Union City City Council
November 19, 2024

AGENDA

CITY OF UNION CITY/

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING CAROL DUTRA-VERNACI, Mayor
JEFF WANG, Vice Mayor (District 3)
GARY SINGH,Councilmember (District 1)
JAIME PATIÑO, Councilmember (District 2)
SCOTT SAKAKIHARA, Councilmember (District 4)
Tuesday, November 19, 2024
5:00 PM
City Hall - Council Chamber
34009 Alvarado-Niles Road Union City, CA 94587
PLEASE NOTE: Councilmember Sakakihara will participate in the meeting via teleconference from the site listed below. The meeting agenda will be posted on the teleconference site, which is accessible to the public. Anyone wishing to address the Council from the teleconference site will be provided with an opportunity to do so. Location: 1330 Caraway Ct., Largo, MD 20774

1. CALL TO ORDER

1.1. Pledge of Allegiance

1.2. Roll Call

2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
An individual speaker shall have three minutes to address the Council on nonagenda items under the Oral Communications section of the agenda. The Chair may, in their discretion, lower the time limit to less than three minutes based on the number of speakers and/or business to be conducted by the City Council.

Members of the public who wish to speak to the Council under the first Oral Communications section are requested to complete a speaker card, giving their name and city of residence. If a speaker wants further notification from the City, the speaker may include a mailing address. Neither a speaker card or City Council/RSA Agenda 1 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
identification of name, city of residence or mailing address are required to provide public comment but are requested for record keeping purposes.

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

3.1. Adopt A Resolution Approving the Mayor's Appointment of Florence Tsang To Serve On The Arts & Culture Commission

3.2. Adopt A Resolution Authorizing The Acceptance Of Office Of Traffic Safety Selective Traffic Enforcement Program Grant Funds, In The Amount Of $92,000, For The Fiscal Year 2024-2025, And Amending The Fiscal Year 2024-2025 OTS Fund Budget

3.3. Adopt A Resolution AuthorizingThe City Manager To Execute A Reimbursement Agreement With MCI Communications Services, LLC, In The Amount Of $124,096, To Relocate An Existing Fiber Optic Line As Part Of The At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART Project, City Project No. 14-14

3.4. Adopt A Resolution Authorizing The City Manager To Execute The Crossing Agreement With Union Pacific Railroad Company, In The Amount Of $406,647, To Replace The Concrete Panels At The Decoto Road Oakland Subdivision Railroad Crossing As Part Of The At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing At BART Project, City Project No. 14- 14 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS

4.1. Public Hearing On Chevron/Power Market Project Located At 31300 Alvarado-Niles Road (APN 463 -0104-006-00) And 1) Adoption Of A Resolution Adopting The Mitigated Negative Declaration And Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program; 2) Adoption Of A Resolution Approving A General Plan Amendment To Update The General Plan Land Use Diagram To Re-Designate The Project Site From Regional Retail Commercial To Retail Commercial And Related Figures (AG-24-002); 3) Introduction Of An Ordinance Of The City Council Of The City Of Union City Approving A Zoning Map Amendment To Rezone The Project Site From Union Landing Commercial (CUL) To Community Commercial (CC) (A-24-002); And 4) Adoption Of A Resolution Approving Use Permit (UP-24-005) And Site Development Review (SD-24-007) To Facilitate Demolition And The Rebuild Of The Service Station

4.2. Adopt Resolutions For Annexation Of Territory (“Annexation No. 8”) To City Of Union City Community Facilities District No. 2006-1: (1) Authorizing The Annexation Of Territory To Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 And Authorizing The Levy Of A Special Tax And Submitting The Levy Of Tax To The Qualified Electors; (2) Calling A Special Election And Submitting To The Voters Of Annexation No. 8 (Turk Island) Of City Of Union City Community Facilities District No.

City Council/RSA Agenda 2 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
2006-1 (Public Services) Propositions Regarding The Annual Levy Of Special Taxes Within Annexation No. 8 (Turk Island) To Finance Public Services, And The Establishment Of An Appropriations Limit; (3) Making Certain Findings, Certifying The Results Of An Election And Adding Property To Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services), Annexation No. 8 (Turk Island); And (4) Introduce An Ordinance Of The City Council Of The City Of Union City Levying Special Tax Within City Of Union City Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services), Including Certain Annexation Territory (Turk Island). The Property Proposed To Be Annexed Consists Of APNs 482 -0054-037-00 Through 482 -0054-071-00 That Is Proposed To Be Developed Into 33 Single-Family Units By Turk Island Ventures LLC

4.3. Public Hearing To Consider Adoption Of Resolutions For The Annexation Of Territory (“Annexation No. 9”) To City Of Union City Community Facilities District No. 2006-1: (1) Authorizing The Annexation Of Territory To Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 And Authorizing The Levy Of A Special Tax And Submitting The Levy Of Tax To The Qualified Electors; (2) Calling A Special Election And Submitting To The Voters Of Annexation No. 9 (Florence Street) Of City Of Union City Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services) Propositions Regarding The Annual Levy Of Special Taxes Within Annexation No. 9 (Florence Street) To Finance Public Services, And The Establishment Of An Appropriations Limit; (3) Making Certain Findings, Certifying The Results Of An Election And Adding Property To Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services), Annexation No. 9 (Florence Street); And (4) Introduce An Ordinance Of The City Council Of The City Of Union City Levying Special Tax Within City Of Union City Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Public Services), Including Certain Annexation Territory (Florence Street). The Property Proposed To Be Annexed Consists Of APNs 087-0034-004-00 Through 087-0034-009-00 That Are Proposed To Be Developed Into 6 Single-Family Units By Individual Owners

5. ADJOURNMENT

MEETING INFORMATION
Regular City Council meetings are held in person on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 34009 Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, CA 94587.

Meetings can also be observed via Zoom: https://unioncity-org.zoom.us/j/81719037355 | Passcode: u8SH9cH^
Meetings are broadcasted live on UCTV Channel 15 and live-streamed on the City's website: https://www.unioncity.org/199/City-Meetings-Video.

Public Comment: Members of the public cannot provide comments via Zoom unless City Council/RSA Agenda 3 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
specifically permitted, as detailed below. Remote access is subject to technical availability. If the Zoom platform or other technology fails, the City Council will proceed with the meeting in person, unless prohibited by law.

Public Records: Documents related to the agenda items are available for review on the City's website (https://www.unioncity.org) or during business hours at the City's Clerk's Office, 34009 Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, CA 94587.

Accessibility: If you require special assistance to participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (510) 675-5448 at least 72 hours before the meeting. Closed captioning is available for all regular City Council meetings.

ADDRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL
In-Person Public Comment:

Members of the public may address the Council on any agenda item or during the Public Input portion of the meeting. To speak, please fill out a speaker card with your name and city of residence. If you would like a follow-up from the City, you may also provide your mailing address. Completing a speaker card and providing your name, city, or mailing address are not required to make a public comment but are requested for record-keeping purposes.

Written Comment:

To submit written comments on an agenda item or during Public Comment, please email:
[email protected]. Include "public comment" in the subject line and reference the agenda item number. Written comments will be forwarded to the City Council and made publicly available.

Public Comment via Zoom:

As noted above, the public may not address the Council via Zoom unless required by AB 2449. If the City is required to provide this opportunity, the Mayor will announce it at the beginning of the meeting. If allowed, raise your virtual hand on Zoom to indicate that you would like to speak on a specific agenda item.

CITY COUNCIL NORMS AND GUIDELINES
(Resolution No. 6129-23; Adopted May 23, 2023)
The City Council of the City of Union City comply with the following norms:

1. We conduct ourselves in a professional manner, treat everyone with respect, and act with high integrity, always putting the interests of the City of Union City ahead of selfinterests in accordance with our code of ethics.

2. We respect the Council-Manager form of government, and do not interfere with the City Manager's role or any professional duties of City staff.

3. We recognize that matters of confidential nature are to be kept private and undisclosed.

City Council/RSA Agenda 4 Tuesday, November 19, 2024

4. We respect each other's opinions and are supportive of each other's work advocating for the City, and we ensure that all voices are heard. We do not criticize others for having a different point of view, and we agree to disagree respectfully.

5. We understand that the City Council acts as a body, all members are equal, and policy direction is only given by a majority vote of the City Council. Once a decision is made, all members of the City Council must respect the City Council's direction.

6. We will be prepared for City Council meetings and ask our questions of the City Manager in advance so we can avoid surprising City staff at meetings.

7. We do not criticize City staff publicly or to others and will refrain from directing them.

Instead, we will take our concerns and questions privately to the City Manager.

8. We will govern on an at-large basis, although elected by districts. We will maintain a citywide perspective and consider the needs and interests of the entire community.

9. We will continue to allocate resources based on long-term strategic priorities and efforts, with consideration of citywide service levels and financial capacity.

10. We understand customer service is the priority and each member of the City Council will help constituents regardless of the district in which they reside or from which a Councilmember themselves is elected.

11. We recognize the significant importance of attendance and participation at City Council meetings in proceeding with City business. All members of the City Council should endeavor to miss no more than two regular meetings per calendar year absent extraordinary circumstances. Members of the City Council should, absent unforeseen circumstances, provide a minimum of sixty days' notice to the City Council of planned absences during the Good of the Order or Items Referred by Council portion of the City Council agenda, as appropriate.

May these Council Norms be administered and enforced in the following manner:

1. Councilmembers have the primary responsibility to assure that ethical standards are understood and met by the Council, and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of government.

2. The Mayor and the Council have the responsibility to intervene when action of its members are in violation of Council Norms.

3. The City Council can review and revise the Council Norms as needed.

4. During City Council discussions, deliberations, and proceedings, the Mayor is designated with the primary responsibility to ensure that Councilmembers adhere to the Council Norms.

City Council/RSA Agenda 5 Tuesday, November 19, 2024

CERTIFICATION OF MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA POSTING
This notice/agenda was posted at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting date, in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, on the City's Website and on the bulletin board of City Hall. /s/Thai Nam Pham, MMC, CPMC
City Clerk/Secretary to the City of Union City Successor Agency City Council/RSA Agenda 6 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Agenda Item
DATE: 11/19/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOAN MALLOY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF FLORENCE

TSANG TO THE ARTS AND CULTURE COMMISSION
Staff has prepared a resolution appointing Alternate Commissioner Florence Tsang to the Arts and Culture Commission.

Due to an unscheduled vacancy on the Arts and Culture Commission, a new appointment is necessary to fill the position. Currently, Alternate Commissioner Florence Tsang has been appointed by the Mayor for City Council's approval as a replacement for the departing commissioner, Manjit Gill.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Goal E. Communication and Outreach: Build strong connections with community partners, residents, and employees.

BACKGROUND
Florence Tsang currently serves as an Alternate Commissioner on the Arts and Culture Commission. Commissioner Manjit Gill resigned September 30, 2024, leaving a vacant seat. Ms. Tsang is a qualified candidate who has demonstrated a commitment to supporting and enhancing Union City’s cultural initiatives. Her four-year term will begin upon appointment and expire on November 18, 2028. This action supports Union City’s strategic goal of building strong connections with community members and promoting civic engagement.

DISCUSSION
City Council/RSA Agenda 7 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Board and commission members are appointed by the Mayor with the approval of the City Council. At the request of Mayor Dutra-Vernaci, a resolution has been prepared to appoint Florence Tsang to the Arts and Culture Commission. Ms. Tsang was previously appointed as an alternate commissioner on August 13, 2024, and has since demonstrated her dedication and readiness to serve as a full Commissioner. Her appointment fills the vacated position, and her term as Commissioner will last for four years, expiring on November 18, 2028.

This appointment aligns with the City’s goals to engage residents in civic service and ensure diverse representation on boards and commissions.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this appointment.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution appointing Florence Tsang to the Arts and Culture Commission for a four-year term expiring November 18, 2028.

Prepared by:

Thai Nam Pham, City Clerk
Submitted by:

Thai Nam Pham, City Clerk
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Draft Resolution Resolution
City Council/RSA Agenda 8 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-24

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

UNION CITY APPOINTING FLORENCE TSANG TO

SERVE AS A COMMISSIONER ON THE ARTS &

CULTURE COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the City of Union City has a vacancy on the Arts and Culture Commission due to the relocation and subsequent resignation of Commissioner Manjit Gill; and WHEREAS, Florence Tsang was appointed as an alternate commissioner on the Arts and Culture Commission on August 13, 2024, and has expressed her willingness to serve as a full Commissioner; and
WHEREAS, the City of Union City is committed to fostering a vibrant arts and cultural environment that represents and supports the community; and WHEREAS, Florence Tsang has been recommended for appointment as a Commissioner by the Mayor with the approval of the City Council; and WHEREAS, Florence Tsang’s term as a Commissioner will begin upon her appointment and continue for a period of four (4) years, expiring on November 18, 2028.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City hereby appoints Florence Tsang as a Commissioner on the Arts and Culture Commission for a four-year term expiring on November 18, 2028.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a special meeting held on the 19th day of November 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

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

THAI NAM N. PHAM
City Clerk
KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
City Attorney
City Council/RSA Agenda 9 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Agenda Item
DATE: 11/19/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOAN MALLOY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF OFFICE OF TRAFFIC

SAFETY SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $92,000, FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025, AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 OTS FUND BUDGET
The Union City Police Department (UCPD) applied for Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) grant funding from the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS). The Union City Police Department was awarded $92,000 in grant funding to support impaired driving enforcement, traffic enforcement, distracted driving enforcement, pedestrian and bicycle enforcement, and traffic safety education as outlined in the grant application process.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Citywide Strategic Plan- C: Economic, Community Development and Public Safety.

Goal C. Institute forward-thinking business, land use development, housing, social services, and public safety strategies that promote community growth and innovation.

C.10: Align public safety services with community needs based on a data driven decision-making approach.

BACKGROUND
In 2017, the National Safety Council reported more than 40,000 people died in motor vehicle collisions. The three most significant causes of fatalities on the road are alcohol, speeding, and distracted driving. Like most cities, Union City has overwhelming traffic issues. The volume of commuter traffic, combined with the traffic produced by our population, presents many challenges to public safety.

From 2017-2019, the Union City Police Department received more than 700 traffic collision calls for service each City Council/RSA Agenda 10 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
year. There were three fatalities in 2017, five in 2018, and four in 2019. Pedestrians and bicyclists have played a significant role in these collisions. Additionally, impaired driving remains a primary concern for our community. There were 82 DUI arrests in 2017, 105 DUI arrests in 2018, and 101 DUI arrests in 2019.

During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, the Union City Police Department received 448 traffic collision calls for service, investigated one fatality, and had 48 DUI arrests. As COVID-19 restrictions lessened in 2021, the Union City Police Department received 591 traffic collision calls for service, investigated two fatalities, and had 50 DUI arrests. In 2022, the Union City Police Department received 585 traffic collision calls for service and had 35 DUI arrests. In 2023, the Union City Police Department received 641 traffic collision calls for service, investigated two fatalities and had 36 DUI arrests.

DISCUSSION
The money from the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) grant will provide the necessary funding to allow the department to conduct additional enforcement and education that would not typically occur due to budgetary constraints. The additional revenue will be used in a variety of ways including facilitating DUI checkpoints and providing directed traffic enforcement in specific areas of the city where violations occur more frequently. The monies will also be used to address people who drive while using their cell phone and connect with bicyclists who violate traffic laws. There will be educational opportunities for the youth and additional training for department employees.

The citizens of Union City will benefit from the acceptance of the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program grant funding.

FISCAL IMPACT
The STEP grant funding of $92,000 from the Office of Traffic Safety will provide funding to allow the enforcement and education identified above. In anticipation of receiving the 2024-2025 OTS STEP Grant, $80,000 was included as estimated revenue, and a corresponding $80,000 was appropriated, in the FY 2024-2025 OTS STEP Grant Fund budget. Therefore, the budget amendments included in the attached resolution are increasing both the revenue and expenditure budgets by $12,000.

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution:

1. Authorizing the acceptance of Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) grant funds, in the amount of $92,000; and

2. Amending the FY 2024-2025 OTS Fund revenue budget by increasing the revenue projection in Account Number 2140-00-00-000-0000-020325-44013 (OTS Fund – PD OTS STEP PT25085 – OTS Grant) by $12,000, from $80,000 to $92,000; and

3. Amending the FY 2024-2025 OTS Fund expenditure budget by appropriating $12,000 as follows:
a. $7,874 to Account Number 2140-15-20-220-2202-020325-51115 (OTS Fund – Public Safety – Police Department – Field Operations – Traffic – PD OTS STEP PT25085 – Overtime), b. $5,436 to Account Number 2140-15-20-220-2202-020325-53701 (OTS Fund – Public Safety – Police Department – Field Operations – Traffic – PD OTS STEP PT25085 – Other Supplies), City Council/RSA Agenda 11 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
c. $400 to Account Number 2140-15-20-220-2202-020325-54214 (OTS Fund – Public Safety – Police Department – Field Operations – Traffic – PD OTS STEP PT25085 – Printing/DuplicationPaper Only), d. $915 to Account Number 2140-15-20-220-2202-020325-54310 (OTS Fund – Public Safety – Police Department – Field Operations – Traffic – PD OTS STEP PT25085 – Travel & Training), e. ($2,625) to Account Number 2140-15-20-220-2202-020325-57130 (OTS Fund – Public Safety – Police Department – Field Operations – Traffic – PD OTS STEP PT25085 – Other Equipment). (This is a reduction to the budgeted amount in this account); and

4. Authorizing the City Manager, or her designee, to execute any and all documents necessary to accept the grant, in a form approved by the City Attorney, and take any other such action as is necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of this Resolution.

Prepared by:

Jean Jimenez, Police Lieutenant
Andrew Holt, Police Captain
Submitted by:

Jared Rinetti, Police Chief
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Draft Resolution Resolution
City Council/RSA Agenda 12 Tuesday, November 19, 2024

RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-24

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF UNION CITY AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF

OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY (OTS) SELECTIVE

TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM (STEP) GRANT
FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $92,000, FOR FISCAL YEAR
2024-2025, AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025

OTS FUND BUDGET
WHEREAS, the Union City Police Department applied for a Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) grant from the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) to support impaired driving enforcement, traffic enforcement, distracted driving enforcement, pedestrian and bicycle enforcement, and traffic safety education; and
WHEREAS, the Union City Police Department was awarded $92,000 in grant funding (Grant Number PT25085, attached as Exhibit A) to support impaired driving enforcement, traffic enforcement, distracted driving enforcement, pedestrian and bicycle enforcement, and traffic safety education; and
WHEREAS, the grant funds will be used in Fiscal Year 2024-2025 in accordance with the requirements outlined in the grant; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires for the City to accept the grant.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City hereby accepts the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) grant funds in the amount of $92,000; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City hereby amends the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 OTS Fund revenue budget by increasing the revenue projection in Account Number 2140-00-00-000-0000-020325-44013 (OTS Fund – PD OTS STEP PT25085 – OTS Grant) by $12,000, from $80,000 to $92,000; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City hereby amends the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 OTS Fund expenditure budget by appropriating $12,000 as follows:
a. $7,874 to Account Number 2140-15-20-220-2202-020325-51115 (OTS Fund – Public Safety – Police Department – Field Operations – Traffic – PD OTS STEP PT25085 – Overtime),
b. $5,436 to Account Number 2140-15-20-220-2202-020325-53701 (OTS Fund – Public Safety – Police Department – Field Operations – Traffic – PD OTS STEP PT25085 – Other Supplies),
c. $400 to Account Number 2140-15-20-220-2202-020325-54214 (OTS Fund – Public Safety – Police Department – Field Operations – Traffic – PD OTS STEP PT25085 – Printing/Duplication-Paper Only),
d. $915 to Account Number 2140-15-20-220-2202-020325-54310 (OTS Fund – Public Safety – Police Department – Field Operations – Traffic – PD OTS STEP PT25085 – Travel & Training),
City Council/RSA Agenda 13 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Resolution No. XXXX-24
Acceptance of OTS STEP Grant Funds

e. ($2,625) to Account Number 2140-15-20-220-2202-020325-57130 (OTS Fund – Public Safety – Police Department – Field Operations – Traffic – PD OTS STEP PT25085 – Other Equipment). (This is a reduction to the budgeted amount in this account); and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City hereby authorizes the City Manager, or her designee, to execute any and all documents necessary to accept the grant in a form approved by the City Attorney and take any other such other action as is necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a special meeting held on the 19th day of November 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

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

THAI NAM N. PHAM
City Clerk
KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
City Attorney
City Council/RSA Agenda 14 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Agenda Item
DATE: 11/19/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOAN MALLOY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A

REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, LLC, IN THE AMOUNT OF $124,096, TO RELOCATE AN EXISTING FIBER OPTIC LINE AS PART OF THE AT-GRADE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING AT BART PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 14-14
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Reimbursement Agreement with MCI Communications Services, LLC (“MCI”), in the amount of $124,096, to relocate an existing fiber optic line as part of the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART Project, City Project No. 14-14.

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

Goal C, Strategy 2: Economic, Community Development and Public Safety – Facilitate the build out of the greater Station District Area through the construction of the Quarry Lakes Parkway, completion of the pedestrian rail crossing, and implementing the recommendations of the Southern Alameda County Regional Rail Integration Study to make the Station District a passenger rail hub served by ACE.

BACKGROUND
The City of Union City intends to construct a new at-grade crossing on the Oakland Subdivision to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access between the BART Station and the City’s Intermodal Station District and the neighborhoods east of the Oakland Subdivision (the “At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project”). In order to move forward with the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project, the City is required by the California Public Utility Commission (“CPUC”) to make various railroad improvements throughout the City, including permanently closing the I Street at-grade railroad crossing between 11
th and 12th Street on the Oakland Subdivision tracks (the “I Street City Council/RSA Agenda 15 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Railroad Crossing”).

On July 9, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5503-19 authorizing the City Manager to execute the “Public At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Agreement, BART Pedestrian Crossing, DOT 859611R, Mile Post 27.08 – Oakland Subdivision, City of Union City, Alameda County, California, (Public At-Grade Crossing Permit), UP Real Estate Folder No: 3055-45” (“Original Agreement”).

On September 10, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6361-24, authorizing the City Manager to execute the Supplemental Agreement which amended the City’s Original Agreement with UP. Under the terms of the Original Agreement, the City paid UP to design and to construct railroad warning gates, safety equipment and communications facilities at various railroad crossings, while the City designed and will construct the non-rail elements which include realigned pedestrian ramps, stairs, hand railing, drainage and architectural elements such as granite cladding and lights. The City’s scope will also include installing realigned concrete sidewalks, refuge island, signage and striping.

DISCUSSION
On October 8, 2024, City Council held a Public Hearing and adopted Resolution No. 6370-24 approving the closure and vacation of the I Street railroad crossing as part of the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART, City Project No. 14-14. At the same meeting, Public Works provided an update of the project history and the proposed project improvements including the replacement of the concrete panels along the Oakland Subdivision railroad at Decoto Road at-grade crossing.

To minimize disruption to pedestrians and vehicular traffic, as well as to expedite the completion of the overall project and to proceed with the construction of the project components which had been approved and could go to construction sooner, the City decided to divide the project into three different phases.

The various components and required improvements associated with the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART Project, City Project No. 14-14, can be summarized as follows:

Phase I, the largest and most significant component of the overall project, will construct the at-grade pedestrian crossing at the east entrance to the BART Station. Phase I will be advertised for bid sometime before the end of 2024/early 2025 and will take approximately 8-10 months to complete.

Phase I includes building ADA accessible ramps and stairs on both sides of the railroad crossing. The ramps and stairs are massive concrete structures with large and deep footings. One MCI fiber optic line that runs along the west side of, and parallel to, the railroad tracks must be relocated to enable the construction of the proposed footing for the ramps and stairs.

Staff and the City’s consulting design engineer firm, HDR, have been discussing this issue with MCI and have jointly drafted a Reimbursement Agreement (see Attachment 1) for MCI to relocate their fiber optic line in advance of the start of construction of Phase I. The agreement also includes coordination with UP for a temporary construction easement and for hiring an approved onsite flag person during this work. MCI will also be responsible for securing any UP-required insurance and indemnification requirements.

Phase II of the overall project will consist of making railroad improvements at the Decoto Road Oakland Subdivision railroad tracks and of construction related to the permanent closure of I Street. The start of this phase is planned to overlap the construction of Phase I, which would allow the new pedestrian crossing at BART to open immediately City Council/RSA Agenda 16 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
following both the California Public Utilities Commission-required and UP-required completion of all Phase II work.

Phase III will consist of making railroad crossing improvements at the Smith Street (Coast Subdivision) railroad crossing and the Whipple Road (Niles Subdivision) railroad crossing. Phase III is expected to take place following the completion of the first two project phases.

FISCAL IMPACT
The At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART Project is funded with $7.17 million in the approved 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan – Fiscal Year 2023-2024 to 2027-2028, as follows:

Local Funds (Measure BB and RDA Bonds) $ 1,170,000
Safe Route to BART (SRTB) Grant $ 3,000,000
Dumbarton Corridor Grant – Regional Measure 3 (RM3) Grant $ 3,000,000 $ 7,170,000
MCI’s estimated cost for relocating their fiber optic lines is $124,096, which will be paid with Capital Projects funds (Account Number 4100-35-30-310-3150-091414-54111).

There is no impact on the General Fund.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Reimbursement Agreement with MCI Communications Services, LLC (“MCI”), in the amount of $124,096, to relocate an existing fiber optic line as part of the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART Project, City Project No. 14-14.

Prepared by:

Farooq Azim, City Engineer
Submitted by:

Marilou Ayupan, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Attachment 1 - Reimbursement Agreement Attachment
Draft Resolution Resolution
City Council/RSA Agenda 17 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Project No. 2408ABSU/R40532
1 REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into on _________________________, by and between MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (“Utility”), having an address at 600 Hidden Ridge, Irving, Texas 75038, and CITY OF UNION CITY, (“Reimbursor”), having an address at 34009 Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, CA 94587. The signatories to this Agreement shall be referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”.

RECITALS

1. Reimbursor has requested that Utility relocate its facilities within the Union Pacific Railroad’s (“UPRR”) right-of-way (the “Project”) in connection with work to be performed by Reimbursor.

2. Reimbursor will pay Utility for work it performs in support of the Project as set forthin Exhibits A and B attached hereto (the “Payment”).

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, the Parties agree as follows:

1. Reimbursor agrees that:
(a) Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, represents the scope of work forthe Project;
(b) consistent with Section 3 below, Reimbursor shall bear all actual costs (“Costs”) incurred by Utility, as set forth in Exhibit B hereto, and relating to any construction by Utility in connection with the Project, including, but not limited to, labor, materials, construction, damages, administrative overhead, taxes, travel expenses, railroad right-of-way access and flagging fees, permit fees, legal fees and other reasonable out of pocketexpenses; (c) it waives any and all delay damage claims, except if caused solely by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of Utility;
(d) Utility’s work associated with the Project shall not be deemed a betterment nor shallthere be any salvage value in any of Utility’s facilities removed or decommissioned; (e) Utility shall not be required to place its facilities in the ground or on structures that do not meet Utility’s engineering standards or where Reimbursor cannot provide sufficient documentation that it has secured necessary property rights, easements or other right-ofway rights for Utilityto place its facilities in the designated location; (f) Utility may, in its sole discretion, abandon in place portions of its facilities for removal and disposal by Reimbursor;
(g) if needed by Utility, Reimbursor shall provide access to, and flagging at no charge for, public or city right-of-way; and
(h) Utility may recover from Reimbursor reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from any and all actions Utility brings to collect amounts owed byReimbursor under this Agreement.

2. Reimbursor may, at its own expense, inspect construction Utility performs in connection with the Project.

3. The total cost of the Project is estimated not to exceed the amount set forth in Exhibit B hereto.

Reimbursor shall remit to Utility payment per estimate in Exhibit B within 30 days of receipt of detailed invoice from Utility. No work will be done on the Project until Utility receives signed agreement from Reimbursor. Utility will charge Reimbursor only for its Costs incurred for the Project. Reimbursor acknowledges and agrees that this amount is an estimate and shall not be construed as limiting the amount Utility is to be reimbursed by Reimbursor under this Agreement.

City Council/RSA Agenda 18 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Project No. 2408ABSU/R40532
2 Utility shall provide notice to Reimbursor when Utility becomes aware that Costs will exceed the estimate by more than ten percent (10%). Utility’s failure to provide such notice shall not release Reimbursor from its obligations under this Agreement in any respect unless Reimbursor can demonstrate that it would have modified or abandoned the Project in light of the increase in Costs.

4. Reimbursor may direct Utility in writing to stop work on the Project, and in such event,Utility shall be entitled to properly protect its facilities before stopping work, and Reimbursor shall be responsible to utility for Costs incurred by Utility prior to receipt of such stop work notice, Costs incurred by Utility in protecting its facilities after receipt of such stop work notice, and Project wind-down costs incurred byUtility.

5. Following completion of the Project, Utility shall make an accounting of final, unpaid,actual Costs of the Project and provide Reimbursor with a copy of the accounting and an itemized invoice therefor.

6. Reimbursor shall perform no work within ten (10) feet on either side of the Reimbursor’s facilities in the Project Area until the Project has been completed or as otherwise mutually agreed by Reimbursor and Utility. If any such work is performed, Utility has a right to have an inspector on site during such work, and Utility’s inspector may order Reimbursor, its employees, agents, representatives and contractors (for purposes of this Section 6, collectively, “Reimbursor”) to immediately stop work if such work is placing Utility’s facilities in imminent harm, and Reimbursor shall immediately comply with such order. Subject to the limitation set forth in this Section 6, Reimbursor shall give written notice to Utility at least forty-eight (48) hours, excluding Saturday, Sunday and legal holidays, in advance of commencement of any work in the immediate Project area. The notice shall be given to those individuals listed in the contacts section of Exhibit A. In the event of an emergency, Reimbursor shall provide telephonic notice to MCI at 1-800-MCIWORK upon Reimbursor’s discovery of theemergency.

7. The obligations of Utility are subject to force majeure and Utility shall not be in default of this Agreement if any failure or delay in performance is caused by strike or other labor problems; accidents; acts of God; fire; flood; adverse weather conditions; material orfacility shortages or unavailability; lack of transportation; the imposition of any governmental codes, ordinances, laws, rules, regulations or restrictions, including, without limitation, the necessity of obtaining permits or environmental assessments or environmental approvals; condemnation or the exercise of rights of eminent domain; war, civil disorder or acts of terrorism; or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of Utility.

8. The terms of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Partiesand their respective successors and assigns.

9. IN NO EVENT SHALL EITHER PARTY BE LIABLE TO THE OTHER PARTY, ITS EMPLOYEES,

SUBCONTRACTORS, AND/OR AGENTS, OR ANY THIRD PARTY, FOR ANY INDIRECT,

INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, OR LOST PROFITS, FOR

ANY CLAIM OR DEMAND OF ANYNATURE OR KIND, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT OR THE PERFORMANCE OR BREACH THEREOF.

City Council/RSA Agenda 19 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Project No. 2408ABSU/R40532
3 10. The direct damages that a Party may be liable for to the other Party under this Agreement shall not exceed the total amount paid to Utility under theAgreement.

11. This Agreement together with its Exhibits constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes all contemporaneous or prior agreements between the Parties, whether written or oral, with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement may not be modified, supplemented or amended unless any such modification, supplement or amendment is incorporated into the Agreement via valid amendment signed by theauthorized representatives of each Party. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Execution and exchange of signatures via facsimile or Adobe Acrobat portable document file (.PDF file extension) shall have the same force and effect as execution and exchange of originals. Each Party warrants that it has the full right and authority to enter into this Agreement. All necessary approvals and authority to enter into this Agreement have been obtained and the person executing this Agreement on behalf of each Party has the express authority to do so and, in so doing, to bind such Partyhereto.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.
(signatures on next page)
City Council/RSA Agenda 20 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Project No. 2408ABSU/R40532
4 for Reimbursor for Utility

CITY OF UNION CITY
By:

Name: Joan Malloy
Title: City Manager
Date:

MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, LLC
By:

Name: Dina Dye
Title: Assoc Dir – Network Regulatory/Real Estate
Date:

Federal Tax ID#: 94-6036941
Billing Contact:

Farooq Azim, City Engineer
[email protected]
(510) 675-5368
City Council/RSA Agenda 21 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Project No. 2408ABSU/R40532
5 EXHIBIT “A”
BACKGROUND:

City is creating a new At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing across UPRR tracks to connect its existing public plaza with the BART Station. The footing for the proposed concrete structure for the pedestrian ramps and stairs conflicts with the existing fiber optic facilities which will be abandoned and new facilities installed farther away from the proposed footing.

SCOPE OF WORK:

Union City CA is requesting the work. They are creating a pedestrian bridge from their City offices to the Union City BART Station. The work required will consist of relocating approx 500 ft of direct buried cable on the UPRR ROW. Place 600 ft of 72 count Armored FOC, Place (2) Handholes, Bore 490ft and place (1) 2" conduit, Place 500ft of tracer wire, RR Flaggers and support for section throw.

CONTACTS:

Utility: MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, LLC
Project Engineer:

Christopher Hancock
Sr Engr Spec-Outside Plant
2770 Shadelands DRBLDG 11,
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
O: (925) 279-6606
M: (925) 407-7319
[email protected]
Manager:

Aaron J Crawford
Assoc Dir-Outside Plant
2770 Shadelands DRBLDG 11, ,
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
O: (916) 357-2077
M: (916) 4134061
[email protected]
Agreements:

Bradley Duhe
Franchise & ROW Sr. Consultant
600 Hidden Ridge
Irving, TX 75038
(972) 457-7910
[email protected]
Manager:

Dina Dye
Right of Way Manager
Assoc. Dir. - Ntwk Reg/RE
972-457-8337
[email protected]
Reimbursor: City of Union City
Joan Malloy, City Manager
City of Union City
34009 Alvarado-Niles Road
Union City, CA 94587
[email protected]
(510) 675-5344
Billing Contact:

Farooq Azim, City Engineer
[email protected]
(510) 675-5368
City Council/RSA Agenda 22 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Project No. 2408ABSU/R40532
6 EXHIBIT “B”
City Council/RSA Agenda 23 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Project No. 2408ABSU/R40532
7 City Council/RSA Agenda 24 Tuesday, November 19, 2024

RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-24

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

UNION CITY AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH MCI

COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, LLC, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$124,096, TO RELOCATE AN EXISTING FIBER OPTIC

LINE AS PART OF THE AT-GRADE PEDESTRIAN
CROSSING AT BART PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 14-
14 WHEREAS, the City of Union City intends to construct a new at-grade crossing on the Oakland Subdivision to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access between the BART Station and City’s Intermodal Station District and the neighborhoods east of the Oakland Subdivision (the “At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project”); and WHEREAS, in order to move forward with the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project, the City is being required by the California Public Utility Commission (“CPUC”) to make various railroad improvements throughout the City, including permanently closing the I Street at-grade railroad crossing between 11th and 12th Streets on the Oakland Subdivision tracks (the “I Street Railroad Crossing”); and WHEREAS, on July 9, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5503-19 authorizing the City Manager to execute the “Public At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Agreement, BART Pedestrian Crossing, DOT 859611R, Mile Post 27.08 – Oakland Subdivision, City of Union City, Alameda County, California, (Public At-Grade Crossing Permit), UP Real Estate Folder No: 3055-45” (“Original Agreement”); and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6361-24, authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Supplemental Agreement which amended the City’s Original Agreement with Union Pacific Railroad (“UP”); and WHEREAS, on October 8, 2024, the City Council held a Public Hearing and adopted Resolution No. 6370-24 approving the closure and vacation of the I Street railroad crossing as part of the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART Project, City Project No. 14-14; and
WHEREAS, to expedite the completion of the required improvements, as well as to minimize the inconvenience to pedestrians and vehicular traffic, Public Works has separated the various components of the overall project into three distinct project phases; and
WHEREAS, Phase I of the project will consist of constructing the at-grade pedestrian crossing at the east entrance to the BART Station; and WHEREAS, Phase I is the largest and most significant component of the entire project and will be advertised for bid in the last months of 2024/early 2025 and has a construction period of approximately 8-10 months; and
City Council/RSA Agenda 25 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Resolution No. XXXX-24
MCI Reimbursement Agreement

WHEREAS, one MCI fiber optic line that runs along the west side of, and parallel to, the railroad tracks must be relocated to enable the construction of the proposed footing for the ramps and stairs; and
WHEREAS, City staff, the City’s consulting design engineer firm, HDR, and MCI have jointly drafted a cost estimate and Reimbursement Agreement for MCI to relocate their fiber optic line in advance of the start of construction of Phase I; and WHEREAS, the terms of the agreement also include MCI’s responsibility to coordinate the relocation work with UP, to secure a temporary construction easement, to hire a UP-approved onsite flag person during this work, and securing any UP-required insurance and indemnification requirements; and
WHEREAS, Phase II of the project will be bid separately at a later time and will consist of making railroad improvements at the Decoto Road Oakland Subdivision railroad tracks and of construction related to the permanent closure of I Street; and WHEREAS, Phase III of the project will be bid separately at a later time after the completion of Phase I and Phase II components and will consist of making railroad crossing improvements at the Smith Street (Coast Subdivision) railroad crossing and the Whipple Road (Niles Subdivision) railroad crossing; and WHEREAS, there is $7.17 million available from a combination of Measure BB, RDA Bonds, Safe Routes to BART (SRTB) grant and Dumbarton Corridor Grant – Regional Measure 3 (RM3) Grant, to fund the various components of the project; and WHEREAS, MCI’s estimated cost for relocating their fiber optic line as per the Reimbursement Agreement is $124,096, which will be paid with Capital Projects funds (Account Number 4100-35-30-310-3150-091414-54111).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the Reimbursement Agreement with MCI Communications Services, LLC, in the amount of $124,096, to relocate an existing fiber optic line as part of the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART Project, City Project No. 14-14.

City Council/RSA Agenda 26 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Resolution No. XXXX-24
MCI Reimbursement Agreement

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a special meeting held on the 19th day of November 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

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

THAI NAM N. PHAM
City Clerk
KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
City Attorney
City Council/RSA Agenda 27 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Agenda Item
DATE: 11/19/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOAN MALLOY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE

CROSSING AGREEMENT WITH UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $406,647, TO REPLACE THE CONCRETE PANELS AT THE DECOTO ROAD OAKLAND

SUBDIVISION RAILROAD CROSSING AS PART OF THE AT-GRADE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING AT BART PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 14-14
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Crossing Agreement with Union Pacific Railroad Company (“UP”), in the amount of $406,647 to the replace the concrete panels at the Decoto Road Oakland Subdivision railroad crossing as part of the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART Project, City Project No. 14-14.

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

Goal C, Strategy 2: Economic, Community Development and Public Safety – Facilitate the build out of the greater Station District Area through the construction of the Quarry Lakes Parkway, completion of the pedestrian rail crossing, and implementing the recommendations of the Southern Alameda County Regional Rail Integration Study to make the Station District a passenger rail hub served by ACE.

BACKGROUND
The City of Union City intends to construct a new at-grade crossing on the Oakland Subdivision to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access between the BART Station and City’s Intermodal Station District and the neighborhoods east of the Oakland Subdivision (the “At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project”). In order to move forward with the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project, the City is being required by the California Public Utility Commission (“CPUC”) to make various railroad improvements throughout the City, including permanently closing the I Street at-grade railroad crossing between 11
th and 12th Street on the Oakland Subdivision tracks (the “I Street Railroad Crossing”).

City Council/RSA Agenda 28 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
On July 9, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5503-19 authorizing the City Manager to execute the “Public At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Agreement, BART Pedestrian Crossing, DOT 859611R, Mile Post 27.08 – Oakland Subdivision, City of Union City, Alameda County, California, (Public At-Grade Crossing Permit), UP Real Estate Folder No: 3055-45” (“Original Agreement”).

On September 10, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6361-24, authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Supplemental Agreement which amended the City’s Original Agreement with UP.

Under the terms of the Original Agreement, the City paid UP to design and to construct railroad warning gates, safety equipment and communications facilities at various railroad crossings, while the City designed and will construct the nonrail elements which include realigned pedestrian ramps, stairs, hand railing, drainage and architectural elements such as granite cladding and lights. The City’s scope will also include installing realigned concrete sidewalks, refuge island, signage and striping.

DISCUSSION
On October 8, 2024, City Council held a Public Hearing and adopted Resolution No. 6370-24 approving the closure and vacation of the I Street railroad crossing as part of the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART Project, City Project No. 14-14. At the same meeting, Public Works provided an update of the project history and the proposed project improvements including the replacement and extension of the concrete panels along the Oakland Subdivision railroad at the Decoto Road at-grade crossing.

The various components and required improvements associated with the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART Project, City Project No. 14-14, can be summarized as follows:

Phase I - Construct the at-grade pedestrian crossing at the east entrance to the BART Station. This is the core project and is the largest and most significant component of the entire project and will be advertised for bid in the last months of 2024/early 2025. The construction period is approximately 8-10 months.

Phase II A – Replace existing concrete panels at the Decoto Road Oakland Subdivision railroad crossing with new, longer concrete panels. All work will be done by UP crews. By extracting this element from other Phase II improvements, the City will be better able to coordinate with UP in terms of when the work is done to minimize impact to school-related traffic, such as by doing this work during spring break 2025 or summer 2025.

The concrete panel replacement will impact the traffic on Decoto Road the most since it will require complete road closure and traffic detour in the vicinity of the crossing for a period of 1 to 2 weeks. Thus, by completing this task ahead of the rest of the Phase II project, the City’s contractors will be able to plan and execute the project work according to their schedule without interruption.

The Crossing Agreement includes the cost for UP crews to replace the concrete panel crossing as well as for implementation of the detour plan, which City staff will review with UP’s traffic control sub-contractor. Thus, to expedite this work, the City will be paying this cost separately and ahead of the rest of the Phase II improvements.

Phase II B – Install other miscellaneous improvements at the Decoto Road Oakland Subdivision railroad tracks as required per the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California’s General Order No. 75-D, Regulations Governing Standards for Warning Devices for At-Grade Highway-Rail Crossings in the State of California (“CPUC Governing Standard”). These improvements include those listed in CPUC Governing Standard No. 9, such as updated pedestrian walkways, median refuge island, queue-cutter signals for advanced railroad pre-emption, striping, signage, and replacing existing railroad safety gates, lights, and flashing lights. They also include the installation of new pedestrian safety gates per CPUC Governing Standard No. 8. The design is still under review by UP and will go to bid along with Phase II C as City Council/RSA Agenda 29 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
a single project once approved, which is anticipated in early 2025.

Phase II C – Permanent closure of the I Street railroad crossing between 11 th and 12th Streets, as required by UP and
the CPUC. The design has been completed and this work will be included in the Phase II B bid package to help delay the closure as much as possible. This closure is required prior to the opening of the new pedestrian crossing at BART, as well as the completion of all Phase II components.

Phase III – Safety improvements at the Smith Street railroad crossing and the Whipple Road railroad crossing (Niles Subdivision), as required per Exhibit G of the Original Agreement. UP has consented that Phase III work can be undertaken in the future as separate projects following the completion of the Phase I and Phase II projects. The design of these two projects is almost approved since, at one point, UP had required the City to complete all three phases as a single project and the City had expended considerable effort in getting the design at the Smith Street railroad crossing and the design at the Whipple Road railroad crossing completed. Depending upon the approval process and availability of funds, this project could go to bid in late 2025 or early 2026.

FISCAL IMPACT
The At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART Project is funded with $7.17 million in the approved 5-Year Capital Improveme Plan –
Fiscal Year 2023-2024 to 2027-2028, as follows:

Local Funds (Measure BB and RDA Bonds) $ 1,170,000
Safe Route to BART (SRTB) Grant $ 3,000,000
Dumbarton Corridor Grant – Regional Measure 3 (RM3) Grant $ 3,000,000 $ 7,170,000
The UP cost in the Crossing Agreement for replacing the concrete panels at the Decoto Road Oakland Subdivision railroad crossing and associated traffic control is $406,647, which will be paid with Public Improvement funds (Account Number 4160-35-30-310-3150-091414-54111).

The Crossing Agreement also identified an estimated annual maintenance cost of $6,040. This annual maintenance cost will be included in the upcoming Two-Year Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 and Fiscal Year 2026-2027.

There is no impact on the General Fund.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Crossing Agreement with Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP), in the amount of $406,647, to replace the concrete panels at the Decoto Road Oakland Subdivision railroad crossing as part of the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART Project, City Project No. 14-14.

Prepared by:

Farooq Azim, City Engineer
City Council/RSA Agenda 30 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Submitted by:

Marilou Ayupan, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Attachment 1 - Concrete Panel Surface CrossingAgreement Attachment Draft Resolution Resolution
Exhibit A - Public Hearing Presentation Exhibit
City Council/RSA Agenda 31 Tuesday, November 19, 2024

UPRR REMS
Project 797171

AUTHORIZATION FOR CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
Effective Date:

THIS AUTHORIZATION FOR CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS ("Agreement") is made and entered into as of the Effective Date above, by and between UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation ("Railroad"), and CITY OF UNION CITY, CALIFORNIA ("Agency").

RECITALS
In accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Agency and Railroad desire to improve the existing crossing area ("Project") along, over and across Railroad's track and right of way, as such crossing area is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof ("Crossing Area").

AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Railroad agrees to perform the Project work described on Exhibit B attached hereto the ("Railroad Work"). Railroad's estimated cost for the Railroad Work is included on Exhibit C attached hereto ("Estimate") and may include without limitation costs of engineering review, construction, inspection, flagging, procurement and delivery of materials, equipment rental, manpower and all direct and indirect overhead labor/construction costs, including Railroad's standard additive rates. Such standard additive rates may be subject to upward or downward adjustment based on industry standards and practices, and the parties acknowledge and agree that any such adjustment to standard additive rates may be made retroactively.

2. Agency has appropriated sufficient funds to complete the Project and shall reimburse Railroad for costs incurred by Railroad in connection with the Railroad Work in accordance with Exhibit D attached hereto.

3. If Agency will be performing any Project work, such work is described on Exhibit B attached hereto ("Agency Work"). Agency shall perform the Agency Work, if any, at its sole cost, and Railroad consents to Agency (or any contractor or other agent hired by Agency) performing the Agency Work within the Crossing Area, subject to complying with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Railroad's consent shall not be deemed to grant Agency (or any contractor or other agent hired by Agency) any property interest in the Crossing Area or other Railroad property.

4. If Agency hires a contractor or other agent to perform the Agency Work, Agency shall require such contractor or agent to execute Railroad's then current form of Contractor's Right of Entry Agreement and to comply with the requirements set forth therein.

5. No work of any kind shall be performed, and no person, equipment, machinery, tools, materials, vehicles or other items shall be located, operated, placed or stored within twentyfive (25) feet of any track at any time for any reason except as otherwise provided herein. Prior to commencing the Agency Work, and if the performance of any Agency Work requires any person City Council/RSA Agenda 32 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
or equipment to be within twenty-five (25) feet of any track, Agency shall provide Railroad at least thirty (30) working days advance notice of the performance of such proposed work, and upon Railroad's receipt of such notice, Railroad will determine and inform Agency whether a flagman need to be present or whether Agency needs to implement any special protective or safety measures. Subject to Exhibit D, in the event that flagging or other special protection or safety measures are required to be performed in connection with the Railroad Work specifically or the Project generally, and regardless if the costs for such measures are included in the Estimate, Agency shall be responsible for all such costs incurred in connection therewith.

6. Fiber optic cable systems may be buried on the Railroad's property. Protection of the fiber optic cable systems is of extreme importance since any break could disrupt service to users resulting in business interruption and loss of revenue and profits. Prior to commencing any Agency Work, Agency shall visit up.com/CBUD to complete and submit the required form to determine if fiber optic cable is buried anywhere on Railroad's property to be used in connection with the Agency Work. If fiber optic cable is present, Agency will telephone (or will cause its contractor or agent to coordinate) the telecommunications company(ies) involved, arrange for a cable locator, and make arrangements for relocation or other protection of the fiber optic cable.

7. Agency, for itself and for its successors and assigns, hereby waives any right of assessment against Railroad, as an adjacent property owner, for any and all improvements made under this Agreement.

8. Neither party shall assign this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed.

9. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement between the parties regarding the Project and the installation and maintenance of the Project improvements within the Crossing Area. To the extent that any terms or provisions of this Agreement regarding the installation and maintenance of such Project improvements are inconsistent with the terms or provisions set forth in any existing agreement affecting the Crossing Area, such terms and provisions shall be deemed superseded by this Agreement to the extent of such inconsistency.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.

CITY OF UNION CITY, CALIFORNIA UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation
Signature Signature
Amber Stoffels
Printed Name Printed Name
Manager I, Industry & Public Projects
Title Title
2 City Council/RSA Agenda 33 Tuesday, November 19, 2024

EXHIBIT A
Description of Crossing Location
Street Decoto Road DOT # 834186V
Subdivision Oakland Subdivision Milepost 26.9
City Union City State CA
County Alameda
City Council/RSA Agenda 34 Tuesday, November 19, 2024

EXHIBIT B
Scope of Work
Railroad Work:
• Remove existing 120’ crossing surface
• Install new 160’ precast concrete crossing surface
• Relay track at crossing with 136 lb. rail
• Renew ties
• Surface the track with new ballast
• Sawcut and remove pavement
• Provide traffic control and road closure during construction • Install pavement up to the crossing surface
Agency Work:
• None
City Council/RSA Agenda 35 Tuesday, November 19, 2024

EXHIBIT C
Estimate Cover Page
(see attached)
City Council/RSA Agenda 36 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Material And Force Account Estimate
Union City
Estimate Number: 148534 Version: 1
Standard Rates: Labor Additive = 283.35%
Estimate Good Until 05/15/25
Location: OAKLAND SUB, SIMN, 26.88-26.92
Description of Work: 834186V Decoto Rd Union City CA 26.9 Oakland Sub Prepared For: Union City
Buy America: No
COMMENTS FACILITY Description QTY UOM UCST LABOR MATERIAL TOTAL UP %0 Agcy %100

ENGINEERING
Engineering 1 LS 51,288.00 51,288 0 51,288 0 51,288
Bill Prep Fee - Track Surface RECOLLECT 1 LS 900.00 0 900 900 0 900 Homeline Freight - Track Surface RECOLLECT 1 LS 900.00 0 900 900 0 900 Foreign Line Freight - Track Surface RECOLLECT 1 LS 3,485.32 0 3,485 3,485 0 3,485 Sub-Total = 51,288 5,285 56,573 0 56,573

TRACK CONSTRUCTION - COMPANY
Mobilization: Company 1 DA 11,450.00 11,450 0 11,450 0 11,450 RDXING RDXING 136# CON10W PP PAN COMPLETE 160 TF 1,115.55 100,709 77,779 178,488 0 178,488 TRACK 136# CWRIS0 24-8'6" PPHWD N 16 TP 40 TF 1,248.41 38,168 11,768 49,936 0 49,936 COMPJT Transition Rail - 136# 2 PR 8,690.81 9,465 7,917 17,382 0 17,382 Sub-Total = 159,792 97,465 257,256 0 257,256

TRACK REMOVAL - COMPANY
RDXING Remove road crossing - concrete 120 TF 118.05 14,165 0 14,165 0 14,165 TRACK Remove Track 80 TF 45.66 3,652 0 3,652 0 3,652
Sub-Total = 17,818 0 17,818 0 17,818

SITE WORK - CONTRACT
Asphalt 1 LS 25,000.00 0 25,000 25,000 0 25,000
Traffic Control - Detour Signs & Coordination 1 LS 20,000.00 0 20,000 20,000 0 20,000 Asphalt: Saw Cut 1 LS 5,000.00 0 5,000 5,000 0 5,000
Sub-Total = 0 50,000 50,000 0 50,000

EQUIPMENT RENTAL
Equipment Rental 1 LS 25,000.00 0 25,000 25,000 0 25,000 Sub-Total = 0 25,000 25,000 0 25,000
Total Wgt. in Tons = 1,017 Totals = 228,898 177,750 406,647 0 406,647 Grand Total = $406,647
Please Note: The above figures are estimates only and are subject to fluctuation. In the event of an increase or decrease in the cost or amount of material or labor required, Union City will pay actual construction costs at the current rates effective thereof. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Wednesday, May 15, 2024 Page 1 of 1
City Council/RSA Agenda 37 Tuesday, November 19, 2024

EXHIBIT D
Reimbursement Method
Agency agrees to reimburse Railroad for ONE HUNDRED PERCENT (100%) of actual costs incurred by Railroad in connection with the Railroad Work. During the performance of the Railroad Work, Railroad will provide progressive billing to Agency based on Railroad’s actual costs. Within one hundred twenty (120) days after completion of the Project, Railroad will submit a final billing to Agency for any balance owed Railroad in connection with the Railroad Work. Agency shall pay Railroad within thirty (30) days after Agency's receipt of any progressive and final bills submitted by Railroad.

City Council/RSA Agenda 38 Tuesday, November 19, 2024

RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-24

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

UNION CITY AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE THE CROSSING AGREEMENT WITH UNION

PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$406,647, TO REPLACE THE CONCRETE PANELS AT

THE DECOTO ROAD OAKLAND SUBDIVISION

RAILROAD CROSSING AS PART OF THE AT-GRADE

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING AT BART PROJECT, CITY
PROJECT NO. 14-14
WHEREAS, the City of Union City intends to construct a new at-grade crossing on the Oakland Subdivision to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access between the BART Station and City’s Intermodal Station District and the neighborhoods east of the Oakland Subdivision (the “At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project”); and WHEREAS, in order to move forward with the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project, the City is being required by the California Public Utility Commission (“CPUC”) to make various railroad improvements throughout the City, including permanently closing the I Street at-grade railroad crossing between 11th and 12th Street on the Oakland Subdivision tracks (the “I Street Railroad Crossing”); and WHEREAS, on July 9, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5503-19 authorizing the City Manager to execute the “Public At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Agreement, BART Pedestrian Crossing, DOT 859611R, Mile Post 27.08 – Oakland Subdivision, City of Union City, Alameda County, California, (Public At-Grade Crossing Permit), UP Real Estate Folder No: 3055-45” (“Original Agreement”); and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6361-24, authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Supplemental Agreement which amended the City’s Original Agreement with Union Pacific Railroad (“UP”); and WHEREAS, on October 8, 2024, the City Council held a Public Hearing and adopted Resolution No. 6370-24 approving the closure and vacation of the I Street railroad crossing as part of the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART Project, City Project No. 14-14; and
WHEREAS, at the same meeting, the Public Hearing presentation provided an update of the project history and the proposed project improvements by UP including the replacement and extension of the concrete panels along the Oakland Subdivision railroad tracks at the Decoto Road at-grade crossing (See Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, to expedite the completion of the required improvements as well as minimize the inconvenience to pedestrians and vehicular traffic, various components of the at-grade railroad crossing improvements will be phased; and City Council/RSA Agenda 39 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Resolution No. XXXX-24
Concrete Panel Replacement Agreement with UP

WHEREAS, Phase I is the largest and most significant of the entire project and consists of constructing the at-grade pedestrian crossing at the east entrance to the BART Station. The project will be advertised for bid in the last months of 2024/early 2025 and has a construction period of approximately 8-10 months; and WHEREAS, Phase II A will consist of replacing existing concrete panels at the Decoto Road Oakland Subdivision railroad crossing with new, longer concrete panels that will be constructed by UP crews; and
WHEREAS, by extracting Phase II A from other Phase II improvements, the City will be better able to coordinate the timing of the project with UP to minimize impact to school-related traffic, such as by doing this work during spring break 2025 or summer 2025; and
WHEREAS, Phase II A would require the complete closure of Decoto Road and include an associated traffic detour for a period of 1 to 2 weeks; and WHEREAS, by allowing UP to complete this task ahead of the rest of the Phase II project, the City’s contractors will be able to plan and execute the project work according to their schedule without interruption; and
WHEREAS, the Crossing Agreement will include the cost for UP crews to replace the concrete panel crossing as well as for implementation of the detour plan; and WHEREAS, to expedite the Phase II A work, the City will pay the cost for work covered under this Agreement separately and ahead of the rest of the Phase II improvements; and
WHEREAS, Phase II B will consist of installing other miscellaneous improvements at the Decoto Road Oakland Substation railroad tracks, as required per the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California’s General Order No. 75-D, Regulations Governing Standards for Warning Devices for At-Grade Highway-Rail Crossings in the State of California (“CPUC Governing Standard”). These improvements include those listed in CPUC Governing Standard No. 9, such as updated pedestrian walkways, median refuge island, queue-cutter signals for advanced railroad pre-emption, striping, signage, and replacing existing railroad safety gates, lights, and flashing lights. They also include the installation of new pedestrian safety gates per CPUC Governing Standard No. 8; and WHEREAS, the design of Phase II B is still under review by UP and will go to bid along with Phase II C as a single project once approved, which is anticipated in early 2025; and
WHEREAS, Phase II C will consist of the permanent closure of the I Street railroad crossing between 11th and 12th Streets, as required by UP and the CPUC; and WHEREAS, Phase II C design has been completed and this work will be included in the Phase II B bid package to help delay the closure as much as possible; and City Council/RSA Agenda 40 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Resolution No. XXXX-24
Concrete Panel Replacement Agreement with UP

WHEREAS, the closure of the I Street railroad crossing is required prior to the opening of the new pedestrian crossing at BART, as well as the completion of all Phase II components; and
WHEREAS, Phase III will consist of constructing safety improvements at the Smith Street railroad crossing and the Whipple Road railroad crossing (Niles Subdivision), as required per Exhibit G of the Original Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Phase III work, per the consent of UP, will be undertaken in the future as separate projects following the completion of Phase I and all Phase II projects; and WHEREAS, there is about $7.17 million budgeted for the construction phase and includes Measure BB Bike & Pedestrian funds (Fund 2546), Public Improvement funds (Fund 4160), Safe Routes to BART Grant funds (Fund 4100) and Dumbarton Corridor Grant – Regional Measure 3 (RM3) Grant funds (Fund 4160); and WHEREAS, the UP cost for replacing and extending the concrete panels at the Decoto Road Oakland Subdivision railroad crossing and associated traffic control is $406,647, which will be paid with Public Improvement funds (Account Number 4160-35- 30-310-3150-091414-54111).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the Crossing Agreement with Union Pacific Railroad Company, in the amount of $406,647, to replace the concrete panels at the Decoto Road Oakland Subdivision railroad crossing, as part of the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART Project, City Project No. 14-14.

City Council/RSA Agenda 41 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Resolution No. XXXX-24
Concrete Panel Replacement Agreement with UP

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a special meeting held on the 19th day of November 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

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

THAI NAM N. PHAM
City Clerk
KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
City Attorney
Attachments:

1. Exhibit A – October 8, 2024, City Council Presentation City Council/RSA Agenda 42 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Presented by: ITEM 6.1
Joan Malloy, City Manager
Farooq Azim, City Engineer
City Council Meeting, October 8, 2024
Hold A Public Hearing and Consider
Approving the Closure and
Vacation of the I Street Railroad Crossing
As Part of the At-Grade Pedestrian
Crossing at BART, City Project No. 14-14
City Council/RSA Agenda 43 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
2 Union City BART Station – The Framework
▪ 1988 – Redevelopment Agency
established
▪ 1996 – RDA Five Year Implementation Plan
▪ Clean up PSSC
▪ Construct roadway
▪ Transit terminal - passenger rail,
regional and local bus lines near the
BART station
▪ 1996 DIPSA) Decoto Industrial Park
Study Area (
▪ First planning document to
reimagine the 400-acre industrial
area
▪ 2002 – RDA Five Year Implementation Plan
PSSC Property
City Council/RSA Agenda 44 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
3 Union City BART Station – The Framework
1996 and 2002 RDA Plan Accomplishments
▪ Intermodal Station District and Transit Facility Plan (Station District Plan) ▪ Caused the clean-up and redevelopment of the PSSC property ▪ Reserved the right-of-way for Quarry Lakes Parkway
▪ Acquired and clean-up of the PG&E property to extend 11th Street and utilities to PSSC for redevelopment
▪ Construction of over 2,300 new residential units, including 15 percent affordable units
▪ Partnered with BART - modernization improvements to create a twosided station to support future transit-oriented development and passenger rail
City Council/RSA Agenda 45 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Station District Plan
4 City Council/RSA Agenda 46 Tuesday, November 19, 2024 5 Union City BART Station 2000 (Planning Process)
▪ 2002 - Intermodal Station
District and Transit Facility
Plan
▪ AC Transit
▪ BART
▪ VTA
▪ CCJPA
▪ SamTrans
▪ ACTC
▪ City
▪ 2002 Union City Station
Comprehensive Plan
(BART)
City Council/RSA Agenda 47 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
6 Union City BART Station (Today)
City Council/RSA Agenda 48 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
7 Station District Core (2002 & Today)
2002
Today – Over 1,000 Units Built
City Council/RSA Agenda 49 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
8 Union City
Intermodal Station ▪ $160 Million Investment ▪ (Local, Regional, State & Federal Grant Funds)
▪ Over 20 Years Planning
Project Partners
BART, MTC, AC Transit, UC
Transit, ACE, VTA, Capitol
Corridor, ACCMA-ACTIA-Alameda
CTC, Fremont
City Council/RSA Agenda 50 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
9 Intermodal Station, BART, Phase 2A
Completed 2022
City Council/RSA Agenda 51 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
10 BART Station, Phase 2A
Ready to connect with upcoming At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing City Council/RSA Agenda 52 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
11 Rail Connection
at BART ▪ Passenger rail
connection to BART
▪ Relies on At-Grade
Crossing
▪ Supports TOD goals ▪ EIR underway NOW!
City Council/RSA Agenda 53 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
12 Station District at Buildout
City Council/RSA Agenda 54 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
13 Union Pacific Railroad
Permit Requirements and Conditions
I ST. AT-GRADE

CROSSING
(CLOSURE)

DECOTO ROAD

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING

IMPROVEMENTS

NEW BART

PEDESTRIAN

AT-GRADE XING
City Council/RSA Agenda 55 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
14 At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART
Purpose
Make Union City BART Station
a two-sided station to connect to
the 100-acre Station District
Area and to the future
passenger rail station
City Council/RSA Agenda 56 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
15 At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART
City Council/RSA Agenda 57 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
16 At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART
City Council/RSA Agenda 58 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Required Decoto Road RR Xing - 17 Improvements
Kennedy Park
UP track
City Council/RSA Agenda 59 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
All Existing Railroad Crossings in Union City 18
City Council/RSA Agenda 60 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
19 Traffic Study: TJKM Transportation Consultants
“At-grade crossing closure with the lowest
points would have the least impact and [is]
ranked highest for closure.”
City Council/RSA Agenda 61 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
20 Traffic Study: Existing At-Grade Crossings
▪ F Street (Most Pedestrians)
▪ H Street (Most Vehicular Traffic)
▪ I Street (Least Impact to Emergency Vehicles & Least VMT) City Council/RSA Agenda 62 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
21 I Street At-Grade Crossing (Oakland Sub) – Existing Condition City Council/RSA Agenda 63 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
22 I Street At-Grade Crossing (Oakland Sub) – Proposed Closure City Council/RSA Agenda 64 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
23 G St.

H St.

I St.

F St.

G St.

H St.

I St.

Railroad Ave
10th St
11th St
12th St
13th St
14th St
15th St
12th St
J St.

I Street Closure Re-route
(H Street Alternative)
Legend:

Railroad Crossing Closure
Northbound I Street Re-route
Southbound I Street Re-route
JLHS
City Council/RSA Agenda 65 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
24 G St.

H St.

I St.

F St.

G St.

H St.

I St.

Railroad Ave
10th St
11th St
12th St
13th St
14th St
15th St
12th St J St.

I Street Closure Re-route
(Decoto Rd Alternative)
Legend:

Railroad Crossing Closure
Northbound I Street Re-route
Southbound I Street Re-route
JLHS U-turn at Union
Square/Meyer Dr
Existing Median
Island at Decoto Rd
City Council/RSA Agenda 66 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
25 Summary of At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing
Original Agreement Requirements
▪ City paid UPRR to design and construct railroad warning gates, safety equipment and communications facilities.
▪ City responsible for the non-rail elements: walkway, ramps, stairs, drainage, architectural elements and lights.
▪ Improve the pedestrian facilities at Oakland Subdivision railroad tracks on Decoto Road, including new railroad signals, walkways and concrete panels. ▪ Close I Street railroad crossing to mitigate opening the new Pedestrian crossing. ▪ Undertake railroad safety projects at Smith Steet and Whipple Road railroad crossings.

City Council/RSA Agenda 67 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
26 At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project at BART
Supplemental Agreement Requirements
▪ Additional Safety Improvements at Decoto Road, including ‘queue-cutter signals’ to address pre-emption requirements associated with railroad signals. ▪ City responsible for ‘Closure Plan’ necessary to permanently close and vacate the I Street railroad crossing.
▪ Furnish and install signage, curbs and gutters, remove roadway pavement adjacent to the tracks and make other necessary safety improvements. ▪ All components must be completed prior to opening the new At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART to the public.

City Council/RSA Agenda 68 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
27 At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project at BART
Project Includes:

Phase I
City’s contractor to build the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing on east side of BART Station to connect to East Plaza (UPRR will install railroad flashing signals/ safety gates) – (To bid first) Phase II (A)
Replace Railroad Concrete Panels on Decoto Road will require “Complete Street Closure” and traffic detour for 1-2 weeks All work done by UPRR under separate contract with City City Council/RSA Agenda 69 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
28 At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project at BART
Project Includes (Continued):

Phase II (B) and (C)
▪ Improve existing Decoto Road At-Grade Crossing with modified sidewalk and new railroad flashing signals/safety gates for pedestrians – Phase II (B)
▪ Permanently close ex. I Street At-Grade Crossing and reroute pedestrians, bikes & vehicles – Phase II (C)
▪ Both Phase II (B) & (C) will bid together as a single project City Council/RSA Agenda 70 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
29 At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project at BART
Project Estimate and Funding Summary
Project Costs Estimated at $7.2 Million (Oakland Sub)
Local Funds (MBB & RDA Bonds) $ 1,170,000
Safe Route to BART (SRTB) Grant $ 3,000,000
RM3-Dumbarton Corridor Grant $ 3,000,000
$ 7,170,000
Other Funds
Local Funds (MBB and RDA Bond) $ 2,000,000
(For Other At-Grade Crossing Improvements Per UP Agreement) Federal CPF Grant – Smith St. Ped Xing Safety $1,000,000 Improvements
City Council/RSA Agenda 71 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
30 At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART
Timeline
• 2011- Application to UPRR and CPUC to construct the At-Grade Crossing project.
• 2017 - City Council authorize negotiation with UPRR.
• 2017 - CPUC ‘Decision Authorizing At-Grade Pedestrian Rail Crossing’ - required the closing existing at-grade railroad crossing.
• 2019 - City Council authorized execution of UPRR Original Agreement.
• 2022 - Completed two-sided station improvements to Union City BART (Phase 2A)
City Council/RSA Agenda 72 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
31 At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project at BART
Project Notification and Recent Meetings
▪ October 2023: Updated DRC (Planning, Fire, PD) –
I Street Closure and rerouting options
▪ October 2023: Updated BPAC – Project context and
bicycle and pedestrian improvements
▪ November 2023: Updated City Council – Project Status
Update
▪ September 2024: City Council authorized execution of
UPRR Supplemental Agreement
▪ September 14, 2024: Community Meeting at Kennedy
Center - Project Update and I Street Closure
City Council/RSA Agenda 73 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
32 At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project at BART
Public Comments at the Community Meeting
▪ Not aware of I Street closure until recently
▪ Loss of pedestrian access to Dorado Foods (10th Street Market) and Logan High School
▪ Impact to elderly and students
▪ Concerns about pedestrian safety with new routes
▪ Lighting
▪ Overgrown landscaping
City Council/RSA Agenda 74 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
33 At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project at BART
Consideration to Address Concerns
▪ Evaluate a pedestrian grade separation at I Street railroad crossing
▪ Collect traffic and pedestrian data before and after
closure
▪ Explore federal funding
▪ Educate neighborhood about Microtransit - Flea
▪ Explore food delivery options
• Pedestrian safety:
• Improve lighting and cut back overgrown landscaping
on pedestrian walkways (UOP and elsewhere)
• Add crosswalks
• H Street pedestrian improvements at railroad crossing City Council/RSA Agenda 75 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
34 At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project at BART
Public Notification
▪ Mailed notifications in Spanish and English
▪ H Street to J Street
▪ Posted 3- 3'x4' signs along I Street at railroad crossing in Spanish and English (15 days prior)
▪ Newspaper notice - two times
• Social media platforms
• City
• School district
City Council/RSA Agenda 76 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
35 At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project at BART
Milestone Tentative Date
Public Hearing to authorize closure of I Street October 2024 Award construction contract for At-Grade Crossing December 2024 Construction of At-Grade Pedestrian Project begins January 2025 Decoto Road – Approx. 1-2 weeks “Complete Street
Closure” to replace railroad concrete panels
April 2025
I Street Closure is completed November 2025
City completes At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project December 2025 UP completes testing of railroad safety gates February 2026 East entrance to BART opens to the Public March 2026
City Council/RSA Agenda 77 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
36 At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project at BART
Next Steps
▪ Public Hearing by City Council to consider
authorizing the closure and vacation of
I Street
▪ Go to bid for the At-Grade Pedestrian
Crossing (Phase I)
City Council/RSA Agenda 78 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
38 At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Project at BART
and I Street Closure
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution approving the closure and
possible vacation of I Street Railroad Crossing as
part of the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at BART,
City Project No. 14-14.

City Council/RSA Agenda 79 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Agenda Item
DATE: 11/19/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CARMELA CAMPBELL, ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON CHEVRON/POWER MARKET PROJECT LOCATED AT 31300 ALVARADO-NILES ROAD (APN 463 -0104-006-00) AND 1) ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION

ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; 2) ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM

TO RE-DESIGNATE THE PROJECT SITE FROM REGIONAL RETAIL COMMERCIAL TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL AND RELATED FIGURES (AG-24-002); 3) INTRODUCTION OF AN

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY APPROVING A

ZONING MAP AMENDMENT TO REZONE THE PROJECT SITE FROM UNION LANDING COMMERCIAL (CUL) TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) (A-24-002); AND 4) ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING USE PERMIT (UP-24-005) AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SD-24-007) TO FACILIATE DEMOLITION AND THE REBUILD OF THE SERVICE

STATION
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and: 1) Adopt a Resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Attachment 1); 2) Adopt a Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment to update the General Plan Land Use Diagram to re-designate the project site from Regional Retail Commercial to Retail Commercial and update related figures (AG-24-002) (Attachment 2); 3) Introduce an Ordinance approving a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the property from Union Landing Commercial (CUL) to Community Commercial (CC) (A-24-002) (Attachment 3); and 4) Adopt a Resolution approving Use Permit (UP-24-005) and Site Development Review (SD-24-007) to demolish an existing service station, construct a new 2,875 square foot canopy over four (4) fuel dispensing islands and a 2,375 square foot convenience store and related site improvements (Attachment 4). The project site is located at 31300 Alvarado-Niles Road (APN 463-0104-006-00).

The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application with modified findings to the City Council at its October 17, 2024, meeting on a 5-0 vote. Attached to this staff report are the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 5), Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Attachment 6), Planning Commission Desk Item (Attachment 7), and Planning Commission Resolutions (Attachments 8-11).

City Council/RSA Agenda 80 Tuesday, November 19, 2024

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

BACKGROUND
The 0.5-acre project site located at the northeast corner of Alvarado-Niles Road and Union Landing Boulevard, approximately 0.25 mile west of I-880. The project plans are included as Exhibit A of Attachment 4. The site is developed with a convenience store with two attached auto repair bays (currently being used as a smog check station) and four (4) fuel pump islands. The Union Landing Transit Center is located to the north on an adjacent Cityowned parcel. An existing Shell gas station is located to the south, across Alvarado-Niles Road, with residential development beyond. The iFly Indoor Skydiving is located adjacent to the project site to the east. A dentist office and a hotel are located to the west, across Union Landing Boulevard.

A service station has been present on the site since at least 1973, originally operating as the Alvarado-Niles Service Station. Since 2017, H&S has been operating the site as a Chevron service station. Previous owner/operators also include British Petroleum and Tosco.

The project scope includes demolition of the existing 1,232 square-foot gas station canopy and 1,522 square-foot convenience store/smog check station and construction of a 2,875 square-foot canopy, 2,375 square-foot convenience store, a new trash enclosure, and related site improvements. The project scope also includes the relocation of an existing connection to the adjacent Union Landing Transit Center, which is necessitated by the proposed reconfiguration of the site.

DISCUSSION
Project Entitlements
The project entitlements include a General Plan Amendment (AG-24-002), Zoning Map Amendment (A-24-002), Use Permit (UP-24-005), and Site Development Review (SD-24-007). The project site is located within the Union Landing Commercial (CUL) Zoning District, which does not permit service stations. To facilitate reconstruction of the service station, the project scope includes proposed General Plan and Zoning Map amendments. The applicant is requesting to rezone the project site from CUL to Community Commercial (CC), where service stations and gas station marketeers are a conditionally permitted use. A related General Plan amendment is proposed to update the City’s General Plan Land Use Diagram included in Chapter 3, Figure LU-1, to re-designate the site from Regional Retail Commercial to Retail Commercial to align with the proposed Zoning Map amendment. The General Plan amendment also includes updates for internal consistency to the following figures included in Chapter 9: Special Areas Element: Figure SA-1; Special Areas, Figure SA-12.1: Union Landing General Plan Land Use; and Figure SA-12.2: Union Landing Commercial Development Type Sub-Areas. Diagrams showing the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Map are attached to this staff report and labeled Attachment 2- Exhibit A and Attachment 3- Exhibit A, respectively.

The applicant has also applied for Use Permit approval to allow for the service station in the CC Zoning District and Site Development Review approval for the project structures and related site improvements. The project has been conditioned to require the applicant to submit plans to the Public Works Department for review and approval of the new Gateway feature from the project site to the Union City Transit Center. The project, as proposed, complies with or exceeds the applicable development standards of the CC Zoning District. For a detailed overview of the project’s compliance with City requirements, see attached Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 5).

City Council/RSA Agenda 81 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Environmental Review
This project is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Per the applicable provisions of the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared for the project by Helix Environmental Planning Inc. A Draft IS/MND was sent out for public review on August 23, 2024, for a thirty-day period, which concluded on September 23, 2024. The Draft IS/MND identified several environmental resource areas (Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Mandatory Findings of Significance) that would potentially be affected by the proposed project.

Mitigation measures were identified that would reduce any potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures are commonly applied to new construction projects, as well as the operation of projects. A Final IS/MND was prepared that includes updates to the Draft IS/MND and an Errata sheet detailing the revisions (Attachment 1 – Exhibit A). Please note the final IS/MND is split into two volumes that includes several appendices. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Attachment 1 – Exhibit B) was also prepared, which includes the full text of the mitigation measures, as well as the timing of the measures and the responsible entities charged with ensuring that the measures are implemented.

Public Outreach
Public hearing notices were sent out for the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. A notice was also mailed out regarding the release of the Draft IS/MND and related 30-day review period. The Draft IS/MND was also submitted to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to State agencies potentially affected by the project. The State Clearinghouse had received no comments by State agencies, nor had staff received any comments from the public regarding the CEQA document or the project. Staff received comments from Alameda County Water District and Union Sanitary District on the Draft IS/MND; the majority of which addressed compliance with their requirements.

In March 2023, consistent with SB 18 and due to the amendment to the General Plan, the City sent letters to 11 tribal representatives via certified mail notifying them of the proposed amendments. In April 2023, Corrina Gould, Tribal Chair of the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation, responded requesting a consultation. Tribal Chair Gould reached out again on October 2, 2024, requesting that the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation be notified if a discovery is made that may be of Native American origin. Although her comment was outside of the 30-day public comment period, the City was able to comply with this request. Copies of all letters received providing comments on the Draft IS/MND and how they were responded to are included in Attachment 1 – Exhibit A.

Planning Commission Meetings
The Planning Commission held two public meetings on the project. The first, on September 19, 2024, was a Study Session held during the 30-day public comment period for the Draft IS/MND. A Desk Item was prepared that included minor corrections to the text of the Draft IS/MND, which were addressed in the Final IS/MND (Attachment 1 - Exhibit A). For more information, the staff report and attachments for the Study Session including the draft IS/MND can be viewed on-line at:
https://unioncity.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/CoverSheet.aspx?ItemID=4453&MeetingID=1758 A public hearing for the project was held on October 17, 2024. A Desk Item was prepared by staff to make a minor text change to a Site Development Review finding. The Commission voted 5-0 to recommend to the City Council they adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve/adopt the various entitlements. The staff report, Desk Item, draft Minutes and draft resolutions are attached to this staff report (Attachments 5-11).

City Council/RSA Agenda 82 Tuesday, November 19, 2024

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the General Fund. The applicant is responsible for payment of all fees for the processing of the application, including time related to oversight of the MMRP. Additionally, all new development, including this project, will result in additional revenue to the City through a one-time payment of permit fees. The proposed work will also result in an increase of assessed property value (exact amount to be determined by the County Assessor's Office once the project is completed), increasing the amount of property tax the City will receive. The project site will also remain part of the Union Landing Property Business Improvement District (PBID), which is an assessment district that Union Landing property owners pay into to support the operations of the shopping center. The PBID pays for dedicated Union City Police Officers, marketing, and capital improvements.

RECOMMENDATION
Consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation, staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and:
1) Adopt a Resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment 1);
2) Adopt a Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment to update the General Plan Land Use Diagram to re-designate the project site from Regional Retail Commercial to Retail Commercial and updates to related figures (AG-24-002) (Attachment 2);
3) Introduce an Ordinance approving a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the property from Union Landing Commercial (CUL) to Community Commercial (CC) (A-24-002) (Attachment 3), and 4) Adopt a Resolution approving Use Permit (UP-24-005) and Site Development Review (SD-24-007) to facilitate demolition and the rebuild of the service station (Attachment 4) at 31300 Alvarado-Niles Road (APN 463-0104-006-00).

Prepared by:

Natalie Dean, Associate Planner
Submitted by:

Natalie Dean, Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Attachment 1: ResolutionAdopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Resolution
Attachment 1: Exhibit A Draft and Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Volume I
Exhibit
Attachment 1: Exhibit A - Draft and Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Volume II
Exhibit
Attachment 1: Exhibit A - Draft and Final Mitigated Negative Declaration - Volume IAppendices
Exhibit
Attachment 1: Exhibit A - Draft and Final Mitigated Negative Declaration - City Council/RSA Agenda 83 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Volume II - Appendix A Exhibit
Attachment 1: Exhibit A - Draft and Final Mitigated Negative Declaration - Volume II - Appendix B
Exhibit
Attachment 1: Exhibit A - Draft and Final Mitigated Negative Declaration - Volume II - Appendix C
Exhibit
Attachment 1: Exhibit A - Draft and Final Mitigated Negative Declaration - Volume II - Appendix D
Exhibit
Attachment 1: Exhibit A - Draft and Final Mitigated Negative Declaration - Volume II - Appendix E
Exhibit
Attachment 1: Exhibit A - Draft and Final Mitigated Negative Declaration - Volume II - Appendix F
Exhibit
Attachment 1: Exhibit A - Draft and Final Mitigated Negative Declaration - Volume II - Appendix G- Part 1
Exhibit
Attachment 1: Exhibit A - Draft and Final Mitigated Negative Declaration - Volume II - Appendix G- Part 2
Exhibit
Attachment 1: Exhibit A - Draft and Final Mitigated Negative Declaration - Volume II - Appendix G- Part 3
Exhibit
Attachment 1: Exhibit A - Draft and Final Mitigated Negative Declaration - Volume II - Appendix G- Part 4
Exhibit
Attachment 1: Exhibit A - Draft and Final Mitigated Negative Declaration - Volume II - Appendix H
Exhibit
Attachment 1: Exhibit A - Draft and Final Mitigated Negative Declaration - Volume II - Appendix I
Exhibit
Attachment 1: Exhibit B (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) Exhibit Attachment 2: Resolution approving General PlanAmendment (AG-24-002) Resolution Attachment 2: Exhibit A (General PlanAmendment) Exhibit Attachment 3: Ordinance Zoning MapAmendment (A-24-002) Ordinance Attachment 3: Exhibit A (Zoning MapAmendment) Exhibit
Attachment 4: ResolutionApproving Use Permit (UP-24-005) and Site Development Review (SD-24-007)
Resolution
Attachment 4: Exhibit A (Project Plans) Exhibit
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Staff Report dated 10/17/2024 Attachment Attachment 6: Draft Planning Commission Minutes dated 10/17/2024 Attachment Attachment 7: Planning Commission Desk Item dated 10/17/2024 Attachment Attachment 8: Draft Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Attachment
Attachment 9: Draft Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Approval of General PlanAmendment (AG-24-002)
Attachment
Attachment 10: Draft Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Approval of Zoning MapAmendment (A-24-002)
Attachment
Attachment 11: Draft Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Approval of the Use Permit (UP-24-005) and Site Development Review (SD24-007)Attachment PowerPoint Presentation Attachment
City Council/RSA Agenda 84 Tuesday, November 19, 2024

RESOLUTION NO. XXXX -24

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

UNION CITY ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE CHEVRON/POWER

MARKET PROJECT
WHEREAS, Samir Hijazi of Archissance, on behalf of H & S Energy Products, LLC, is requesting General Plan Amendment (AG-24-002), Zoning Map Amendment (A-24-002), Use Permit (UP-24-005) and Site Development Review (SD-24-007) approvals to demolish an existing service station, construct a new 2,875 square foot canopy over four (4) fuel dispensing islands and 2,375 square foot convenience store and related improvements including updates to the connection to the Union City Transit Center located at 32080 Union Landing Boulevard, hereinafter referred to as the “Project”; and
WHEREAS, the Project site consists of 21,902 Square Feet (0.502 Acres) (“Property”) and is located at 31300 Alvarado-Niles Road (APN: 463-0104-006-00); and WHEREAS, the Project site has a General Plan designation of Regional Retail Commercial and a Zoning designation of Union Landing Commercial (CUL); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study was prepared for the Project, which determined the Project would not result in any significant impacts with the incorporation of mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, the City provided notification to California Native American tribes consistent with Assembly Bill 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes 2014) and received a comment from a representative of the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation requesting a copy of technical reports and records searches related to the Project; a response was provided on August 23, 2024, and included all documentation requested; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15073 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI) was prepared for the Project and included a 30-day public review period that began on August 23, 2024, and ended on September 23, 2024; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15072 of the CEQA Guidelines, the NOI was mailed to owners and occupants of real property adjacent to the Property and to individuals and/or organizations who had previously requested such notice and posted at the Alameda County Clerk’s Office for the duration of the public review period; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a publicly noticed Study Session to review the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study and Project on September 19, 2024. The staff report and attachments are incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, in response to comments received during the 30-day public review period and to correct and clarify some text from the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study, a Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study was prepared; and
City Council/RSA Agenda 85 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Resolution No. XXXX-24
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Chevron/Power Market Project

WHEREAS, the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study are labeled Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15074 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared and is labeled Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2024, a duly advertised public hearing was held before the Planning Commission of the City of Union City to consider the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and associated Project entitlements prepared for the Project at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 11-24 dated October 17, 2024, recommending the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program making all required findings in compliance with the requirements of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2024, at a duly advertised public hearing, at a special City Council meeting, the City Council of the City of Union City considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and associated project entitlements prepared for the Project at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. The City Council considered a staff report dated November 19, 2024, and all other recommendations, reports and testimony before making a decision on the project.

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 City Council of the City of Union City does hereby find as follows:

1. The City Council independently reviewed and considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated documents at a publicly noticed special meeting on November 19, 2024, prior to making its decision on the Project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis that the document has been completed in compliance per the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and, on the basis of the whole record, all potential environmental impacts from the project will remain less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures and by adhering to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program enclosed herein.

2. The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council has based its decision are located in and may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk at 34009 Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, California.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration in Exhibit A and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in Exhibit B, respectively, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA.

City Council/RSA Agenda 86 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Resolution No. XXXX-24
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Chevron/Power Market Project

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a special meeting held on the 19th day of November 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

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

THAI NAM N. PHAM
City Clerk
KRISTOPHER J. KOKOTAYLO
City Attorney
Attachments

1. Exhibit A – Mitigated Negative Declaration

2. Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City Council/RSA Agenda 87 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Chevron/Power Market Project
Final Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Volume I
SCH No. 2024080958
Prepared for:

City of Union City
34009 Alvarado Niles Road
Union City, CA 94587
Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
October 2024| Project # 03103.00007.001
City Council/RSA Agenda 88 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
This page intentionally left blank
City Council/RSA Agenda 89 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Purpose and Use of the Final IS/MND ................................................................................ 1

1.2 CEQA Public Review and Certification Process................................................................... 1

1.3 Organization of Volume I of the Final IS/MND ................................................................... 2

2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2

2.1 List of Commenters............................................................................................................. 2

2.2 Responses to Comments .................................................................................................... 2

3.0 ERRATA............................................................................................................................................. 4

3.1 Revisions to Public Review Draft IS/MND........................................................................... 4

LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
1 Responses to Written Comments on Draft IS/MND........................................................................3

LIST OF APPENDICES FOR VOLUME I
A Public Comments Received on Draft IS/MND
B Notice of Intent
City Council/RSA Agenda 90 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
ii
This page intentionally left blank
City Council/RSA Agenda 91 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Volume I of the Final IS/MND for the Chevron/Power Market Project | October 2024 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) addresses the proposed Chevron/Power Market Project (proposed project) located at 31300 Alvarado-Niles Road, City of Union City, Alameda County, California. This document has been prepared by the City of Union City (City), as Lead Agency, in accordance with all criteria, standards and procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.) and the City implementing requirements. This document contains comments received on the Draft IS/MND and responses to those comments as Volume I of this Final IS/MND. The Final IS/MND and associated technical appendices are incorporated as Volume II of this Final IS/MND.

1.1 PURPOSE AND USE OF THE FINAL IS/MND
The principal objectives of CEQA are that: (1) the environmental review process provides for public participation; and (2) the IS/MND serves as an informational document to inform members of the general public, responsible and trustee agencies, and the decision-makers of the physical impacts associated with a proposed project. Therefore, the Lead Agency is responsible for providing opportunities for the general public, responsible and trustee agencies, and decision makers to comment on the Draft IS/MND prepared for a project and for providing written responses to comments received.

The Final IS/MND is the document that is prepared to address the comments and to present corrections, revisions, and other clarifications to the Draft IS/MND. The Final IS/MND is used to support the Lead Agency’s decision to approve or not approve the project and may be used by CEQA responsible and trustee agencies to meet their requirements under CEQA to approve permits or project elements within their jurisdiction.

1.2 CEQA PUBLIC REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION PROCESS
The public review period began on August 23, 2024, and concluded September 23, 2024. All parties had at least 30 days to review the Draft IS/MND as required under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073. The Draft IS/MND was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to reviewing agencies along with the required Notice of Intent to Adopt an MND (NOI), Notice of Completion, and summary form (SCH No. 2024080958). A copy of the Draft IS/MND was made available online at https://www.unioncity.org/347/Planning-Documents, and a hard copy was available for review at Union City Library, located at 34007 Alvarado-Niles Road. The NOI was filed with the Alameda County Clerk on August 23, 2024, and a study session to review the project was conducted on September 19, 2024. A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission on October 17, 2024, and a public hearing with the City Council is anticipated to be held in November 2024.

The City of Union City Planning Commission will decide whether to approve the Final IS/MND as complete and in compliance with CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines and must consider it, along with the comments received, in approving or denying the proposed project. In the final review of the proposed project, environmental, economic, and social factors will be considered to determine the most appropriate course of action. After consideration of the Final IS/MND, the City of Union City Planning Commission may decide to approve the project. If the project is approved, a Notice of Determination (NOD) will be filed with the Alameda County Clerk and State Clearinghouse.

City Council/RSA Agenda 92 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Volume I of the Final IS/MND for the Chevron/Power Market Project | October 2024 2 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF VOLUME I OF THE FINAL IS/MND
This document is organized as follows:

Section 1.0, Introduction, describes the purpose and use of the Final IS/MND, provides an overview of the CEQA public review and certification process, and describes the contents of the Final IS/MND.

Section 2.0, Responses to Comments, contains a list of all parties who submitted comments on the Draft IS/MND that were received during the 30-day public review period and the City’s responses to each comment.

Section 3.0, Errata, Includes a listing of revisions, refinements, and clarifications to the Public Review Draft IS/MND, which have been incorporated.

Comments on the Draft IS/MND received during the public review period are included in Appendix A.

The NOI circulated for the Draft IS/MND is included in Appendix B.

2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
This section contains responses to comment letters received during the public review period for the Draft IS/MND.

2.1 LIST OF COMMENTERS
The City received three (3) comment letters on the Draft IS/MND during the 30-day public review period from August 23, 2024, to September 23, 2024. The three (3) comment letters are as follows:

Commenter Author Code
Kit Soo, Alameda County Water District, dated August 30, 2024.....................................ACWD 1 Andrew Baile, Union Sanitary District, dated September 18, 2024........................................ USD Laura J. Hidas, Alameda County Water District, dated September 23, 2024 ...................ACWD 2

2.2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The responses to written comments received are provided in Table 1 below, which presents the comment letter number, including comment number (if applicable), on the left side of the page, and the corresponding responses to each comment are provided on the right-hand side of the page.

For comments that are outside the scope of the IS/MND or that are in regard to non-environmental issues, the comment is noted, and detailed response is not necessary. Where similar comments were received from multiple sources, the reader may be referred to another applicable response. Where responses to comments warrant modifications to the Draft IS/MND, the reader is referred to modifications to the text within the body of the Draft IS/MND, provided in the form of strikeout/underline to the Draft IS/MND, and presented as Volume II of this Final IS/MND. Modifications to the Draft IS/MND occur where it is necessary to correct or clarify information in the Draft IS/MND.

City Council/RSA Agenda 93 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Volume I of the Final IS/MND for the Chevron/Power Market Project | October 2024 3 Table 1

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON DRAFT ISMND
City Council/RSA Agenda 94 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Volume I of the Final IS/MND for the Chevron/Power Market Project | October 2024 4 3.0 ERRATA
This section includes a summary of revisions made to the Public Review Draft IS/MND as a result of the comments in the above table. The complete Public Review Draft IS/MND with the following revisions incorporated is included as Volume II.

3.1 REVISIONS TO PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT IS/MND

This project would also relocate the trash enclosure from its current position immediately adjacent to the east side of the existing convenience store to a new location in the southeast portion of the project parcel. The trash enclosure would be approximately 213 sf in size, and there would be three, 4-cubicyard trash receptacles contained within the enclosure for trash, recycling, and compost. The trash enclosure would consist of three concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls with metal cladding as well as a sloped corrugated metal roof, and a heavy-duty corrugated metal gate would be located on the frontage of the enclosure.

REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
A listing and brief description of the approvals and/or regulatory permits required to implement the proposed project are provided below. This environmental document is intended to address the environmental impacts associated with the following discretionary actions and approvals.

City of Union City
• General Plan Amendment: The project site is designated Regional Retail Commercial (CRR) and the project applicant is seeking a redesignation to Retail Commercial (CR). The amendment also includes an update to Chapter 3: Land Use and Chapter 9: Special Areas to remove the site from Figure SA-12.1: Union Landing General Plan Land Use and Figure SA-12.2: Union Landing Commercial Development Type Sub-Areas, and to update Figure LU-1, Land Use Diagram. This amendment would also include an update to Chapter 3: Land Use to change the designation of the site on Figure LU-1.
• Zoning Map Amendment: The project site is zoned Union Landing Commercial (CUL), and the project applicant is seeking a rezone to Community Commercial (CC). Per UCMC 18.64.060, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council who will make a decision based upon a finding that the change is necessary for the purposes of the zoning title; if the finding is made, the City Council will enact an ordinance amending the Zoning Map. • Site Development Review: The project would require Site Development Review approval by the Union City Planning Commission, pursuant to Chapter 18.76 of the UCMC. The City Council decides whether to amend to Title 18, Zoning, and the General Plan, and as such, the City Council would make the final decision for the Site Development Review, and must make findings City Council/RSA Agenda 95 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Volume I of the Final IS/MND for the Chevron/Power Market Project | October 2024 5 that the proposed project is in compliance with the City of Union City 2040 General Plan (General Plan) and UCMC Zoning Ordinance.
• Use Permit Approval: Per Section 18.36.030(B) of the UCMC, a Use Permit is required for new service stations with convenience stores that are subject to the provisions of the Gas Station Marketeer Policy Statement. The Use Permit will be reviewed concurrently with the Site Development Review and the City Council will need to make findings that the proposed use and location of the use is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and would not be of detriment to surrounding properties.
• Consideration of the Environmental Document: The City of Union City will act as the Lead Agency as defined by CEQA and will have authority to determine if the environmental document is adequate under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
• Project Approval: The Union City Council will consider approval of the project and the entitlements described above.

Other Agencies
The proposed project may require permits and/or approvals from other agencies including, but not limited to, the following:

Alameda County Water District (ACWD)
Well Drilling Permit: As required by ACWD Ordinance No. 2010-01, drilling permits are required prior to the start of any subsurface drilling activities for wells, exploratory holes, and other excavations within the City of Union City. Additionally, all drilling activities must be coordinated with ACWD prior to the start of any field work.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Avoid impacts to previously unknown archaeological resources.

In the event that cultural resources are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery. Cultural resources could consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, wood, or shell artifacts, or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resources cannot be avoided during the remainder of construction, an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards shall be retained to assess the resource and provide appropriate management recommendations. If the discovery proves to be CRHR- or NRHPeligible, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted and shall be discussed in consultation with the Lead Agency. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the discovery may be of Native American origin, the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation and any other applicable tribes will be notified.

City Council/RSA Agenda 96 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Volume I of the Final IS/MND for the Chevron/Power Market Project | October 2024 6

The project would be required to comply with all applicable City, ACWD, and State green building measures, including the State Building Energy Efficiency Standards – Title 24, Part 6, and Part 11 (CEC 2022).

LOCAL
Alameda County Water District
Cooperative Agreements between the SFBRWQCB and ACWD, as well as ACWD’s Groundwater Protection Program, allow ACWD to provide technical oversight for the investigation and remediation of LUFT sites and sites where the pollution is attributed to spills and leaks from structures other than underground fuel tanks now referred to as Site Cleanup Program sites. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. There are three (3) underground fuel tanks that would remain on site and would be emptied during demolition and construction. To minimize potential risks from accidental spill or release of fuel or residues from emptying the existing underground fuel tanks, a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan will be prepared to address potential spills.

The SPCC is included in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 and will include immediate response actions in case of an accidental release.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Hazardous Materials Management The following measures would be incorporated to minimize potential hazardous materials impacts.
• The City shall ensure that grading plans, other improvement plans and building permits include a statement specifying that if hazardous materials contamination is discovered or suspected during construction activities, then all work shall stop immediately until the Union City Environmental Programs Division has determined an appropriate course of action. Such actions may include, but would not be limited to, site investigation, human health and environmental risk assessment, implementation of a health and safety plan, and remediation and/or site management controls. Any site investigation and recommendations for mitigation, as necessary, shall be completed by a qualified professional and submitted to the City.
• Construction Workers shall receive on-site training regarding the potential for previously unknown and/or residual soil or groundwater contamination to be present. Training shall be conducted by a qualified professional in hazardous materials handling. The training shall identify the appropriate steps to be taken by the contractor upon City Council/RSA Agenda 97 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Volume I of the Final IS/MND for the Chevron/Power Market Project | October 2024 7 discovery of potentially contaminated material. If excavation activities are to take place in an area of known soil and/or groundwater contamination, only construction workers who are trained in OSHA’s Hazardous Waste and Emergency Response standard (HAZWOPER) shall perform this work.
• In the event previously unknown and/or residual contaminated soil, groundwater, or subsurface features are encountered, work on-site shall cease immediately, and the applicant’s contractor and/or site qualified professional shall notify the Union City Planning and Environmental Programs Divisions.
• Applicant shall make all required reports to regulatory agencies if possible contamination is discovered. The Union City Environmental Programs Division shall be responsible for assessing the degree of compliance and the effectiveness of risk mitigation efforts required by regulatory agencies, and reporting to the planning Division whether risks have been satisfactorily abated in accordance with the requirements of this measure.
• The City shall ensure that a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan is prepared to address potential spills during the emptying of the on-site fuel tanks and that the plan shall include immediate response actions in the case of an accidental spill or release of potentially hazardous materials.

Activities that involve soil disturbance or that intercept groundwater shall not resume on the site until the Union City Environmental Programs Division has determined further work would not pose an unacceptable human health or environmental risk, based on documentation developed by the applicant’s qualified professional and provided to the Union City Environmental Programs Division.

LOCAL
Alameda County Water District
As required by ACWD Ordinance No. 2010-01, drilling permits are required prior to the start of any subsurface drilling activities for new wells, exploratory holes, and other excavations within the City of Union City. Additionally, all drilling activities must be coordinated with ACWD prior to the start of any field work.

Union Sanitary District (USD)
Before approval for discharge to the USD sanitary sewer system, all reasonable alternatives to sewer disposal, such as legally permissible reuses, shall be explored. When no other alternative for disposal of surface water exists, USD may issue discharge permits for surface water encountered during construction activities. The permit is a conditional discharge permit and approval is dependent upon available capacity in the sewer system. Prior to commencement of any construction activities, contact USD’s Environmental Compliance Team for specific requirements, limits, and fees for a discharge permit.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
City Council/RSA Agenda 98 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Volume I of the Final IS/MND for the Chevron/Power Market Project | October 2024 8 a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

Construction Impacts
While construction activities have the potential to adversely affect water quality because of erosion of sediment, because of grading, such activities pose more of an environmental threat on large sites of many acres. Construction projects that disturb one acre of land or more are required to obtain coverage under Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ, as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) administered by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. Order 2009-0009-DWQ requires project sponsors to implement construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) at the project site and comply with numeric action levels to achieve minimum federal water quality standards. The Construction General Permit requires control of non-stormwater discharges as well as stormwater discharges. Measures to control non-stormwater discharges such as spills, leakage, and dumping must be addressed through structural as well as non-structural BMPs.

Although the proposed project is below the one-acre threshold requiring coverage under the Construction General Permit and no dewatering activities would be performed during implementation of the project, uncontrolled stormwater runoff from the site during project construction would still have the potential to adversely affect water quality. While on a project-specific basis, the magnitude of potential water quality impacts would be small, it would contribute to other water quality impacts that may be cumulatively considerable. Without mitigation, the proposed project’s construction effects on surface water quality would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would reduce construction impacts on water quality to a less than significant level.

Operational Impacts
Operational stormwater discharge from new development is regulated under the NPDES, administered by the RWQCB. In Union City, development projects must comply with NPDES Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit No. CAS612008. The permit requires any private or public development project that would create or modify 5,000 SF or more of impervious surfaces to take measures to improve water quality of stormwater discharges from the project site (i.e., stormwater runoff), including providing treatment of stormwater from the site.

The proposed project would result in approximately 4,795 SF of total new impervious surfaces with 12,646 SF of existing impervious surface to be removed and replaced, resulting in a total of approximately 17,441 SF of impervious surface areas. Proper design and maintenance of the on-site storm water treatment facilities would be necessary to avoid potentially significant impacts on water quality during operation. Without mitigation, the proposed project’s operational effects on surface water quality would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would require that the SCP for the project comply with all City and State requirements, including the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, to ensure that water quality standards and discharge requirements are not violated, and water quality is protected. Additionally, the project applicant shall coordinate with ACWD prior to submittal of the SCP to the Union City Public Works Department regarding drainage design and City Council/RSA Agenda 99 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Volume I of the Final IS/MND for the Chevron/Power Market Project | October 2024 9 stormwater treatment measures. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1, the project would result in a less than significant impact.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less than Significant Impact. The Geotechnical Report indicates that the project site has operated as a gasoline station since at least 1973 and was in agricultural use prior. Groundwater monitoring was performed with a total of 18 total groundwater monitoring wells installed on-site and off-site from 1985 to 2014. Seventeen (17) of these wells have been destroyed and one remains unaccounted for. There are no existing wells on the project site, and tThe gasoline station and convenience store would be served by the public water system operated by the Alameda County Water District (ACWD). The site is currently developed, and the majority of the site is covered by impervious surfaces. Although the new 4,795 SF of impervious surfaces would reduce potential infiltration of rainfall, the relatively small (0.503- acre) project site provides minimal opportunity for groundwater recharge. Redevelopment of the project site would not result in a substantial decrease of groundwater supplies. Adequate water supply to the facility is anticipated, and no wells would be constructed. The project would result in a less than significant impact on groundwater supplies.

The current designated land use at the project site is Regional Retail Commercial (CRR), and the project site is currently part of the Union Landing Special Area. The proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the site Retail Commercial (CR). This redesignation would remove the site from the Union Landing Special Area and would maintain consistency with the 2040 General Plan.

The CR land use designation allows for retail uses, personal services, professional offices, banks, restaurants, and entertainment uses. Office uses above first floor retail are allowed. The allowed floor area ration (FAR) range for buildings located in this designation is between 0.25 and 1.00, and the minimum parcel size for this designation is 5,000 sf. The amendment also includes an update to Chapter 3: Land Use and Chapter 9: Special Areas to remove the site from Figure SA-12.1: Union Landing General Plan Land Use and Figure SA-12.2: Union Landing Commercial Development Type Sub-Areas, and to update Figure LU-1: General Plan Land Use Diagram.

Countywide Transportation Plan
The Alameda County Transportation Commission A(CTC), also referred to as the Alameda County CMA, acts as the countywide planning and programming agency for transportation related issues in Alameda County. Every four years, the Alameda CTC updates the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan, a long-range document that serves as a guide for future transportation projects, programs, policies, and advocacy for all of Alameda County through 2040 (ACTC 2016).

The Union Sanitary District (USD) operates and maintains the wastewater collection system and wastewater treatment plant.provides several services, including operating and maintaining the City Council/RSA Agenda 100 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Volume I of the Final IS/MND for the Chevron/Power Market Project | October 2024 10 wastewater collection system, wastewater treatment plant, water supply facilities, the water distribution system, and the storm drain system

Union Sanitary District Sewer System Management Plan
The USD Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) focuses proper management, operation, and maintenance of all parts of the sanitary sewer system to help reduce and prevent sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), as well as mitigate any SSOs that do occur (USD 2020). The goals of the USD SSMP are to:
• Properly manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the wastewater collection system • Provide a safe work environment for employees
• Minimize preventable SSO
• Understand the condition of and maintain infrastructure to maximize the life of the collection system
• Operate and maintain systems to minimize impact on customers • Prepare for emergencies
• Be a part of the community and be a responsible public agency • Involve employees in the strategic planning process
• Effectively plan system expansion in order to meet the capacity needs of the three cities that USD serves
• Set high, achievable standards for the construction of new infrastructure

Wastewater
The project site is located within the existing service area of the Alvarado Wastewater Treatment Plant operated by the Union Sanitary District. The treatment plant currently has the capacity to treat 33 million gallons of wastewater per day, and in 2019, it treated an average of 23.7 million gallons of wastewater per day (USD 2019). The proposed project would include one public restroom and various water drainage from food self-serve areas in the convenience store. The existing treatment plant has sufficient reserve capacitysubstantial excess capacity to serve the incremental increase in wastewater because of the project. The increase in wastewater treatment demand would be minor and not expected to result in an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements. The proposed project would have less than significant impact on wastewater treatment requirements.

City Council/RSA Agenda 101 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Volume I of the Final IS/MND for the Chevron/Power Market Project | October 2024 11

a) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact. As described in the discussion of Wastewater under item a) above, the project site is served by the Alvarado Wastewater Treatment Plant operated by the Union Sanitary District. The treatment plant currently has the capacity to treat 33 million gallons of wastewater per day (USD 2019), and in 2019, it treated an average of 23.7 million gallons of wastewater per day. The existing treatment plant has sufficient reserve capacitysubstantial excess capacity to accommodate the proposed project as the raze and rebuild of the existing gas station would not result in an increase in water demand. The projected water demand is anticipated to remain consistent with the water demand of the existing gas station; thus, the project would result in a less than significant impact on wastewater service capacity.

City Council/RSA Agenda 102 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
TABLE 1 – RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON DRAFT IS/MND 1 Letter
#
Comment
# Commenter Comment Response
Location
of Changes
in Final
IS/MND
(if
applicable)
01 001 ACWD 1 Alameda County Water District (ACWD) has determined that the following monitoring well, as shown on the attached sketch, is located within the property boundaries of the demolition: Monitoring Well 4S/2W-10K002
Comment acknowledged. n/a
01 002 ACWD 1 In order to protect the groundwater basin which constitutes a major source of water supply for this area, each monitoring well must either be in compliance with ACWD Ordinance No. 2010-01 or properly destroyed prior to development. If the well is to remain, a letter so indicating must be sent to ACWD. If the well is 1) no longer required by any regulatory agency; 2) no longer being monitored on a regular basis; or 3) damaged, lost, or the surface seal is jeopardized in any way during the development process, the well must be destroyed in compliance with ACWD Ordinance No. 2010-01.

Comment acknowledged. Page 71
of the Initial Study states that,
“Groundwater monitoring was
performed with a total of 18 total
groundwater monitoring wells
installed on-site and off-site from
1985 to 2014. Seventeen (17) of
these wells have been destroyed
and one remains unaccounted
for.” Prior to construction, the
project proponent would
determine if the existing
unaccounted for well would
remain, and if so, a letter would be
sent to ACWD. If determined that
the well is 1) no longer required by
any regulatory agency; 2) no
longer being monitored on a
regular basis; or 3) damaged, lost,
or the surface seal is jeopardized
in any way during the
development process, the well
would be destroyed in compliance
with ACWD Ordinance No. 2010-

01. n/a
City Council/RSA Agenda 103 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
TABLE 1 – RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON DRAFT IS/MND 2 Letter
#
Comment
# Commenter Comment Response
Location
of Changes
in Final
IS/MND
(if
applicable)
01 003 ACWD 1 A permit is required for the destruction of each monitoring well.

Application for a permit may be obtained from ACWD, Engineering Department, at 43885 South Grimmer Boulevard, Fremont. Before a permit is issued, the applicant is required to deposit with ACWD, cash or check in a sufficient sum to cover the fee for issuance of the permit or charges for field investigation and inspection.

The applicant will coordinate with
the ACWD to obtain permits, as
necessary.
n/a
01 004 ACWD 1 As a further condition, ACWD reserves the right to refuse water service within this development until such time as well issues are resolved in accordance with the well ordinance.

Compliance with ACWD Ordinance No. 2010-01 requirements does not imply a commitment of water service to this development by ACWD. Any questions regarding water service should be directed to the Development Services Division of ACWD’s Engineering Department at (510) 668-4499.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Kit Soo, PG
Well Ordinance Supervisor
Comment acknowledged. n/a
01 005 ACWD 1 Alameda County Water District (ACWD) has determined that the following water well, shown on the attached sketch, is located within the property boundaries of the development:

Water Well 4S/2W-10J006
The commenter has provided an
introduction to their comments.
n/a
01 006 ACWD 1 In order to protect the groundwater basin, which constitutes a major source of water supply for this area, each well must either be in compliance with ACWD Ordinance No. 2010-01, brought into compliance, or properly destroyed prior to development. The owner through a written submittal may request a well compliance review.

Per the above ordinance, a permit is required before any work may A summary of the ACWD
Ordinance Nol 2010-01 was
provided. The applicant will
coordinate with the ACWD to
obtain permits, as necessary.
n/a
City Council/RSA Agenda 104 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
TABLE 1 – RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON DRAFT IS/MND 3 Letter
#
Comment
# Commenter Comment Response
Location
of Changes
in Final
IS/MND
(if
applicable)
begin on a well. Application for a permit may be obtained from the ACWD, Engineering Department, at 43885 South Grimmer Boulevard, Fremont. Before a permit is issued, the applicant shall deposit with the District, cash or a cashier’s check in a sufficient sum to cover the fee for issuance of the permit or charges for field investigation and inspection.
01 007 ACWD 1 As a further condition, ACWD reserves the right to refuse water service within this development until such time as well issues are resolved in accordance with ACWD Ordinance No. 2010-01.

Compliance with ACWD Ordinance No. 2010-01 requirements does not imply a commitment of water service to this development by ACWD. Any questions regarding water service should be directed to the Development Services Division of ACWD’s Engineering Department at (510) 668-4499.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Kit Soo, PG
Well Ordinance Supervisor
Comment acknowledged. n/a
02 001 USD Dear Ms. Dean,
The Union Sanitary District (USD) wishes to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the new Chevron Fuel Station and Power Market Convenience Store at 31300 Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, CA dated August 23, 2024. USD has reviewed the MND and offers the following comments for your consideration:

The commenter has provided an
introduction to their comments.
n/a
02 002 USD 1. Section 2.2, Description of Proposed Project, Gasoline Station and Convenience Store, Page 5: Regarding the relocation of Information has been added to

City Council/RSA Agenda 105 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
TABLE 1 – RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON DRAFT IS/MND 4 Letter
#
Comment
# Commenter Comment Response
Location
of Changes
in Final
IS/MND
(if
applicable)
the uncovered trash enclosure, if required to have sanitary sewer drains, wastewater from a trash enclosure shall pass through a minimum 320-gallon interceptor, per USD Standard Detail #23. Additionally, it shall be roof covered and sloped to prevent rainwater from entering the drain. Installation of a drain to the sanitary sewer shall not be done unless required by the Health Department or City.
clarifying that the trash enclosure
would be covered by a corrugated
metal roof. No drain is proposed
to be constructed as part of the
trash enclosure relocation.
02 003 USD 2. Section X. Hydrology and Water Quality, Regulatory Context, State, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, Page 78: The MND should include a section for dewatering activities with discharge to the sanitary sewer that states: “Before approval for discharge to the USD sanitary sewer system, all reasonable alternatives to sewer disposal, such as legally permissible reuses, shall be explored. When no other
alternative for disposal of surface water exists, USD may issue discharge permits for surface water encountered during
construction activities. The permit is a conditional discharge permit and approval is dependent upon available capacity in the sewer system. Prior to commencement of any
construction activities, contact USD’s Environmental
Compliance Team for specific requirements, limits, and fees for a discharge permit.”
Comment acknowledged. The
regulatory language included in
this comment has been added to
Section 5.X, Hydrology and Water
Quality, Regulatory Context of the
Final IS/MND.

02 004 USD 3. Section XIX. Utilities and Service Systems, Environmental Setting, Page 109: Replace: “The Union Sanitary District (USD) provides several services, including operating and maintaining the wastewater collection system, wastewater treatment
plan, water supply facilities, the water distribution system, and the storm drain system” with, “The Union Sanity District (USD) operates and maintains the wastewater collection
system and wastewater treatment plant.”

been edited to reflect this change.

City Council/RSA Agenda 106 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
TABLE 1 – RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON DRAFT IS/MND 5 Letter
#
Comment
# Commenter Comment Response
Location
of Changes
in Final
IS/MND
(if
applicable)
02 005 USD 4. Section XIX. Utilities and Service Systems, Regulatory Context, Local, Union Sanitary District Sewer System Management
Plan, Page 113: Delete, “Properly manage, operate, and
maintain all parts of the wastewater collection system,” as it is not listed as a goal in the referenced document.

been edited to reflect this change.

02 006 USD 5. Section XIX. Utilities and Service Systems, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, A) Less than Significant, Wastewater,

“sufficient reserve capacity.”

been edited to reflect this change.

02 007 USD 6. Section XIX. Utilities and Service Systems, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, C) Less than Significant, Wastewater,

“sufficient reserve capacity.”
Please feel free to email me at [email protected] or call me at (510) 477-7633 as needed during this process.

Sincerely,
Andrew Baile
Assistant Engineer
Technical Services
Union Sanitary District
By Email
Cc: Raymond Chau, USD
Richard Thow, USD

been edited to reflect this change.

03 001 ACWD 2 The Alameda County Water District (ACWD) wishes to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Chevron/Power Market Project (Project).

The commenter has provided an
introduction to their comments.
n/a
City Council/RSA Agenda 107 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
TABLE 1 – RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON DRAFT IS/MND 6 Letter
#
Comment
# Commenter Comment Response
Location
of Changes
in Final
IS/MND
(if
applicable)
03 002 ACWD 2 ACWD Staff has reviewed the draft IS/MND and offers the following comments for your consideration:

1. Groundwater Protection: ACWD requests that the following potentially significant impacts to the protection of
groundwater be addressed by the IS/MND:
a. Groundwater Well Destruction and Drilling Permits:
i. Reference is made to Mitigation Measure
GEO-1: Site-Specific Geotechnical
Investigation: As required by ACWD
Ordinance No. 2010-01, drilling permits are
required prior to the start of any subsurface
drilling activities for wells, exploratory holes,
and other excavations within the City of Union
City (City). Application for a permit may be
obtained from ACWD’s Engineering
Department, at 43885 South Grimmer
Boulevard, Fremont or online at
http://www.acwd.org. Before a permit is
issued, a cash or check deposit is required in a
sufficient sum to cover the fee for issuance of
the permit or charges for field investigation
and inspection. All permitted work requires
scheduling for inspection; therefore, all
drilling activities must be coordinated with
ACWD prior to the start of any field work.

Therefore, ACWD requests the permitting
requirements be added to Section 2.3
Required Permit and Approvals.

The following language has been
added to Section 2.3, Required
Permits and Approvals, page 6: “As
required by ACWD Ordinance No.
2010-01, drilling permits are
required prior to the start of any
subsurface drilling activities for
wells, exploratory holes, and other
excavations within the City of
Union City. Additionally, all drilling
activities must be coordinated
with ACWD prior to the start of
any field work.” The applicant will
coordinate with the ACWD to
obtain drilling permits, as
necessary.

03 003 ACWD 2 ii. As indicated in Section IX (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), there is one monitoring
A Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) was conducted
7 City Council/RSA Agenda 108 Tuesday, November 19, 2024 TABLE 1 – RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON DRAFT IS/MND 7 Letter
#
Comment
# Commenter Comment Response
Location
of Changes
in Final
IS/MND
(if
applicable)
well, 4S/2W-10K002 or Well E-1, located
within the Project area that is a “lost well”
that needs to be located and properly
destroyed prior to redevelopment. ACWD’s
records from the time of installation indicate
the well is located near the North-East corner
of the building to be demolished. ACWD
recommends Project proponents review the
information for the well posted on
GeoTracker for MOBIL 10-L3G/BP 11119
(T0600100211) and meet with ACWD to
discuss next steps. In order to protect the
groundwater basin, ACWD requests that the
IS/MND include the requirement of the well
destruction and that any wells located within
the Project area must be in compliance with
ACWD Ordinance No. 2010-01 prior to or
during construction activities.
for the proposed project and is
included as Appendix G to the
Final IS/MND. The Phase I ESA
indicates that the project site has
operated as a gasoline station
from at least 1973 and was in
agricultural use prior to that.

Groundwater monitoring was
performed with a total of 18 total
groundwater monitoring wells
installed on-site and off-site from
1985 to 2014. Seventeen (17) of
these wells have been destroyed
and one remains unaccounted for.

In response to ACWD’s comment,
the project proponent will review
the information for the well
posted on GeoTracker for MOBIL
10-L3G/BP 11119 (T0600100211)
and meet with ACWD to discuss
next steps. The applicant will
coordinate with the ACWD to
obtain permits, if necessary.

Additionally, as noted above,
language has been added to
Section 2.3 to address the need for
coordination with ACWD for
groundwater well destruction and
drilling permits.

City Council/RSA Agenda 109 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
TABLE 1 – RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON DRAFT IS/MND 8 Letter
#
Comment
# Commenter Comment Response
Location
of Changes
in Final
IS/MND
(if
applicable)
03 004 ACWD 2 b. Hazards and Hazardous Materials:
i. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Hazardous
Material Management: ACWD appreciates the
discussion regarding the closed Leaking
Underground Fuel Tank (LUFT) case
(GeoTracker T0600100211; Regional Board
Case No. 01-0225; ACWD Case No. 0078) and
the coordination and communication with the
Union City Environmental Programs Division.

There is residual petroleum hydrocarbonrelated contamination in both soil (from approximately 6 to 7.5 feet below ground
surface [bgs]) and groundwater related to the
closed LUFT case located at the Project site
[i.e., MOBIL 10-L3G/BP 11119
(T0600100211)], as documented in the case
closure documents. The draft IS/MND
provides a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA), dated February 3, 2020, as
Appendix G, which summarizes the residual
concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons.

Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline
(TPH-g) and total petroleum hydrocarbons as
diesel (TPH-d) are present in soil at the project
site at concentrations of 1,800 and 4,900
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), respectively.

Further, TPH-g, TPH-d, benzene, and methyl
tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) are present in
groundwater at concentrations of 3,300, 200,

included as Appendix G to the
IS/MND states, “According to the
closure letter, the Alameda County
Water District and the appropriate
local planning and building
departments must be notified
prior to any changes in land use
and site redevelopment. Residual
contamination in both soil and
groundwater remain at the subject
property, therefore, the impact of
disturbance of any residual
contamination or the installation
of a water well near the residual
contamination should be assessed
and the appropriate action should
be taken so that there is no
significant impact to human
health.” Page 81 of the IS/MND
states that no wells would be
constructed as part of the
proposed project.

The project proponent will provide
a copy of the Phase I ESA to ACWD
and upload a copy to the State
Water Resource Control Board’s
GeoTracker database case files
under: MOBIL 10-L3G/BP 11119
(T0600100211).
n/a
City Council/RSA Agenda 110 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
TABLE 1 – RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON DRAFT IS/MND 9 Letter
#
Comment
# Commenter Comment Response
Location
of Changes
in Final
IS/MND
(if
applicable)
53, and 31 micrograms per liter (μg/L),
respectively.

In addition, the case closure document has
outlined Site Management Requirements in
Section V of the closure regarding soil and
groundwater contamination relating to
potential impacts to human health, safety, or
the environment. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1
seems to address those requirements.

However, to ensure the Site Management
Requirements are met, ACWD requests that:
1) the IS/MND reference those requirements
and how they have been incorporated and
addressed in the IS/MND; 2) Project
proponents provide a copy of the Phase I ESA
to ACWD and upload a copy to the State
Water Resource Control Board’s GeoTracker
database case files under: MOBIL 10-L3G/BP
11119 (T0600100211); 3) the IS/MND reevaluate if the Project area has fully characterized existing soil and groundwater
conditions at the site, if the proposed
mitigation measures are adequate, and if a
Risk Assessment is necessary for protection
during construction; and 4) ACWD be notified
should soil and/or groundwater
contamination be encountered during
construction.

The IS/MND has analyzed the
potential soil and groundwater
impacts associated with the
proposed project and included
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 which
would require a site-specific
Geotechnical Investigation to be
prepared prior to the issuance of
final demolition and construction
permits for the project. This report
will include a summary of data
collected from subsurface
exploration, laboratory testing of
samples of surface mapping, and
address the potential for surface
fault rupture, ground shaking,
slope failure, and expansive soils
and make recommendations
based on those findings. The
developer will be required to
implement recommendations
identified in the site-specific
geotechnical report.

Implementation of this mitigation
measure would ensure the project
area has fully characterized
existing soil conditions at the site.

The comment regarding ACWD
notification in the case that
City Council/RSA Agenda 111 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
TABLE 1 – RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON DRAFT IS/MND 10 Letter
#
Comment
# Commenter Comment Response
Location
of Changes
in Final
IS/MND
(if
applicable)
contaminated soil and/or
groundwater is encountered is
acknowledged. Mitigation
Measure HAZ-1 includes a
measure stating, “[the] Applicant
shall make all required reports to
regulatory agencies if possible
contamination is discovered.”
03 005 ACWD 2 ii. Page 6 of the draft IS/MND states, “…there are three (3) underground fuel tanks that
would remain on-site and would be emptied
during demolition and construction.” The
draft IS/MND does not identify the risk of a
potential release of hazardous materials
during the process of emptying the
underground fuel tanks, and mitigation of this
risk does not appear to be incorporated into
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 of the draft
IS/MND. Appropriate safeguards and controls
should be incorporated as mitigations into the
IS/MND to help prevent the direct release of
contaminated runoff to the environment.

These design measures will help reduce the
threat of contamination to the water used for
recharging the groundwater basin which
constitutes a significant portion of ACWD’s
drinking water supply.

The IS/MND has been revised to
include that a Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure
(SPCC) plan shall be prepared to
potential spills during the process
of emptying of the on-site fuel
tanks. The SPCC is included in
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 and will
include immediate response
actions in case of an accidental
release.

Pages 71,
72, and 73
03 006 ACWD 2 iii. ACWD requests the draft IS/MND
acknowledge ACWD’s Groundwater
Protection Program, and its Cooperative
Agreements with the California Regional
The following text has been added
to Page 70 of the IS/MND:
“Cooperative Agreements with the
Alameda County Water District

City Council/RSA Agenda 112 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
TABLE 1 – RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON DRAFT IS/MND 11 Letter
#
Comment
# Commenter Comment Response
Location
of Changes
in Final
IS/MND
(if
applicable)
Water Quality Control Board – San Francisco
Bay Region (Regional Board) and the City of
Union City, which allows ACWD to provide
technical oversight for the investigation and
remediation of LUFT sites and sites where the
pollution is attributed to spills and leaks from
structures other than underground fuel tanks
now referred to as Site Cleanup Program sites
or SCP (formerly known as Spills, Leaks,
Investigation, and Cleanup sites or SLIC sites).
(ACWD), as well as ACWD’s
Groundwater Protection Program,
allow ACWD to provide technical
oversight for the investigation and
remediation of LUFT sites and sites
where the pollution is attributed
to spills and leaks from structures
other than underground fuel tanks
now referred to as Site Cleanup
Program sites.”
03 007 ACWD 2 iv. Page 4 of the draft IS/MND states, “Proposed excavation to construct the canopy would be
to a depth of approximately three to five
feet.” As notes in the draft IS/MND, the
contractor performing the subsurface
activities may encounter soil and groundwater
petroleum hydrocarbon-related
contamination and should be trained to
manage this scenario if necessary. Please
clarify the location of the proposed excavation
relative to the footprint of known soil
contamination related to the closed LUFT
case. If excavation activities are to take place
in an area of known soil and/or groundwater
contamination, the IS/MND should specify
that only construction workers who are
trained in OSHA’s Hazardous Waste and
Emergency Response standard (HAZWOPER)
should perform this work.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1
requires that a site-specific
Geotechnical Investigation be
prepared which would clarify the
location of any known soil and/or
groundwater contamination
relative to the project footprint
prior to any proposed grounddisturbing activities.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 has
been revised to include the
following language:
“If excavation activities are to take
place in an area of known soil
and/or groundwater
contamination, only construction
workers who are trained in OSHA’s
Hazardous Waste and Emergency

City Council/RSA Agenda 113 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
TABLE 1 – RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON DRAFT IS/MND 12 Letter
#
Comment
# Commenter Comment Response
Location
of Changes
in Final
IS/MND
(if
applicable)
Response standard (HAZWOPER)
shall perform this work.”
03 008 ACWD 2 v. It is unclear from the draft IS/MND if dewatering will be performed during
implementation of the Project. If planned or
necessary during Project implementation,
ACWD requests the IS/MND address how
Project proponents will manage contaminated
groundwater during dewatering activities,
including disposal and potential plume
migration.

Dewatering activities are not
anticipated to be required. Text
has been added to Page 79 to
clarify that no dewatering
activities are anticipated to be
included as part of the proposed
project. Additionally, as required
by Mitigation Measure GEO-1, a
site-specific Geotechnical
Investigation be prepared which
would identify if dewatering will
be necessary to construct the
project. If any dewatering is
needed, the geotechnical
investigation will include
recommendations that shall be
implemented to ensure that
contaminated groundwater is
managed during dewatering
activities.

03 009 ACWD 2 c. Stormwater Management: Based on the draft IS/MND, it is unclear if a stormwater treatment/bioretention feature is to be constructed as part of the Project. Page 80 of the draft IS/MND states, “If
applicable, the applicant shall execute and implement
an operations and maintenance agreement (O&M)
with the City to provide for the maintenance of all onsite stormwater treatment features and devices in perpetuity.” If proposed, ACWD appreciates the
Stormwater
treatment/bioretention features
are not proposed as part of the
project. However, the proposed
landscaping for the proposed
project would cover approximately
4,463 SF (20.4%) of the project
site, and the existing storm drain
located adjacent to the northwest

City Council/RSA Agenda 114 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
TABLE 1 – RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON DRAFT IS/MND 13 Letter
#
Comment
# Commenter Comment Response
Location
of Changes
in Final
IS/MND
(if
applicable)
biotreatment of stormwater in bioretention areas in
order to impede runoff from rapidly infiltrating the
subsurface and bypassing soils which have the
capacity to remove pollutants and protect the
groundwater supply.

In order to protect groundwater, any proposed
treatment measures must be carefully evaluated since
the site has known groundwater contamination, the
proposed treatment measures could present an
unacceptable long-term risk to beneficial uses of
groundwater, such as moving the existing or
remaining plume. In addition, the treatment measures
may be particularly problematic at properties with
known soil contamination that could then impact
groundwater. Therefore, ACWD requests the IS/MND
include a provision that requires Project proponents
coordinate any drainage design and stormwater
treatment measure implementation with ACWD, prior
to implementation and City approval.
corner of the project site along
Union Landing Boulevard would be
retained.

The following language has also
been added to the IS/MND:
“Additionally, the project applicant
shall coordinate with ACWD prior
to submittal of the SCP to the
Union City Public Works
Department regarding drainage
design and stormwater treatment
measures.”
03 010 ACWD 2 d. Dewatering: As stated in comment 1.b(v) above, it is unclear from the draft IS/MND if dewatering will be
performed during implementation of the Project.

Groundwater is an important component of ACWD’s
water resources. If groundwater dewatering is likely
within the Project area, the IS/MND should estimate
the amount of water that may be extracted by
dewatering and the potential impact of the Project on
the local drinking water supply. Alternative designs
should be evaluated that would minimizes the
Text has been added to Page 79 to
clarify that no dewatering
activities are anticipated to be
included as part of the proposed
project. Additionally, as required
by Mitigation Measure GEO-1, a
site-specific Geotechnical
Investigation be prepared which
would identify if dewatering will
be necessary to construct the
project. If any dewatering is

City Council/RSA Agenda 115 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
TABLE 1 – RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON DRAFT IS/MND 14 Letter
#
Comment
# Commenter Comment Response
Location
of Changes
in Final
IS/MND
(if
applicable)
amount of dewatering required during and
subsequent to construction.

Per the Replenishment Assessment Act of the
Alameda County Water District (Replenishment
Assessment Act), groundwater losses due to
dewatering should be measures and may be subject
to a replenishment assessment fee. Mitigation
measures should be proposed to replace all significant
losses of ACWD’s water supplies.
needed, the geotechnical
investigation will include
recommendations that shall be
implemented to ensure that
contaminated groundwater is
managed during dewatering
activities.
03 011 ACWD 2 2. Utilities and Service Systems: ACWD requests that the following potentially significant impacts to the existing water infrastructure be addressed by the draft IS/MND:
a. ACWD can confirm the following for the Project site:
i. The proposed Project site is currently served
from ACWD Pressure Zone 1.
ii. ACWD has record of one (1) existing 2-inch
non-residential (commercial) water service to
the Project site.
iii. The Project site may be required to have a
separate non-residential (irrigation) water
service and fire service.
iv. Project proponent should coordinate required
fire demands and fire hydrant requirements
with the Alameda County Fire Department. If
a new fire service is proposed, the new
service will need to be installed by ACWD
forces at the expense of the Project
proponent.

A condition of approval has been
included to require that the
project proponent coordinate
required fire demands and fire
hydrant requirements with the
Alameda County Fire Department.

If a new fire service is proposed,
the new service will need to be
installed by ACWD forces at the
expense of the project proponent.
n/a
03 012 ACWD 2 b. ACWD operates existing water infrastructure in Union Landing Boulevard and Alvarado Niles Road. Particular
The proposed project would not
require excavation or crossings
n/a
City Council/RSA Agenda 116 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
TABLE 1 – RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON DRAFT IS/MND 15 Letter
#
Comment
# Commenter Comment Response
Location
of Changes
in Final
IS/MND
(if
applicable)
attention should be paid to any proposed work
underneath existing District asbestos cement pipe
(ACP) water mains fronting the Project site. The
District has an existing 12-inch ACP water main in
Union Landing Boulevard, and a 6-inch and 12-inch
ACP water main in Alvarado Niles Road. No
excavations or crossings under the ACP are allowed. If
utility installations below the ACP are required for the Project, ACWD may replace a portion of the existing
main with steel pipe. Such replacement must be done
by ACWD forces at the Project proponent’s expense.
under the existing ACP mains. If
utilities installations are required
in the future, the project
proponent would coordinate with
respective agencies, including
ACWD, to obtain necessary
permits.
03 013 ACWD 2 c. For modifications of existing water facilities or to initiate new water service to the property, the Project proponent should contact the ACWD Engineering
Department. Modifications of water service, including
new water services, are to be performed by ACWD
forces and Project proponent’s expense. Any existing
water services which will not be used in the new
development must be removed by ACWD at the
Project proponent’s expense. Project proponent is
encouraged to meet with the ACWD Engineering staff
to review your Project prior to submitting the
application or other materials or if you need
assistance in completing the Customer Work Request
Application. The application and instruction can be
found on the District’s website at:
https://acwd.org/171/Customer-Work-RequestApplication.

A condition of approval has been
included to require that the
project proponent coordinate with
ACWD Engineering Department if
there will be modifications to the
existing water facilities or to
initiate new water service to the
property.
n/a
03 014 ACWD 2 d. Each non-residential (commercial), non-residential (irrigation), and fire service will require an aboveground reduced pressure backflow prevention device Comment acknowledged. As noted
above, a condition of approval has
been added to require that the
n/a
City Council/RSA Agenda 117 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
TABLE 1 – RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON DRAFT IS/MND 16 Letter
#
Comment
# Commenter Comment Response
Location
of Changes
in Final
IS/MND
(if
applicable)
(i.e., reduced pressure assembly). The backflow
prevention devices must be in accordance with ACWD
Standard Drawings BP-1-08 through BP-3-08 and the
ACWD Approved Materials List. The location and
screening of these above-ground devices should be
considered in the site design to address both ACWD
installation standards as well as aesthetic concerns of the development. Backflows located within buildings
are not acceptable. No connections between the
ACWD detector check valve (see BP-1-08 through BP3-08) and the private side backflow prevention device are allowed on fire services. Existing services that do not include backflow devices will need to be upgraded
to include the appropriate backflow prevention
device.
project proponent coordinate with
ACWD to ensure that any
modifications to existing
infrastructure or new
infrastructure will be installed in
accordance with ACWD Standard
Drawings BP-1-08 through BP-3-08
and the ACWD Approved Materials
List.
03 015 ACWD 2 e. ACWD requires that minimum clearance requirements are maintained between water meters, service lines,
fire hydrants or mains and the nearest utilities,
buildings, and trees. Reference ACWD Standard
Drawings CL-1-08 through CL-5-08.

Comment acknowledged. As noted
above, a condition of approval has
been added to require that the
project proponent coordinate with
ACWD.
n/a
03 016 ACWD 2 f. Easements dedicated to ACWD shall be provided for all ACWD-owned appurtenances located in private
property and outside the public right-of-way.

Easements dedicated to ACWD will require a plat and
legal description, prepared by a licensed surveyor, to
ACWD standards, along with a current title report for
any property or properties affected by the easement.

The applicant should refer to the ACWD Development
Specifications or contact the ACWD Engineering
Department for more information.

Comment acknowledged. As noted
above, a condition of approval has
been added to require that the
project proponent coordinate with
ACWD.
n/a
City Council/RSA Agenda 118 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
TABLE 1 – RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON DRAFT IS/MND 17 Letter
#
Comment
# Commenter Comment Response
Location
of Changes
in Final
IS/MND
(if
applicable)
03 017 ACWD 2 g. The Project proponent may request ACWD 200-scale utility base maps and as-built drawings using the
ACWD NextRequest public records act request portal.
https://alamedacountywaterdistrict.nextrequest.com/
Comment acknowledged. This
comment provides information
about requesting ACWD utility
base maps. The City appreciates
the information provided.
n/a
03 018 ACWD 2 h. Existing Hazardous Material Contamination: The ability to install a public water system within the
Project area would be conditioned upon confirmation
that the soil, groundwater, and/or soil gas vapors do
not pose a risk to the health and safety of workers
either during installation of the public water system or during its long-term routine operation and
maintenance.

The public water system extension and all
appurtenances must be constructed in “clean
corridors,” which would be assured by either further
testing of native soil, groundwater, and/or soil vapors along the proposed public water system alignments or
by use of clean imported fill as backfill for all trenches excavated for any part of the public water system. The
use of upgraded materials, including but not limited to all steel pipelines with upgraded gaskets, may be
required.

A condition of approval has been
added to confirm that the soil,
groundwater, and/or soil gas
vapors do not pose a risk to the
health and safety of workers
either during installation of the
public water system or during its
long-term routine operation and
maintenance prior to project
construction.
n/a
03 019 ACWD 2 i. The Project shall be designed to implement waterefficient plumbing fixtures and irrigation systems at both residential and non-residential developments,
including but not limited to those listed in the Water
Efficiency Measures for New Development, located on
the ACWD website
(http://acwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/421).

Comment acknowledged. Page 53
of the Final IS/MND has been
updated to state, “The project
would be required to comply with
all applicable City, ACWD, and
State green building measures.”
53 City Council/RSA Agenda 119 Tuesday, November 19, 2024 TABLE 1 – RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON DRAFT IS/MND 18 Letter
#
Comment
# Commenter Comment Response
Location
of Changes
in Final
IS/MND
(if
applicable)
03 020 ACWD 2 3. ACWD Contacts: The following ACWD contacts are provided so that the City of Union City staff can coordinate with ACWD as needed during the CEQA process:
a. Michelle Walden, Groundwater Resources Manager,
at (510) 668-4455, or by email at
[email protected], for coordination
regarding ACWD’s groundwater resources.
b. Kit Soo, Well Ordinance Supervisor, at (510) 668-4455, or by email at [email protected], for coordination
regarding groundwater wells and drilling permits.
c. Sean O’Reilly, Development Services Manager, at
(510) 668-4472, or by email at
[email protected], for coordination regarding
public water systems, existing ACWD utilities, and
water service.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Chevron/Power Market Project.

Sincerely,
Laura J. Hidas
Director of Water Resources
Comment acknowledged, and the
City appreciates ACWD’s
comments on this project.
n/a
City Council/RSA Agenda 120 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Chevron/Power Market Project
Final Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Volume II
SCH No. 2024080958
Prepared for:

City of Union City
34009 Alvarado-Niles Road
Union City, CA 94587-4497
Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
October 2024 | Project # 03103.00007.001
City Council/RSA Agenda 121 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
This page intentionally left blank
City Council/RSA Agenda 122 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
INITIAL STUDY INFORMATION SHEET..................................................................................................1

1.0 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................3

1.1 PURPOSE AND DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION...................................................................... 3

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................................4

2.1 SITE LOCATION AND CONDITION........................................................................................ 4

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................................................... 4

2.3 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS................................................................................ 6

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED..............................................................8

4.0 DETERMINATION ...................................................................................................................9

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST.........................................................................10 I. AESTHETICS....................................................................................................................... 11 II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES...................................................................... 14 III. AIR QUALITY...................................................................................................................... 17 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................. 31 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................... 40 VI. ENERGY ............................................................................................................................. 51 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................................................ 54 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ......................................................................................... 59 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.......................................................................... 68 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.................................................................................. 75 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING................................................................................................ 83 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 89 XIII. NOISE ................................................................................................................................ 91 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................................................ 95 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES............................................................................................................... 97 XVI. RECREATION.................................................................................................................... 100 XVII. TRANSPORTATION .......................................................................................................... 101 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................... 105 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 109 XX. WILDFIRE......................................................................................................................... 118 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE..................................................................... 122

6.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................124

7.0 PREPARERS........................................................................................................................128 City Council/RSA Agenda 123 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
1 San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Attainment Status.....................................................................18 2 Air Quality Monitoring Data...........................................................................................................21 3 BAAQMD Significance Thresholds .................................................................................................24 4 Construction Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions..............................................................25 5 Operational Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions ...............................................................27 6 Existing Land Use GHG Emissions..................................................................................................62 7 Construction GHG Emissions .........................................................................................................65 8 Operational GHG Emissions...........................................................................................................65 9 City of Union City Height Limits.....................................................................................................86

LIST OF APPENDICES
A Figures
B Detailed Project Plans
C CalEEMod Data
D Potential for Special-status Species to Occur in the Study Area E Tree Survey Data
F Gas Marketeer Policy Statement
G Phase I ESA
H Tribal Consultation
I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City Council/RSA Agenda 124 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AC Transit Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
ACFD Alameda County Fire Department
ACWD Alameda County Water District
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AF acre-feet
amsl above mean sea level
APN assessor’s parcel number
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BCMM Basic Construction Mitigation Measures
BMP Best Management Practices
CA California
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention Program CalEEMod California Emission Estimator Model
CALGreen California green building standards code
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBSC California Building Standards Code
CC Zoning District – Community Commercial
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Union City
CN Zoning District – Neighborhood Commercial
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CR Zoning District – Retail Commercial
CO carbon monoxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalents
CPA Zoning District – Professional and Administrative Commercial CRHR California Register of Historic Places
CUL Zoning District – Union Landing Commercial
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CVRWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DOC California Department of Conservation
DPM diesel particulate matter
City Council/RSA Agenda 125 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
iv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont.)
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
EVR Enhanced Vapor Recovery
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
General Plan City of Union City 2040 General Plan
GHG Greenhouse Gases
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
HELIX HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.

HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
I-880 Interstate 880
IBC International Building Code
IS Initial Study
ISA International Society of Arboriculture
LDN Day-Night sound level
LEQ time-averaged noise level
LOS Level of Service
LUST leaking underground storage tank
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MT metric ton
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NEHR National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWIC Northwest Information Center
O&M operations and maintenance
OPR California Governor's Office of Planning and Research OSHA Occupational and Safety Health Administration
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
City Council/RSA Agenda 126 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
v
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont.)
PM10 particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter
PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter PRC Public Resources Code
project Chevron/Power Market Project
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RMP Risk Management Plan
ROW right-of-way
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCP Stormwater Control Plan
SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
SFBRWQCB San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SHMA California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
UCMC Union City Municipal Code
UCPD Union City Police Department
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USD Union Sanitary District
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UWMP Alameda County Urban Water Management Plan 2020-2025 VMT vehicle miles traveled
WDR Waste Discharge Requirements
WMP Waste Management Plan
City Council/RSA Agenda 127 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
vi
This page intentionally left blank
City Council/RSA Agenda 128 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
1 INITIAL STUDY INFORMATION SHEET

1. Project title: Chevron/Power Market Project

2. Lead agency name and address: City of Union City; 34009 Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, CA 94587-4497

3. Contact person and phone number: Natalie Dean, AICP, Associate Planner (510) 675-5382

4. Project location:

5. Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN):
31300 Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, CA 94587
463-0104-006-00

6. Project sponsor’s name and address: H&S Energy Products, LLC, LLC; 2860 North Santiago Boulevard – Suite 200, Orange, CA 92867

7. Existing General plan designation: Regional Retail Commercial (CRR)

8. Existing Zoning: Union Landing Commercial District (CUL,) City Council/RSA Agenda 129 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
2 This page intentionally left blank
City Council/RSA Agenda 130 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
3 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE AND DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
The City of Union City (City), as Lead Agency, has prepared this Initial Study to provide the general public and interested public agencies with information about the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Chevron/Power Market Project (project). This Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.

Details about the proposed project are included in Section 2.0 (Project Description) of this Initial Study.

CEQA requires that public agencies document and consider the potential environmental impacts of the agency’s actions that meet CEQA’s definition of a “project.” Briefly summarized, a “project” is an action that has the potential to result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. A project includes the agency’s direct activities as well as activities that involve public agency approvals or funding. Guidelines for an agency’simplementation of CEQA are found in the CEQA Guidelines(Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations).

Provided that a project is not exempt from CEQA, the first step in the agency’s consideration of its potential environmental impacts is the preparation of an Initial Study. The purpose of an Initial Study is to determine whether the project would involve significant environmental impacts, as defined by CEQA, and to describe feasible mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce any potentially significant environmental impactsto a levelthatislessthan significant. Ifthe Initial Study does notidentify significant impacts,then the agency prepares a Negative Declaration. Ifthe Initial Study notes potential significant impacts and identifies mitigation measures that would reduce these significant impactsto a level thatis lessthan significant, then the agency prepares a Mitigated Negative Declaration. If a project involves significant impacts that cannot be readily mitigated, then the agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Report. The agency may also decide to proceed directly with the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report without an Initial Study.

The proposed project is a project as defined by CEQA and is not exempt from CEQA consideration. The City has determined that the project may have significant environmental impacts and therefore requires preparation of an Initial Study. This Initial Study describes the proposed project and its environmental setting, discusses the potential environmental impacts ofthe project, and identifiesfeasible mitigation measuresthat would avoid or eliminate significant environmental impacts or reduce them to a level that would be less than significant.

The purpose of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. This document is divided into the following sections:

1.0 Introduction – This section provides an introduction and describes the purpose and organization of the document.

2.0 Project Description – This section discusses the proposed project in detail.

3.0 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected – This section identifies which environmental subject areas would be potentially affected by this project. Environmental subject areas with a check mark City Council/RSA Agenda 131 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
4 indicate that the proposed project would result in a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” for that environmental subject area.

4.0 Determination – This section provides a determination if the project will or will not have a significant impact on the environment. This section determines if the appropriate CEQA document is a negative declaration, MND, EIR, or nothing further is required as the environmental impacts of the project were previously analyzed in a prior CEQA document, and potential significant impacts have been avoided or mitigated.

5.0 Environmental Initial Study Checklist – This section provides a description of the environmental setting and impact analysis for each of the environmental subject areas. Project impact analysis is provided in response to subject-specific questions for each environmental subject area, and an impact determination is made for each question. Impact determinations may be “no impact,” “less than significant impact,” “less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated,” or “potentially significant impact” in response to the questions included in the environmental checklist for each environmental subject area.

6.0 References – This section identifies documents, websites, people, and other sources consulted during the preparation of this Initial Study.

7.0 Initial Study Preparers – This section identifies who worked on this MND.

City Council/RSA Agenda 132 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
4 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Pursuant to CEQA, this Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts that could result from the demolition, reconstruction, and operation of a gasoline dispensing facility and convenience store in the City of Union City.

2.1 SITE LOCATION AND CONDITION
The 0.5-acre project site is located at 31300 Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, CA at the northeast corner of the intersection of Alvarado-Niles Road and Union Landing Boulevard. The site is approximately 0.25 mile west of Interstate 880 (I-880) and is located on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 463-0104-006-00.

Refer to Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix A for the project’s location in the region.

The project site is situated on a corner lot with an existing convenience store, a Smog Check Test-andRepair-certified smog check station, and retail gasoline distribution facility, with commercial land uses to the north, east, and west. There is an existing Shell gas station located to the south of the project site across Alvarado-Niles Road, with residential development beyond. There is also an existing Union Landing Transit Station located adjacent to the northern boundary of the project parcel and an existing iFly Indoor Skydiving Building located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project parcel.

Commercial offices and a hotel are located to the west of the project site across Union Landing Boulevard.

The existing project site slopes gently from north to south with elevations ranging from approximately 10 to 12 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Existing structures on the project site proposed for demolition include a 1,522-square-foot (SF) convenience store/smog check station and a 1,232-SF fueling canopy. An existing trash enclosure located immediately adjacent to the east of the existing convenience store would be removed. There are three (3) underground fuel tanks that would remain on site and would be emptied during demolition and construction. The two existing driveways on AlvaradoNiles Road as well as the existing driveway on the east side of Union Landing Road that provide access to the existing convenience store and gas station would remain in the same locations.

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
The project applicant, H&S Energy Products, LLC, is proposing to demolish the existing 1,232-SF gas station canopy and 1,522-SF convenience store/smog check station and build in its place a 2,875-SF solar canopy and 2,375-SF convenience store. Refer to Figure 3 in Appendix A for the site plan and Appendix B for the detailed project plans.

Gasoline Station and Convenience Store
A 2,875 SF solar canopy would be constructed over the four (4) existing fueling dispensers as part of the proposed project. The four (4) gasoline station islands would accommodate up to eight (8) total vehicles at a time. The height of the proposed solar canopy would be approximately 19 feet and 7 inches.

Proposed excavation to construct the canopy would be to a depth of approximately three to five feet.

The convenience store building would be relocated to the northeast corner of the project parcel, such that the storefront would face the intersection of Alvarado-Niles Road and Union Landing Boulevard.

The height of the new convenience store would be approximately 22 feet. The proposed convenience City Council/RSA Agenda 133 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
5 store building would have exterior walls finished with a combination of stucco, wood tiling, stone veneered accent walls, and metal trimming. The building includes a sales floor area (1,436 SF), cashier area (140 SF), walk-in cooler (292 SF), utility and dry storage area (394 SF), and two gender neutral restrooms (58 SF each). The floor plan includes one entrance/exit into the convenience store.

This project would also relocate the trash enclosure from its current position immediately adjacent to the east side of the existing convenience store to a new location in the southeast portion of the project parcel. The trash enclosure would be approximately 213 sf in size, and there would be three, 4-cubicyard trash receptacles contained within the enclosure for trash, recycling, and compost. The trash enclosure would consist of three concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls with metal cladding as well as a sloped corrugated metal roof, and a heavy-duty corrugated metal gate would be located on the frontage of the enclosure.

The gas station and convenience store would operate 24 hours, seven (7) days a week with two to three employees per 8-hour shift. It is anticipated that up to two million gallons of fuel may be dispensed annually; the existing facility currently averages 130,000 gallons of combined gasoline and diesel throughput per month.

Access and Parking
This project proposes to remove the existing convenience store located along the northern boundary in the central portion of the parcel and to rebuild a new convenience store in the northeast corner of the parcel. This reconfiguration would ensure safe access and improved visibility to and from the project site for garbage trucks, pedestrians, fueling trucks, and fire trucks.

The two existing driveways on Alvarado-Niles Road as well as the existing driveway on the east side of Union Landing Boulevard would remain in the same locations as part of the proposed project. The existing pedestrian access point that leads to the transit station north of the proposed project would be closed, and a new pedestrian access point would be constructed directly west of the new convenience store to provide access to the transit station.

The project would include nine (9) parking spaces, including two (2) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible spaces and two (2) electric vehicle charging stations. The ADA accessible parking spaces would be located closest to the convenience store entrance. A designated loading/unloading area would be located in the southwest portion of the parcel near the intersection of Union Landing Boulevard and Alvarado-Niles Road. An air/water service for automobiles would also be provided between two proposed parking spaces along the northern boundary of the project site.

Landscaping
Landscaping for the proposed project would cover approximately 4,463 SF (20.4%) of the project site, while paved area would comprise approximately 14,853 SF (67.8%). The remaining square footage would be comprised of the 2,375-SF convenience store (10.8%) and the 213 SF trash enclosure area, including paving around the trash enclosure (1%). In summary, the project would result in approximately 17,441 SF of impervious surfaces (79.6%) and 4,463 SF of landscaped area (20.4%).

Ground cover would consist of Turkey Tangle (Lippia nodiflora) and would be placed in between the proposed convenience store and the parcel boundary, on either side of the proposed trash enclosure, along the sidewalk on the southern boundary of the parcel in between the two existing driveways, City Council/RSA Agenda 134 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
6 between the loading zone and the southwest boundary of the parcel, and immediately north of the proposed parking spaces. Approximately five (5) Gold Medallion (Cassia leptophylla) trees would be planted on the project site, with four being located in the landscaping area proposed immediately north of the designated parking areas, and one located immediately north of the proposed trash enclosure.

Other shrubs, including Blueberry Lily (Dianella revoluta), Blue Elf Aloe (Aloe x ‘Blue Elf’), and Blue Chopsticks (Senecio serpens), would be incorporated throughout the planned groundcover area mentioned above. All landscaped areas would be irrigated with a timed irrigation system. Additionally, all landscaped areas would adhere to City requirements and the City’s water efficient landscape codes and regulations as stated in Union City Municipal Code (UCMC) Chapter 18.112. The existing storm drain located adjacent to the northwest corner of the project site along Union Landing Boulevard would be retained.

Demolition and Construction Schedule
Construction of the gas station and convenience store with associated improvements would utilize standard construction equipment. Equipment used during project demolition and construction would vary and is expected to include, but not be limited to, excavators, bulldozers, dump trucks, backhoes, cranes, steam rollers, chippers, and various trucks and smaller vehicles. Additionally, hand-operated mechanical equipment such as chainsaws, drills, compactors, and similar tools may be used.

Demolition and construction is anticipated to begin as early as January 2025. Project construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, excavation and installation of a foundation and plumbing, building construction, paving, and architectural coating (e.g., painting). The total construction period would be approximately 12 months. Additionally, there are three (3) underground fuel tanks that would remain on-site and would be emptied during demolition and construction.

Project demolition and construction hours would be limited to the allowable hours outlined in Section

9.40.053 of the UCMC and General Plan Policy S-8.8, which limit construction hours to between 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and between 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays.

2.3 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
A listing and brief description of the approvals and/or regulatory permits required to implement the proposed project are provided below. This environmental document is intended to address the environmental impacts associated with the following discretionary actions and approvals.

City of Union City
• General Plan Amendment: The project site is designated Regional Retail Commercial (CRR) and the project applicant is seeking a redesignation to Retail Commercial (CR). The amendment also includes an update to Chapter 3: Land Use and Chapter 9: Special Areas to remove the site from Figure SA-12.1: Union Landing General Plan Land Use and Figure SA-12.2: Union Landing Commercial Development Type Sub-Areas, and to update Figure LU-1, Land Use Diagram. This amendment would also include an update to Chapter 3: Land Use to change the designation of the site on Figure LU-1.

City Council/RSA Agenda 135 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
7 • Zoning Map Amendment: The project site is zoned Union Landing Commercial (CUL), and the project applicant is seeking a rezone to Community Commercial (CC). Per UCMC 18.64.060, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council who will make a decision based upon a finding that the change is necessary for the purposes of the zoning title; if the finding is made, the City Council will enact an ordinance amending the Zoning Map. • Site Development Review: The project would require Site Development Review approval by the Union City Planning Commission, pursuant to Chapter 18.76 of the UCMC. The City Council decides whether to amend to Title 18, Zoning, and the General Plan, and as such, the City Council would make the final decision for the Site Development Review, and must make findings that the proposed project is in compliance with the City of Union City 2040 General Plan (General Plan) and UCMC Zoning Ordinance.
• Use Permit Approval: Per Section 18.36.030(B) of the UCMC, a Use Permit is required for new service stations with convenience stores that are subject to the provisions of the Gas Station Marketeer Policy Statement. The Use Permit will be reviewed concurrently with the Site Development Review and the City Council will need to make findings that the proposed use and location of the use is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and would not be of detriment to surrounding properties.
• Consideration of the Environmental Document: The City of Union City will act as the Lead Agency as defined by CEQA and will have authority to determine if the environmental document is adequate under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
• Project Approval: The Union City Council will consider approval of the project and the entitlements described above.

Other Agencies
The proposed project may require permits and/or approvals from other agencies including, but not limited to, the following:

Alameda County Water District (ACWD)
• Well Drilling Permit: As required by ACWD Ordinance No. 2010-01, drilling permits are required prior to the start of any subsurface drilling activities for wells, exploratory holes, and other excavations within the City of Union City. Additionally, all drilling activities must be coordinated with ACWD prior to the start of any field work.

City Council/RSA Agenda 136 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
8 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY

AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
☒ Air Quality
☒ Biological Resources ☒ Cultural Resources ☒ Energy
☒ Geology and Soils ☒ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☒ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
☒ Hydrology and Water
Quality
☐ Land Use and Planning ☐ Mineral Resources
☐ Noise ☐ Population and Housing ☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation ☐ Transportation ☒ Tribal Cultural Resources ☐ Utilities and Service
Systems
☐ Wildfire ☒ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
City Council/RSA Agenda 137 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
9 4.0 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☒ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
Natalie Dean Carmela Campbell
Printed Name For
City Council/RSA Agenda 138 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
10 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
The lead agency has defined the column headings in the environmental checklist as follows:

A. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

B. “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the inclusion of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” All mitigation measures are described, including a brief explanation of how the measures reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced.

C. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where the project does not create an impact that exceeds a stated significance threshold.

D. “No Impact” applies where a project does not create an impact in that category. “No Impact” answers do not require an explanation if they are adequately supported by the information sources cited by the lead agency which show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project specific screening analysis).

The explanation of each issue identifies the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration [CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D)]. Where appropriate, the discussion identifies the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identifies where earlier analyses are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identifies which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and states whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describes the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

City Council/RSA Agenda 139 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
11 I. AESTHETICS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The project site is located in the western portion of the City of Union City. The topography of the project site is flat with an elevation ranging from approximately 10 to 12 feet amsl. The project site is developed with a gas station and convenience store/smog check station. The area in which the project is located is characterized by commercial development. I-880 is approximately 0.25-mile east of the project site. The project is bounded by Alvarado-Niles Road to the south, Union Landing Boulevard to the west, Union Landing Transit Center to the north, and commercial development to the east. The site borders the intersection of Alvarado-Niles Road and Union Landing Boulevard. There are no designated State scenic highways in Union City.

Regulatory Context

FEDERAL
There are no federal regulations pertaining to aesthetics that apply to the proposed project.

STATE
California Scenic Highway Program
The California Scenic Highway Program, administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), was established in 1963 to preserve and protect the natural beauty of scenic highway corridors in the State. The Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that have been designated as scenic highways as well as a list of highways that are eligible for designation as scenic highways. Local City Council/RSA Agenda 140 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
12 jurisdictions can nominate scenic highways for official designation by identifying and defining the scenic corridor of the highway and adopting a Corridor Protection Program that includes measures that strictly limit development and control outdoor advertising along the scenic corridor.

California Building Standards Code
Title 24 of the CCR, also known as the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), is based on the International Building Code (IBC) used widely throughout the country. The CBSC has been modified for California conditions to include more detailed and/or more stringent regulations. Part 11 of the CBSC is the Green Building Standards Code, also known as CALGreen. Section 5.106.8 (Light Pollution Reduction) of the CALGreen Code includes standards and restrictions for outdoor lighting systems. The intent of this requirement is to minimize light pollution in an effort to maintain dark skies and to ensure that newly constructed projects reduce the amount of backlight, uplight, light, and glare from exterior light sources.

LOCAL
Union City 2040 General Plan
The City’s 2040 General Plan includes the following Goals and Policies that apply to the proposed project:

Goal CD-2: Protect and enhance the visual and physical access to the hillsides, Baylands, and creeks.

Goal CD-3: To create distinct and attractive corridor environments along Union City’s major roadways and transit lines.

Policy CD-2.4: Landscaped Open Space Required in New Development. The City shall require landscaped open space areas in new developments, including in commercial and industrial areas and along streets and trails. Specimen trees and significant stands of existing trees shall be protected to the extent possible in the design of new development.

Policy CD-3.2: Reinforce Alvarado-Niles Road as the Central Spine. The City shall reinforce Alvarado-Niles Road as Union City’s “central spine” by implementing design concepts that reflect its civic importance and emphasizing continued streetscape investments, visible landmarks, and focal points.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. No areas have been officially designated as scenic vistas by the City of Union City. While the 2040 General Plan does not officially designate any scenic vistas, the General Plan does describe the hillside areas, wetlands, and other open space areas on the edges of the City as scenic (Union City 2019).

The viewshed at the project site consists of a transit area immediately to the north with commercial buildings beyond, a gas station to the south with a residential neighborhood beyond, a tall, indoor skydiving building immediately east of the project site with a large commercial warehouse beyond, and a commercial center with large commercial buildings to the west across a four-way intersection. The hillside area, marshlands, and other open space areas discussed in the General Plan are not visible from the project site. Because there are no officially designated scenic vistas in the City and the proposed City Council/RSA Agenda 141 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
13 project is not located in proximity to other areas considered scenic, the proposed project would have no impact on scenic vistas.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The proposed project would remove five trees and includes plans for the installation of at least five trees on the project as part of the landscape concept plan, as discussed in Section 5.IV, Biological Resources. No rock outcroppings or historic buildings are in the proposed project’s viewshed.

Because there are no state scenic highways in proximity to the project, there would be no impact.

Because there are no scenic resources or scenic highways near the project site, the proposed project would have no impact on scenic resources.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is in an urbanized area with commercial uses to the north, east, and west, and commercial and residential uses to the south. The project site is currently zoned Union Landing Commercial District (CUL) and is seeking a zoning map amendment to Community Commercial (CC), which does not have zoning restrictions regarding scenic quality. The proposed building would be set back from the project boundaries which would reduce visibility from adjacent areas, and the proposed landscaping with trees and perimeter plantings would provide additional screening from adjacent properties. Based on the existing urbanized character of the surroundings and the proposed landscaping which includes visual screening, the proposed project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact on the existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact. Current sources of light and glare on the project site include exterior lighting of the existing gas station, convenience store, and smog check station. The proposed project would replace the existing gas station canopy and convenience store/smog check station with a gas station canopy and convenience store of similar size. Lighting would produce a similar amount of light and glare to what is currently present on the site, and there are no sensitive receptors located adjacent to the site. As part of the entitlement process and prior to building permit issuance, the applicant is required to submit a lighting plan for review (Union City Municipal Code Section 18.76.030) which allows the City to ensure that the project would not result in substantial spillover to adjacent properties. Any lighting associated with signage would be consistent with City Municipal Code Section 18.30.70 which is intended to prevent light spillage and glare from signs.

The proposed building would be finished with non-reflective storefront glazing. Based on the urbanized setting where outdoor lighting is common and the proposed project’s conformance with City codes, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on light and glare.

City Council/RSA Agenda 142 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
14 II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non- forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
No agricultural activities or timber management occur on or near the project site, and the project site is not zoned for those uses nor designated for those land uses in the General Plan. The California Important Farmland Finder Interactive Map prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) of the California Department of Conservation (DOC) classifies the project site as urban and built-up land (DOC 2018). Urban and built-up land is defined by the California Department of Conservation as land occupied by structures or infrastructure with a building density of at least one unit to one and one-half acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel.

Regulatory Context

FEDERAL
There are no federal regulations pertaining to agriculture or forest resources that apply to the proposed project.

City Council/RSA Agenda 143 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
15 STATE
California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The FMMP was established in 1982 to provide data to decision makers to assist them in making informed decisions for the best utilization of California’s farmland. Under the FMMP, the DOC is responsible for mapping, monitoring, and reporting on the conversion of the State's farmland to and from agricultural use. Important Farmland Maps are updated and released every two years. The following mapping categories, which are determined based on soil qualities and current land use information, are included in the FMMP: prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, unique farmland, farmland of local importance, grazing land, urban and built-up land, other land, and water.

Williamson Act
The Williamson Act (California Land Conservation Act of 1965) was enacted as a means to protect agricultural uses in the State. Under the Williamson Act, local governments can enter into contracts with private landowners to ensure that specific parcels are restricted to agricultural and related open space uses. In return, landowners receive reduced property tax assessments. The minimum term for a Williamson Act contract is ten years, and the contract is automatically renewed for one-year terms unless the landowner files a notice of nonrenewal or a petition for cancellation. When a notice of nonrenewal is filed, the annual tax assessment gradually increases over a ten-year period until it reaches the market value tax rate, at which time the contract is terminated. The landowner may also petition the local government to immediately cancel the contract. If the cancellation is approved, the landowner must pay a cancellation fee, and the property is thereafter taxed at its current market value.

Forest Land and Timberland
PRC Section 12220(g) defines Forest Land as “land that can support 10% native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.” PRC Section 4526 defines timberland as “land, other than land owned by the federal government, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees.” Government Code Section 51104(g) defines Timberland Production Zone as “an area which has been zoned pursuant to [Government Code] Section 51112 or Section 51113 and is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses, as defined in subdivision (h).”
LOCAL
Union City 2040 General Plan
The City’s General Plan includes the following policy related to agriculture and forestry:

Policy RC-1.1: Provide for a Variety of Open Spaces. The City shall provide a variety of open spaces including open space for public use and enjoyment and for the protection of agricultural uses including grazing, wildlife habitats, and scenic vistas.

City Council/RSA Agenda 144 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
16 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. The project is mapped as Urban and Built-Up Land by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program and is not presently used for agricultural purposes (DOC 2018). The proposed project would have no impact on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site is zoned Union Landing Commercial (CUL) and is not under a Williamson Act contract. The proposed project would have no impact on existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No Impact. The project site is not zoned forest land, timber land, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. As discussed under questions a) and b) above, the project site is zoned Union Landing Commercial (CUL). Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on forest land, timber land, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The project site is in an urbanized area and, as described under question c) above, it is not zoned forest land. The proposed project would have no impact on the loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. The project would redevelop an existing gas station and convenience store/smog check station in an urbanized area. No other changes, such as utilities or access roads away from the project site, are required. There would be no impact on the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

City Council/RSA Agenda 145 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
17 III. AIR QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The project site is within the Southwestern Alameda County climatological subregion of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The climate of the SFBAAB is dominated by a semi-permanent, subtropical high-pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. This cell influences prevailing winds and results in condensation and the presence of fog and stratus clouds during the summer, and stormy conditions with moderate to strong winds, as well as periods of stagnation with very light winds during the winter.

The high-pressure cell also creates two types of temperature inversions that may act to degrade local air quality.

Elevation inversions occur during the warmer months as ascending air associated with the Pacific highpressure cell comes into contact with warmer air up the coastal hills. The boundary between the two layers of air creates a temperature inversion that traps pollutants. The other type of inversion, a radiation inversion, develops on winter nights when air near the ground cools by heat radiation and air aloft remains warm. The shallow inversion layer formed between these two air masses can also trap pollutants. As the pollutants become more concentrated in the atmosphere, photochemical reactions produce ozone, commonly known as smog.

Regulatory Context
Criteria Pollutants
Criteria pollutants are defined and regulated by state and federal law as a risk to the health and welfare of the public and are categorized into primary and secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from sources including: carbon monoxide (CO); reactive organic gases (ROGs), City Council/RSA Agenda 146 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
18 also known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs)1; nitrogen oxides (NOX); sulfur dioxide (SO2); coarse particulate matter (PM10); fine particulate matter (PM2.5); and lead. Of these primary pollutants, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead are criteria pollutants. ROGs and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and go on to form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere.

The principal secondary criteria pollutants are ozone (O3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).

Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the environment but is generated from complex chemical reactions between the precursor pollutant ROGs (or non-methane hydrocarbons), and NOX that occur in the presence of sunlight. PM10 and PM2.5 are generated from a variety of sources, including road dust, diesel exhaust, fuel combustion, tire and brake wear, construction operations, and windblown dust. In addition, PM10 and PM2.5 can also be formed through chemical and photochemical reactions of precursor pollutants in the atmosphere. Significant anthropogenic ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 sources in the SFBAAB include motor vehicles and other transportation sources; off-highway equipment used in construction, ports and airports; industrial activity; petroleum refineries; electrical power generation facilities, and agriculture.

Ambient air quality is described in terms of compliance with state and national standards, and the levels of air pollutant concentrations considered safe, to protect the public health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect people most sensitive to respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants. As permitted by the Clean Air Act, California has adopted the more stringent California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) and expanded the number of regulated air pollutant constituents.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is required to designate areas of the state as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for the ambient air quality standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations do not violate the standard for that pollutant in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once. The air quality attainment status of the SFBAAB is shown in Table 1 San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Attainment Status.

Table 1

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutant State of California
Attainment Status Federal Attainment Status
Ozone (1-hour) Nonattainment No Federal Standard
Ozone (8-hour) Nonattainment Nonattainment (marginal)
Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10) Nonattainment Attainment/Unclassified Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment Nonattainment (moderate) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Attainment/Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) Attainment Attainment/Unclassified Lead Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment/Unclassified 1 CARB defines and uses the term ROGs while the USEPA defines and uses the term VOCs. The compounds included in the lists of ROGs and VOCs and the methods of calculation are slightly different. However, for the purposes of estimating criteria pollutant precursor emissions, the two terms are often used interchangeably.

City Council/RSA Agenda 147 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
19 Pollutant State of California
Attainment Status Federal Attainment Status
Sulfates Attainment No Federal Standard
Hydrogen Sulfide Unclassified No Federal Standard
Visibility Reducing Particles Unclassified No Federal Standard Sources: CARB 2023a
The SFBAAB is currently in nonattainment for federal and state ozone and PM2.5 standards. The SFBAAB is in nonattainment for the state PM10 standard. Concentrations of all other pollutants meet state and federal standards. The current air quality plan applicable to the project, 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate, was developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to describe how the Air District will continue the progress toward attaining all state and national air quality standards and eliminating health risk disparities from exposure to air pollution among Bay Area communities (BAAQMD 2017).

Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are a diverse group of air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or in serious illness or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

TACs can cause long-term health effects such as cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, asthma, bronchitis, or genetic damage, or short-term acute effects such as eye watering, respiratory irritation (a cough), runny nose, throat pain, and headaches. TACs are considered either carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic based on the nature of the health effects associated with exposure to the pollutant. For carcinogenic TACs, there is no level of exposure that is considered safe and impacts are evaluated in terms of overall relative risk expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals.

Noncarcinogenic TACs differ in that there is generally assumed to be a safe level of exposure below which no negative health impact is believed to occur. These levels are determined on a pollutant-bypollutant basis.

The California Health and Safety Code (Section 39655[a]) defines TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” All substances that are listed as hazardous air pollutants pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 112 of the CAA (42 United States Code Sec. 7412[b]) are designated as TACs.

Under State law, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

Diesel Particulate Matter
Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, including both gaseous and solid material. The solid material in diesel exhaust is known as diesel particulate matter (DPM). Almost all DPM is 10 microns or less in diameter, and 90 percent of DPM is less than 2.5 microns in diameter. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung. In 1998, the CARB identified DPM as a TAC based on published evidence of a relationship between diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer and other adverse health effects. DPM has a significant impact on California’s population—it is estimated that about 70 percent of total known cancer risks related to air toxics in California are attributable to DPM emissions (CARB 2022a).

City Council/RSA Agenda 148 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
20 Asbestos Containing Material
Asbestos is a mineral fiber that naturally occurs in some rock and soil. Long-term exposure to airborne asbestos fibers has been linked to major health effects including lung cancer; mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer that is found in the thin lining of the lung, chest and abdomen and heart; and asbestosis, a serious progressive, long-term, non-cancer disease of the lungs (USEPA 2019a). Because of its fiber strength and heat resistance, asbestos has been used in a variety of building construction materials for insulation and as a fire retardant, primarily in buildings constructed before 1979. Asbestos fibers may be released into the air by the disturbance of asbestos containing material (ACM) during renovation and demolition activities.

Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
Activities at gas stations can release TACs into the air, including the organic compounds benzene, toluene, and xylene. Other benzene emission sources include burning coal and oil, and motor vehicle exhaust. Acute (short-term) inhalation exposure of humans to benzene may cause drowsiness, dizziness, headaches, as well as eye, skin, and respiratory tract irritation, and, at high levels, unconsciousness.

Chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure of benzene has caused various disorders in the blood, including reduced numbers of red blood cells and aplastic anemia. Increased incidence of leukemia (cancer of the tissues that form white blood cells) has been observed in humans occupationally exposed to benzene.

The USEPA has classified benzene as a known human carcinogen (USEPA 2012). Toluene and xylene are not considered carcinogens, but they can contribute to chronic and acute health conditions.

State regulations require all new gas stations to obtain an Authority to Construct (A/C) and a Permit to Operate (P/O) from the local air district. BAAQMD regulates gas stations through Regulation 8, Rule 7 Gasoline Dispensing Facilities which requires implementation, maintenance, and testing of the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to minimize TAC emissions and resulting public health risks from the facility. Gas station BACT designs are regulated and certified by CARB and consist of vapor recovery systems to collect gasoline vapors that would otherwise escape into the atmosphere. Gasoline vapor emissions at gas stations are controlled in two phases. Phase I vapor recovery collects vapors displaced from underground storage tanks when a cargo tank truck delivers gasoline to a gas station. Phase II vapor recovery collects vapors displaced during the transfer of gasoline from a dispensing nozzle to a vehicle, fuel container, or gasoline-powered equipment; and during the storage of gasoline at a gas station. CARB regulations establish standards for the level of emissions control vapor recovery systems must achieve during the transfer and storage of gasoline.

Vapor recovery system performance standards for gas stations have become more stringent over the years. Since 2001, CARB has adopted several significant advancements as part of the enhanced vapor recovery (EVR) program. Phase I EVR, in accordance with California Executive Order VR-102, requires more durable and leak-tight components, along with an increased collection efficiency of 98 percent.

Phase II EVR, in accordance with California Executive Order VR-204, includes three major advancements:
(1) dispensing nozzles with less spillage and required compatibility with onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) vehicles, (2) a processor to control the static pressure of the ullage, or vapor space, in the underground storage tank, and (3) an in-station diagnostic (ISD) system that provides warning alarms to alert a gas station operator of potential vapor recovery system malfunctions. Phase I EVR was fully implemented in 2005. Phase II EVR was fully implemented between 2009 and 2011 (CARB 2013).

The project would be required to implement Phase I EVR and Phase II EVR systems (with an ISD system) meeting the latest CARB performance standards.

City Council/RSA Agenda 149 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
21 ORVR systems were phased in beginning with 1998 model year passenger vehicles, and are now installed on all passenger, light-duty, and medium-duty vehicles manufactured since the 2006 model year. When an ORVR vehicle is fueled, almost all the gasoline vapor displaced from the fuel tank is routed to a carbon canister in the vehicle fuel system. At the start of dispensing, a small portion of the vapor in the vehicle fuel tank may escape through the fill-pipe before the onboard system is fully engaged. Uncontrolled fill-pipe emissions from ORVR vehicles are approximately two orders of magnitude lower than the same emissions from vehicles without ORVR and are easily captured by Phase II vapor recovery systems (CARB 2013).

Existing Air Quality
The BAAQMD operates a network of ambient air monitoring stations throughout the SFBAAB. The air quality monitoring station closest to the project site is the Hayward-La Mesa Monitoring Station, approximately 4.3 miles northeast of the project site. The Hayward-La Mesa Station only monitors hourly ozone. Data for the other criteria pollutants were obtained from the San Jose-Jackson Street Monitoring Station, approximately 19.5 miles southeast of the project site. The are no monitoring stations in the SFBAAB for SO2 or Lead. The ambient pollutant concentrations collected at the stations during the last 3 available years (2019 through 2021) are shown in Table 2 Air Quality Monitoring Data.

The data indicates: exceedance of the state 1-hour standard on 2 days in 2019, 3 days in 2020, and 1 day in 2021; exceedance of the state 8-hour standard on 2 days in 2019, 5 days in 2020, and 3 days in 2021; exceedance of the federal 8-hour standard on 2 days in 2019, 4 days in 2020 and 3 days in 2021; exceedance of the PM10 standards on 11.8 days in 2019; and exceedance of the federal PM2.5 standard on 12 days in 2020 and 1 days in 2021. Data for NO2 showed no exceedances from 2019 through 2021.

Table 2

AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA
Pollutant Standard 2020 2021 2022
Ozone (O3) Hayward Monitoring Station
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.116 0.097 0.098
Days above 1-hour state standard (0.09 ppm) 3 1 2
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.092 0.082 0.073
Days above 8-hour state standard (0.070 ppm) 5 3 2
Days above 8-hour federal standard (0.070 ppm) 4 3 2
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) San Jose Monitoring Station Maximum 24-hour concentration (mg/m3) 137.1 45.1 44.5
Measured Days above state standard (50 mg/m3) 10 0 0
Measured Days above federal standard (150 mg/m3) 0 0 0
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) San Jose Monitoring Station Maximum 24-hour concentration (mg/m3) 120.5 38.1 36.2
Measured Days above federal standard (35 mg/m3) 12 1 2
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) San Jose Monitoring Station
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppb) 51.9 47.8 46.8
Days above state 1-hour standard (180 ppb) 0 0 0
Source: CARB 2023b
ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.

City Council/RSA Agenda 150 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
22 Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved and are referred to as sensitive receptors. CARB and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) have identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, infants (including in utero in the third trimester of pregnancy), and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis (CARB 2005, OEHHA 2015).

Residential areas are considered sensitive receptors to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Children and infants are considered more susceptible to health effects of air pollution due to their immature immune systems, developing organs, and higher breathing rates. As such, schools are also considered sensitive receptors, as children are present for extended durations and engage in regular outdoor activities.

The closest existing sensitive receptor to the project site is a single-family residence approximately 230 ft to the southwest. A single-family residential neighborhood is located southwest of the project site.

The closest school is Alvarado Elementary School, located approximately 0.6 mile to the southwest of the project site.

Methodology
Criteria pollutant and precursor emissions for the project construction activities and long-term operation were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2022.1.

CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The model was developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California air districts. CalEEMod allows for the use of default data (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory) provided by the various California air districts to account for local requirements and conditions, and/or user-defined inputs. The model calculates emissions of CO, PM10, PM2.5, SO2, and the ozone precursors ROGs and NOX. The calculation methodology and input data used in CalEEMod can be found in the CalEEMod User’s Guide Appendices A, C, and D (CAPCOA 2022). The input data and subsequent construction and operation emission estimates for the proposed project are discussed below. CalEEMod output files for the project are included in Appendix C to this Initial Study.

Construction Emissions
As described above, construction emissions were assessed using CalEEMod, Version 2022.1. The construction analysis included modeling of emissions from the projected construction equipment that would be used during each construction activity, and emissions from the haul truck used to import or export earth and debris from the project site.

Construction input data for CalEEMod include, but are not limited to, (1) the anticipated start and finish dates of construction activity; (2) inventories of construction equipment to be used; (3) areas to be excavated and graded; and (4) volumes of materials to be exported from and imported to the project area. The analysis assessed maximum daily emissions from individual construction activities, including City Council/RSA Agenda 151 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
23 demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Individual construction activity length was adjusted per construction schedule.

The project construction activities are anticipated to commence as early as January 2025 and last for approximately 12 months. Construction would require heavy equipment during demolition, site preparation, grading, excavation/foundations, building construction, and paving. Construction would include a 2,375 square-foot convenience store,14,853 square feet of paved area and a 2,875-sf fuel canopy. Construction equipment estimates are based on CalEEMod defaults, with an excavator and a backhoe added for excavation, and a water truck added for dust suppression during all demolition and earth moving activities. Approximately 40 cubic yards of soil would be exported during construction, and no soil would be imported during site construction.

The modeled construction emissions assume implementation of the BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, specifically watering exposed areas twice per day. Construction trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were adjusted for the anticipated construction schedule.

Operation Emissions
Operational impacts were estimated using CalEEMod, Version 2022.1, as described above. The project land uses were modeled as a 2,375 square-foot convenience store with 4,463 square feet of irrigated landscaping, and 14,853 square feet of paved surfaces. Operational sources of criteria pollutant and precursor emissions in CalEEMod include area, energy and mobile:
• Area – area sources include emissions from landscaping equipment, the use of consumer products, and the reapplication of architectural coatings for maintenance. Emissions associated with area sources were estimated using the CalEEMod default values for the project. • Energy – The project would use electricity for lighting, heating and cooling. Electricity would be supplied by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). Criteria pollutant and precursor emissions related to the generation of electrical power are emitted at the site of the generation facilities and are not included in the CalEEMod operation emissions. The project would be built without natural gas to comply with BAAQMD design guidelines. However, natural gas was included using CalEEMod defaults for modeling purposes and was modeled to ensure a conservative assessment of the proposed project. The CalEEMod default natural gas usage rates for convenience stores in Alameda County were used.
• Mobile – Operational emissions from mobile sources are associated with project-related vehicle trip generation and trip length. The CalEEMod default vehicle speeds, trip purposes, and distances were used for trip generation.

Significance Criteria
The final determination of whether or not a project has a significant effect is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b). The BAAQMD has adopted thresholds which lead agencies can use to determine the significance of a development project’s short-term construction and long-term operational pollutant emissions. The BAAQMD’s 2022 thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant and precursors are shown in Table 3 BAAQMD Significance Thresholds (BAAQMD 2023). Refer to Section 5.VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions for a discussion of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) emissions.

City Council/RSA Agenda 152 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
24 Table 3

BAAQMD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Construction Operation
Pollutant Average Daily
Emissions
(pounds/day)
Average Daily
Emissions
(pounds/day)
Maximum Annual
Emissions
(tons/year)
Reactive Organic Gasses (ROG) 54 54 10
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 54 54 10
Particulate Matter Exhaust (PM10) 82 82 15
Fine Particulate Matter Exhaust (PM2.5) 54 54 10
PM10 and PM2.5 Fugitive Dust BMPs1 none none
Local Carbon Monoxide (CO) none

9.0 ppm (8-hour average),

20.0 ppm (1-hour average)
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) none none none
Source: BAAQMD 2023a.
ppm = part per million; BMP = Best Management Practices 1 For construction fugitive dust, rather than a numeric threshold BAAQMD recommends that lead agencies consider projects which implement the Basic Construction Best Management Practices to have a less than significant impact related to fugitive dust.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact. Consistency with the air quality plan is determined by whether the project would hinder implementation of control measures identified in the air quality plan or would result in growth of population or employment that is not accounted for in local and regional planning. The BAAQMD’s Clean Air Plan is the applicable air quality plan for the SFBAAB and Union City.

The project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Retail Commercial. The proposed project would raze and rebuild an existing gas station and convenience store. As the project is upgrading an existing site, employment would not change significantly. Employment would be consistent with the General Plan and with the local and regional employment growth assumptions used in developing the 2017 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2017). The project does not include any residential components and would not result in an increase in regional population. In addition, as described in impact discussion b), below, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant.

As described in the 2017 Clean Air Plan, all of the 2010 Transportation Control Measures were carried forward into the 2017 Clean Air Plan, although the measure descriptions and numbering were updated.

In addition, 8 of the 10 Mobile Source Measures (MSMs), all 6 of the Land Use Measure (LUM)s, and all 4 Energy and Climate Measures (ECMS) from 2010 were carried forward into the 2017 plan (BAAQMD 2017). The MSMs primarily address vehicles and their components as they relate to emissions and are not directly applicable to the project. The project would be required to comply with the building energy efficiency standards of 2019 Title 24 part 6, and Title 24 part 11 (CALGreen). Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan and the impact would be less than significant.

City Council/RSA Agenda 153 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
25 b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, the potential for a project’s individual emissions to contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts is evaluated.

Construction Emissions
A project-specific analysis of construction emissions was completed using CalEEMod Version 2022.1, as described in the methodology description, above. The project’s estimated construction emissions are shown below in Table 4 Construction Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions. The emissions estimate assumes the implementation of the BAAQMD recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (BCMMs), listed in Mitigation Measure AQ-1, below, specifically watering exposed areas a minimum of twice per day and enforcing a 15 miles per hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces.

Table 4

CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA POLLUTANT AND PRECURSOR EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY) Activity ROG NOX CO SOX
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Demolition 0.7 5.6 7.0 <0.1 0.2 0.2 <0.1 0.2
Site Preparation 0.6 5.4 6.6 <0.1 0.3 0.3 <0.1 0.3
Grading 1.3 12.2 11.8 <0.1 2.2 0.6 1.0 0.5
Excavation/Foundations 0.3 2.7 3.9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Building Construction 0.7 5.4 8.9 <0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2
Paving 0.7 4.4 6.0 <0.1 0.2 0.2 <0.1 0.2
Architectural Coating 5.9 0.9 1.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.11 <0.1 Maximum Daily1 5.9 12.2 11.8 <0.1 2.2 0.6 1.0 0.5
BAAQMD Daily Thresholds 54 54 none none BMPs 84 BMPs 54 Exceed Daily Threshold? No No No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix C). 1 Totals may not sum due to rounding.

As shown in Table 4, the project’s construction emissions related to the criteria pollutants and precursors would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. Because the BAAQMD considers fugitive dust emissions to be significant if the BCMMs are not implemented, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require implementation of the BCMMs. Therefore, the project’s construction emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Basin Construction Mitigation Measures Prior to issuing construction permits, the City shall specify on all grading, building, and other construction permits for the project, implementation of the following Basin Construction Mitigation Measures:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

City Council/RSA Agenda 154 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
26 • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The air district’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Operational Emissions
Long-term operation of the project would result in emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors from mobile sources related to the use of vehicles for worker commute trips, customer trips and vendor trips; energy sources related to the use of propane for heating and hot water; and area sources such as the use of landscape maintenance equipment, cleaning products, and the re-application of architectural coatings for maintenance (e.g., painting).

A project-specific analysis of operational emissions and existing land use operational emissions was completed using CalEEMod Version 2022.1, as described in the methodology description, above. The project’s estimated net change in operational emissions (project emissions minus existing use emissions) are shown below in Table 5, Operation Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions.

City Council/RSA Agenda 155 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
27 Table 5

OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLLUTANT AND PRECURSOR EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY) Category ROG NOX CO SOX
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Mobile 4.9 4.7 40.3 0.1 9.3 <0.1 2.4 <0.1
Area <.01 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Total Project Emissions2 5.0 4.7 40.1 0.1 9.3 <0.1 2.4 <0.1 Existing Use Emissions (3.2) (3.0) (25.9) (<0.1) (6.0) (<0.1) (1.5) (<0.1) Net Project Emissions2 1.8 1.7 14.4 <0.1 3.3 <0.1 0.9 <0.1 Threshold 54 54 None None None 82 None 54
Threshold exceeded? No No No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod; Thresholds BAAQMD 2022a.
1 Maximum daily emissions of NOX would occur during the winter. Maximum daily emissions of all other pollutant would occur during the summer or are not seasonally dependent.
2 Totals may not sum due to rounding.

ROG = reactive organic gas; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter.

As shown in Table 5, the project’s long-term emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors would not exceed the BAAQMD daily or annual thresholds. Therefore, the project’s long-term operational emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact Summary
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard during either construction or operation. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact.

Construction Local Emissions
Diesel Particulate Matter
Construction of the project would result in emissions of DPM from the use of construction equipment.

The amount to which the receptors could be exposed, which is a function of concentration and duration of exposure, is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Current models and methodologies for conducting cancer health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods (typically 30 years for individual residents) and are best suited for evaluation of long duration TAC emissions with predictable schedules and locations. These assessment models and methodologies do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities.

The generation of DPM during construction would be variable and sporadic due to the nature of construction activity. Current models and methodologies for conducting health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with City Council/RSA Agenda 156 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
28 the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. Construction of the project would increase the fuel canopy area; however, the number of gas pumps would remain the same. Additionally, project-construction activities would occur in an area of less than 2 acres. Construction projects contained in a site of such size typically represent less than significant health risk impacts due to limitations on the size and numbers of off-road diesel equipment able to operate and thus a reduced amount of generated DPM, the reduced amount of dust-generating ground disturbance possible compared to larger construction sites, and the reduced duration of construction activities compared to the development of larger sites.

Due to the short duration and sporadic nature of construction activities requiring the use of heavy diesel-powered equipment, and because the use of heavy construction equipment would not be concentrated near the residential property lines, and because DPM emissions disperse rapidly over relatively short distances, project construction related DPM emissions during construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and the impact would be less than significant.

Asbestos Containing Material and Lead Based Paint
Asbestos dust and lead may be found in buildings constructed prior to 1979 when lead was used in paint and asbestos was used as a component of building materials such as walls, ceilings, insulation, or fireproofing. Demolition or renovation of existing structures erected prior to 1979 could result in the disturbance of ACMs and lead-based paint (LBP).

Airborne asbestos is regulated in accordance with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) asbestos regulations. Federal and state regulations prohibit emissions of asbestos from demolition or construction activities. Following identification of friable ACMs, federal and state Occupational and Safety Health Administration (OSHA) regulations require that asbestos trained, and certified abatement personnel perform asbestos abatement and that all asbestos-containing materials removed from on-site structures must be hauled to a licensed receiving facility and disposed of under proper manifest by a transportation company certified to handle asbestos. Demolition of the existing structures would be subject to BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2–Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing, which regulates the safe handling and disposal of ACMs (BAAQMD 1998).

Section 19827.5 of the California Health and Safety Code requires that local agencies not issue demolition permits until an applicant has demonstrated compliance with notification requirements under applicable federal regulations regarding hazardous air pollutants. In accordance with the state regulation, the BAAQMD must be notified prior to demolition or abatement activities. The USEPA’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (RRP Rule) requires that firms performing renovation, repair, and painting projects that disturb LBP in structures built before 1978 have their firm certified by USEPA (or an authorized state), use certified renovators who are trained by USEPA-approved training providers, and follow lead-safe work practices. These regulations specify precautions and safe work practices that must be followed to minimize the potential for release of asbestos fibers or lead dust and require notice to federal and/or local government agencies prior to beginning demolition or renovation that could disturb ACM. Therefore, compliance with established regulations would ensure that potential impacts associated with ACM and LBP would be less than significant.

City Council/RSA Agenda 157 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
29 Operation Local Emissions
CO Hotspots
Vehicle exhaust is the primary source of CO. In an urban setting, the highest CO concentrations are generally found in close proximity to congested intersections. Under typical meteorological conditions, CO concentrations tend to decrease as distance from the emissions source (i.e., congested intersection) increase. Project-generated traffic has the potential of contributing to localized “hot spots” of CO offsite. Because CO is a byproduct of incomplete combustion, exhaust emissions are worse when fossilfueled vehicles are operated inefficiently, such as in stop-and-go traffic or through heavily congested intersections. Because CO disperses rapidly, hotpots are most likely to occur in areas with limited vertical mixing such as tunnels, long underpasses, or below-grade roadways.

The BAAQMD provides screening criteria to determine if a proposed development project would result in a less-than-significant impact to localized CO concentrations:
• The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. • The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
• The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited.

Existing Estimated Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes for Alvarado-Niles Road is 13,900 for the back peak hourly and 14,300 for the ahead peak hour according to Caltrans. Back peak hour usually represents traffic south or west of the count location, while front peak hour usually represents traffic north or east of the county location (DOT 2017). The proposed project would raze and rebuild an existing gas station and convenience store and would therefore not significantly change the existing gas station/convenience store’s contribution to the ADT volume on Alvarado-Niles Road. All project-affected intersections would have peak-hour traffic volumes below the BAAQMD screening criteria of 44,000 vehicles per hour. Therefore, long-term operation of the project would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial CO Hotspots and the impact would be less than significant.

Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
The proposed project would require authority to construct and a permit to operate for a gasoline dispensing facility from the BAAQMD. Toxic emissions from gas stations are proportional to the annual throughput of gasoline at the facility. The proposed project would increase the fuel canopy area from 1,232 SF to 2,875 SF. However, the location of the new fuel canopy area would be approximately the same as the existing area. Additionally, the existing eight (8) fueling pumps would remain as part of the proposed project, and there would be no increase in pumps. Therefore, there would be no increase in permitted gasoline throughput for the proposed project.

The BAAQMD stationary source permitting process is defined and regulated through Regulation 2 Permits, Rule 1 General Requirements and Rule 2 New Source Review. BAAQMD regulates gas stations through Regulation 8, Rule 7 Gasoline Dispensing Facilities which requires implementation, maintenance City Council/RSA Agenda 158 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
30 and testing of the Best Available Control Technologies (BACTs) to minimize TAC emissions and resulting public health risks from the facility. The BACTs for gas stations are vapor recovery systems to collect gasoline vapors that would otherwise escape into the atmosphere. Gasoline vapor emissions at gas stations are controlled in two phases (EVR Phase I and Phase II). Phase I vapor recovery collects vapors displaced from Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) when a cargo tank truck delivers gasoline to a gas station. Phase II vapor recovery collects vapors displaced during the transfer of gasoline from a dispensing nozzle to a vehicle, fuel container, or gasoline-powered equipment; and the storage of gasoline at a gas station. CARB regulations establish standards for the level of emissions control vapor recovery systems must achieve during the transfer and storage of gasoline.

Therefore, as the project would not alter the number of existing pumps, long-term operation of the proposed gas station and convenience store would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations. The impact would be less than significant.

Impact Summary
The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, including DPM, asbestos, lead or benzene and the impact would be less than significant. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. Heavy diesel equipment could generate odors during construction activities. The generation of odors during the construction period would be temporary and would tend to be dispersed within a short distance from the active work area. The proposed project would increase the fuel canopy area from 1,232 SF to 2,875 SF. However, the location of the new fuel canopy area would be approximately the same as the existing area. Additionally, the existing eight (8) fueling pumps would remain as part of the proposed project, and there would be no increase in pumps. Therefore, once operational, the project would not be a significant source of odors or other emissions. Due to the short duration of construction activity near any individual residence and due to the project not alternating existing pumps on the site, the project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people and the impact would be less than significant.

City Council/RSA Agenda 159 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
31 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Regulatory Setting
Federal Requirements
Federal Endangered Species Acts
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) enforces the provisions stipulated in the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (FESA, 16 USC Section 1531 et seq.). Species identified as threatened or endangered (50 CFR Section 17.11, and 17.12) are protected from take, which is defined as direct or indirect harm, unless a Section 10 permit is granted to an entity other than a federal agency or a Biological Opinion with incidental take provisions is rendered to a federal lead agency via a Section 7 consultation. Pursuant to the requirements of the FESA, an agency reviewing a proposed project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any federally listed species may be present on the project site City Council/RSA Agenda 160 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
32 and determine whether the proposed project will have a potentially significant impact on them. Under the FESA, habitat loss is considered to be a potential impact to a species. In addition, the USFWS is required to determine whether the project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species that is proposed for listing under the FESA or to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species (16 USC 1536[3], [4]). Therefore, project related impacts to those species or their habitats would be considered significant and would require mitigation. Other federal agencies designate species of concern (species that have the potential to become listed), that are evaluated during environmental review although they are not otherwise protected under the FESA. Impacts to those species or their habitats would likewise be considered significant and would require mitigation.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 established federal responsibilities for the protection of nearly all species of birds, their eggs, and nests. The Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004 further defined species protected under the act and excluded all non-native species. Section 16 U.S.C. 703–712 of the Act states “unless and except as permitted by regulations, it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill” a migratory bird. A migratory bird is any species or family of birds that live, reproduce or migrate within or across international borders at some point during their annual life cycle. Currently, there are 836 migratory birds protected nationwide by the MBTA, of which 58 are legal to hunt. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (with jurisdiction over California) has ruled that the MBTA does not prohibit incidental take (952 F 2d 297 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1991).

State Requirements
California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA; California Fish and Game Code Section 2050 to 2097) is similar to the FESA. The California Fish and Game Commission is responsible for maintaining lists of threatened and endangered species under the CESA. CESA prohibits the take of listed and candidate (petitioned to be listed) species. “Take” under California law means to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch capture, or kill (California Fish and Game Code Section 86). The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) can authorize take of a state-listed species under Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code if the take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, the impacts are minimized and fully mitigated, funding is ensured to implement and monitor mitigation measures, and CDFW determines that issuance would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. A CESA permit must be obtained if a project will result in the take of listed species, either during construction or over the life of the project. For species listed under both the FESA and the CESA requiring a Biological Opinion under Section 7 of the FESA, CDFW may also authorize impacts to CESA species by issuing a Consistency Determination under Section 2080.1 of the Fish and Game Code.

California Code of Regulations and California Fish and Game Code The official listing of endangered and threatened animals and plants is contained in the California Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 670.5. A state candidate species is one that the California Fish and Game Code has formally noticed as being under review by CDFW for inclusion on the state list pursuant to Sections 2074.2 and 2075.5 of the California Fish and Game Code.

City Council/RSA Agenda 161 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
33 Legal protection is also provided for wildlife species in California that are identified as “fully protected animals.” These species are protected under Sections 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and 5515 (fishes) of the California Fish and Game Code. These statutes prohibit take or possession of fully protected species at any time. CDFW is unable to authorize incidental take of fully protected species when activities are proposed in areas inhabited by these species. CDFW has informed non-federal agencies and private parties that they must avoid take of any fully protected species.

However, Senate Bill 618 (2011) allows CDFW to issue permits authorizing the incidental take of fully protected species under the CESA, so long as any such take authorization is issued in conjunction with the approval of a Natural Community Conservation Plan that covers the fully protected species (California Fish and Game Code Section 2835).

California Environmental Quality Act
Under CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), lead agencies analyze whether projects would have a substantial adverse effect on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species (Public Resources Code Section 21001(c)). These “special-status” species generally include those listed under the FESA and the CESA, and species that are not currently protected by statute or regulation, but would be considered rare, threatened, or endangered under the criteria included in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15380. Therefore, species that are considered rare are addressed regardless of whether they are afforded special protection through any other statute or regulation. CDFW, in consultation with the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), assigns a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) to native species according to rarity; plants with a CRPR of 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, or 3 are generally considered special-status species under CEQA.

Although threatened and endangered species are protected by specific federal and state statutes, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(d) provides that a species not listed on the federal or state list of protected species may be considered rare if it can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. Those criteria have been modeled after the definition in FESA and the section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants and animals. Section 15380(d) allows a public agency to undertake a review to determine if a significant effect on species that have not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFW (i.e., candidate species) would occur. Thus, CEQA provides an agency with the ability to protect a species from the potential impacts of a project until the respective government agency has an opportunity to designate the species as protected, if warranted.

California Native Plant Protection Act
The California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (California Fish and Game Code Section 1900-1913) empowers the Fish and Game Commission to list native plant species, subspecies, or varieties as endangered or rare following a public hearing. To the extent that the location of such plants is known, CDFW must notify property owners that a listed plant is known to occur on their property. Where a property owner has been so notified, the owner must notify CDFW at least 10 days in advance of any change in land use (other than changing from one agricultural use to another), in order that CDFW may salvage listed plants that would otherwise be destroyed. Currently, 64 taxa of native plants have been listed as rare under the act.

Nesting and Migratory Birds
California Fish and Game Code Subsections 3503 and 3800 prohibit the possession, take, or needless destruction of birds, their nests, and eggs, and the salvage of dead nongame birds. California Fish and City Council/RSA Agenda 162 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
34 Game Code Subsection 3503.5 protects all birds in the orders of Accipitriformes, Falconiformes, and Strigiformes (birds of prey). Fish and Game Code Subsection 3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the MBTA. The Attorney General of California has released an opinion that the Fish and Game Code prohibits incidental take.

Local Requirements
Trees
Section 12.16.170, Tree Conservation, of the Union City Municipal Code Chapter 12.16, Trees, Shrubs, and Plants, indicates that tree preservation is necessary for the health and welfare of the citizens of the city. Furthermore, trees preserve scenic beauty, prevent the erosion of topsoil, protect against flood hazards and landslides, counteract pollutants in the air, maintain the climatic balance, decrease wind velocities, and contribute greatly to the value of land in the city. It is the intent of the City of Union City to limit the removal of significant trees within the city in order to retain as many trees as possible consistent with the purpose of the municipal code sections and the reasonable economic enjoyment of private property.

Trees that are protected by Union City Municipal Code Section 12.16.170 are as follows:
a. All trees that have a trunk circumference of 35 inches or more or, in the case of multi-trunk trees, a total trunk circumference of 70 inches or more where such trees are located on residential property;
b. All trees that have a trunk circumference of 12 inches or more when removal relates to any transaction for which zoning approval or subdivision approval is required; c. Any tree that existed at the time of zoning approval or subdivision approval that was the specific subject of such approval or otherwise covered by paragraph (b) of this subdivision; d. Any tree that was required to be planted by the terms of a zoning approval or subdivision approval;
e. All trees that have a trunk circumference of 12 inches or more and are located on a vacant lot or undeveloped property; and
f. All trees that have a trunk circumference of 12 inches or more and are located on developed commercial, office, or industrial property.

Tree circumference is measured 3 feet above the ground (Union City Municipal Code Section 12.16.170- B3). Union City Municipal Code Section 12.16.170-C states that it is unlawful for any person to trim or remove a tree that is covered by the section without a tree removal permit, with exceptions related to orchard trees, trees that are hazardous or dangerous to life or property, or orders from the Director of Public Works. As a condition for granting a permit, the Director of Public Works may require an in-lieu fee if the required number of replacement trees cannot be accommodated onsite.

City Council/RSA Agenda 163 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
35 Jurisdictional Waters
Clean Water Act
On May 25, 2023, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Sackett v.

Environmental Protection Agency (Supreme Court of the United States, 2023) which will ultimately influence how federal waters are defined. The May 25, 2023 Supreme Court decision in Sackett v.

Environmental Protection Agency determined that “the Clean Water Act (CWA) extends to only those ‘wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are “waters of the United States” in their own right,’ so that they are ‘indistinguishable’ from those waters.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issued a final rule to replace the 2023 rule that amends the Revised Definition of “Waters of the U.S.” to conform key aspects of the regulatory text to the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 25, 2023 decision in the case of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency.

Unless considered an exempt activity under Section 404(f) of the Federal Clean Water Act, any person, firm, or agency planning to alter or work in “waters of the U.S.” including the discharge of dredged or fill material, must first obtain authorization from the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 USC 1344). Permits, licenses, variances, or similar authorization may also be required by other federal, state, and local statutes. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act prohibits the obstruction or alteration of navigable waters of the U.S. without a permit from USACE (33 USC 403). Activities exempted under Section 404(f) are not exempted within navigable waters under Section 10.

The Clean Water Act (33 United States Code (USC) 1251-1376) provides guidance for the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.

Section 401 requires that an applicant for a federal license or permit that allows activities resulting in a discharge to waters of the U.S. obtain a state certification that the discharge complies with other provisions of CWA. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) administers the certification program in California and may require State Water Quality Certification before other permits are issued.

Section 402 establishes a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except dredged or fill material) into waters of the U.S.

Section 404 establishes a permit program administered by USACE that regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. (including wetlands). Implementing regulations by USACE are found at 33 CFR Parts 320-332. The Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines were developed by the USEPA in conjunction with USACE (40 CFR Part 230), allowing the discharge of dredged or fill material for nonwater dependent uses into special aquatic sites only if there were no practicable alternative that would have less adverse impacts.

Regional Water Quality Control Board
Any action requiring a CWA Section 404 permit, or a Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit, must also obtain a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification. The State of California Water Quality Certification (WQC) Program was formally initiated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in 1990 under the requirements stipulated by Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act. Although the Clean Water Act is a Federal law, Section 401 of the CWA recognizes that states have the primary authority and responsibility for setting water quality standards. In California, under Section 401, the State and City Council/RSA Agenda 164 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
36 Regional Water Boards are the authorities that certify that issuance of a federal license or permit does not violate California’s water quality standards (i.e., that they do not violate Porter-Cologne and the Water Code). The WQC Program currently issues the certification for discharges requiring USACE permits for fill and dredge discharges within Waters of the United States, and now also implements the State’s wetland protection and hydromodification regulation program under the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

On May 28, 2020, the SWRCB implemented the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (Procedures) for inclusion in the forthcoming Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries and Ocean Waters of California (SWRCB 2019). The Procedures consist of four major elements:

I. A wetland definition;
II. A framework for determining if a feature that meets the wetland definition is a water of the state;
III. Wetland delineation procedures; and
IV. Procedures for the submittal, review, and approval of applications for Water Quality Certifications and Waste Discharge Requirements for dredge or fill activities.

Under the Procedures and the State Water Code (Water Code §13050(e)), “Waters of the State” are defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” “Waters of the State” includes all “Waters of the U.S.” More specifically, a wetland is defined as: “An area is wetland if, under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.” The wetland definition encompasses the full range of wetland types commonly recognized in California, including some features not protected under federal law, and reflects current scientific understanding of the formation and functioning of wetlands (SWRCB 2019).

Unless excluded by the Procedures, any activity that could result in discharge of dredged or fill material to Waters of the State, which includes Waters of the U.S. and non-federal Waters of the State, requires filing of an application under the Procedures.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDFW is a trustee agency that has jurisdiction under Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. Under Sections 1602 and 1603, a private party must notify CDFW if a proposed project will “substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of streambeds…except when the department has been notified pursuant to Section 1601.” Additionally, CDFW asserts jurisdiction over native riparian habitat adjacent to aquatic features, including native trees over four inches in diameter at breast height. If an existing fish or wildlife resource may be substantially adversely affected by the activity, CDFW may propose reasonable measures that will allow protection of those resources. If these measures are agreeable to the parties involved, they may enter into an agreement with CDFW identifying the approved activities and associated mitigation measures.

Generally, CDFW recommends submitting an application for a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) City Council/RSA Agenda 165 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
37 for any work done within the lateral limit of water flow or the edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater.

Methodology
A biological resource and arborist survey was conducted within the project footprint on April 19, 2023, by HELIX International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (ISA TRAQ) arborist Marisa Brilts (WE-13338A). Biological resources were evaluated based on field reconnaissance of the site and analysis of publicly available data.

HELIX queried the California Natural Diversity Database and the California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants for lists of special-status species recorded in the U.S. Geological Survey “Newark, CA” 7.5-minute quadrangle map and the eight surrounding quads. HELIX also queried the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Consulting for species potentially affected by the project. Database queries returned a total of sixty-three plants, twelve invertebrates, three fishes, five amphibians, four reptiles, twenty-six birds, and eleven mammals. The results of the queries are presented in Appendix D along with analysis of the potential for each species to occur in the project site based on the species’ geographic range and ecology. The CEQA Appendix G checklist items for potentially significant impacts to biological resources are outlined below.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Biological resources were evaluated based on field reconnaissance of the site and analysis of publicly available data. None of the regionally occurring special-status species plants have the potential to occur in the project site due to a lack of suitable habitats. No listed invertebrates, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, or mammals have the potential to occur in the project site based on the species’ geographic range and ecology and the developed nature of the project site.

The project site provides suitable nesting habitat for native birds that are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Codes. Wildlife observed during the biological reconnaissance included native birds common in urban environments such as Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), American robin (Turdus migratorius), Brewer's blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos).

If project activities commence during the avian breeding season (February 1 through August 31) and active nests are present in or adjacent to the project site, project activities could potentially result in impacts to native birds. Removal of trees or herbaceous vegetation containing active nests would potentially result in destruction of eggs and/or chicks. Noise, dust, and other anthropogenic stressors in the vicinity of the project site could result in nest abandonment. Mitigation Measure BIO-01 would be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts to nesting birds. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-01, potential impacts to special-status species and nesting birds would be reduced to less than significant and no additional mitigation measures would be required.

City Council/RSA Agenda 166 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
38 Mitigation Measure BIO-01: Avian Nesting Surveys
If project (construction) ground-disturbing and grubbing activities commence during the avian breeding season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey no more than 14 days prior to initiation of project activities.

The survey area shall include suitable raptor nesting habitat within 500 feet of the project boundary (inaccessible areas outside of the project site can be surveyed from the site or from public roads using binoculars or spotting scopes). Pre-construction surveys are not required in areas where project activities have been continuous prior to February 1, as determined by a qualified biologist. Areas that have been inactive for more than 14 days during the avian breeding season must be re-surveyed prior to resumption of project activities. If no active nests are identified, no further mitigation is required. If active nests are identified, the following measure is required:
• A suitable buffer (e.g., typically 300-500-feet for raptors; and 50-100-feet for passerines) shall be established by a qualified biologist around active nests and no construction activities within the buffer shall be allowed until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest, or the nest has failed). Encroachment into the buffer may occur at the discretion of a qualified biologist. Any encroachment into the buffer shall be monitored by a qualified biologist to determine whether nesting birds are being impacted. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No impact. No riparian habitats, sensitive natural communities, or other protected habitats are located on or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, no impact to these natural communities would occur. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No impact. No riparian habitat or wetlands occur within or immediately adjacent to the project site. As such, no impacts to federally or state protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act are anticipated, and no mitigation would be necessary. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Potential nesting habitat is limited on the project site; however, the proposed project includes removal of vegetation that provides potential nesting habitat for native birds. Project construction activities would potentially result in impacts to nesting birds if construction of the proposed project commences during the typical nesting period for migratory birds. Construction activities and construction-related disturbance (noise, vibration, and increased human activity) could adversely affect these species if they were to nest in or adjacent to the project area. Potential effects include physical destruction of nests by construction equipment and/or nest abandonment. Mitigation Measure BIO-01 would be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts City Council/RSA Agenda 167 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
39 to nesting birds. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-01, potential impacts to native resident wildlife species and nesting birds would be reduced to less than significant, and no additional mitigation measures would be required.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact. A total of twenty-two trees were identified on the project site at the time the arborist survey was conducted. The condition of the trees ranged from good to fair. Tree species present included six American sycamores (Platanus occidentalis), four crape myrtles (Lagerstroemia indica), two California fan palms (Washingtonia filifera), nine Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis), and one olive (Olea sp.). Of the twenty-two trees identified, the project would remove eight trees (tree tag numbers #35, #37, #38, #39, #40, #45, #51, and #57) which include one Chinese pistache, one olive, two California fan palms, two American sycamores, and two crape myrtles. The project may also minimally impact an additional six trees due to the placement of new landscaping within the dripline of the trees.

Details regarding the location and condition of the trees in the project site are provided in Appendix E.

City Municipal Code Section 12.16.170 (Tree Conservation) regulates the removal of trees meeting certain criteria. Of the eight trees to be removed, four trees meet the City Municipal Code Section

12.16.170 (Tree Conservation) criteria for protected trees because their trunks have a circumference greater than 12 inches and they would be removed as part of a project. The four trees include tree tag (#35) American sycamore, tree tag (#38) California fan palm, tree tag (#51) California fan palm, and tree tag (#57) olive.

The project will comply with the City’s tree ordinance and mitigation requirements. Prior to removal of the four protected trees, the project applicant will apply for a tree removal permit from the City. The application will specify the location of the trees which are to be removed and indicate the method of removal. As a condition for granting a permit, the deciding official or deciding body may require one or more replacement trees of a species and size designated by the Director of Public Works to be planted on public or private property. The landscape plan for the proposed project includes the planting of six sweet bay (Laurus nobilis) to be planted onsite. The six trees proposed as part of the project may provide appropriate replacement for the trees removed by the project consistent with City requirements. The project applicant will comply with the requirements of the permit. Because the project would comply with the City’s Tree Conservation Ordinance, the impact would be less than significant.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan/ Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan applicable to the project site.

City Council/RSA Agenda 168 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
40 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
The discussion below is based on a cultural records investigation conducted by HELIX that included a Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, a records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), a site visit to photo document the site, and a historic evaluation narrative. For information about tribal consultation under CEQA (AB 52), please see Section 5.XVIII Tribal Cultural Resources.

Environmental Setting
Study Area
The cultural resources study area for the proposed project is defined as the geographic area where project activities may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties of archeological buildings, structures, objects, or features that are 45 years or older. The study area for the project includes approximately 0.5 acre in Union City, California, at the intersection of Alvarado-Niles Road and Union Landing Road.

Methodology
On October 20, 2022, HELIX requested a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System, NWIC at California State University, Sonoma. The records search encompassed the

0.5-acre study area and surrounding 0.25-mile area. The objective of the records search was to identify (1) prior cultural resource investigations completed in or near the Project area; and (2) prehistoric or historical resources previously documented in the project area and within 0.25 mile of project area.

Sources consulted included reports of previous studies, cultural resource records (Department of Parks and Recreation [DPR] 523-series forms), historical USGS topographic maps, and the Historic Properties Directory of the Office of Historic Preservation to identify National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) eligible or listed resources. The California Points of Historical Interest, California Historical Landmarks, and local Union City cultural resource inventory listings were reviewed to identify historical resources within the project area.

On November 7, 2022, HELIX requested a search of the NAHC SLF to identify recorded locations of Native American sacred sites or human remains within the Project area. On December 14, 2022, HELIX City Council/RSA Agenda 169 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
41 mailed letters requesting information pertaining to the project area to Native American representatives identified by the NAHC. A historic resources evaluation was conducted by HELIX’s Senior Architectural Historian, Teri Delcamp, who meets Secretary of the Interior standards for professional archaeology on January 10, 2023.

Records Search Findings
The NWIC records search identified two prior cultural resource studies conducted within the project area, including the Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Dyer Street, Triangle/Starr Center Mall Project; and Historic Property Survey Report for Route I-880/Alvarado Niles Interchange Project. The NWIC identified no previously recorded resources within the project area or the 0.25-mile radius. No prehistoric cultural resources were identified in the NWIC records search.

Native American Outreach
On December 2, 2022, HELIX received a written response from the NAHC which stated that the SLF record search had positive results. The letter recommended communication with eleven (11) local Native American representatives who might be able to supply further information related to the Project area. HELIX sent letters to the following 11 tribal representatives on December 14, 2022:
• Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson; Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista • Tony Cerda, Chairperson; Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe • Anne Marie Sayers, Chairperson; Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan • Kanyon Sayers-Roods, MLD Contact; Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan • Monica Arellano, Vice Chairwoman; Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area • Katherine Perez, Chairperson; North Valley Yokuts Tribe • Timothy Perez, North Valley Yokuts Tribe
• Desiree Vigil, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer; The Ohlone Indian Tribe • Andrew Galvan, Chairperson; The Ohlone Indian Tribe
• Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson; Wuksache Indian Tribe/ Eshom Valley Band • Corrina Gould, Chairperson; The Confederated Villages of Lisjan As of August 2024, no responses were received to information request letters mailed by HELIX on December 14, 2022. For information about tribal consultation under CEQA pursuant to the requirements of AB 52, please see Section 5.XVIII Tribal Cultural Resources.

Historic Context
Alvarado, Decoto, and Union City
In 1851, John Horner built a landing on a large bend on Alameda Creek. He created a town and called it Union City after his steamship named Union. Around the same time Henry C. Smith also founded a town east of the City along a bend on Alameda Creek called New Haven. Eventually the two towns merged and was renamed Alvarado, after the Mexican Governor of California, Juan B. Alvarado. Alameda County was created in 1853, and Alvarado was named the County seat and was considered the hub of Alameda County. Eventually the County seat was moved to San Leandro due to consistent flooding events on Alameda Creek (Swenson 2008).

City Council/RSA Agenda 170 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
42 The town of Alvarado thrived as an agricultural community in the late nineteenth century. Its major economy was agriculture. Produce was shipped directly by boat to the fast-growing City of San Francisco across the bay. Eventually larger agricultural factories were founded in Alvarado including a sugar beet factory, the first in the United States, and various salt works. When the South Pacific Coast Railroad was built through Alvarado, a spur was created for the sugar beet factory which further grew the business.

Eventually Alameda Creek silted and was no longer utilized for shipping (Swenson 2008).

Chinese and Portuguese were early immigrants to Alvarado. They would be the primary workforce for the sugar beet factory and local farms. A Chinatown was once located along the northside of Smith Street. Sometime in the 1920s, local citizens burned down the buildings and forced the Chinese to relocate to Oakland (Swenson 2008). From 1900 to 1930, the Portuguese represented the largest ethnic group; the 1910 and 1920 census records indicate nearly half of all people in Alvarado were Portuguese (Swenson 2012a). The trend was also the same within the larger Washington Township and some of the East Bay (Swenson 2012b).

In 1857, three brothers – Ezra, Adolphus and John Decoto – were attracted to California by the promise of the gold rush and sailed into San Francisco Bay. After hearing of the possibility of a railroad coming to the area, the brothers purchased 334 acres of land in Niles Canyon. Eventually, the transcontinental railroad was built and the Central Pacific Railroad bought back 234 acres of the land and platted the town of Decoto. At the corner of 10th and I Streets is a local market originally serving as a saloon starting in 1897 and converted to a market in 1901. The market served residents and housed the post office and the first telephone exchange in the first decades of the 20th century (Swenson 2012b).

By 1907, Decoto was still a growing town with many lots available for housing but used for other purposes. Real estate promoters chartered a train that year to bring potential buyers from San Francisco and Oakland, entertaining guests with a luncheon and reception. The train fare was subtracted from the cost of a purchased lot, and over 300 lots were reported to have been sold that day (Wilson n.d.). With its proximity to the railroad and abundance of local produce, several canneries were established in Decoto in the early 20th century, allowing shipment across the country (Figure 3). In 1938, Pacific States Steel was the largest employer in Decoto (Swenson 2008).

Alvarado and Decoto were neighboring towns from 1870 until 1959. A Citizens’ Committee, led by Tom Kitayama, formed in 1959 to petition for incorporation of the two towns to keep the neighboring City of Hayward from annexing both towns. On January 13, 1959, the issue was put to a vote and Union City was incorporated, uniting the towns of Alvarado and Decoto. Tom Kitayama was the first mayor and the first Japanese American mayor in the United States. Upon its incorporation, Union City had a population of 6,000 and was predominantly agricultural. Within the next 50 years, Union City’s population had increased more than ten-fold and residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, schools, churches, and industrial parks had replaced the former agricultural fields (Swenson 2008). 31300 Alvarado-Niles Road
The project’s Phase I ESA indicates a service station was present on the site since at least 1973.

According to newspaper articles and advertisements, the service station was operating as Alvarado Niles Services Station in early 1974. Based on an article surveying gas station operating hours in March 1974, the site was one of at least four service stations in Union City at that time. By 1984, the site was operating as the A-1 Mobil Service Center (Newsbank 2022, GenealogyBank 2022). From at least 2008 through 2015, the site operated as a Union 76 station. Since at least 2017, H&S has been operating the City Council/RSA Agenda 171 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
43 site as a Chevron service station (Google 2022). Previous owner/operators also include British Petroleum and Tosco.

Architectural Description
The site is developed with two primary structures: the main service station building and a canopy over two fuel pump islands. A landscaped planter at the corner of the site comprises a rectangular monument sign. To the east of the service station building is an uncovered trash enclosure. The balance of the site is paved for access and parking. The perimeters of the site are landscaped with shrubs and trees, as well as a pedestrian gateway structure connecting the site with the transit center north of the property that appears to have been built with the Union Landing Transit Center circa 2002 (Newsbank 2022). Two driveways access the site from Alvarado-Niles Road and one from Union Landing Blvd.

The service station building is rectangular, oriented east to west at the northerly portion of the site. The building rests on a slightly raised concrete slab foundation. The grade is lower at the west end of the site, and the building is surrounded on three sides by a narrow, raised painted-brick planter. The roof is moderately pitched and comprises two sections. The easterly section is a front gable and the westerly section is a gable on hip roof. The roof is covered in asphalt composition shingles. The roofs feature solid fascias on the rakes and eaves with moderate overhangs. Virtually all of the exterior is clad in metal, vertical board, and batten paneling.

The south (main) elevation of the service station building faces Alvarado-Niles Road. The south elevation contains entrances to the cashier/mini-mart and the service bays. The easterly portion of the service station is devoted to two service bays that occur under a header. The wall above the header is clad in board and batten panels. The bays feature paneled, metal roll-up doors separated by a solid section clad in board and batten. The walls flanking the outside edges of the bays are clad in painted brick panels below the board and batten. The westerly portion comprises the entrance to the cashier/minimart accessed by a door with a solid lower panel under a single fixed-pane window. To the right of the door is a ribbon of three fixed windows below a wide header. The lower halves of the windows appear to be painted over. The wall to the corner is clad in board and batten panels. The most westerly section of this elevation is set back under an extended overhang supported by 4X4 painted metal posts and comprises the public restroom accessed by a single door, with surrounding walls clad in board and batten. The recessed area is enclosed by an iron railing with an opening to access the restroom.

The west side elevation of the service station building faces Union Landing Boulevard. The south portion of the west elevation features the side of the cashier/minimart set back under the extended overhang, while the north portion comprises the side of the restroom. The wall of the casher/minimart exhibits a set of two fixed windows, one of which is painted over on the lower half, with board and batten panels above. The side of the restroom is clad in board and batten panels, as is the gable end above the hipped roof. Almost centered in the north portion of the west elevation is a utility room door with a transom window above. What appears to have been a second door and transom above it located to the right of the utility room door has been filled in. This façade of the building is raised above grade, with a set of three concrete steps leading to a painted concrete walkway that wraps from the south elevation. The railing continues along this elevation and the roof is supported by four more 4X4 painted metal posts. A low, raised painted brick planter at the base of the raised wall is planted with shrubs and a tree.

The north elevation represents the rear of the building and, with one exception, is a blank wall clad in vertical board and batten panels. A low, raised painted brick planter is located along the base of the City Council/RSA Agenda 172 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
44 wall, with shrubs and trees along the north wall of the planter. At the most westerly end is a recessed open storage room covered by the roof and secured by a pair of swinging doors. Unfinished wood 2X4s have been installed horizontally spaced at intervals in the opening above the doors. The AC unit occurs on the north elevation, and a variety of piping and conduit occurs on this elevation at the west end.

The east elevation features a wall clad in board and batten panels below the side gabled roof. A ribbon of three multi-lite windows that have all been painted over occurs on this elevation; the upper two lites in each of the three-lite windows comprise a hopper window that opens inward. A louvred metal vent occurs toward the south corner. A low, raised painted brick planter at the base of the wall is planted with shrubs. The masonry trash enclosure with a pair of metal panel gates on the south side is located east of this façade.

The canopy structure is also rectangular, oriented north to south perpendicular to, and south of, the service station building. The canopy roof matches the pitch, style and covering of the service station building. Two fuel pump islands are located under the canopy, each with two fuel pumps. The roof is supported by one square pillar extending from the center of each pump island to a cross beam under the roof; the pillars are clad in painted brick matching the brick that occurs on the main elevation of the service station and the raised planters on the site.

Regulatory Context

FEDERAL
NRHP Criteria
In order to qualify for the NRHP, a property must be significant at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of four criteria. The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects:

A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In addition to meeting one of more of the above criteria, a NRHP-eligible property must also retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance and be at least 50 years of age or of extraordinary importance.

Integrity
Resources must be significant and have historical integrity. Integrity is defined as the ability of a resource to convey its significance through the property’s physical features and how those features relate to the property’s significance within its period of significance. For historical resources, a period of significance is the date or span of time which reflects the significance of the architecture, or within City Council/RSA Agenda 173 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
45 which significant events transpired or significant individuals made their important contributions in relation to the resource in question.

The CRHR and NRHP recognize location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association as the seven aspects of historical integrity (NRB 15). Although not all seven aspects of integrity need to be present for a property to be eligible, the property must retain enough physical and design characteristics to reflect the property’s significance. The seven aspects of historical integrity are:
• Location is the place where a resource was constructed or where an event occurred; • Design results from intentional decisions made during the conception and planning of a resource. Design includes form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property; • Setting applies to a physical environment, the character of a resource’s location, and a resource’s relationship to the surrounding area;
• Materials comprise the physical elements combined or deposited in a particular pattern or configuration to form a property;
• Workmanship consists of the physical evidence of crafts employed by a particular culture, people, or artisan, which includes traditional, vernacular, and high styles; • Feeling relies on present physical features of a property to convey and evoke an aesthetic or historic sense of past time and place; and
• Association directly links a historic property with a historic event, activity, or person of past time and place; and requires the presence of physical features to convey the property’s historic character.

STATE
The policies of the National Historic Preservation Act are implemented at the state level by the California Office of Historic Preservation, a division of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. The Office of Historic Preservation is also tasked with carrying out the duties described in the Public Resources Code (PRC) and maintaining the California Historic Resources Inventory and the CRHR. The state-level regulatory framework also includes CEQA, which requires the identification and mitigation of substantial adverse impacts that may affect the significance of eligible historical and archaeological resources. Granite School is listed in the CRHR and therefore is a historical resource under CEQA.

California Environmental Quality Act
Historical resources, as defined by CEQA, are resources that are listed in, or are determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, a local historic register, or that are otherwise determined to be historical pursuant to the CEQA Statute or Guidelines (PRC Section 21084.1 or California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15064.5). It is important to note under 14 CCR Section 15064.5(a)(4), a resource may also be considered a “historical resource” for the purposes of CEQA at the discretion of the lead agency, despite ineligibility recommendations. A historical resource may be an object, building, structure, archaeological site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in terms of California’s architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural records. Typically, historical resources are more than 50 years old, and may be prehistoric (i.e., Native American) or historic in age.

City Council/RSA Agenda 174 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
46 CRHR Criteria
The criteria for listing in the CRHR are generally consistent with the NRHP criteria. In order to qualify for the CRHR, a historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria:

1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;

2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;

3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method or construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, a CRHR-eligible property must also retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance. Unlike the NRHP, a CRHR-eligible property need not be 50 years of age to be eligible if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance.

LOCAL
Union City Designation Criteria
The City defines its designation criteria in the Union City Municipal Code Section 18.106.240 Designation Findings (Union City 2022). The Planning Commission may approve a nomination application for, and the City Council may designate, a structure, improvement, natural feature, object, or area for designation as a cultural resource or historic district if it finds that the structure, improvement, natural feature, object, or area meets the following criteria:

A. It exemplifies or reflects a special element of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, architectural or natural history and possesses an integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association; and

1. It embodies distinctive characteristics of style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or

2. It contributes to the significance of a historic area being a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of historic or scenic properties or thematically related grouping of properties or properties which contribute to each other and are unified aesthetically by plan or physical development, or

3. It embodies elements of architectural design, detail materials or craftsmanship that represents a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation, or

4. It has a unique location or singular physical characteristic or is a view or vista representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City of Union City, or
City Council/RSA Agenda 175 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
47 5. It is at least forty-five (45) years of age.

B. It is one (1) of the few remaining examples in the City, region, state, or nation possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historical type or specimen; C. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history.

In addition, Union City Municipal Code Section 18.106.110 Definitions defines a “Noncontributing property” in a historic district as a building, site, structure, or object that does not add to the historic architectural qualities, historic association or archaeological values for which a historic district is significant because the property:

1. Was not present during the period of the district or the area’s historic significance; or

2. No longer possesses historic architectural integrity due to alterations, disturbances, additions, or other changes; or

3. Does not independently meet the designation criteria as defined in this chapter.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
No Impact. According to the project’s Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), regulatory records show the property has operated as a service station since at least 1972, making the building more than 50 years old (Partner 2020). Based on the proposal to demolish existing structures that are over 50 years in age, a historic evaluation and narrative of the existing structures was prepared by Teri Delcamp on January 10, 2023. The purpose of the evaluation was to provide the substantial evidence necessary to determine if the structures to be demolished are considered historically significant under CEQA based on the eligibility criteria of the NRHP, the CRHR, and any local designation criteria. Work efforts included a review of historic aerial photographs, building permit records, topographic maps, Sanborn Fire Insurance maps, and any other available materials to provide an architectural description of the structures, characterize any modifications over time, and make a significance determination. 31300 Alvarado-Niles Road Significance Evaluation

NRHP/CRHR
Resources that are found to be significant under one or more of the NRHP and/or CRHR significance criteria must also be evaluated for integrity. If a resource is not found to be historically significant under any of the criteria, then an integrity evaluation is not applicable. The following NRHP/CRHR evaluation adheres to the NPS guidelines for evaluation as provided in National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (NPS 1995).

Criterion A/1
The service station at 31300 Alvarado-Niles Road was constructed circa 1972 and does not appear to be directly associated with any historically significant events, trends, patterns, or themes at the local, state, City Council/RSA Agenda 176 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
48 or federal level. Therefore, the subject property is not historically significant under Criterion A/1 (association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history).

Criterion B/2
Research has not revealed any significant association between the service station and any historically significant persons at the national, state, or local level. Therefore, the subject property at 31300 Alvarado-Niles Road is not historically significant under Criterion B/2 (association with the lives of significant persons in our past).

Criterion C/3
The service station site was constructed circa 1972 in a Modern Ranch style that was typical of that era.

The generic materials used in the site’s construction have no unique or distinguishing characteristics or features. There is no evidence available in the record of an architect or builder, so the property is not representative of a master’s body of work. Some alterations appear to have occurred to the service station building over time, including the filling in of one secondary door and transom on the west façade and painting over of windows or portions of windows. The service station building and canopy do not possess the distinctive characteristics of a method of construction, represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values. Therefore, the subject property at 31300 Alvarado-Niles Road is not historically significant under Criterion C/3 (embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction).

Criterion D/4
This Criterion is most relevant for archaeological sites, but it can be applied to historic built-environment resources if further study has the potential to yield information that cannot be obtained from other sources. However, further study of the service station structures would not add any new information to the historic record or our understanding of 1970s service station development. Therefore, the subject property at 31300 Alvarado-Niles Road is not historically significant under Criterion D/4 (has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory).

Union City Designation Criteria
Criterion A
There is no evidence that the subject property at 31300 Alvarado-Niles Road is associated with any events or elements important to the city’s history. Therefore, the subject property at 31300 AlvaradoNiles Road is not historically significant under Criterion A (exemplifies or reflects a special element of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, architectural or natural history).

Criterion B
The subject property at 31300 Alvarado-Niles Road is a modest example of the ubiquitous Modern Ranch style services stations built in the middle part of the 20th Century. There were at least three other existing service stations in Union City in the mid-1970s, and many more currently. Therefore, the subject property at 31300 Alvarado-Niles Road is not historically significant under Criterion B (is one (1) of the City Council/RSA Agenda 177 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
49 few remaining examples in the City, region, state, or nation possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historical type or specimen).

Criterion C
No evidence was discovered to suggest that the subject property is identified with any historically important people or events. Therefore, the subject property at 31300 Alvarado-Niles Road is not historically significant under Criterion C (is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history).

As such, the structures on the site were evaluated regarding eligibility for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, and local register. The significance evaluation concluded that the site is not eligible for designation under any federal, state, or local criteria. Therefore, no historic-era resources exist on the subject property, and there would be no impact.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, HELIX has assessed the project area for the presence of archaeological resources. The project site itself is not in an area otherwise suspected to contain unknown archaeological resources. The site survey and surveys of written records, historical maps and photographs, and outreach to groups with knowledge of the area’s history all suggest that no known or previously unknown archaeological resources would be encountered or disturbed during construction. While ground disturbance would be limited, still, the potential exists for inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources during project construction. The implementation of standard archaeological resource construction mitigation (Mitigation Measures CUL1) would ensure that potential impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Avoid impacts to previously unknown archaeological resources.

In the event that cultural resources are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery. Cultural resources could consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, wood, or shell artifacts, or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resources cannot be avoided during the remainder of construction, an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards shall be retained to assess the resource and provide appropriate management recommendations. If the discovery proves to be CRHR- or NRHPeligible, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted and shall be discussed in consultation with the Lead Agency. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the discovery may be of Native American origin, the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation and any other applicable tribes will be notified.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. No human remains are known to exist in the immediate vicinity of the project site. However, there is always the possibility that construction activities associated with the proposed project could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains.

This is a potentially significant impact. However, if human remains were discovered, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level.

City Council/RSA Agenda 178 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
50 Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Avoid and minimize impacts related to accidental discovery of human remains.

The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during a project. If such an event did occur, the specific procedures outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code, must be followed:

1. All excavation activities within 60 feet of the remains will immediately stop, and the area will be protected with flagging or by posting a monitor or construction worker to ensure that no additional disturbance occurs.

2. The project owner or their authorized representative will contact the Alameda County Coroner.

3. The coroner will have two working days to examine the remains after being notified in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the coroner determines that the remains are Native American and are not subject to the coroner’s authority, the coroner will notify NAHC of the discovery within 24 hours.

4. The Native American Heritage Commission will immediately notify the Most Likely Descendant, who will have 48 hours after being granted access to the location of the remains to inspect them and make recommendations for their treatment. Work will be suspended in the area of the find until the City approves the proposed treatment of human remains.

City Council/RSA Agenda 179 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
51 VI. ENERGY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
The proposed buildings would be designed and engineered to meet Advanced Framing standards as applicable within the building code.

Regulatory Context

FEDERAL
There are no federal regulations pertaining to energy that apply to the proposed project.

STATE
Renewables Portfolio Standard
In 2002, SB 1078 was passed to establish the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program, with the goal of increasing the amount of electricity generated and sold to retail customers from renewable energy resources. The initial goal was to increase the percentage of renewable energy in the state's electricity mix to 20 percent of retail sales by 2017. The Renewables Portfolio Standard has been subsequently amended by the following actions:

California Building Standards Code
Title 24 of the CCR, also known as the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), is based on the IBC used widely throughout the country. The CBSC has been modified for California conditions to include more detailed and/or more stringent regulations. The CBSC consists of 13 parts, including the California Building Code, Energy Code, and Green Building Standards Code.

California Energy Code
The California Energy Code (Part 6 of the CBSC), also known as the State’s Energy Efficiency Standards, was established by the California Building Standards Commission in 1978 with a goal of reducing California’s energy consumption for residential and nonresidential buildings. The Standards include City Council/RSA Agenda 180 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
52 mandatory measures related to building envelopes, mechanical systems, indoor and outdoor lighting, and electrical power distribution. For all newly constructed nonresidential buildings over 10,000 square feet, building commissioning must be included in the design and construction process to verify that the building’s energy systems and components meet State requirements for energy efficiency. The Standards are periodically updated by the California Energy Commission (CEC).

The 2019 update to the Energy Efficiency Standards became effective on January 1, 2020. The Initial Study prepared for the updated Standards estimates that implementation of the 2019 Standards will reduce the energy use of typical new residential buildings by about 7 percent and nonresidential buildings by about 31 percent compared to buildings constructed under the current standards. In addition, the 2019 Standards are projected to decrease water consumption by approximately 246 million gallons per year (GPY), reduce statewide annual electricity consumption by about 650 gigawatthours per year, and reduce statewide natural gas consumption by 9.8 million therms per year. Further, there could potentially be a net reduction in the emissions of nitrous oxide by roughly 100 metric tons per year, sulfur oxides by 0.27 metric tons per year, carbon monoxide by 28 metric tons per year, and (PM2.5) by 3.36 metric tons per year. The 2019 Standards are also anticipated to reduce growth in statewide GHG emissions by 230,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2e) per year.

California Green Building Standards Code
In 2007, the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) developed green building standards in an effort to meet the goals established by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. These standards are referred to as the CALGreen Code and are included as Part 11 of the CBSC. The CALGreen Code requires new residential and commercial buildings to comply with mandatory measures related to planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency/ conservation, material conservation, resource efficiency, and environmental quality. The most recent update to the CALGreen Code became effective January 1, 2023. Although it was adopted as part of the State’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions, the CALGreen Code has the added benefit of reducing energy consumption from residential and nonresidential buildings that are subject to the Code.

California Environmental Quality Act
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that if analysis of a project’s energy use reveals that the project may result in significant environmental effects due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, the effects must be mitigated. The Guidelines provide suggestions of topics that may be included in the energy analysis, including identification of energy supplies that would serve the project and energy use for all project phases and components. In addition to building code compliance, other relevant considerations may include the project’s size, location, orientation, equipment use and any renewable energy features that could be incorporated into the project. The energy use analysis may be included in related analyses of air quality, GHG emissions, transportation, or utilities at the discretion of the lead agency.

LOCAL
Union City General Plan
The City’s General Plan includes the following Goals and Policies related to energy:

City Council/RSA Agenda 181 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
53 Goal RC-6: The City shall continue to promote programs and initiatives that support and maximize energy conservation and the use of renewable energy in Union City.

Policy RC-6.1: Reduced Energy Consumption. The City shall support measures to reduce energy consumption and increase energy efficiency in residential, commercial, industrial, and public buildings.

Policy RC-6.2: Renewable Energy. The City shall promote efforts to increase the use of renewable energy resources, including but not limited to, wind, solar, hydropower, and biomass and the use of battery storage within the community and City operations, where feasible.

Policy RC-6.3: Solar Technology on Private Buildings. The City shall encourage the incorporation of solar panels and other solar technology on parking structures and residential, industrial, and commercial buildings.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The project would be required to comply with all applicable City, ACWD, and State green building measures, including the State Building Energy Efficiency Standards – Title 24, Part 6, and Part 11 (CEC 2022). Additionally, unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction would be avoided through restriction of vehicle idling times and proper maintenance of construction equipment, as detailed in Mitigation Measure AQ-1 in Section 5.III, Air Quality. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts on energy resources during project operation or construction would be less than significant with mitigation. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact. As discussed under item a), the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable City and State green building measures, including the State Building Energy Efficiency Standards – Title 24, Part 6, and Part 11. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact and would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

City Council/RSA Agenda 182 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
54 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
iv. Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Environmental Setting
The topography of the project site is flat with an elevation of approximately 15 ft amsl at its center. The project site is disturbed and is currently being used as a gas station and convenience store/smog check station. According to the National Resources Conservation (NRCS) Soil Survey Map, the entire 0.5-acre parcel is made up of well drained Sycamore silt loam (NRCS 2023).

The project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area, and this region is known to be one of the most seismically active places in the United States. Although the project site is not located within an AlquistPriolo Study Zone (i.e., active faults), the following three major active faults are located in the greater City Council/RSA Agenda 183 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
55 San Francisco Bay Area: the Hayward Fault, the San Andreas Fault, and the Calaveras Fault. The nearest active earthquake fault is the Hayward Fault, located approximately 3.30 miles east of the project site (DOC 2023).

Regulatory Context

FEDERAL
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction (NEHR) Act was passed in 1977 to reduce the risks to life and property from future earthquakes in the United States. The Act established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, which was most recently amended in 2004. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is designated as the lead agency of the program. Other NEHR Act agencies include the National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Science Foundation, and the USGS.

STATE
California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (PRC Section 2621 et seq.) was passed in 1972 to reduce the risk to life and property from surface faulting in California. The Act prohibits the siting of most structures intended for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. Before a project can be permitted in a designated Alquist-Priolo Fault Study Zone, a geologic investigation must be prepared to demonstrate that proposed buildings would not be constructed across active faults.

California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) of 1990 (PRC Section 2690–2699.6) addresses non surface fault rupture earthquake hazards, including strong ground shaking, liquefaction, and seismically induced landslides. The SHMA also addresses expansive soils, settlement, and slope stability. Under the SHMA, cities and counties may withhold development permits for sites within seismic hazard areas until geologic/geotechnical investigations have been completed and measures to reduce potential damage have been incorporated into development plans.

California Building Standards Code
As discussed in Section 6.VI, the CBSC consists of 13 parts, including the California Building Code, Energy Code, Fire Code, and Green Building Standards Code. Part 2 of the CBSC is the CBC that includes standards for structural design, excavation, grading, seismic design, drainage, and erosion control.

LOCAL
Union City General Plan
The City’s General Plan includes the following Goals and Policies related to geology and soils:

Goal S-3: To minimize the risks associated with geologic and soils hazards in order to protect public health and safety, property, and the environment.

City Council/RSA Agenda 184 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
56 Policy S-3.1: Development Review for Safety Compliance. The City shall evaluate all proposed projects to ensure compliance with all relevant building and safety codes, including those related to flooding, fire, earthquake, and other geologic hazards.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less than Significant Impact. The nearest active earthquake fault is the Hayward, located approximately

3.30 miles east of the project site (DOC 2023). The site is not within a currently established State of California Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture hazards (DOC 2023). Because no active earthquake faults transect the project site, there is no risk of ground rupture on the project site from known earthquake faults. However, the San Francisco Bay Area is one of the most seismically active places in the United States, and the project site will likely be subject to at least one moderate to severe earthquake and associated seismic shaking during the life of the planned development, as well as periodic slight to moderate earthquakes. Some degree of structural damage due to strong seismic shaking is expected at the site, but the impact of seismic-related ground shaking on the project site would be reduced if the project is constructed in compliance with the California Building Code requirements, including seismic design codes. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. In accordance with Section 15.85.100 of the City Municipal Code and General Plan Policy S-3.1, prior to the start of demolition and construction, a project-specific geotechnical report will be prepared to identify recommended measures to minimize risks associated with geologic and soil hazards. Although strong seismic ground shaking could be experienced at the site during the life of the project, by complying with applicable building codes and mitigation measure GEO1, the proposed project would maintain structural integrity and protect the occupants from injury. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to seismic shaking with incorporation of the following mitigation measure.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Site-Specific Geotechnical Investigation Prior to the issuance of final demolition and construction permits for the project, a geotechnical firm with local expertise in geotechnical investigation shall prepare a site-specific geotechnical report. The report shall be prepared by a California-licensed geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist and be submitted to the Union City Building Department for approval prior to issuance of final permits for demolition and construction. This report shall be based on data collected from subsurface exploration, laboratory testing of samples of surface mapping, and address the potential for surface fault rupture, ground shaking, slope failure, and expansive soils and make recommendations based on those findings. The developer shall implement recommendations identified in the site-specific geotechnical report.

City Council/RSA Agenda 185 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
57 iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The project site is in an area mapped as a liquefaction zone (CGS 2019). Liquefaction zones have a historical occurrence of liquefaction and have a potential for ground displacement. At liquefaction zones, Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) requires mitigation to reduce seismic risk to acceptable levels. Without mitigation, impacts related to liquefaction are potentially significant. With implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1 above, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
iv. Landslides?
No Impact. The project site is flat and not in an area mapped as a landslide zone (DOC 2023). The proposed project would have no impact from landslides.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is level and not subject to high winds or erosive water features. Best management practices would be implemented to prevent soil erosion during construction. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared to obtain demolition and construction permits from the City Public Works Department. Implementation of the measures included in the project-specific SWPPP would result in a less than significant impact on soil erosion or loss of topsoil.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As identified in the General Plan, the project site is not in a seismic landslide area; however, it is in a seismic liquefaction area (Union City 2019, DOC 2023). While the project could experience liquefaction-induced field settlement and ground-surface disruption, a geotechnical study will be prepared for the project to address potential issues including liquefaction in accordance with Policy S-3.1 of the General Plan and Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires implementation of design recommendations in the geotechnical study as required by the Union City Building Department and would reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Expansive soils shrink and swell in response to changes in moisture levels. The changes in soil volumes can result in damage to structures including building foundations, and infrastructure, if the project design does not appropriately accommodate the changing soil conditions. The parcel is mapped as Sycamore silt loam and is classified as a Group B soil with low shrink-swell potential (NRCS 2023). The required geotechnical study would include site-specific engineering design measures and construction methods to ensure that impacts associated with expansive soils (if present) are less than significant. Additionally, the proposed project would be designed to meet seismic safety requirements specified in the California Building Code, including standards to minimize impacts from expansive soils. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation City Council/RSA Agenda 186 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
58 Measure GEO-1, impacts related to the potential hazards of construction on expansive soils would be less than significant.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The project site is served by the Union Sanitary District. The proposed project would not require the construction or use of a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal system. The proposed project would have no impact on soils incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Much of Union City, including the vicinity of the project site, is underlain by Quaternary nonmarine terrace deposits, which date approximately to the latePleistocene. Based on the Potential Fossil Yield Classification System by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM 2016), this geological unit has a moderate potential for yielding fossils (Class 3). As discussed in other sections of this Initial Study, the project site is currently used as a gasoline station and convenience store/smog check station, and excavation of soils took place to remove old fuel tanks at the site. While the project site has experienced substantial disturbance, there is a possibility that fossils may be encountered at previously undisturbed areas. Without mitigation, destruction of unique paleontological resources during earthmoving activities would be a potentially significant impact.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Paleontological Resources Mitigation Prior to the start of construction, construction workers shall receive on-site training regarding identification of paleontological resources. If any paleontological resources are encountered during site grading or other construction activities, all ground disturbance shall be halted until the services of a qualified paleontologist can be retained to identify and evaluate the scientific value of the resource(s) and, if necessary, recommend mitigation measures to document and prevent any significant adverse effects on the resource(s). Significant paleontological resources shall be salvaged and deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology.

City Council/RSA Agenda 187 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
59 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth including temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global temperatures are moderated by atmospheric gases.

These gases are commonly referred to as GHGs because they function like a greenhouse by letting sunlight in but preventing heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth’s atmosphere.

GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human (anthropogenic) activities. Anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily associated with the burning of fossil fuels during motorized transport, electricity generation, natural gas consumption, industrial activity, manufacturing, and other activities; deforestation; agricultural activity; and solid waste decomposition.

The GHGs defined under California’s AB 32, described below, include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Estimates of GHG emissions are commonly presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which weigh each gas by its global warming potential (GWP). Expressing GHG emissions in CO2e takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted. GHG emissions quantities in this analysis are presented in metric tons (MT) of CO2e. For consistency with United Nations Standards, modeling and reporting of GHGs in California and the U.S. use the GWPs defined in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007): CO2 = 1; CH4 = 25; N2O = 298.

Regulatory Context
Executive Order S-3-05
On June 1, 2005, Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 proclaimed that California is vulnerable to climate change impacts. It declared that increased temperatures could reduce snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To avoid or reduce climate change impacts, EO S-3-05 calls for a reduction in GHG emissions to the year 2000 level by 2010, to year 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Executive Orders are not laws City Council/RSA Agenda 188 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
60 and can only provide the governor’s direction to state agencies to act within their authority to reinforce existing laws.

Assembly Bill 32 – Global Warming Solution Act of 2006
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, widely known as AB 32, requires that CARB develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. CARB is directed by AB 32 to set a GHG emission limit, based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. The bill requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions.

Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, EO B-30-15 established a California GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The EO aligns California’s GHG emission reduction targets with those of leading international governments, including the 28 nation European Union. California is on track to meet or exceed the target of reducing GHGs emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as established in AB 32.

California’s new emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 will make it possible to reach the goal established by EO S-3-05 of reducing emissions 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050.

Senate Bill 32
Signed into law by Governor Brown on September 8, 2016, Senate Bill (SB) 32 (Amendments to the California Global Warming Solutions Action of 2006) extends California’s GHG emission reduction programs beyond 2020. SB 32 amended the Health and Safety Code to include Section 38566, which contains language to authorize CARB to achieve a statewide GHG emission reduction of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030. SB 32 codified the targets established by EO B-30-15 for 2030, which set the next interim step in the State’s continuing efforts to pursue the long-term target expressed in EO B-30-15 of 80 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2050.

Executive Order N-79-20
EO N-79-20, signed by Governor Newsom on September 23, 2020, establishes three goals for implementation of zero emissions vehicles in California: first, 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks will be zero-emissions by 2035; second, 100 percent of medium- and heavyduty vehicles in the state will be zero-emissions vehicles by 2045 for all operations where feasible, and by 2035 for drayage trucks; and third, 100 percent of off-road vehicles and equipment will be zero emissions by 2035 where feasible.

Assembly Bill 1279
Approved by Governor Newsom on September 16, 2022, AB 1279, The California Climate Crisis Act, declares the policy of the State to achieve net zero GHG emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter, and to ensure that by 2045, statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced to at least 85 percent below the 1990 levels.

AB 1279 anticipates achieving these policies through direct GHG emissions reductions, removal of CO2 from the atmosphere (carbon capture), and almost complete transition away from fossil fuels.

City Council/RSA Agenda 189 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
61 Senate Bill 905
Approved by Governor Newsom on September 16, 2022, SB 905, Carbon sequestration: Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program, requires CARB to establish a Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and viability of carbon capture, utilization, or storage technologies and CO2 removal technologies and facilitate the capture and sequestration of CO2 from those technologies, where appropriate. SB 905 is an integral part of achieving the state policies mandated in AB 1279.

California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan
The Scoping Plan is a strategy CARB develops and updates at least one every five years, as required by AB 32. It lays out the transformations needed across our society and economy to reduce emissions and reach our climate targets. The current 2022 Scoping Plan is the third update to the original plan that was adopted in 2008. The initial 2008 Scoping Plan laid out a path to achieve the AB 32 mandate of returning to 1990 levels of GHG emissions by 2020, a reduction of approximately 15 percent below business as usual. The 2008 Scoping Plan included a mix of incentives, regulations, and carbon pricing, laying out the portfolio approach to addressing climate change and clearly making the case for using multiple tools to meet California’s GHG targets. The 2013 Scoping Plan assessed progress toward achieving the 2020 mandate and made the case for addressing short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs). The 2017 Scoping Plan also assessed the progress toward achieving the 2020 limit and provided a technologically feasible and cost-effective path to achieving the SB 32 mandate of reducing GHGs by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. On December 15, 2022, CARB approved the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan). The 2022 Scoping Plan lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by Assembly Bill 1279. The actions and outcomes in the plan will achieve significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels; further reductions in SLCPs; support for sustainable development; increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon; and the capture and storage of carbon (CARB 2022b).

Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD provides direction and recommendations for the analysis of GHG impacts of a project and approach to mitigation measures in its CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD 2023b). On April 20, 2022, the BAAQMD Board of directors adopted revised CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans, described fully in an associated justification report (BAAQMD 2022). The guidance provided in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and Thresholds of Significance Justification Report were used to prepare this analysis.

Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission As required by the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), ABAG and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) have developed a Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as a component of Plan Bay Area 2050 (MTC and ABAG 2021).

This plan seeks to reduce GHG and other mobile source emissions through coordinated transportation and land use planning to reduce VMT.

City Council/RSA Agenda 190 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
62 City of Union City
The City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in November 2010. The CAP presents a summary of actions the City has already taken towards the reduction of GHG emissions; summarizes the 2005 emissions inventory; presents actions the City, residents and businesses can take to further reduce emissions; and sets reduction goals (City 2010).

Existing Greenhouse Gases
Current GHG emissions from the existing gas station and convenience store on the project site were modeled separately to establish a baseline. The estimated existing land use GHG emissions are shown below in Table 6, Existing Land Use GHG Emissions.

Table 6

EXISTING LAND USE GHG EMISSIONS
Source Emissions
(MT CO2e per year)
Area <0.1
Energy 9.5
Mobile 477.5
Waste 1.4
Water 0.2
Refrigerant 52.2
Total Emissions1 540.1
Source: CalEEMod.
1 Totals may not sum due to rounding.

MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
Methodology
GHG emissions for the project construction activities and long-term operation were calculated using CalEEMod Version 2022.1. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The model was developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California air districts. CalEEMod allows for the use of default data (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory) provided by the various California air districts to account for local requirements and conditions, and/or userdefined inputs. The model calculates emissions of the GHGs CO2, methane, and N2O, as well as the CO2e for all GHGs combined. The calculation methodology and input data used in CalEEMod can be found in the CalEEMod User’s Guide Appendices A, C, and D (CAPCOA 2022). The input data and subsequent construction and operation emission estimates for the proposed project are discussed below. CalEEMod output files for the project are included in Appendix C to this Initial Study.

Remediation and Construction Emissions
The CalEEMod input and assumptions for modeling remediation and construction emissions are described in Section 5.III, Air Quality of this Initial Study.

City Council/RSA Agenda 191 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
63 Operation Emissions
Operational impacts were estimated using CalEEMod, Version 2022.1, as described above. The project land uses were modeled as: a 2,375 square-foot convenience store and 14,853 square feet of paved surfaces. The CalEEMod default vehicle speeds, trip purposes, and distances were used for trip generation. Operational sources of GHG emissions in CalEEMod include area, energy, mobile, water use, solid waste, and refrigerant. Operational project input and design features incorporated into CalEEMod for the project include:
• Area – Area sources include GHG emissions from landscaping equipment and the use of consumer products. Emissions associated with area sources were estimated using the CalEEMod default values for the project.
• Energy – The project would use electricity for lighting, heating, and cooling, and product refrigeration. Electricity would be supplied by PG&E. The project would be built without natural gas to comply with BAAQMD design guidelines. However, natural gas was included using CalEEMod defaults for modeling purposes and was modeled to ensure a conservative assessment of the proposed project. The CalEEMod default natural gas usage rates for convenience stores in Alameda County were used.
• Mobile – Operational emissions from mobile sources are associated with project-related vehicle trip generation and trip length. The CalEEMod default vehicle speeds, trip purposes, and distances were used.
• Solid Waste – Solid waste generated by the project would also contribute to GHG emissions.

Treatment and disposal of solid waste produces emissions of methane. Modeling was conducted using CalEEMod default solid waste generation rates and GHG factors for Alameda County. • Water and Wastewater Sources – Water-related GHG emissions are from the energy used and process emissions for the conveyance and treatment of water and wastewater. Modeling was conducted using CalEEMod default water use rates and GHG factors for Alameda County. • Refrigerant – Refrigerant sources include fugitive GHG emissions associated with building air conditions (A/C) and refrigeration equipment. Emissions associated with refrigerant sources were estimated using CalEEMod default values.

Significance Criteria
Given the relatively small levels of emissions generated by a typical development in relationship to the total amount of GHG emissions generated on a national or global basis, individual development projects are not expected to result in significant, direct impacts with respect to climate change. However, given the magnitude of the impact of GHG emissions on the global climate, GHG emissions from new development could result in significant, cumulative impacts with respect to climate change. Thus, the potential for a significant GHG emissions impact is limited to cumulative impacts.

On April 20, 2022, the BAAQMD Board of directors adopted revised CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans, described fully in an associated justification report. Rather than quantitative thresholds for emissions of GHG, BAAQMD has adopted thresholds based on performance standards. Land use development projects must include either Threshold A or Threshold B (BAAQMD 2022):

City Council/RSA Agenda 192 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
64 A. Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements:

1. Buildings
a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development).
b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

2. Transportation
a. Achieve a reduction in project-generated VMT below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA:
i. Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita ii. Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee iii. Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT
b. Achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.

B. Projects must be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

Construction Emissions
Project construction is anticipated to commence in January 2025 and be completed in approximately nine months. Construction GHG emission sources include construction equipment exhaust, on-road hauling trucks exhaust, vendor vehicle exhaust, and worker commuting vehicle exhaust. Construction GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod version 2022.1. The BAAQMD has not adopted thresholds of significance for construction-period GHG emissions. The project’s estimated total and amortized short-term construction GHG emissions are shown in Table 7, Construction GHG Emissions.

The amortized construction GHG emissions are included with the operational GHG emissions, below.

City Council/RSA Agenda 193 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
65 Table 7

CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS
Year Emissions
(MT CO2e)
2024 113
Amortized Construction Emissions (30 years) 3.8
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix C.) Operational Emissions
Long term operation of the project would result in emissions of GHGs from: area sources such as the use of landscape maintenance equipment; energy sources form the use of electricity; mobile sources related to the use of vehicles for customer trips, worker commute trips, and vendor trips; solid waste sources related to the disposal and decomposition of waste generated by the project; water sources related to the energy used for the conveyance and treatment of freshwater and wastewater; and refrigerant sources related to air conditioning and refrigeration equipment. Operational GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod version 2022.1.

As described above, the BAAQMD has adopted performance standard-based thresholds rather than quantitative GHG emissions thresholds. The estimated net operational GHG emissions for the project are shown in Table 8 Operational GHG Emissions.

Table 8

OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
Source Emissions
(MT CO2e per year)
Area <0.1
Energy 16.1
Mobile 745.0
Waste 2.2
Water 0.4
Refrigerant 81.5
Total Project Emissions1 845.3
Existing Use Emissions (540.1)
Net Project Emissions1 305.2
Source: CalEEMod.
1 Totals may not sum due to rounding.

MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
The City CAP, adopted in 2010, does not address the State’s post-2020 GHG reduction mandates.

Therefore, the significance of the project’s GHG emissions is determined using the BAAQMD performance standard-based Threshold A described above:

A.1.a. No Natural Gas – The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing.

A.2.b. Electric Vehicle Parking – Achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2 standards.

City Council/RSA Agenda 194 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
66 In order to comply with A.1.a. No Natural Gas, Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would be implemented to ensure natural gas is not included in the final project design. The proposed project includes nine (9) parking spaces. Per 2022 CALGreen Appendix 5 – Voluntary Non-Residential Measure, a project with 9 total parking spaces would require 3 of the parking spaces to be EV capable. Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would require the City to verify that the proposed project would have three parking spaces that are wired for EV charging. Two of these spaces would have EV charging stations as part of the proposed project. The 2022 CALGreen requirements require that three spaces be wired for EV charging, but does not require that all wired spaces have EV chargers installed. Implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure compliance with A.2.b. Electric Vehicle Parking.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Verification of plans for natural gas.

Prior to final project design approval, the City shall require and verify the specification on applicable site and building plans that no natural gas appliance or natural gas pumping is included.

Mitigation Measure GHG-2: Verification of EV Capable Parking Spaces.

Prior to final project design approval, the City shall require and verify the specification on applicable site and building plans that a minimum of 3 of the project’s 9 parking spaces would be electric vehicle (EV) capable spaces in accordance with the 2022 CALGreen definitions and 2022 CALGreen nonresidential voluntary Tier 2 requirements.

Impact Summary
In order to comply with the BAAQMD Threshold A performance standards, Mitigation Measure GHG-1 and Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would be implemented. Therefore, with the mitigation measures, the project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in criterion a), above, the project would comply with all of BAAQMD’s performance standard GHG emissions thresholds. In addition, many long-term GHG reduction plans, including the CARB Scoping Plan, estimate future GHG emissions and corresponding reduction targets based on local and statewide growth estimates. The project site is proposed to have a General Plan land use designation of Retail Commercial and would be zoned Community Commercial.

The proposed project’s development of a convenience store with gas station would be consistent with the land use designation and zoning. Because the project would be consistent with the project site land use designation and zoning, any population and employment growth in the City as a result of the project would be within the growth assumptions of the City General Plan which provides growth assumptions for GHG forecasting in regional plans such as the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan, and the Plan Bay Area 2050.

Transportation sources account for the largest portion of the State’s GHG emissions inventory—38 percent in 2020 (CARB 2022c). Regional metropolitan SCS plans such as Plan Bay Area 2050 aim to reduce GHG emissions in the transportations sector. A key to accomplishing this is to reduce the VMT for cars and light trucks. As part of the 2019 update to the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines that became City Council/RSA Agenda 195 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
67 effective on January 1, 2019, the guidelines for assessing transportation impacts were revised to reflect SB 743, which mandates a change in transportation impact analysis from a consideration of the project’s congestion impacts to a consideration of a project’s VMT impacts. In response to this anticipated change, the OPR released the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA to assist CEQA practitioners with the implementation of SB 743. The technical advisory contains the following recommendations for the transportation analysis of retail development projects (OPR 2018):

Because new retail development typically redistributes shopping trips rather than creating new trips, estimating the total change in VMT (i.e., the difference in total VMT in the area affected with and without the project) is the best way to analyze a retail project’s transportation impacts.

By adding retail opportunities into the urban fabric and thereby improving retail destination proximity, local-serving retail development tends to shorten trips and reduce VMT. Thus, lead agencies generally may presume such development creates a less-than-significant transportation impact. Regional-serving retail development, on the other hand, which can lead to substitution of longer trips for shorter ones, may tend to have a significant impact.

The project’s proposed development of a convenience store and gas station would be consistent with the project site’s zoning and the site is located near existing residential areas. It is reasonable, therefore, to characterize the project as local-serving retail, and that, on a regional level, local-serving retail tends to reduce VMT because customers travel a shorter distance than typically assumed in regional planning estimates. Therefore, the project would be consistent with Plan Bay Area 2050.

The City’s CAP contains 21 potential GHG reduction measures. Of the 21 reduction measures, three items are potentially applicable to the project (City 2010):

Measure E-3.2 – Promote ‘Cool Roofs’ to mitigate the urban heat island effect and reduce air conditioning use: The project would comply with the 2022 Title 24, Part 6, which contains requirements for thermal emittance and solar reflectance index for new commercial buildings in each of California’s climate zones.

Measure WR-1.2 – Strengthen Construction and Demolition Standards: The project would be required to comply with the City’s Construction and Demolition and Debris Recycling Ordinance, which requires new construction projects to recycle or reuse 100 percent of all asphalt, concrete, uncontaminated soil, land-clearing debris, and plant debris; and requires recycling or reuse of 65 percent of all other construction debris generated by the project’s construction activities.

Measure WR-1.1 – Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance: The project would be required to comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance through plant selection and efficient irrigation systems.

The project would be required to comply with all applicable City and state green building measures, including the State Building Energy Efficiency Standards - Title 24, Part 6 and Part 11 (CALGreen). The project would be consistent with the City General Plan land use and zoning designations and would implement all applicable GHG reduction measures from the City’s CAP. Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The impact would be less than significant.

City Council/RSA Agenda 196 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
68 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
The existing project site is on a developed lot currently being used as a gas station and convenience store/smog check station. The project site does not have any known past land uses associated with potentially hazardous sites. The school nearest to the project site is Alvarado Elementary School, located approximately 0.59-mile southwest of the project site at 31100 Fredi Street. Other schools in the vicinity include Itliong-Vera Cruz Middle School, located approximately 0.6 mile southwest of the project site at 31604 Alvarado Boulevard.

The following databases were reviewed for the project site and surrounding area to identify potential hazardous contamination sites: the State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker tool (SWRCB 2023), California Department of Toxic Substance Control’s EnviroStor online tool (DTSC 2023); and the EPA’s Superfund National Priorities List (USEPA 2021).

City Council/RSA Agenda 197 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
69 FEDERAL
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is the primary federal law for the regulation of solid waste and hazardous waste in the United States and provides for the “cradle-to-grave” regulation that requires businesses, institutions, and other entities that generate hazardous waste to track such waste from the point of generation until it is recycled, reused, or properly disposed of. The USEPA has primary responsibility for implementing the RCRA.

USEPA’s Risk Management Plan
Section 112(r) of the federal CAA (referred to as the USEPA’s Risk Management Plan) specifically covers “extremely hazardous materials” which include acutely toxic, extremely flammable, and highly explosive substances. Facilities involved in the use or storage of extremely hazardous materials must implement a Risk Management Plan (RMP), which requires a detailed analysis of potential accident factors and implementation of applicable mitigation measures.

Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) The federal OSHA prepares and enforces occupational health and safety regulations with the goal of providing employees with a safe working environment. OSHA regulations apply to the workplace and cover activities ranging from confined space entry to toxic chemical exposure.

U.S. Department of Transportation
The United States Department of Transportation regulates the interstate transport of hazardous materials and wastes through implementation of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. This act specifies driver-training requirements, load labeling procedures, and container design and safety specifications. Transporters of hazardous wastes must also meet the requirements of additional statutes such as the RCRA.

STATE
California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Definition of Hazardous Material A material is considered hazardous if it appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a federal, State, or local agency, or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. A hazardous material is defined in Title 22, Section 66260.10, of the CCR as: A substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either (1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed. The Union City Environmental Programs Division is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) authorized under state law to implement Title 22 hazardous materials requirements.

City Council/RSA Agenda 198 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
70 Department of Toxic Substances Control
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste under the RCRA and the State Hazardous Waste Control Law. Both laws impose “cradle-to-grave” regulatory systems for handling hazardous waste in a manner that protects human health and the environment.

California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) has primary responsibility for developing and enforcing state workplace safety regulations, including requirements for safety training, availability of safety equipment, accident and illness prevention programs, hazardous substance exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation.

Regional Water Quality Control Board
The SWRCB and RWQCBs regulate hazardous substances, materials, and wastes that may affect surface water or groundwater through a variety of state statutes, including the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and underground storage tank cleanup laws. Any person proposing to discharge waste within the State must file a Report of Waste Discharge with the appropriate regional board. The proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB).

Hazardous Materials Emergency Response/Contingency Plan Chapter 6.95, Section 25503, of the California Health and Safety Code requires businesses that handle/store a hazardous material or a mixture containing a hazardous material to establish and implement a Business Plan for Emergency Response (Business Plan). A Business Plan is required when the amount of hazardous materials exceeds 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids, or 200 cubic feet for compressed gases. A Business Plan is also required if federal thresholds for extremely hazardous substances are exceeded. The Business Plan includes procedures to deal with emergencies following a fire, explosion, or release of hazardous materials that could threaten human health and/or the environment. The Union City Environmental Programs Division is the CUPA authorized under state law to implement HSC chapter 6.95 hazardous materials requirements.

California Accidental Release Prevention Program
The goal of the California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP) is to prevent and mitigate accidental releases of substances that pose the greatest risk of immediate harm to the public and the environment. Facilities are required to prepare a Risk Management Plan in compliance with CCR Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 4.5, if they handle, manufacture, use, or store a federally regulated substance in amounts above established federal thresholds; or if they handle a state regulated substance in amounts greater than state thresholds and have been determined to have a high potential for accident risk. The Union City Environmental Programs Division is the CUPA authorized under state law to implement CalARP program requirements.

City Council/RSA Agenda 199 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
71 LOCAL
Alameda County Water District
Cooperative Agreements between the SFBRWQCB and ACWD, as well as ACWD’s Groundwater Protection Program, allow ACWD to provide technical oversight for the investigation and remediation of LUFT sites and sites where the pollution is attributed to spills and leaks from structures other than underground fuel tanks now referred to as Site Cleanup Program sites.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact. Routine transport of fuel to the gasoline dispensing station will be necessary. To operate underground storage tank systems, owners and operators are required to obtain an underground storage tank permit from the Union City Environmental Programs Division, which is the Certified Unified Program Agency for the City. As a permitted tank facility, regular inspection, reporting, and testing for leaks is required. Due to the gasoline station’s required compliance with strict State and local regulations, reinforced through annual inspections and enforcement by the Environmental Programs Division, the proposed project is expected to have a less than significant impact to the public related to routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Gasoline vapors and air quality impacts are discussed in Section 5.III, Air Quality. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. There are three (3) underground fuel tanks that would remain on site and would be emptied during demolition and construction. To minimize potential risks from accidental spill or release of fuel or residues from emptying the existing underground fuel tanks, a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan will be prepared to address potential spills.

The SPCC is included in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 and will include immediate response actions in case of an accidental release.

The discussion below is based on the Phase I ESA prepared for the project, case closure letter, and case closure summary (H&S Energy 2020). The case closure letter, ESA, and case closure summary are included as Appendix G. The project site is listed in the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act-Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generators databases (EPA 2021). Records indicate that the project site has operated as a gasoline station from at least 1973 and was in agricultural use prior to that (H&S Energy 2020).

Cleanup actions consisted of the removal of Underground Storage Tanks, including a waste oil Underground Storage Tank, from the subject property in 1987 and 1997. The three current on-site Underground Storage Tanks replaced the original fuel Underground Storage Tanks in 1998 and were found to have no evidence of leaking at the time of the Environmental Site Assessment (H&S Energy 2020).

Groundwater monitoring was performed with a total of 18 total groundwater monitoring wells installed on-site and off-site from 1985 to 2014. Seventeen (17) of these wells have been destroyed and one City Council/RSA Agenda 200 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
72 remains unaccounted for. Approximately 3,600 tons of impacted soil and over 48,000 gallons of impacted groundwater was removed in 1998 during the Underground Storage Tank (UST) replacement activities. Surface water sampling was performed on Old Alameda Creek with results indicating no hydrocarbon contamination. The nearest water supply well is located over 1,000 feet from the subject property, and the concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons remaining in the subsurface soil and groundwater meet low-risk criteria. The release was granted closure under the “Low Threat Closure” policy on January 29, 2018, indicating that the case met all criteria for the State Water Board’s LowThreat Underground Storage Tank Case Closure Policy and that a No Further Action determination was appropriate (H&S Energy 2020). While soil samples did not contain concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons above environmental screening levels (H&S Energy 2020), there is possibility that residual hazardous materials may be encountered during site construction activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce the impact to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Hazardous Materials Management The following measures would be incorporated to minimize potential hazardous materials impacts.
• The City shall ensure that grading plans, other improvement plans and building permits include a statement specifying that if hazardous materials contamination is discovered or suspected during construction activities, then all work shall stop immediately until the Union City Environmental Programs Division has determined an appropriate course of action. Such actions may include, but would not be limited to, site investigation, human health and environmental risk assessment, implementation of a health and safety plan, and remediation and/or site management controls. Any site investigation and recommendations for mitigation, as necessary, shall be completed by a qualified professional and submitted to the City.
• Construction Workers shall receive on-site training regarding the potential for previously unknown and/or residual soil or groundwater contamination to be present. Training shall be conducted by a qualified professional in hazardous materials handling. The training shall identify the appropriate steps to be taken by the contractor upon discovery of potentially contaminated material. If excavation activities are to take place in an area of known soil and/or groundwater contamination, only construction workers who are trained in OSHA’s Hazardous Waste and Emergency Response standard (HAZWOPER) shall perform this work.
• In the event previously unknown and/or residual contaminated soil, groundwater, or subsurface features are encountered, work on-site shall cease immediately, and the applicant’s contractor and/or site qualified professional shall notify the Union City Planning and Environmental Programs Divisions.
• Applicant shall make all required reports to regulatory agencies if possible contamination is discovered. The Union City Environmental Programs Division shall be responsible for assessing the degree of compliance and the effectiveness of risk mitigation efforts required by regulatory agencies, and reporting to the planning Division whether risks have been satisfactorily abated in accordance with the requirements of this measure.

City Council/RSA Agenda 201 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
73 • The City shall ensure that a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan is prepared to address potential spills during the emptying of the on-site fuel tanks and that the plan shall include immediate response actions in the case of an accidental spill or release of potentially hazardous materials.

Activities that involve soil disturbance or that intercept groundwater shall not resume on the site until the Union City Environmental Programs Division has determined further work would not pose an unacceptable human health or environmental risk, based on documentation developed by the applicant’s qualified professional and provided to the Union City Environmental Programs Division.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The project site is not within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest schools are Alvarado Elementary School, located at 31100 Fredi Street, Union City, approximately 0.60 mile to the southwest, and New Haven Unified School, located at 2831 Faber Street, Union City, approximately 1 mile to the northwest. The proposed project would have no impact on hazardous emissions or hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As discussed under item b), the project site has operated as a gasoline station since at least 1973. Cleanup activities included replacing the original USTs with the three current on-site USTs in 1998. Residual contamination of TPH-gasoline, benzene, ethylbenzene, xylenes and total retractable petroleum hydrocarbon (TRPH) and lead remain in the soil and TPHgasoline (3,300 microgram/liter (μg/L)) and TPH-diesel (200 μg/L), benzene (53 μg/L) and MTBE (31 μg/L) was detected in the most recent groundwater sampling event; however, the concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons remaining in the subsurface soil and groundwater meet low-risk criteria.

Groundwater activities have been completed at the site and a closure letter with case closure summary was issued by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB on January 29, 2018 (see Appendix G). The closure letter included a determination of “no further action” and the following recommendation for construction or redevelopment of the site:

The Alameda County Water District and the appropriate local planning and building departments must be notified prior to any changes in land use and site redevelopment. Residual contamination in both soil and groundwater remain at the subject property, therefore, the impact of disturbance of any residual contamination or the installation of a water well near the residual contamination should be assessed and the appropriate action should be taken so that there is no significant impact to human health.

Based on the regulatory closure with restriction, the release associated with the USTs removed in 1998 are considered a Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 described above would reduce potential impacts from residual City Council/RSA Agenda 202 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
74 contamination to a less than significant impact level. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The nearest airport is Hayward Executive Airport, approximately 5.4 miles northwest of the project site. The project site is not within the airport’s influence area boundary. The proposed project would have no impact on safety hazards or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. The proposed project would have no impact on airports and airport-related safety hazards. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The proposed project would redevelop the project site with a convenience store and fueling station. As discussed in Section 5.XVI, Transportation, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on traffic. The project site is approximately 1,387 feet east of I-880, which is a priority transportation route identified in the San Francisco Bay Area’s Regional Catastrophic Earthquake Mass Transportation/Evacuation Plan (Cal EMA 2011). There would be no reconstruction of the existing driveways, which are all in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and meet emergency access standards. The proposed project would have no impact on an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The project site is in an urbanized area and is surrounded by commercial land uses with residential beyond. The proposed project would have no impact on the exposure of people or structures to wildland fires.

City Council/RSA Agenda 203 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
75 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onor off- site? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional resources of polluted runoff?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The regional setting of the project site is primarily characterized by commercial development. The topography of the project site is relatively flat with an elevation of approximately 15 ft amsl at its center.

Drainage runs off the parcel into the existing City storm drain network. A storm drain is located adjacent to the northwest corner of the project site along Union Landing Boulevard. The project site is disturbed and is currently being used as a gas station and convenience store/smog check station.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate maps were reviewed for the project’s proximity to a 100-year floodplain. The proposed project is on FEMA panel 06001C0427G, effective August 2, 2009 (FEMA 2022).

City Council/RSA Agenda 204 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
76 Regulatory Context

FEDERAL
Clean Water Act
The CWA (33 USC Section 1251-1376), as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, is the major federal legislation governing water quality and was established to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” Pertinent sections of the Act are as follows:

1. Sections 303 and 304 provide for water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines.

2. Section 401 (Water Quality Certification) requires an applicant for any federal permit that would authorize a discharge to waters of the United States to obtain certification from the state that the discharge will comply with other provisions of the Act.

3. Section 402 establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except for dredged or fill material) into waters of the United States. This permit program is administered by the SWRCB and is discussed in detail below.

4. Section 404, jointly administered by the USACE and USEPA, establishes a permit program for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States.

Federal Anti-Degradation Policy
The federal Anti-Degradation Policy is part of the CWA (Section 303(d)) and is designed to protect water quality and water resources. The policy directs states to adopt a statewide policy that protects designated uses of water bodies (e.g., fish and wildlife, recreation, water supply, etc.). The water quality necessary to support the designated use(s) must be maintained and protected.

Safe Drinking Water Act
Under the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act, most recently amended in 1996, USEPA regulates contaminants of concern to domestic water supply, which are those that pose a public health threat or that alter the aesthetic acceptability of the water. These types of contaminants are classified as either primary or secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). MCLs and the process for setting these standards are reviewed triennially.

Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA is responsible for mapping flood-prone areas under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

Communities that participate in the NFIP are required to adopt and enforce a floodplain management ordinance to reduce future flood risks related to new construction in a flood hazard area. In return, property owners have access to affordable federally funded flood insurance policies.

City Council/RSA Agenda 205 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
77 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Under Section 402(p) of the CWA, the USEPA established the NPDES to enforce discharge standards for both point-source and non-point-source pollution. Dischargers can apply for individual discharge permits or apply for coverage under the General Permits that cover certain qualified dischargers. Pointsource discharges include municipal and industrial wastewater, stormwater runoff, combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, and municipal separate storm sewer systems. NPDES permits impose limits on discharges based on minimum performance standards or the quality of the receiving water, whichever type is more stringent in a given situation.

STATE
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code Section 13000 et seq.) is the principal law governing water quality regulation in California. It establishes a comprehensive program to protect water quality and the beneficial uses of waters of the State. The Porter-Cologne Act applies to surface waters, wetlands, and groundwater, and to both point and non-point sources of pollution. The Act requires a Report of Waste Discharge for any discharge of waste (liquid, solid, or otherwise) to land or surface waters that may impair a beneficial use of surface or groundwater of the state. The RWQCBs enforce waste discharge requirements identified in the Report.

State Anti-Degradation Policy
In 1968, as required under the Federal Anti-Degradation Policy, the SWRCB adopted an AntiDegradation Policy, formally known as the Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality Waters in California (State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16). Under the Anti-Degradation Policy, any actions that can adversely affect water quality in surface or ground waters must be consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State, not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial use of the water, and not result in water quality less than that prescribed in water quality plans and policies.

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
Pursuant to the federal CWA, the responsibility for issuing NPDES permits and enforcing the NPDES program was delegated to the SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs. NPDES permits are also referred to as waste discharge requirements (WDRs) that regulate discharges to waters of the United States. Below is a description of relevant NPDES general permits.
• Construction Activity and Post-Construction Requirements. Discharges from construction sites that disturb one acre or more of total land area are subject to the NPDES permit for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff associated with Construction Activity (currently Order No. 2009-009- DWQ), also known as the Construction General Permit. The permitting process requires the development and implementation of an effective SWPPP. Coverage under the Construction General Permit is obtained by submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the SWRCB and preparing the SWPPP prior to the beginning of construction. The SWPPP must include BMPs to reduce pollutants and any more stringent controls necessary to meet water quality standards.

Dischargers must also comply with water quality objectives as defined in the applicable Basin Plan. If Basin Plan objectives are exceeded, corrective measures are required.

City Council/RSA Agenda 206 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
78 The Construction General Permit includes post-construction requirements for areas in the State not covered by a Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan (SUSWMP) or a Phase I or Phase II MS4 Permit. These requirements are intended to ensure that the post-construction conditions at the project site do not cause or contribute to direct or indirect water quality impacts (i.e., pollution and/or hydromodification) upstream or downstream.

Where applicable, the SWPPP submitted to the SWRCB with the NOI must include a description of all post-construction stormwater management measures. The SWRCB Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) post-construction calculator or similar method would be used to quantify the runoff reduction resulting from implementation of the measures. The applicant must also submit a plan for long-term maintenance with the NOI. The maintenance plan must be designed for a minimum of five years and must describe the procedures to ensure that the post-construction stormwater management measures are adequately maintained.
• Dewatering Activities (Discharges to Surface Waters and Storm Drains). Construction dewatering activities that involve the direct discharge of relatively pollutant-free wastewater that poses little or no threat to the water quality of waters of the U.S., are subject to the provisions of CVRWQCB Order R5-2016-0076-01 (NPDES No. CAG995002), Waste Discharge Requirements, Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water, as amended. WDRs for this order include discharge prohibitions, receiving water limitations, monitoring, and reporting, etc.

Coverage is obtained by submitting a NOI to the applicable RWQCB. • Dewatering Activities (Discharges to Land). Construction dewatering activities that are contained on land and do not enter waters of the U.S. are authorized under SWRCB Water Quality Order No. 2003-003-DWQ, provided that the dewatering discharge is of a quality as good as or better than the underlying groundwater, and there is a low risk of nuisance.

Water Quality Control Plans (Basin Plans)
Each of the State’s RWQCBs is responsible for developing and adopting a basin plan for all areas within its region. The Plans identify beneficial uses to be protected for both surface water and groundwater.

Water quality objectives for all waters addressed through the plans are included, along with implementation programs and policies to achieve those objectives. Waste discharge requirements (WDRs) were adopted in order to attain the beneficial uses listed for the Basin Plan areas.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), enacted in September 2014, established a framework for groundwater resources to be managed by local agencies in areas designated by the Department of Water Resources as “medium” or “high” priority basins. Basins were prioritized based, in part, on groundwater elevation monitoring conducted under the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program. Of the 517 groundwater basins in the State, 109 are identified as medium- and high-priority basins. Critical conditions of overdraft have been identified in 21 groundwater basins (Department of Water Resources, 2019).

The SGMA requires local agencies in medium- and high-priority basins to form Groundwater Sustainability Agencies by July 1, 2017 and be managed in accordance with locally-developed Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs). Basins identified as critically over drafted are required to be City Council/RSA Agenda 207 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
79 managed under a GSP by January 31, 2020. All other medium- and high-priority basins must be managed under a GSP by January 31, 2022. Under SGMA, these basins should reach sustainability within 20 years of implementing their sustainability plans.

LOCAL
Alameda County Water District
As required by ACWD Ordinance No. 2010-01, drilling permits are required prior to the start of any subsurface drilling activities for new wells, exploratory holes, and other excavations within the City of Union City. Additionally, all drilling activities must be coordinated with ACWD prior to the start of any field work.

Union Sanitary District (USD)
Before approval for discharge to the USD sanitary sewer system, all reasonable alternatives to sewer disposal, such as legally permissible reuses, shall be explored. When no other alternative for disposal of surface water exists, USD may issue discharge permits for surface water encountered during construction activities. The permit is a conditional discharge permit and approval is dependent upon available capacity in the sewer system. Prior to commencement of any construction activities, contact USD’s Environmental Compliance Team for specific requirements, limits, and fees for a discharge permit.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

Construction Impacts
While construction activities have the potential to adversely affect water quality because of erosion of sediment, because of grading, such activities pose more of an environmental threat on large sites of many acres. Construction projects that disturb one acre of land or more are required to obtain coverage under Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ, as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) administered by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. Order 2009-0009-DWQ requires project sponsors to implement construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) at the project site and comply with numeric action levels to achieve minimum federal water quality standards. The Construction General Permit requires control of non-stormwater discharges as well as stormwater discharges. Measures to control non-stormwater discharges such as spills, leakage, and dumping must be addressed through structural as well as non-structural BMPs.

Although the proposed project is below the one-acre threshold requiring coverage under the Construction General Permit and no dewatering activities would be performed during implementation of the project, uncontrolled stormwater runoff from the site during project construction would still have the potential to adversely affect water quality. While on a project-specific basis, the magnitude of potential water quality impacts would be small, it would contribute to other water quality impacts that may be cumulatively considerable. Without mitigation, the proposed project’s construction effects on City Council/RSA Agenda 208 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
80 surface water quality would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would reduce construction impacts on water quality to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Stormwater Control Plan
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall submit a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) in accordance with current construction and post-construction State Water Resources Control Board, Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program requirements, and the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit for the project area for review and approval by the Union City Public Works Department. The SCP shall be implemented throughout project construction and project operation. The SCP shall include treatment measures and design features that will be incorporated into project design and construction to reduce the pollutant load in stormwater discharges and to manage runoff flows. The SCP shall describe construction stormwater BMPs that will be implemented to minimize the migration of sediments off-site. Typical construction BMPs can include covering soil stockpiles, sweeping soil from streets or other paved areas, performing site-disturbing activities in dry periods, and planting vegetation or landscaping quickly after disturbance to stabilize soils. Other typical stormwater BMPs include erosion and sediment control measures such as wattles, covers, silt fences, installing stabilized construction entrances and/or corrugated steel plates, protecting existing curb inlets with filter fabric and sandbags in the vicinity of the project.

The applicant shall clearly identify any pavement areas that are being removed and replaced and those areas that are currently landscaping/dirt and will be changed to impervious areas, such as Building, pavement or walkways, etc. This information will also be reflected in the Stormwater Requirements Checklist.

The applicant, depending upon the amount of new impervious areas being created or being replaced, as indicated on the Stormwater Requirements Checklist, shall demonstrate that the proposed project includes design features sufficient to capture and treat stormwater runoff, in compliance with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit or the applicant will be subject to payment of in-lieu fees.

If applicable, the applicant shall execute and implement an operations and maintenance agreement (O&M) with the City to provide for the maintenance of all on-site stormwater treatment features and devices in perpetuity. The requirements stipulated in the O&M agreement shall apply to current and all future owners of the property. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall provide proof of recording this agreement at the Alameda County Clerk Recorder’s Office. The applicant shall submit to the Union City Public Works Department annual inspection reports with the requirements stipulated in the O&M agreement.

Operational Impacts
Operational stormwater discharge from new development is regulated under the NPDES, administered by the RWQCB. In Union City, development projects must comply with NPDES Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit No. CAS612008. The permit requires any private or public development project that would create or modify 5,000 SF or more of impervious surfaces to take measures to improve water quality of stormwater discharges from the project site (i.e., stormwater runoff), including providing treatment of stormwater from the site.

City Council/RSA Agenda 209 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
81 The proposed project would result in approximately 4,795 SF of total new impervious surfaces with 12,646 SF of existing impervious surface to be removed and replaced, resulting in a total of approximately 17,441 SF of impervious surface areas. Proper design and maintenance of the on-site storm water treatment facilities would be necessary to avoid potentially significant impacts on water quality during operation. Without mitigation, the proposed project’s operational effects on surface water quality would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would require that the SCP for the project comply with all City and State requirements, including the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, to ensure that water quality standards and discharge requirements are not violated, and water quality is protected. Additionally, the project applicant shall coordinate with ACWD prior to submittal of the SCP to the Union City Public Works Department regarding drainage design and stormwater treatment measures. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1, the project would result in a less than significant impact.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less than Significant Impact. The Geotechnical Report indicates that the project site has operated as a gasoline station since at least 1973 and was in agricultural use prior. Groundwater monitoring was performed with a total of 18 total groundwater monitoring wells installed on-site and off-site from 1985 to 2014. Seventeen (17) of these wells have been destroyed and one remains unaccounted for. There are no existing wells on the project site, and tThe gasoline station and convenience store would be served by the public water system operated by the Alameda County Water District (ACWD). The site is currently developed, and the majority of the site is covered by impervious surfaces. Although the new 4,795 SF of impervious surfaces would reduce potential infiltration of rainfall, the relatively small (0.503- acre) project site provides minimal opportunity for groundwater recharge. Redevelopment of the project site would not result in a substantial decrease of groundwater supplies. Adequate water supply to the facility is anticipated, and no wells would be constructed. The project would result in a less than significant impact on groundwater supplies.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less than Significant Impact. The existing drainage pattern of the site consists of infiltration into site soils and runoff into the municipal stormwater system. This would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The project would result in a less than significant impact on erosion and siltation. ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site?
Less than Significant Impact. Storm water is removed from the subject property primarily by sheet flow action across the paved surfaces towards storm water drains located in the public right of way. Site storm water from roofs, landscaped areas, and paved areas is directed to on-site concrete swales, which drain to the public right of way. No streams or rivers run through the project site. This would not result in an increase in the amount or rate of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. The impact would be less than significant.

City Council/RSA Agenda 210 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
82 iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional resources of polluted runoff? Less than Significant Impact. No streams or rivers run through the project site, and, as discussed under item c) ii. above, runoff would be directed to on-site concrete swales. These drainage features would drain stormwater to the public right-of-way (ROW). This would not result in an increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. The impact would be less than significant.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact. Approximately 79.6% (17,441 SF) of the project site would be covered by impervious surface in the form of paved area, buildings, and canopy. 20.4% (4,463 SF) would be landscaped area (Figure 3, Appendix A). Since the project would direct stormwater flows and runoff to storm drains in the public ROW, the impervious surfaces from the project would not alter drainage patterns in a manner that would impede or redirect flood flows downstream. The impact would be less than significant.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact. The project is outside the 1 percent annual flood 100-year flood zone (Cal OES 2015). The project site is within Zone X. The project site is also outside of the tsunami inundation area. Within Union City, the only identified tsunami inundation zone is at Alameda Creek (Cal OES 2015), approximately 2.42 miles southwest of the project site.

The project site is not located near a lake and would not be subject to inundation by seiche; the nearest lakes or enclosed water bodies are Quarry Lakes, approximately 3.54 miles to the southeast, and Jordan Pond, approximately 2.78 miles to the northeast.

Mudflows are a concern for sloped areas with minimal vegetation and less cohesive soils. The project site is generally flat, and the immediate surroundings are paved and urbanized. The proposed project is anticipated to have no impact on release of pollutants due to inundation. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The project site is in Hydrologic Unit Code 18050004 within the South Bay Hydrologic Planning Area of the San Francisco Bay Region (USGS 2022). The applicable water quality control plan is the San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan; RWQCB 2017). The drainage design would be in compliance with all City and State requirements, including the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit and including post-construction stormwater runoff requirements, to ensure that water quality standards and discharge requirements are not violated, and water quality is protected. Correspondingly, the project is not anticipated to conflict with the water quality control plan or groundwater management plan, and project’s impact would be less than significant.

City Council/RSA Agenda 211 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
83 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The Union City 2040 General Plan guides current and future growth in the City. The Land Use Element lists land use designations for properties in the City and outlines goals and policies concerning development and use of that land. In concert with the 2040 General Plan, UCMC Title 18 Zoning establishes zoning districts in the City and specifies allowable uses and development standards for each district. Under State law, each jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance must be consistent with its general plan.

The project site is designated as Regional Retail Commercial (CRR) in the Union City 2040 General Plan, and would require a General Plan Amendment to be redesignated Retail Commercial (CR) to remove the project site from the Union Landing Special Area. The CR designation allows for retail uses, personal services, professional offices, banks, restaurants, and entertainment uses. Office uses above first floor retail are allowed. The allowed floor area ration (FAR) range for buildings located in this designation is between 0.25 and 1.00. The minimum parcel size for this designation is 5,000 sf. The amendment also includes an update to Chapter 9: Special Areas to remove the site from Figure SA-12.1: Union Landing General Plan Land Use and Figure SA-12.2: Union Landing Commercial Development Type Sub-Areas.

The project site is zoned Union Landing Commercial (CUL) and is seeking a Zoning Map Amendment to redesignate the site to Community Commercial (CC). The proposed project would fall under a conditional use within this zone, thereby requiring a Use Permit per UCMC Section 18.56.020. The proposed project also requires Site Development Review per UCMC Section 18.76.020. (Union City 2019). The CC zoning district is intended to stabilize, promote and improve the characteristics of the commercial business environment by providing adequate locations for stores, services and offices which fulfill the needs of the residents of the City as a whole. Permitted uses within the CC zoning district include a store, motel, office, bank, theaters, restaurant, health services, or similar use being with minimum lot size being 5,000 square feet in floor area. Additional permitted uses include outdoor sales consistent with the Policy Statement for the Regulation of Seasonal Sales Lots.

City Council/RSA Agenda 212 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
84 Regulatory Context

FEDERAL
There are no federal regulations pertaining to land use and planning that apply to the proposed project.

STATE
California Government Code
California Government Code Section 65300 et seq. contains many of the State laws pertaining to the regulation of land uses by cities and counties. These regulations include requirements for general plans, specific plans, subdivisions, and zoning. State law requires that all cities and counties adopt General Plans that include seven mandatory elements: land use, circulation, conservation, housing, noise, open space, and safety. A General Plan is defined as a comprehensive long-term plan for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries that is determined to bear relation to its planning. A development project must be found to be consistent with the General Plan prior to project approval.

LOCAL
Union City General Plan
The City’s General Plan includes goals, policies, and implementation measures designed for the purpose of avoiding or minimizing environmental effects. The UCMC implements the City’s General Plan. The purpose of the land use and planning provisions of the Code (Title 18, Zoning) is to provide for the orderly and efficient application of regulations and to implement and supplement related laws of the state of California, including but not limited to CEQA.

Union City Gas Marketeer Policy Statement
The City’s “Gas Marketeer Policy Statement” includes a list of objectives for use by the developer, City Council, Planning Commission, and City staff when evaluating use permit proposals to establish gasoline dispensing facility marketeers (Union City 1992). The policy statement is attached to this Initial Study as Appendix F and the objectives and criteria in the policy statement are listed below:

1. The floor area devoted to gas station marketeers within existing service stations shall be limited to 500 SF.

2. The floor area devoted to marketeer activity shall not be specifically limited in conjunction with the construction of an entirely new gas station or with a “raze and rebuild” proposal for an existing station. The appropriate floor size for such marketeers shall be established on a case-bycase basis during the Use Permit and Site Development Review analysis of the proposal.

3. Expansion or retrofitting of an existing service station to include a marketeer shall require, when necessary, at least a minimum upgrade or “clean up” of the facility. Such upgrades may include such investments as new exterior paint, removal of non-conforming signs, upgrading of landscape areas including replacement of dead or unhealthy landscaping, and the addition of minor architectural enhancements.

City Council/RSA Agenda 213 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
85 4. No outdoor sales of merchandise shall be permitted, including outdoor vending machines or cases of soda stacked in piles outside the station.

5. Marketeer signage shall be limited to one (1) sign advertising the marketeer and shall comply with all provisions of Section 18.30 of the Zoning Ordinance. No accessory signs such as those typically found in supermarket windows shall be allowed.

6. No pinball or arcade-type activities shall be permitted within the marketeer area.

7. For the convenience of the public and customers, public restrooms as well as air and water service facilities shall be provided on the site.

The City’s development standards for the Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial Districts are established in Chapter 18.36 of the Municipal Code. Key standards pertinent to the proposed project are identified below:

18.36.080 Coverage
The amount of the site area covered by structures shall not be restricted subject to the exception that in the Zoning District – Professional and Administrative Commercial (CPA) district the maximum site area covered by structures shall be fifty percent (50%).

18.36.090 Front Yard
A minimum front yard of twenty (20) feet shall be required. For structures which exceed twenty (20) feet in height, the required setbacks shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet.

18.36.100 Side Yards
No side yards shall be required, subject to the following exceptions:

A. In the CN and CC districts, on the side street side of a corner site, a side yard of not less than ten (10) feet shall be required.

B. Where the side property line of a site adjoins property in a residential district, a side yard of not less than twenty (20) feet adjoining the residential district shall be required.

C. One (1) foot shall be added at ground level to each required interior side yard for each three (3) feet of height by which the structure exceeds twelve (12) feet.

18.36.110 Rear Yard
No rear yard shall be required, subject to the following exceptions:

A. In the CN district, a rear yard of not less than ten (10) feet shall be required.

B. Where the rear property line of a site adjoins property in an A or R district, a rear yard of not less than twenty (20) feet shall be required.

C. One (1) foot shall be added at ground level to the required rear yard for each three (3) feet of height by which the structure exceeds twelve (12) feet.

City Council/RSA Agenda 214 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
86 18.36.120 Height of structures
No structure shall exceed the height as prescribed in the following table:

Table 9

CITY OF UNION CITY HEIGHT LIMITS
District

CPA CN CC CVR
Height limit (in feet) 100 30 100 100
CPA = Professional and Administrative Commercial; CN = Neighborhood Commercial; CC = Community Commercial

18.36.170 Landscaping
A. New landscaping and modifications to existing landscaping shall comply with the provisions listed in Chapter 18.112, Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, and the Landscape Standards Policy Statement.

B. Replacement of dead, dying or deficient landscaping shall be required for establishment of new uses or modification of existing uses.

C. Site Coverage Requirements.

1. Projects located in commercial districts referenced in this chapter (excluding the Professional and Administrative Commercial (CPA) district), that include development of a vacant site or substantial modification of a developed site, shall provide landscaped areas that measure ten percent (10%) of the project site area.

2. Projects located in the CPA district, that include development of a vacant site or substantial modification of a developed site, shall provide landscaped areas that measure a minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the project site area.

3. Drive-in and drive-through establishments (gas stations, fast food, etc.) shall include landscaped areas that measure a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the project site’s area. Excluding sidewalks and walkways, decorative hardscape surfaces and hardscape elements, can constitute up to five percent (5%) of the total requirement.

D. Landscape In-Lieu Fee.

1. Projects that cannot provide the minimum amount of landscaping required in Section 18.32.170(B) shall pay a landscape in-lieu fee in the amount set forth in the City’s Master Fee Schedule.

E. Parking Lot Coverage.

1. To provide adequate visual screening of parking areas from public ROW, there shall be a landscaped strip ten (10) feet in width which shall be contiguous and City Council/RSA Agenda 215 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
87 parallel to such ROW and shall be planted with trees, shrubs, and ground cover sufficient to obtain the required screening.

The CC district requires a minimum site area of 5,000 SF and no restriction of coverage. A minimum front yard of 20 feet is required. If structures exceed 20 feet in height, the required setback is a minimum of 25 feet.

Within CC districts and where the side property line adjoins property on a residential district, a side yard of at least 10 feet is required. Additionally, for each 3 feet of height the structure exceeds 12 feet, one foot shall be added at ground level to each interior side yard or rear yard. If the rear property adjoins an A or R district, a rear yard of not less than 20 feet is required.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The project site is a corner lot adjacent to Union Landing Boulevard and Alvarado-Niles Road, both arterial roadways. No residences are located adjacent to the project site, and the proposed project’s location at a corner lot would not physically divide the community. The proposed project would have no impact on physically dividing an established community. b) Cause significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact.

General Plan
The current designated land use at the project site is Regional Retail Commercial (CRR), and the project site is currently part of the Union Landing Special Area. The proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the site Retail Commercial (CR). This redesignation would remove the site from the Union Landing Special Area and would maintain consistency with the 2040 General Plan.

The CR land use designation allows for retail uses, personal services, professional offices, banks, restaurants, and entertainment uses. Office uses above first floor retail are allowed. The allowed floor area ration (FAR) range for buildings located in this designation is between 0.25 and 1.00, and the minimum parcel size for this designation is 5,000 sf. The amendment also includes an update to Chapter 3: Land Use and Chapter 9: Special Areas to remove the site from Figure SA-12.1: Union Landing General Plan Land Use and Figure SA-12.2: Union Landing Commercial Development Type Sub-Areas, and to update Figure LU-1: General Plan Land Use Diagram.

Designated land uses to the south are retail commercial with residential land uses beyond (3-6 Dwelling Units per acre). Designated land uses to the north, east, and west are regional retail commercial (Union City 2023).

The proposed project would be consistent with Land Use Policy LU-1.2, Promote Infill and Enhance Neighborhoods, which reads: “The City shall promote infill development and redevelopment of underutilized parcels while maintaining or enhancing the positive qualities of the surrounding neighborhoods.” The proposed project would redevelop the existing parcel and the convenience store would provide retail uses consistent with the designated Retail Commercial land use.

City Council/RSA Agenda 216 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
88 Zoning Ordinance
The proposed project would not conflict with Policy 2 of the City’s Gas Marketeer Policy Statement because the project would undergo Use Permit and Site Development Review. The proposed project would be consistent with Policies 1 and 3-7 of the City’s Gas Marketeer Policy Statement, the proposed project would have no outdoor sales, marketeer signage would be limited, no pinball or arcade-type activities would be included, and public restrooms would be available.

The 17-foot building height and the one-foot seven-inch-setbacks at the rear and interior side yards, and the 120-foot front and 55-foot street side setbacks meet zoning regulations for the CC zoning districts.

Based on a review of the project plans, the project conforms to all the zoning regulations described above. The project landscaping will be required to conform to the landscape requirements set forth in Municipal Code Section 18.112, Water Efficient Landscape, and the Landscape Standards Policy Statement.

Based on the analysis summarized above and pending approval of the land use redesignation and zoning map amendment of the project site, the proposed project would not conflict with the General Plan, zoning regulations, or any other local plans or policies adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project would result in a less than significant impact.

City Council/RSA Agenda 217 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
89 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
There are no active mines on the proposed project site or in the immediate vicinity (DOC 2023). The nearest mine is the Mission Clay Products Quarry (Mine ID: 91-01-0014), which is located outside of the City limits.

Regulatory Context

FEDERAL
There are no federal regulations pertaining to mineral resources that apply to the proposed project.

STATE
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), Chapter 9, Division 2 of the PRC, provides a comprehensive surface mining and reclamation policy to ensure that adverse environmental impacts are minimized, and mined lands are reclaimed to a usable condition.

Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) are applied to sites determined by the California Geological Survey (CGS) as being a resource of regional significance and are intended to help maintain mining operations and protect them from encroachment of incompatible uses. The Zones indicate the potential for an area to contain significant mineral resources.

LOCAL
There are no local regulations pertaining to mineral resources that apply to the proposed project.

City Council/RSA Agenda 218 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
90 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The project site is in an area classified as Mineral Resource Zone – 1 (MRZ-1), where MRZ-1 is defined as “Areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence,” (California Department of Conservation 1996). Accordingly, the proposed project would have no impact on the loss of availability of a known mineral resource.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. The Union City 2020-2040 General Plan Update Backup Report (Union City 2015) shows State designated “Regionally Significant Construction Aggregate” a mineral resource area east of Mission Boulevard near Appian Way, located approximately 3.88 miles to the east of the project site. No known mineral resources are located on the project site. At this distance, the proposed project would have no impact on the mineral resource area within Union City.

City Council/RSA Agenda 219 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
91 XIII. NOISE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
The predominant existing noise sources in the vicinity of the project site are vehicles on adjacent streets and I-880, as well as traffic at the Union Landing Transit Center adjacent to the project site. No commercial airports are located within two miles of the project site, although occasional overflights and associated noise occur from aircraft landing at Hayward Executive Airport, approximately 4.67 miles northwest of the project site or Oakland International Airport, approximately 11.15 miles northwest of the project site. The nearest sensitive receptors to the site are the residential homes located approximately 240 feet southwest of the project site adjacent to the intersection of Union Landing Boulevard and Alvarado-Niles Road.

The UCMC Section 9.40.053 requires that the noise as a result of construction activity not exceed the following standards:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m. daily except Saturday, when the exemption herein shall apply between nine a.m. and eight p.m. and Sundays and holidays, when the exemption herein shall apply between ten a.m. and six p.m., construction, alteration, or repair activities which are authorized by valid City permit shall be allowed if they meet at least one of the following noise limitations:

A. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty-three dBA at a distance of twenty-five feet. If the device is housed within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to twenty-five feet from the equipment as possible.

City Council/RSA Agenda 220 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
92 B. The noise level at any point outside the property plane of the project shall not exceed eightysix dBA. (Ord. 275-86 § 1, 1986) The Safety Element of the City’s General Plan also includes goals and policies to minimize excessive noise and vibration. The goals and policies which apply to the proposed project are as follows:

Goal S-8: To protect public health and welfare by minimizing excessive noise and vibration.

Policy S-8.8: Limit Construction Hours. To minimize the potential noise impacts of construction activities on surrounding land uses, the City shall limit construction activities between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. The City Manager may make specific exceptions to the construction hours when utility work in the streets would have a severely negative impact on traffic flow and public safety.

Policy S-8.9: Construction Noise Control Measures. The City shall include the following noise control measures as standard conditions of approval for projects involving construction:

1. Properly muffle and maintain all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines.

2. Prohibit unnecessary idling of combustion engines.

3. Locate all stationary noise-generating construction equipment such as air compressors as far as practical from existing nearby residences and other noise-sensitive land uses. Such equipment shall also be acoustically shielded.

4. Select quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible. Fit motorized equipment with proper mufflers in good working order.

5. Residences adjacent to project sites shall be notified in advance in writing of the proposed construction schedule before construction activities commence. The construction schedule shall comply with Policy S-8.8. 6. The project applicant shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise.

The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of any noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be posted at the construction site.

Policy S-8.10: Construction Vibration Control Measures. The City shall include the following measures as standard conditions of approval for applicable projects involving construction to minimize exposure to construction vibration:

1. Avoid the use of vibratory rollers (i.e., compactors) within 50 feet of buildings that are susceptible to damage from vibration.

2. Schedule construction activities with the highest potential to produce vibration to hours with the least potential to affect nearby institutional, educational, and office uses that the Federal Transit Administration identifies as sensitive to daytime vibration (FTA 2006).

City Council/RSA Agenda 221 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
93 3. Notify neighbors of scheduled construction activities that would generate vibration.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the project would generate noise from the use of heavy construction equipment. The anticipated duration of construction is approximately nine months.

Construction equipment could be used sporadically throughout the project site, and multiple pieces of equipment would rarely be used simultaneously in close proximity to each other. Project construction hours would be limited to the allowable hours outlined in UCMC Section 9.40.053 and General Plan Policy S-8.8, which limit construction hours to between 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and between 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. Construction noise would also be required to comply with Policy S-8.9: Construction Noise Control Measures to limit noise generated during construction. Therefore, noise generated during project demolition and construction would be less than significant.

The project would demolish and rebuild an existing gas station and convenience store. No new sources of operational noise would be introduced. The proposed operational noise sources for the project include heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, refrigeration condensers for the convenience store, an air compressor for customer tire inflation, parking lot noise, delivery truck noise, and off-site traffic noise from vehicles traveling to and from the project site. Noise generated from the project would be similar to existing noise on the site. Therefore, there would be no impact from operational noise and overall noise impacts related to the project would be less than significant. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities known to generate excessive ground-borne vibration, such as pile driving, would not be necessary for project demolition or construction. In addition, the project’s construction activities would be required to comply with the construction vibration control measures specified in General Plan Policy S-8.10, which includes a prohibition from using vibratory rollers within 50 feet of structures susceptible to damage. Once operational, the project would not be a source of substantial groundborne vibrations. Therefore, although vibrations from a vibratory roller may be perceptible to nearby human receptors, temporary impacts associated with the roller (and other potential equipment) would be less than significant. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The closest airport or private airstrip to the project site is the Hayward Executive Airport, approximately 4.67 miles northwest of the project. The project site is not within the airport influence area, or the 65 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour for the Hayward Executive Airport AC. Commercial aircraft overfly the project site while approaching or departing the Oakland International Airport, approximately 11.15 miles northwest. According to noise exposure maps for the Oakland International Airport, the project site is not within the 65 dBA CNEL contour for the Oakland City Council/RSA Agenda 222 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
94 International Airport (Alameda County 2012). Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels and there would be no impact.

City Council/RSA Agenda 223 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
95 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
The project applicant is seeking a Zoning Map Amendment from Union Landing Commercial to Community Commercial, as well as a General Plan Amendment from Regional Retail Commercial to Retail Commercial. This would remove the project site from the Union Landing Special Area and ensure consistency with the 2040 General Plan. The site is surrounded by Regional Retail Commercial land uses to the north, east, and west, and Retail Commercial land uses to the south with Single Family Residential beyond. There are no existing residences on the project site, but there is an existing gas station/convenience store. The nearest residences are south of the project site across from AlvaradoNiles Boulevard.

Regulatory Context

FEDERAL
There are no federal regulations pertaining to population or housing that apply to the proposed project.

STATE
California Government Code Section 65581
California Government Code Section 65581 et seq. requires a Housing Element to be included in all city and county General Plans. State Housing Element law mandates that jurisdictions provide sufficient land to accommodate a variety of housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community.

Compliance with this requirement is measured by the jurisdiction’s ability to provide adequate land to accommodate a share of the region’s projected housing needs for the applicable planning period. This share is known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

City Council/RSA Agenda 224 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
96 LOCAL
Union City General Plan
The City’s General Plan includes the following Goals and Policies related to population and housing:

Goal HE-6: To ensure fair and equal opportunity to secure safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for everyone in the community.

Policy HE-6.5: Improve neighborhood opportunity. The City shall work to make all neighborhoods places of opportunity.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not construct new homes but would instead rebuild a gas station and convenience store on the site of an existing gas station and convenience store.

The gas station would employ approximately two to three employees per eight-hour shift. This is similar to the number of employees that work at the existing gas station. Union City’s estimated population was 68,681 in 2021 (U.S. Census Bureau 2021). Even if new employees were to move to the area to fill these positions, an increase of less than two dozen residents would be minor and not constitute substantial growth. However, it is expected that project employees would come from Union City and the surrounding areas. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on population growth.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. Development of the project would not require the demolition of any existing housing or otherwise have any effect on housing. The proposed project would have no impact on housing displacement.

City Council/RSA Agenda 225 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
97 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
Fire Protection
The Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD), contracted by the City of Union City, provides fire protection and emergency medical services in the City and thus to the project site. The closest fire station is located at 31600 Alvarado Boulevard, approximately 0.6 mile southwest of the project site.

Police Protection
The Union City Police Department (UCPD) provides police, law enforcement, animal control, and patrol services. The department is located at 34009 Alvarado-Niles Road, approximately 2.25 miles southeast of the proposed project site.

Schools
The school nearest to the project site is Alvarado Elementary School, located approximately 0.5 mile southwest of the project site at 31100 Fredi Street.

Parks
Casa Verde Park is located at 3182 San Rafael Way, approximately 0.13 mile southwest of the project site. Park facilities include picnic areas and playgrounds.

City Council/RSA Agenda 226 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
98 Regulatory Context
There are no federal or State regulations pertaining to public services that apply to the proposed project.

LOCAL
Union City General Plan
The City’s General Plan includes the following Goals and Policies related to public services:

Goal S-2/PF-1: Ensure efficient, effective, and coordinated response to natural and manmade disasters Policy M-4.10: Emergency Vehicle Access. The City shall periodically review emergency vehicle access on private property (areas required to provide fire and emergency vehicle access) and ensure property owners maintain these access routes.

Policy S-4.7: Adequate Street Width for Emergency Access. The City shall ensure the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other supporting regulations include street widths and clearance areas sufficient to accommodate fire protection equipment and emergency vehicles.

Policy S-2.1: Ensure Emergency Access for New Construction. The City shall not permit new construction in areas where emergency access cannot be adequately ensured.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
a) Fire protection?
No Impact. The project site is within the ACFD service area, with the nearest station being Alameda County Fire Department Fire Station 32 located at 31600 Alvarado Boulevard, Union City, approximately

0.61 mile to the southwest of the project site. The ACFD provides fire protection service and emergency medical response. The proposed project would raze and rebuild an existing gasoline station and convenience store within a developed, urban area. The project is not anticipated to induce unplanned population increase. While the project would include the storage of combustible fuels onsite, it would be replacing an existing gas station and the land use onsite would not change and therefore would not result in an increase in demand for fire protection.
b) Police protection?
No Impact. Police protection services in Union City are provided by the UCPD, which operates out of a headquarters located at City Hall at 34009 Alvarado-Niles Road. The UCPD also operate from two substations, one located at 32195 Union Landing Boulevard and the other located at 31880 Alvarado Boulevard. The proposed project would raze and rebuild an existing gasoline station and convenience store within a developed, urban area. The project is not anticipated to induce unplanned population increase, and the land use on-site would not change. There would be no additional demand for police protection.

City Council/RSA Agenda 227 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
99 c) Schools?
No Impact. The proposed project would raze and rebuild an existing gasoline station and convenience store within a developed, urban area. The project is not anticipated to induce unplanned population increase. There would be no additional demand for school facilities. The project would have no impact on schools.
d) Parks?
No Impact. The proposed gasoline station and convenience store is a redevelopment of an existing gasoline station and convenience store and would not induce substantial unplanned population growth.

There would be no additional demand for park services. Further, the proposed project would not draw in new recreation users to the area. The nearest neighborhood or regional park is approximately 774 feet to the southwest of the project site at Casa Verde Park, 3182 San Rafael Way, Union City. At this distance, customers of the gasoline dispensing facility and convenience store are not anticipated to increase use or physical deterioration of the park. The project would have no impact on parks. e) Other public facilities?
No Impact. The proposed project would raze and rebuild an existing gasoline station and convenience store within a developed, urban area. The project is not anticipated to induce unplanned population increase; there would be no additional demand for other public facilities. The project would have no impact on other public facilities.

City Council/RSA Agenda 228 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
100
XVI. RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
Casa Verde Park is located approximately 0.16 mile southwest of the project site. San Andreas Park is located about 0.32 mile southeast of the project site.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The proposed project would not draw in new recreation users to the area. The nearest neighborhood or regional park is approximately 774 feet to the southwest of the project site at Casa Verde Park, 3182 San Rafael Way, Union City. At this distance, customers of the gasoline dispensing facility and convenience store are not anticipated to increase use or physical deterioration of the park.

The project would have no impact on increased use of parks. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities, nor would it require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The project would have no impact related to recreational facilities.

City Council/RSA Agenda 229 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
101
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The project site consists of one parcel located in the western portion of Union City and within Alameda County, California. I-880 is approximately 0.28 miles east of the project site. The project is located at the intersection of Alvarado-Niles Road and Union Landing Boulevard. Alvarado-Niles Road is a four-lane arterial that extends from Niles Boulevard in Fremont to Dyer Street in Union City.

Regulatory Context

FEDERAL
There are no federal regulations pertaining to transportation/traffic that apply to the proposed project.

STATE
California Streets and Highways Code
California Streets and Highways Code Section 660 et seq. requires that an encroachment permit be obtained from Caltrans prior to the placement of structures or fixtures within, under, or over State highway ROW. This includes, but is not limited to, utility poles, pipes, ditches, drains, sewers, or other above-ground or underground structures.

California Environmental Quality Act
SB 743 of 2013 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 et seq.) was enacted as a means to balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of GHGs. Pursuant to SB 743, traffic congestion is no longer considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA. The new metric bases the traffic impact analysis on vehicle-miles travelled (VMT).

City Council/RSA Agenda 230 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
102
VMT refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of a project on transit and non-motorized travel. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s VMT, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household, or in any other measure.

The requirement to use the VMT metric became effective statewide on July 1, 2020.

LOCAL
Plan Bay Area 2050
The current Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) produced by ABAG and MTC, the Plan Bay Area 2050, was adopted in October 2021 (ABAG and MTC 2021). The Plan sets forth regional transportation and land use policy, and provides capital program planning for all regional, State, and federally funded projects. In addition, the Plan provides strategic investment recommendations to improve regional transportation system performance through the year 2050, including investments in regional highway, transit, local roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements.

Countywide Transportation Plan
The Alameda County Transportation Commission A(CTC), also referred to as the Alameda County CMA, acts as the countywide planning and programming agency for transportation related issues in Alameda County. Every four years, the Alameda CTC updates the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan, a long-range document that serves as a guide for future transportation projects, programs, policies, and advocacy for all of Alameda County through 2040 (ACTC 2016).

Union City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
The 2021 Union City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan provides a blueprint for developing a system of trails, bikeways, and other transportation and recreation facilities for non-motorized users in Union City (Union City 2021). The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan considers a broad range of non-motorized travel methods, including commute bicycling; recreational on-road and off-road bicycling; walking, jogging, and running; motorized and non-motorized wheelchairs; and other forms of non-motorized, wheeled transportation. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan was most recently updated in 2021 to reflect updated background information, pedestrian and bicycle facilities constructed since 2012 and feedback received from the City’s Planning Commission and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and the public.

Union City General Plan
The following General Plan policies were adopted by the City for evaluation of traffic impacts under CEQA (Union City 2019):

Policy M-4.4. Use Vehicle Miles Traveled Threshold to Evaluate Project Impacts. The City shall use VMT to evaluate the transportation impacts of new development proposals under CEQA.

Policy M-4.12. Access Points to Major Arterials. The City shall control the number of direct access points including Quarry Lakes Parkway, Mission Boulevard, Decoto Road, Union City Boulevard, Alvarado Boulevard, Dyer Street, Whipple Road, and Alvarado-Niles Road to maintain traffic flow and minimize potential for accidents.

City Council/RSA Agenda 231 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
103
The General Plan specifies that the “City will continue to implement its LOS policy for the purpose of planning and designing street improvements and understanding a project’s contribution to delay at intersections but will not use LOS as a part of CEQA analysis.” (Union City 2019). The following General Plan policy was adopted by the City for evaluation of intersection LOS:

Policy M-4.3. Level of Service. The City shall strive to achieve a traffic LOS D at all signalized intersections on arterial and collector streets during peak commute hours, apart from intersections on major regional routes, including I-880 and Mission Boulevard (SR 238). If maintaining the LOS standards would, in the City's judgement, be infeasible and/or conflict with the achievement of other goals, LOS E or F conditions may be accepted provided that provisions are made to improve the overall system, promote non-vehicular transportation, and/or implement vehicle trip reduction measures as part of a development project or a City-initiated project.

Vehicle Miles Traveled
The VMT metric for assessing traffic impacts became mandatory on July 1, 2020. The City has adopted General Plan policies to use VMT to evaluate new development proposals under CEQA and to establish a VMT CEQA threshold; however, a VMT significance threshold has not yet been adopted. The OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR 2018) recommends that “by adding retail opportunities into the urban fabric and thereby improving retail destination proximity, local-serving retail development tends to shorten trips and reduce VMT” and “…where such development decreases VMT, lead agencies should consider the impact to be less than significant.” While the City has not yet adopted a VMT significance threshold, OPR’s recommended impact threshold is any increase in VMT.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. The City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan identifies a proposed Class I Shared-Use Bicycle Path along Alvarado-Niles Road, which would turn into a proposed Class IV Separated Bike Lane after the intersection with Union Landing Road. This proposed bike lane would run adjacent to the proposed project along Alvarado-Niles Road. The proposed project does not include any improvements which would hinder the establishment of the proposed shared-use bicycle path or separated bike lane. The project proposes to relocate the existing pedestrian access to the Union Landing Transit Center slightly to the west to allow for the new location of the convenience store. This relocation would not impact pedestrian access to the transit center.

The project would not conflict with a plan, ordinance, or policy addressing bicycle or pedestrian facilities.

Public transit service in the immediate vicinity of the project site is provided by Union City Transit and by the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit). The Union Landing Transit Center is located adjacent to the north of the project site. The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) provides public transit service on a regional level. The project site is approximately 2.73 miles from the Union City BART Station. As the project consists of the replacement of an existing gas station and convenience store, the project is not expected to increase the use of public transit. The project would not conflict with a plan, ordinance, or policy addressing public transit.

City Council/RSA Agenda 232 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
104
Construction of the project would result in trucks entering and exiting the project site. Construction activities would maintain through traffic on Alvarado-Niles Road and Union Landing Boulevard and no detours are anticipated. Traffic-related impacts associated with construction would be temporary, and no significant impacts to traffic circulation would occur. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. Section 15064.3 (b) (1) states that land use projects “that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.” As detailed under item a) above, the proposed project is a localserving retail project within a highly developed area and is not anticipated to increase net VMT.

Furthermore, the proposed project would raze and rebuild an existing gas station and convenience store and would not create a new or different land use which would increase vehicle miles traveled. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on VMT. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project has been designed to allow for truck turning movements and required access into the site for fueling and loading. Trucks would be used to deliver fuel, remove garbage, and provide emergency services to the project site. The proposed project would not generate a large number of truck trips.

Trucks would be able to enter the project site at either of the two project site driveways on AlvaradoNiles Road or at the driveway on Union Landing Blvd., maneuver within the project site, and exit the project site at the driveway on Union Landing Boulevard or Alvarado-Niles Road. Trucks would be able to accomplish these movements without blocking the project site driveways. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses and is not expected to increase hazards.

Garbage trucks entering the side from the most easterly driveway on Alvarado-Niles Road would be able to do 3-point turns to line up with the enclosure to pick up garbage or drive around the fuel pumps and arrive at the enclosure to get into the position to pick up the garbage. The dumpsters would need to be kept out of the way of any vehicles that might enter the site from this driveway and be put back into the enclosures as soon as possible to get them out of the way of entering vehicles. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact. Although construction of the proposed project may require some travel lanes to be unavailable, this would be short term and vehicle access through Alvarado-Niles Road and Union Landing Boulevard would continue to provide emergency access to the project site. The driveways to the project site would be designed in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and would meet emergency access standards. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on emergency access.

City Council/RSA Agenda 233 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
105
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 5020.1(k), or
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Environmental Setting
Tribal cultural resources are defined in CEQA as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, which may include nonunique archaeological resources previously subject to limited review under CEQA. AB 52 requires the lead agency (in this case, Union City) to begin consultation with any California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report if (1) the California Native American tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency through formal notification of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe, and (2) the California Native American tribe responds, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the formal notification and requests the consultation (Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1[b]).

On March 14, 2023, the City sent letters via certified mail to representatives of the following tribal representatives. These letters can be found in Appendix H. • Monica Arellano, Vice Chairman of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area • Charlene Nijmeh, Chairperson of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area City Council/RSA Agenda 234 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
106
• Timothy Perez of the North Valley Yokuts Tribe
• Katherine Perez, Chairperson of the North Valley Yokuts Tribe • Corrina Gould, Chairperson of the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation • Andrew Galvan, Chairperson of The Ohlone Indian Tribe • Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson of the Wukache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band • Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista • Tony Cerda, Chairperson of the Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe • Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson of the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, and • Kanyon Sayers-Roods, MLD Contact of the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan.

On April 4, 2023, Corrina Gould, Tribal Chair of the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation responded requesting a copy of technical reports and records searches related to the project. No other responses were received.

Regulatory Context

FEDERAL
There are no federal regulations pertaining to tribal cultural resources that apply to the proposed project.

STATE
California Environmental Quality Act
Assembly Bill 52 of 2014 (Public Resources Code Section 21084.2) establishes that “a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” In order to determine whether a project may have such an effect, a lead agency is required to consult with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project if:

1. The tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed through formal notification of proposed projects in the geographical area; and

2. The tribe responds, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the formal notification and requests the consultation.

The consultation must take place prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report. Pursuant to PRC Section 21084.3, lead agencies must, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to a tribal cultural resource and must consider measures to mitigate any identified impact.

PRC Section 21074 defines “tribal cultural resources” as either of the following:

1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR; or are included in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k).

City Council/RSA Agenda 235 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
107

2. A resource determined by the lead agency, taking into consideration the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(c).

In addition, a cultural landscape that meets one of these criteria is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape. A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2(g), or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in Section 21083.2(h) may also be a tribal cultural resource if it meets one of these criteria.

LOCAL
There are no local regulations pertaining to tribal cultural resources that apply to the proposed project.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. See Section 5.V, Cultural Resources, for a discussion of historical resources and Native American outreach and consultation efforts. The project site is not considered to be of any historical importance and is not identified as such by the California State Historical Resources Commission or in the Union City General Plan. The site has not been identified as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. While no historic or archaeological resources were identified, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would address inadvertent discoveries during construction. The project’s potential impact on tribal cultural resources would be less than significant impact with mitigation. ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. On March 14, 2023, the City sent letters to 11 tribal representatives via certified mail to representatives as noted in the Environmental Setting section above: Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, North Valley Yokuts Tribe, the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation, the Ohlone Indian Tribe, the Wukache Indian Tribe, the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, the Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe, and the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan. On April 4, 2023, Corrina Gould, Tribal Chair of the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation responded requesting a copy of technical reports and records searches related to the project. No other responses were received.

City Council/RSA Agenda 236 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
108
The project would raze and rebuild an existing gas station and convenience store. No known tribal cultural resources are located on the project site. As the land is already developed, it is unlikely that tribal cultural resources will be found during project demolition and construction. However, the possibility of an unanticipated discovery exists. If unanticipated tribal cultural resources are found on the project site, mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would address inadvertent discoveries during constriction. The project’s potential impact on tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation.

City Council/RSA Agenda 237 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
109
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Environmental Setting
The Union Sanitary District (USD) operates and maintains the wastewater collection system and wastewater treatment plant. provides several services, including operating and maintaining the wastewater collection system, wastewater treatment plant, water supply facilities, the water distribution system, and the storm drain system.

Wastewater Collection and Treatment
The USD service area encompasses a total of 60.2 square miles in southern Alameda County: 9.9 square miles in Union City, 13.8 square miles in Newark, and 36.4 square miles in Fremont. USD serves a total population of over 347,000 residents. In 2018 USD had a total of 114,251 connections.

Domestic/residential living units accounted for about 111,136, or about 97 percent of the total number of connections. The other USD connections were 1,768 commercial connections and 1,347 industrial connections (USD 2019). The USD service area is made up of three drainage basins: Irvington, Newark, and Alvarado. Each basin contains a separate pump station and each pump station collects the wastewater from within its particular basin. The Alvarado Basin covers all of Union City and a small portion of Fremont. The USD’s Alvarado Treatment Plant is located in the Alvarado Basin within the City’s Horner-Veasy area. The Alvarado Treatment Plant uses activated sludge as the biological liquid City Council/RSA Agenda 238 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
110
treatment process to meet the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for secondary treatment. Additional treatment processes include primary and secondary clarification, and chlorination. The capacity of the Alvarado Treatment Plant is 33 MGD (USD 2019).

Solids handling at the Alvarado Treatment Plant includes: sludge thickening, digestion and dewatering.

Dewatered sludge is transported by truck to approved agricultural fields in Sacramento, Solano, and Alameda Counties, where biosolids are surface applied and incorporated into the soil.

Water Service
Water for the Alameda County Water District (ACWD) comes from three sources: local supplies, the State Water Project, and San Francisco’s Regional Water System. Surface water is imported from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and/or Lake Del Valle via the South Bay Aqueduct. This water is purified at ACWD’s surface water treatment plant and then delivered to customers.

Storm Drainage
The City owns and maintains the public storm drain system, which includes all of the storm drains, pipes, catch basins, and manholes within the City ROW. The outfalls, channels, creeks, and pump stations are owned and operated by Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. All storm drains in Union City flow directly to nearby creeks, wetlands, and the Bay. The Environmental Programs Division of Union City implements the industrial and commercial facility inspection program. The Public Works Department implements all other clean water program requirements. Additionally, the City reviews storm water pollution prevention plans (SWPPP), conducts storm water event inspections of construction sites, and receives and investigates complaints about illicit discharges into the public storm drain system.

Solid Waste
Republic Services, a private company, is responsible for the collection of all municipal solid waste generated in Union City. Republic collection vehicles deliver the material to the Fremont Recycling and Transfer Station in Fremont, California. The solid waste is then transferred onto larger trucks and transported to the Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility, located 48 miles east of Union City in Livermore, California. A disposal agreement with Waste Management, owner/operator of the Altamont Landfill, ensures long-term disposal capacity at the landfill for Union City and neighboring jurisdictions. Weekly curbside collection of residential recyclables in Union City is provided by Tri-CED.

Single stream recycling allows residents to place cans, bottles, paper, plastics, etc. in the same receptacle. No sorting of materials is required by the resident.

Tri-CED employees process the recyclables at the non-profit’s large Materials Recovery Facility, located at 33377 Western Avenue in Union City. The facility also houses a certified California Redemption Center, where residents can redeem aluminum cans, plastic beverage bottles, glass bottles, and containers labeled with the California Redemption Value symbol. Year round drop off of unwanted electronic waste, such as televisions, computer screens, and cell phones is also available at the buyback center.

According to the Solid Waste Facility Permit for the Altamont Landfill, peak traffic volume for incoming waste materials shall not exceed 557 trips per day, and the peak tonnage of incoming waste shall not exceed 11,150 tons per day (CalRecycle 2005). The maximum permitted capacity of the landfill is 124.4 million cubic yards or 87.1 million tons per the Solid Waste Facility Permit. According to CalRecycle, the City Council/RSA Agenda 239 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
111
remaining capacity of the landfill in December 2014 was 65,400,000 cubic yards, or 45.8 million tons (CalRecycle 2018). According to CalRecycle (2018), the Altamont Landfill receives approximately 530 tons per day of municipal solid waste for disposal, based on the daily average for 2013 through 2017.

Municipal solid waste comes from primarily the Bay Area region, but also from more distant municipalities and cities, such as Ukiah, Sacramento, and Monterey (CalRecycle 2018).

Regulatory Context

FEDERAL
There are no federal regulations pertaining to utilities and service systems that apply to the proposed project.

STATE
Senate Bill 610 (2001)
Under SB 610, enacted in 2001, water supply assessments must be included in any environmental documentation for certain projects that are subject to CEQA. As stated in Water Code Section 10912(b), “[if] a public water system has fewer than 5,000 service connections, then “project” means any proposed residential, business, commercial, hotel or motel, or industrial development that would account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system's existing service connections…” Water Code Section 10910(c)(4) states that the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the City’s water supply during normal, single dry and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection, will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses.

California Integrated Waste Management Act
The California Integrated Waste Management Act (CIWMA) of 1989, as amended, was enacted to reduce, recycle, and reuse solid waste generated in the State. The CIWMA requires cities and counties to divert 50 percent of the total waste stream from landfill disposal. Under the CIWMA, cities and counties must prepare Solid Waste Management Plans and Source Reduction and Recycling Elements to implement CIWMA goals.

Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act
The Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991 (AB 1327) requires that cities and counties adopt regulations that require commercial, industrial, or institutional buildings, and multifamily residential dwellings of five units or more, to provide adequate storage areas for the collection of recyclable materials.

Assembly Bill 341 (2011)
AB 341, enacted in 2011, established a statewide goal that 75 percent of solid waste be reduced, recycled, or composted by 2020. AB 341 established a statewide mandatory commercial recycling program. A business or public entity that generates four cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week, or a multifamily residential dwelling of five units or more, must arrange for recycling services City Council/RSA Agenda 240 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
112
no later than July 1, 2012. Cities and Counties are required to implement a commercial solid waste recycling program to meet this requirement.

Assembly Bill 1826 (2014)
AB 1826, enacted in 2014, requires businesses to recycle their organic waste (food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste), depending on the amount of waste generated per week. Local jurisdictions are required to implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses, including multi-family dwellings of five or more units (multi-family dwellings are not required to have a food waste diversion program). Exemptions are allowed for jurisdictions in rural areas. CalRecycle has exempted the City of Mt. Shasta from the organic waste recycling program.

Senate Bill 1383 (2016)
SB 1383, enacted in 2016 established targets to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from 2014 levels by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. The law grants CalRecycle the regulatory authority required to achieve the organic waste disposal reduction targets and establishes an additional target that not less than 20 percent of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025.

California Building Standards Code
The CALGreen Code, included as Part 11 of the CBSC, includes requirements for construction waste reduction, disposal, and recycling. The intent of this requirement is to reduce the amount of waste from new construction and demolition that would be sent to landfills, and to encourage reuse and recycling of construction waste products (e.g., carpet, wood, aggregate, shingles, wallboard, and other materials that have recyclable value). A minimum of 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste must be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. The CALGreen Code requires that a Construction Waste Management Plan be submitted with the building permit application and approved by the Building Official prior to issuance of a building permit.

The CALGreen Code also includes mandatory water conservation measures for both indoor and outdoor water use. Indoor measures require the use of water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings. Outdoor measures require that landscape areas in excess of 500 square feet comply with the California Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), or a local water efficient landscape ordinance that is at least as effective as the State’s MWELO. The MWELO is intended to reduce outdoor water use by requiring more efficient irrigation systems, graywater usage, and onsite stormwater capture, and by limiting the portion of landscapes that can be covered in turf.

LOCAL
Municipal Stormwater Permitting Program
The San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2015- 0049 (MRP) issues the Waste Discharge Requirements and NPDES Permit for the discharge of stormwater runoff from the municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) of over 70 municipalities, including Union City, and local agencies in five Bay Area counties. Under the MRP, permittees are prohibited from non-stormwater discharges into storm drain systems and watercourses. Permitted discharges must not City Council/RSA Agenda 241 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
113
cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable water quality standard for receiving waters. Upon a determination by either the MRP permittee(s) or the RWQCB that discharges are causing or contributing to an exceedance of an applicable water quality standards, the permittee(s) must notify, within no more than 30 days, and thereafter submit a report to the RWQCB. The report must describe controls or best management practices (BMPs) that are currently being implemented, and the current level of implementation, and additional controls or BMPs that will be implemented, and/or an increased level of implementation, to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants that are causing or contributing to the exceedance of water quality standards.

The MRP also sets forth requirements for monitoring water quality. Provision C.3 of the MRP establishes discharge requirements for new development and redevelopment projects. The goal of Provision C.3 is for the MRP permittees to use their planning authorities to include appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures in new development and redevelopment projects to address stormwater runoff pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows from new development and redevelopment projects. According to the MRP, this goal is to be accomplished primarily through the implementation of low impact development (LID) techniques.

The Public Works Department has overall responsibility for MRP compliance, with other city departments in support.

Union Sanitary District Sewer System Management Plan
The USD Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) focuses proper management, operation, and maintenance of all parts of the sanitary sewer system to help reduce and prevent sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), as well as mitigate any SSOs that do occur (USD 2020). The goals of the USD SSMP are to:
• Properly manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the wastewater collection system • Provide a safe work environment for employees
• Minimize preventable SSO
• Understand the condition of and maintain infrastructure to maximize the life of the collection system
• Operate and maintain systems to minimize impact on customers • Prepare for emergencies
• Be a part of the community and be a responsible public agency • Involve employees in the strategic planning process
• Effectively plan system expansion in order to meet the capacity needs of the three cities that USD serves
• Set high, achievable standards for the construction of new infrastructure The Alameda County Waste Reduction and Recycling Initiative Charter Amendment (Measure D) Alameda County residents approved Measure D in November 1990. Measure D requires that a per ton disposal surcharge be imposed at the Altamont and Vasco Road Landfills in order to provide the City Council/RSA Agenda 242 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
114
necessary funds to design and implement municipal recycling services for residents and businesses. The Alameda County Recycling Board collects an $8.23 per ton landfill disposal fee imposed by Measure D to support waste reduction efforts. The distribution of Measure D funds is as follows: 50 percent to cities for recycling programs; 15 percent discretionary to supplement the other categories and for administration; 10 percent grants to non-profits; 10 percent for source reduction; 10 percent for market development; and 5 percent for recycled product procurement price preference. Funds disbursed to municipalities must be used “…for the continuation and expansion of municipal recycling programs.” Measure D is intended to ensure that the State’s waste diversion mandates are met and possibly exceeded by supporting source reduction and recycling in Alameda County.

Alameda County Integrated Waste Management Plan: Countywide Element The Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan is a State-mandated plan prepared by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority. The Plan identifies solid waste facilities and waste sheds within Alameda County. It describes the countywide plan for reaching the State mandated 50 percent recycling goal and the county-mandated 75 percent recycling goal. Waste reduction and disposal facilities in the county that require Solid Waste Facility Permits must conform to policies and siting criteria contained in the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan.

Alameda County Mandatory Recycling Ordinance
The Alameda County Mandatory Recycling Ordinance prohibits the disposal of certain readily recyclable materials. It requires multifamily residential properties with five or more units and businesses with four cubic yards or more of weekly garbage service to provide on-site recycling to handle the amount of recyclable materials generated at the location. Phase 1 of the Ordinance became effective July 1, 2012.

Phase II of the Ordinance expands the recycling requirement to all businesses and adds discarded food and compostable paper products to list of covered materials. The City plans to participate in Phase II in near future. Alameda County Reusable Bag Ordinance The objective of this countywide ordinance is to reduce the use of single-use carryout bags and to promote the use of reusable bags. As of January 1, 2013, grocery stores and other stores in Alameda County that sell packaged food no longer provide single-use plastic carryout bags, nor do they distribute paper bags or reusable bags for free at checkout, pursuant to the Ordinance.

Union City Municipal Code Chapter 7: Health and Sanitation Chapter 7 of the Union City Municipal Code includes regulations related to the storage, accumulation, collection and disposal of solid waste in the City. Requirements associated with the diversion of recyclables, green waste and other materials are also outlined. It also adopts and incorporates the Alameda County Waste Management Authority Mandatory Recycling Ordinance No. 2012-1 (“Mandatory Recycling Ordinance, The Ordinance”), passed on January 25, 2012, which requires, among other things, that covered jurisdictions implement commercial solid waste recycling programs that consist of education, outreach and monitoring of businesses and report to the State on the progress achieved in implementing the program. Union City Municipal Code Chapter 15.75 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling regulates the disposal of debris from construction and demolition projects within the City and to divert such debris from landfill. Union City Municipal Code Chapter 7.10 Single-use bag reduction adopts and incorporates the Single Use Bag Reduction Ordinance No. 2012-02 of the Alameda County Waste Management Authority designed to reduce the use of single-use carryout bags and promote the use of reusable bags at the point-of-sale in Union City.

City Council/RSA Agenda 243 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
115
Union City Climate Action Plan
The Union City Climate Action Plan provides a plan to achieve a measurable reduction in GHG emissions, consistent with State law (i.e., Assembly Bill 32 and Executive Order S-03-05). The plan includes a series of “Waste Reduction” policies designed to increase waste diversion, strengthen construction and demolition recycling standards, expand outreach programs, and increase waste reduction in municipal facilities. The total GHG reduction potential of the Waste Reduction Action Area is approximately nine percent of the total GHG reductions of the CAP. In addition, the plan presents a strategy to achieve the City’s goal of reducing GHG emissions 20 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact.

Water
The proposed project is located in the existing service area of the Alameda County Water District. Water for the proposed project would be supplied to the project by the Alameda County Water District. The Alameda County Urban Water Management Plan 2020-2025 (ACWD 2021) identified water supply and demands to planning horizon year 2040, addressing normal, dry, and multiple dry year scenarios, and is projected to exceed supply for most years. The Alameda County Water District operates three treatment plants within its service area with an average daily production of 36.6 million gallons per day (ACWD 2021). The District has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project within its existing service area and the proposed project would not result in new or expanded water facilities. The impact would be less than significant.

Wastewater
The project site is located within the existing service area of the Alvarado Wastewater Treatment Plant operated by the Union Sanitary District. The treatment plant currently has the capacity to treat 33 million gallons of wastewater per day, and in 2019, it treated an average of 23.7 million gallons of wastewater per day (USD 2019). The proposed project would include one public restroom and various water drainage from food self-serve areas in the convenience store. The existing treatment plant has sufficient reserve capacitysubstantial excess capacity to serve the incremental increase in wastewater because of the project. The increase in wastewater treatment demand would be minor and not expected to result in an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements. The proposed project would have less than significant impact on wastewater treatment requirements.

Stormwater
Stormwater from the site enters the City’s network of stormwater collection and drainage pipes located under City streets and is ultimately discharged into San Francisco Bay. The proposed project would not alter the existing stormwater drainage facilities and would not require new or expanded facilities to accommodate storm runoff from the site for several reasons. First, the overall site area is small relative to the greater watershed drainage area encompassed by the City’s storm drainage network. Secondly, City Council/RSA Agenda 244 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
116
the front, rear, and side yards of the site would be landscaped, maintaining or improving upon the existing permeability of the ground. Third, the existing ground surface over much of the site is paved and impermeable. Thus, rather than percolating to groundwater, the majority of storm runoff from the site already drains to the local storm drain. Therefore, implementation of the project is not expected to substantially increase the rate or volume of stormwater runoff from the site. This would be a less than significant impact on stormwater.

Electric Power
The proposed project would connect to existing power in the vicinity provided by the PG&E. The project would have a less than significant impact on electric power.

Based on the discussion above, implementation of the project would not require or result in the relocation of new or expanded public services. The project would result in a less than significant impact. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than Significant Impact. The Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), by the Alameda County Water District, identified water supply and demands to planning horizon year 2040, addressing normal, dry, and multiple dry year scenarios. Estimated future water demands are 61,000 acre-feet (AF) in 2025; 60,400 AF in 2030; 60,100 AF in 2035; 60,200 AF in 2040; and 67,600 AF in 2045 (ACWD 2021). Under normal year conditions, the supply is expected exceed the demand; estimated normal year water supply is 68,200 AF in 2025; 68,200 AF in 2030; 68,300 AF in 2035; 68,300 AF in 2040; and 68,200 AF in 2045.

Under modeled single dry year conditions, the demand was estimated to exceed the supply for years 2020 to 2040. Under modeled multiple dry year conditions, the demand is projected to exceed supply for most years between 2022-2040. The Alameda County Water District’s goal is to sustain a shortage of no more than 10 percent during dry and critically dry conditions; none of the modeled scenarios exceed a 10 percent shortage. As described in the UWMP, the Alameda County Water District has sufficient water supplies to meet demands in most years. Where shortages can occur due to dry weather, the district will utilize off-site storage at the Semitropic Water Storage District’s Groundwater Banking Program to meet water supply needs.

Estimates of water demands in the UWMP were based, in part, on future land use conditions as identified in various general plans by the cities served by the Alameda County Water District. This included information from the General Plan, as described in Table 1-2 of the UWMP. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation Commercial (C); therefore, development of the site has been reasonably considered during preparation of the UWMP.

In conclusion, the proposed project would remain consistent with the existing development on the project site and therefore would not result in an increase in water demand. Furthermore, the long-range planning efforts of the Alameda County Water District, which provides water to the City’s residents and businesses, are based on anticipated demand associated with development in accordance with the General Plan. Since the General Plan designates the project site for Commercial development, the water demand that would be generated by the project can be assumed to be included in the Alameda County Water District’s future water supply and demand projections. Since the proposed project would be a raze and rebuild, the water demand that would be generated by the project can be assumed to remain consistent with the current water demand at the project site. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on water supply and demand.

City Council/RSA Agenda 245 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
117
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact. As described in the discussion of Wastewater under item a) above, the project site is served by the Alvarado Wastewater Treatment Plant operated by the Union Sanitary District. The treatment plant currently has the capacity to treat 33 million gallons of wastewater per day (USD 2019), and in 2019, it treated an average of 23.7 million gallons of wastewater per day. The existing treatment plant has sufficient reserve capacitysubstantial excess capacity to accommodate the proposed project as the raze and rebuild of the existing gas station would not result in an increase in water demand. The projected water demand is anticipated to remain consistent with the water demand of the existing gas station; thus, the project would result in a less than significant impact on wastewater service capacity.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less than Significant Impact. Regular solid waste collection is provided to the residents of Union City by Republic Services. Republic Services hauls the residential waste it collects in Union City to the Fremont Transfer and Recycling Station, located on Boyce Road between Stevenson Road and Auto Mall Parkway in Fremont. There the waste is reloaded into large-capacity transfer trucks, and transported to the Altamont Landfill, located adjacent to Interstate 580, east of the City of Livermore. Altamont Landfill is permitted for a total refuse capacity of 124,400,000 cubic yards (approximately 14,880,000 tons), with a daily permitted throughput of 11,150 tons/day (CalRecycle 2018). As of June 30, 2016, the landfill had 65,400,000 cubic yards of remaining capacity (CalRecycle 2018). There is adequate permitted capacity at the landfill to accommodate the solid waste that would be generated by both construction and operation of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on solid waste disposal capacity.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be required to comply with all laws and regulations pertaining to solid waste. The City requires applicants of all new construction projects to comply with its Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter

15.75), and requires posting of a performance security bond to ensure compliance. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicants must submit a Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan (WMP) that identifies the type of construction and demolition materials that will be generated on the job site and the vendor or facility that the applicant proposes to use to collect, receive, or reuse each material.

The WMP must provide for reuse or recycling of 100 percent of the Portland cement concrete, asphalt concrete, land-clearing and soils, and plant debris, and the reuse or recycling of at least 50 percent of all remaining construction and demolition debris generated by the project. Documentation of compliance must be submitted to the City’s WMP Compliance Officer within 30 days of completion of construction.

Additional requirements are set forth in Chapter 15.75 of the City Municipal Code. No aspects of the proposed project were identified that could potentially conflict with regulations pertaining to solid waste. The project would result in a less than significant impact.

City Council/RSA Agenda 246 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
118
XX. WILDFIRE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
According to Local Responsibility Area (LRA) mapping, no land within the City limits is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE 2008). Additionally, according to CAL FIRE, there are no State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) mapped within the City limits (CAL FIRE 2007).

Regulatory Context

FEDERAL
There are no federal regulations pertaining to wildfire that apply to the proposed project.

STATE
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) The Bates Bill (AB 337), enacted in 1992, required CAL FIRE to work with local governments to identify high fire hazard severity zones throughout each county in the State. CAL FIRE adopted Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Maps for SRAs in November 2007. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 51175-51189, CAL FIRE also recommended FHSZs for Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs). Over the years, CAL FIRE has updated the maps and provided new recommendations to local governments based on fire hazard modeling.

City Council/RSA Agenda 247 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
119
The fire hazard model considers wildland fuels (natural vegetation that burns during the wildfire); topography (fires burn faster as they burn up-slope); weather (fire burns faster and with more intensity when air temperature is high, relative humidity is low, and winds are strong); and ember production and movement (how far embers move and how receptive the landing site is to new fires). The model recognizes that some areas of California have more frequent and severe wildfires than other areas. The proposed project is not located in an SRA FHSZ.

California Fire and Building Codes
California Fire Code, Part 9, Chapter 49 (Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas), and California Building Code Chapter 7A (Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure) include standards for new construction in Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas (fire hazard severity zones). A WildlandUrban Interface Fire Area is defined as a geographic area identified by the State as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone in accordance with PRC Section 4291 through Section 4204, and Government Code Section 51175 through Section 51189, or other areas designated by the local enforcing agency to be at a significant risk from wildfires. The purpose of the standards is to prevent a building from being ignited by flying embers that can travel as much as a mile away from a wildfire and to contribute to a systematic reduction in fire-related losses through the use of performance and prescriptive requirements.

LOCAL
Association of Bay Area Governments Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan The Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan covers mitigation measures that should be adopted by participating municipalities across the San Francisco Bay Area. The mitigation measures focus on hazards such as earthquake, fire, flood, and tsunami (ABAG 2011). The ABAG hazard mitigation planning process provided local governments with the tools necessary to meet federal hazard mitigation planning requirements, and this regional template has been used by numerous counties and cities within the ABAG planning area, including Union City.

Union City/Newark Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan In 2016, the Cities of Union City and Newark prepared an updated multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan (HMP) using the lessons learned from the 2011 ABAG hazard mitigation planning efforts. The HMP aims to reduce risks for those who live in, work in, and visit the Cities of Union City and Newark and provides a planning framework for all foreseeable natural hazards. The HMP’s goals and recommendations intend to lay the groundwork for the development and implementation of local mitigation activities and partnerships for long-term benefits, including the following (Union City/Newark Planning Team 2016):
• Increased understanding of hazards faced by all planning partners, • More sustainability and disaster-resistant communities, • Financial savings through partnerships that support planning and mitigation efforts, • Focused use of limited resources on hazards that have the biggest impact on the communities, and
• Reduced long-term impacts and damage to human health and structures, and reduced repair costs.

City Council/RSA Agenda 248 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
120
Union City General Plan – Safety Element
The Safety Element of the City’s General Plan also includes goals and policies related to wildfire. The goals and policies which apply to the proposed project are as follows:

Goal S-1: To protect the public health and safety and minimize the damage to structures, property, and infrastructure as a result of natural and manmade hazards.

Policy S-1.1: Development Review for Safety Compliance. The City shall evaluate all proposed projects to ensure compliance with relevant building and safety codes, including those related to flooding, fire, earthquake, and other geologic hazards.

Policy S-4.1: Time Future Development to Ensure Adequate Fire Infrastructure. The City shall not approve new development unless the development will be protected by adequate fire control facilities and equipment by the time of occupancy.

Santa Clara Unit Strategic Fire Plan
The CAL FIRE Strategic Fire Plan for the Santa Clara Unit, last updated in 2013, applies to Alameda County and neighboring counties to the north, east, and south. This plan documents an assessment of wildfire hazards in the Santa Clara Unit and identifies strategic targets to minimize fire risks, such as fire prevention and vegetation management (CAL FIRE 2011).

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The project site is in a Local Responsibility Area and is classified as a Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CALFIRE 2007). The nearest State Responsibility Area is approximately 2.55 miles to the northeast. The nearest State Responsibility Area classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is approximately 10.73 miles east in the Sunol Ridge and Pleasanton Ridge areas (CALFIRE 2007).

The project would result in no impact on adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan for State Responsibility Areas or areas classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact. The project site is located in a flat, urbanized area with a low risk of wildfire. The project would have no impact on pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.

City Council/RSA Agenda 249 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
121
c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. The project site is adequately served by existing infrastructure, including roads, water sources, power lines, and other utilities. The proposed project would have no impact on infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact. 100-year flood zones are roughly 1.07 miles north and 0.83 miles east of the project site (FEMA 2021). No project features have the potential to affect flood zones. Post-fire slope instability is not anticipated because the project site is essentially flat and within an urbanized development area. No waterbodies are at the site, and the project would not require substantial drainage improvements. The project would drain runoff to the existing stormwater system and would be designed in accordance with City standards and Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements. Based on the reasons discussed, the proposed project would have no impact on exposing people or structures to risk because of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

City Council/RSA Agenda 250 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
122
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are significant when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of past, present and probable future projects)?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant with Mitigation. As detailed in Section IV. Biological Resources, special-status species are unlikely to occur in the project site due to lack of suitable habitat. The existing trees on site have the potential to act as nesting habitat for native birds. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO01 would avoid disturbance of any nesting birds if construction were to occur during the nesting season.

As detailed in Section V, Cultural Resources, no cultural resources were identified on the project site.

Mitigation Measures CUL-1, and CUL-2 would address inadvertent discovery of unknown cultural resources during construction and reduce potential impacts to less than significant with mitigation. The proposed project does not have the potential to reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

City Council/RSA Agenda 251 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
123
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of past, present and probable future projects)? Less than Significant with Mitigation. Cumulatively considerable impacts are not anticipated. The proposed project would demolish and rebuild an existing lot in an urbanized setting. The surrounding area is built-out with residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Affected resources identified elsewhere in this Initial Study and the potential for cumulative impacts are discussed below:

Air Quality: As discussed in Section III, Air Quality, long-term operation of the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD daily or annual thresholds for criteria pollutants; would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial CO Hotspots, and would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial TACs. Air quality impacts related to construction would be short-term and temporary, and would be reduced to a less than significant level with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Cumulative impacts on air quality would be less than significant.

Biological Resources: As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, the proposed project could potentially impact nesting birds during construction. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-01 would avoid impacts to nesting birds, thus avoiding cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts on biological resources would be avoided.

Cultural Resources: As discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, no historic or archaeological resources are anticipated. Standard mitigation measures CUL-1, and CUL-2 would be implemented in the event of inadvertent discovery. Cumulative impacts on cultural resources would be avoided.

Hydrology and Water Quality: As discussed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, uncontrolled stormwater runoff during construction and operation may adversely affect water quality.

Implementation of mitigation measure HYD-1 would reduce construction impacts on water quality to a less than significant level. Correspondingly, the proposed project is not anticipated to have cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality.

In summary, without mitigation, impacts on air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and hydrology and water quality would be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1, BIO-1, CUL-1, CUL-2, and HYD-1 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the proposed project’s cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. Project-related effects on human beings would be related to air quality and construction noise. As discussed in Section III, Air Quality, air quality impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated, and as discussed in Section XIII, Noise, item a), potential noise impacts from construction would be less than significant. Project-related effects on human beings are therefore less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

City Council/RSA Agenda 252 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
124

6.0 REFERENCES
Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC). 2016. Countywide Transportation Plan. Available from: https://www.alamedactc.org/planning/countywidetransportationplan. Accessed on June 9, 2023.

Alameda County Water District (ACWD). 2021, May. Urban Water Management Plan 2020-2025.

Available from: https://www.acwd.org/365/Urban-Water-Management-Plan. Accessed June 9, 2023.

Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (ABAG and MTC). 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050. Available from: https://planbayarea.org/finalplan2050. Accessed on August 13, 2024.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2023a. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Chapter 3:

Thresholds of Significance. Revised April 20. Accessed May 24, 2024. Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines2022/ceqa-guidelines-chapter-3-thresholds_final_v2-pdf.pdf?la=en. 2023b. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Chapter 5: Project-Level Climate Impacts. Accessed May 24, 2024. Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqaguidelines-2022/ceqa-guidelines-chapter-5-project-air-quality-impacts_finalpdf.pdf?rev=de582fe349e545989239cbbc0d62c37a&sc_lang=en. 2022. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Appendix B: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans. Accessed May 24, 2024. Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines2022/appendix-b-thresholds-for-evaluating-significance-of-climate-impacts_finalpdf.pdf?rev=10305f45037b41dba2cd1b45b288d54b&sc_lang=en. 2017. 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate. Accessed February 21, 2023.

Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-cleanair-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf. 1998. Regulation 11 Rule 2- Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing. Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/dotgov/files/rules/reg-11-rule-2-asbestos-demolitionrenovation-andmanufacturing/documents/rg1102.pdf?la=en&rev=bac2a923da314dc893aa7e5bd61366b7.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022. User’s Guide for CalEEMod version 2022.1.0. Available at: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/userguide/01_User%20Guide.pdf.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2024. IADAM Air Quality Daya Statistics, Top 4 Summary.

Accessed May 24, 2024. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php.

City Council/RSA Agenda 253 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
125
California Air Resources Board (CARB) (cont.)
2023a. Appendix B: Maps and Tables of Area Designations for State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Accessed June 7, 2023. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/sad19/isorappc.pdf. 2022a. Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health. Accessed December 2022
2022b. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. Accessed February 21, 2023.

Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scopingplan/2022-scoping-plan-documents. 2022c. Current California GHG emission Inventory Data. Accessed June 7, 2023. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data.
2013. Revised Emission Factors for Gasoline Marketing Operations at California Gasoline Dispensing Facilities. Accessed February 21, 2023. Available at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/vapor/gdf-emisfactor/gdfumbrella.pdf. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Accessed February 21, 2023. Available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2018. California Important Farmland Finder. Bureau of Land Management. Available from: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed June 9, 2023.
2023. California State Geologist. California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application. Available from:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp. Accessed June 9, 2023.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). 2007. 2007 California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. Office of the State Fire Marshall. Available from:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/wildlandhazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/. Accessed June 9, 2023. 2011. Strategic Fire Plan for the Santa Clara Unit. Accessed June 9, 2023.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2005, January, as amended and 2018. Military base closure handbook – A guide to construction and demolition materials recovery (2005) and Solid Waste Information System Site Activity Update (2018). Accessed June 9, 2023.

California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). 2023. EnviroStor Map. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=31300+alvarado+niles+road.

Accessed June 9, 2023.

California Department of Transportation (DOT). 2017. Traffic Volumes: Route 505-980. Available from:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census/traffic-volumes/2017/route-505-980.

Accessed February 21, 2023.

City Council/RSA Agenda 254 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
126
California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA). 2011, August. Regional Catastrophic Earthquake Mass Transportation/ Evacuation Plan. Annex to the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Emergency Coordination Plan. Available from:
http://www.bayareauasi.org/sites/default/files/resources/Regional%20Mass%20TransEvac_Aug ust%202011.pdf.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2022. 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards - Title 24. Accessed June 9, 2023. Available from: https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-andtopics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022-building-energy-efficiency.

California Geological Survey (CGS). 2019. CGS Seismic Hazards Program: Liquefaction Zones Map.

Accessed August 12, 2024. Available from: https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/cadoc::cgs-seismichazards-program-liquefaction-zones-1/explore?location=37.519185%2C-122.053450%2C13.22 California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). 2015. MyHazards Tool. Accessed June 9, 2023. Available from: https://myhazards.caloes.ca.gov/.

California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018, December. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Available from: https://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Region (RWQCB). 2017. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). Oakland, CA. Available from:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-12/documents/ca2-sanfrancisco-basin.pdf.

City of Union City. 2019. 2040 Union City General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. City of Union City Planning Division, Economic and Community Development. Prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. Available from: https://www.unioncity.org/356/GeneralPlan. 2010. Union City Climate Action Plan. November. Accessed February 21, 2023. Available at:
https://www.unioncity.org/DocumentCenter/View/708/Union-City-Climate-Action-PlanPDF?bidId=. 2021, November. Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan. Accessed June 9, 2023. Available from:
https://www.unioncity.org/DocumentCenter/View/6389/UnionCity_BicyclePedestrianMasterPla n_FINAL_ADOPTED.
1992. Gas Station Marketeer Policy Statement. Available from: Union City Economic and Community Development Planning Division (Union City). 1992. Gas Station Marketeer Policy Statement. Available from: https://www.unioncity.org/DocumentCenter/View/2830/PolicyStatement---Gas-Station-Marketeer?bidId=. Attached as Appendix G. 2023. Updated Land Use Designation Map. Available from: chrome-extension:
https://www.unioncity.org/DocumentCenter/View/10719/Union-City-2040-General-Plan-LUMap. Accessed April 24, 2024.

City Council/RSA Agenda 255 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
127
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2022. National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL).

Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Available from: https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/national-flood-hazard-layer.

Accessed June 9, 2023.

H&S Energy. 2020. Partner Assessment Corporation. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report; Published 3 February 2020. Attached as Appendix F.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Fourth Assessment Report. Available at https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar4/. Accessed June 9, 2023.

National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2023. Web Soil Survey. Available at https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed June 15, 2023.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manualpreparation-health-risk-0.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2023. Geotracker. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=31300+alvaradoniles+road. Accessed June 9, 2023.

Union Sanitary District (USD). 2019. Mission Organization, Facts, and History. Available from:
https://www.unionsanitary.com/about-us/about-us/mission-facts-history. Accessed June 9, 2023.
2020. Sewer System Management Plan. Available from:
https://www.unionsanitary.com/images/documents/USD-SSMP-2020-Re-Certify.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2023.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. Population Estimates. Available from:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/unioncitycitycalifornia. Accessed on June 9, 2023.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2023. Superfund National Priorities List. Available from:
https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=33cebcdfdd1b4c3a8b51d4169 56c41f1. Accessed on June 9, 2023.
2021. Hazardous Waste Generators. Available from:
https://rcrapublic.epa.gov/rcrainfoweb/action/main-menu/view. Accessed on June 9, 2023.

U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 2020. Locate your Watershed. Available from:
https://water.usgs.gov/wsc/map_index.html. Accessed on June 9, 2023.

City Council/RSA Agenda 256 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Union City Chevron/Power Market Project
128

7.0 PREPARERS
City of Union City
Carmela Campbell, Economic and Community Development Director Natalie Dean, AICP, Associate Planner and Project Manager Derek Farmer, Planning Manager
Farooq Azim, City Engineer
Andy Block, Environmental Programs Manager
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.

Erin Gustafson, AICP, Environmental Project Manager
Lesley Owning, Environmental Planning Group Manager
Anviti Singh, Environmental Planner
Julia Pano, Environmental Planner
Victor Ortiz, Air Quality Specialist
Marisa Brilts, Biologist/Arborist
Teri Delcamp, Senior Architectural Historian
Ben Siegel, RPA, Senior Archaeologist
City Council/RSA Agenda 257 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Appendix A
Public Comments Received on Draft IS/MND
City Council/RSA Agenda 258 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
City Council/RSA Agenda 259 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
City Council/RSA Agenda 260 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
City Council/RSA Agenda 261 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
City Council/RSA Agenda 262 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
City Council/RSA Agenda 263 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
City Council/RSA Agenda 264 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
City Council/RSA Agenda 265 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
City Council/RSA Agenda 266 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
City Council/RSA Agenda 267 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
City Council/RSA Agenda 268 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
City Council/RSA Agenda 269 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
City Council/RSA Agenda 270 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
City Council/RSA Agenda 271 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
City Council/RSA Agenda 272 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
City Council/RSA Agenda 273 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Appendix B
Notice of Intent
City Council/RSA Agenda 274 Tuesday, November 19, 2024

CITY OF UNION CITY NOTICE OF INTENT

TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for a new Chevron Fuel Station and Power Market Convenience Store facility to demolish an existing gas station, convenience store, and smog check station and build a new gas station and convenience store on an approximately 0.5-acre parcel. The new facility would include a 2,375-sf Power Market Convenience Store and a 2,875-sf gas fueling canopy with 8 fueling pumps. The property is located at 31300 Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, CA (APN 463-0104-006-000) in the Union Landing Commercial (CUL) zoning district.

MND PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT PERIOD: The review period to submit written comments regarding the MND begins on August 23, 2024 and ends on September 23, 2024 at 5:00 p.m. Please email comments to Natalie Dean at [email protected] or mail comments to: Natalie Dean, Associate Planner, City of Union City Planning Department, 34009 Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, CA 94587.

Comments can also be provided at the Planning Commission or City Council public hearings.

A copy of the draft MND, which determined that the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts with the incorporation of mitigation measures, is available online at https://www.unioncity.org/347/Planning-Documents. A hard copy of the document is also available for review at Union City Library, located at 34007 Alvarado-Niles Road.

NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN that the Planning Commission will have a study session to review the project at its September 19, 2024 meeting, a public hearing will be held for the project by the Planning Commission at its October 17, 2024 meeting, and a public hearing is tentatively scheduled with the City Council at its November 12, 2024 meeting. All meetings will begin at 7:00 p.m. on the scheduled date.

Meeting access instructions and the Planning Commission and City Council meeting packet, which includes the meeting agenda and staff report for this project, can be accessed on-line on the City’s Agendas and Minutes webpage located at https://www.unioncity.org/199/City-Meetings-Video. Meeting packets are generally available on-line the Friday before the meeting.

If you challenge the above described project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Planning Commission public hearing for this project or the City Council public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.

If you have any questions regarding the project, please contact Natalie Dean, Associate Planner, at (510) 675-5382 or via email at [email protected].

This notice is intended to satisfy the notice requirements of CEQA Guidelines §15072.

City Council/RSA Agenda 275 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Appendix A
Figures
Attachment 1: Exhibit A - Draft and Final Mitigated Negative Declaration - Volume II - Appendix A City Council/RSA Agenda 276 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Solano
Marin Contra Costa
Sa Fra nc isc
ce: Base M ap
HELe ln!anning
d Vicinity Map Env1ronm Site an Figure l
City Council/RSA Agenda 277 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Legend
c:::J Study Area - 0.50 Acre
Alvarado Niles Rd
1 Source: Aeria l (Maxar, 8/29/2021)0~~-~-~~50 Feet
E--3 E--3 'f
HELIX Aerial Map Environmental Planning
Figure 2
City Council/RSA Agenda 278 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Chevron/ Power Market Gas Station
T:\PROJECTS\U\UnionCity_03103\00007_ChevronPowerMarketGasStnISMND\Docs\Fig3_SitePlan_20230609.indd Site Plan
Figure 3
Source: Archissance; 2021
A1.00
1 1
8 7 6 5 3 2
A1.30
2 A1.40
1 A1.30 1
(E) DRIVEWAY
40' - 0".
10' - 0 1/2"
20' - 1"
(N) C-STORE

ALVARADO-NILES ROAD

UNION LANDING BOULEVARD

SIDEWALK

SIDEWALK
5' - 0" 3' - 1"
(N) FUELING CANOPY

EASEMENT
5' - 0"
(E) UNDERGROUND
FUEL TANKS 2 A1.40
A1.50
1 (E) MONUMENT

SIGN TO REMAIN
1 A2.20
A2.20
2 A2.00
1 A2.00
2 A2.00 3
A2.00
4 *WILL BE EMPTIED DURING

CONSTRUCTION
TYP.
22' - 0"
TYP.
10' - 0"

CIVIC FACILITY
A2.20
3 30' - 8 1/2" 18' - 0" 7' - 11"

CUL ZONE

DRIVEWAY
25' - 0"
(E) DRIVEWAY
26' - 0".

CANOPY OVERHEAD E.V. CHARGING

STATIONS
9 44' - 4" 59' - 0" 12' - 10"

WATER & AIR
4 55' - 0" 59' - 7"
73' - 8" 49' - 0"

SHORTEST DISTANCE
51' - 11 1/2"

SHORTEST DISTANCE
119' - 7 1/2" 58' - 4" 21' - 0"
2,375 SF
8 FUELING PUMPS
E.V. CHARGING

STATIONS
9' - 0" 5' - 0" 54' - 0" 12' - 0" 5' - 0"
8' - 0" 12' - 0" 5' - 0"
(E) DRIVEWAY
40' - 0"
42' - 0 1/2" 37' - 9 1/2" 18' - 0" 2' - 4" 5' - 0" 11' - 0 1/2" 30' - 2" 3' - 8 1/2" 28' - 6" 3' - 8 1/2" 14' - 2 1/2"
4' CMU WALL
TO P.L.
1' - 7"
10 12
11 13
14 15 17
16 (N) ACCESS TO PUBLIC

TRANSIT STATION
(E) ACCESS TO PUBLIC

TRANSIT STATION TO

BE CLOSED
4' - 0"
6' - 5 1/2"
(N) TRASH

ENCLOSURE
184 SF
25' - 0"
TO P.L.
1' - 7"
6" CURB U.N.O.
18' - 0" OVERALL
9' - 0"
6"
18' - 0" OVERALL

SEE SITE PLAN
SEE

SITE PLAN

FACE OF
CURB
5 % MAX
2 % MAX
5 % MAXRAMP UP
Scale
2021 - ARCHISSANCE DESIGN GROUP

PROJECT
OWNER

LEGAL NOTICE OF DOCUMENT USE

CONSULTANT

SHEET TITLE
PROJECT NO.

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY
SCALE
DATE:

SHEET NUMBER
The graphic representations and specifications contained herein are the sole and exclusive property of Archissance . Any reproduction, by any means, is a violation of copyright law. Reuse of these documents for other than the specific project for which they have been prepared and depicted herein without the written authorization of Archissance is expressly forbidden. No modifications, additions, or deletions shall be made by anyone other than Archissance. Any unauthorized revisions shall automatically constitute complete indemnification of Archissance and their consultants of any liability arising from such incur all expenses incurred to defend Archissance and/or their consultants in any legal action. Viewing these graphics representations and their specifications constitute acceptance of these restrictions.

REVISIONS
STAMP

PROJECT ADDRESS
As indicated
11/17/2022 4:08:18 PM
As indicated
A0.11

PROJECT

INFORMATION & SITE
PLAN
SH
RS
4/5/2021
20-022
31300 ALVARADO NILES ROAD,
UNION CITY, CA, 94587

PRELIMINARY

NEW CONVENIENCE STORE &

SOLAR CANOPY

H&S ENERGY,LLC
2860 N. SANTIAGO BLVD,
ORANGE, CA 92867
SCALE SITE PLAN 1" = 10'-0" 1
0 10 20 30 40

GRAPHIC SCALE
N
(E) EXISTING
(N) NEW
SCALE STANDARD PARKING SPACE 1/4" = 1'-0"SCALE ADA RAMP 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 2 City Council/RSA Agenda 279 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Appendix B
Detailed Project Plans
Attachment 1: Exhibit A - Draft and Final Mitigated Negative Declaration - Volume II - Appendix B City Council/RSA Agenda 280 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
A101
1 SIM

DETAIL NUMBERSHEET NUMBERMODIFIER

CALLOUT TAGDOOR TAG
1t DOOR NUMBER

INTERIOR ELEVATION MARK
A101
1 Ref
1 Ref
1 Ref
1 Ref

ELEVATION NUMBER ELEVATION NUMBER FOR GIVEN ORIENTATIONSHEET NUMBER

EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEVATION MARK
1 Ref ELEVATION NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
1 A101
1 1

KEYNOTES
? KEYNOTE NUMBER

SPOT ELEVATION
1 A101
SIM

MODIFIERSHEET NUMBER

BUILDING SECTION TAG
PARKING CALCULATION: BUILDING SECTION NUMBER

BUILDING USE CODE SECTION CRITERIA REQD PROVIDED
STANDARD VEHICLE PARKING SPACE = 9' X 18'VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE = 12' X 18'LOADING/UNLOADING SPACE =10' X 25' TOTAL
CONVENIENCE STORE:• STANDARD (TYP)• UNDER CANOPY• ACCESSIBLE• EVCS

18.36.150
6 PARKING CLASSIFICATION

BREAKDOWN
TOTAL

PROVIDED
CONVENIENCE STORE 2375 SF/175 = 13.6 = 14 14 9
UNDER GAS STATION CANOPY N/A N/A N/A 8

OVER ALL CODE SECTION
1 VAN
17 18.36.1502019 C.B.C 11B-208.22019 C.B.C 11B-208.2.42019 C.G.B.S.C 5.106.5.3.32019 C.B.C 11B-812.8.22019 C.G.B.S.C 5.106.5.2 17 LOADING / UNLOADING 1 SPACE FOR 1 TO 10,000 SF 1 1
15 18
2 (1 VAN + 1 STANDARD)
17 18.36.140
8 Item (M) Occupancy Code Section Allowable
Height
# Stories
Area
55' 40'
2 1
12,500 SF 9,000 SF
2019 C.B.C. 504.32019 C.B.C. 504.42019 C.B.C. 506.2
Construction Type
(M) Occupancy
VB (N.S) IIB (N.S)
40'1
9,000 SF
BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS:Occupancy Type: (Convenience Store: Group-M)/ (Service Station Canopy: Group-M)Construction Type: Convenience Store: VB / Service Station Canopy: IIBFire Sprinkler: (N.S.) Non SprinkledOccupancy Load (C. Store) = 2375 SF / 60 Gross = 39.6 = 40 C.B.C. 1004.5Exit Sizing = 40 * 0.2 = 8" = 32" Min. C.B.C 1005.3.2......Provided Exit = 72" (68" CLR. While Opening). Number of Exits: 1 Exit Provided...........C.B.C 1006.3.3 Exception # 1& 2 Occupancy Separation: Convenience Store & Fueling Canopy = (M)+(M)= No Separation is Required 2019 C.B.C. 508.4Area Provided:Convenience Store = 2,375 SFFueling Canopy = 2,875 SF Chevron / Power Market Project
NEW CONVENIENCE STORE & SOLAR CANOPY31300 ALVARADO NILES ROAD,UNION CITY, CA, 94587 Scale
2021 - ARCHISSANCE DESIGN GROUP

PROJECT
OWNER

LEGAL NOTICE OF DOCUMENT USE

CONSULTANT

SHEET TITLE
PROJECT NO.

DRAWN BYCHECKED BYSCALEDATE:SHEET NUMBER
The graphic representations and specifications contained herein are thesole and exclusive property of Archissance . Any reproduction, by any means, is a violation of copyright law. Reuse of these documents for other than the specific project for which they have been prepared and depicted herein without the written authorization of Archissance is expressly forbidden. No modifications, additions, or deletions shall be made by anyone other than Archissance. Any unauthorized revisions shall automatically constitute complete indemnification of Archissance and their consultants of any liability arising from such incur all expenses incurred to defend Archissance and/or their consultants in any legal action. Viewing these graphics representations and their specifications constitute acceptance of these restrictions.

REVISIONS
STAMP

PROJECT ADDRESS
As indicated
11/17/2022 4:08:13 PMAs indicated A0.00

COVER SHEET
SHRS4/5/2021
20-022
31300 ALVARADO NILES ROAD,UNION CITY, CA, 94587

PRELIMINARY

NEW CONVENIENCE STORE &SOLAR CANOPY
H&S ENERGY,LLC2860 N. SANTIAGO BLVD,ORANGE, CA 92867
VICINITY MAP SCOPE OF WORK:

SHEET INDEX:
“ERAZE AND REBUILD” AN EXISTING GAS STATION WITH LIMITED C-STORE AND GAS FUELING CANOPY. THE NEW WORK WILL INCLUDE AN ARCHITECTURALLY MODERN CSTORE DESIGN UTILIZING CONTEMPORARY FINISHES AND AESTHETICS.

ARCHITECTURAL STONE PANELS, WOOD TILE, SMOOTH PLASTER, METAL CLADDING, METAL COPING, AND METAL CANOPIES. THE NEW C-STORE IS APPROXIMATELY 2,375 SQUARE FEET. THE PLACEMENT OF THE C-STORE IS AT THE INSIDE CORNER OF THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW FOR BEST AND HIGHEST USE WHILE MAINTAINING THE SITE CIRCULATION PATTERN. ADA PARKING AND RAMPS ARE PLACED CLOSEST TO THE STORE WITH NO SITE TRAFFIC CROSSINGS TO ENHANCE DISABLED PERSONS SAFETY AND MAXIMIZING ACCESS AND CONVENIENCE. THE SITE IS OPEN TO THE TRANSPORTATION CENTER AND THE PATH OF TRAVEL IS DIRECT TO THE TRANSPORTATION CENTER WITHOUT HAVING TO CROSS VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ON ANY OF THE DRIVEWAYS TO THE SITE; THIS SITE DESIGN ELEMENT ENHANCES SAFETY FURTHER TO DISABLED PERSONS AND MEETS THE ADA CODE IN RELATION TO PROVIDING ACCESS TO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY HAVING PUBLIC TRANSIT SUCH AS A BUS STOP. LANDSCAPE BUFFER WAS CREATED TO ENHANCE THE SITE BETWEEN THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CENTER AND THE PROJECT. LANDSCAPE BUFFER INCREASED TO 10’ ON ALVARADO-NILES ROAD. ONE DRIVEWAY IS PROPOSED TO BE CLOSED ON ALVARADO-NILES ROAD CLOSEST TO THE INTERSECTION TO ENHANCE PUBLIC SAFETY ENTERING AND EXITING THE SITE.TRASH ENCLOSURE HAS BEEN TREATED WITH BUILDING ELEMENTS AND COLORS TO MAINTAIN CONTINUITY EVEN THROUGH THE SMALLEST ELEMENTS INCLUDING A ROOF COVER AND 3 CONTAINERS WITHIN THE ENCLOSURE. PROPOSED SIGNAGE ISPRIMARILY FOR CONTENT AND PLACEMENT INDICATING THE TRADEMARKS FOR THE PROJECT. A SIGNAGE DESIGN PROGRAM WILL BE SUBMITTED ONCE A COMPLETE REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. - HOURS OF OPERATION:- C-STORE - 24 HOURS- FUEL SALES - 24 HOUR- TANKS WILL BE EMPTIED DURING CONSTRUCTION APN/PARCEL ID(S): 463-0104-006-00
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF UNION CITY, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:PARCEL 2, AS SHOWN UPON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED "PARCEL MAP NO. 8509", FILED FOR RECORD FEBRUARY 22, 2006, IN BOOK 288 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGES 25-26, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS.

THIS DESCRIPTION DESCRIBES ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN TITLE REPORT IDENTIFIED AS CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, GUARANTEE NO.FWACT019000066, DATED DECEMBER 31,2018.

ZONING CONFORMANCE MATRIX
Existing Zone: Union Landing
Commercial (CUL) /
Re-Designation Zones:

Community Commercial (CC)
CODE

SECTION REQUIRED PROPOSED
Min Lot Area (SF) 18.36.060 5,000 SF 21,904 SFMin Lot Width 18.36.070 N/A N/A Min SetbacksFront [Street] Union Landing Blvd 18.36.090 20' Building= 119'-7 1/2"/ Canopy=73'-8"
Side [Street] Alvarado Niles Road 18.36.100 10' Building= 59'-7"/ Canopy=12'-10" *
Side [North] Adjacent PropertyCivic Facility 18.36.100 N/A Building= 1'-7"/ Canopy=44'-9 1/2"Rear [East] Adjacent PropertyUnion Landing Commercial 18.36.110 N/A Building= 1'-7"/ Canopy=51'-11 1/2"Max Structure Height 18.36.120 CN=30' / CC=100"
Building= 22'-0"/Canopy= 19'-7"
Max Floor Area Ratio (FAR) General Plan 0.25 = 25% Building= 10.8% / Canopy= 13.1% /Trash Enclosure= 0.8%(Total = 24.7%)
Min Site LandscapingSetbacks, planters and unusedareas

18.36.170.C.3 20% = 4,380.8 SF 4,463 SF = 20.4%
Off-Street Parking 18.36.150 1 Space for every
175 SF = 14Spaces
2,375 SF / 175 = 14Provided = 17 Spaces
Loading / Unloading 18.36.150 1 Space for
1-10,000 SF = 1Space
Provided = 1 Space
Sign 18.30.000 Yes Deferred

PROJECT INFORMATION

ITEM INFORMATION
Project Address 31300 Alvarado Niles Road, Union City, CA 94587Legal Description Assessor's Map County of Alameda, California
APN 463-0104-006-00
Zoning District Union Landing Commercial (CUL)Zoning Redesignation Community Commercial (CC)Existing Lot Size 21,904 SF= 0.503 ACDedication Required NoNet Lot Size 21,904 SF= 0.503 ACExisting Building Floor Area Convenience Store=1,522 SF/ Canopy=1,232 SFProposed Buildings Floor Area Convenience Store=2,375 SF/ Canopy=2,875 SFExisting Use Automobile Service StationProposed Use Automobile Service StationExisting No. of Structures 2 (C.Store and Canopy)Proposed No. of Buildings 2 (N) C. Store and (N) CanopySpecial Area No

PERSPECTIVES PROJECT INFORMATION - BUILDING DATA - CODE REQUIREMENTS OWNERH&S ENERGY,LLC2860 N. SANTIAGO BLVDORANGE, CA 92867

ARCHITECT / APPLICANT
Archissance
3185 Airway AveCosta Mesa , CA 92626Suite F1Samir Hijazi, P.M.Francis Ong, Architect949.215.1544 Ext 101

OPERATIONAL NOTESFLOOD NOTE
BY GRAPHIC PLOTTING ONLY, THIS PROPERTY IS IN ZONE "X" OF THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP, COMMUNITY PANEL NO. 060014-0427-G, WHICH BEARS AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF 8-3-09 AND IS NOT IN A SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA.

PERSPECTIVE VIEW OF FRONT OF THE C-STORE

PERSPECTIVE VIEW OF LEFT SIDE OF THE C-STORE PERSPECTIVE VIEW OF RIGHT SIDE OF THE C-STORE

SYMBOLS
(*) ACCORDING TO CODE SECTION 18.36.100.C. ONE FOOT SHALL BE ADDED AT GROUND LEVEL TO EACH REQUIRED INTERIOR SIDE YARD FOR EACH (3) FEET OF HEIGHT BY WHICH THE STRUCTURE EXCEEDS TWELVE (12) FEET.CANOPY HEIGHT (19'-6") - (12'-0") = 7'-6"/ 3' = 2'-6" ADDITIONAL DISTANCE TO THE SIDE SETBACK TO BE 10' + 2'-6" = 12'-6" AS REQUIRED AND 12'-10" HAS BEEN PROVIDED

DESIGN TEAM

PERSPECTIVE VIEW OF FRONT OF THE PROJECT

ARCHITECTURAL
A0.00 COVER SHEETA0.10 EXISTING SITE PLANA0.11 PROJECT INFORMATION & SITE PLANA0.20 SITE CIRCULATIONA1.00 FLOOR PLAN - CONVENIENCE STOREA1.10 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN CONVENIENCE STOREA1.20 ROOF PLAN - CONVENIENCE STOREA1.30 ELEVATIONS - CONVENIENCE STOREA1.40 ELEVATIONS - CONVENIENCE STOREA1.50 ELEVATIONS - CONVENIENCE STOREA2.00 CANOPY FLOOR PLAN & TRASH ENCLOSURE PLAN & ELEVATIONSA2.10 ROOF PLAN- FUELING CANOPY AND TRASH ENCLOSUREA2.20 ELEVATIONS - CANOPYA3.00 SIGNAGE DETAILS City Council/RSA Agenda 281 Tuesday, November 19, 2024

ALVARADO-NILES ROAD

UNION LANDING BOULEVARD
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
(E) BUILDING TO BE

DEMOLISHED
(E) CANOPY TO BE

REPLACED WITH
NEW
(E) UNDERGROUND

FUEL TANKS TO REMAIN
(E) TRASH ENCLOSURE

TO BE DEMOLISHED
(E) DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN
26' - 0".
(E) DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN
40' - 0".
18' - 9"
10' - 2"

CUL ZONE
6' - 3" 14' - 6"
12' - 7"
(E) MONUMENT SIGN TO REMAIN
(E) TRAFFIC SIGNAL/STREETLIGHT TO REMAIN
(E) ELECTRICAL PULLBOX TO REMAIN (E) TRAFFIC SIGNALELECTRICAL PULLBOXTO REMAIN (E) TRAFFIC SIGNALTO REMAIN
(E) TRAFFIC SIGNALELECTRICAL PULLBOXTO REMAIN (E) FIRE HYDRANT TO REMAIN (E) WATER VALVE & METER TO REMAIN (E) BACKFLOW DEVICE TO REMAIN (E) STREET LIGHT TO REMAIN (E) DRAIN INLET TO REMAIN (E) STREET LIGHT PULLBOXTO REMAIN (E) STREET LIGHT TO REMAIN (E) STREET LIGHT PULLBOXTO REMAIN (E) VAULTTO REMAIN (E) TELEPHONE PULLBOX

TO REMAIN
(E) TRAFFIC SIGNAL

ELECTRICAL PULLBOX

TO REMAIN
(E) ELECTRICAL VAULT TO REMAIN
(E) ELECTRICAL VAULTTO BE REMOVED

CIVIC FACILITY

EASEMENT
5' - 0"
(E) ACCESS TO TRANSIT STATION TO

BE CLOSED (SEE NEW SITE PLAN)
(E)

DRIVEWAY
TO
REMAIN
40 '
-
0 ".

Scale
2021 - ARCHISSANCE DESIGN GROUP

PROJECT
OWNER

LEGAL NOTICE OF DOCUMENT USE

CONSULTANT

SHEET TITLE
PROJECT NO.

DRAWN BYCHECKED BYSCALEDATE:SHEET NUMBER
The graphic representations and specifications contained herein are thesole and exclusive property of Archissance . Any reproduction, by any means, is a violation of copyright law. Reuse of these documents for other than the specific project for which they have been prepared and depicted herein without the written authorization of Archissance is expressly forbidden. No modifications, additions, or deletions shall be made by anyone other than Archissance. Any unauthorized revisions shall automatically constitute complete indemnification of Archissance and their consultants of any liability arising from such incur all expenses incurred to defend Archissance and/or their consultants in any legal action. Viewing these graphics representations and their specifications constitute acceptance of these restrictions.

REVISIONS
STAMP

PROJECT ADDRESS
1" = 10'-0"
11/17/2022 4:08:14 PM1" = 10'-0" A0.10

EXISTING SITE PLAN
SHRS4/5/2021
20-022
31300 ALVARADO NILES ROAD,UNION CITY, CA, 94587

PRELIMINARY

NEW CONVENIENCE STORE &SOLAR CANOPY
H&S ENERGY,LLC2860 N. SANTIAGO BLVD,ORANGE, CA 92867
0 10 20 30 40

GRAPHIC SCALE
N
SCALE EXISTING SITE PLAN 1" = 10'-0" 1
(E) EXISTING(N) NEW
City Council/RSA Agenda 282 Tuesday, November 19, 2024
A1.00
1 1
8 7 6 5 3 2
A1.30
2 A1.40
1 A1.30 1
(E) DRIVEWAY
40' - 0".
10' - 0 1/2"
20' -
1"
(N) C-STORE

ALVARADO-NILES ROAD

UNION LANDING BOULEVARD

SIDEWALK

SIDEWALK
5' - 0" 3' - 1"
(N) FUELING CANOPY

EASEMENT
5' - 0"
(E) UNDERGROUND

FUEL TANKS
2 A1.40
A1.50
1 (E) MONUMENT SIGN TO REMAIN
1 A2.20
A2.20
2 A2.00
1 A2.00
2 A2.00
3 A2.00
4 *WILL BE EMPTIED DURING

CONSTRUCTION
TYP.
22' - 0"
TYP.
10' - 0"

CIVIC FACILITY
A2.20
3 30' - 8 1/2" 18' - 0" 7' - 11"
CUL ZONE DRIVEWAY 25' - 0"
(E) DRIVEWAY
26' - 0".

CANOPY OVERHEAD E.V. CHARGING

STATIONS
9 44' - 4" 59' - 0" 12' - 10"

WATER & AIR
4 55' - 0" 59' - 7"
73' - 8" 49' - 0"

SHORTEST DISTANCE
51' - 11 1/2"

SHORTEST DISTANCE
119' - 7 1/2" 58' - 4" 21' - 0"
2,375 SF
8 FUELING PUMPS
E.V. CHARGING

STATIONS
9' - 0" 5' - 0" 54' - 0" 12' - 0" 5' - 0"
8' - 0" 12' - 0" 5' - 0"
(E) DRIVEWAY 40' - 0"
42' - 0 1/2" 37' - 9 1/2" 18' - 0" 2' - 4" 5' - 0" 11' - 0 1/2" 30' - 2" 3' - 8 1/2" 28' - 6" 3' - 8 1/2" 14' - 2 1/2"
4' CMU WALL
TO P.L.
1' - 7"
10 1211 131415 17
16 (N) ACCESS TO PUBLIC TRANSIT STATION
(E) ACCESS TO PUBLIC TRANSIT STATION TO BE CLOSED
4' - 0"
6' -
5 1/2"
(N) TRASH

ENCLOSURE
184 SF
25' - 0"
TO P.L.
1' - 7"
6" CURB U.N.O.
18' - 0" OVERALL
9' - 0"
6"
18' - 0" OVERALL

SEE SITE PLAN SEE SITE PLAN FACE OF CURB
5 % MAX
2 % MAX
5 % MAX

RAMP UP
Scale
2021 - ARCHISSANCE DESIGN GROUP

PROJECT
OWNER

LEGAL NOTICE OF DOCUMENT USE

CONSULTANT

SHEET TITLE
PROJECT NO.

DRAWN BYCHECKED BYSCALEDATE:SHEET NUMBER
The graphic representations and specifications contained herein are thesole and exclusive property of Archissance . Any reproduction, by any means, is a violation of copyright law. Reuse of these documents for other than the specific project for which they have been prepared and depicted herein without the written authorization of Archissance is expressly forbidden. No modifications, additions, or deletions shall be made by anyone other than Archissance. Any unauthorized revisions shall automatically constitute complete indemnification of Archissance and their consultants of any liability arising from such incur all expenses incurred to defend Archissance and/or their consultants in any legal action. Viewing these graphics representations and their specifications constitute acceptance of these restrictions.