Agenda packet, regular meeting — Union City City Council, October 25, 2022 (part 3 of 3)

A. Retail, service, public, or office uses shall be provided along the ground floor of buildings in the areas detailed in the Station District Specific Plan Figure 4-6. Within residential developments, the decision maker may approve, at its discretion, partial or complete substitution of live/work units and residential amenity space for the required ground floor active uses if the project can demonstrate a community benefit. Live/work units shall comply with Section

18.38.032.

B. All business, services, and processes shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed structure, except for off-street parking and loading areas and solid waste/recycling enclosures or otherwise listed in Section 18.37.020 and 18.37.030. Outdoor storage is prohibited. Incidental equipment that is necessary to conduct the operation of the business and that is required to be installed outdoors may be allowed subject to approval by the Economic and Community Development Director or decision maker.

C. All development shall comply with Chapter 7.04 related to management of solid waste, organic waste, and recyclable materials. Solid waste, organic waste and recycling enclosures shall comply with Section 7.04.055 and shall be enclosed within the building or screened by a solid wall so as to not be visible from public streets.

D. Site shall be maintained in good order at all times and consistent with project conditions of approval (if applicable). This shall include, but is not limited to, maintenance and repair of all on-site structures including building façade materials or paint, fencing/walls, signage, paved areas including sidewalks and driveways, and landscaping, as may be necessary to preserve a high-quality aesthetic for the area.

E. Only one (1) driveway per parcel shall be permitted for each street frontage except that additional driveways may be permitted if determined by the Public Works Department that additional driveways are necessary to facilitate on-site traffic circulation.

G. Any residential building that includes more than two hundred fifty (250) units shall provide a shared co-working space area measuring a minimum of three hundred (300) square feet.

18.37.060 Walls, fences, and hedges
Walls, fences, or hedges over three (3) feet in height are subject to review and approval through the site development review or administrative site development review process. No walls, fences, or hedges shall exceed six (6) feet unless a greater height is required for noise attenuation or screening of waste/recycling enclosures, mechanical equipment, loading facilities.

18.37.070 Minimum site area.

A minimum site area of not less than three thousand five hundred (3,500) square feet shall be required.

18.37.080 Density / Site area per dwelling unit.

City Council/RSA Agenda 437 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 20 of 55 ends

A minimum of twenty-five (25) units per acre and a maximum of one hundred (100) units per acre is permitted, with an average of no less than fifty (50) units per acre being maintained within the district. The minimum site area per dwelling unit shall be four hundred thirty-five (435) square feet.

18.37.090 Floor area ratio.

The allowed floor area ratio (FAR) range is between 0.40 and 3.0.

18.37.100 Minimum lot dimension.

Newly created lots shall have a minimum lot dimension of at least thirty-five (35) feet and one hundred (100) feet. Exceptions may be granted by the decision maker through the Site development review process if it results in a more usable lot configuration or to accommodate lots created for public or common use.

18.37.110 Lot coverage.

The amount of the site area covered by structures shall not be restricted provided the development meets all applicable standards.

18.37.120 Required Setbacks.

A. Front, side, and rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of six (6) feet.

B. Setbacks from property lines located adjacent to private alley ways that provide access to private garages shall be a minimum of three (3) feet.

C. Buildings located along Decoto Road or 7th Street shall be setback a minimum twenty (20) feet from these frontages. The setback can be reduced to a minimum of ten (10) feet for up to ten percent (10%) of the building frontage to accommodate variations in building design subject to site development review approval.

18.37.130 Height of structures.

The maximum height of buildings shall be one hundred (100) feet. Rooftop amenities may be permitted, including, but not limited to, community rooms and kitchens, recreational facilities, and greenhouses provided they do not exceed twenty (20) feet in height.

18.37.140 Design criteria.

A. Architectural standards. Buildings shall be designed with a contemporary or “Modern” vocabulary, using varied geometric volumes and a variety of high-quality materials (e.g. metal and glass). The following shall apply to any new buildings, additions to buildings which increase City Council/RSA Agenda 438 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 21 of 55 ends

existing square footage by 50 percent or more, or modifications to existing buildings which modify the exterior of the building:

1. All street-facing façades must include at least one horizontal or vertical projection or recess at least four feet in depth, or two projections or recesses at least two and onehalf (2 ½) feet in depth, for every fifty (50) horizontal feet of wall. The articulated elements must be greater than one story in height and may be grouped rather than evenly spaced in fifty (50) foot modules.

2. Lower and upper stories shall be separated by horizontal detailing such as an awning, overhang, cornice line, or belt course. Separation may occur either above the ground floor or second floor.

3. All street-facing façades must include vertical projections or recesses such as pilasters, porches, decks, bay windows, entry recesses, and other details that provide architectural articulation and design interest.

4. Window designs shall differentiate the various components of the building (e.g., ground floor retail spaces, stair towers, corners, or residential units).

5. Façade elements must establish building scale and pattern, using architectural techniques such as clustering or aligning windows and doors to form a regular pattern.

Horizontal building elements should be roughly aligned (within three (3) feet of height) with others in the same block.

6. The design of townhomes shall be articulated such that individual units are differentiated from each other. Each unit shall maintain separate, identifiable roof forms, massing, fenestration, and street-facing doorways.

7. Ground floor residential units shall provide finish floor elevations of between eighteen (18) to forty-two (42) inches above the adjoining sidewalk.

8. Buildings shall not include blank walls which exceed twenty (20) feet.

9. For the portions of the buildings that face onto the Grand Paseo and have a length longer than ninety (90) feet and where the Grand Paseo is less than forty (40) feet in width, the building massing shall reduce to create architectural relief and interest. This can be ensured, in part, by calculating the surface area of the first floor plane of any building façade that faces the paseo (length of the first floor of the building X height of that floor = surface area). The second floor paseo- facing area shall be no more than ninety-five percent (95%) of the first floor area. The third floor paseo-facing area shall be no more than eighty-five percent (85%) of the first floor area and the fourth floor no more than seventy-five (75%) of the first floor area.

B. Exterior materials. Exterior building materials shall be chosen based on character, durability, ease of maintenance and context, and may include:

1. Steel—Porcelain enamel panels, steel windows, steel exterior doors, steel rails and fences, painted, stainless or pre-weathered steel are acceptable;

2. Aluminum—Windows, panels (luco-bond and aluminum plate), storefront, curtain wall, doors; aluminum should be natural finish anodized, powder-coated or kynar (no bronze anodized);
City Council/RSA Agenda 439 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 22 of 55 ends

3. Other Metal;

4. Glass—Clear, low-e, nonreflective, solar-bronze or solar gray glass, shadow boxes and spandrel glass is permitted;

5. Brick, natural clay colors;

6. Stone;

7. Pre-cast concrete, glass-fiber reinforced concrete;

8. High-quality, cast-in-place concrete;

9. Ceramic tile;

10. Cement plaster; and

11. Wood.

C. Equipment screening. Mechanical/utility equipment shall be sited and screened in accordance with the following:

1. In instances where mechanical equipment cannot be located within the building due to building code or utility provider requirements, it shall be adequately screened from off-site view and located at the rear of the site in an enclosure with walls matching the material and color of the building. The enclosure shall include gates or heavy gauge corrugated steel and shall be surrounded by trees, shrubs and climbing vines;

2. In instances where utility equipment cannot be located within the building or undergrounded due to building code or utility provider requirements, it shall be screened by locating at the rear of the site in an enclosure with walls matching the material and color of the building. The enclosure shall include gates or heavy gauge corrugated steel and shall be surrounded by trees, shrubs and climbing vines. Alternate locations may be considered to meet utility provider requirements; and

3. In instances where mechanical equipment is located on the building roof, roof top screening shall be provided, which is integrated into the building architecture.

D. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Projects that include development of a vacant site or substantial modification of a developed site shall accommodate bicycle and pedestrian facilities / access including:

1. Provisions for safe, well-lit and visually attractive pedestrian access from public streets to the parking areas and building entries;

2. Pedestrian pathways between buildings and parcels;

3. Public pedestrian and bicycle connections to the Station District’s existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian network;

4. Publicly accessible pedestrian amenities which may include plazas, pocket parks, seating areas, fountains, public art, and/or eating areas;

5. Orientation of outdoor public spaces towards activated ground-floor building frontages; and

6. Inclusion of bicycle paths and bicycle parking facilities consistent with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and designed and installed in conformance with the design criteria outlined in Section 18.28.080.

City Council/RSA Agenda 440 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 23 of 55 ends

E. Ground floor commercial uses. The design of ground floor commercial uses shall comply with the following:

1. Minimum depth of commercial space is thirty-five (35) feet and minimum height is twenty (20) feet floor to floor; and

2. A minimum of 25 percent of the ground floor commercial area shall be designed to accommodate a restaurant use; and

3. Between two and one-half (2 ½) feet and seven (7) feet above grade, ground floor transparency (i.e., amount of glazing) shall be forty percent (40%) for grocery stores and fifty percent (50%) for all other commercial uses; and

4. Ground floor façades shall be designed to give identity to each retail and service establishment, through recesses, enhanced materials, signage and architectural features that are integral components of the building; and

5. The maximum distance of blank wall (a façade without doors, windows, landscaping treatments, or other pedestrian interest) on the ground level of any building facing a street, open space, or paseo shall not exceed 20 feet in length; and

6. The design of ground floor commercial uses shall promote indoor/outdoor connections by providing some or all of the following:
a. Sliding or removable windows/doors;
b. Low planters with wide seat walls;
c. Recessed entrances and porticos that increase the indoor/outdoor quality or allow for increased outdoor seating or display;
d. Awnings and canopies that may encroach into the public right-of-way subject to approval of an encroachment permit by the Public Works Department; and e. Visually transparent storefronts with clear glass windows and doors that are not blocked by storage, racks or shelving placed against glass.

18.26.150 Landscaping.

A. New landscaping and modifications to existing landscaping shall comply with the provisions listed in Chapter 18.112 and the Landscape Standards Policy Statement. Approved landscaping shall be maintained for the life of the project including replacement of dead, dying or deficient landscaping.

B. Projects that include development of a vacant site or substantial modification of a developed site, shall provide landscaped areas that measure a minimum ten percent (10%) of the project site area. Projects that cannot provide the minimum amount of required landscaping may pay a landscape in-lieu fee in the amount set forth in the City’s Master Fee Schedule subject to approval through the site development review process.

18.37.160 Residential open space.

All residential development and mixed use development shall provide residential open space features, such as courtyards, pool and spa areas, recreation facilities, and picnic and play areas for use by the tenants/owners.

City Council/RSA Agenda 441 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 24 of 55 ends

18.37.170 Signs, marquees, awnings.

Signage shall be consistent with Chapter 18.30 and any approved sign plan or planned sign program. Signage shall be designed as an integral element of a building’s architecture and shall be compatible, including color and scale, with the building. A sign plan or planned sign program, consistent with Section 18.30.100, shall be required for any development. Blade signs may project over the sidewalk to indicate and demarcate commercial uses and increase pedestrian interest, subject to approval of an encroachment permit by the Public Works Department.

18.37.180 Off-street parking.

Parking shall be required subject to the following:

Vehicular Parking Requirements
Minimum Off-Street
Parking
Requirements
Maximum Off-Street
Parking Allowed

1. Multifamily Residential – High Density 1 (Between 30.1 du/ac – 100 du/ac) Studio 1.0 space / dwelling
unit

1.5 spaces / dwelling unit
1 Bedroom 1.0 space / dwelling
unit

2.0 spaces / dwelling unit
2 Bedrooms 1.5 spaces / dwelling
unit

2.0 spaces / dwelling unit
3+ Bedrooms 2.0 spaces / dwelling
unit

2.5 spaces / dwelling unit

2. Multifamily Residential – Low Density 1 (Up to 30 du/ac) Studio 1.0 space / dwelling
unit

1.0 space / dwelling unit
1 Bedroom 1.0 space / dwelling
unit

1.0 space / dwelling unit
2 Bedrooms 2.0 space / dwelling
unit

2.0 space / dwelling unit
3+ Bedrooms 2.0 space / dwelling
unit

2.0 space / dwelling unit

3. Affordable Housing

0.5 space / bedroom if
less than ½ mile from
major transit stop

0.75 space / bedroom if
more than ½ mile from
major transit stop

2.0 spaces / dwelling unit

4. Nonresidential
City Council/RSA Agenda 442 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 25 of 55 ends

Commercial (includes Office and
Retail uses)

1.0 space / 250 square
feet

1.0 space / 200 square
feet
Notes:

1. Tandem parking spaces can be substituted for regular parking spaces up to 10% of the required parking demand.

2. Consistent with Government Code section 65863.2, automobile parking requirements may be waived for a residential, commercial, or other development project if the project is located within one-half mile of public transit, which includes a rail or bus rapid transit station, the intersection of two or more bus routes with service intervals of 15 minutes or less during morning and afternoon commute periods, and any major transit stops included in the applicable regional transportation plan.

18.37.190 Bicycle parking.

A. Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided, at a minimum, in an amount equal to:

Bicycle Parking
Requirements
Short-Term Bicycle
Parking Requirements
Long-Term Bicycle
Parking Requirements
All other residential 1.0 space / 20 dwelling units
Minimum of 2 spaces

1.0 space / 4 dwelling units
Minimum of 2 spaces
Retail 1.0 space / 3,000 square feet 1.0 space / 10,000 square feet Office, R&D, and Other
Nonresidential uses

1.0 space / 8,000 square feet
Minimum of 2 spaces

1.0 space / 4,000 square feet
B. Required facilities shall be designed and installed in conformance with the design criteria outlined in Section 18.28.080.

C. Bicycle parking may be substituted for automobile parking subject to the provisions outlined in Section 18.28.100 and approval by the decision makers.

18.37.200 Off-street loading.

A. Adequate loading docks and/or berths shall be provided on-site to serve the use. Such facilities shall be located on the rear or side of the building, be screened from the public right-ofway, and are subject to review and approval through the site development review process.

B. Adequate loading zones shall be provided along the street frontage(s).

18.37.210 Laundry facilities.

Laundry facilities shall be provided to serve all residential dwelling units. Such facilities shall include washer and dryer appliances connected to utilities. In developments with common City Council/RSA Agenda 443 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 26 of 55 ends

laundry facilities, the facilities must be in easily accessible locations and provide an adequate number of washers and dryers to serve the total number of units.

Chapter 18.38 STATION MIXED USE COMMERCIAL (CSMU) DISTRICT

18.38.020 Permitted uses.

The following uses shall be permitted:

A. Accessory dwelling units consistent with Chapter 18.34.

B. Civic facilities.

C. Commercial uses incorporated into the ground floor as part of a residential or office mixed use development including:

1. Art Studios;

2. Banks/savings and loans, excluding check cashing businesses;

3. Body art;

4. Business services, such as photocopying services and small printing shops, computer and data processing, graphic design, sign shops;

5. Civic facilities;

6. Fitness studios with an occupant load of less than fifty (50) under the Uniform Building Code;

7. Food service, such as full-service sit-down restaurants, quick service, and retail and carry out food stores

8. Food stores, up to twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet, excluding convenience markets;

9. General merchandise/retail stores, excluding adult business stores, clearance center/dollar stores, pawn shops, second hand/thrift stores, and retail tobacco stores;

10. Health services, such as medical, dental, optical, physical therapy and pharmacies;

9. Live music (non-amplified) at full service/sit down restaurants subject to the standards of Section 18.36.195(A);

10. Offices uses;
City Council/RSA Agenda 444 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 27 of 55 ends

11. Outdoor dining areas subject to the provisions listed in Section 18.39.055; C. Home occupations subject to the conditions listed in Section 18.32.020 (G).

D. Office mixed use developments with ground floor commercial uses identified in Section

18.38.020 (C).

E. Residential mixed use developments with ground floor commercial uses identified in Section 18.38.020 (C).

F. Any other use determined by the Director to be essentially the same or very similar to the above permitted uses. In making this determination, the findings required under Section 18.52.060 shall be addressed.

18.38.030 Conditional uses.

A. Approval by Zoning Administrator (refer to Chapter 18.54 for a detailed description of the administrative use permit process).

1. Adult and child day care facilities;

2. Educational and instructional uses, such as business, beauty, computer, dance, martial arts, tutorial services;

3. Exterior sidewalk ATMs (automated teller machines), when there is adequate security and lighting and adequate queuing area that does not impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic flow (drive-thru ATMs are not permitted);

4. Live music (amplified) at full service/sit down restaurants subject to the standards of Section 18.36.195(B);

5. Outdoor activities located in private and public plazas;

6. Outdoor displays in conjunction with an existing adjacent business;

7. All other uses determined by the Zoning Administrator to be essentially the same or very similar to the above permitted uses. In making this determination, the findings required under Section 18.52.060 shall be addressed.

B. Approval by City Council (refer to Chapter 18.56 for a detailed description of the use permit process).

1. Bars and nightclubs.

2. Commercial recreation facilities.

3. Convenience markets.

City Council/RSA Agenda 445 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 28 of 55 ends

4. Farmers’ markets, when in conjunction with the City or the Chamber of Commerce.

5. Massage uses located on the ground floor in mixed use developments.

6. Hotels;

7. Research and development (R and D)/flex space with no nuisance characteristics.

8. Live/work units in compliance with Section 18.38.032.

9. Transportation facilities, such as heliports and bus transfer facility or passenger rail facilities.

10. Any other use determined by the Planning Commission to be essentially the same or very similar to the above permitted uses. In making this determination, the findings required under Section 18.52.060 shall be addressed.

18.38.040 Performance standards.

A. Retail, service, public, or office uses shall be provided along the ground floor of buildings in the areas detailed in the Station District Specific Plan Figure 4-6. Within residential developments, the City Council may approve, in its discretion, partial or complete substitution of live/work units and residential amenity space for the required ground floor active uses. Live/work units shall comply with Section 18.38.032.

B. There shall be no greater than 15% net loss of total commercial space in any future redevelopment within the district, with a focus on retaining retail anchors such as grocery stores and drugstores.

C. All business, services, and processes shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed structure, except for off-street parking and loading areas and solid waste/recycling enclosures. Outdoor storage is prohibited. Incidental equipment that is necessary to conduct the operation of the business and that is required to be installed outdoors may be allowed subject to approval by the Economic and Community Development Director or decision maker.

D. All development shall comply with Chapter 7.04 related to management of solid waste, organic waste, and recyclable materials. Solid waste, organic waste and recycling enclosures shall comply with Section 7.04.055 and shall be enclosed within the building or screened by a solid wall so as to not be visible from public streets.

E. Site shall be maintained in good order at all times and consistent with project conditions of approval (if applicable). This shall include, but is not limited to, maintenance and repair of all on-site structures including building façade materials or paint, fencing/walls, signage, paved areas including sidewalks and driveways, and landscaping, as may be necessary to preserve a high-quality aesthetic for the area.

F. Only one (1) driveway per parcel shall be permitted for each street frontage except that additional driveways may be permitted if determined by the Public Works Department that additional driveways are necessary to facilitate on-site traffic circulation.

City Council/RSA Agenda 446 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 29 of 55 ends

G. Any residential building that includes more than two hundred fifty (250) units shall provide a shared co-working space area measuring a minimum of three hundred (300) square feet
I. In addition to the above listed performance standards, the following shall apply to live/work units.

1. Units may be used for: residential occupancy only; a combination of residential and work (nonresidential uses); or work only. The City strongly encourages commercial uses in the live/work units.

2. The nonresidential uses shall not conflict with the development’s surrounding or adjacent residential uses and shall not be detrimental or harmful to the residential uses.

3. The units’ exteriors shall not be altered without review and approval by the City, other than for signage, which shall be governed by the development’s Sign Plan.

4. Units that are used for residential use, in whole or in part, shall at all times maintain a complete kitchen space, bathroom facilities, egress and ventilation in compliance with applicable building codes.

5. For units that are lofts, there shall remain at all times a visual and physical openness between the main floor and the loft area in compliance with applicable building codes.

6. The commercial component shall be restricted to the unit and shall not be conducted outside the unit, in the garage or any accessory structure, except as approved by the Zoning Administrator with an administrative use permit. Exterior storage is prohibited.

7. There shall be no excessive odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical interference detectable to the normal sensory perception of nearby neighbors. No explosive, toxic, combustible or flammable materials in excess of what would be allowed incidental to normal residential use shall be stored or used on the premises.

8. Access for the commercial component shall be: located on the ground level, oriented to the public street or public walkway.

9. All nonresidential uses, including home occupations, shall obtain a business license prior to operation, in compliance with Title 5 of the Union City Municipal Code.

10. Nonresidential uses in live/work units shall be subject to periodic inspections by the City’s fire, building, and health and safety personnel from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on all days except Saturdays, Sundays, and City holidays.

11. Maintenance standards or conditions, covenants and restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be prepared for any new development and shall be approved by the Economic and Community Development Department. Said maintenance standards or CC&Rs shall, at a minimum, provide City Council/RSA Agenda 447 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 30 of 55 ends

for overall self-governance of common areas. Neither the maintenance standards nor the CC&Rs shall give approval or denial authority over the nonresidential uses in the live/work units.

18.38.050 Walls, fences, and hedges.

Walls, fences, or hedges over three (3) feet in height are subject to review and approval through the administrative site development review or site development review process. No walls, fences, or hedges shall exceed six (6) feet unless a greater height is required for noise attenuation or screening of waste/recycling enclosures, mechanical equipment, loading facilities.

18.38.070 Density / Site area per dwelling unit.

A minimum of one hundred (100) units per acre and a maximum of one hundred sixty-five (165) units per acre is permitted. The minimum site area per dwelling unit shall be two hundred sixtyfour (264) square feet.

18.38.080 Site floor area ratio.

For all nonresidential uses, the minimum floor area ratio (FAR) shall be 1.0, however the FAR may be reduced to a minimum of 0.5 on previously developed sites that do not meet the minimum 1.0 FAR and where the previously developed sites are proposed for redevelopment at a higher FAR than the previous development, and the maximum shall be 4.2. However, no FAR minimum is required for nonresidential uses in live/work units and for nonresidential uses as part of a mixed use development.

18.38.150 Design criteria.

New development, to the maximum extent feasible, shall comply with the following design guidelines as illustrated in pages 70 through 74 of the Intermodal Station District and Transit Facility Plan.

A. General Design Standards for Buildings and Structures. General massing, architectural details, materials, fenestration, ground floor treatment and parking garages comply with the following guidelines:

1. Street Walls. Buildings along streets shall:
a. Be continuous along setback lines and are required at street corners to maintain an active urban character;
b. Allow variations in the building edge (including arcades and column articulations for entrances, mid-block pedestrian ways, interior courtyards, and other design considerations) as long as the appearance of a continuous built edge is maintained; City Council/RSA Agenda 448 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 31 of 55 ends

c. Encourage minor street wall variations to add architectural interest and provide pedestrian amenities, such as seating and ATMs;
d. Include multiple pedestrian entrances for large buildings to increase street activity and interest;
e. Keep vehicle entrances and exits to a minimum and the scale minimized to maintain a pedestrian environment;
f. Have ground floor retail where feasible and maximize window coverage to provide flexible use as office or retail;
g. Have ground floor retail/commercial space with at least a twelve (12) foot ceiling height and a forty (40) foot to fifty (50) foot minimum depth.

2. Exterior Material Palette Standards. Exterior materials shall be chosen based on character, durability, ease of maintenance and context, and shall include:
a. Brick, natural clay colors;
b. Stone;
c. Steel—Porcelain enamel panels, steel windows, steel exterior doors, steel rails and fences, painted, stainless or pre-weathered steel are acceptable; d. Aluminum—Windows, panels (luco-bond and aluminum plate), storefront, curtain wall, doors; aluminum should be natural finish anodized, powder-coated or kynar (no bronze anodized);
e. Glass—Clear, low-e, nonreflective, solar-bronze or solar gray glass, shadow boxes and spandrel glass is permitted;
f. Pre-cast concrete, glass-fiber reinforced concrete;
g. High-quality, cast-in-place concrete;
h. Ceramic tile;
i. Cement plaster; and
j. Wood.

3. Fenestration Standards. Windows and doors on buildings shall be used to help define building character. By establishing the fenestration patterns, the shape, scale, proportion, rhythm, City Council/RSA Agenda 449 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 32 of 55 ends

groupings, relationships to plan, and exterior wall planes should all be taken into consideration along with adjacent buildings, structures and open spaces.

4. Ground Floor Treatments Standards. The ground floor on buildings shall:
a. Be designed so that the building imparts a sense of human activity, habitation, and interest to the street;
b. Not result in blank, undifferentiated street-level façades; c. Incorporate building lighting along public sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways that reflect the design of the overall building and provide a safe environment.

5. Projections/Signage Standards.
a. Projections and signs may project over the sidewalk to indicate and demarcate shop fronts and increase pedestrian interest, subject to approvals of an encroachment permit by the Public Works Department and a Sign Plan per Chapter 18.30. b. No commercial billboards, “A” frame signs, and excessive banners are permitted per Chapter 18.30 of this title.

6. Garage Podiums Standards. Garage podiums shall:
a. Not include blank walls at the pedestrian level;
b. Be screened with retail uses, building lobbies, residential entries, or other habitable uses, or landscaping;
c. Be treated as a design feature to be seen from eye level and above with open space uses as the preferred design alternative;
d. Be engineered and designed with structure adequate to support “garden-like” plantings, mature trees, shrubs, perennial borders, ground cover, and paving materials balancing planted and paved surfaces;
e. Be activated with common lobbies and/or individual entries to garden apartments and townhouses;
f. Clearly demarcate differences between common and private open space at the podium level;
g. Have direct access from grade to the podium level that is integrated with the street and open space network, such as access from the pedestrian alleys.

City Council/RSA Agenda 450 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 33 of 55 ends

7. Parking Design Standards. Parking:
a. Is required to be structured, unless it is on-street curbside parking; b. Lots are not allowed after the initial phases of development; c. On the ground floor, should be screened from the sidewalk by street-oriented uses, such as housing units with street access, retail uses, building entrances, lobbies and foyers, community facilities, or landscape elements;
d. Entrances and exits for vehicles should be kept to a minimum in scale and number; e. Entrances and exits shall be discouraged on Eleventh Street, Union Square, and Railroad Avenue, and prohibited on Decoto Road;
f. Entrances and exits shall be encouraged on side streets where side street access is available.

B. Specific Design Standards for Buildings and Structures. Specific design standards for office and research and development, residential, ground floor service commercial, and parking garages follows:

1. Office/Commercial/Research and Development (R and D) Uses. a. Ground Floor Treatments Standards. Ground floor treatment for office and research and development buildings shall:
i. Have building entrances, lobbies and accessory public uses oriented to the nearest public space or street;
ii. Have buildings fronting multiple streets to provide multiple public entrances;
iii. Have buildings that abut a pedestrian alley provide an entrance facing that alley;
iv. Include windows where office or other private uses are at the street level that provide visual transparency and a sense of interior activity to enliven the street.
b. Service/Loading Entries Standards. Service entries shall:
i. Be located on the side streets and positioned to minimize noise impacts on adjacent residential units and public open space, and to minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and traffic congestion; City Council/RSA Agenda 451 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 34 of 55 ends

ii. Have loading dock dimensions limited to minimum functional requirements;
iii. Have loading docks loaded on the interior of the buildings to limit their visibility from the street.

2. Residential Uses.
a. Residential Uses Overall Design Standards. Residential development shall:
i. Be designed with the safety and security of children in mind, without creating a “gated community” effect;
ii. Incorporate amenities such as play areas and other open spaces within the development;
iii. Not include sound walls and security fences that isolate or impede pedestrian access to residential development;
iv. Encourage balconies on above ground units where possible. b. Ground Floor Treatments Standards. Ground floors of residential development shall:
i. Include multiple entries at the street level to create fine-grained, pedestrian-oriented streets;
ii. Include residential units with individual entrances fronting the street;
iii. Promote a pedestrian-friendly environment through the use of design features such as stairs, stoops, porches, doors and landscaping. c. Parking Standards. Parking for residential development should promote a pleasant pedestrian experience by:
i. Limiting multiple individual garage entrances;
ii. Interspersing garage entries with “active uses” such as housing entries or occupied space;
iii. Screening parking from the street.

3. Ground Floor Service/Retail.

City Council/RSA Agenda 452 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 35 of 55 ends

a. Indoor/Outdoor Connections Standards. Retail establishments and restaurants/cafés shall have:
i. Strong indoor/outdoor connections;
ii. Sliding or removable windows/doors;
iii. Outdoor displays and café seating in front of commercial/retail establishments that are designed to increase pedestrian activity and interest, subject to administrative use permit approval as identified in the café standards located in Section 18.36.190;
iv. Low planters with wide seat walls;
v. Recessed entrances and porticos that increase the indoor/outdoor quality or allow for increased outdoor seating or display; vi. Awnings and canopies that may encroach into the public right-ofway subject to approval of an encroachment permit by the Public Works Department;
vii. Visually transparent storefronts with clear glass windows and doors that are not blocked by storage, racks or shelving against glass; viii. An entrance on the alley when buildings abut a pedestrian alley. b. General Parking Garage Standards. Parking garage design shall:
i. Be clean, well lit, and designed for the safety and security of patrons, while avoiding excessive light spill into adjacent residential areas; ii. Complement adjacent land uses.
c. Street Wall Standards. Parking street wall design shall:
i. Have a seven (7) foot minimum setback for landscape elements that screen the ground floor of parking on streets that do not have retail frontages (except on Eleventh Street where a setback is not allowed at street corners);
ii. Complement the façades of adjacent uses.
d. Ground Floor Treatments Standards. Ground floor treatments shall:

City Council/RSA Agenda 453 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 36 of 55 ends

i. Emphasize the use of retail and/or commercial space at the street level to maximize window coverage;
ii. Include retail frontages along Eleventh Street, the public plaza, and facing the Intermodal Transit Facility where commercial space should have at least a ten (10) foot ceiling height and a forty (40) foot to fifty (50) foot depth;
iii. Be screened with architectural and/or landscape elements in locations where there is no ground floor commercial use.

18.38.190 Off-street parking.

A. Off-street automobile parking shall be provided consistent with the following standards.

Vehicular Parking
Requirements
Minimum Off-Street Parking
Requirements
Maximum Off-Street
Parking Allowed
Residential
Multi-family
development on
BART Property
None .5 space / dwelling unit
Affordable Housing
(Outside of BART
Property)
.5 space /bedroom 1.0 space /dwelling unit
Multi-family
development (Outside
of BART property)

1.0 space / dwelling unit 1.0 space / dwelling unit
Non-residential
Office uses on BART
Property
None 1.0 space / 650 sq. ft.

Office uses (Outside
of BART Property)

1.0 space /300 square feet 1.0 space /250 sq. ft.

R&D uses 1.0 space /400 square feet 1.0 space /250 sq. ft.

Retail Uses 1.0 spaces / 300 square feet 1.0 spaces / 200 square feet Other Uses See Section 18.36.050 See Section 18.36.050
Notes:

1. Parking standards on BART property authorized by Public Utilities Code Sections 29010.1 - 29010.12.

2. Tandem parking spaces can be substituted for regular parking spaces in residential developments up to 10% of the required parking demand.

City Council/RSA Agenda 454 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 37 of 55 ends

3. Consistent with Government Code section 65863.2, automobile parking requirements may be waived for a residential, commercial, or other development project if the project is located within one-half mile of public transit, which includes a rail or bus rapid transit station, the intersection of two or more bus routes with service intervals of 15 minutes or less during morning and afternoon commute periods, and any major transit stops included in the applicable regional transportation plan.

B. A minimum of one (1) motorcycle parking stall that is enclosed and weatherprotected shall be provided for every twenty-five (25) units.

C. For retail uses on the ground floor as part of a mixed-use development, no additional automobile parking is required.

18.38.200 Bicycle Parking.

B. Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided, at a minimum, in an amount equal to:

Bicycle Parking
Requirements
Short-Term Bicycle
Parking Requirements
Long-Term Bicycle
Parking Requirements
Multi-family residential
on BART property1
1 space/20 dwelling units
Minimum of 2 spaces
1 space/1 dwelling units
Multi-family residential 1.0 space / 20 dwelling units
Minimum of 2 spaces

1.0 space / 4 dwelling units
Minimum of 2 spaces
Retail 1.0 space / 3,000 square feet 1.0 space / 10,000 square feet Office, R&D, and Other
Nonresidential uses

1.0 space / 8,000 square feet
Minimum of 2 spaces

2.0 space / 4,000 square feet

1. Bicycle parking standards on BART property authorized by Public Utilities Code Sections 29010.1 - 29010.12.

C. Required facilities shall be designed and installed in conformance with the design criteria outlined in Section 18.28.080.

Bicycle parking may be substituted for automobile parking subject to the provisions outlined in Section 18.28.100 and approval by the decision maker.

18.38.180 Signs, marquees, awnings.

18.38.200 In-lieu parking fees.

City Council/RSA Agenda 455 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 38 of 55 ends

Where a public parking fund exists for the purpose of developing public parking, applicants may make an in-lieu payment for construction, maintenance and operation of public off-street parking instead of providing off-street parking spaces as required by this chapter subject to approval by the decision maker and issuance of a use permit pursuant to Chapter 18.56. The fee shall be pursuant to resolution of the City Council. In-lieu payments under this section shall be used for the purposes set forth in the ordinance establishing public parking funds

18.38.210 Loading.

B. Adequate loading zones shall be provided along the street frontage(s).

CHAPTER 18.40 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS

18.40.450 Use table for on-site storage of hazardous materials.

Where indicated with the letters “AUP,” the use requires an administrative use permit. The administrative use permit procedure is described in Chapter 18.54. Where indicated with the letters “UP,” the use requires a use permit. The use permit procedure is described in Chapter 18.56. Where indicated with a “P,” the use is permitted. Where indicated with a dash (–), the use is not allowed.

Industrial Zoning District
Type of Facility MG ML MS SEE
Group A chemicals and materials*: Class 3 and 4 oxidizers, compressed gases (corrosive, highly toxic, toxic, pyrophoric, unstable), cryogens (highly toxic, toxic, corrosive, pyrophoric, unstable), explosives and blasting agents, highly toxic materials, organic peroxides (unclassified, Class I and Class II), pyrophoric materials, radioactive materials (gamma emitters), unstable/reactives (Class 3 and Class 4), water reactive materials (Class 3) Bulk Plant - - - -
Bulk Distribution - - - -
Large User Site UP UP UP UP
Large Storage Plant UP UP UP UP
Medium User Site UP UP UP UP
Medium Storage Plant UP UP UP UP
Small User Site AUP AUP AUP AUP
Small Storage Plant AUP AUP AUP AUP
City Council/RSA Agenda 456 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 39 of 55 ends

Industrial Zoning District
Type of Facility MG ML MS SEE
Group B chemicals and materials*: Compressed gases (flammable and oxidizing), corrosive liquids and solids, cryogens (flammable and oxidizing), flammable liquids, flammable solids, organic peroxide materials (Class III, Class IV, Class V), oxidizing materials (Class 1 and Class 2), radioactive materials (alpha and beta emitters), target organ toxins, toxic materials, unstable/reactive materials (Class 1 and Class 2), water reactive materials (Class 1 and Class 2) Bulk Plant - - - -
Bulk Distribution - - - -
Large User Site UP UP UP UP
Large Storage Plant UP UP UP UP
Medium User Site P P AUP AUP
Medium Storage Plant P P AUP AUP
Small User Site P P P P
Small Storage Plant P P P P
Group C chemicals and materials*: combustible liquids and solids, compressed gases (inerts), cryogens (inerts), irritant materials, sensitizer materials, other health hazard materials Bulk Plant - - - -
Bulk Distribution UP - - -
Large User Site UP UP UP UP
Large Storage Plant UP UP UP UP
Medium User Site P P P P
Medium Storage Plant P P P P
Small User Site P P P P
Small Storage Plant P P P P
* All chemical and materials types listed above are included for reference purposes only. Final determination of hazard classification will be made by the Environmental Programs Division.

A. Table Notes.

1. Hazardous materials belonging to more than one (1) group or hazardous classification are subject to the regulations of the more stringent group or category.

2. Above-ground storage tanks for the storage of hazardous materials utilized in the dayto-day operations of a permitted or conditional use within an Industrial zoning district shall require Administrative Site Development Review if visible from the public way. All aboveground storage tanks shall be adequately screened from off site.

City Council/RSA Agenda 457 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 40 of 55 ends

3. When a use permit or administrative use permit is required, in addition to the findings required under Chapter 18.56 or 18.54, respectively, the decision maker shall consider the recommendation of the Fire Department and the Environmental Programs Division based upon an evaluation of current codes, ordinances and referenced standards in conjunction with the following information: an inventory of all hazardous materials to be used or stored on site, a materials safety sheet (MSS) for each of the hazardous materials to be used on site, a list of equipment which utilizes or contains hazardous materials, information on the building construction type and information on the proposed method of handling and disposal of hazardous materials, as well as any mitigation features designed to reduce the level of risk posed by the hazardous materials.

4. Nano particles and bio-fuel blends shall be classified as hazardous materials. Hazard class grouping and permissibility of these materials shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator, in consultation with the Fire Department and Environmental Programs Division, based on available information.

5. The following exemptions from the requirements of this article shall apply:
a. Storage, use or handling of the following gases in any quantities, whether in a gaseous, liquefied or cryogenic physical state: air (non-enriched), argon, helium, krypton, neon, nitrogen, and xenon. This exemption does not apply to bulk plants or bulk distribution plants.
b. Storage, use or handling of hazardous materials in quantities less than fifty-five (55) gallons, five hundred (500) pounds, and two hundred (200) cubic feet, for liquids, solids and gases respectively. This exemption does not apply to acutely hazardous materials and extremely hazardous substances, as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations and the California Health and Safety Code, which may require a CUPA permit from the Environmental Programs Division or preparation of a Risk Management Plan.
c. Radioactive materials that are licensed, sealed sources, used for instruments, calibration devices and similar equipment, and materials exempted from regulation by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
d. On-site retail sales of common household hazardous materials in containers sized and packaged for use by the general public.

6. Ammonia refrigeration systems are subject to the provisions of this article.

B. Table Qualifiers. In addition to the regulations set forth in this article, all storage and use of hazardous materials must be in conformance with the provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations, Uniform Codes and referenced standards, as may be amended City Council/RSA Agenda 458 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 41 of 55 ends

ARTICLE V. RDC (RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CAMPUS) DISTRICT

REGULATIONS
Sections 18.40.510 – 18.40.570 are deleted.

CHAPTER 18.41 STATION EAST EMPLOYMENT (SEE)

18.41.010 Purpose.

The purpose of the Station East Employment (SEE) district is to accommodate a higher density employment district, which allows for a range of uses including office, lab, research and development, and light manufacturing and accompanying commercial services and uses to create an urban campus in a walkable and transit-oriented setting. Other uses, including hotels, conference centers, and public or quasi-public uses of an educational or recreational nature, can be established if it will support the City’s economic development goals for the area.

18.41.020 Permitted uses.

The following uses shall be permitted:

A. Civic facilities.

B. Ground floor commercial uses as part of an office mixed use development, hotel or conference center including:

1. Banks/savings and loans, excluding check cashing businesses;

2. Business services;

3. Civic facilities;

4. Fitness studios with an occupant load of less than fifty (50) under the Uniform Building Code;

5. Food service, such as full-service/sit-down restaurants, quick service restaurants, and retail and carry out food stores;

6. Food stores, up to twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet, excluding convenience markets;

7. General merchandise/retail stores, excluding adult business stores, clearance center/dollar stores, pawn shops, second hand/thrift stores, and retail tobacco stores;

8. Live music (non-amplified) at full service/sit down restaurants subject to the standards of Section 18.36.195(A);

9. Office uses;

10. Outdoor dining areas subject to the provisions listed in Section 18.39.055; and

11. Personal services, such as laundry, dry cleaning, beauty parlor, barbershop, nail salon, shoe repair, travel agency, tailor, photography studio, and similar uses excluding massage.

City Council/RSA Agenda 459 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 42 of 55 ends

C. Manufacture and assembly of electric and electronic supplies, instruments and devices, computer hardware and software, semiconductors, and computer chips, provided no noxious of offensive fumes or odors are produced.

D. Manufacture of pharmaceuticals and products from the life sciences and biotechnology industries, provided no noxious or offensive fumes or odors are produced.

E. Manufacture of scientific, medical, dental and drafting instruments, orthopedic and medical applications, optical goods, watches and clocks, precision instruments, musical instruments and camera and photographic equipment except film.

F. Manufacturing, assembly, including packaging and storage, of products from previous prepared materials, such as cloth, plastic, leather, precious or semi-precious metals or stones, but not including such operations as saw and planing mills, nor any manufacturing uses involving primary production of wood, metal or chemical products from raw materials.

G. Office uses excluding health services.

H. Research and development laboratories and related facilities, including for life sciences, medical and pharmaceutical research, electronics, and computer science.

I. Retail sales of goods manufactured, processed or assembled on the premises.

J. Any other use determined by the Director to be essentially the same or very similar to the above permitted uses. In making this determination the findings required under Section 18.52.060 shall be addressed.

18.41.030 Conditional uses.

The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the SEE zoning district upon the granting of a use permit by the Planning Commission (refer to Chapter 18.56 for a detailed description of the use permit process):

A. Hotels and conference centers.

B. Manufacture of fabricated metal products.

C. Microbreweries, wineries, or distilleries with accessory food service and outdoor dining.

D. Public or quasi-public uses of an educational or recreational nature.

E. Specialty trade contractors when located in a completely enclosed building.

F. All other uses determined by the Planning Commission to be essentially the same or very similar to the above conditionally permitted uses. In making this determination, the findings required under Section 18.52.060 shall be addressed.

18.41.040 Prohibited uses.

Distribution, import/export, wholesale, warehouse, outdoor storage, and/or repackaging uses are prohibited within the SEE District.

18.41.050 Accessory uses.

City Council/RSA Agenda 460 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 43 of 55 ends

A. Accessory structures and uses customarily incidental to any of the above permitted uses when located on the same lot are permitted.

B. Accessory structures and uses customarily incidental to any of the above conditional uses when located on the same lot are permitted only upon the granting or modification of a conditional use permit pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.56..

C. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory.

18.41.060 Performance standards.

A. Retail, service, public, or office uses shall be provided along the ground floor of buildings in the areas detailed in the Station District Specific Plan Figure 4-6.

B. All business, services, and processes shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed structure, except for off-street parking and loading areas and solid waste/recycling enclosures Outdoor storage is prohibited. Incidental equipment that is necessary to conduct the operation of the business and that is required to be installed outdoors may be allowed subject to approval by the Economic and Community Development Director or decision maker.

E. All uses shall comply with the regulations pertaining to hazardous materials contained in Chapter 18.40, Article IV.

G. Permitted or conditional uses shall not:

1. Emit obnoxious, toxic or corrosive fumes or gases;

2. Emit odors, heat or glare perceptible beyond property lines;

3. Emit smoke nor discharge into the air dust or other particular matter created by any industrial operations or emanating from any products stored prior or subsequent to processing;

4. Produce no noise perceptible beyond property lines, except as may be allowed by the Union City Community Noise Ordinance (Chapter 9.40 of the Union City Municipal Code);

5. Produce no physical vibration perceptible beyond property lines; City Council/RSA Agenda 461 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 44 of 55 ends

6. Produce no electromagnetic radiation or radioactive emission injurious to human beings, animals or vegetation, except under controlled operations being conducted observing standard methods or operations established by the California Department of Health Services, CAL-OSHA or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The most restrictive requirements shall apply. Electromagnetic radiation or radioactive emissions shall not be of an intensity that interferes with the use of any other property;

7. Do not engage in the production or storage of any material designed for use as an explosive, nor in the use of such material in production; and

8. Utilize diesel fuel powered equipment unless for standby emergency use only.

18.41.070 Walls, fences, and hedges
The location of all fences shall be subject to the minimum front yard and street side yard standards contained herein. Side and rear yards may have fences along the property line.

18.41.080 Minimum site Area
A minimum site area of not less than 1 acre shall be required.

18.41.090 Floor area ratio.

The minimum floor area ratio (FAR) shall be 0.75 and the maximum shall be 3.0.

18.41.100 Frontage, width and depth of site.

Newly created lots shall have a minimum street frontage width of 150 feet and a minimum lot depth of 200 feet. Exceptions may be granted by the decision maker through the Site development review process if it results in a more usable lot configuration or to accommodate lots created for public or common use.

18.41.110 Lot Coverage.

The amount of the site area covered by structures shall not be restricted provided the development meets all applicable standards.

18.41.120 Required Setbacks.

A. Front yard setback shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet.

B. Interior side yard setback shall be a minimum of five (5) feet. Street side yard setback shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet.

C. Rear yard setback shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet.

18.41.130 Height of Structures
City Council/RSA Agenda 462 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 45 of 55 ends

18.41.140 Design Criteria
A. Architectural standards. Buildings shall be designed with a contemporary or “Modern” vocabulary, using varied geometric volumes and a variety of high-quality materials (e.g. metal and glass). The following shall apply to any new buildings, additions to buildings which increase existing square footage by 50 percent or more, or modifications to existing buildings which modify the exterior of the building:

1. Building elevations shall include variations in wall plane, wall height, and roofs located at different levels in order to minimize the overall appearance of the elevation. Building wall shall not continue for more than 25 feet without a change in building wall plane direction of at least 2 feet.

2. All elevations shall provide articulation and detailing include elements such as recesses, columns, score lines, reveals, trellises, windows, lighting, or other features to create shadow patterns and depth on building elevations.

3. Minimize blank wall planes on all elevations through the use of wall plane variation, trim or reveals, entry and window openings, and/or varying colors and materials. Blank walls should not occupy over 30% of the principal frontage, and a section of blank wall should not exceed 20 linear feet without being interrupted by a window or entry.

4. Design entries so that they are clearly defined and distinguishable from the street.

Incorporate architectural features such as awnings, canopies, trellises, and/or other treatments such as vertical architectural features or unique building colors or materials to clearly identify primary building entries.

5. A minimum of 50 percent of the building wall area located within 20 feet of the midpoint of a primary building entrance shall be comprised of transparent windows or openings. Glass is considered transparent where it has a transparency higher than 80 percent and external reflectance of less than 15 percent. Facades facing streets or pedestrian focused areas such as promenades and plazas shall be lined with windows.

B. Exterior materials. Exterior building materials shall be chosen based on character, durability, ease of maintenance and context, and may include:

1. Steel—Porcelain enamel panels, steel windows, steel exterior doors, steel rails and fences, painted, stainless or pre-weathered steel are acceptable

2. Aluminum—Windows, panels (luco-bond and aluminum plate), storefront, curtain wall, doors; aluminum should be natural finish anodized, powder-coated or kynar (no bronze anodized)

3. Other Metal

4. Glass—Clear, low-e, nonreflective, solar-bronze or solar gray glass, shadow boxes and spandrel glass is permitted

5. Brick, natural clay colors;
City Council/RSA Agenda 463 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 46 of 55 ends

6. Stone

7. Pre-cast concrete, glass-fiber reinforced concrete

8. High-quality, cast-in-place concrete

9. Ceramic tile

10. Cement plaster

11. Wood.

C. Equipment screening. Mechanical/utility equipment shall be sited and screened in accordance with the following:

3. In instances where mechanical equipment is located on the building roof, roof top screening shall be provided, which is integrated into the building architecture.

1. Provisions for safe, well-lit and visually attractive pedestrian access from public streets to the parking areas and building entries;

2. Pedestrian pathways between buildings and parcels;

3. Public pedestrian and bicycle connections to the Station District’s existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian network;

4. Publicly accessible pedestrian amenities which may include plazas, pocket parks, seating areas, fountains, public art, and/or eating areas;

5. Orientation of outdoor public spaces towards activated ground-floor building frontages; and

E. Ground floor commercial uses. The design of ground floor commercial uses shall comply with the following:

1. Minimum depth of commercial space is thirty-five (35) feet and minimum height is twenty (20) feet floor to floor; and

2. A minimum of 25 percent of the ground floor commercial area shall be designed to accommodate a restaurant use; and
City Council/RSA Agenda 464 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 47 of 55 ends

6. The design of ground floor commercial uses shall promote indoor/outdoor connections by providing some or all of the following:
i. Sliding or removable windows/doors;
ii. Low planters with wide seat walls;
iii. Recessed entrances and porticos that increase the indoor/outdoor quality or allow for increased outdoor seating or display;
iv. Awnings and canopies that may encroach into the public right-of-way subject to approval of an encroachment permit by the Public Works Department; and
v. Visually transparent storefronts with clear glass windows and doors that are not blocked by storage, racks or shelving placed against glass.

18.41.150 Landscaping.

A. New landscaping and modifications to existing landscaping shall comply with the provisions listed in Chapter 18.112 and the Landscape Standards Policy Statement.

Approved landscaping shall be maintained for the life of the project including replacement of dead, dying or deficient landscaping.

B. Projects that include development of a vacant site or substantial modification of a developed site, shall provide landscaped areas that measure a minimum fifteen percent (15%) of the project site area. Projects that cannot provide the minimum amount of required landscaping may pay a landscape in-lieu fee in the amount set forth in the City’s Master Fee Schedule subject to approval through the Site development review process.

C. Parking Lot Coverage. To provide adequate visual screening of any surface parking areas from public rights-of-way, there shall be a landscaped strip ten (10) feet in width which shall be contiguous and parallel to such rights-of-way and shall be planted with trees, shrubs, and ground cover sufficient to obtain the required screening.

18.41.160 Signs, marquees, awnings.

Signage shall be consistent with Chapter 18.30 and any approved sign plan or planned sign program. Signage shall be designed as an integral element of a building’s architecture and shall be compatible, including color and scale, with the building. A sign plan or planned sign program, consistent with Section 18.30.100, shall be required for any development. Blade signs may City Council/RSA Agenda 465 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 48 of 55 ends

project over the sidewalk to indicate and demarcate commercial uses and increase pedestrian interest, subject to approval of an encroachment permit by the Public Works Department.

18.41.170 Off -street parking
A. Off-street automobile parking shall be provided consistent with the following standards.

Vehicular Parking
Requirements
Minimum Off-Street Parking
Requirements
Maximum Off-Street
Parking Allowed
Retail 1.0 space / 300 square feet 1.0 space / 200 square feet Office 1.0 space / 300 square feet 1.0 space / 250 square feet Research and
Development
laboratory,
manufacturing use

1.0 space / 500 square feet 1.0 space / 300 square feet Other Uses See Section 18.36.050 See Section 18.36.050
B. Automobile parking areas shall not occupy more than 30% of the primary street frontage.

C. Joint use of parking spaces may be allowed subject to the limitations and conditions included in Section 18.36.160.

D. Parking Structures.

1. Parking structure facades shall be designed as compatible visual extensions of the primary buildings.

2. Auto entries shall be located in a manner that minimizes pedestrian/auto conflicts.

3. Decorative screening or other decorative element constructed of durable, high-quality materials shall be provided on parking structure facade.

18.41.180cycle Parking
A. Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided, at a minimum, in an amount equal to:

Bicycle Parking
Requirements
Short-Term Bicycle
Parking Requirements
Long-Term Bicycle
Parking Requirements
Retail 1.0 space / 3,000 square feet 1.0 space / 10,000 square feet Office, R&D, and Other
Nonresidential uses

1.0 space / 8,000 square feet
Minimum of 2 spaces

1.0 space / 4,000 square feet
B. Required facilities shall be designed and installed in conformance with the design criteria outlined in Section 18.28.080.

C. Bicycle parking may be substituted for automobile parking subject to the provisions outlined in Section 18.28.100 and approval by the decision makers.

18.41.190 Loading
A. Adequate loading docks and/or berths shall be provided on-site to serve the use. Such facilities shall be located on the rear or side of the building, be screened from the public City Council/RSA Agenda 466 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 49 of 55 ends

right-of-way, and are subject to review and approval through the site development review process.

B. Adequate loading zones shall be provided along the street frontage(s).

Chapter 18.76 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW

18.76.020 Applicability.

A. The site development review procedure shall apply to all proposed uses in the following districts:

Residential districts;
Hillside combining (-H) district;
Commercial (CPA, CN, CS, CC, CVR) districts;
Station East Employment (SEE) district;
Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) district;
Marketplace Mixed Use (MMU) district;
Station East Mixed Use Residential (SEMU-R) district;
Village Mixed Use (VMU) district;
Station Mixed Use Commercial (CSMU) district;
Union Landing Commercial (CUL) district;
Private Institutional (PI) district;
Industrial (, MS, ML, MG) districts;
Agricultural (A) district;
Civic Center design control (CCDCD) district;
Landmark and Historic Preservation (LHP) Overlay Zone.

City Council/RSA Agenda 467 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 50 of 55 ends

B. The site development review procedure shall apply to all projects enumerated in subsection A of this section unless determined by the Director to qualify for administrative site development review as provided in Chapter 18.72.

City Council/RSA Agenda 468 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 51 of 55 ends

CHAPTER 18.50 CIVIC FACILITIES (CF) DISTRICT

18.50.040 Other regulations.

A. Off-street parking and loading: As prescribed in the relevant sections of the Union City zoning title.

B. Signs: As prescribed in Chapter 18.30.

C. Landscaping and screening: As prescribed in the Union City Landscape Standards Policy Statement.

D. Accessory structures:

1. No accessory structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory.

2. No detached accessory structure or structures shall occupy more than thirty percent (30%) of the area of a required rear yard.

3. No detached accessory structures located in a required rear yard shall exceed twelve (12) feet in height
E. Review procedures: As described in Chapters 18.56 and 18.76.

CHAPTER 18.92 OPEN SPACE (OS) ZONING DISTRICT

18.92.030 Regulations established.

The following specific regulations and the general regulations set forth in this title shall apply to all OS districts.

CHAPTER 18.102 DECOTO INDUSTRIAL PARK STUDY AREA (DIPSA)

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT

18.102.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to ensure quality development and to provide specific standards for the zoning districts included in Table 18.102.040.

18.102.020 Residential policies and standards.

A. Residential development standards are set out in Table 18.102.04essed0.

City Council/RSA Agenda 469 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 52 of 55 ends

B. .

C. Direct access to Mission Boulevard from individual residential parcels shall be prohibited.

D. See Section 18.32.110(A), special building setbacks, for required setback from Mission Boulevard.

E. A minimum of a one hundred (100) foot buffer shall be provided between the nearest dwelling and the nearest edge of powerlines.

18.102.030 Design guidelines.

A. New residential neighborhoods shall have unique qualities and characteristics that make them distinctly identifiable from other existing (both old and new) neighborhoods in adjacent areas.

B. All new residential development shall be constructed of high-quality materials and include features and amenities typically associated with higher end residential development, including but not limited to:
a. Tile or similar Class A fire rated roofs;
b. Varied roof lines and building forms;
c. High quality exterior materials and finishes, including stucco, solid wood tongue and groove siding, and masonry fireplaces and chimneys;
d. High quality windows and skylights;
e. Consistent architectural styling and details (i.e., architectural details from different styles should not be mixed on one house, but styles could be mixed in a larger project); f. Spacious interiors that include design elements emphasizing light and openness; g. High quality interior finishes, cabinets, appliances, etc.; and h. Multiple car garages in the lower density single-family areas.

18.102.040 Development standards table.

DIPSA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS1, 4

STANDARD
RS(s)
3000
(Small
RS(s)
3000
RS(s)
(Smal
RS6000
-D
(Large
City Council/RSA Agenda 470 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 53 of 55 ends

Lot
SF)
(Duplex
)
l Lot
SF)
Lot
SF)
Allowed Uses Per Sections 18.32.020 and 18.32.030
Minimum Lot
Area
3,000
sq. ft.
2,660
sq. ft.
3,465
sq. ft.
4,500
sq. ft.

Minimum Area
per Unit NA NA NA NA
Maximum Lot
Coverage 50% 50% 50% 50%
Minimum Lot
Width (interior
/corner)
44 ft./49
ft.

Corner
lots
adjacent
to the
Paseo
are
permitte
d to be
44 ft.
38 ft./43
ft
Corner
lots
adjacent
to the
Paseo
are
required
to be 44
ft.
45 ft./55
ft.
45 ft./55
ft.

Minimum Lot
Depth 70 ft. 70 ft. 77 ft. 90 ft.

Minimum
Front Yard
Setback to
Garage
20 ft.
(w/roll
up
doors)
20 ft.
(w/roll
up
doors)
20 ft.
(w/roll
up
doors)
20 ft..
to Building 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 20 ft
Minimum
Rear Yard
Setback
Minimu
m 10 ft.;
12 ft.
average
Minimu
m 10 ft.;
12 ft.
average
15 ft. 15 ft.

Minimum
Side Yard
Setback
(interior
/corner)
5 ft./10
ft.
5 ft./10
ft.
5 ft./10
ft.
5 ft./10
ft.

Maximum
Height 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft.

City Council/RSA Agenda 471 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 54 of 55 ends

Minimum
Building
Separation
10 ft. 0 ft. 10 ft.
10 ft.–
1 story
15 ft.–
2 story3
Density Must be consistent with General Plan Land Use Diagram densities Parking
Space per
Unit
1 space
open
2 spaces
enclose
d
1 space
open
2 spaces
enclose
d
1 space
open
2 spaces
enclos
ed
1 space
open
2 spaces
enclose
d
Building
Setback
from
Mission
Boulevard2
NA NA 45 ft. 45 ft.

Bedroom
Count
2, 3 and
4 2, 3 and
4 2, 3
and 4
2, 3, 4
and 5
Minimum
Open
Space per
Unit

NA NA NA NA
1 All standards of Chapter 18.32 shall apply except as modified by this chapter. 2 Rear of house to edge of curb.
3 May be reduced to ten (10) feet if allowed by development agreement. 4 In connection with any project that is subject to an owner participation agreement between the project applicant and the Community Redevelopment Agency, standards may be varied as provided in the vesting tentative map provided the project density does not exceed the General Plan standards and such modifications are found to better achieve the objective of the Plan.

CHAPTER 18.114 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATONS FACILITIES

18.114.040 Wireless telecommunication facilities use table.

A. Where indicated with the letters “AUP,” the use requires an administrative use permit.

The administrative use permit procedure is described in Chapter 18.54. Where indicated with the letters “UP,” the use requires a use permit. The use permit procedure is described in Chapter 18.56. Where indicated with the letters “ASD,” the use requires administrative site development review. The administrative site development review procedure is described in Chapter 18.72. Where indicated with a dash (–), the use is not allowed.

City Council/RSA Agenda 472 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Station District Zoning Update - AT-22-005
Exhibit B – Redlined Version

Page 55 of 55 ends

Zoning District Monopoles
Co-locations on Existing
Monopoles and other
Freestanding Facilities
Building and RoofMounted Facilities
R, RS, RM – – –
CPA – – AUP, ASD
CN – – AUP, ASD
CC – – AUP, ASD
CVR – – AUP, ASD
CSMU – – AUP, ASD
CMU – – AUP, ASD
MMU – – AUP, ASD
=
CUL – – AUP, ASD
SEE – AUP, ASD AUP, ASD

MG UP, ASD AUP, ASD AUP, ASD

ML UP, ASD AUP, ASD AUP, ASD
MS – AUP, ASD AUP, ASD
A – UP, ASD AUP, ASD
OS – UP, ASD AUP, ASD

CF UP, ASD UP, ASD AUP, ASD
PI – – AUP, ASD
511 – UP, ASD –
AUP = Administrative use permit
UP = Use permit
ASD = Administrative site development review
– = Not permitted
B. If the proposed wireless telecommunication facility would substantially modify an existing building, the Director may require site development review.

C. The Director may approve minor modifications and aesthetic upgrades that do not increase the size or visibility of any legally established wireless telecommunication facility, subject to compliance with any existing conditions of approval.

City Council/RSA Agenda 473 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
ORDINANCE NO. XXX-22

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY APPROVING ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (A-22-001) TO UPDATE THE ZONING

MAP FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATION DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN 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
WHEREAS, the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Title 18) currently regulates the uses allowed within the City.

PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendments on October 6, 2022, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. The Planning Commission considered a staff report dated October 6, 2020 and all written and oral testimony, and adopted Resolution No. 17-22 recommending approval of the Zoning Map amendments. 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 Zoning map amendments on October 25, 2022, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. The City Council considered a staff report dated October 25, 2022 (including background reports) and incorporated herein by reference, the Planning Commission recommendation, and all written and oral testimony before taking action on the amendments; and WHEREAS, the amendment to the Official Zoning Map includes the following components, as shown in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference:
 Change APNs 87-23-23, 87-23-48, 87-23-36, 87-23-49, 87-23-14-2, 87-23-15, 87- 23-25, 87-23-21-1, 87-23-46-2, 87-23-42, 87-27-57, 87-27-58, 87-27-38, 87-27-43, 87-27-40, 87-27-39, 87-27-41, and 87-27-17) from Research and Development Campus (RDC) to Station East Employment (SEE) District;  Change APNs 486-51-6, 486-51-7, 486-51-9, 486-51-10, 486-51-13, 486-51-12, 486-51-11, 87-19-9, 87-19-16, 87-19-1-7, 486-99-36, 486-99-7-5, 87-2-155, 87-2- 156, 87-2-157, 87-2-158, 87-19-7-2, 87-19-6 from Community Commercial (CC) to Marketplace Mixed Use (MMU);
 Change APNs 97-21-4-4, 87-23-11, and 87-23-12 from Research and Development Campus (RDC) to Station East Mixed Use Residential (SEMU-R);  Change 87-11-7-2 and 87-11-8-2 from Community Commercial (CC) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU);
 Change APNs 87-335-6, 87-17-6, 87-335-1-1, and 87-17-7 from Research and Development Campus (RDC) to Commercial Station Mixed Use (CSMU); and City Council/RSA Agenda 474 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Ordinance No. XXX-22

Page 2 ends

 Change APN 87-21-9 from Research and Development Campus (RDC) to Civic Facility (CF).

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 City Council adopted Resolution XXXX-22, dated October 25, 2022 and incorporated herein by reference, certifying the EIR (SCH# 2021010303) and adopting required CEQA findings regarding mitigations and alternatives, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Station District Specific Plan, and all environmental impacts of the proposed amendments were addressed within the EIR.

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. The proposed Zoning Map Amendments are consistent with the General Plan,

2. The proposed Zoning Map Amendments are necessary and desirable to achieve the purposes of Title 18.

SECTION 4. Approval. The City Council hereby approves the amendments to the Official Zoning Map, as described above and 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.

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.

City Council/RSA Agenda 475 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Ordinance No. XXX-22

Page 3 ends

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of October 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 476 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
City Council/RSA Agenda 477 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
City Council/RSA Agenda 478 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
City Council/RSA Agenda 479 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
City Council/RSA Agenda 480 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
City Council/RSA Agenda 481 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
City Council/RSA Agenda 482 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Agenda Item
DATE: OCTOBER 6, 2022
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CARMELA CAMPBELL, ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: STATION DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN, RELATED
AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND TITLE 18,

ZONING, OF THE UNION CITY MUNICIPAL CODE, AND

CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT
APPLICANT: CITY OF UNION CITY
REQUEST: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (AG-22-002), SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SP-22-001), MUNICIPAL CODE
AMENDMENT (AT-22-005), ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (A22-001) AND CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: The City is proposing to replace the Decoto Industrial Parkway Study Area (DIPSA) with the Station District Specific Plan for the 471-acre area surrounding the Intermodal Station. Related General Plan, Zoning Map, and Zoning Text Amendments are proposed for consistency with the Station District Specific Plan
LOCATION: Station District
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

An Environmental Impact Report (Exhibit B) has been prepared for the project, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

ATTACHMENT 6
City Council/RSA Agenda 483 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
I. BACKGROUND
Project Overview
The draft Station District Specific Plan addresses a 471-acre area surrounding the Union City Intermodal Station, as shown in Figure 1. The Station District Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) implements the Union City 2040 General Plan, which was adopted in December 2019 and called for a more detailed planning effort around the Intermodal Station, while refining the vision, planning details, and implementation strategies for the Station District. The planning process also includes preparation of an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and related General Plan, Zoning Map, and Zoning text amendments for consistency with the Station District Specific Plan
Attached to this staff report are five resolutions with exhibits for the Commission’s consideration. These include:
• Attachment 1: Resolution Recommending the City Council Certify the EIR o Exhibit A: Final EIR
o Exhibit B: Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program • Attachment 2: Resolution Approving the Station District Specific Plan (SP-22-001) o Exhibit A: Station District Specific Plan
• Attachment 3: Resolution Approving Related General Plan Amendments (AG-22- 002)
o Exhibit A – Table of General Plan Amendments and Updated Figures • Attachment 4: Resolution Approving Related Zoning Text Amendments (AT-22- 005)
o Exhibit A – Zoning Text Amendments
o Exhibit B – Zoning Text Amendments (Redlined)
• Attachment 5: Resolution Approving Related Zoning Map Amendments Exhibit A – Exhibits Showing Zoning Map Updates
Public Review Process
The draft Station District Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were available for public review for 45-days, which ended on July 1. During that time, several publicly noticed meetings were held with City commissions for their review and input.

The Planning Commission held a Study Session on June 2, 2022 to review the draft Specific Plan and EIR. The Planning Commission asked several clarifying questions, City Council/RSA Agenda 484 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
acknowledged the large amount of work that went into the Specific Plan and EIR, and expressed support for the Specific Plan. The staff report from this Study Session is attached along with the Desk Item (Attachment 6) and meeting minutes for that meeting (Attachment 7). The PC staff report provides a detailed overview of key features and strategies included in the Specific Plan; a detailed summary of the multi-year community engagement process that guided development of the plan; and a detailed overview of the content of the EIR for the Specific Plan. It should be referred to for more detailed analysis of Specific Plan and EIR content.

On June 8, 2022, staff presented an overview of the draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR to the Park and Recreation Commission. Commissioners asked several clarifying questions and were generally supportive of the plan and vision.

On June 21, 2022, staff presented to the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee. The presentation focused on bicycle and pedestrian improvements anticipated in the Station District, including how these improvements aligned with the recently adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Committee comments were supportive, with several members stating that they looked forward to implementation of the Specific Plan in coordination with the Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan.

On June 23, 2022, staff presented to the Station District Specific Plan and EIR to the Station District Advisory Committee, which had also met to review content and inputs to the Specific Plan process on three other occasions. Committee members were supportive of the direction of the Plan, while urging staff to continue focusing on implementation, overcoming financing challenges, and monitoring right-sized parking requirements to ensure City regulations were appropriate.

Since that time, staff and the consultant team have reviewed feedback received on the Specific Plan and the EIR; have made revisions to both documents in response to these comments; and have prepared amendments to both the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance necessary for consistency among the documents, as required by state law.

Regarding the Specific Plan, the majority of comments received and addressed were written line edit comments from Planning Commissioner Lew. Updates to the Specific Plan are summarized in Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Final EIR (Attachment 1, Exhibit A). Staff also identified a small number of corrections related to a variety of topics including parkland dedication and transit service within the City and updated the document accordingly.

City Council/RSA Agenda 485 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Figure 1. Station District Specific Plan Area
City Council/RSA Agenda 486 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Staff received comments on the DEIR from 10 commenters. These comments and responses to them are included in Chapter 2, Public Comments and Responses, of the Final EIR (Attachment 1, Exhibit A).

II. DISCUSSION
The Discussion section of the staff report provides an overview of the various updates required as part of proposed Station District Specific Plan adoption.

Station District Specific Plan
The Station District Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) implements the 2040 Union City General Plan vision to plan for a world-class, transit-oriented community with new retail, public amenities, and high-density housing and job centers, all linked by bicycle and pedestrian facilities. As required by state law, the Station District Specific Plan addresses a range of topics including land use, mobility, urban design, infrastructure, and financing. The staff report from the June 2, 2022 Planning Commission Study Session (Attachment 6 of this staff report) provides a detailed overview of key features and strategies included in the Specific Plan, and should be referred to for more detailed analysis of Specific Plan content. See Exhibit A of Attachment 2 for the most recent version of the Specific Plan, which was updated in response to the comments received.

Environmental Impact Report
A Draft EIR (which can be accessed on-line at https://www.unioncity.org/423/Resources) and a Final EIR (Attachment 1 – Exhibit A) were prepared for the Station District Specific Plan and related actions, which includes environmental analysis consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. Together, these documents comprise the EIR for the project. The June 2, 2022 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 6) provides a detailed overview of the content, findings, and proposed mitigation in the DEIR, and should be referred to for more detailed analysis of EIR content.

Final Environmental Impact Report
Following the conclusion of the 45-day public review period of the Draft EIR, the Final EIR (“FEIR”) was prepared. The FEIR is comprised of three sections: 1) Introduction, 2) Public Comments and Responses, 3) Revisions to the Draft EIR. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was also prepared for the project and is attached (Attachment 1- Exhibit B).

City Council/RSA Agenda 487 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, October 6, 2022
Station District Specific Plan, EIR, and GP and Zoning Amendments, Page 6 For a detailed overview of the comments and response, see Chapter 2, Public Comments and Responses, of the FEIR. Comments were received from two public agencies, the Alameda County Water District and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Responses to these comments included minor updates to the EIR where warranted. Additional comments were received from the Save Our Hills organization, as well as several private individuals, including Commissioner Lew. These comments included corrections and suggested text revisions to the EIR, as well as comments concerning resource areas, including but not limited to, the preservation of the Peterson Farmhouse, potential loss of agricultural land, potential transportation impacts, and other concerns regarding the mix and location of proposed land uses as identified in the Specific Plan. Responses to these comments included clarification and explanation of the analysis in the EIR, as well as changes or additions to the text of the EIR where warranted.

Several of these comments focused on the proposed Quarry Lakes Parkway (QLP), which was similar to comments received on the Station East Mixed Use Residential Project EIR (“Station East EIR”) certified by the City Council in July 2021. Similar to how addressed in the Station East EIR, the Station District EIR clarifies that the QLP (formerly the EastWest Connector Project) has undergone separate environmental review and impacts of the project are not applicable to the discussion in the Station District EIR.

The MMRP (Attachment 1 – Exhibit B) includes all of the EIR mitigation measures and identifies the responsible entity, as well as timing, for verifying compliance. As stated in the MMRP, the majority of the potential impacts would result from construction of development projects under the Plan, would be temporary in nature, and would be mitigated to a less than significant level with the incorporation of mitigation measures.

Likewise, most operational impacts would also be mitigated to less than significant levels.

When an EIR determines that a project will have significant, adverse impacts on the environment, the City must mitigate those impacts to the extent feasible. Should an impact not be fully mitigated and is considered “significant and unavoidable”, the City Council must adopt written findings that the project’s overriding benefits warrant approval of the project. These findings are known as the “Statement of Overriding Considerations” and they must be supported by evidence in the record.

The EIR has identified several potentially significant and unavoidable environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. As discussed in the Draft EIR, these impacts are associated with Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, City Council/RSA Agenda 488 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, October 6, 2022
Station District Specific Plan, EIR, and GP and Zoning Amendments, Page 7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transportation. Some of the impacts identified in the EIR as significant and unavoidable are largely the result of the Specific Plan being a programmatic document and not knowing exactly when sites will be coming in for development/redevelopment or whether more than one site may develop at the same time. In these cases, the City has conservatively assumed the impact to be significant and unavoidable. Accordingly, the City Council must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations finding that the benefits of approving the project outweigh the potential adverse impacts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations does not require recommendation by the Planning Commission and therefore is not attached to this staff report. The Statement of Overriding Considerations will be attached to the City Council staff report for their consideration.

General Plan Amendments
Several General Plan amendments were required for consistency with the Station District Specific Plan. See Attachment 3, Exhibit A, for a detailed overview of the proposed amendments. A high-level summary of proposed General Plan amendments is as follows:
• “Greater Station District” to “Station District” Terminology Update. Change the name “Greater Station District” to “Station District” throughout the General Plan, consistent with terminology that has been used has been used in the Specific Plan. • “Gateway Site” to “Gateway” Terminology Update. Change the Special Area name from “Gateway Site” to “Gateway,” consistent with the Specific Plan and in recognition of the area’s multiple owners and role as a subarea in the Specific Plan. • Delete SEMU and add SEE and SEMU-R Designations. The Station East Subarea will now have two land use designations – Station East Employment (SEE) for the southern portion where employment will be focused – and Station East Mixed Use Residential (SEMU-R) for the northern portion where residential will be focused.

The SEMU-R designation has already been applied to most of this northern area as part of the June 2021 Mixed-Use Residential Development Project application submitted by Integral Communities and approved by City Council. The former Station East Mixed Use (SEMU) designation which previously covered both areas will be eliminated. The amendments also include text for the new designations consistent with the Specific Plan, as well as updates to the General Plan Land Use map and other designation standards references such as Table LU-1, and the Special Areas description of Station East.

City Council/RSA Agenda 489 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, October 6, 2022
Station District Specific Plan, EIR, and GP and Zoning Amendments, Page 8 • Add MMU Designation and Policies. There will be a new land use designation called Marketplace Mixed Use (MMU) that applies to the Marketplace subarea instead of the current Commercial land use designation, allowing more intense residential or office uses to be added while requiring retention of retail through a new policy consistent with the Specific Plan.
• Small Number of Parcels Changing from C to CMU. Consistent with the Specific plan, change the land use designations of two parcels located east of AlvaradoNiles Road (87-11-8-2 and 87-11-7-2) in the Gateway subarea from Commercial (C) to Corridor Mixed Use Commercial (CMU), which allows residential as well as commercial uses. These parcels are within ½ mile walk distance of the Intermodal Station and appropriate for transit-oriented housing. They are also identified for residential mixed use development in the draft Housing Element. • CSMU Standards Adjustments. The maximum FAR in the Station Mixed Use Commercial (CSMU) land use designation will increase from 4.0 to 4.2, consistent with AB 2923, which limits cities abilities to restrict height and intensity on BART property around BART stations. The minimum density will increase from 60 dwelling units per acre to 100 dwelling units per acre, with the maximum remaining at 165 dwelling units per acre.
• Adjust Business Parks Diagram. Figure ED-1 will be adjusted to remove the northeasterly portion of the Station East area, which was re-designated in the 2040 plan to accommodate residential uses. The southerly portion (area generally bounded by Bradford Way, 7th Street, Union Pacific Niles Subdivision, and the City’s Corporation Yard) will remain and is identified for higher density employment uses.
• Station District Special Area Subarea Consistency. Adjust the description of the Station District Special Area (formerly the “Greater Station District” Special Area) to correctly describe its five sub-areas consistent with the Specific Plan 1) The Core, 2) Station East, 3) The Marketplace, 4) Gateway, and 5) Civic Center.

Accompanying body text is updated to reflect this, with the addition of a short Special Areas section for Civic Center for consistency. The “Restoration Site” is now described as a unique potential development site within The Core subarea. • RDC Reference Deletion. Delete Policy SA-4.19, which references the General Plan designation of Research and Development Campus which no longer exists, City Council/RSA Agenda 490 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, October 6, 2022
Station District Specific Plan, EIR, and GP and Zoning Amendments, Page 9 and which is related to fiscal analysis for residential use in Station East which has already occurred.
• Update Gateway Special Area Description. Update Gateway Special Area description consistent with the Specific Plan and with current City efforts and plans for the area.
• Update Marketplace Special Area Description. Update Marketplace Special Area Description consistent with new land use designation and Specific Plan concepts, including policies consistent with the Specific Plan for land use mix and retail retention.
• New Civic Center Special Area Section. Creation of a new Civic Center Special Areas Section including Special Area Description, goal, policies, and diagram consistent with Specific Plan.

Please note that all page numbers, figure numbers, policy and goal numbers, Table of Content numbers, and other numerical references in the General Plan will be comprehensively updated during creation of the final General Plan layout document for publication, after amendments are adopted.

Several General Plan amendments, consistent with the Station District Specific Plan, already occurred as part of the Station East Mixed-Use Residential Project application submitted by Integral Communities and approved by City Council. These include the following:
• The designation of most parcels in the northern portion of Station East as Station East Mixed Use;
• The adjustment of Policy SA-4.2 to call for a Station East land use mix of 65% employment uses and 35% high-density residential uses including residential mixed-use developments with ground floor commercial uses along the City’s major thoroughfares;
• The increase of average residential density in Station East from 45 to 50 dwelling units per acre and the reduction of minimum density from 30 to 25 dwelling units per acre.
• The elimination of Policy SA-4.4 restricting the timing of residential development in Station East
• Design updates to Figure SA-4.2 (Station East Land Use Concept Plan) and SA-4.3 (Station East Circulation Concept Plan).

City Council/RSA Agenda 491 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, October 6, 2022
Station District Specific Plan, EIR, and GP and Zoning Amendments, Page 10 These amendments remain in place, consistent with the Station District Specific Plan and related General Plan amendments, and will be reflected in future published version of the adopted General Plan.

Zoning Text Amendments
Several Municipal Code text amendments are proposed for consistency with the Station District Specific Plan and the General Plan. Related amendments are also proposed to ensure standards are consistent between existing and new zoning district chapters. See Exhibit A and Exhibit B (Redlined) of Attachment 4 for the proposed amendment language. See below for a high-level summary of the amendments. • Marketplace Mixed Use (MMU) Zoning District- Chapter 18.26. A new zoning district called Marketplace Mixed use has been created consistent with the General Plan and Station District Specific Plan. The new district allows more intensive housing and office uses in a commercial, walkable shopping environment with design requirements for pedestrian-oriented, active street frontages and façade design, and required connections through the site to destinations beyond such as the Intermodal Station. The MMU designation is generally applied to the commercial area at the intersection of Alvarado-Niles Road and Decoto Road, which is a critical shopping destination on the east side of the City.

The format for the MMU zoning district follows the format of the newer Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and Station East Residential Mixed Use (SEMU-R) zoning districts. Permitted and conditional uses generally follow what was previously allowed under the former zoning designation of Community Commercial (CC) with the addition of stand-alone residential and mixed use residential uses at densities between 30 du to 100 du per acre. In some instances, the use categories have been updated for simplification or clarification from what is currently allowed in the commercial zoning designations.

The chapter also reflects updated performance standards and design criteria based, in part, on the Station District Specific Plan, standard conditions of approval applied to new development, as well as best and current practices. The standards address a variety of issues including active ground floor uses, loading areas, signage, equipment screening, landscaping, bicycle and pedestrian access, and City Council/RSA Agenda 492 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, October 6, 2022
Station District Specific Plan, EIR, and GP and Zoning Amendments, Page 11 automobile and bicycle parking. A special requirement is included that is unique to this district due to its importance as a shopping district for the east side of town, which requires that the existing commercial square footage be generally maintained should the site redevelop with residential uses. Setbacks and other development standards were based on the Station East Mixed Use Residential (SEMU-R) zoning district, which shares similar densities with the MMU zoning district.
• New Station East Employment (SEE) District – Chapter 18.41. A new zoning district called Station East Employment has been created consistent with the General Plan and Station District Specific Plan. This new district replaces the Research and Development Campus (RDC) zoning district but retains a flexible mix of employment uses as previously allowed while allowing a wider range of lab, life sciences, and other employment uses with complementary service and commercial uses, designed in a walkable campus environmental accessible to the Intermodal Station, with transit-oriented intensities allowed.

Development requirements, including those related to performance standards, loading, signage, equipment screening, bicycle and pedestrian access, automobile and bicycle parking, are consistent with newly added Chapter 18.26 and reflect compliance with the Station District Specific Plan, the City’s standard conditions of approval, and best / current practices. Design standards for flex-industrial buildings were included in this zoning district, which will also be added to Chapter 18.40, Industrial Districts, in a future update. • Chapter 18.12 District established and Chapter 18.76, Site Development Review.

Updates included addition of reference to new zoning districts MMU and SEE as well as references to newer SEMU-R and CMU zoning districts, consistent with previous updates. A reference to the RDC district was removed from both chapters. Lastly, a reference to a soon to be newly created zoning district for the Historic Alvarado District called Village Mixed Use (VMU) was included, which will replace the Specialty Commercial (CS) zoning district. Creation of the VMU zoning district will be brought up to the Planning Commission at their next meeting as part of the Housing Element General Plan and Zoning Ordinance City Council/RSA Agenda 493 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, October 6, 2022
Station District Specific Plan, EIR, and GP and Zoning Amendments, Page 12 amendments. They are included in the current updates for efficiency so the chapter is only updated once.
• Chapter 18.37 Station East Mixed Use – Residential (SEMU-R). This chapter was amended to reflect the updated use categories, development standards, and design criteria included in Chapters 18.26 and 18.41. The automobile parking standards vary slightly from what is included in the MMU zoning district and the Station District Specific Plan but were not updated since the Station East Mixed Use project (approved by the City Council in July 2021) rely on those standards. • Chapter 18.38 Station Mixed Use Commercial (CSMU). Updates include adjustment of FAR maximum from 4.0 to 4.2 and inclusion of specific automobile and bicycle parking standards on BART property for compliance with AB 2923, which includes specific development standards for BART properties that local jurisdictions must implement. The updates to this chapter also include an increase in minimum density from 65 du/ac to 100 du/ac, which reflects the densities of the recently constructed developments. Amendments were also included to reflect updated performance standards consistent with the updates described above.

The design criteria was not updated as it is based on the Intermodal Station District and Transit Facility Plan and reflects the higher densities and more urban environment of the Core. With that said, the City has hired a consultant, using grant funding, to prepare objective design standards for multi-family developments. It is anticipated that the design standards in CSMU will be updated as part of that process. The design criteria in the other Station District zoning districts, which is shown in the proposed amendments, will also be updated. It is anticipated that the amendments will be brought to the Planning Commission in the Spring or 2023 for their consideration.
• Chapter 18.40, Industrial Districts, Article IV, Use of Hazardous Materials, and Chapter 18.114, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. These use tables in these chapters were updated to reflect the replacement of the RDC zoning district by the SEE district. Article IV applies to areas where industrial uses are allowed and provides guidance on hazardous material storage and use. In addition, City Council/RSA Agenda 494 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, October 6, 2022
Station District Specific Plan, EIR, and GP and Zoning Amendments, Page 13 Chapter 18.114 was amended to also add Marketplace Mixed Use and Corridor Mixed Use to areas where wireless facilities can be established. • Chapter 18.50, Civic Facilities, and Chapter 18.92, Open Space District. These chapters were amended to remove references to the DIPSA chapter. • Chapter 18.102 Decoto Industrial Park Study Area (DIPSA). This district covers several single-family neighborhoods located in the vicinity of Decoto Road, Mission Boulevard, 7th Street, and the Union City southerly boundary with Fremont, which were developed under the DIPSA Plan. These areas were excluded from the current Station District Specific Plan since they are developed with existing low density residential uses. As amended, the chapter includes standards for four residential zoning districts including: RS(s) 3000 (Small Lot Single Family); RS(s) 3000 (Duplex); RS(s) (Small Lot SF); and RS6000-D (Large Lot SF). References to RM 1500, RM 2500 and RM 3500 were removed since these standards are listed in Chapter 18.32. Updates are also proposed to this chapter to remove references to the DIPSA Specific Plan and related provisions that are no longer applicable.

There are a few references to the DIPSA Specific Plan within Chapter 18.32, Residential Districts, and 18.36, Commercial Districts, which will be deleted as part of the Housing Element updates discussed above since there are substantial updates proposed to these chapters as part of that effort.

Zoning Map Amendment
As detailed in Attachment 5, Exhibit A, Zoning Map amendments are proposed in the following locations, consistent with the Station District Specific Plan and with the proposed General Plan amendments:
• Change the zoning in the Marketplace subarea from Community Commercial (CC) to Marketplace Mixed Use (MMU), enabling more intense residential and office uses in addition to continued commercial and retail use. • Change the zoning in the employment-focused portion of Station East from Research Development Campus (RDC) to Station East Employment (SEE), consistent with the Station District Specific Plan and the General Plan amendments.

City Council/RSA Agenda 495 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, October 6, 2022
Station District Specific Plan, EIR, and GP and Zoning Amendments, Page 14 • Change the zoning of the Restoration Site from RDC to Station Mixed Use Commercial (CSMU).
• Change the zoning of two parcels east of Alvarado-Niles Road in the Gateway subarea from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) to Corridor Mixed Use Commercial (CMU), which allows residential as well as commercial uses. • Change zoning of two parcels along 7th Street in the Station East subarea to Station East Mixed Use Residential, consistent with the Station District Specific Plan and the General Plan amendments. These parcels are in the residential-focused portion of Station East consistent with the Station District Specific Plan but are not owned by Integral Communities and therefore were not part of the rezoning and tentative map for Tract 8251 that was approved by City Council in June 2021 for the adjacent Station East Residential Mixed Use Project.

Conclusion
The Station District Specific Plan and related General Plan and Zoning amendments provide the needed land use framework to transform the Station District into a worldclass, transit-oriented community with new retail, public amenities, and high-density housing and job centers, all linked by bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Approval of these items will also ensure that the City can accommodate future growth in a sustainable manner.

III. REQUIRED FINDINGS
General Plan

1. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65358(a), that the proposed General Plan Amendment is in the public interest.

Specific Plan

1. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65454, that the Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan.

Zoning Text and Map Amendments
Section 18.64.060 requires that, when considering Zoning Amendments, the Planning Commission shall provide a recommendation to the City Council on the following:

1. Recommendation whether or not the application should be granted or denied, including the reasons for the recommendation;
City Council/RSA Agenda 496 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, October 6, 2022
Station District Specific Plan, EIR, and GP and Zoning Amendments, Page 15

2. The relationship of the application or proposal to the general plan and any applicable specific plans; and

3. Whether the change is necessary or desirable to achieve the purposes of Title 18.

IV. ALTERNATIVES

1. Recommend approval of the proposed Station District Specific Plan and associated General Plan, Zoning Text, and Zoning Map amendments and certification of the EIR to the City Council as proposed;

2. Recommend approval of the proposed Station District Specific Plan and associated General Plan, Zoning Text, and Zoning Map amendments and certification of the EIR with stated modifications;

3. Recommend denial of the proposed Station District Specific Plan and associated General Plan, Zoning Text, and Zoning Map amendments and certification of the EIR to the City Council, stating reasons for denial;

4. Continue the matter for further consideration.

V. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend certification of the EIR, adoption of the proposed Station District Specific Plan (SP-22-001), and approval of General Plan amendment (AG-22-002), Zoning text amendment (AT-22-005), and Zoning Map Amendment (A-22-001) to the City Council based on the following specific findings:

1. That the EIR is adequate, complete and in compliance with CEQA and CEQA guidelines; and

2. That the proposed General Plan amendment is in the public interest because the amendment will further the goals and policies of the General Plan to see the area around the Union City Intermodal Station transformed into a world-class transitoriented community with new retail, job centers, housing, and public amenities; and

3. That the Station District Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan, as amended; and
City Council/RSA Agenda 497 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, October 6, 2022
Station District Specific Plan, EIR, and GP and Zoning Amendments, Page 16

4. That the proposed Zoning text amendment should be granted to ensure consistency with State law which requires consistency between the General Plans, Specific Plans and Zoning and to provide some uniformity in standards for zoning districts within the Station District; and

5. That the proposed Zoning text amendment is necessary and desirable to achieve the purpose of Title 18 because the amendments will promote the orderly and beneficial development of the Station District area, regulate the intensity of use, and fix reasonable standards to which buildings shall conform, and establish policies and standards that are necessary to implement the 2040 General Plan and Station District Specific Plan; and

6. That the proposed Zoning text amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

The proposed amendment creates new zoning districts and updates existing zoning districts to implement the vision, goals and policies of the General Plan, as amended, and the Station District Specific Plan, to create a world-class, transitoriented community around the Intermodal Station with new commercial, public amenities, and high-density housing and job centers, all linked by bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and

7. That the proposed Zoning map amendment should be granted to ensure consistency with State law which requires consistency between a jurisdiction’s General Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning; and

8. That the proposed Zoning map amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the Station District Specific Plan. The proposed map amendment adds new zoning districts and updates existing zoning districts to implement the vision, goals and policies of the General Plan, as amended, and the Station District Specific Plan, to create a world-class, transit-oriented community around the Intermodal Station with new commercial, public amenities, and high-density housing and job centers, all linked by bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and

9. That the proposed Zoning map amendment is necessary and desirable to achieve the purpose of Title 18 because the amendment will promote the orderly and beneficial development of the Station District area, regulate the intensity of use, and fix reasonable standards to which buildings shall conform.

City Council/RSA Agenda 498 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, October 6, 2022
Station District Specific Plan, EIR, and GP and Zoning Amendments, Page 17 It is further recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolutions confirming this action.

Prepared by
Carmela Campbell, ECD Director; Derek Farmer, Planning Manager; and Aaron Welch, Contract Planner
Attachments
• Attachment 1: Resolution Recommending the City Council Certify the EIR o Exhibit A: Final EIR
o Exhibit B: Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program • Attachment 2: Resolution Approving the Station District Specific Plan (SP-22-001) o Exhibit A: Station District Specific Plan
• Attachment 3: Resolution Approving Related General Plan Amendments (AG-22- 002)
o Exhibit A – Table of General Plan Amendments and Updated Figures • Attachment 4: Resolution Approving Related Zoning Text Amendments (AT-22- 005)
o Exhibit A – Zoning Text Amendments
o Exhibit B – Zoning Text Amendments (Redlined)
• Attachment 5: Resolution Approving Related Zoning Map Amendments Exhibit A – Exhibits Showing Zoning Map Updates
• Attachment 6: June 2, 2022 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report and Desk Item
• Attachment 7: June 2, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes City Council/RSA Agenda 499 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Agenda Item
DATE: JUNE 2, 2022
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CARMELA CAMPBELL, ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION FOR DRAFT STATION DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN

AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Staff is requesting feedback from the Planning Commission regarding the draft Station District Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) and Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). This report provides an overview of key features and strategies included in the Specific Plan, as well as an overview of the DEIR content and public review process. Both the Specific Plan and DEIR are included as attachments to this staff report (Attachments 1 and 2, respectively). Following the 45-day DEIR public review period ending July 1, staff and the consultant team anticipates reviewing the feedback, making any necessary updates to the draft documents, and returning to the Planning Commission and the City Council for the hearing and adoption process in Fall 2022. At that time, staff will also be bringing up related Zoning and General Plan amendments necessary for consistency with the Station District Specific Plan.

The draft Specific Plan (Attachment 1) addresses a 471-acre area surrounding the Union City Intermodal Station, as shown in Figure 1. The Specific Plan is intended to ensure consistency with the Union City 2040 General Plan, which was adopted in December 2019, while refining the vision, planning details, and implementation strategies for the Station District. The Union City General Plan 2040 envisions the Station District as a world-class, transit-oriented community with new retail, public amenities, and highdensity housing and job centers, all linked by bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

As required by state law, the Specific Plan addresses a range of topics including land use, mobility, urban design, infrastructure, and financing. The planning process also included preparation of an EIR (Attachment 2), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

City Council/RSA Agenda 500 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 2
Figure 1. Station District Specific Plan Area
City Council/RSA Agenda 501 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 3

BACKGROUND
The City was awarded a Priority Development Area Planning Grant by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to update the existing Decoto Industrial Park Study Area (DIPSA) Specific Plan. The Station District Specific Plan will replace and alter the boundaries of the existing Decoto Industrial Park Study Area (DIPSA) Specific Plan upon its adoption. The Station District Specific Plan boundary is identical to the recently updated boundary for Union City’s Priority Development Area (PDA), which is a regional designation by MTC and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for areas that are identified for future growth near public transit.

The consultant team of Dyett & Bhatia was selected through a competitive bidding process to assist the City in completing work on the Specific Plan. Work on the project commenced in 2019. Since that time, the project team of City and consultant staff have created a detailed report of existing conditions for the Station District area; established a 5-person Community Advisory Committee (CAC); created a project website (www.unioncity.org/SD); conducted stakeholder interviews with property owners, neighbors, and others with an interest in the area; created and solicited community feedback on a range of planning alternatives which informed the contents of the draft Specific Plan. The last several months have been spent working on the associated DEIR.

The existing conditions report for the Specific Plan area includes background information regarding land use, urban design, transportation, environmental setting, and infrastructure and can be found on the Station District project website at https://www.unioncity.org/423/Resources. This background work was the foundation for the Specific Plan.

During 2020, the City completed a community outreach process to solicit feedback on planning alternatives for the Station District, as well as a community vision and guiding principles. Outreach efforts during this phase of work included two meetings of the Community Advisory Committee (February 19, 2020 and July 9, 2020), a community workshop (July 21, 2020), and an online community survey (July/August 2020). This was followed by a Planning Commission Study Session on and a City Council Study Session in August and September of 2020. The Planning Commission and City Council expressed overall support for the guiding principles and proposed direction, while offering suggestions for refinement of language and planning concepts to more accurately reflect the unique Station District context in Union City. A summary of feedback is included as Attachment 3, Summary of Station District Engagement Feedback. After April 2020, all City Council/RSA Agenda 502 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 4
engagement meetings were held virtually, in accordance with the Alameda County Health Officer Order and City policy.

The feedback described above was used to inform development of the draft Specific Plan and DEIR, with continued technical work and analysis by the planning team. The EIR Notice of Preparation circulation process was initiated in January 2021 as described in more detail below, and the draft Specific Plan and DEIR were released for public review on May 17, 2022. Staff notified the extensive Station District stakeholder list and agency partners regarding release of the document. Staff also utilized the City’s other outreach channels to inform community members of the release of the draft documents. In addition, staff will be hosting a Station District Community Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting in June (date is TBD) to discuss the draft Specific Plan, and attending the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) on June 21, 2022.

ANALYSIS
Informed by the existing conditions analysis, community engagement, and policy direction received by Planning Commission and the City Council, City staff and the consultant team have developed the Station District Specific Plan to implement the vision established in the General Plan 2040. Key strategies and components of the Specific Plan are described below, with full detail available in the Specific Plan document itself (Attachment 1).

Guiding Principles
In 2020, the project team presented five draft guiding principles for the Station District Specific Plan at a series of community/public meetings described in the section above.

Following these meetings, the guiding principles were revised and expanded to reflect the feedback received, and in response to refinements to the draft plan direction and strategies. This included the addition of guiding principles related to economic development, housing, sustainability, and diversity. The guiding principles are intended to guide the overall strategy, policies, design, and investments included in the Specific Plan. They are listed below with additional explanation of each guiding principle included on page 13 of the Specific Plan:
• Promote a Vibrant, Mixed-use Community.
• Create a Well-Connected District.
• Promote a Network of Open Space Amenities
• Ensure High Quality Design
City Council/RSA Agenda 503 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 5
• Promote Sustainability
• Embrace Diversity
• Support Housing Development and Provide a Variety of Housing Types • Ensure Long-Term Fiscal Sustainability
Specific Plan Subarea
The Specific Plan identifies five different subareas, each with a unique character, land use mix, and role within the Station District. The subareas are consistent with those identified in the General Plan, with a small number of refinements to the various subarea boundaries. The subarea boundaries are shown in Figure 2 (Station District Subareas).

Goals for the subareas are included below, followed by a brief description and summary strategy diagram for each subarea. Subarea goals and strategy diagrams have been updated from prior outreach, based on feedback received from the Planning Commission, City Council and other community engagement processes. Additional detail about anticipated uses, design, and programming for each subarea is found in Chapter 2 of the Specific Plan.

City Council/RSA Agenda 504 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 6
Figure 2. Station District Subareas
City Council/RSA Agenda 505 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 7
The Core
Goal: The Core subarea is planned to be a major transit hub, business center, and residential community with a high intensity of uses, well connected to the rest of the city.

The Core (Figure 3) subarea is envisioned to continue the land use pattern, new connections, and types of development projects that have occurred in recent years, consistent with the General Plan. In addition to recent developments such as Union Flats and Station Center, and other existing housing like Avalon Bay, the Verandas, and Pacific Terrace, an additional high-density housing development was approved on the block adjacent to Union Flats. In addition, the City has entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with Woodstock Development for development of 1.2 million square feet of office uses on three (3) vacant blocks within the Core subarea. The City-owned “Restoration Site,” between 11th Street and the BART tracks, is envisioned to include a flexible mix of residential, office, and/or mixed-use development. City staff has also coordinated with BART to better understand its long-term intentions for the two BARTowned parking lots west of the BART Station entrance, expressing an interest in the potential for office development in the longer term. BART’s current 10-Year TOD Work Plan (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/TOD_Workplan_FINAL_200814_ reduced.pdf) identifies future land uses for the UC station as “flexible”, which means either residential or commercial could be developed, within the “Mid-term (2025-2030)” development timeline.

City Council/RSA Agenda 506 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 8
Figure 3. The Core
City Council/RSA Agenda 507 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 9
Station East
Goal: Station East Subarea is planned to be a vibrant hub of innovation. The hub will include a significant cluster of technology and office uses and mixed-use housing options. New streets, bicycle/pedestrian facilities, plazas, parks, and greenways will foster a connected, urban environment that has direct access to the Intermodal Station and beyond.

The 2040 General Plan allows a mix of residential and commercial uses in the portion of the Station East area closest to Decoto Road, and the Specific Plan follows that direction.

In June 2021, City Council approved the Station East Residential Mixed-Use project, which includes approximately).

The Station East Residential Mixed-Use project contains 1,000-units, 30,000 square feet of retail, new parks and open space, and new street connections (Figure 4). The remaining Station East area allows for a range of employment uses over the longer term, including office, biotech, and research and development uses similar to what is allowed under the Research and Development Campus (RDC), as well as public amenities to serve the future day-time population including plazas and recreational outdoor space. It is anticipated the area will be complemented by a network of new and expanded green spaces and pedestrian connections linking important destinations throughout the Station East area as the area redevelops, and accessed through the Pedestrian Spine that extends west to BART and the Core Station District. See Figure 4.

City Council/RSA Agenda 508 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 10
Figure 4. Station East
City Council/RSA Agenda 509 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 11
Marketplace
Goal: The Marketplace is anticipated to be a vibrant, walkable citywide destination with community-serving and specialty retail, dining, and entertainment uses, new streets, and plazas fostering a “downtown” feel, with a complementary mix of residential, office, and other uses.

This shopping area is heavily used by residents that live on the east side of the City and has historically very low vacancy rates. It is a strong City and community priority to retain the amount and diversity of stores, services, and shopping options that currently exist in the Marketplace area. This is particularly true for residents of nearby areas such as the Decoto neighborhood and the Core subarea, which rely on the area for important everyday needs such as grocery shopping. At the same time, there may be opportunities to enhance and complement the Marketplace’s existing retail character with improved public spaces, active street frontage, and the introduction of residential in targeted locations. This could occur at a range of scales and timelines. The Specific Plan direction for the Marketplace subarea (Figure 5) calls for a continuation of a strong retail and commercial presence, while allowing the gradual incorporation of additional residential, office, and open space uses in a mixed-use downtown environment. It also calls for new connections through the large existing blocks, providing better links to BART and other destinations in the Station District.

City Council/RSA Agenda 510 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 12
Figure 5. The Marketplace
City Council/RSA Agenda 511 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 13
Gateway
Goal: The Gateway Subarea along the future Quarry Lakes Parkway will provide a new gateway to Union City. The subarea includes a variety of housing opportunities integrated with open space, park amenities, and enhanced facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians, facilitated by future construction of the multimodal Quarry Lakes Parkway.

The Gateway Subarea includes approximately 35 acres of property owned by the City, much of which was previously owned by Caltrans. Some of this land will serve as the site of the future Quarry Lakes Parkway. In other portions of the Gateway Subarea, the Specific Plan envisions a mix of townhomes, multi-family apartments, open space, and mixed-use development, consistent with the land use pattern identified in the 2040 General Plan. See Figure 6. Open space could be provided as stand-alone public space as well as in coordination with residential development, and could occur within a range of scales, orientations, facility types, and programming options. These could include playgrounds, community gardens, recreational open space, passive open space, or other open space and ecological areas including anticipated connections to the adjacent Arroyo Park and Quarry Lakes Regional Recreation Area.

Civic Center
Goal: In the Civic Center Subarea, civic uses are planned to be cohesively integrated with the larger Station District, with new pedestrian and bicycle connections, and potential long-term improvements to existing public facilities and amenities.

The existing mix of land uses is envisioned to largely remain in place within the Civic Center, as shown in the accompanying diagram (Figure 7). However, there may be opportunities to improve connections, open space, civic facilities, and community programming in the Civic Center.

City Council/RSA Agenda 512 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 14
Figure 6. Gateway
City Council/RSA Agenda 513 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 15
Figure 7. Civic Center
PI
Residential (17-30 du/ac)
City Council/RSA Agenda 514 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 16
Station District Land Uses
As described above, the Specific Plan area has a range of existing land uses, including residential, retail, schools, public uses, parks, and office space. The 2040 Union City General Plan established a vision “to continue to transform the Station District into a dynamic, transit-oriented district with a diversity of uses that create a vibrant atmosphere where people live, work, and socialize.” The Station District Specific Plan is intended to enact that vision, while adding details of policy, design, feasibility, geographic specificity, and implementation that were not established by the General Plan.

The land use pattern in the Station District Specific Plan (Figure 8) is largely consistent with the 2040 General Plan. For many areas of the Specific Plan, staff anticipates that existing General Plan land use designations and zoning districts will continue to be used or slightly amended upon adoption of the Specific Plan. Two notable exceptions to this are the Marketplace Subarea – where staff anticipates creating a new Marketplace Mixed Use zoning district – and the eastern portion of the Station East area – where staff anticipates creating a new Station East Employment land use zoning district. For other areas in the Specific Plan area, existing land use designations and zoning district will continue to be deployed according to the pattern shown in Figure 8.

A full package of zoning and general plan amendments will accompany the Station District Specific Plan and Final EIR during the hearings process, and all are anticipated to be adopted simultaneously.

City Council/RSA Agenda 515 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 17
Figure 8. Station District Land Use
City Council/RSA Agenda 516 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 18
Urban Design
While detailed development standards will be included in the Zoning chapters, the Specific Plan includes high-level guidance for urban design in the Station District. This includes identification of the anticipated block pattern, public spaces, site and building design, and public realm amenities such as wayfinding and public art.

A more connected pattern of smaller blocks and more direct connections is envisioned as redevelopment occurs over time in the different subareas. As shown in Figure 9, some of these new connections are already planned as part of approved projects such as the entitled Integral project in the Station East area. Other potential connections would occur along with redevelopment in other locations such as the Marketplace, or with the establishment of shared-use paths associated with the Quarry Lakes Parkway and other public works projects.

The Specific Plan does not dictate exact locations for new public spaces, but identifies potential locations for parks, linear green spaces, paseos and pathways, and plazas that would be incorporated through new development over time. These would complement and link to the many open spaces that already exist in the Specific Plan area, and that would continue to be enhanced. The Specific Plan also includes design and policy guidance for the different types of open spaces that could occur in the Station District, mostly focused on urban space types like plazas, paseos, and streetscape, which are based on prior work associated with the Station East Mixed Use Project Specific Plan Amendment.

Figure 10 identifies street frontages that are anticipated to be the focus of pedestrian activity and ground-floor activation in the Station District. These are focused on 11th Street, continuing ongoing efforts the City has made for many years in this location, as well as along Decoto Road, within the Marketplace area, and along the central pedestrian spine that is planned to continue from the BART station into Station East.

City Council/RSA Agenda 517 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 19
Figure 9. Block Pattern
City Council/RSA Agenda 518 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 20
Figure 10. Active Ground Floor Focus
City Council/RSA Agenda 519 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 21
Mobility
The Station District is one of the primary areas of focus in Union City for improving multi-modal transportation options and connections, including for transit, walking, and biking. Figure 11 identifies the existing and planned multi-modal circulation network.

The future network relies on potential new connections that would be added as development occurs and could be a mix of motorized and non-motorized paseo or pathway connections. These would complement and connect existing streets and pathways. The Specific Plan includes typical street section designs for Decoto Road, Alvarado-Niles Road, 7th Street, 11th Street, which identify potential multi-modal improvements.

New and existing bicycle and pedestrian connections are consistent with what is shown in the Union City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (adopted November 2021), and the planning teams for both plans coordinated their efforts. The Bicycle Network (Figure 12) relies on a combination of improvements to existing streets, new connections, and existing and new off-street pathways, some of which are part of regional networks like the East Bay Greenway. The Class I, II, III, and IV bikeway classifications identified in the Specific Plan are consistent with what is specified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

The Specific Plan also includes guidance for bicycle and car parking and transportation demand management (TDM). Car and bike parking on BART property in the Core subarea was changed to be consistent with State law AB 2923, which does not allow more than 0.5 car parking spaces per dwelling unit and requires at least 1 bicycle parking space per residential unit, among other provisions. TDM policies include an allowance for unbundled parking (sold or rented separately from residential units), electric vehicle charging, shared parking, TDM plans for large developments, and City ability to monitor and adjust parking requirements over time.

City Council/RSA Agenda 520 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 22
Figure 11. Existing and Proposed Circulation Network
City Council/RSA Agenda 521 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 23
Figure 12. Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network
City Council/RSA Agenda 522 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 24
Infrastructure and Financing
Many of the infrastructure improvements identified for the Station District are related to transportation and improvements to the Intermodal Station. Many wet utilities – such as sewer and water – are sufficiently sized for the anticipated development in the Station District because of past investment along 11th Street and in other locations. However, some sewer and water upgrades are anticipated, along with improvements to the stormwater management system required by more stringent County and federal stormwater requirements. The Plan also calls for continued investment in existing parks and public facilities, as well as new projects like restoration of Old Alameda Creek. Some infrastructure improvements will be funded by new development on a project-by-project basis, while others will be funded across the district through payment of impacts fees or other citywide/regional sources. Appendix A of the Specific Plan includes a financing strategy and identifies specific improvement projects.

CEQA
The proposed project is subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA and its implementing Guidelines, the City has completed a public Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared by the City’s CEQA consultant team, led by Dyett & Bhatia with support from ICF and other sub-consultants. The DEIR is included as Attachment 2 to this staff report.

The CEQA process discloses significant environmental effects of the proposed project and identifies ways to avoid or reduce environmental impacts.

To initiate the CEQA process for the project, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated to the public and interested agencies from January 26, 2021 to March 6, 2021. The purpose of the NOP process was to receive feedback on the scope and content of the EIR. The City held a public EIR scoping meeting on February 11, 2021. The City received comment letters from interested agencies and community members in response to the NOP. The feedback received through this process informed the preparation of the DEIR and is included as Appendix A to the DEIR. Following the NOP and NOP comment process, the DEIR was prepared and a public draft was released on May 17, 2022.

Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
An EIR is intended to inform decision-makers and the general public about the potential significant environmental impacts of a proposed project. The EIR also considers mitigation measures to minimize significant impacts and evaluates feasible alternatives City Council/RSA Agenda 523 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 25
to the Proposed Plan that may reduce or avoid one or more significant environmental impacts.

All environmental impacts included in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist are included and analyzed in the DEIR. Some resource areas, including Forestry Resources, Mineral Resources, and Wildfire were not analyzed in detail due to the determination that no likelihood of a potentially significant impact would occur due to the location and characteristics of the Planning Area.

Based on this determination, the DEIR includes a detailed analysis related to the following resource areas:
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural and Tribal Resources
• Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology
• Land Use
• Noise
• Public Services
• Transportation
• Utilities and Service Systems
Based on the analysis in the DEIR, the resource areas that were found to have no impact or less-than-significant impacts include:
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use, Population and Housing
• Public Services and Recreation
• Agriculture
The remaining resource areas were found to have either potentially significant impacts that could be reduced to a level of less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures, or impacts that were determined to be significant and unavoidable, even with the incorporation of mitigation measures to reduce the level of impact.

City Council/RSA Agenda 524 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 26
The majority of the potentially significant impacts associated with build out under the Specific Plan are due to construction activities, which are temporary and limited in nature. These include, but are not limited to, the following impacts: construction dust and vehicle pollutants, special-status species and associated habitat and migratory activity/routes, conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, undocumented human remains or archaeological resources, energy consumption, the release, emissions, and handling of hazardous materials, and increases in ambient noise.

The remainder of the potentially significant impacts are associated with project operations associated with development under Specific Plan. These include impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, energy consumption, and impacts to water utilities. The potentially significant construction and operation impacts in most of these areas would be reduced to less-than significant levels through implementation of identified mitigation measures.

The analysis in the DEIR identified five resource areas where development under the Proposed Plan would result in impacts that are significant and unavoidable, even with the incorporation of mitigation measures. These resource areas include the following:
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Cultural Resources
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Transportation/Traffic
The significant and unavoidable impacts are primarily the result of the lack of known timing for specific development within the Proposed Plan as they relate to changes in state and regional laws and standards related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation and traffic. Significant and unavoidable impacts to aesthetics and cultural resources derive from the physical attributes and location of future development within the Proposed Plan. A brief summary of the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with these resource areas is provided below.

City Council/RSA Agenda 525 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 27
Topic Significance* Summary
Aesthetics SU • Buildings up to 160 feet in height would be allowed in the Core subarea. The intensity and
scale of permitted development could obstruct
views of the foothills of the Coastal Range (i.e.,
hillside area) that frame the eastern edge of the
city, which are considered scenic vistas,
therefore resulting in a potentially significant
impact.
• Compliance with policies within the UC 2040
General Plan, the Specific Plan, and others
together with associated zoning standards
would reduce impacts to scenic vistas to the
maximum extent practicable. There are no
mitigation measures available to avoid impacts
entirely.

Air Quality SU • Implementation of the Proposed Plan would result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of criteria pollutants for which the
Project region is nonattainment under an
applicable federal or State ambient air quality
standard.
• Emissions associated with construction
activities including ROG, NOx, PM10 and
PM2.5, which could result from development
under the Specific Plan, has the potential to
exceed their respective BAAQMD significance
thresholds. Proposed mitigation measures
address these impacts. However, because it
cannot be concluded that the offset programs
required in various proposed mitigation
measures will always be available in the future
at the time and in the amount needed for any
given future development. As such, for the
purposes of the EIR analysis, construction
City Council/RSA Agenda 526 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 28
Topic Significance* Summary
related air quality impacts are conservatively
assumed to be significant and unavoidable.
• Operation Emissions - If the proposed project
exceeds BAAQMD operations thresholds,
mitigation measures would include, but not be
limited to, mitigation credits and offset
programs. As with construction emissions,
because it cannot be concluded that offset
programs would always be available in the
future at the time and in the amount needed
for any given future development, for the
purposes of the EIR analysis, operational air
quality impacts are conservatively assumed to
be significant and unavoidable.
• Even with the Specific Plan’s policies and the
EIR mitigation measures, additional emissions
generated by new stationary sources, vehicle
trips, and construction activity could expose
receptors to risks in excess of the BAAQMD
significance threshold.

Cultural
Resources
SU • Implementation of the Specific Plan at the
project level would cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical
resource (the Peterson Farmhouse), as defined
as physical demolition, destruction, relocation,
or alteration of the resource or its immediate
surroundings such that the significance of a
historic resource would be materially
impaired.
• Implementation of mitigation measures to
document the historic buildings and setting,
preserve the area within the Historic Resource
Boundary surrounding the Peterson
Farmhouse, and complete on-site signage and
City Council/RSA Agenda 527 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 29
Topic Significance* Summary
other media would partially compensate for
the impact associated with demolition of the
resource; however, because these measures
would not be enough to avoid the impact, the
demolition of the Peterson Farmhouse would
remain a significant and unavoidable impact..

Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
(GHG)
SU • Development under the Specific Plan would
generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment, and
may conflict with an applicable policy
concerning GHG emissions.
• Mitigation measures are expected to reduce
GHG emissions generated by typical uses in
the Planning Area and reduce the magnitude
of their impact. However, their effectiveness
cannot be accurately estimated because future
development within the Planning Area cannot
be known at this time. As such, for the
purposes of the EIR analysis, GHG related
impacts are conservatively assumed to be
significant and unavoidable.

Transportation
and Traffic
SU • CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 requires that
the determination of significance for
transportation impacts be based on Vehicles
Miles Traveled (VMT) instead of a congestion
metric such as Level of Service (LOS)
• VMT reduction measures embedded in the
proposed goals and policies would
substantially reduce VMT over baseline
conditions. Even with implementation of these
VMT reduction measures, the total VMT per
service population in the Planning Area would
not achieve the required 15 percent reduction.
*SU: Significant and Unavoidable
City Council/RSA Agenda 528 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 30
A detailed summary of the various resource area analyses, impacts, and mitigation measures is included in Table ES-2 of the DEIR Executive Summary, as well as in individual resource chapters of the DEIR.

The DEIR has concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in some environmental impacts. Most impacts would result from construction of development projects under the Plan, would be temporary in nature, and would be mitigated to a less than significant level with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Likewise, most operational impacts would also be mitigated to less than significant levels. Some of the impacts identified in the DEIR as significant and unavoidable are largely the result of the Specific Plan being a programmatic document and not knowing exactly when sites will be coming in for development/redevelopment or whether more than one site may develop at the same time. In these case, the City has conservatively assumed the impact to be significant and unavoidable.

Summary of Alternatives
As required by CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15126.6, the DEIR has considered a reasonable range of project alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or lessen any of the significant effects, and evaluate the comparable merits of the alternatives. For this analysis, three alternatives deemed to be feasible were selected:
• Increased Employment Alternative
• Reduced Development Alternative
• No Project Alternative
Further, the analysis must determine the alternative that is the environmentally superior alternative. For this project, the environmentally superior alternative was determined to be the Reduced Development Alternative based on the analysis of environmental effects as measured with the project objectives. The alternatives analysis can be found in Chapter 5 of the DEIR.

DEIR Review Period
The DEIR is available for public comment for a 45-day review period as specified by the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15105). This period started on May 17, 2022 and ends on July 1, 2022. The purpose of this comment period is to consider the content of the DEIR and the potential environmental impacts that may result from project implementation, City Council/RSA Agenda 529 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 31
not the positive or negative attributes of the project itself. Comments pertaining to the impact analysis, criteria and thresholds, mitigation measures, and alternatives presented in the DEIR will be considered by the City during preparation of the Final EIR (FEIR).

The FEIR will include copies of comments and the City’s responses to comments pertaining to the environmental analysis provided in the DEIR. In addition, the draft Specific Plan is also available for public comment for 45 days concurrent with the DEIR per Government Code Section 65352.

Next Steps
The City anticipates coming back to the Planning Commission and City Council in late summer/early Fall for adoption of the Specific Plan, related Zoning and General Plan updates, and certification of the EIR.

CONCLUSION
The draft Specific Plan addresses a 471-acre area surrounding the Union City Intermodal Station. The Station District is envisioned as a world-class, transit-oriented community with new retail, public amenities, and high-density housing and job centers, all linked by bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The Specific Plan is intended to ensure consistency with the Union City 2040 General Plan, which was adopted in December 2019, while refining the vision, planning details, and implementation strategies for the Station District. A related DEIR has been prepared as required by CEQA, which includes an evaluation of the project’s environmental effects. The Specific Plan process has included a robust public outreach process, which has informed the contents of the plan. Following the 45-day public review period ending July 1, staff and the consultant team anticipates reviewing the feedback, making any necessary updates to the draft documents, and returning to the Planning Commission and the City Council for the hearing and adoption process in Fall 2022.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff is requesting feedback regarding the draft Station District Specific Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report.

PREPARED BY
Aaron Welch, Contract Planner
City Council/RSA Agenda 530 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 02, 2022
Draft Station District Specific Plan and EIR Page | 32

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Station District Specific Plan Public Draft Dated May 2022 (https://www.unioncity.org/DocumentCenter/View/8034/3_Union-City-Station-DistrictSpecific-Plan-05-17-22) Attachment 2: Draft Environmental Impact Report Dated May 2022 (https://www.unioncity.org/DocumentCenter/View/8025/Public-ReviewDraft_Appendices_EIR_051722) Attachment 3: Summary of Station District Engagement Feedback (https://www.unioncity.org/DocumentCenter/View/4397/Union-City-CommunityEngagement-Report_09-21-2020?bidId=) City Council/RSA Agenda 531 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Desk Item
DATE: JUNE 2, 2022
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: AARON WELCH, CONTRACT PLANNER

CARMELA CAMPBELL, ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: DRAFT STATION DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY SESSION Staff received comments and questions from Commissioner Lew regarding the public draft of the Station District Specific Plan, currently under consideration by the Planning Commission as Agenda Item 6.B.1 of the June 2 Study Session. The following are the questions and staff’s responses (in red italics), which are anticipated to be incorporated in the final adoption draft of the Specific Plan.

1. Page 2, 1st para., 4th and 5th lines – AC Transit is the “Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District”, not “Alameda County Transit.” Please correct the reference.

We will revise this text to refer to the agency as “Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District.”

2. Page 6, the first paragraph states Figure 1-2 shows “major connections to the planning area include BART, Interstate 880, the Dumbarton and San Mateo Bridges.” However, only BART is shown on Figure 1-2. Please correct this discrepancy. Also, the sentence is grammatically incorrect and should be revised to add “and” before “the Dumbarton.” We will remove the reference to Figure 1-2 in this sentenceand will add a reference to Figures 1-1 and 1-2 in the following paragraph, which describes facilities shown on those maps. We will also add “and” before “the Dumbarton” in the first paragraph.

3. Page 4, the 3rd paragraph states the DIPSA Specific Plan was adopted in 1994, but on page 6, the last paragraph states the plan was adopted in 1995. Please correct this discrepancy.

The correct original DIPSA adoption year is 1994. We will revise Page 6 to reflect this.

4. Some figures in this plan refer to the East Plaza as the Station District Plaza. Which name is correct? Please clarify and ensure the correct plaza name is used consistently throughout the plan.

ATTACHMENT 7
City Council/RSA Agenda 532 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Desk Item
June 2, 2020

Page 2 ends

East Plaza is the correct name and is currently used in all figures except Figure 2-2 on

Page 17 ends

text on page 16.

5. Page 16 contains references to Figure 2-2, “Block 2”, and “three remaining vacant blocks.” Figure 2-2 does not identify “Block 2” or the “three remaining vacant blocks” for the reader. Please include this information in Figure 2-2.

We will eliminate the reference to “Block 2” from the text on page 16, and will add more geographically descriptive text related to the future development areas shown in Figure 2-2.

6. Page 101 – portions of the first paragraph are repeated verbatim in the second paragraph. Please explain the need to repeat this information and clarify where corrections will be made.

We will eliminate the two duplicative sentences from the 2nd paragraph.

7. Page 105, 3rd para., 4th line – is the reference to “Study Area” the same as “Planning Area”? Please clarify.

The accurate term for this statement is “Planning Area,” as defined in Figure 1-2 on

Page 7 ends

8. Page 105, portions of the third paragraph are repeated in the 4th paragraph and the 4th paragraph contains duplicate statements. Please explain the need to repeat statements and clarify where corrections will be made.

We will eliminate the duplicative text from the 4th paragraph.

9. Page 110, 3rd para. – the last sentence mentions “Proposed Plan” twice. What is the proposed plan? Is it this specific plan? Please clarify.

The sentence will be revised to reference “Specific Plan,” not “Proposed Plan.”

10.Please ensure every page is numbered, shows the standard header “UNION CITY STATION DISTRICT”, and shows the applicable section name at the bottom of the page.

The plan is inconsistent regarding these items.

We will add standard header, page number, and/or section name information in the following locations:
• Page 2 (add page number and section name)
• Page 14 (add standard header)
• Page 26 (add standard header; add page number and section name) • Page 31 (add standard header)
• Page 37 (add standard header; add page number and section name) • Page 49 (add standard header)
City Council/RSA Agenda 533 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Desk Item
June 2, 2020

Page 3 ends

• Page 56 (add page number and section name)
• Page 61 (add standard header; add page number and section name) • Page 78 (add page number and section name)
• Page 97 (add standard header; add page number and section name) • Page 98 (add standard header; add page number and section name) • Page 100 (add standard header; add page number and section name) • Page 107 (add standard header; add page number and section name) • Page 114 (add standard header; add page number and section name).

We do not anticipate adding standard headers or page numbers to divider pages, nor to full-page figures (Figures 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 4-1, 4-2, 4-6, 5-1, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14), consistent with customary publishing format.

11.The aforementioned is an incomplete list of my concerns regarding this specific plan which contains numerous errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Please clarify whether a revised draft with corrections will be provided for the Planning Commission’s public hearing.

We will be bringing a final draft of the Specific Plan and EIR to the Planning Commission for review in the September timeframe, which responds to the comments received during the current review period, including those identified in this Desk Item.

City Council/RSA Agenda 534 Tuesday, October 25, 2022

DESK ITEM
DATE: OCTOBER 6, 2022
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CARMELA CAMPBELL, ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: STATION DISTRICT SITE PLAN: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (AG22-002), SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SP-22-001), MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT (AT-22-005), ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (A-22-001) AND CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT:

This Desk Item addresses the following:
• Feedback from Commissioner Lew regarding Zoning Text Amendment AT-22-005 • Summary of comments and responses to prior feedback from Commissioner Lew on the draft Station District Plan submitted in June 2022 • Responses to feedback received from members of the public to date • Other proposed City updates
Commissioner Lew Feedback
Regarding Zoning Text Amendment AT-22-005, Commissioner Lew provided feedback that there were errors in the numbering and lettering associated with some of the updated Zoning chapters. Commissioner Lew was concerned that there could be sections that were inadvertently left out of the draft document. Staff reviewed the proposed amendments and corrected some numbering and lettering that appear in some instances to have been changed inadvertently due to some automatic formatting issues when text was cut or paste into the document. See updated Exhibit A (attached) showing the numbering and lettering issues addressed. For ease of review, these updates are shown as redlines. Exhibit B which, is the official redlined version, has also been updated (attached). Please note that the version presented to the City Council will not include the redlines on Exhibit A.

Commissioner Lew also brought up an issue with the formatting, specifically the margins and indentations, were not consistent with the formatting shown in the Municipal Code.

This issue will be addressed by the codifier when the updates are made to the on-line version.

Also attached to this Desk Item is a summary of how the prior comments submitted by Commissioner Lew for the Station District Specific Plan in June 2022 were addressed.

ATTACHMENT 7
City Council/RSA Agenda 535 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Desk Item- Station District Specific Plan
October 6, 2022

Page 2 ends

Public Feedback
In response to the outreach for the Planning Commission meeting, staff received some feedback and questions regarding the project, which are summarized below, along with Staff’s responses (in red).

1. From: Andreas Kadavanich
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 10:20 AM
To: Station District <[email protected]>
Subject: Station District Specific plan question
I have a question on the just published Specific Plan for the Station District. On page 81 (page 91 in the PDF: Union City Station District Specific Plan - September 2022 (full)) it states:

The Quarry Lakes Parkway Project will provide Class II buffered bike lanes in both directions,and will implement a Class I shared-use path on the north side of the corridor. This is a fully funded project with the first phases anticipated to be completed by 2025.

My understanding was that the Quarry Lakes Parkway Project is not yet funded in its entirety. So I assume the above statement refers to a subset of the project, but it isn’t clear to me from the document what that subset is. Is it the bikeway portion? The portion of the Parkway to be completed in 2025? Something else? Quarry Lakes Parkway Phases 1-4 have a funding plan that shows these phases of the project, which are entirely in Union City, fully funded. This Plan has been presented at the Alameda CTC in December 2020 and more recently to the Union City Council at the QLP Study Session in July 2022. Phases 1-4 are included in MTC’s Bay Area Plan 2050 in the fiscally constrained list. The staff is currently working on design and permitting for the project. Phases 1-4 would construct Quarry Lakes Parkway (QLP), a new four-lane local street with buffer bike lanes and a separated Class I multi-use trail between the eastern end of QLP where it connects to Mission Blvd in Union City to the Union City/Fremont boundary on the west. Phases 1 and 2 are expected to go to construction in 2024 with Phases 3 and 4 soon after.

Phase 5 of QLP is in both the City of Fremont and in Union City. This Phase includes new bridges that cross the Alameda Creek Flood Control Channel and Old Alameda Creek and provides the opportunity to revegetate and preserve the existing creek systems. Phase 5 would complete QLP between Paseo Padre Parkway in Fremont and the border between the two cities to connect with the eastern edge of Phase 2 and includes the separated multi-use trail and the bikeway. This multi-use trail will connect directly to the existing Alameda Creek trail. Remaining improvements along Paseo Padre Parkway are also included in this Phase. Phase 5 is in MTC’s Plan Bay Area 2050 unconstrained list. It is anticipated that this Phase is about 10 to 20 years out. The cities will work City Council/RSA Agenda 536 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Desk Item- Station District Specific Plan
October 6, 2022

Page 3 ends

collaboratively to create a project delivery and funding plan after the delivery of Phases 1-4 in Union City.

2. From: Jaspreet Singh
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 11:55 AM
To: Station District <[email protected]>
Subject: Water
It's disappointing to see that there are no provisions to use recycled water in the development plans for the station district, nor any requirements for rain water harvesting or gray water systems. In this time of perpetual drought, we should go through the pain now to lessen our water footprint then scrambling later when there will be extreme water scarcity.

Regarding water use in the Station District Specific Plan area, future development will be required to comply with specific ACWD provisions related to water use. See Attachment 2 for an overview of these provisions. They are also included in Appendix G of the Station District Specific Plan. In addition, future development will be required to comply with of the Cal Green Building Code and the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, which address many of the same issues. In the event that there are similar standards between these documents, the most stringent provision would apply.

Regarding use of recycled water, Union Sanitary District, the City’s wastewater purveyor, does not currently provided recycled water to Union City.

3. From: Timothy Swenson
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2022 9:25 AM
To: Station District <[email protected]>
Subject: EIR for Station district
I've looked at the latest EIR and the responses to public comments. I made the following comment:
"Given that the Peterson House has been deemed historically significant, the proposed plan should not have anything in it that would adversely affect the historical significance of the Peterson House. The City should not be able to make a change to the significance and then decide it is no longer significant and does not need to be saved.

Something like this has a happened in the past and it does not suit the City to repeat it."
The response in the EIR was:
"As noted on page 3.4-35, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2 through CUL-4 would partially compensate for the impact associated with demolition of the resource through documentation and interpretation; however, because these measures would not be enough to avoid or reduce the impact, City Council/RSA Agenda 537 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Desk Item- Station District Specific Plan
October 6, 2022

Page 4 ends

the demolition of the Peterson Farmhouse would remain significant and unavoidable with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures CUL-2 through CUL-4 require projects to conduct Level II Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Landscapes Survey documentation, preserve contributing features in the event of demolition, and complete on-site, permanent signage or other appropriate media to help partially mitigate the impact from the potential demolition of the Peterson Farmhouse." None of that addressed my concern about planning a project that will doom the Peterson House. It should not be possible to plan a house project with no consideration to the impact on the historical significance of an historic building, then when the building is reviewed, deem it not historically significant because the house project changed the significance. This has happened before in Washington Township and it should not happen again.

There needs to be clear wording in the EIR that states that any housing project must involve not impacting the historical significance of the Peterson House.

We can not have a situation that is the equivalent to building homes next to an airport and then stating that the airport is a safety hazard to the homes and must be removed.

The Peterson House is one of the few buildings in Union City that have been deemed historical significant. We need to make sure that effort is taken to preserve it and not just give lip service to historical preservation.

The EIR prepared for the project identified the potential demolition of the Peterson Farmhouse as a potentially “significant and unavoidable” impact. This determination was based on the fact that the Peterson House is considered eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources. Caltrans prepared a “Historical Resource Compliance Report”, as part of the conveyance of the property to the City, which required preservation of an 1/2-acre area surrounding the Peterson Farmhouse.

The report also requires that this area be utilized as park space and, where possible, as many of the contributing features be preserved, including the Farmhouse.

Other Proposed City Updates
The City is proposing an additional update to the draft Station District Specific Plan. See edit below.

Addition of the following policy to Section 6.2 Water Supply:

P-PF-17. New development shall comply with the “Water Efficiency Measures for New Development” included in Appendix G, Water Supply Assessment, prepared by the Alameda County Water District.

City Council/RSA Agenda 538 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Desk Item- Station District Specific Plan
October 6, 2022

Page 5 ends

The City is also proposing some minor updates to the draft zoning amendments to ensure items are correctly alphabetized and an update to Section 18.26.050 to exempt 100 percent affordable housing projects from the requirement to maintain commercial square footage in the Marketplace Mixed Use zoning district. The update to Section 18.26.050 is shown below (added text is underlined). This update was a result of feedback from the State Housing and Community Development Department. All of the proposed updates are shown in the attached Exhibit A and B.

18.26.050 Performance standards.

A. Commercial uses shall be provided along the ground floor of buildings in the areas detailed in the Station District Specific Plan Figure 4-6. Within residential developments, the decision maker may approve, at its discretion, partial or complete substitution of live/work units and residential amenity space for the required ground floor active uses if the project can demonstrate a community benefit. Live/work units shall comply with Section 18.38.032.

B. There shall be no greater than 15% net loss of total commercial space in any future redevelopment of a site within the district, with a focus on retaining retail anchors such as grocery stores and drugstores. Affordable housing projects, which provide 100 percent of the units as affordable for low, very low, and extremely low income categories, are exempt from this requirement.

Incidental equipment that is necessary to conduct the operation of the business and that is required to be installed outdoors may be allowed subject to approval by the Director or decision maker.

G. Any residential building that includes more than two hundred fifty (250) units shall provide a shared co-working space area measuring a minimum of three hundred (300) square feet.

City Council/RSA Agenda 539 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 2022
ATTACHMENT 8

CITY OF UNION CITY
DRAFT

MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2022, 7:00 P.M.

IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL
34009 ALVARADO-NILES ROAD
UNION CITY, CA 94587

AND VIA TELECONFERENCE

1. ROLL CALL: Vice Chairperson Lee Guio; Commissioner JoAnn Lew; Commissioner Seyi Mclelland; Commissioner Scott Sakakihara; Commissioner Kevin Finnerty

2. STAFF: Carmela Campbell (Economic & Community Development Director); Alex Mog (Deputy City Attorney); Derek Farmer (Planning Manager); Aaron Welch (Planner); Denisse Anzoategui (Administrative Assistant III)

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

The regular Planning Commission minutes of September 15, 2022 will be provided in a following packet.

4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:

Liz Ames, BART Director, 33045 Palmetto Drive, Union City stated that as your BART Director, they spearheaded the improvements at the Union City BART Station to open up on the eastside of the Station District to promote that spine for pedestrians and bikes. Ms. Ames stated that she would like to get an update from Union City as to why it’s stalled since the improvements were made at the Station. Ms. Ames explained that it appears that nothing has been happening over the railroad tracks, and there is an at-grade crossing and there was a cement slab that was poured there, but there has been no activity. Ms. Ames noted that the pedestrian gates are supposed to come down and up to allow pedestrians to walk across the railroad tracks to get into the station. Ms. Ames recalled that there has been no activity and would like to get an update on that. Ms. Ames also noted that they are excited to open up the eastside with no vehicular access and the spine is critical to BART and our community.

Carmela Campbell, Economic & Community Development Director replied that unfortunately the City Engineer, Farooq Azim was not in attendance that evening but explained to the Commission that the project is moving forward. Ms. Campbell stated that the City is very excited, and has been working very hard on getting the backside of BART opened. Ms.

Campbell explained that they were a little delayed because there was actually a project going on inside of BART as well and there were concerns over contractors sharing the same area. Ms.

City Council/RSA Agenda 540 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 2022
Campbell further explained that BART asked if the City could delay the project. Ms. Campbell also noted that Union Pacific Railroad has asked the City for additional improvements that they are working through. Ms. Campbell reported that everything is moving forward but the timeline has been delayed a little bit. Ms. Campbell suggested that she would work with Mr. Azim to put together a response in the minutes or a note if the Commission desired more information.

5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

A. CONTINUED HEARINGS:

CITY OF UNION CITY, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (AG-22-002), SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SP-22-001), MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT (AT-22-005), ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (A-22-001): The City is proposing to replace the Decoto Industrial Park Study Area (DIPSA) with the Station District Specific Plan for the 471-acre area surrounding the Intermodal Station. Related General Plan, Zoning Map, and Zoning Text Amendments are proposed for consistency with the Station District Specific Plan. CEQA Determination:

Recommendation to the City Council to certify the Environmental Impact Report.

Carmela Campbell, Economic & Community Development Director, presented the staff report.

Commissioner Lew noted that she had a few comments. Commissioner Lew noted that the Restoration Site would be modified. Commissioner Lew recalled a presentation that ACE did to the BPAC and City Council regarding their interest in the Restoration Site and their desire to build a station there. Commissioner Lew asked if there was anything in the amendments that would preclude ACE from building a station at the site.

Ms. Campbell replied no and added that if the project moves forward and the design is refined that the City will go back and update the Specific Plan and add updates to reflect that. Ms.

Campbell added that there is nothing in the plan that would preclude it and that there is a policy that even supports bringing in passenger rail.

Commissioner Lew replied that it was great to hear. Commissioner Lew noted that the Specific Plan still refers to the DIPSA Specific Plan being adopted in 1994 and 1995. Commissioner Lew recommended staff do a word search and correct the 1995 to 994.

Ms. Campbell recalled that it may have gotten approved by the Commission at the end of 1994 and the Council at the beginning of 1995. Ms. Campbell thanked Commissioner Lew for pointing it out.

Commissioner Lew replied that she thought they should settle on a date that’s consistent.

Ms. Campbell replied that they would settle on the City Council date.

Commissioner Lew expressed concern over the central spine going through the marketplace.

Commissioner Lew stated that she objected to bringing cars in the middle of the marketplace and all it would be doing would be duplicating Decoto Road. Commissioner Lew stated that she would prefer to have a shopping area where cars go around and would allow people and bicycles to go through the shopping area. Commissioner Lew described the central spine City Council/RSA Agenda 541 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 2022
running through the Safeway marketplace and asked if it was private property. Commissioner Lew asked who would give up parking since that’s a very busy shopping area.

Aaron Welch, Contract Planner, replied that it was one location where they had a few conversations with the property owner of the Safeway center. Mr. Welch explained that they are looking at their long-term options for what they could develop there including a more vertical format residential with the continuation of retail or consolidation in one portion. Mr. Welch added that they were quite interested in breaking it up into smaller blocks with more connections through the site, consolidating parking into a parking structure, so it would happen as part of a large development process. Mr. Welch noted that the City does not have property there but would be reliant on the property owner and wanted to at least enable it and then show how it could all come together with a small system of blocks and connections, many of which could be pedestrian only through the site.

Commissioner Lew referred to the picture with the cars on the road on the central spine.

Commissioner Lew also asked if they were willing to give up some of their land for cars to drive through it. Commissioner Lew asked if the developers would be willing to give the City property for the roadway.

Mr. Welch replied that what they have specified would be public accessibility. Mr. Welch added that sometimes what happens with these is there is private land, but publicly accessible overall.

Mr. Welch added that for an owner, it would likely be an increase in developed floor area, and even if there are portions of the site that have street or a connection. Mr. Welch added that there is nothing required, and that it is an illustrative concept. Mr. Welch added that it would be worked out when the design came in under the zoning.

Commissioner asked if the City would object if they don’t propose a roadway and instead propose pedestrian and bicycle access through their supermarket parking lots.

Mr. Welch replied that there would be some transportation and traffic work that would have to happen. Mr. Welch added that they require connections and those can be multiple modes, and then they have a maximum block size, so they would want to break down the super blocks. Mr.

Welch added that they want it so pedestrians don’t have to walk 1400 feet before they have a way to get through the site, and that is what they’ve required. Mr. Welch added that they would try to leave the other components flexible.

Ms. Campbell referred to the presentation and pointed out that part of the alignment for that spine is because it connects to the road that's already going through BART. Ms. Campbell explained that BART is looking at the future and looking at all their stations for development.

Ms. Campbell detailed that about 20 years ago when we they added the transit only road around the BART station, the City worked with Bart to provide two parking lots in front and that they were designed in such a way that they could be developed for residential, or office uses.

Ms. Campbell added that the idea is that the spine goes out the BART station and continues through. Ms. Campbell added that the City has always wanted connectivity between the BART and the Marketplace area. Ms. Campbell noted that whether it's open to cars or not, as Mr.

Welch said, the goal is to create an environment that is pedestrian and bicycle oriented. Ms.

Campbell added that there needs to be some roads though for loading or to serve the area. Ms.

Campbell added that when development comes they can rely on this but added that the City is flexible.

City Council/RSA Agenda 542 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 2022
Commissioner Lew referred to the draft Station East Residential mixed-use project and Attachment 3, Exhibit A, and whether it would be modified in any way.

Ms. Campbell replied that ideally the Station District Specific Plan project would have been completed first, and then the Integral project would have come in and they would be consistent, but it went a bit out of order. Ms. Campbell added that Integral moved forward faster than the Station District Specific plan could get done and an update was required specifically for the Station East site. Ms. Campbell added that when they started to do the Specific Plan they realized that the level of detail they went into for the Integral project isn’t typically what would be seen in a specific plan. Ms. Campbell noted that it was so detailed that it got down to the number of inches that you're supposed to set back. Ms. Campbell added that there was just a consistency and tone issue but wanted to ensure that all that work done for the Station East Project was maintained. Ms. Campbell added it was included it as an appendix in the Station District Specific Plan. Ms. Campbell explained that there is wording that says that the project development in that area must comply with the appendix, and in the event there's a conflict between the larger Specific Plan and the appendix, the appendix would prevail. Ms. Campbell stated that it is little bit complicated. Ms. Campbell added that it was not as elegant of a solution as she would've wanted, but it works from a regulatory standpoint.

Commissioner Lew replied that she was asking because it still says draft.

Ms. Campbell replied that it is any easy fix.

Commissioner Lew stated that the term Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is shown as the Pedestrian Bicycle Master Plan which needs to be corrected because they have the wrong title.

Commissioner Lew added that it’s not PBMP it’s BPMP and added that the bicycle comes before pedestrian, and it should be done in alphabetical order. Commissioner Lew stated that it makes a lot of sense, it's logical and easy to comprehend and it’s annoying to see the same mistake over and over again.

Ms. Campbell replied that she has a feeling they get transferred over and they don’t get corrected. Ms. Campbell assured Commissioner Lew that they would be fixed in the appendix.

Commissioner Lew stated that her last comment is in the Desk Item. Commissioner Lew noted that Chapter 18.37, page 25 of 54, Exhibit A, still contains 18.26 right in the middle of 18.37.

Commissioner Lew noted that because it occurs a couple of times in the old Exhibit A and Exhibit B, staff may just want to do a word search. Commissioner Lew added that she used to do a lot of this and knows exactly what staff is going through. Commissioner Lew added that you must be patient and spend the time to do it, but otherwise it looks great. Commissioner Lew commented she appreciated Alameda County Water District’s comments on the EIR and their work until they were satisfied with the City’s responses. Commissioner Lew noted that the Water District is asking for clean soil but asked who is going to lay the pipes. Commissioner Lew asked if it was the Water District or the developer.

Ms. Campbell replied that she recalls them saying that they are concerned about their staff and would assume they would install them. Ms. Campbell added that the reason why she is questioning it is because a developer will install street improvements, but they will inspect them and will approve the plans. Ms. Campbell added her understanding is that they will have a role out there, maybe they’re with the contractor’s team ensuring that things are done correctly but couldn’t exactly confirm.

City Council/RSA Agenda 543 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 2022
Commissioner Lew replied that she was glad they were concerned. Commissioner Lew stated that she appreciated the reasons why they’re concerned. Commissioner Lew noted that at her home for example, the District is responsible for the street to a certain point, and then from her front yard and then into her house she becomes responsible. Commissioners Lew wondered if they would continue to own their pipes in the streets.

Derek Farmer, Planning Manager, noted that he wanted to speak more to Ms. Campbell’s responses. Mr. Farmer noted that the Water District will inspect and approve the plans for the pipe, dimensions, locations, materials. Mr. Farmer added that in terms of where their jurisdiction is, it's both public and private. Mr. Farmer added that if it was just in the public area, the City would normally be installing those, but they're still under the jurisdiction of the Water District in terms of how they're sized. Mr. Farmer also noted that even if it's the City, they still must get approval from the Water District for the plans and the installation in field. Mr. Farmer explained that when you go onto private property, the developer is who would be getting approval from the Water District for their private infrastructure plans. Mr. Farmer added that the Water District would be not only be approving those plans but would come out to the field for construction inspections and post construction final inspections of all those utilities. Mr. Farmer detailed that the City is under their purview in the public realm, and the developers would be under their purview when they're doing private water mains and to service residential or commercial buildings.

Commissioner Lew replied that the Water District seems very concerned about development.

Commissioner Lew stated that it was a great job on the EIR, and that she was very happy with it. Commissioner Lew added that it makes good reading and that she had no further comments.

Commissioner Finnerty referred to an exhibit to the staff report and asked to further explain the term, “sensitive uses”.

Ms. Campbell explained that approximately 10 years ago, the City identified a process for issuing permits for retailers of tobacco. Ms. Campbell noted that as part of that ordinance/process, the City identified that you could not have a tobacco retailer within 1000 feet of sensitive uses. Ms. Campbell explained the sensitive uses consisted of schools, youthoriented uses, community centers, and parks. Ms. Campbell explained that staff just carried that forward in Chapter 18.26 because it is currently in the Community Commercial district.

Commissioner Finnerty asked if that is something that could be found in the Muni code.

Ms. Campbell replied yes.

Commissioner Finnerty referred to the discussion by staff of tables that were moved from one section to another, and the note that some were not moved over correctly. Commissioner Finnerty also noted that staff stated that the language should remain the same. Commissioner Finnerty noted that one of the exhibits of the staff report contained a portion of a paragraph that doesn't appear in Section18.38.050. Commissioner Finnerty asked if it is because the district that it applies to has some different characteristics and the line that specifically notes it was deleted. Commissioner Finnerty noted that he believed it was the last sentence regarding a residential district and a solid masonry wall. Commissioner Finnerty asked whether it was deleted because the district mentioned would not be next to residential.

Ms. Campbell replied that it is exactly why.

City Council/RSA Agenda 544 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 2022
Commissioner Finnerty confirmed that it was purposefully left out there. Commissioner Finnerty referred to the staff report and confirmed that R&D meant research and development.

Ms. Campbell replied yes.

Commissioner Finnerty noted that the presentation talked about the VMU, which is the Village Mixed Use, and the Marketplace Mixed Use designation and whether those are one in the same that are using the same terminology but referring to different districts within the city.

Ms. Campbell replied yes, and added that those are both zoning districts for very specific areas in the City. Ms. Campbell added that specifically, the Marketplace Mixed Use applies to the shopping area on the four corners of Alvarado-Niles and Decoto Road and the Village Mixed Use is the Historic Alvarado District.

Commissioner Finnerty noted that in the reading of the documents there were some regulations that had changed the density of the dwelling units. Commissioner Finnerty noted that the presentation contained a slide that noted that they could have 30 to 100 dwelling units and whether that is by state law or state regulation that is making those changes.

Ms. Campbell replied that staff desired higher density. Ms. Campbell explained that a typical single-family neighborhood is anywhere from three to six dwelling units per acre, while garden apartments are anywhere from 15 to 20 units an acre. Ms. Campbell added that anytime you get multiple levels, you’re at least a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre or more and 30 dwelling units per acre can accommodate a dense townhome product, where they are stacked. Ms.

Campbell added that you can accommodate a five-story apartment building like Union Flats on 11th Street at 100 dwelling units per acre. Ms. Campbell added that there is a range so the City is a little more flexible on what exactly the product type is but it’s all high density.

Commissioner Finnerty noted that he also thought he had read that there was some state law that had changed that decreased the number or increased the number of possibilities they had.

Ms. Campbell replied that the City is limited and added this hasn’t been an issue for Union City but will be as more legislation gets passed that limits the ability to bring projects forward to the Planning Commission and apply standards. Ms. Campbell stated that they have updated their performance standards by taking some of the City's conditions of approval that you typically see on Site Development Review application and codified them. Ms. Campbell added that with that should they get a project where they aren’t allowed to go through the normal hearing process, they will still have those standards in place.

Commissioner Finnerty noted that the Peterson House was given to the City on a half-acre surrounding that area with the intent that they maintained the property and there is no intention at this time to demolish it based on the report. Commissioner Finnerty asked that if at some point in the future it became a significant and avoidable impact and that it had to be demolished, would that be something that would come back to the Planning Commission for discussion.

Ms. Campbell replied that should a project go on the Gateway Site, it will come back to the Commission for review, unless there is some streamlining, but the idea is it would be subject to Site Development Review and would be reviewed by the Planning Commission.

City Council/RSA Agenda 545 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
7 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 2022
Commissioner Mclelland noted that staff may have answered her question regarding the Peterson Ranch but noted that she wanted further clarification. Commissioner Mclelland noted that the language was vague about the Peterson Ranch in terms of what is going to happen to it. Commissioner Mclelland noted that from all the letters it seems like people feel strongly about it. Commissioner Mclelland added that they want it preserved, and they want it to be maintained whether it is for historical value or nostalgia and there seems to be a lot of sentiment around it.

Commissioner Mclelland stated that the language is very vague for her to understand what the plans are for that ranch.

Ms. Campbell replied that at this time the City does not have any plans for the Peterson Farmhouse. Ms. Campbell added that the City is in an exclusive negotiating agreement with City Ventures to purchase the property from the City for development. Ms. Campbell added that in the negotiating agreement they have put the wording that was in the Caltrans report which is that there needs to be a half-acre preserved and as many features preserved as feasible. Ms.

Campbell added that this is a programmatic document and there is no plan, but there could be a potential for the resource to be demolished. Ms. Campbell added that if there is, the environmental document evaluated that but repeated at this point there is not plan.

Commissioner Mclelland confirmed that if an applicant was to develop on the property and proposed to demolish the Peterson Ranch, it would come before the Planning Commission.

Ms. Campbell confirmed that it would be part of the project.

Commissioner Sakakihara referred to the comment regarding a site that was going from Commercial to CMU and there was mention of something regarding an affordable housing developer that purchased land or was interested.

Ms. Campbell replied that her understanding was that they purchased it.

Commissioner Sakakihara recalled that in 2030, the longevity agreements that some of the existing uses in the Station East Employment District have will expire and asked what they would be allowed to do with the land.

Ms. Campbell replied that they would be allowed to remain and continue operations. Ms.

Campbell added that what they would not be allowed to do is redevelop or expand that use.

Commissioner Sakakihara requested confirmation whether now they could do that.

Ms. Campbell replied that under the longevity agreements, they can operate the property consistent with what was currently there when they signed the agreements. Ms. Campbell added that if it is a warehouse it can continue as a warehouse, and it’s not subject to the legal nonconforming provisions that other uses are.

Commissioner Sakakihara stated that he had one follow up comment on the central spine discussion. Commissioner Sakakihara stated that he was looking at a page that contained graphics of the Specific Plan that show it, but when looking at page 60 where they show the active ground floor, he felt it illustrates how the spine exists down in the Marketplace and clarified that the parking lots that are currently there wouldn’t actually exist int that form because you’d have buildings front it and there would be a reduced need for parking.

City Council/RSA Agenda 546 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
8 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 2022
Commissioner Sakakihara also noted that there is also a provision where parking would be accessible from the back.

Ms. Campbell replied that it really reimagines what you see out there currently on Decoto Road and Alvarado-Niles Road where you have parking lots in front and then the buildings very far back, the desire is to move the buildings up and have the parking and structured parking while giving more open space.

Commissioner Sakakihara referred to the financing section and noted that all the potential financing mechanisms except for the CFDs or assessments are all one-time mechanisms.

Commissioner Sakakihara asked if that was accurate and if the impact fees, other citywide fees, and most of the funding from other agencies tend to occur when the units are built.

Ms. Campbell replied yes.

Commissioner Sakakihara stated that he recalled a similar discussion during the MidPen project but that he would be interested in seeing what the ongoing maintenance costs would be.

Commissioner Sakakihara recognized that it helps the Commission gauge how much of the employment uses and commercial uses will be needed to offset the cost and the increase to ongoing public safety, public services and things of that nature.

Ms. Campbell replied that it was a very good comment, and when they are looking at, for example, the Integral project and looking at those new open spaces, the first thing that the Public Works superintendent says is that the City will have to maintain those. Ms. Campbell added that maintenance is a very big issue when they are looking at new improvements. Ms.

Campbell added that 30 years ago, they were developing and weren’t really thinking about that, but now it is a very big consideration. Ms. Campbell added that the current Integral project is contemplating a new CFD that was approved in 2006 and that it is a yearly assessment that assists the city in maintaining landscaping and police and fire services. Ms. Campbell added that for the Integral project they’re looking at updating it because the amenities that are proposed at the parks are just not fitting within that framework.

Commissioner Sakakihara noted that there could be a potential of 9,600 residents that could fit in the Station District, so there will be increased needs for fire, police, streets, and park maintenance, and 500 million capital expenses that are being estimated. Commissioner Sakakihara explained that the biggest barriers could become interest from existing landowners to convert their uses to someone who wants to develop and then also the economic feasibility of the existing or future owners to implement. Commissioner Sakakihara asked how the process usually plays out in terms of how the Specific Plan is used. Commissioner Sakakihara explained that in an ideal world when the existing owner or a potential future owner is thinking about purchasing or converting a land use, that they contact the City and the City provides them with a Specific Plan, so they understand what is being required. Commissioner Sakakihara asked if that happens in practice or in the experiences that staff have had.

Ms. Campbell replied yes, and when someone comes in to talk to the City, the first thing that we want to go over is the land use and regulatory framework. Ms. Campbell added that they are going to be creating a new webpage that’s going have all the information on there and it’s going to funnel into the Economic Development webpage so a developer could go on to the site and be aware of all the different considerations.

City Council/RSA Agenda 547 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
9 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 2022
Commissioner Sakakihara replied that sometimes they hear about these projects at a point where developers have already purchased the land. Commissioner Sakakihara also noted that he had a following question regarding timeline. Commissioner Sakakihara counted four or five different things that we're looking at soon, assumed everyone would be busy. Commissioner Sakakihara noted that the next Planning Commission meeting is when the Commission would be reviewing the Housing Element’s amendments, which include creation of the VMU Zoning District. Commissioner Sakakihara asked if the Commission would be seeing responses to the State Department’s feedback, or if the Commission is seeing the amendments in advance.

Commissioner Sakakihara asked if it was the later, then when would the City be getting their feedback back.

Ms. Campbell replied that it was a good question and the schedule that the consultant originally gave estimated bringing the Housing Element for review, along with the Zoning and General Plan Amendments because essentially everything must be approved by the end of January. Ms.

Campbell added that the timeframe between when a schedule was established with the consultant, there was a little time that passed, and in the meantime the state updated legislation to give HCD another 30 days. Ms. Campbell noted a total of 90 days total for their review. Ms.

Campbell reported that in Southern California and what is now being seen in Northern California is that HCD is not approving Housing Elements in one go around. Ms. Campbell noted that they typically go the 90 days and then get a letter, then they have another 60 days to review the changes. Ms. Campbell noted that the City submitted its Housing Element in July and had meeting with HCD and are waiting to get a letter back. Ms. Campbell stated that the City would not have it ready to provide to the Commission before January 2023. Ms. Campbell noted that HCD understands that it is an issue, and they're taking the time they need to review it, understanding that these might need more than one go around. Ms. Campbell noted that the feedback the City received is that it can approve the General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments, and they will have the capacity to accommodate RHNA which is the one thing that must be done before January 2023.

Commissioner Sakakihara asked if they are doing the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments at the next meeting and then the design standards for flex industrial buildings in a future update.

Ms. Campbell replied that Commission will be reviewing some Industrial Zoning District standards in December. Ms. Campbell noted that there is outreach being done for Objective Standard for which there is a survey online and will be coming back in the Spring.

Mr. Farmer referred to the outreach for the objective standards and added that the webpage includes information about upcoming events. Mr. Farmer noted that there are events planned for the Farmer’s Market and an outreach event by the Intermodal Station.

Commissioner Sakakihara questioned whether the design standards for flex industrial buildings is part of the same objective standards effort and not the effort that the Commission will review in December.

Ms. Campbell replied that the objective standards project is only for multifamily. Ms. Campbell added that what is coming up in December are standards that staff has worked on for industrial development. Ms. Campbell explained that one is for industrial while the other is for multifamily, but it is all about design. Ms. Campbell apologized if there was confusing wording in the staff report.

City Council/RSA Agenda 548 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
10 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 2022
Commissioner Sakakihara asked if there was a specific timeline for the Parks & Recreation master plan.

Ms. Campbell replied that effort it is being managed by Community and Recreation Services and did not have an update.

Commissioner Sakakihara asked for an update for the Development Impact and Citywide Fee update.

Ms. Campbell replied that it is currently underway and anticipates that it will go up in the summer.

Vice Chairperson Guio noted the mention of the ACE train and asked if there was a schedule.

Ms. Campbell replied that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is doing a of Union City BART station as the most desirable. Ms. Campbell added that ACE has taken that direction and is starting to look at the area and figure out if it can be accommodated, and how.

Ms. Campbell added that ACE and the City have had a meeting and they envision that this is a 10-year project, which is a small amount of time in the rail world. Ms. Campbell added that while it is a little way out, planning is happening, and they will be keeping the City Council updated.

Vice Chairperson Guio confirmed it would not be something seen in the next couple of weeks, rather than the next couple of decades. Vice Chairperson Guio referred to the Marketplace Mixed Use area and noted that one of those things mentioned was the residential. Vice Chairperson Guio asked if there would be any requirements for residential as compared to whatever else.

Mr. Welch replied that the City does not have a target land use mix like there is in Station East where it was 35% residential and 65% employment. Mr. Welch added that realistically, residential seems to be attractive to developers more than office, all else being equal, but that could change, and they are trying to keep it flexible. Mr. Welch added that it could be either but there is the requirement for retail retention.

Vice Chairperson Guio referenced the drawing that was presented with the roads running through the existing parking lot and shopping center and asked if it was to scale. Vice Chairperson Guio asked if there was an idea of where the roads would be.

Mr. Welch replied that the attempt was to have an illustrative concept of what it could look like.

Mr. Welch agreed with Commissioner Lew’s suggestion to reimagining it to add some improvements to the pedestrian design, but it’s intended to be the view of the spine going down towards the marketplace and then eventually towards the BART Intermodal Station. Mr. Welch added that it is supposed to be that main connection with pedestrian oriented frontage on either side. Mr. Welch further added that he thought that in terms of whether a developer would want to do that that yes they are giving up space but they are also getting the ability to develop blocks with more intensity, and they’d probably view it as an advantage from their perspective.

Vice Chairperson Guio asked if conceptually they could think of it as sort of a Santana Row kind of sized streets.

City Council/RSA Agenda 549 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
11 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 2022
Mr. Welch replied that it is a great example, and everyone brings up Santana Row as sort of this crowned jewel of beautiful downtown retail and it’s probably drawing from a very wealthy and large regional market, so not sure it’s realistic to completely replicate that in the City. Mr. Welch added that it terms of a downtown feel and having it be a few blocks where there’s active retail similar to what you’re already seeing start to develop on 11th Street that it's a good model to what they are going for.

Ms. Campbell added that in terms of scale, that’s what the City is looking at with one lane in each direction potentially.

Vice Chairperson Guio replied that it what he was looking at. Vice Chairperson Guio noted that there was a discussion of impact fees a couple of times and was wondering given decades for the train development to occur, if there are impact fees adjusted to be based on inflation, given the fact that we are in an inflationary period or will they be adjusted based upon when development would occur.

Ms. Campbell replied that impact fees are based on the cost of the improvements in today’s dollars. Ms. Campbell added that they take all those improvements that are needed and then they divide by the number of new units and potentially commercial square footage. Ms.

Campbell added that then they believe there is potential for the costs to be updated periodically and the related fee but would learn more as they go through the process.

Vice Chairperson Guio noted that he recently picked up his wife at the airport and went to lunch around the Millbrae BART Station and made him wonder what the City would do regarding parking.

Ms. Campbell referred to meetings that Mr. Welch and she have had with BART staff and how they have always reiterated the need to maintain parking and how important it is. Ms. Campbell added that most folks drive to the BART Station, and they are doing what they can to minimize that. Ms. Campbell added that the City received a grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the City now has a shuttle that runs to the industrial areas and back to the BART Station. Ms. Campbell stated that it is a possibility that some of the parking will go away if BART redevelops their site.

Vice Chairperson Guio opened the public comment.

Bob Czerwinski, 3562 Glacier Lane, Fremont, stated he had lived in the area for 42 years and recommended that the Quarry Lakes Parkway be a no build. Mr. Czerwinski stated that in 1986 Measure B, it was called Highway 84 extension, and added that in 2006 it was tried again being renamed the East-West Connector. Mr. Czerwinski stated Union City is trying in 2022 and naming it Quarry Lake Parkway. Mr. Czerwinski added that whatever the year or whatever the name, it's an environmental disaster waiting to happen. Mr. Czerwinski questioned why the cost of the Quarry Lakes Parkway is underestimated; and referred to the risk of insufficient funds that Union City will have to pay. Mr. Czerwinski further questioned why a smaller scale project wasn't selected that would directly address Union City residents' issues. Mr. Czerwinski asked why Union City taxes were so high and added that Union City has difficulty meeting vital services or funds not being directed to the priorities of the residents. Czerwinski referred to the UPRR tracks and getting their approval to go under the tracks while still maintaining daily rail service and asked if there was room for the necessary shoe fly temporary tracks. Mr. Czerwinski then referred to the East West Connector EIR and stated it was found to contain many flaws and City Council/RSA Agenda 550 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
12 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 2022
added that the East West Connector Mitigating Monitoring Committee was formed to protect the citizens of Fremont and Union City, and they appointed three members each. Mr. Czerwinski added he was the chairman of those meetings. Mr. Czerwinski added further that he and the committee had concerns regarding the segment between Alvarado-Niles Road and almost to Mission Boulevard due to it containing the most engineering, challenging and scary environmental meditation.

Elizabeth Ames, BART Director, 33045 Palmetto Drive, Union City, referred to walking in the City, enjoying parks, crossing streets safely without noise, congestion and pollution in and around the BART station and the community. Ms. Ames stated that the EIR has overriding considerations for air quality, greenhouse gases, historical resources, and transportation and added that overriding considerations is an impact that cannot be mitigated, which she viewed as a concern. Ms. Ames stated she did not think the Commission should approve the EIR at this time and instead should reevaluate what can be done to mitigate greenhouse gases, air quality issues, transportation and historical resources. Ms. Ames stated that Union City is planning to put in Quarry Lakes Parkway, which is an expressway through the BART Station District and added that it is running through the Ramirez Farm. Ms. Ames added that Union City is planning to evict the farm and local business and demolish the farmhouse. Ms. Ames referred to Mitigation Measure CUL-4 of the EIR and indicated it was not acceptable to have a mitigation that shows it's okay to demolish the Peterson Farmhouse. Ms. Ames indicated she appreciated the comments of Ms. Scott on the issues related to the Farmhouse and added it appeared that it looks like the City was allowing this to happen with this EIR approval. Ms. Ames stated that the traffic analysis fails to evaluate vehicle miles traveled for Quarry Lakes Parkway. Ms. Ames stated Caltrans relinquished Highway 84 to Fremont and Newark and added that Quarry Lakes Parkway is replacing it. Ms. Ames stated the highway was going to deliver housing into the hills, where 350 homes are planned for. Ms. Ames added that there are hundreds of homes planned for the farm. Ms. Ames stated that we're in a climate emergency. Ms. Ames added that we can't build like we're proposing at this time because we can't afford these homes nor afford to provide public safety services for these homes. Ms. Ames stated that as a BART Director, she has been advocating for a job housing balance and referred to the State Housing and Community Development Department auditing San Francisco. Ms. Ames added that San Francisco has to build 80,000 homes because they have too many jobs and not enough housing and implored the City not to reevaluate housing needs.

Tim Swenson, Secretary for the Washington Township Society and Secretary for Washington Township Museum of Local History, 2455 Medallion Drive, Union City. Mr. Swenson stated he did not see much discussion on preserving the Peterson House but did see a lot of discussion about not preserving it and added that it makes it seem like a foregone conclusion that the house will not be preserved. Mr. Swenson stated that given that the house is currently occupied means the house is in good condition and added that it could easily be put into a better condition and sold. Mr. Swenson further added that it is possible to do the Gateway Project and keep the Peterson house and referred to where it had been successfully done in Fremont, with the Machada House, the Hiram Davis house, and Quaresma House, and the Henry Curtner House. Mr. Swenson Indicated that all those houses have been in redevelopments where the historic buildings have been fixed up and sold along with the other units and preserved. Mr.

Swenson indicated that he did not want a situation where the housing development is done in such a way that adversely affects the historic nature of the Peterson House. Mr. Swenson added that it would be like building homes next to an airport and then later claiming the airport's a health risk or a safety hazard because it's near homes. Mr. Swenson further added that this has happened before in the Centerville Firehouse. Mr. Swenson explained that the firehouse was considered historically significant and the City had plans to make modifications to the City Council/RSA Agenda 551 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
13 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 2022
firehouse but that once you make those modifications it's no longer significant. Mr. Swenson added that the firehouse was torn down. Mr. Swenson further added that the Peterson House is the only building in Union City that has been deemed historically significant by three different historical reviews and the state of California and any plans for the Station District should work hard to preserve the Peterson House.

Maria Ramirez, 13th Street, Union City, stated that these are not normal times. Ms. Ramirez stated that she observed the meeting, and that the Commission did their due diligence as if things are normal and these are not normal times for people that live in the community. Ms.

Ramirez referenced the Environmental Report and stated that it seems like they would be willing to go along with any development. Ms. Ramirez added that when she thinks of the environment, she thinks of the air, water, and the clean food they need. Ms. Ramirez stated that all of those things have been compromised. Ms. Ramirez noted the bike lanes and sidewalks but noted that there are many days due to pollution in the air that kids and seniors cannot be outside. Ms.

Ramirez stated that putting a freeway through a beautiful place like Quarry and putting homes that use the term affordable. Ms. Ramirez stated that there was no affordable housing. Ms.

Ramirez stated that Mr. Czerwinski took them on a tour of the road and how it goes straight and under the traps by a superfund. Ms. Ramirez stated that the Superfund was where a lot of people in Decoto used to work and were poisoned but the chemicals and got cancer. Ms.

Ramirez recalled that the community worked in the gladiola fields and the chemicals used poisoned the ozone. Ms. Ramirez stated that they should be thinking of future generations. Ms.

Ramirez presented the Commission with pictures drawn by children at the [Our Lady of the Rosary] festival. Ms. Ramirez stated that the messages the drawing contained “Earth Matters” and “Stop the Pollution”. Ms. Ramirez encouraged the Planning Commission to think of the future. Ms. Ramirez stated that the Commission was business as usual and the status quo but that they needed to rethink. Ms. Ramirez stressed the importance of not approving anything for the City and prioritizing human needs as well as the needs of youth, and seniors. Ms. Ramirez stated that we’re coming out of COVID, and no one is pausing for the health of the planet. Ms.

Ramirez stated that the Ohlone's used to think how their decisions today would impact seven generations ahead so they could keep the earth pure. Ms. Ramirez referred to clean water and clear air and asked why those aren’t the priorities over developments.

Vice Chairperson Guio closed the public comment.

Commissioner Mclelland announced that she had a question back to the Peterson Ranch and stated that it was something that bothered her. Commissioner Mclelland asked if there was a way that could be made clear that the building must be maintained or that it could not be demolished as part of any future development. Commissioner Mclelland asked if they are working with a developer and if they are looking at options and the best ways to investigate the issue. Commissioner Mclelland requested clarification whether the City Council makes the decision of whether to demolish or not.

Ms. Campbell replied that the Council will make the final decision on approving or entering into a development disposition agreement with a developer. Ms. Campbell added that if the project includes demolition of the Peterson House, it will be part of the project, and if doesn’t, it will be preserved then and that’ll be part of the project. Ms. Campbell added that the Commission will provide a recommendation and then the Council will make that ultimate decision to approve the project.

City Council/RSA Agenda 552 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
14 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 2022
Commissioner Lew moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following resolutions to the City Council to certify the EIR, approve the Station District Specific Plan (SP-22-001), approve related General Plan Amendments (AG-22-002), approve related Zoning Text Amendments (AT-22-005), and approve related Zoning Map Amendments.

Commissioners Finnerty seconded.

The motion was carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: (GUIO, FINNERTY, LEW, MCLELLAND, SAKAKIHARA)
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: MANN
The motion passes 5-0.

B. NEW HEARINGS:

7. SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORTS:

A. CONTINUED HEARINGS: None.

B. NEW REPORTS: None.

8. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORTS: None.

9. COMMISSION MATTERS:

A. Follow-up on Planning Commission referrals to the City Council.

B. Upcoming applications for the Regular Planning Commission meeting for October 20, 2022.

10. GOOD OF THE ORDER:

11. ADJOURNMENT: 9:40 PM
City Council/RSA Agenda 553 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Attachment 9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NUMBER #13-22

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE STATION DISTRICT SPECIFIC

PLAN PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Union City has prepared a comprehensive update to the Decoto Industrial Parkway Study Area (DIPSA) Specific Plan referred to as the Station District Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) (SP-22-001); and WHEREAS, amendments to the General Plan (AG-22-002) are proposed for consistency with the Station District Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, amendments to Title 18, Zoning, (AT-22-005) are proposed, for consistency with the Station District Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Official Union City Zoning Map (A-22-001) are proposed for consistency with the Station District Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan addresses a 471-acre area surrounding the Union City Intermodal Station and consists of five subareas including: The Core, Station East, The Marketplace, Gateway and Civic Center; and
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan is intended to ensure consistency with the Union City 2040 General Plan, which was adopted in December 2019, while refining the vision, planning details, and implementation strategies for the Station District. The Union City General Plan 2040 envisions the Station District as a world-class, transit-oriented community with new retail, public amenities, and high-density housing and job centers, all linked by bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be prepared for the Specific Plan and circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) dated January 26, 2021 to public agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the EIR; and
WHEREAS, based on the project description and responses to the NOP, the City prepared a Draft EIR dated May 17, 2022 (SCH No. 2021010303) which reflected the independent judgment of the City as to the potential environmental effects of the Project.

The Draft EIR, a copy of which is posted on the City’s website, https://www.unioncity.org/423/Resources, and is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the City circulated the Draft EIR for a 45-day public review period, from May 17, 2022 to July 1, 2022. The Draft EIR was distributed to local, regional, and DocuSign Envelope ID: B10A48D6-93EE-4D5A-A97C-429AE0F05901 City Council/RSA Agenda 554 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Resolution No. #13-22
Station District Specific Plan
EIR

Page 2 of 4 ends

State agencies. The public was advised of its availability. The Draft EIR was available for review on the City’s website; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed a Staff Report dated June 2, 2022 and the Draft EIR at a noticed study session on June 2, 2022 during the 45-day comment period; and
WHEREAS, the public and the Planning Commission had the opportunity to present written and oral comments on the Draft EIR at a Planning Commission study session on June 2, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City received comment letters from public agencies as well as interested individuals and organizations during the public review period. In accordance with CEQA, the City prepared written responses to all the comments received during the public review period, both oral and written. The City prepared a Final EIR dated September 30, 2022 labeled Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. The Final EIR included an annotated copy of each comment letter identifying specific comments, responses to each specific comment, and clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in the Draft EIR. The responses to comments provide the City’s good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments; and WHEREAS, information was generated in the course of preparing written responses for the Final EIR. The City carefully reviewed both the comments and the written responses to assess whether they constituted significant new information that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR under the standards in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. After its review, the City determined that the Final EIR, including the comments, clarifications, and minor corrections to the Draft EIR, do not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR was posted on the City’s website on September 30, 2022 and referenced in the public notice for the October 6, 2022 Planning Commission public hearing; and
WHEREAS, a staff report, dated October 6, 2022 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Specific Plan and related Draft and Final EIRs for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report, and the Draft and Final EIRs at a noticed public hearing on October 6, 2022 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Draft and Final EIRs, reflect the City’s independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts and constitute the Environmental Impact Report for the Specific Plan; and
DocuSign Envelope ID: B10A48D6-93EE-4D5A-A97C-429AE0F05901 City Council/RSA Agenda 555 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Resolution No. #13-22
Station District Specific Plan
EIR

Page 3 of 4 ends

WHEREAS, the EIR identified several potentially significant impacts that will be reduced to a less than significant level with specified mitigation measures. Approval of the Specific Plan by the City Council will therefore require adoption of findings on impacts and mitigations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program which is labeled Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, the EIR identified significant and unavoidable environmental impacts of the Specific Plan. Approval of the Specific Plan by the City Council will therefore require adoption of Alternatives Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS the complete Specific Plan EIR consists of the Draft EIR and Final EIR together. The Draft and Final EIRs are available for review on the City’s website at https://www.unioncity.org/423/Resources, and at the Economic and Community Development Department at City Hall during normal business hours. The location and custodian of the EIR and other documents that constitute the record of proceedings for the Specific Plan is the City of Union City Economic and Community Development Department, 34009 Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, CA 94587.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF UNION CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES THAT:

A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.

B. The Planning Commission independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR, including the written and oral comments received on the Draft EIR and written responses to the comments, prior to making a recommendation on the Project.

C. The EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis on the potential environmental impacts of the Project, and provides information to the decisionmakers and the public on the environmental consequences of approving the Project.

D. The EIR adequately describes the Project, its significant environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and a reasonable range of alternatives.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Union City that, prior to the approval of the Project, the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report as complete, adequate, and in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B10A48D6-93EE-4D5A-A97C-429AE0F05901 City Council/RSA Agenda 556 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Resolution No. #13-22
Station District Specific Plan
EIR

Page 4 of 4 ends

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Union City held on October 6, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: GUIO, LEW, MCCLELLAND, SAKAKIHARA, FINNERTY
NOTES:

ABSTAINED:

ABSENT: MANN
MOVED: LEW
SECONDED: FINNERTY

APPROVED

LEE GUIO, VICE CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:

CARMELA CAMPBELL, SECRETARY
DocuSign Envelope ID: B10A48D6-93EE-4D5A-A97C-429AE0F05901 City Council/RSA Agenda 557 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NUMBER #14-22

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY

RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR ADOPTION OF THE
STATION DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-22-001)
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 8386-94, duly adopted by the City Council of Union City on August 2, 1994, there was adopted documents consisting of text, maps, and charts, entitled Decoto Industrial Park Study Area (DIPSA) Specific Plan, dated August 1994; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Union City approved a revised DIPSA Specific Plan, dated 07/06; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 5549-19, duly adopted by the City Council of Union City on December 10, 2019, the 2040 General Plan was approved; and WHEREAS, the 2040 General Plan includes Implementation Program SA-1.C, Update DIPSA Specific Plan, for consistency with the 2040 General Plan, which was initiated in 2020 and planned to be completed in 2022 as the Station District Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Union City has prepared a comprehensive update to the Decoto Industrial Parkway Study Area (DIPSA) Specific Plan referred to as the Station District Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) (SP-22-001); and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan addresses a 471-acre area surrounding the Union City Intermodal Station and consists of five subareas including: The Core, Station East, The Marketplace, Gateway and Civic Center; and
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan is intended to ensure consistency with the Union City 2040 General Plan, which was adopted in December 2019, while refining the vision, planning details, and implementation strategies for the Station District. The Union City General Plan 2040 envisions the Station District as a world-class, transit-oriented community with new retail, public amenities, and high-density housing and job centers, all linked by bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and
WHEREAS, amendments to the General Plan (AG-22-002) are proposed for consistency with the Station District Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, amendments to Title 18, Zoning, (AT-22-005) are proposed, for consistency with the Station District Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Official Union City Zoning Map (A-22-001) are proposed for consistency with the Station District Specific Plan; and DocuSign Envelope ID: B10A48D6-93EE-4D5A-A97C-429AE0F05901 City Council/RSA Agenda 558 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Resolution No. #14-22
Station District Specific Plan
SP-22-001

Page 2 of 3 ends

WHEREAS, the Specific Plan is shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made part hereof; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, a publicly noticed study session on the Station District Specific Plan and Draft EIR were held by the Planning Commission on June 2, 2022; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65854 of the Government Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on October 6, 2022 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. The Planning Commission considered the Draft and Final EIRs, a staff report dated October 6, 2022, and all written and oral testimony; and
WHEREAS, a staff report, dated October 6, 2022 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project and related Draft and Final EIRs for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. #13-22 recommending that the City Council certify the EIR as complete, adequate, and in compliance with CEQA.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Union City hereby recommends to the City Council to adopt a resolution adopting the Station District Specific Plan (SP-22-001) and does hereby find as follows:

1. That the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the 2040 General Plan, as amended.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Union City hereby recommends adoption of the Station District Specific Plan (SP-22-001) to the City Council.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B10A48D6-93EE-4D5A-A97C-429AE0F05901 City Council/RSA Agenda 559 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Resolution No. #14-22
Station District Specific Plan
SP-22-001

Page 3 of 3 ends

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a special meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Union City held on October 6 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: GUIO, LEW, MCCLELLAND, SAKAKIHARA, FINNERTY
NOTES:

ABSTAINED:

ABSENT: MANN
MOVED: LEW
SECONDED: FINNERTY

APPROVED
____________________________

LEE GUIO, VICE CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
_________________________________

CARMELA CAMPBELL, SECRETARY
DocuSign Envelope ID: B10A48D6-93EE-4D5A-A97C-429AE0F05901 City Council/RSA Agenda 560 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NUMBER #15-22

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY

RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT, AG-22-002, ASSOCIATED WITH THE STATION DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 5549-19, duly adopted by the City Council of Union City on December 10, 2019, there was adopted documents consisting of text, maps, and charts, entitled Union City 2040 General Plan, dated December 10, 2019, which included the reports in support thereof as the General Plan of Union City; and WHEREAS, the 2040 General Plan includes Implementation Program SA-1.C, Update DIPSA Specific Plan, for consistency with the 2040 General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Union City has prepared a comprehensive update to the Decoto Industrial Parkway Study Area (DIPSA) Specific Plan referred to as the Station District Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) (SP-22-001); and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan addresses a 471-acre area surrounding the Union City Intermodal Station and consists of five subareas including: The Core, Station East, The Marketplace, Gateway and Civic Center; and
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan is intended to ensure consistency with the Union City 2040 General Plan, which was adopted in December 2019, while refining the vision, planning details, and implementation strategies for the Station District. The Union City General Plan 2040 envisions the Station District as a world-class, transit-oriented community with new retail, public amenities, and high-density housing and job centers, all linked by bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and
WHEREAS, amendments to the General Plan (AG-22-002) are proposed for consistency with the Station District Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, amendments to Title 18, Zoning, (AT-22-005) are proposed, for consistency with the Station District Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Official Union City Zoning Map (A-22-001) are proposed for consistency with the Station District Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the General Plan amendments are labeled Exhibit A, attached hereto and made part hereof; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were prepared for the project; and DocuSign Envelope ID: B10A48D6-93EE-4D5A-A97C-429AE0F05901 City Council/RSA Agenda 561 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Resolution No. #15-22
Station District Specific Plan
GPA – AG-22-002

Page 2 of 3 ends

WHEREAS, a publicly noticed study session on the Station District Specific Plan and Draft EIR were held by the Planning Commission on June 2, 2022; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65854 of the Government Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on October 6, 2022 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. The Planning Commission considered the Draft and Final EIRs, a staff report dated October 6, 2022, and all written and oral testimony; and
WHEREAS, a staff report, dated October 6, 2022 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project and related Draft and Final EIRs for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.13-22 recommending that the City Council certify the EIR as complete, adequate, and in compliance with CEQA.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Union City hereby recommends to the City Council adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment, AG 22-002, to amend the General Plan as contained in Exhibit A and does hereby find as follows:

1. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65358(a), that the proposed General Plan Amendment is in the public interest because the amendment will further the goals and policies of the General Plan to see the area around the Union City Intermodal Station transformed into a world-class transit-oriented community with new retail, job centers, housing, and public amenities
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Union City hereby recommends approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment, AG-22-002, to the City Council.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B10A48D6-93EE-4D5A-A97C-429AE0F05901 City Council/RSA Agenda 562 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Resolution No. #15-22
Station District Specific Plan
GPA – AG-22-002

Page 3 of 3 ends

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a special meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Union City held on October 6, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: GUIO, LEW, MCCLELLAND, SAKAKIHARA, FINNERTY
NOTES:

ABSTAINED:

ABSENT: MANN
MOVED: LEW
SECONDED: FINNERTY

APPROVED

LEE GUIO, VICE CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:

CARMELA CAMPBELL, SECRETARY
DocuSign Envelope ID: B10A48D6-93EE-4D5A-A97C-429AE0F05901 City Council/RSA Agenda 563 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NUMBER #16-22

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY

RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT (AT-22-005) TO UPDATE TITLE 18, ZONING, FOR CONSISTENCY

WITH THE STATION DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN INCLUDING CREATION OF CHAPTER 18.26 AND 18.41, DELETION OF CHAPTER 18.40, ARTICLE V, RDC

DISTRICT REGULATIONS, AND RELATED MISCELLANEOUS UPDATES TO CHAPTERS 18.12, 18.30, 18.37, 18.38, 18.40, 18.50, 18.76, 18.92, 18.102, 18.114 WHEREAS, the City of Union City has prepared a comprehensive update to the Decoto Industrial Parkway Study Area (DIPSA) Specific Plan referred to as the Station District Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) (SP-22-001); and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan addresses a 471-acre area surrounding the Union City Intermodal Station and consists of five subareas including: The Core, Station East, The Marketplace, Gateway and Civic Center; and
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan is intended to ensure consistency with the Union City 2040 General Plan, which was adopted in December 2019, while refining the vision, planning details, and implementation strategies for the Station District. The Union City General Plan 2040 envisions the Station District as a world-class, transit-oriented community with new retail, public amenities, and high-density housing and job centers, all linked by bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and
WHEREAS, amendments to the General Plan (AG-22-002) are proposed for consistency with the Station District Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Official Union City Zoning Map (A-22-001) are proposed for consistency with the Station District Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, Zoning Text Amendment, AT-22-005, updates the Zoning for consistency with the Station District Specific Plan and includes the following components:
• Addition of Chapter 18.26, Mixed Use Marketplace Zoning District • Addition of Chapter 18.41, Station East Employment Zoning District • Deletion of Chapter 18.40, Article V, Research and Development Campus (RDC) Zoning District
• Miscellaneous updates to Chapters 18.12,18.30, 18.37, 18.38, 18.40,

18.50, 18.76, 18.92, 18.102, 18.114 to:
o Remove references to the DIPSA Specific Plan in Chapters 18.38,

18.50, 18.92, 18.102
o Add references to Mixed Use Marketplace, Station East Employment, Station East Mixed Use Residential Corridor Mixed Use, and Village Mixed Use zoning districts and remove references to Research and Development Campus and Specialty Commercial zoning districts in Chapters 18.12, 18.30, 18.76, and 18.114 DocuSign Envelope ID: B10A48D6-93EE-4D5A-A97C-429AE0F05901 City Council/RSA Agenda 564 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Resolution No. #16-22
Zoning Text Amendment
AT-22-005

Page 2 of 4 ends

o Update standards in Chapters 18.37 and 18.38 for consistency with the Station District Specific Plan and Chapters 18.26 and 18.41; WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning text amendment language is labeled Exhibit A and Exhibit B (redlines), attached hereto and made part hereof; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, a publicly noticed study session on the Station District Specific Plan and Draft EIR were held by the Planning Commission on June 2, 2022; 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
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65854 of the Government Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Zoning text amendment on October 6, 2022 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard.

The Planning Commission considered the Draft and Final EIRs, a staff report dated October 6, 2022, and all written and oral testimony; and WHEREAS, a staff report, dated October 6, 2022 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project and related Draft and Final EIRs for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 13-22 recommending that the City Council certify the EIR as complete, adequate, and in compliance with CEQA.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Union City hereby recommends to the City Council to adopt an ordinance approving AT-22-005 and does hereby find as follows:

1. That the proposed Zoning text amendment should be granted to ensure consistency with State law which requires consistency between a jurisdiction’s General Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning and to provide some uniformity in standards for zoning districts within the Station District.

2. That the proposed Zoning text amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the Station District Specific Plan. The proposed amendment creates new zoning districts and updates existing zoning districts to implement the vision, DocuSign Envelope ID: B10A48D6-93EE-4D5A-A97C-429AE0F05901 City Council/RSA Agenda 565 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Resolution No. #16-22
Zoning Text Amendment
AT-22-005

Page 3 of 4 ends

goals and policies of the General Plan, as amended, and the Station District Specific Plan, to create a world-class, transit-oriented community around the Intermodal Station with new commercial, public amenities, and high-density housing and job centers, all linked by bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

3. That the proposed Zoning text amendment is necessary and desirable to achieve the purpose of Title 18 because the amendments will promote the orderly and beneficial development of the Station District area, regulate the intensity of use, and fix reasonable standards to which buildings shall conform, and establish policies and standards that are necessary to implement the 2040 General Plan and Station District Specific Plan.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Union City hereby recommends approval of the proposed Zoning text amendment, AT-22-005, to the City Council.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B10A48D6-93EE-4D5A-A97C-429AE0F05901 City Council/RSA Agenda 566 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Resolution No. #16-22
Zoning Text Amendment
AT-22-005

Page 4 of 4 ends

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a special meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Union City held on October 6, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: GUIO, LEW, MCCLELLAND, SAKAKIHARA, FINNERTY
NOTES:

ABSTAINED:

ABSENT: MANN
MOVED: LEW
SECONDED: FINNERTY

APPROVED

LEE GUIO, VICE CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:

CARMELA CAMPBELL, SECRETARY
DocuSign Envelope ID: B10A48D6-93EE-4D5A-A97C-429AE0F05901 City Council/RSA Agenda 567 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NUMBER #17-22

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY

RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY APPROVAL OF ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (A-22-001) TO UPDATE THE ZONING

MAP FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATION DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Union City has prepared a comprehensive update to the Decoto Industrial Parkway Study Area (DIPSA) Specific Plan referred to as the Station District Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) (SP-22-001); and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan addresses a 471-acre area surrounding the Union City Intermodal Station and consists of five subareas including: The Core, Station East, The Marketplace, Gateway and Civic Center; and
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan is intended to ensure consistency with the Union City 2040 General Plan, which was adopted in December 2019, while refining the vision, planning details, and implementation strategies for the Station District. The Union City General Plan 2040 envisions the Station District as a world-class, transit-oriented community with new retail, public amenities, and high-density housing and job centers, all linked by bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and
WHEREAS, amendments to the General Plan (AG-22-002) are proposed for consistency with the Station District Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, amendments to Title 18, Zoning (AT-22-005) are proposed, which for consistency with the Station District Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, Zoning Map Amendment, AT-22-001, updates the Zoning Ordinance for consistency with the Station District Specific Plan and includes the following components:
• Change APNs 87-23-23, 87-23-48, 87-23-36, 87-23-49, 87-23-14-2, 87-23- 15, 87-23-25, 87-23-21-1, 87-23-46-2, 87-23-42, 87-27-57, 87-27-58, 87- 27-38, 87-27-43, 87-27-40, 87-27-39, 87-27-41, and 87-27-17) from Research and Development Campus (RDC) to Station East Employment (SEE) District
• Change APNs 486-51-6, 486-51-7, 486-51-9, 486-51-10, 486-51-13, 486- 51-12, 486-51-11, 87-19-9, 87-19-16, 87-19-1-7, 486-99-36, 486-99-7-5, 87-2-155, 87-2-156, 87-2-157, 87-2-158, 87-19-7-2, 87-19-6 from Community Commercial (CC) to Marketplace Mixed Use (MMU) • Change APNs 97-21-4-4, 87-23-11, and 87-23-12 from Research and Development Campus (RDC) to Station East Mixed Use Residential (SEMU-R)
• Change 87-11-2 and 87-11-8-2 from Community Commercial (CC) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU)
DocuSign Envelope ID: B10A48D6-93EE-4D5A-A97C-429AE0F05901 City Council/RSA Agenda 568 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Resolution No. #17-22
Station District Specific Plan
Zoning Map Amendment – A-22-001

Page 2 of 3 ends

• Change APNs 87-335-6, 87-17-6, 87-335-1-1, and 87-17-7 from Research and Development Campus (RDC) to Commercial Station Mixed Use (CSMU); and
WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Map Amendment is shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made part hereof; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, a publicly noticed study session on the Station District Specific Plan and Draft EIR were held by the Planning Commission on June 2, 2022; 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
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65854 of the Government Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Map amendment on October 6, 2022 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. The Planning Commission considered the Draft and Final EIRs, a staff report dated October 6, 2022, and all written and oral testimony; and
WHEREAS, a staff report, dated October 6, 2022 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project and related Draft and Final EIRs for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 13-22 recommending that the City Council certify the EIR as complete, adequate, and in compliance with CEQA.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Union City hereby recommends to the City Council to adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Map Amendment A-22-001 and does hereby find as follows:

1. That the proposed Zoning map amendment should be granted to ensure consistency with State law which requires consistency between a jurisdiction’s General Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning;

2. That the proposed Zoning map amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the Station District Specific Plan. The proposed map amendment adds new zoning districts and updates existing zoning districts to implement the DocuSign Envelope ID: B10A48D6-93EE-4D5A-A97C-429AE0F05901 City Council/RSA Agenda 569 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Resolution No. #17-22
Station District Specific Plan
Zoning Map Amendment – A-22-001

Page 3 of 3 ends

vision, goals and policies of the General Plan, as amended, and the Station District Specific Plan, to create a world-class, transit-oriented community around the Intermodal Station with new commercial, public amenities, and high-density housing and job centers, all linked by bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and

3. That the proposed Zoning map amendment is necessary and desirable to achieve the purpose of Title 18 because the amendment will promote the orderly and beneficial development of the Station District area, regulate the intensity of use, and fix reasonable standards to which buildings shall conform.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Union City hereby recommends approval of Zoning Map Amendment, A-22-001, to the City Council.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a special meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Union City held on October 6, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: GUIO, LEW, MCCLELLAND, SAKAKIHARA, FINNERTY
NOTES:

ABSTAINED:

ABSENT: MANN
MOVED: LEW
SECONDED: FINNERTY

APPROVED

LEE GUIO, VICE CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:

CARMELA CAMPBELL, SECRETARY
DocuSign Envelope ID: B10A48D6-93EE-4D5A-A97C-429AE0F05901 City Council/RSA Agenda 570 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
ATTACHMENT 10
Public Outreach Overview
During 2020, the City completed a community outreach process to solicit feedback on planning alternatives for the Station District, as well as a community vision and guiding principles. Outreach efforts during this phase of work included two meetings of the Community Advisory Committee (February 19, 2020 and July 9, 2020), a community workshop (July 21, 2020), and an online community survey (July/August 2020).

This was followed by a Planning Commission Study Session on August 20, 2020 and a City Council Study Session on September 8, 2020. The Planning Commission and City Council expressed overall support for the guiding principles and proposed direction, while offering suggestions for refinement of language and planning concepts to more accurately reflect the unique Station District context in Union City. From April 2020 till spring of 2022, all engagement meetings were held virtually, in accordance with the Alameda County Health Officer Order and City policy. During 2021 and early 2022, the feedback described above was used to inform development of the draft Station District Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report, with continued technical work and analysis by the planning team.

Public Draft Review
The EIR Notice of Preparation circulation process was initiated in January 2021, and the draft Specific Plan and DEIR were released for public review from May 17, 2022 to July 1, 2022. During that 45-day public review period, several publicly noticed meetings were held with City commissions for their review and input.

On June 2, 2022, the Planning Commission held a Study Session to review the draft Specific Plan and EIR. The Planning Commission asked several clarifying questions, acknowledged the large amount of work that went into the Specific Plan and EIR, expressed overall support for the Specific Plan, and requested a small number of revisions which were subsequently incorporated into the adoption draft before Council today.

Committee comments were supportive, with several members stating that they looked forward to implementation of the Specific Plan in coordination with the Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan.

City Council/RSA Agenda 571 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Attachment 10
Public Outreach Overview

Page 2 of 2 ends

Between the June 2, 2022 Planning Commission Study Session and the October 6 Planning Commission adoption hearing, staff and the consultant team reviewed public and commission feedback received on the Specific Plan and the EIR; made revisions to both documents in response to these comments; and prepared amendments to both the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance necessary for consistency among the documents, as required by state law. Staff also identified a small number of corrections related to a variety of topics including parkland dedication and transit service within the City and updated the document accordingly.

City Council/RSA Agenda 572 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Agenda Item
DATE: 10/25/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO, CITYATTORNEY
SUBJECT: INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITYOF UNION CITYADDING CHAPTER 9.83, SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS, TO TITLE 9 (PEACE, SAFETYAND MORALS) IX (WEAPONS) OF THE

UNION CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE THE SAFE STORAGE OF

FIREARMS IN A RESIDENCE
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce an ordinance requiring the safe storage of firearms in a residence. Having a loaded or unlocked gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of gun-related injury and death. Applying trigger locks or using lock boxes when storing firearms in the home reduces the risk of firearm injury and death. Cities throughout California have adopted ordinances requiring the safe storage of firearms in a residence.

The Legislation and Policy Committee considered the proposed ordinance and recommended forwarding it to the City Council for adoption.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
The proposed ordinance is consistent with the following goal of the strategic plan:

Goal C: Economic, Community Development and Public Safety.

BACKGROUND
General Background
The unsafe storage of firearms threatens public health and safety. Firearm injuries have a significant adverse public health and safety impact nationally, regionally, and locally. A 2016 study of gun owners published in the American Journal of Public Health found that while millions of responsible gun owners follow recommended storage practices, an estimated 54% do not lock up all of their guns, or store them trigger-locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition. Improperly stored firearms may result in accidental firearm injuries and/or deaths, particularly in homes with children.

City Council/RSA Agenda 573 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Moving to add more provisions to California’s gun safety laws, Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed into legislation a new package of laws on gun safety, including measures to restrict advertising of firearms to minors (AB 2571), restrict ghost guns and the parts and kits used to build them (AB 1621), create a “private right of action” to limit spread of illegalassault weapons and ghost guns (SB 1327), and allow governments and victims of gun violence to sue manufacturers and sellers of firearms (AB 1594).

Union City
The following are relevant statistics related to crime in Union City over the past 12 months:
• There have been five homicides.
• Attempted homicides and assaults with a firearm have increased approximately 63%. • Approximately 70% of firearms seized in these violent crimes are “ghost guns” or not registered to the offender.
• Approximately 45% of the offenders in these violent crimes are residents of Union City and roughly 55% are not residents.
• Nearly 75% of the offenders committing these violent crimes in Union City range from 12 years old to 29 years old (45% of the offenders were 12 - 19 years old and 28% of the offenders were 20 - 29 years old). • These violent crimes stem from a wide range of circumstances with no specific associated factor, such as gangs, drugs, domestic violence, etc.

The one commonality is the use of a firearm.

The City of Union City and Police Department established a number of strategies to attempt to address this increase in gun violence within the community. One strategy was to propose that the City Councilconsider an ordinance to require the safe storage of firearms in a residence.

The City of Union City does not presently regulate firearm storage within residential locations. The proposed ordinance seeks to curb access to firearms by children and other unauthorized individuals who may be at risk of harming themselves or others. The proposed ordinance prohibits a person from keeping a firearm in any residence unless the firearm is stored in a locked container or the firearm’s trigger-lock is engaged.

DISCUSSION
A 2017 Pew Research Center survey found that 42% of adults live in a gun-owning household. Roughly a third of homes in the United States with children have guns and an estimated 4.6 million children live with unlocked, loaded guns in the home. The Centers for Disease Controland Prevention reports that in 2020 there were 45,222 firearm-related deaths in the United States, and 54% (22,292) of the firearm-related deaths were suicides. According to a 2008 report published in the New England Journal of Medicine, living in a home where there are guns increases the risk of death by homicide by between 40% and 170% and the risk of suicide by 90% to 460%.

Existing State Law
Negligent Storage of Firearm With Potential Child Access California Penal Code section 25100 makes it a crime to negligently store or leave a firearm in any location within a premises under the person’s custody or control, and do so when the owner knows, or should know, that a child is likely to gain access to it without a parent or guardian’s permission, unless reasonable action is taken by the person to secure the firearm against access by the child. The penalties increase if: (1) a person keeps any firearm within any premises under the person’s custody or control; (2) if the person knows or should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of a parent or guardian, or that a City Council/RSA Agenda 574 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
person prohibited from possessing a firearm or deadly weapon under state or federal law is likely to gain access to the firearm; and (3) the child, or person prohibited from possessing a firearm, obtains access to the firearm and causes injury to themselves or another person, or carries the firearm to a public place. The penalties further increase if the child, or person prohibited from possessing a firearm, causes death or great bodily injury to themselves or another person. Two of severalexceptions to a violation of Penal Code section 25100 are if: (1) the firearm is kept in a locked container or in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure; or (2) if the firearm is locked with a locking device, which has rendered the firearm inoperable.

Firearm Safety Device Requirement
Existing state law requires that, except for certain exemptions, any firearm sold or transferred in California by a licensed firearms dealer and any firearm manufactured in California, shall include or be accompanied by a firearm safety device that is listed on the Department of Justice’s roster of approved firearm safety devices and identified as appropriate for that firearm.

Proposed Ordinance
Current Legislative Landscape and Related Considerations Currently, there is no state law that requires that safety devices, such as lock boxes or trigger locks, be used on all firearms stored in a residence. Keeping a firearm locked when it is not being carried ensures that it cannot be accessed and used by others without the owner's knowledge or permission. Applying trigger locks or using lock boxes when storing firearms in the home reduces the risk of unauthorized users, including children, from accessing and using firearms which can reduce unintentional discharges, firearm theft, gun-related homicides and suicides. Safe storage measures have a demonstrated protective effect in homes with children and teenagers where guns are stored. Several California jurisdictions have adopted “safe firearm storage” ordinances to bolster firearm safety in the home. Safe storage ordinances are in effect in at least 20 California municipalities, including Antioch, Alameda, Belvedere, Berkeley, Dublin, Los Angeles, Moraga, Morgan Hill, Oakland, Orinda, Palm Springs, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, South San Francisco, Sunnyvale, Tiburon, and Walnut Creek.

The use of locking devices when storing firearms ensures that unauthorized and untrained persons cannot access firearms to inflict injury or cause death. Keeping a firearm locked when it is not being carried ensures that it cannot be accessed or used by others without the owner’s knowledge or permission, decreasing the risk that the gun will be used to commit suicide, homicide, or inflict injury, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Significant Provisions of Proposed Ordinance
The proposed ordinance would require any person in a residence in Union City to store firearms in a locked container or disable them with an appropriate safety device. The requirements of the ordinance would not apply when a firearm is legally carried on the person, or otherwise in his or her immediate possession and control, nor when the firearm is in the immediate possession and control of a peace officer.

To encourage reporting of lost or stolen firearms, a person who complies with California Penal Code section 25250, by reporting the loss or theft of a firearm they own or possess to a local law enforcement agency within five days from the time they knew or reasonably should have known the firearm had been lost or stolen, would not be prosecuted for a violation of the ordinance. Any person who violates the ordinance is deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.

The ordinance would not create a substantial burden to persons lawfully carrying and storing firearms in the home, but it would require safe firearm storage in an effort to decrease the risk of harm to children and the entire community. The safe storage ordinance is consistent with, and builds upon, existing state law by City Council/RSA Agenda 575 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
requiring gun owners to always use safety devices when storing a firearm in their residence. The ordinance fills an important gap in existing law and aims to reduce accidental gun shootings, gun-related homicides and suicides, and the theft of unsecured firearms.

The ordinance provides that it will not become operative untilApril 1, 2023. This is to provide sufficient time for gun owners to obtain the appropriate safety devices and to provide an opportunity to for public outreach.

Legislation and Policy Committee
The Legislation and Policy Committee reviewed the proposed ordinance on October 3 and recommended that the ordinance before forwarded to the City Council for consideration and approval.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce an ordinance adding Chapter 9.83 “Safe Storage of Firearms” to Title 9 “Peace, Safety and Moral” Section IX. “Weapons” of the Union City Municipal Code to require the safe storage of firearms in a residence.

Prepared by:

Erica Gonzalez, Associate Attorney
Submitted by:

Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Ordinance Ordinance
Power Point Attachment
City Council/RSA Agenda 576 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY ADDING CHAPTER 9.83, SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS, TO TITLE 9 (PEACE, SAFETY

AND MORALS) IX (WEAPONS) OF THE UNION CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TO

REQUIRE THE SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS IN A RESIDENCE
WHEREAS, the City of Union City does not presently regulate firearm storage within residential locations; and
WHEREAS, firearm injuries have a significant adverse public health and safety impact nationally, regionally, and locally; and
WHEREAS, improperly stored firearms may result in accidental firearm injuries and/or deaths, particularly in homes with children; and
WHEREAS, in California, numerous people die each year from injuries related to firearms, and many more are hospitalized for non-fatal gunshot wounds; and WHEREAS, having a loaded or unlocked firearm in the home has been associated with an increased risk of firearm-related injury and death, as well as theft of the firearm; and WHEREAS, quick access to a loaded firearm heightens the risk that a young person’s impulsive decision to commit suicide may be carried out without reflection or seeking help, and that the impulsive attempt will be fatal; and
WHEREAS, utilizing gun locks or lock boxes when storing firearms in the home reduces the risk of firearm injury and death, as well as theft; and WHEREAS, keeping a firearm locked when it is not being carried ensures that it cannot be accessed or used by others without the owner’s knowledge or permission, decreasing the risk that the gun will be used to commit suicide, homicide, or inflict injury, whether intentionally or unintentionally; and
WHEREAS, the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend the safe storage of firearms; and
WHEREAS, both gun control and gun rights activists endorse the use of locking devices when storing firearms to ensure that unauthorized and untrained persons cannot access firearms to inflict injury or cause death; and
WHEREAS, requiring stored, unsupervised firearms to be secured with gun locks or in a locked container does not substantially burden the right or ability to use firearms for self-defense in the home; and
WHEREAS, the locking requirements apply to firearms that are not being legally carried. Legal City Council/RSA Agenda 577 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
firearm owners may still carry loaded and unlocked firearms in their home at any time. The safe storage requirements also permit legal owners to store their firearms fully loaded if they wish; and WHEREAS, firearm security does not preclude quick access. Portable lockboxes with simplex or biometric locks can store loaded firearms such that they can be accessed quickly. Such safely stored firearms may be more quickly and easily retrieved for use in self-defense than unlocked firearms hidden away in seldom-used or remote locations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that requiring safe storage of firearms would constitute a sensible safety regulation and would not be unduly burdensome for firearm owners; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to add Chapter 9.83 to Title 9 (Peace, Safety And Morals) IX (Weapons) of the City of Union City Municipal Code to require the safe storage of firearms in a residence.

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. Municipal Code Amendment. Chapter 9.83 (Safe Storage of Firearms) is added to Title 9 (Peace, Safety And Morals) IX (Weapons) of the Union City Municipal Code as follows:
“Chapter 9.83 Safe Storage of Firearms.

Section 9.83.010 Safe Storage of Firearms in a Residence Required.

A. No person shall keep a firearm (as defined in California Penal Code section 16520, as amended from time to time) in any residence in Union City, owned or controlled by that person unless the firearm is stored in a locked container (as defined in California Penal Code section 16850, as amended from time to time) or the firearm is disabled with a safety device listed on the California Department of Justice’s roster of firearm safety devices (as defined in the California Penal Code sections 16540 & 23635, as amended from time to time).

B. Exceptions:

1. Subsection (A) does not apply when a firearm is carried on the person of, or is otherwise in the immediate control and possession of, an individual in accordance with applicable local, state, and/or federal laws.

2. Subsection (A) does not apply when a firearm is carried on the person of, or is otherwise in the immediate control and possession of a peace officer (as defined in California Penal Code sections 830 et. seq, as amended from time to time).

City Council/RSA Agenda 578 Tuesday, October 25, 2022

3. To encourage reporting of lost or stolen firearms (as defined in California Penal Code section 16520, as amended from time to time), a person who complies with California Penal Code section 25250 by reporting the loss or theft of a firearm they own or possess to a local law enforcement agency within five days from the time they knew or reasonably should have known the firearm had been lost or stolen shall not be prosecuted for violation of subsection (A).

C. It is not the intention of this Section to regulate any conduct if the regulation of such conduct has been preempted by state or federal law.

Section 9.83.020 Penalty; Misdemeanor or Infraction
Any person who violates any provision of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor as provided in Section 1.16.010.

Section 9.83.030 Operative Date
This chapter shall be operative on April 1, 2023.”
SECTION 3. CEQA. Approval of the ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under the general rule in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. As a series of text amendments and additions that do not authorize any new activity, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 4. 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 5. 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.

City Council/RSA Agenda 579 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
City Council/RSA Agenda 580 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
October 25, 2022 – Item 7.a.

Introduce an ordinance adding Chapter 9.83 “Safe
Storage of Firearms” to the Union City Municipal
Code
City Council/RSA Agenda 581 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Background
City Council/RSA Agenda 582 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
3 • The City of Union City does not presently regulate firearm storage within residential locations.
• The unsafe storage of firearms threatens public health and safety, particularly in homes with children.
• The proposed ordinance seeks to curb access to firearms by children and other at risk individuals and decrease harm to the community consistent with all applicable laws.

Background
City Council/RSA Agenda 583 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
4 • Over the past 12 months there has been a 63% increase in attempted homicides and assaults with a firearm as well as 5 homicides
• Of these crimes:
• Approx. 70% of the seized firearms are “ghost guns” or not registered to the offender• Approx. 45% of the offenders are residents of Union City• Approx. 75% of the offenders are aged 12- 29, with the majority aged 12-29 (45%) • These violent crimes stem from a wide range of circumstances with no specific associated factor, such as gangs, drugs, domestic violence, etc.

Background
Statistics
City Council/RSA Agenda 584 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
5 Existing State Law
California Penal Code
• Currently, there is no state law that requires that safety devices, such as lock boxes or trigger locks, be used on all firearms stored in a residence. • California law prohibits the negligent storage of a firearm in any location where the owner knows, or should know, that a child is likely to gain access to it. • Two Exceptions are if:
• the firearm is kept in a locked container or in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure; or
• if the firearm is locked with a locking device, which has rendered the firearm inoperable.

City Council/RSA Agenda 585 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
6 Existing State Law
California Legislation
• Recent California laws:
• restrict advertising of firearms to minors (AB 2571)
• restrict ghost guns and the parts and kits (AB 1621)• create a “private right of action” to limit spread of illegal assault weapons and ghost guns (SB 1327)
• allow governments and victims of gun violence to sue
manufacturers and sellers of firearms (AB 1594)
City Council/RSA Agenda 586 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
7 Existing State Law
Local Legislation
• Several California jurisdictions have adopted “safe firearm storage” ordinances to bolster firearm safety in the home.
• Safe storage ordinances are in effect in at least 20 California municipalities, including: Antioch, Alameda, Belvedere, Berkeley, Dublin, Los Angeles, Moraga, Morgan Hill, Oakland, Orinda, Palm Springs, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, South San Francisco, Sunnyvale, Tiburon, and Walnut Creek.

City Council/RSA Agenda 587 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Proposed Ordinance
City Council/RSA Agenda 588 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
9 • Proposed Ordinance will require storage of firearm in a locked container or require use of safety device to disarm the firearm in a residence. • Exceptions Exist for:
• Firearms carried on the person, or immediate control, in compliance with State & Federal Law
• Firearms carried on the person, or immediate control, and possession of a peace officer
Proposed Gun Safety Storage Ordinance
Proposed Ordinance
City Council/RSA Agenda 589 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
10 • To Encourage Reporting of a Lost Firearm:
• A person who reports the loss or theft of a firearm they own or possess to a local law enforcement agency within 5 days shall not be prosecuted (California Penal Code section 25250) Proposed Gun Safety Storage Ordinance
Proposed Ordinance
City Council/RSA Agenda 590 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
11 • Penalties:

Any person who violates any provision of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor as provided in Section 1.16.010.

Proposed Gun Safety Storage Ordinance
Proposed Ordinance
City Council/RSA Agenda 591 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
12 • Ordinance does not take effect until April 1, 2023 in order to provide sufficient time for community outreach and compliance.
• Existing state law requires that, except for certain exemptions, any firearm sold or transferred in California by a licensed firearms dealer and any firearm manufactured in California, shall include or be accompanied by a firearm safety device that is listed on the Department of Justice’s roster of approved firearm safety devices and identified as appropriate for that firearm.

Operative Date and Existing Law
Proposed Ordinance
City Council/RSA Agenda 592 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
13 • Legislation and Policy Committee reviewed ordinance and recommended forwarding to City Council for approval.

Legislation and Policy Committee
Proposed Ordinance
City Council/RSA Agenda 593 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
14 Waive full reading and, by title only, introduce an ordinance adding Chapter 9.83 “Safe Storage of Firearms” to Title 9 “Peace, Safety and Morals” Section IX. “Weapons” of the Union City Municipal Code to require the safe storage of firearms in a residence.

Recommendation
City Council/RSA Agenda 594 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Agenda Item
DATE: 10/25/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO, CITYATTORNEY
SUBJECT: INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITYOF UNION CITYAMENDING SECTION 2.26.040 “COMPENSATION FOR THE ARTS & CULTURE COMMISSION” OF CHAPTER 2.26 “ARTS &
CULTURE COMMISSION” AND SECTION 2.20.080 “COMPENSATION” OF CHAPTER 2.20 “BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, AND
ORGANIZATIONS” OF THE UNION CITY MUNICIPAL CODE
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce and waive the first reading of an ordinance amending sections 2.20.080 “Compensation” and 2.26.040 “Compensation For The Arts & Culture Commission” of the Union City Municipal Code to allow the City Council to consider providing compensation for Arts & Culture Commission Members.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Adoption of this ordinance is consistent with the following goal of the strategic plan: Goal B. Governance and Organization Effectiveness.

BACKGROUND
The City Councilcreated the Arts & Culture Commission (the “Commission”) pursuant to Chapter 2.26 of the Union City Municipal Code. The purpose of the Commission to review and advise the City Council, City staff and project sponsors on proposed public art installation sites in the City of Union City, encourage and promote art programs and activities within the City of Union City, and perform other duties as outlined in Chapter 2.26 of the Municipal Code.

The Commission is an advisory body consisting of five members. However, the Commission has seen its membership decrease over the years. In February 2019, the Legislation & Policy Committee (the “Committee”) considered revisions to Chapter 2.26 to enable additional participation and interest in the Commission. The Committee voted to recommend that staff present an Ordinance to amend Chapter 2.26 to the City Council. The present recommendation is part of staff’s continued efforts to increase participation and interest in the Commission.

City Council/RSA Agenda 595 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Section 2.20.080 of the Municipal Code provides that the City Council shallestablish the compensation for each board, commission, committee, or organization, with the exception of the Youth Commission and Public Art Board, by resolution. Section 2.26.040 of the Municipal Code currently provides that Members of the Commission (the “Commissioners”) shall serve without compensation. Commissioners currently serve without compensation.

DISCUSSION
The purpose of the Commission is to review and advise the City Council, City staff and project sponsors on proposed public art installation sites in the City, encourage and promote art programs and activities within the City, as set forth in Chapter 2.26 of the Municipal Code. The role of the Commission is important to the City and its residents. It promotes the general welfare and quality of life for citizens and visitors and serves to heighten a sense of community heritage, foster civic pride, and give expression to the history, values, identity and diversity of the City.

Union City Municipal Code Section 2.20.080 states that the City Council shallestablish compensation for each board, commission, committee, or organization, except the Youth Commission and Public Art Board (the predecessor to the Arts & Culture Commission), by resolution. The City’s Planning, Human Relations, Park and Recreation, and Senior Citizens Commissioners all serve with compensation.

Section 2.26.040 of the Municipal Code currently provides that “Members of the Arts & Culture Commission shall serve without compensation.”
The Committee considered a potentialamendment to the Municipal Code to allow the City Council to consider compensation for the Arts & Culture Commission on August 15 and September 19. On September 19, the Committee reviewed and approved the proposed Ordinance.

The proposed Ordinance amends the Municipal Code to allow the Members of the Arts & Culture Commission to serve with compensation as specified by resolution of the City Council, consistent with the City’s Planning, Human Relations, Park and Recreation, and Senior Citizens Commissions. The amendment willensure that members of the Arts & Culture Commission can be considered for compensation as are other City commissioners while encouraging and promoting participation in the Commission, consistent with continued efforts to increase participation and interest in the Commission.

FISCAL IMPACT
Commissioner compensation shall be specified by a resolution of the City Council, following adoption of the proposed Ordinance. Subject to Council's direction, funds will be allocated in the appropriate FiscalYear operating budget.

RECOMMENDATION
Waive full reading and introduce by title only an ordinance amending sections 2.20.080 “Compensation” and

2.26.040 “Compensation For The Arts & Culture Commission” of the Union City Municipal Code.

Prepared by:

Erica Gonzalez, Associate Attorney
City Council/RSA Agenda 596 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Submitted by:

Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Ordinance Ordinance
Power Point Attachment
City Council/RSA Agenda 597 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY AMENDING SECTION 2.26.040 “COMPENSATION FOR THE ARTS & CULTURE COMMISSION” OF CHAPTER 2.26 “ARTS & CULTURE COMMISSION” AND SECTION 2.20.080 “COMPENSATION” OF CHAPTER 2.20 “BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, AND ORGANIZATIONS”

OF THE UNION CITY MUNICIPAL CODE
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 WHEREAS, the City Council created the Arts & Culture Commission (the “Commission”) pursuant to Chapter 2.26 of the Union City Municipal Code (the “Code”); and WHEREAS, it is the purpose of the Commission to review and advise the City Council, City staff and project sponsors on proposed public art installation sites in the City of Union City, encourage and promote art programs and activities within the City of Union City, and perform other duties as outlined in Chapter 2.26 of the Code; and
WHEREAS, section 2.20.080 of the Code provides that each board, commission, committee, or organization, except the Youth Commission and Public Art Board (the predecessor to the Arts & Culture Commission), shall be paid in an amount as specified by resolution of the City Council; and WHEREAS, section 2.26.040 of the Code currently provides that Members of the Commission (the “Commissioners”) shall serve without compensation; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 36506 of the California Government Code authorizes the City Council to establish the compensation and benefits of all appointive officers; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the Union City Municipal Code to provide compensation to the Arts & Culture Commission as acknowledgement of their dedication and generous contributions to the Commission.

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. Approval of the amendments is exempt from environmental review in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), the general exemption for projects with no potential for significant effect on the environment. As a series of text amendments and additions, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Municipal Code Amendment will have a significant effect on the environment.

City Council/RSA Agenda 598 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
SECTION 3. Municipal Code Amendment. Section 2.20.080 “Compensation,” of Chapter

2.20 “Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Organizations” and Section 2.26.040 “Compensation for the Arts & Culture Commission” of Chapter 2.26 “Arts & Culture Commission” of the Union City Municipal Code are hereby amended, with deletions in strikeout and additions in underline, as follows:
“2.20.080 Compensation.

Each board, commission, committee, or organization, except the Youth Commission and Public Art Board, shall be paid in an amount as specified by resolution of the City Council.

2.26.040 Compensation for the Arts & Culture Commission.

Members of the Arts & Culture Commission shall serve without compensation be paid in an amount as specified by resolution of the City Council.” SECTION 4. 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.

City Council/RSA Agenda 599 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
October 25, 2022 – Item 7.b.

Introduce an ordinance amending sections 2.20.080 and

2.26.040 of the Union City Municipal Code concerning compensation for the Arts & Culture Commission.

City Council/RSA Agenda 600 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Background
City Council/RSA Agenda 601 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
3 • The City Council created the Arts & Culture Commission pursuant to Chapter 2.26 of the Union City Municipal Code.
• The Commission is an advisory board whose duties include:
• reviewing and advising the City Council, City staff and project sponsors on proposed public art installation sites in the City; and • encouraging and promoting art programs and activities within the City. • Members of the Commission currently serve without compensation.• The City’s Planning, Human Relations, Park and Recreation, and Senior Citizens Commissioners all have the ability to receive compensation.

Background
City Council/RSA Agenda 602 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
4 Commissioner Compensation
Chapter 2.20 Board, Commissions, Committees, and
Organizations
Section 2.20.080 Compensation.

Each board, commission, committee, or organization, except the Youth Commission and Public Art Board, shall be paid in an amount as specified by resolution of the City Council. (Ord. 820-16 § 4, 2016) City Council/RSA Agenda 603 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
5 Commissioner Compensation
Chapter 2.26 Arts & Culture Commission
Section 2.26.040 Compensation for the Arts & Culture
Commission
Members of the Arts & Culture Commission shall serve without compensation. (Ord. 856-19 § 3, 2019; Ord. 820-16 § 4, 2016) City Council/RSA Agenda 604 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Proposed Ordinance
City Council/RSA Agenda 605 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
7 • The proposed Ordinance amends the Municipal Code to allow the Members of the Arts & Culture Commission to serve with compensation as specified by resolution of the City Council, consistent with the City’s Planning, Human Relations, Park and Recreation, and Senior Citizens Commissions. • The amendment will ensure that members of the Arts & Culture Commission can be considered for compensation as are other City commissioners while encouraging and promoting participation in the Commission, consistent with continued efforts to increase participation and interest in the Commission.

Proposed Ordinance: Purpose
Proposed Ordinance
City Council/RSA Agenda 606 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
8 Section 2.20.080 “Compensation” is amended to state:Each board, commission, committee, or organization, except the Youth Commission and Public Art Board, shall be paid in an amount as specified by resolution of the City Council.Section 2.26.040 “Compensation for the Arts & Culture Commission” is amended to state:Members of the Arts & Culture Commission shall serve without compensation be paid in an amount as specified by resolution of the City Council.

Municipal Code Amendment: Specifics
Proposed Ordinance
City Council/RSA Agenda 607 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
9 Waive Full Reading And, By Title Only, Introduce An Ordinance Amending Section 2.26.040 “Compensation For The Arts & Culture Commission” Of Chapter 2.26 “Arts & Culture Commission” And Section 2.20.080 “Compensation” Of Chapter 2.20 “Boards, Commissions, Committees, And Organizations” Of The Union City Municipal Code
Recommendation
City Council/RSA Agenda 608 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Agenda Item
DATE: 10/25/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOAN MALLOY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING CITY COUNCIL EXPENSE AND

TRAVEL BUDGET
The City Council, as part of the biennial budget process, establishes a budget for City Council expenses.

Currently, that amount is set at $10,000 for the City Council as a whole. The Legislation and Policy Committee considered the current budget, as well as the Policy Governing Expenses of the City Council.

Following review, the Committee recommended forwarding to the City Council for consideration an amendment to the budget to increase the total budgeted amount from $10,000 to $17,000 and to provide $3,000 for each Councilmember and $5,000 for the Mayor for expenses related to City business or trainings. The Committee did not recommend any revisions to the Policy Governing Expenses of the City Council.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
The City Council Expense Policy is consistent with some elements of the strategic plan, such as:

Goal B, Strategy 3: Implement a new system of electing councilmembers by district and establish protocols for governance.

BACKGROUND
On March 24, 2020, the City Council adopted the Policy Governing Expenses of the City Council (the “Policy”). The Policy is attached hereto for reference. The Policy provides that the Council may utilize City funds for the expenses related to:

1. Communicating with representatives of regional, state and national government on City adopted policy positions;

2. Attending educational seminars designed to improve officials' skilland information levels;

3. Participating in regional, state and national organizations whose activities affect the City's interests; and

4. Attending City events.

City Council/RSA Agenda 609 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
The current biennial budget provides a lump sum $10,000 budgeted amount for the City Councilas a whole for authorized expenses as outlined in the Policy. The Legislation and Policy Committee (the “Committee”) reviewed the Policy as well as the budget to consider whether any revisions should be considered by the Councilas travel is now more frequent following the Covid-19 shutdowns and the cost of travel has increased.

The current $10,000 budget amounts to $2,000 per Councilmember, including the Mayor, assuming each Councilmember utilizes the same portion of the budget.

DISCUSSION
The Committee considered the Policy as well as the budgeted amount for Council expenses at the Committee’s meetings on August 15, September 19, and October 3.

As part of this process, the Committee considered expense policies from other cities as well as the amounts that are generally budgeted for Council expenses. After evaluating the Policy, the Committee found that no further revisions were necessary as the authorized purposes for expenses were appropriate. However, the Committee considered the current budgeted amount for Councilmembers. Some cities establish a total budget for all councilmembers, while other cities establish a budgeted amount for each councilmember.

In reviewing the current budget structure, the Committee felt that the total budget of $10,000 for the Council was insufficient. In light of this, the Committee recommended an increase for the Council expense budget to $17,000 with a budgeted amount for each Councilmember of $3,000 and a budgeted amount of $5,000 for the Mayor. The $3,000 amount results in an approximate 33 percent increase in budget for each Councilmember, assuming each Councilmember were to use $2,000 of the $10,000 of the existing budget. The reason for the increased recommended amount for the Mayor was due to the increased obligations and duties that the Mayor has on various regional committees and organizations and to fulfill her duties as the only Citywide elected official.

As noted above, the Committee also felt that it was appropriate to have the budget specify an amount per Councilmember as opposed to one totalamount that is exhausted on a first come first serve basis. This would also ensure that each Councilmember has equal resources available for training and fulfilling Council duties, with the exception for the Mayor as noted above.

Should a Councilmember or the Mayor find the need for additional funds, they could request that the Council consider a budget amendment for additional training or costs associated with City duties.

Recognizing that the City is in the middle of a budget cycle, the Committee recommended that the City Council provide that the current budget for fiscal year 2022-2023 be amended to provide $3,000 per Councilmember elected at large and by district, as wellas to provide $5,000 for the Mayor. Districts 2, 3 and 4 are set for election for the first time in November and this willallow the elected Councilmembers to have the full $3,000 budgeted amount available for the remainder of the fiscal year.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact of providing direction.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Councilconsider the Committee’s recommendation to amend the travel and City Council/RSA Agenda 610 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
training budget for the City Counciland provide direction accordingly.

Prepared by:

Kris Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Submitted by:

JOAN MALLOY, CITY MANAGER
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Attachment 1 - City Council Travel Policy Attachment
Power Point Attachment
City Council/RSA Agenda 611 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
CITY COUNCIL POLICY: Resolution No. 5579-20
Adopted: March 24, 2020
SUBJECT: Policy Governing Expenses of the City Council
I. PURPOSE
a. City Councilmembers must incur miscellaneous expenses in fulfilling the responsibilities of an elected official. This policy establishes the guidelines and standards regarding miscellaneous expenditures incurred by members of the City Council for all travel, education, training, communications, and all out-of-pocket expenses. b. Out-of-pocket expenses incurred by a Councilmember in the performance of their official duties as a representative of the City are eligible for reimbursement as provided in this policy.

II. AUTHORIZED EXPENSES.
a. City funds, equipment, supplies including letterhead, titles, and staff time must only be used for authorized City business. Expenses incurred in connection with the following types of activities generally constitute authorized expenses, as long as the other requirements of this policy are met:

1. Communicating with representatives of regional, state and national government on City adopted policy positions;

2. Attending educational seminars designed to improve officials' skill and information levels;

3. Participating in regional, state and national organizations whose activities affect the City's interests; and

4. Attending City events.

All other expenditures require prior approval by the City Council. In addition, expenses for international travel requires prior City Council approval. b. State law prohibits personal use of public resources. Examples of personal expenses that the City will not reimburse include, but are not limited to:

1. The personal portion of any trip;

2. Political or charitable contributions or events;

3. Family expenses, including partner's expenses when accompanying official on agencyrelated business, as well as children- or pet-related expenses; City Council/RSA Agenda 612 Tuesday, October 25, 2022

4. Entertainment expenses, including theater, movies (either in-room or at the theater), sporting events (including gym, massage and/or golf related expenses), or other cultural events;

5. Non-mileage personal automobile expenses, including repairs, traffic citations, insurance or gasoline; and

6. Personal losses incurred while on City business.

Expenses for which City Councilmembers receive reimbursement from another agency are not reimbursable under this Policy. Any questions regarding the propriety of a particular type of expense should be resolved by the City Manager before the expense is incurred.

III. BUDGET.
a. The Council shall establish a budget for expenses for the Mayor and Councilmembers through the annual or biennial budget process. These amounts may be adjusted from time to time by the City Council.
b. Councilmembers who incur expenses greater than the maximum permitted by this policy shall be responsible for the excess expenses unless otherwise approved by the City Council.

IV. COST CONTROL.

To conserve City resources and keep expenses within community standards for public officials, expenditures should adhere to the following guidelines. In the event that expenses are incurred which exceed these guidelines, the cost borne or reimbursed by the City will be limited to the costs that fall within the guidelines.
a. Transportation. The most economical mode and class of transportation reasonably consistent with scheduling needs and cargo space requirements must be used, using the most direct and time-efficient route. Government and group rates must be used when available.

1. Airfare. Airfares that are equal or less than those available through the Enhanced Local Government Airfare Program offered through the League of California Cities (www.cacities.org/travel) and the State of California are presumed to be the most economical and reasonable for purposes of reimbursement under this policy. Receipts are required for payment or reimbursement of airfare.

2. Automobile. Automobile mileage is reimbursed at the Internal Revenue Service rate in effect at the time of travel. The reimbursement rate is designed to compensate the driver for gasoline, insurance, maintenance, and other expenses associated with operating the vehicle. This amount does not include bridge and road tolls, which are also reimbursable.

3. Car Rental. Car rental rates that are equal or less than those available through the State of California's website (http://www.catravelsmart.com/default.htm) shall be considered the most economical and reasonable for purposes of reimbursement under this policy.

Receipts are required for payment or reimbursement of car rental expenses.

City Council/RSA Agenda 613 Tuesday, October 25, 2022

4. Taxis/Shuttles. Taxis, shuttles, or rideshare trips (such as Lyft/Uber) fares may be reimbursed, including a 15 percent gratuity per fare, when the cost of such fares is equal or less than the cost of car rentals, gasoline and parking combined, or when such transportation is necessary for time-efficiency.
b. Lodging. Lodging expenses will be reimbursed or paid for when travel on official City business reasonably requires an overnight stay. Receipts are required for payment or reimbursement of lodging expenses.

1. Conferences/Meetings. If such lodging is in connection with a conference, lodging expenses must not exceed the group rate published by the conference sponsor for the meeting in question if such rates are available at the time of booking. If the group rate is not available, see next section.

2. Other Lodging. Travelers must request government rates, when available. A listing of hotels offering government rates in different areas is available at http://www.catravelsmart.com/lodguideframes.htm. Lodging rates that are equal or less than government rates are presumed to be reasonable and hence reimbursable for purposes of this policy.

If lodging rates exceed the government rate for the area, actual lodging costs may be reimbursed conditioned upon performance of a good faith effort evidenced by documentation (e.g., internet search or phone calls) that demonstrate an attempt to find median-priced lodging.
c. Meals. Meal expenses and associated gratuities will be reimbursed up to the regular federal M&IE per diem rate established for Oakland, California, in effect at the time the meal expenses are incurred. The regular federal M&IE per diem rate for Oakland at the time of the adoption of this policy allocated by meal is as follows:

1. Breakfast: $16

2. Lunch: $17

3. Dinner: $28

4. Incidental Expenses: $5

5. Total: 66
The City will not pay for alcohol/personal bar expenses or for meal expenses for third parties. d. Airport Parking. Long-term parking must be used for travel exceeding 24 hours. Receipts are required for payment or reimbursement of parking expenses.

V. CASH ADVANCES.
a. From time to time, it may be necessary for an official to request a cash advance to cover anticipated expenses while traveling or doing business on the City's behalf. Such City Council/RSA Agenda 614 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
request for an advance should be submitted to the City Manager ten (10) days prior to the need for the advance with the following information:

1. The purpose of the expenditure(s);

2. The benefits of such expenditure to the residents of the City;

3. The anticipated amount of the expenditure(s) (for example, hotel rates, meal costs, and transportation expenses); and

5. The dates of the expenditure(s).
b. Any unused advance must be returned to the City within seven (7) days of the official's return, along with a City expense report and receipts documenting how the advance was used in compliance with this expense policy.
c. In the event the City Manager is uncertain as to whether a request complies with this policy, such individual must seek resolution from the City Council.

VI. EXPENSE REPORT CONTENT AND SUBMISSION DEADLINE.

All cash advance expenditures expense reimbursement requests must be submitted on an expense report form provided by the City. Councilmembers must submit their expense reports within 30 days of an expense being incurred, accompanied by receipts documenting each expense. Inability to provide such documentation in a timely fashion may result in the expense being borne by the official. Expenses for which no receipt is provided shall not be eligible for reimbursement. At the request of the City Manager, a Councilmember shall submit additional information explaining how the incurred expense complied with this policy.

VII. ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
a. Computers. Councilmembers are required to have certain types of office equipment to discharge their functions and communicate with staff. Accordingly, Councilmembers will be provided with a laptop, tablet, or similar device to assist with carrying out their duties.

Councilmembers will also be provided with reasonable IT support to ensure the security and functionality of the device.
b. Cell Phone. As a representative of the City, the Mayor communicates frequently with constituents, community groups and other regional leaders. To facilitate this communication on behalf of the City, the Mayor shall be provided a cellular telephone. c. Requirements. The City’s IT Manager will be responsible for selecting the equipment to be provided to Councilmembers pursuant to this section. Any electronic equipment provided to a Councilmember shall be used exclusively for City business reasonable necessary to discharge the duties of office and shall be immediately returned to the City upon the Councilmembers leaving office
VIII. AUDITS OF EXPENSE REPORTS.

All expenses are subject to verification that they comply with this policy.

City Council/RSA Agenda 615 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
IX. REPORTS TO CITY COUNCIL.

At the following City Council meeting, each official shall briefly report orally or in writing on meetings attended at Council expense. If multiple officials attended, a joint report may be made.

X. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS.

City Councilmembers should keep in mind that some expenditures may be subject to reporting under the Political Reform Act and other laws. All agency expenditures are public records subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.

XI. VIOLATION OF THIS POLICY.

Use of public resources or falsifying expense reports in violation of this policy may result in any or all of the following: (a) loss of reimbursement privileges; (b) a demand for restitution to the City; (c) the City's reporting the expenses as income to the elected official to state and federal tax authorities; (d) civil penalties of up to $1,000 per day and three times the value of the resources used; and (e) prosecution for misuse of public resources.

City Council/RSA Agenda 616 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Agenda Item 7.c.

October 25, 2022
Provide Direction Regarding City
Council Expense and
Travel Budget
City Council/RSA Agenda 617 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
2 Background
March 2020 - Council adopted the Policy Governing Expenses of the City Council • Communicate with Representatives on City policy
positions
• Attend educational seminars• Participate in organizations who affect City’s interests• Attend City events • Current budget: Lump sum $10,000• Covid-19 easing; travel increasing; costs increasing City Council/RSA Agenda 618 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
3 Discussion
Legislation and Policy Committee considered:
• Policy• Travel budget
Evaluate other cities policies and expenses
• Policy consistent • Travel expenses
• Lump sum• Per Councilmember + Mayor
City Council/RSA Agenda 619 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
4 Discussion
Common Conferences and Trainings• United States Conference of Mayors – 2 events• League of California Cities – Annual meeting + trainings• National League of Cities Annual Conference • Other conferences City Council/RSA Agenda 620 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
5 Discussion
Expenses• Conference and training registration fees• Transportation• Lodging• Per diem food costs• Airport parking• Mayor and Councilmembers establish budget in the annual or biennial budget process
City Council/RSA Agenda 621 Tuesday, October 25, 2022
6 Recommendation
Committee Recommendation
• Establish per Councilmember + Mayor• Councilmembers $3,000 - $6000• Mayor $5,000 -10,000• Reevaluate annually ___________________________________ Staff seeking Council direction on appropriate approach and amount for travel expenses
City Council/RSA Agenda 622 Tuesday, October 25, 2022

Union City City CouncilOctober 25, 2022

Union City City Council
October 25, 2022