to add a sign in the rear, they would add it on.

Commissioner Lew replied that they could save money by not paying for a sign that they don’t think they need. Commissioner Lew asked where employees would be parking.

Dr. V. Gill replied that they would be able to park in the front or back but would prefer their employees to park further in the parking lot to allow clients to get in and out of the parking lot fairly easily.

Commissioner Lew asked if they would have assigned parking.

Dr. V. Gill replied yes.

City Council/RSA Agenda 179 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8 February 17, 2022
Commissioner Lew replied that employees could park in either parking lot but will probably assign parking spots for employees and leave the best spots for clients.

Dr. V. Gill replied that the goal would be to leave the most convenient parking spots for the clients.

Commissioner Lew thanked Dr. V. Gill for answering her questions that evening.

Commissioner Guio and Commissioner Sakakihara confirmed they had no further questions.

Mr. DeLucas mentioned the question the Commission had earlier regarding the handling of deceased animals.

Dr. V. Gill clarified that deceased animals are kept in a freezer and that they have a 3rd party aftercare company that comes by once a week and collects the bodies, then they do cremations at their own facility. Dr. V. Gill added that in the event of a private cremation that pet will come back to the clinic in an urn for the collection from the client. Dr. V. Gill assured the Commission that they would not have any open-air disposal or trash disposal where there would be any issues of insects or odors released into the environment. Dr. V. Gill added that they currently have one freezer and looked to possibly add a second, so they don’t have any concerns of the deceased animals.

Commissioner Finnerty thanked Dr. V. Gill for responding to his questions and stated that he was satisfied with the response. Commissioner Finnerty confirmed that he did not believe they would require any further action such as changing the conditions in regard to the trash enclosure.

Chairperson Mann commended both Dr. Gills for serving Union City for over 20 years.

Chairperson Mann noted that the vet clinic was in a very convenient location and that it would be a very welcome upgrade in the neighborhood. Chairperson Mann stated that he liked the idea of having art on G Street as a gateway to the Decoto neighborhood. Chairperson Mann thanked Dr. V. Gill for expanding the practice and being there today and wished them all the best.

Dr. V. Gill thanked Chairperson Mann and replied that they are obliged and happy to be part of the community.

Chairperson Mann asked if there was anyone from the public wishing to speak that evening.

Denisse Anzoategui, Administrative Assistant confirmed there was someone with their hand raised.

Kim Flores, 2133 Eric Court, Union City, introduced herself and stated that she has been a client at Veterinary Medical Center for almost 18 years. Ms. Flores stated that her dogs are very important to her and has been going to Veterinary Medical Center because she trusts both Dr.

Gills with their lives. Ms. Flores added that she was in support of their request for expansion and believed it would benefit the community. Ms. Flores also added that the City would also benefit.

Ms. Flores stated that she hoped the Commission would recommend granting their approval and looked forward to seeing some construction and eventually seeing the completed work. Ms.

City Council/RSA Agenda 180 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9 February 17, 2022
Flores thanked the Commission for taking a moment to hear her as she showed her support to Dr. Gills.

Chairperson Mann closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Lew asked to hear the list of modified conditions.

Mr. DeLucas noted the following modified conditions:
 Condition #7 was revised to fix the grammar issue.
 Condition #8 was revised to refer to “construction valuation” instead of “building valuation”.
 Condition #41 was revised to state, "The applicant shall paint the curb red for a distance of 30 ft. from the new driveway along G Street towards 2 nd Street to minimize blocking the
line of sight for the vehicles exiting the new parking lot”.

Commissioner Lew asked for a condition regarding the lighting in the rear parking lot.

Ms. Campbell suggested the following language for the new condition, “Plans submitted for building permit review shall show adequate lighting levels in the rear parking lot to the satisfaction of the Police Department and Economic and Community Development Department.

Plans shall also include details regarding new lighting fixtures”.

Commissioner Lew asked if it would be a new number condition or if it would be part of an existing one.

Ms. Campbell stated that it would be added to the end of the Planning comments and then the remainder would be renumbered.

Chairperson Mann asked if the Commissioners wished to further discuss the project or if everyone was aligned.

Commissioner Lew replied that she was in favor of the project and stated that it would be a very nice building when it’s done.

Commissioner Guio, Commissioner Sakakihara, and Commissioner Finnerty had no further comments.

Commissioner Lew moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Site Development Review (SD-21-003), Use Permit (UP-21-005), and Variance (V21-002), subject to the modified conditions and findings in the staff report and adopt a resolution confirming the action.

Commissioner Finnerty seconded.

The motion was carried by the following roll call vote:

City Council/RSA Agenda 181 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10 February 17, 2022
AYES: (MANN, GUIO, LEW, SAKAKIHARA, FINNERTY)
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT:

The motion passes 5-0.

2. WINDFLOWER PROPERTIES, 11TH STREET (APN: 087-340-002), DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA-22-001) The applicant, Windflower Properties, LLC, is seeking approval of a Development Agreement for the Windflower – Block 2 project, for the purpose of extending project approvals that were approved by the City Council on November 14, 2017. The project includes the development of four hundred and forty-three (443) units located on 11th Street (APN: 087-340-002) in the CSMU (Station Mixed-Use Commercial) Zoning District. CEQA Determination: The project is within the scope of the Station District Mixed-Use Development Project EIR (certified in November 2010 by City Council Resolution No. 4072-10) and the 2040 Union City General Plan Update EIR (certified on December 10, 2019, by City Council Resolution No. 5548-19). Approval of the Development Agreement is within the scope of the previously certified CEQA documents.

Alex Mog, Deputy City Attorney and Carmela Campbell, Economic & Community Development Director presented the staff report.

Commissioner Lew asked if other options, besides extending the Development Agreement, had been considered.

Mr. Mog replied that they would no longer have the option to extend the permits any further as it is not in the Code. Mr. Mog noted that another option was to amend the existing permits which by doing so would extend the entitlements of the Use Permit and the Site Development Review, but the project applicant did not have those plans finalized yet. Mr. Mog added that another option would be to let the permits expire and obtain new permits but that is a big expense and time consuming to go back through the whole process. Mr. Mog explained that the project is going to stay very similar.

Commissioner Lew stated that it sounds like the City is not looking at other developers to develop the site.

Mr. Mog replied no, and that under the DDA, the developer has the right to the property until December 31, 2024. Mr. Mog added that the City could not look for other developers or anything like that until the agreement has expired.

Commissioner Lew asked what the likelihood would be that they break ground before December 31, 2024.

City Council/RSA Agenda 182 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11 February 17, 2022
Mr. Mog referred the question to the applicant.

Commissioner Lew stated that it was only two or two and three-quarters years away.

Commissioner Lew stated she was concerned as it was not a lot of time and considering the conditions of the construction industry, lack of labor, cost of materials, and having the Development Agreement, it sounds like costs are an obstacle to breaking ground.

Mr. Mog replied that they have faced difficulties and the applicant would be better suited to discuss some of the obstacles. Mr. Mog added that COVID certainly played a part.

Commissioner Lew stated that she thought the Development Agreement was excellent and some of the best reading she’s had in a long time since before the pandemic.

Commissioner Finnerty stated that he had no questions and thought it was a well-prepared document and added that the request was clear.

Commissioner Sakakihara stated that he did not have any questions.

Commissioner Guio asked if there was any financial involvement including the cost of construction that was the cause of extending the Development Agreement.

Mr. Mog replied that the City is not a partner in the construction of the project and has no obligations. Mr. Mog stated that all the Agreement does is extend their existing approvals. Mr.

Mog added that if the Commission decided not to act and the approvals expired then the developer would still have the right until 2024 to the property and could submit a brand-new application. Mr. Mog also added that if they were to start construction on a brand-new application, they would be able to purchase the property. Mr. Mog stated that there are no new obligations, or any financial terms included in the Development Agreement other than the standard language of the fees they will pay when pulling their building permits.

Commissioner Guio thanked Mr. Mog and noted that the applicant wants to proceed but there are changes in construction costs and could indicate to him that there could be potential changes to the design.

Chairperson Mann asked if the update would extend the permits until 2024.

Mr. Mog replied yes.

Chairperson Mann noted that the project was approved in 2017. Chairperson Mann also noted that the City has a housing shortage and there is no land available today for anyone to build, and that it is prime land in the middle of the City that someone else in that time could have constructed something. Chairperson Mann asked if there is good faith from the applicant that they are going to do it in the next two years even after they showed no updates during the past five.

Mr. Mog replied that the applicant could speak to the challenges they faced in the last few years but recalled delays due to COVID that caused a shutdown for a period of time and the high costs of construction. Mr. Mog recalled MidPen’s affordable housing project which had design City Council/RSA Agenda 183 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12 February 17, 2022
changes that were necessary for that project due to the substantial increase in costs that had to be considered by the City.

Chairperson Mann replied that he understands that the City has no recourse until 2024 but repeated that Union City does not have the land and taxpayers need housing today.

Chairperson Mann stated that it seemed like a bad deal. Chairperson Mann added that he was not against extending the approval but recommended there be some milestones and there must be a plan. Chairperson Mann stated that construction costs would continue to go up.

Chairperson Mann noted that the applicant already has a block in the Station District and asked if they were trying to recover their costs from that project and whether they had the funding to start the next project. Chairperson Mann asked if they had funding in the plan and if the City had done any due diligence.

Mr. Mog replied that this agreement is separate from the agreement as to the selling of the property. Mr. Mog added that those are issues that the City might consider when selling the property and that a decision was made by the City Council previously and locked in until 2024.

Mr. Mog added that the City was very firm in negotiating that the Development Agreement would not extend past the 2024 date. Mr. Mog asked Ms. Campbell if she wanted to add anything.

Ms. Campbell stated that Mr. Mog had summarized it well and repeated that the DDA did not contain language regarding an extension.

Mr. Mog added that if the permits are not extended it would still leave the property locked until 2024. Mr. Mog asked that if the project would become more or less likely if they had to start with the proposals and the permitting all over again.

Chairperson Mann noted that the Planning Commission is bound by the other agreement.

Chairperson Mann stated that there are a lot of developers out there interested in this site but would not comment further on that. Chairperson Mann applauded Mr. Mog’s drafting of the extension and stated that he had no further questions.

Commissioner Finnerty asked what date the extended Development Agreement would be extended to and asked if that meant five years from the date of the approval.

Mr. Mog replied that it is a great question and that the Development Agreement has a term of five years total, but the Development Agreement requires a building permit for the project and construction to begin by December 31, 2024. Mr. Mog added that some items like public art may not be finalized by then but the term extends a little after to allow those issues to be resolved and to make sure that all parties are bound by the agreement.

Commissioner Finnerty asked if it was decided to move forward with the recommendation and nothing is done by December 31, 2024, would the disposition of the property return to the City.

Mr. Mog replied that if the permits expired and if nothing happens by that date then the City could terminate the DDA agreement. Mr. Mog added that the City would have to decide how to move forward with that property and follow laws for disposing of the property.

City Council/RSA Agenda 184 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 13 February 17, 2022
Commissioner Finnerty asked that if the DDA is terminated on December 31, 2024, it would seem reasonable that the recommendation would also terminate at that time.

Mr. Mog clarified that the agreement would be signed by the City Council and should not be considered a recommendation. Mr. Mog added that if the permits are not executed by January 1, 2025, then the Development Agreement will expire.

Commissioner Finnerty asked if the Development Agreement was in place for five years, and the disposition doesn’t occur at that time then they may have the design in place to build but nothing to build on.

Mr. Mog replied yes.

Commissioner Finnerty asked if there would be any obligation for the City to renegotiate with them for a new agreement if it expired.

Mr. Mog replied no, there wouldn’t be. Mr. Mog added that there is explicit language in the DA that is being considered that evening that does not create any obligation for the City to renegotiate or change any deadlines in the DDA.

Commissioner Finnerty reaffirmed that they will have the right to build upon that property until December 31, 2024, but that there are conditions they have to meet. Commissioner Finnerty added that they choose not to extend the Development Agreement, it will not change their ability to build it all, it would only require them to do is go back and reapply.

Mr. Mog replied yes.

Commissioner Finnerty asked if it would just delay them to coming into the property to start development along with other external conditions.

Mr. Mog replied that having to reapply for permits would cause delay for them and for staff to have to review the proposed modifications. Ms. Campbell followed up on feedback provided by Mr. Mog and added that the City sees the Development Agreement as an opportunity for the applicant to be able to pull the permits. Ms. Campbell added that there’s been a lot of work done on both sides to get to this point and staff is hopeful that the project will be constructed as there is a need for the units within the Station District area.

Chairperson Mann replied that he believes that the City is doing everything possible and bending backwards. Chairperson Mann asked if they could have the DA also expire on the same date. Chairperson Mann asked if there is any liability to the City in which the applicant could block the City from selling the property to any other interested parties.

Mr. Mog replied that the agreement is clear and there is no expectation that the DDA will be extended and that the parties acknowledge that date and that this isn’t intended that the Development Agreement is not intended to change that deadline for the disposition of the property.

Chairperson Mann opened the public comment.

City Council/RSA Agenda 185 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 14 February 17, 2022
Fei Tsen, Windflower Properties, 666 Post Street, San Francisco, CA 94109, introduced herself to the Commission and stated that she looked forward to the time when we can meet in person with the Commissioners that she has not met yet. Ms. Tsen stated that she has worked with Union City and staff for almost a decade now through many ups and downs, overcoming difficulties including the aftermath of the financial crisis in 2008, the abolition of the Redevelopment Agency, and now the pandemic and through it all, they have persevered. Ms.

Tsen stated that Union Flats has been a great success and during the pandemic even though the rents dropped, they were able to keep a remarkable 95% occupancy in that development showing how desirable it is. Ms. Tsen stated that it is a project that they are extremely proud of, and it has won awards and has received recognition for its density next to transit, specifically for its sustainability. Ms. Tsen added that Windflower went beyond the call of doing the gold project, which the City wanted, and we received the platinum recognition and did it with innovative technology. Ms. Tsen stated that they were the largest modular builder and Windflower 1 was the largest modular project in the Bay Area. Ms. Tsen added that they have certainly proved that they can build a project and have raised the standard of design for the Station District. Ms. Tsen reminded the Commission that during the first project they experienced a time of high economic crisis and there were no developers when the City made a call for developers. Ms. Tsen noted that they were the only ones who were brave enough to come in and invest in that project and invest in the Station District. Ms. Tsen added that they helped the City obtain the State funding that was necessary to assist building the parking garage. Ms. Tsen also added that they assisted the City in securing funds for the pedestrian crossing and the BART improvements which will link the Station District to the Bart station. Ms. Tsen stated that this has been an unprecedented time, and it is an extraordinarily difficult time to build multifamily rental housing.

Ms. Tsen noted that the San Francisco Bay Area had the highest construction cost and when the pandemic hit, they hoped that there would be a drop in Bay Area construction costs. Ms.

Tsen noted that what stopped during the pandemic was debt financing and equity investment for multifamily housing. Ms. Tsen noted that while there still a material supply disruption and lack of skilled labor and no fall in the prices that they believe an are optimistic that they can make the project work. Ms. Tsen stated that they have already invested a tremendous amount of capital and time in architects, engineering, design studies soil studies, all that is necessarily done during the predevelopment phase of a project. Ms. Tsen added that what they’re doing now is looking for ways in which they can make their design more efficient. Ms. Tsen added that they would be returning to the Planning Commission and the City Council when they are ready with the design changes. Ms. Tsen added that during the first project in Union City on Block 3 they had the benefit of almost 20 million in State grants, which helped secure the funding for the garage and the pedestrian crossing but Block 2 had no public subsidies and no financial assistance. Ms. Tsen stated that there are no programs that can help with the project income with no subsidy as opposed to low income, which can get a subsidy. Ms. Tsen added that it is not luxury income at the very top of the market which you can get in places like San Francisco but building middle-income housing that is for the workforce and it is attractive, dense housing as it should be next to the next to the Bart station. Ms. Tsen stated that the Development Agreement would help them continue to work in designing and financing the project as it is a very complex project that has required tremendous investment of capital and time to carry the project during the pre-development phase. Ms. Tsen stated that she believed this will be the largest single development in Union City, if not in the East Bay and they are committed to finishing what they have started in the Station District. Ms. Tsen agreed with Chairperson Mann that the Bay Area has a housing shortage. Ms. Tsen explained the reason for the housing shortage even though there may be land available are the difficulties of high construction costs and putting together the financing for these types of projects makes it very difficult without some City Council/RSA Agenda 186 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 15 February 17, 2022
assistance. Ms. Tsen stated that she enjoyed working with the City and City staff and believe in the same value by hoping to create a community, which is pedestrian-oriented, vibrant along the street, which has great amenities, and great housing units. Ms. Tsen added they think that they have demonstrated with their first project that they can do it in a way that meets the City's expectations and standards. Ms. Tsen stated that she could answer any questions the Commission may have.

Commissioner Guio stated that his concern really boiled down to property values are going to go up another 20% this year along with the costs of everything, in general, going up.

Commissioner Guio asked how could they meet the end goal and have it developed in the time allotted.

Ms. Tsen replied that she would prefer more time but was willing to live within the constraints of the DDA and the Development Agreement. Ms. Tsen added that they have already invested millions in the design and engineering and studies of doing the pre-development phase and are currently looking for financing as the pandemic made it impossible to get debt or equity financing. Ms. Tsen added that they hope now that it is over that there is an opening in the investment community for similar projects. Ms. Tsen stated that she was optimistic because she is a public developer but doesn’t know if they’ll be able to get the pricing for the project into a range that’s feasible. Ms. Tsen added that the projects are expensive to build but that rents have not necessarily increased in a way which can amortize those costs and they must make a balance. Ms. Tsen added that she was interested in making the units as affordable as they could and because they are not subsidized then they could not be very low. Ms. Tsen added that they have not asked the City for any subsidies and noted that there isn’t any multifamily rental housing that falls in the category being constructed currently, all the housing being built is affordable housing or luxury and they received their contracts pre-pandemic.

Commissioner Lew stated that she liked Ms. Tsen’s determination but was not confident that they will be breaking ground by December 31, 2024, due to the proposed changes and because of the lack of funding. Commissioner Lew asked where they go to get funding, and if there are known sources they usually go to that they can count on.

Ms. Tsen replied that they must go to a construction lender to get the financing and have various construction vendors that have worked with them before. Ms. Tsen added that the financing that they got for the first project was from Bank of America but also have to get equity investors into the project and that has been the difficult during the pandemic as they saw decreases in rents and there was a lot of uncertainty as to what would actually happen. Ms.

Tsen added that only this year, they started to see some interest by equity investors in multifamily housing projects. Ms. Tsen added that this project would cost about 200 million dollars for the construction of 443 units. Ms. Tsen stated that the way they finance projects is very complicated, the construction loan and debt financing is never the problem but the equity financing is. Ms. Tsen stated that they are hoping to interest someone in Union City especially because of their track record.

Commissioner Lew asked if they were looking at a whole city block and if they would phase the project and have people move in when they finished the first portion.

Ms. Tsen replied no and that they will build all at once. Ms. Tsen stated that the plan is to have them built modularly like the last project. Ms. Tsen stated that it reduced some of the labor costs City Council/RSA Agenda 187 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 16 February 17, 2022
because it was produced in the factory and could be produced in the factory during times when it was wet or couldn't be on the site. Ms. Tsen also mentioned that they would still look at the pricing to build it traditionally. Ms. Tsen noted the spike in lumber prices last year where the prices went up to almost 1,600 per square foot, and they have since dropped, while not back to where it was pre COVID but certainly less than what it was a year ago. Ms. Tsen stated that they we're hoping that some of the supply markets will stabilize and together with some of the design changes will be able to make the project more feasible.

Commissioner Lew stated that she was glad Ms. Tsen mentioned modular building because she did not recall that they were going to use modular building for Windflower 2.

Ms. Tsen replied that they are designing it to be built modularly but did not have to be done that way. Ms. Tsen added that it will be determined by the costs that they get from the contractors and subcontractors. Ms. Tsen added that the modular system has provided them with some savings both in time and cost but was unsure of the costs in today’s market.

Commissioner Lew thanked Ms. Tsen for answering her questions and wished her much luck in the future. Commissioner Lew noted that it would be really tough and while they would most likely recommend approval to the City Council they know they could potentially not even break ground. Commissioner Lew asked Ms. Tsen what the chances were that they would break ground before December 31, 2024.

Ms. Tsen replied that they are working as intensely as they can and have already invested quite a bit of capital into the project to get to this stage. Ms. Tsen added that if they are not successful and they lose their investment, it would mean a lot of money and time and they would not like to do that. Ms. Tsen emphasized that this is a partnership with Union City and they have not asked for any subsidies from the City and were looking at the possibilities at the State level and working with the Governor’s office right now on policies that could help. Ms. Tsen added that there are a lot of projects in the whole Bay Area that cannot go forward and are middle income and that is why there is a shortage of housing the Bay Area. Ms. Tsen stated that the pandemic has been an unprecedented time and they basically lost two years, but they are getting started again and are working with investors again on due diligence and facing the new cost estimates from the contractors.

Commissioner Lew thanked Ms. Tsen for filling the Commission in with all that information as it helped to better understand the situation.

Chairperson Mann thanked Ms. Tsen for Windflower 1 and her commitment to Union City.

Chairperson Mann stated that it was an excellent project and hoped that they were able to recover their ROI on that project. Chairperson Mann noted COVID setbacks, lack of grants from the City, a difficult investment environment, and the decision to either go modular or traditional and asked what her confidence level was that they would start construction before December 2024.

Ms. Tsen replied that they are working very diligently towards that goal and that she would be one to suffer the most if they were unable to do it. Ms. Tsen stated that a lot of obtaining that goal will depend on economic conditions and whether investors feel enough confidence in the future and will depend on if rents rise enough. Ms. Tsen further explained that they had almost 15% of rents drop in Union City that was better than many in San Francisco and Oakland that City Council/RSA Agenda 188 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 17 February 17, 2022
even saw 40% at one point. Ms. Tsen added that once is approaches pre-COVID levels we’re going be able to make more financial sense of the project as a whole. Ms. Tsen added that they will continue to work diligently to get cost estimates and potential investors who may be interested in the project that will need to do their due diligence. Ms. Tsen stated that all developers in the Bay Area are in a similar situation.

Chairperson Mann stated that the Planning Commission is here to work with Ms. Tsen to get the project started and is cognizant of the fact that it is a difficult investment period, and the costs have gone up and will continue to go up. Chairperson Mann stated that he was supportive of extending the DA but is bound and reminded by the population of what is going on in the Bay Area as far as affordable housing. Chairperson Mann added that any project that come in there is always the discussion of whether Union City can meet its quota for affordable units, and this is not just to put this on yourself it’s a practicality here in the Bay Area and the Planning Commission is at the forefront of that discussion debate.

Ms. Tsen replied that it is very hard to build housing in the Bay Area and it is why they have such a lack of housing and lack of affordable housing but has been a proponent of ways to build housing. Ms. Tsen added that she is interested in these housing developments also for the policies that can be made as models for other cities and developers and that’s why they strive to build affordable, sustainable, and densely populated housing next to transit.

Chairperson Mann thanked Ms. Tsen for being there and answering the Commission’s questions.

Ms. Tsen thanked Chairperson Mann for his support and City staff as they have always been very professional in the way that they have worked with them. Ms. Tsen stated that they have a real commitment to Union City and are already proud of the work they have done and the impact they have had on the Station District. Ms. Tsen stated that they hope to finish the next project as it will be their legacy and want to work with the Planning Commission and the City Council to make this feasible and to make it work.

Chairperson Mann closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Lew stated that she felt reluctant to make a recommendation but didn’t believe they have a choice. Commissioner Lew stated that she believes the applicant will try her best to get the project moving along and she would wait for the groundbreaking.

Commissioner Lew moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of an ordinance approving Development Agreement (DA-22-001) making the required findings in the staff report and adopting a resolution confirming this action.

Commissioner Guio seconded.

The motion was carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: (MANN, GUIO, LEW, SAKAKIHARA, FINNERTY)
NOES: NONE
City Council/RSA Agenda 189 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 18 February 17, 2022
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT:

The motion passes 5-0.

7. SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORTS:

A. CONTINUED REPORTS: None.

B. NEW REPORTS: None.

8. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORTS: None.

9. COMMISSION MATTERS:

A. Follow-up on Planning Commission referrals to the City Council: None.

B. Upcoming applications for the Regular Planning Commission meeting for March 3, 2022.

Ms. Campbell stated that the upcoming meeting for March 3, 2022 would likely be cancelled.

10. GOOD OF THE ORDER:

Commissioner Lew suggested the inclusion of the Election of Officers in the bylaws to include rotation. Commissioner Lew added that she liked the idea of a rotation to make sure everyone has a chance to be Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.

Ms. Campbell thanked Commissioner Lew for her comment and would pass it on to the City Manager’s Office and the City Clerk.

Commissioner Lew asked if it would be a good time to discuss the Planning Commissioner Academy in March or if staff was waiting for a response from the Commissioners.

Ms. Campbell replied that she planned on speaking later but could discuss then. Ms. Campbell announced the addition of two new staff members in the Planning Division. Ms. Campbell introduced Natalie Dean, Associate Planner that joined the team after working with the City as a contract planner for several months. Ms. Campbell added that Ms. Dean would be working on a variety of current planning projects and the Commission would be seeing her very shortly. Ms.

Campbell also introduced Coleman Frick, Senior Planner, who previously worked in the City of Concord. Ms. Campbell stated that Mr. Frick would be working on some long-range efforts that would be moving forward like the Housing Element and Hillside Specific Plan. Ms. Campbell stated that the City is thrilled to have them on the team. Ms. Campbell listed upcoming community workshops and outreach events regarding the 6th Cycle Housing Element. Ms.

City Council/RSA Agenda 190 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 19 February 17, 2022
Campbell noted an upcoming training for decision-makers sponsored by MTC and ABAG. Ms.

Campbell noted that the Housing Element would be coming to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council in early summer.

Chairperson Mann apologized for being unable to make it to the previous meeting as he and his family had been affected by COVID. Chairperson Mann thanked Ray Gonzales, Jr. for his service to the City for so many years. Chairperson Mann noted that Mr. Gonzales was a valuable colleague and wanted to acknowledge him. Chairperson Mann noted that Seven Hills Park needed maintenance. Chairperson Mann explained that he received feedback from Community members and was able to confirm the state of the park when he drove by and noticed trash at the park. Chairperson Mann welcomed Mr. Frick and Ms. Dean to Union City and stated that he looked forward to working with them.

11. ADJOURNMENT: 9:26 PM
APPROVED:

HARPAL MANN, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:

CARMELA CAMPBELL, SECRETARY
City Council/RSA Agenda 191 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
ATTACHMENT 5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NUMBER #XX-22

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF 1) USE PERMIT (UP-21- 005) MODIFYING UP-95-1 ALLOWING A VETERINARY CLINIC, 2) SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SD-21-003), FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED 946 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING VETERINARY CLINIC; AND 3) VARIANCE REQUEST (V-21-002) TO REDUCE THE STREET SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE ADDITION FROM APPROXIMATELY TEN (10) FEET TO TWO (2) FEET AT 33663 MISSION BLVD IN THE COMMUNITY

COMMERCIAL (CC) ZONING DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Dr. Surat Gill, is requesting City approval 1) Use Permit (UP-21-005) to modify UP-95-1 allowing a veterinary clinic, 2) Site Development Review (SD-21-003), for the construction of a proposed 946 square foot addition to the existing veterinary clinic; and 3) Variance request (V-21-002) to reduce the street side setback requirement for the addition from approximately ten (10) feet to two (2) feet. The proposed addition would result in a total building size of approximately 2,472 square feet.; and WHEREAS, the project site is located at 33663 Mission Blvd (APN: 486-6-33); and WHEREAS, the project site has a General Plan designation of Corridor Mixed Use Commercial and a Zoning designation of CC (Community Commercial); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65854 of the Government Code, a duly advertised public hearing was held before the Planning Commission of the City of Union City on February 17, 2022, to consider the application and at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. The Planning Commission considered a staff report dated February 17, 2022, and all other recommendations, reports, and testimony before making a recommendation on the project; and
WHEREAS, the project plans and statement of use are labeled Exhibits A and B respectively, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is exempt from environmental review CEQA exemption per Section 15301, Existing facilities the general exemption for modification to existing facilities where it can be seen with certainty that the project will have no potential for a significant effect on the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Union City does hereby find as follows:

1. That the project is categorically exempt under Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
Site Development Review

2. The project is generally consistent with the subject property's General Plan designation of Corridor Mixed-Use Commercial, which allows for various City Council/RSA Agenda 192 Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Planning Commission Resolution No. #XX-22
UP-21-005, SD-21-003, and V-21-002
33663 Mission Blvd