Union City City Council
February 24, 2026

Project No. 01-25-0052 May 15, 2025
Property Condition Assessments, LLC
450 Apollo Street, Suite E, Brea, California 92821
Main: (626) 685-9560
www.pcallc.com
450 Apollo Street, Suite E, Brea, California 92821 Main: (626) 685-9560 www.pcallc.com May 15, 2025
File No.: 01-25-0052
Jose Gutierrez

CITY OF UNION CITY
34009 Alvarado-Niles Road
Union City, California 94587
REFERENCE: 33623 MISSION BOULEVARD
UNION CITY, CALIFORNIA 94587
SUBJECT: PROPERTY CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT
Dear Jose:

Thank you for selecting Property Condition Assessments, LLC ("PCA") to perform this assessment. In accordance with the agreement to perform physical due-diligence services, PCA is pleased to submit the attached report for the Subject Property.

The objective of this engagement was for PCA to visually assess the present condition of the Subject Property. This report describes the current condition of the primary components and systems at the Subject Property and identifies physical deficiencies and conditions that would limit the expected serviceable life of those systems. Also included is a spreadsheet tabulating PCA's opinions of probable costs to address code and safety issues, repair and maintenance items, modernization and improvement recommendations, and anticipated capital expenditures.

Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have questions concerning this report.

Sincerely,
Property Condition Assessments, LLC
John I. Luna
President

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS OF PROBABLE COSTS SPREADSHEET
I. INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................1

1.1 Overall Project at a Glance ..........................................................................3

1.2 Cost Table Summary....................................................................................4

1.3 Statement of Condition ................................................................................4

1.4 Purpose.........................................................................................................4

1.5 Scope of Services.........................................................................................4

1.6 Documents Reviewed ..................................................................................5

1.7 Cost Calculation Methodology ....................................................................5

1.8 Quality Definitions.......................................................................................6

1.9 Report Reliance............................................................................................7 II. PROPERTY CONDITION ASSESSMENT
A. Site ...............................................................................................................8 B. Structural – Seismic Systems.....................................................................14 C. Building Exterior .......................................................................................24 D. Roofing ......................................................................................................26 E. Interiors......................................................................................................28 F. Limited Disabled-Access Assessment .......................................................30 G. HVAC ........................................................................................................32 H. Plumbing....................................................................................................33 I. Electrical ....................................................................................................35 J. Fire- and Life-Safety Systems ...................................................................37 K. Vertical Transportation ..............................................................................38 L. Public Records Review..............................................................................39

APPENDICES
Appendix A Vicinity Map
Appendix B Report Photographs
Appendix C Zoning Analysis

OPINIONS OF PROBABLE COSTS
33623 Mission Boulevard
33623 Mission Boulevard Union, CA 94587
Rating:
1 - Code and Safety
2 - Repair and Maintenance
3 - Capital Expenditures
33623 Mission Boulevard 01-25-0052
Confidential Client Information 1 of
Property Condition Assessments, LLC
5 - Tenant Responsibility
4 - Modernization/Improvements 5
Client
PCA Project Manager
Date(s) of Site Visit

SUMMARY DATA
City of Union City
Tim Burton, R.A.

May 2, 2025
PCA Project Team Robert D. Boyens, S.E. Structural-Seismic Assessor - Generalist Site Data Topography Generally flat, with slight slope to drainage Land Area 0.33 acres, or approximately 14,410 square feet Zoning Corridor Mixed Use - Commercial
Improvement Data Number of Buildings / Units One building / One tenant space Building Type Retail (previously used as gas station and garage) Year Built Unknown
Number of Stories One
Type of Construction Type VB, Unprotected Non-Sprinklered Reported Rentable Building Area Approximately 2,000 square feet Type of Parking Open surface (unpaved)
Existing Parking Spaces Unknown; no spaces are striped.

Unknown; independent verification of municipal parking requirements is outside the Scope of Services for this report.

Required Parking Spaces
Business (Group B)
2022 California Building Code (CBC)
Unknown; early version of CBC
City of Union City
Building Engineer Armando Gonzalez
Property Manager
Applicable Code
Current Code
Information Source Occupancy Class
The overall condition of the Subject Property is poor to fair, depending on the building system, in comparison to PCA's experience with other properties of similar age and type.

Except as noted within the respective sections of this report, building improvements generally appeared to comply with applicable building codes enforced at the time of original construction.

This report details the findings and opinions regarding recommended corrections to the Subject Property within the scope of PCA's engagement. With the completion of the repairs identified in the "Opinions of Probable Costs" spreadsheet (OPCs), in conjunction with a well-planned and executed program of ongoing maintenance, the Subject Property should continue to perform well throughout its remaining economic life, which should be 20 or more years.

Statement of Condition

OPINIONS OF PROBABLE COSTS
33623 Mission Boulevard
33623 Mission Boulevard Union, CA 94587
Rating:
1 - Code and Safety
2 - Repair and Maintenance
3 - Capital Expenditures
33623 Mission Boulevard 01-25-0052
Confidential Client Information 2 of
Property Condition Assessments, LLC
5 - Tenant Responsibility
4 - Modernization/Improvements 5
A.

B.

C.

SITE

STRUCTURAL / SEISMIC

BUILDING EXTERIOR
Recommendation
Recommendation
Recommendation
Rating
Rating
Rating
Quantity
Quantity
Quantity
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit Cost
Unit Cost
Unit Cost
Item
No.

Item
No.

Item
No.

Code Fire
Life Safety
Code Fire
Life Safety
Code Fire
Life Safety
Year 1
Immediate
Year 1
Immediate
Year 1
Immediate
Total
Total
Total
Year 2
2026
Year 2
2026
Year 2
2026
Year 3
2027
Year 3
2027
Year 3
2027
Year 4
2028
Year 4
2028
Year 4
2028
Year 5
2029
Year 5
2029
Year 5
2029
Year 6
2030
Year 6
2030
Year 6
2030
Year 7
2031
Year 7
2031
Year 7
2031
Year 8
2032
Year 8
2032
Year 8
2032
Year 9
2033
Year 9
2033
Year 9
2033
Year 10
2034
Year 10
2034
Year 10
2034
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
$0
$0
$0
$45,000
$15,000
$26,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,700
$0
$0
$50,400
$15,000
$36,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,000
$0
$0
$0
$2,700
$0
$0
A. 01
A. 02
B. 01
C. 01
C. 02
C. 03
Asphalt Paving - Installation: Grade site, prepare base, and pave site with asphaltic concrete. Stripe for parking spaces and traffic control, including disabled-access parking spaces and accessible paths of travel from the street to the building entrance; as well as from parking spaces to the building entrance. This cost is a preliminary budget only, which should be validated by additional investigation and contractor bid[s].

Asphalt Paving - Maintenance: Budget for crack repair, seal coat, and restripe of asphalt pavement on a seven-year cycle. Cost includes re-striping of parking spaces, pavement markings, and drive lanes.

Lean-To - Demolition: Demolish the lean-to on the east side of the building.

The lean-to has rot-damaged roof framing and deteriorated wall framing.

This cost is a preliminary budget only, which should be validated by additional investigation and contractor bid[s].

Exterior Walls - Stucco Cladding, Repairs: Perform repair of damaged stucco on all exterior elevations.

Exterior Paint: Budget to retain an artist to re-paint areas of the mural at the building exterior that are faded and/or have stucco damage. This cost is a preliminary budget only, which should be validated by additional investigation and contractor bid[s].

Window Replacements: Perform replacement of all windows. Windows are single-pane units set in wood frames. Rot and termite damage were noted at several of the windows and evidence of leaks at the windows was observed at the interior. This cost is a preliminary budget only, which should be validated by additional investigation and contractor bid[s].
3 2
2 2
2 3
9,000
9,000
1 1
1 6
SF
SF
LS
LS
EA
EA
$5.00
$0.30
$15,000.00
$7,500.00
$10,000.00
$1,500.00
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$45,000
$0
$15,000
$7,500
$10,000
$9,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,700
$0
$0
$0
$0
$45,000
$5,400
$15,000
$7,500
$20,000
$9,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,700
$0
$0
$0
$0

OPINIONS OF PROBABLE COSTS
33623 Mission Boulevard
33623 Mission Boulevard Union, CA 94587
Rating:
1 - Code and Safety
2 - Repair and Maintenance
3 - Capital Expenditures
33623 Mission Boulevard 01-25-0052
Confidential Client Information 3 of
Property Condition Assessments, LLC
5 - Tenant Responsibility
4 - Modernization/Improvements 5
D.

E.

F.

ROOFING

BUILDING INTERIORS

LIMITED DISABLED-ACCESS
REVIEW
Recommendation
Recommendation
Recommendation
Rating
Rating
Rating
Quantity
Quantity
Quantity
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit Cost
Unit Cost
Unit Cost
Item
No.

Item
No.

Item
No.

Code Fire
Life Safety
Code Fire
Life Safety
Code Fire
Life Safety
Year 1
Immediate
Year 1
Immediate
Year 1
Immediate
Total
Total
Total
Year 2
2026
Year 2
2026
Year 2
2026
Year 3
2027
Year 3
2027
Year 3
2027
Year 4
2028
Year 4
2028
Year 4
2028
Year 5
2029
Year 5
2029
Year 5
2029
Year 6
2030
Year 6
2030
Year 6
2030
Year 7
2031
Year 7
2031
Year 7
2031
Year 8
2032
Year 8
2032
Year 8
2032
Year 9
2033
Year 9
2033
Year 9
2033
Year 10
2034
Year 10
2034
Year 10
2034
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
$5,000
$0
$31,000
$32,000
$3,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$37,000
$3,000
$31,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
D. 01
D. 02
E. 01
F. 01
F. 02
Roof Access and Safety: Install an internal, wall-mounted ladder and new roof hatch; or a lockable exterior wall-mounted roof access ladder with safety cage to provide safe access for roof and mechanical equipment service personnel.

Roof Replacement: Remove the Built-Up Roofing [BUR] membrane at the former garage station, as well as the asphalt emulsion roof at the mechanic's garage. Replacement should be with a new BUR membrane with a cool roof designation. Scope to include replacement of cap flashings and coping. This cost is a preliminary budget only, which should be validated by additional investigation and contractor bid[s].

Rentable Area Verification: Consider engaging a qualified consultant to verify existing floor plans at tenant and common use areas. Verification shall utilize space measurement standards per BOMA/ANSI guidelines. Area takeoffs shall be based upon desktop review of as-built construction documents. This cost is a preliminary budget only, which should be validated by additional investigation and contractor bid[s]. Work is subject to the verified terms and conditions of the existing lease agreement.

Compliant Sidewalk: Provide a sidewalk from the public way to the main building entrance. Ensure the existing door meets requirements for opening width, threshold, and opening force.

Restroom Compliance: Upgrade the public restroom to meet ADA requirements. The restroom is currently not compliant with ADA design guidelines. Scope to also include addition of new compliant dual basin water fountain. This cost is a preliminary budget only, which should be validated by additional investigation and contractor bid[s].
1 3
4 1
1 1
2,000
1 1
1 EA
SF
EA
LS
LS
$5,000.00
$16.00
$3,000.00
$6,000.00
$25,000.00
$5,000
$0
$0
$6,000
$25,000
$0
$32,000
$3,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,000
$32,000
$3,000
$6,000
$25,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

OPINIONS OF PROBABLE COSTS
33623 Mission Boulevard
33623 Mission Boulevard Union, CA 94587
Rating:
1 - Code and Safety
2 - Repair and Maintenance
3 - Capital Expenditures
33623 Mission Boulevard 01-25-0052
Confidential Client Information 4 of
Property Condition Assessments, LLC
5 - Tenant Responsibility
4 - Modernization/Improvements 5
G.

H.

I.

J.

HVAC

PLUMBING SYSTEMS

ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

FIRE / LIFE-SAFETY SYSTEMS
Recommendation
Recommendation
Recommendation
Recommendation
Rating
Rating
Rating
Rating
Quantity
Quantity
Quantity
Quantity
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit Cost
Unit Cost
Unit Cost
Unit Cost
Item
No.

Item
No.

Item
No.

Item
No.

Code Fire
Life Safety
Code Fire
Life Safety
Code Fire
Life Safety
Code Fire
Life Safety
Year 1
Immediate
Year 1
Immediate
Year 1
Immediate
Year 1
Immediate
Total
Total
Total
Total
Year 2
2026
Year 2
2026
Year 2
2026
Year 2
2026
Year 3
2027
Year 3
2027
Year 3
2027
Year 3
2027
Year 4
2028
Year 4
2028
Year 4
2028
Year 4
2028
Year 5
2029
Year 5
2029
Year 5
2029
Year 5
2029
Year 6
2030
Year 6
2030
Year 6
2030
Year 6
2030
Year 7
2031
Year 7
2031
Year 7
2031
Year 7
2031
Year 8
2032
Year 8
2032
Year 8
2032
Year 8
2032
Year 9
2033
Year 9
2033
Year 9
2033
Year 9
2033
Year 10
2034
Year 10
2034
Year 10
2034
Year 10
2034
No issues were identified.

Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
$0
$0
$3,000
$0
$15,000
$500
$6,000
$0
$500
$0
$0
$500
$0
$0
$500
$0
$2,600
$3,000
$6,000
$17,600
$13,000
$0
$0
$500
$0
$0
$500
$0
$0
$500
$0
$0
$500
$0
$0
$3,000
G. 01
H. 01
H. 02
I. 01
I. 02
HVAC Replacements: Budget to replace ceiling mounted gas fired area heaters. Although the heaters appeared in good condition, the equipment has reached the end of its statistical service life during the assessment term. This cost is a preliminary budget only, which should be validated through additional investigation and contractor bid[s].

Water Supply Piping - Replacement: Re-plumb the galvanized piping water supply with copper piping. This cost is a preliminary budget only, which should be validated by additional investigation and contractor bid[s].

Water Heater Replacement: Budget to replace electric water heater. Water heater appeared in fair condition but will reach the end of its statistical service life during the assessment term. This cost is a preliminary budget only, which should be validated through additional investigation and contractor bid[s].

Electrical Maintenance - Infrared Scans: Budget to retain a qualified electrical contractor to perform infrared scans of main electrical switchgear and primary subpanels on an annual cycle, as per current NFPA 70B regulations. Cost includes a limited allowance for minor maintenance and cleaning of the systems.

Electrical Maintenance - Ground-Fault Testing: Budget to retain a qualified electrical contractor to perform required five-year ground-fault testing of the main electrical switchgear. This cost is a preliminary budget only, which should be verified through additional investigation and contractor bid[s]. 3 4
3 1
1 2
1 1
1 1
EA
LS
EA
EA
EA
$3,000.00
$15,000.00
$2,600.00
$500.00
$2,500.00
$0
$0
$0
$500
$2,500
$0
$15,000
$0
$500
$0
$6,000
$0
$0
$500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$500
$0
$0
$0
$2,600
$500
$2,500
$6,000
$15,000
$2,600
$5,500
$7,500
$0
$0
$0
$500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$500
$2,500

OPINIONS OF PROBABLE COSTS
33623 Mission Boulevard
33623 Mission Boulevard Union, CA 94587
Rating:
1 - Code and Safety
2 - Repair and Maintenance
3 - Capital Expenditures
33623 Mission Boulevard 01-25-0052
Confidential Client Information 5 of
Property Condition Assessments, LLC
5 - Tenant Responsibility
4 - Modernization/Improvements 5
K.

L.

VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION

PUBLIC RECORDS REVIEW
TOTALS:

GRAND TOTAL: $209,500
TOTALS BY RATING: 1
2 3
4 $49,000
$47,900
$94,600
$18,000
$39,000 $137,000 $6,500 $500 $500 $8,300 $500 $500 $10,500 $500 $5,700 Recommendation
Recommendation
Rating
Rating
Quantity
Quantity
Unit
Unit
Unit Cost
Unit Cost
Item
No.

Item
No.

Code Fire
Life Safety
Code Fire
Life Safety
Year 1
Immediate
Year 1
Immediate
Total
Total
Year 2
2026
Year 2
2026
Year 3
2027
Year 3
2027
Year 4
2028
Year 4
2028
Year 5
2029
Year 5
2029
Year 6
2030
Year 6
2030
Year 7
2031
Year 7
2031
Year 8
2032
Year 8
2032
Year 9
2033
Year 9
2033
Year 10
2034
Year 10
2034
No issues were identified.

No issues were identified.

Subtotal
Subtotal
5 $0
Property Condition Assessments, LLC 1 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION
Property Condition
Assessments, LLC
33623 MISSION

BOULEVARD
Project Manager:

Tim Burton
626.252.0789
Prepared for: Site-Visit Date:

May 2, 2025
City of Union City Report Date:

May 14, 2025

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Property Condition Assessments, LLC ("PCA") conducted a condition assessment of the singlestory retail/commercial building located at 33623 Mission Boulevard in Union City, California (the "Subject Property").

The Subject Property consists of an original gas station with an attached mechanic's garage addition. The building has been converted into a bicycle workshop with retail sales. The building is a wood-framed structure on grade. The west side of the site is used for community gardens, while the east side is undeveloped and used for storage of two shipping containers that are used for storage purposes.

Total building area is approximately 2,000 square feet. Total land area is reportedly 0.33 acres or approximately 14,410 square feet.

Subject Property
Property Condition Assessments, LLC 2 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
PCA performed a visual assessment of the Subject Property on April 2, 2025. At the time of the site visit, the weather was clear with temperatures ranging from 62° to 68° Fahrenheit throughout the day.

This assessment was performed by the following professional:
 Robert D. Boyens, S.E.: Architectural Assessor - Generalist Mr. Armando Gonzalez, maintenance engineer, escorted PCA during the site visit. Mr.

Gonzalez was somewhat familiar with the Subject Property and has been involved with the Project since 2020. Mr. Gonzalez was also interviewed regarding maintenance issues pertaining to the Subject Property.

This report summarizes PCA's findings and opinions of recommended corrections to the Subject Property. No destructive tests were undertaken; conditions and opinions described in this report are based on visual observation only.

Property Condition Assessments, LLC 3 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016

1.1 OVERALL PROJECT AT A GLANCE
Location Address: 33623 Mission Boulevard
Union City, California 94587
Site Data Land Area: 0.33 acres, or approximately 14,410 square feet
Zoning: Corridor Mixed Use Commercial
Improvement
Data
Number of Buildings/Units: One building / One tenant
Building Type: Retail (previously used as gas station and garage)
Year Built: Unknown
Number of Stories: One
Type of Construction: Type VB, Unprotected, Non-Sprinklered Reported Building Area: 2,000 square feet
Type of Parking: Open surface
Existing Parking: Unknown; no spaces are striped.

Required Parking: Unknown; independent verification of
municipal parking requirements is outside the
Scope of Services for this report.

Occupancy and
Building Code
Occupancy Class: Group B (Business)
Current Code: 2022 California Building Code (CBC)
Applicable Code: Unknown; early version of CBC
Seismic Zone Yes / No Zone 4 per U.S. Seismic Zone Map in the Uniform Building Code (UBC)
Flood Zone Yes / No Flood Zone X per FEMA Map Number
06071C8605H, dated August 28, 2008, an
area with reduced flood risk due to levee.

Property Condition Assessments, LLC 4 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016

1.2 COST TABLE SUMMARY
Rating 1
Code & Life
Safety
Rating 2
Repair &
Maintenance
Rating 3
Capital
Improvements
Rating 4
Modernization/
Upgrades
Project Total
Cost
Totals $49,000 $47,900 $94,600 $18,000 $209,500

1.3 STATEMENT OF CONDITION
The overall condition of the Subject Property is poor to fair, depending on building system, in comparison to PCA's experience with other properties of similar age and type. Except as noted within the respective sections of this report, building improvements generally appeared to comply with applicable building codes enforced at the time of original construction.

This report details the findings and opinions regarding recommended corrections to the Subject Property within the scope of PCA's engagement. With the completion of the repairs identified in the "Opinions of Probable Costs" spreadsheet (OPCs), in conjunction with a well-planned and executed program of ongoing maintenance, the Subject Property should continue to perform well throughout its remaining economic life, which should be 50 or more years.

1.4 PURPOSE
The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the condition of the existing Subject Property relative to a potential acquisition transaction. This report is based upon the conditions observed at the time of the site visit and does not represent a guarantee of the overall condition or the functional suitability of the Subject Property.

1.5 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of this assessment has been completed in accordance with the "Scope of Services" contained in the contract of engagement between City of Union City and PCA, dated March 7, 2025.

This Scope of Services complies with Standard E. 2018-15 of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), "Standard Guide for Property Condition Assessments: Baseline Property Condition Assessment Process," as modified by the contract of engagement to accommodate Client's specific requirements.

Property Condition Assessments, LLC 5 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016

1.6 DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
PCA submitted a written copy of its "PCA Owner-Management Disclosure Questionnaire and Document Request" to both PCA's Client and the Subject Property Ownership/Management.

PCA also made a formal written requested for the following information from Subject Property Ownership/Management:
 Available construction documentation, including plans, blueprints, calculations, specifications, geotechnical reports, test reports, etc.  ALTA surveys
 Title Commitment
 Certificate of Occupancy (C of O)
 Property site plans
 Rent Roll
 BOMA calculations
 Maintenance records
 List of maintenance vendors with contact information
 Copies of invoices for recent capital improvement projects  Copies of warranties for major building systems/components  Equipment inventory/replacement lists
 Maintenance/capital improvement budgets
 Previous third-party condition/environmental assessment reports  Inspection reports, testing reports and certifications for all major building systems including the following: Fire sprinkler and fire alarm; Elevators; Backflow preventer; Infrared scans; Arc-Flash studies; Roof davits; Roof membranes  Lease agreements or landlord and tenant responsibility forms To the extent the above-requested information was made available, PCA's project team reviewed and incorporated material and relevant information into the findings and conclusions of this report.

1.7 COST-CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
Opinions of Probable Costs (OPCs) are based on construction costs developed using construction resources such as Marshall & Swift and RS Means (adjusted for geographic location), as well as PCA's experience with past costs for similar projects. In some cases, costs may have been provided by Client/Owner/Property Management based upon actual contractor bids or Client's/Owner's/Manager's historical experience with similar projects; in such cases, the source of the cost is verified in writing and noted within the respective OPC(s). Costs solely reflect "Hard Costs" (e.g., materials and labor) for the recommended work, and do not account for "Soft Costs" (e.g., design fees, surveying, geotechnical investigations, permitting, financing, legal, administrative).

OPCs are based on current costs, and do not reflect increases due to inflation over time, unless otherwise stated in the report. PCA's project professionals have exercised reasonable diligence and judgment in using reliable sourcesfor the cost information presented herein. However, actual costs may differ from PCA's projected costs, dependent upon many factors including variations in design criteria, construction methods, timing, contractor management, geographic parameters, weather conditions, availability of labor and materials, use of unionized labor, and other conditions beyond PCA's control. Accordingly, PCA cannot guarantee the accuracy or Property Condition Assessments, LLC 6 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
sufficiency of the OPCs when compared to actual bids obtained from qualified contractors that have been compiled based on well-developed design drawings/specifications at the time the work is to be performed.

1.8 QUALITY DEFINITIONS
The following definitions are used in this report regarding the physical condition(s) of the building components/systems:

Designation Description
Excellent New or like-new condition.

Good Well maintained; systems may exceed expected useful life.

Fair
Satisfactory, some signs of wear and possible minor immediate repairs needed. Component(s) condition consistent with expected useful life – may be near the end of statistical useful life.

Poor Immediate repairs, major replacements, and/or significant attention needed.

Expected Useful Life (EUL)
The average amount of time in years that an item, component, or system is estimated to function when installed new and assuming routine maintenance is practiced.

Remaining Useful Life (RUL)
A subjective estimate based upon observations, or average estimates of similar items, components, or systems, or a combination thereof, of the remaining years that an item, component, or system is estimated to be able to function in accordance with its intended purpose before warranting
replacement.

Effective Age (EA) A subjective estimate of the age of the components or systems based on evaluation of the level of past maintenance and repairs.

Property Condition Assessments, LLC 7 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016

1.9 REPORT RELIANCE
This condition assessment report was prepared by Property Condition Assessments, LLC ("PCA") in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of engagement between City of Union City ("Client") and PCA, dated March 7, 2025, for the exclusive use of Client and its investors, assignees, designees, and successors ("Authorized Parties"). These Authorized Parties intend to rely upon this report as an assessment of the existing physical condition of the Subject Property for the purpose of deciding whether and under what conditions to proceed with a potential acquisition transaction concerning the Subject Property. The Authorized Parties may use and rely on this report provided that the Authorized Parties agree in writing to be bound by the same contractual terms and conditions imposed by the aforementioned contract of engagement. Therefore, PCA recommends that any Authorized Party intending to rely upon the report independently determines whether the "Scope of Services" meets its expectations for its intended transaction.

PCA's professional services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable architectural and engineering due-diligence consultants practicing in the United States. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional opinions described in this report. PCA is not responsible or liable for any claims that are associated with the interpretation of the available information. Additionally, PCA is not responsible for any claims from third parties not associated with the Authorized Parties.

Note: PCA exercised usual and customary professional care in its efforts to assess property law/code/regulation compliance. However, due to the existence of literally thousands of laws, codes, and regulations pertaining to construction, PCA cannot provide a definitive opinion concerning property compliance with all laws/codes/regulations.

Property Condition Assessments, LLC 8 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
SECTION 2 – PROPERTY CONDITION ASSESSMENT
A
A. SITE
Site Description: The Subject Property is located in Union City, California, in the east bay of the San Francisco Bay Area. The site is situated approximately 2.5 miles east of the I-805 freeway.

The site is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Mission Boulevard and F Street. Vehicular access to the site is via two driveways from Mission Boulevard and one from F Street.

The building is located at the center of the site in the east-west direction and extends from the north to the south property line. The building is made up of three distinct parts that appear to have been built at different times.

The oldest portion appears to have been built as a gas station, possibly in the 1920s, and is the smallest of the two inhabitable portions. A mechanic's garage is the largest portion and abuts the original building. The third portion is a small lean-to used for storage on the east side of the garage structure. All three portions are single-story structures of wood-framed construction, on grade.

Property Condition Assessments, LLC 9 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
Site Area: Total land area is reportedly 0.33 acres, or approximately 14,410 square feet.

Surrounding Area: North: Undeveloped land
South: Industrial property; multifamily and single-family development East: Commercial and multifamily properties
West: Commercial and multifamily properties
Shape of Site: Rectangular

GRADING AND DRAINAGE
Condition
Description: General topography is flat. The site is typically graded to drain towards the public streets, except at the front of the building. At the front, the site slopes down from the public sidewalk towards the building. It appears that
area drains were installed approximately 4' in front of the building, from where the ground slopes up towards
the building. Area drains were covered with dirt and are most likely clogged.

Primary drainage of stormwater from the roof is
provided via through-wall scuppers and metal, surfacemounted downspouts that discharge at grade.

No evidence of significant flooding or ponding was
observed during the site visit. However, proactive
maintenance of the drainage systems is recommended
on an annual basis.

Fair
Adequacy: Except as noted above, grading and drainage systems appeared adequate.

Recommendation(s): No significant issues were identified.

PAVING
Condition
Description: Paving is limited to Portland-cement concrete at the covered drive-through at the former gas station. A small section of asphaltic concrete, approximately 100 square feet, is present at the easterly driveway on Mission
Poor
Property Condition Assessments, LLC 10 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
Condition
Boulevard. There is no other paving on the site. A
dirt/gravel drive leads from the driveway on F Street to the building. A parking area on the east side of the
building is dirt/gravel and is accessed directly from the driveway (no drive aisle).

Installation of a paved surface parking area and paths of travel is recommended. Once complete, asphalt-paved
areas should be maintained on a five-year cycle.

Adequacy: Limited paving appeared generally inadequate and requires upgrades and maintenance.

Recommendation(s): A.01 Asphalt Paving - Installation: Grade site, prepare base, and pave site with asphaltic concrete. Stripe for parking spaces and traffic control, including disabled-access parking spaces and accessible paths of travel from the street to the building entrance; as well as from parking spaces to the building entrance. This cost is a preliminary budget only, which should be validated by additional investigation and contractor bid[s]. ($45,000)
A.02 Asphalt Paving - Maintenance: Budget for crack seal and seal coat of asphalt paving in the parking areas and drive lanes on a five-year cycle. Cost includes limited replacement of asphalt in damaged areas, re-striping of parking spaces, pavement markings, and drive lanes. ($5,400)

PARKING AND LOADING
Condition
Description: Parking is provided in the unpaved portions of the site, on the east and west sides of the building. Spaces on the west side are accessed via a dirt/gravel drive from the driveway on F Street. Those on the east side are
accessed directly from the easterly driveway on Mission Boulevard.

Poor
No. of Parking
Spaces:

There is no permanent striping at designated parking
areas. Some spaces are marked on the dirt/gravel with
white spray paint. It appears there is parking for
approximately 10 vehicles.

Poor
Adequacy: Parking appeared in adequate. However, independent verification of municipal parking requirements is
Property Condition Assessments, LLC 11 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
Condition
outside the Scope of Services for this report and is
dependent upon the use/occupancy of the building.

Recommendation(s): No significant issues were identified.

LANDSCAPING
Condition
Description: Landscaping is provided at the west side of the site, in five raised planter beds designated for public gardening.

Trees and shrubs were planted along the public
sidewalk north of the public gardens, and native trees
are present around the public gardens. Native grass is
provided at the east side of the site, just south of the chain-link fence and dirt/gravel on the north side.

No automatic irrigation system is provided.

Fair
Adequacy: Landscaping appeared nominally adequate for the current use.

Recommendation(s): No significant issues were identified.

FENCING
Condition
Description: Chain-link fencing is located at the south boundary line on the east side of the site; however, this fencing may belong to the adjacent property. A chain-link fence with a gate extends from the building to the east site
boundary line, separating the east side into two portions.

Wood fencing is present along the north site boundary
line on the west side of the site; this fencing is the
property of the adjacent site.

Good
Adequacy: Fencing appeared adequate for its intended purposes.

Recommendation(s): No significant issues were identified.

Property Condition Assessments, LLC 12 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016

SITE LIGHTING
Condition
Description: Exterior area lighting is provided by multiple wallmounted light fixtures of various types. A pole-mounted light fixture is located at the northeast corner of the site; the pole has been deformed by vehicular impact and the
light is not functional.

Exterior lighting was not viewed after nightfall.

However, the quantity and spacing of fixtures appeared
adequate as there is no nighttime use of the property.

Fair
Adequacy: Site lighting appeared adequate for its intended purposes.

Recommendation(s): No significant issues were identified.

SIGNAGE
Condition
Description: Site signage is limited to the Subject Property address painted on the front elevation and a sign mounted on the chain-link fence, east of the building.

Posted signage at the trash-bin container on the west
side of the site identifies dumping restrictions.

A small wood structure is located adjacent to the public gardens and is used to post information and schedules.

Fair
Adequacy: Signage appeared adequate for its intended purposes.

Recommendation(s): No significant issues were identified.

SITE AMENITIES
Condition
Description: Five raised planters are located on the west side of the site. These are used by the public.

Good
Adequacy: Planters appeared adequate for their intended purposes.

Property Condition Assessments, LLC 13 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
Recommendation(s): No significant issues were identified.

UTILITY PROVIDERS
Utility Provider
Water City of Union City
Sanitary Sewer City of Union City
Storm Sewer City of Union City
Electric Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E)
Natural Gas PG&E
Property Condition Assessments, LLC 14 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
B. STRUCTURAL – SEISMIC SYSTEMS
The Subject Property consists of three single-story, wood-framed structures that were constructed at different times. Roofs are framed with solid wood or plywood sheathing and sawn lumber beams. Roofs are supported by wood stud walls. Foundations are presumed to be conventional shallow pad and continuous footings.

B Original construction drawings were not provided for review. Design criteria and construction details are presumed based on age and type of construction and are:

Building Code: Early version of municipal building code Building Authority: City of Union City
Seismic Zone: 4, according to the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) (the last edition of the UBC to be published)
Roof Live Load: 20 pounds per square foot (psf)
Wind Speed: 90 mph, 3-second gust, Exposure B
Concrete Strength: F'c = 2,000 psi; foundation
Concrete
Reinforcing Steel:

Fu = 40,000 psi (ASTM A-615 Grade 40) or Fu = 60,000 psi (ASTM A615, Grade 60) Lumber: Douglas fir, larch; various grades
C
Condition
Foundations: Foundations are presumed to be shallow continuous footings at bearing/shear walls and shallow pad footings at posts. Footings at low-rise wood-framed structures
typically are founded a minimum of 18" below grade.

No soils-investigation report was provided for review.

According to maps published by the US Department of
Agriculture, the soils at the site are classified as Rincon clay loam. These alluvial soils are rated as having a
high susceptibility to shrink/swell in response to
changes in moisture.

No evidence of significant foundation distress or
settlement was observed in the areas accessed during
the site visit.

Good
Gravity-LoadCarrying Systems:

Roof framing consists of solid wood sheathing that
spans between sawn-lumber rafters. Rafters span
Fair
Property Condition Assessments, LLC 15 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
between wood stud bearing walls and sawn-lumber
beams that bear on wood posts.

Bearing walls are constructed of 2 x 4 wood studs
typically spaced at 16".

Gravity-load-carrying systems appeared to be
performing adequately, except at the lean-to.

Significant rot damage was noted in the roof framing at the lean-to. Unless repairs are made, there is the
possibility that the lean-to roof will collapse.

Lateral-LoadCarrying Systems:Lateral seismic forces will be generated at the building by horizontal earthquake ground accelerations acting on the mass of the structure. Lateral forces acting on the structure will be resisted by the roof sheathing acting as deep beams, referred to as diaphragms, that span
between wood stud shear walls. Nails driven through
the sheathing into the wall framing transfers the lateral forces to the walls. Wall sheathing (plaster and/or
gypsum wallboard) and/or diagonal bracing transfer the
lateral forces to the sill plates of the walls, from where they are transferred to he foundation by anchor bolts
embedded in the footings
It is probable that the original design did not account for seismic forces, as it was not required by code at the time of development. Low-rise wood-framed buildings have
faired well in past earthquakes, due to the low mass and redundancy of structural elements.

Fair
Nonstructural
Elements:

Nonstructural elements consist of building components
that are not intended to resist gravity or lateral loads.

Nonstructural elements include ceilings, furniture,
mechanical equipment and ductwork, electrical and
plumbing components, communication equipment,
curtainwalls, windows, and veneers. Historically, the
cost to repair nonstructural damage has exceeded that
for structural damage. Typically, nonstructural damage
does not pose a threat to life safety. However, in certain circumstances, nonstructural damage can produce
significant threats to life safety, including threats from falling objects, blocked emergency exits, and lifeline
failures. Most nonstructural damage can be prevented,
or at least minimized, by properly anchoring potentially hazardous elements to the structures.

The majority of nonstructural items appeared to be
nominally anchored to resist earthquake ground
shaking.

Good
Property Condition Assessments, LLC 16 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
Recommendation(s): B.01 Lean-To - Demolition: Demolish the lean-to on the east side of the building. The lean-to has rot-damaged roof framing and
deteriorated wall framing. This cost is a preliminary budget only, which should be validated by additional investigation and contractor bid[s]. ($15,000)
Adequacy: Except as noted above, building structural systems appeared to be performing adequately.

Property Condition Assessments, LLC 17 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016

SEISMIC-RISK ASSESSMENT
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
Scenario Loss Estimates
The seismic-hazard evaluation is a description of potential earthquake effects at the site and a statement of the likelihood of their occurrence. Possible effects include ground shaking, ground rupture, and soil liquefaction. Building or other improvements on the site do not influence the hazard.

Faults in proximity to the site are evaluated for their potential to produce earthquake ground shaking at the site. Earthquakes with a high probability of occurrence during the life of a building produce moderately strong ground shaking. Major earthquakes with a small probability of occurrence during the building life are capable of producing very strong ground shaking at the site.

Strong ground motion for this evaluation is defined as that ground motion having a probability of exceedance of 10% in a 50-year exposure period, which has an average-recurrence interval of 475 years. Stated differently, there is a 90%-confidence level that ground motion at the site will not exceed the 475-year level in any 50-year period. This level of ground motion has the same exceedance probability as the seismic-zone map published as part of the seismic-design requirements of many building codes. The 475-year earthquake is sometimes described as the maximum probable or design-level earthquake.

Ground motion may be described in terms of the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI). The MMI scale is useful for categorizing the performance of structures in past earthquakes as it is based on a qualitative description of human perceptions and the performance of different types of structures during historic earthquakes. The MMI scale is shown in the following table:

Property Condition Assessments, LLC 18 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016

MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY (MMI) SCALE

INTENSITY DESCRIPTION
I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances.

II Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings.

Delicately suspended objects may swing.

III Felt quite noticeably indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings, but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing autos may rock slightly.

Vibration like passing of a truck.

IV During the day felt indoors by many, outdoors by few. At night, some awakened.

Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; wallsmake cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing autos rock noticeably.

V Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows, etc. broken; a few instances of cracked plaster; unstable objects overturned. Disturbance of trees, poles and other tall objects noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop.

VI Felt by all; many frightened and run outdoors. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys. Damage slight.

VII Everybody runs outdoors. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Noticed by persons driving autos.

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse; great in poorly built structures. Panel walls thrown out of frame structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. Sand and mud ejected in small amounts. Changes in well water. Disturbs persons driving autos.

IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb; great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse.

Buildings shifted off of foundations. Ground cracks conspicuously. Underground pipes broken.

X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations; ground badly cracked. Rails bent. Landslides considerable from riverbanks and steep slopes. Shifted sand and mud. Water sloshes over banks.

XI Few, if any, masonry structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Broad fissures in ground. Underground pipelines completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft ground. Rails bent greatly.

XII Damage total. Waves seen on ground surface. Lines of sight and level distorted.

Objects thrown up in air.

Property Condition Assessments, LLC 19 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
Fault rupture at the ground surface can cause more-severe localized damage than the widespread damage caused by ground shaking. The location of active surface faults in proximity to the site is an important factor in the earthquake hazard evaluation. Effects of ground rupture due to faulting are considered when estimating the degree of earthquake damage at existing structures located within a fault or drag zone.

Soil effects that may be caused by an earthquake are seismically induced settlement, liquefaction (loss of soil strength in saturated soil deposits during strong ground shaking), and slope failure (landslides or local failures triggered by earthquakes). Loss of foundation support and excessive settlement of foundations may result from the soil-related earthquake hazards, resulting in an increase in the amount of seismic-related damage a building may incur.

SITE-SPECIFIC SEISMIC HAZARD
Earthquake Ground Motion
The site is located approximately 35 miles north of the epicenter of the October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, which had a magnitude of M7.1. Ground shaking intensity in the area due to the Loma Prieta event was reported as MMI VII, with peak ground accelerations measured at less than 0.2g. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake, at a distance of 33 miles to the northwest, reportedly produced ground shaking intensity of MMI VIII in the vicinity of the project. Other earthquakes that have affected the site include two M7.0 events on the Hayward fault, one in 1836 and one in 1868, and the 1984 M6.2 Morgan Hill earthquake. These earthquakes produced less intense ground shaking than did the Loma Prieta earthquake.

The faults listed in the table below are capable of producing strong ground shaking at the site:

FAULT DISTANCE
RECENT

ACTIVITY

MAXIMUM

MAGNITUDE
Hayward 1-1/2 mile NE 1868 M7 7.0
Calaveras 6 miles NE 1984 M6.2 6.5
San Andreas 16 miles SW 1989 M7.1 8.3
Greenville 20 miles NE 1980 M5.4 6.5
Concord/Green Valley 29 miles N 1955 M5.4 6.5
The site is located within an area of high seismic hazard per the seismic hazard maps published in the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC specifies a basic seismic design factor based on a Maximum Expected Peak Ground Acceleration of 1.80g. The site is within 15 kilometers of the Hayward fault; therefore, the base seismic design forces specified by the code reflects an amplified value to account for near-fault effects.

Earthquake ground motions at the site for the maximum probable earthquake (MPE) with a 10 percent probability of being exceeded during a 50-year period (475-year event) have been estimated in order to determine the expected ground shaking intensity at the site. The values of Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) have been estimated using the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Earthquake Hazard Mapping Project data and the seismic safety element of the City of Fremont General Plan.

According to the above-listed data, the PGA at the site associated with the 475-year earthquake is estimated to be 0.72g, which corresponds to an Effective Peak Ground Acceleration of Property Condition Assessments, LLC 20 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
approximately 0.52g and MMI IX - X. The above data indicates that code-level earthquake ground motions to be used in the design of new buildings is approximately the same as the future MPE ground motion expected at the site.

Fault Rupture Hazard
The site is not located within a California Earthquake Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone (EFRHZ).

The nearest EFRHZ is for the Hayward fault, located approximately 1-1/2 miles to the northeast of the site. Since no known fault is known to cross or approach the site, the potential for ground surface rupture due to recognized faulting is considered to be low.

Property Condition Assessments, LLC 21 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
Soil and other Earthquake Hazards
According to maps published by the California Geologic Survey, the potential for soil liquefaction is low. Therefore, the potential for damage due to soil liquefaction is low.

Potential for earthquake-induced landslides or slope stability failure is low, due to the lack of slopes near the site.

The site is not located adjacent to a large body of water and is therefore not subjected to earthquake-related seiches or inundation. Therefore, potential for earthquake-related flooding at the site is low.

ESTIMATION OF SEISMIC RISK
The seismic-hazard evaluation and structural assessment are combined to estimate the risk of earthquake damage at the Subject Property. Seismic risk is characterized in terms of Scenario Expected Loss (SEL) and Scenario Upper Loos (SUL). The SEL and SUL are the estimates of the damage due to ground motions with a 10% probability of exceedance in a 50-year period and are expressed as a percentage of building-replacement cost. The following table is provided as an aid to interpreting the level of building damage represented by the estimated loss:

Property Condition Assessments, LLC 22 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016

SEL/SUL VALUE DAMAGE STATE DESCRIPTION OF EXPECTED
DAMAGE
0 to 1% Slight Limited localized minor damage not
requiring repair.
1 to 10% Light Significant localized damage of some
components, generally not requiring repair.
10 to 30% Moderate Significant localized damage of many components, warranting repair.
30 to 60% Heavy Extensive damage, requiring major repairs. 60 to 100% Major
Major widespread damage that may result in
the facility being condemned, demolished, or
repaired.

Condition
Description: The amount of damage to an individual building subjected to strong earthquake ground shaking will
depend on a number of variables, including the intensity and duration of ground shaking, building configuration, structural systems, construction materials, structural
details including connections, nonstructural
components, and quality of construction. Published
seismic-risk-evaluation methodologies for existing
buildings are used as guidelines for calculating seismicdamage estimates. The performance of any specific structure can, and generally will, deviate substantially from the average values given by empirical-loss
functions. Therefore, the estimated damage calculated
using average-loss functions might be increased or
decreased to account for specific site and building
characteristics.

The seismic-risk-analysis methodology utilized for this evaluation includes two phases: seismic-hazard
evaluation, and determination of the damage estimate
per published documents (ATC-13 and NCEER 95-
0003). Two confidence levels of damage estimate are
reported herein: the mean confidence level, and the
90th-percentile confidence level. The mean, or
expected, loss is defined as the Scenario Expected Loss (SEL), and the 90th percentile, or ultimate, loss estimate is defined as the Scenario Upper Loss (SUL). Scenario
Loss (SL) estimates are based on ground motions that
have a 10% probability of exceedance in a 50-year
period. The above definitions are consistent with those contained in the "Standard Guide for Seismic-Risk
Good
Property Condition Assessments, LLC 23 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
Condition
Assessment of Buildings" published by ASTM (ASTM
E2026).

Adequacy: Structural systems supporting gravity loads appeared adequate and no evidence of significant settlement
and/or structural distress was observed in the areas
accessed during the site visit. However, there are
apparent deficiencies in the lateral-force-resisting
system, as described above.

Scenario Loss Estimates
The seismic risk at the Subject Property has been estimated as follows.

SEL SUL
20% 28%
PCA's assessment of the potential seismic damage is for the as-built building. The SEL and SUL include consideration of the local conditions and seismicity (EPA and duration of strong shaking), damage expected in typical code-conforming buildings of this type, and specific identified areas of damage as outlined in this structural assessment.

The above-referenced damage estimates do not include possible secondary damage resulting from pipe failures, fire, or rescue and clean-up operations following an earthquake. The SEL and SUL do not include losses associated with loss of income or relocation of occupants.

Property Condition Assessments, LLC 24 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
C. BUILDING EXTERIOR
PCA conducted observations of the Subject Property for the purpose of evaluating the present state of the existing exterior-cladding system. This assessment consisted of exterior observations from:
• Vantage points at ground level and around the Subject Property; and, • Building roof levels.

This assessment of building exteriors does not include close-up assessment using staging or lift equipment, or invasive assessment of concealed areas beneath interior or external finishes.

Accordingly, this report is based upon visual observations in conjunction with historical performance information provided by the site contact, which was taken in good faith and, to the extent possible, was corroborated by PCA's visual observations.

Whenever possible, PCA checks to confirm code compliance with the exterior-wall systems.

This is not always possible due to the existence of interior finishes or lack of access to certain areas.

Condition
Exterior Walls: Exterior walls at the wood-framed structure are clad with painted stucco and plaster, with custom, painted
murals on all surfaces, which are visible from the
adjoining streets.

Fenestration is limited to punched windows and doors
and two truck door openings in the front elevation of the mechanic's garage.

No information was available concerning the most
recent date when the building was repainted.

Damaged stucco/plaster was noted at most elevations.

The murals near the ground level appear in good
condition; those above the ground level appear faded
and are peeling.

Building exteriors appeared in fair-good condition and
should be repainted on a seven-year cycle.

Fair
Glazing: No original construction drawings were available concerning details of glazing systems.

The entrance door is an aluminum-framed, storefrontstyle, glazed system with adjacent punched windows.

Windows are single-pane units in wood frames.

A sampling of window gaskets appeared stiff and in
poor condition. Gasketing should be inspected regularly and repaired as required as part of routine maintenance.

Evidence of water intrusion through the windows was
Fair
Property Condition Assessments, LLC 25 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
Condition
noted at the office/store in the old gas station. Rot and termite damage was noted in the window frames.

Exterior Doors: Exterior doors include the glazed storefront entry door at the former gas station and two painted metal tilt-up truck doors.

Exterior doorsshould remain serviceable throughout the
assessment term, with ongoing maintenance and
occasional repairs.

Good
Balconies: There are no balconies at the Subject Property. N/A Fire Escapes: There are no fire escapes at the Subject Property. N/A Adequacy: Exterior cladding systems are performing adequately, including exterior walls, sealants, and glazing.

Recommendation(s): C.01 Exterior Walls - Stucco Cladding, Repairs: Perform repair of damaged stucco on all exterior elevations. ($7,500)
C.02 Exterior Paint: Budget to retain an artist to re-paint areas of the mural at the building exterior that are faded and/or have stucco damage. This cost is a preliminary budget only, which should be validated by additional investigation and contractor bid[s]. ($20,000)
C.03 Window Replacements: Perform replacement of all windows.

Windows are single-pane units set in wood frames. Rot and termite damage were noted at several of the windows and evidence of leaks at the windows was observed at the interior. This cost is a preliminary budget only, which should be validated by additional investigation and contractor bid[s]. ($9,000)
Property Condition Assessments, LLC 26 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
D. ROOFING
Original construction drawings containing roof plans and associated detailing were not provided for review. No roof cores were taken in the roofing systems to verify roof construction or condition as part of this assessment. As such, the conditions and opinions described herein are based upon visual observation and site contact representations concerning the performance and leak history, which was taken in good faith.

Low-slope flat roofs at the Subject Property are protected by:
• Former gas station: Multi-ply, Built-Up Roofing (BUR) membrane, with a mineral surface cap sheet;
• Mechanic's garage: Hot-mopped asphalt emulsion with gravel; and • Lean-to structure: Composition shingles.

Condition
Access and Safety: Roof access was provided by a portable ladder. It is recommended that an OSHA compliant fixed ladder
with roof hatch or external fixed ladder be installed for safe roof access for service personnel.

Poor
Roof Assemblies: Roofs at all portions of the building are framed with wood, having either solid wood sheathing or plywood
sheathing. Membranes appear to be more than 25 years
of age and in poor condition. The Built-Up Roofing
(BUR) membrane at the former gas station and asphalt
emulsion roof at the mechanic's garage have exceeded
their Expected Useful Life (EUL) and require
replacement. The lean-to structure should be
demolished, as noted in Section B, "Structural-Seismic
Systems."
Annual roof inspections and minor repairs by a
qualified roofing contractor should be performed
throughout the assessment term following the roof
replacements.

Poor
Parapets/Coping: Short parapet walls are present on all sides, formed by the extension of the exterior walls. Roof membranes
extend up the parapet walls and terminate under sheetmetal flashing. Gaps in the coping were noted.

Poor
Base/Wall
Flashings:

Base wall flashings at the low roof consist of membrane flashings that extend up the inside face of the parapet wall.

Fair
Penetrations: Penetrations consist of soil stacks, conduits, and roof drains. Penetrations are flashed with metal flashing and elastic sealant. Membrane flashings appeared adequate.

Fair
Property Condition Assessments, LLC 27 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
Condition
Drainage Systems: Roof surfaces slope to roof drains and gutters that connect to external metal downspouts. Drains discharge
at grade. Secondary drainage is provided via overflow
drains or through-wall scuppers.

Good
Skylights: There are no skylights at the roofs. N/A
Equipment Screens/
Penthouse(s):

There are no equipment screens. N/A
Lightning
Protection:

No lightning-protection systems are provided at the
roofs, and none are required.

N/A
Leak History: Evidence of past roof leaks was noted during the site visit. Repairs appear to be performing well and the site contact did not report ongoing issues with roof leaks.

Fair
Warranties: Due to the age of the membranes, there are no warranties in place.

N/A
Expected Useful
Life (EUL):

EUL of the existing roof systems is 20-25 years. All the membranes appear to have exceeded the EUL, and
replacement is recommended.

Poor
Adequacy: Roofing systems are generally inadequate for their respective purposes, and require replacement.

Recommendation(s): D.01 Roof Access and Safety: Install an internal, wall-mounted ladder and new roof hatch; or a lockable exterior wall-mounted roof access ladder with safety cage to provide safe access for roof and mechanical equipment service personnel ($5,000)
D.02 Roof Replacement: Remove the Built-Up Roofing [BUR] membrane at the former garage station, as well as the asphalt emulsion roof at the mechanic's garage. Replacement should be with a new BUR membrane with a cool roof designation. Scope to include replacement of cap flashings and coping. This cost is a preliminary budget only, which should be validated by additional investigation and contractor bid[s]. ($26,000)
Property Condition Assessments, LLC 28 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
E. INTERIORS
PCA observed all interior spaces.

Building interiors comprise an entry lobby/store at the old gas station, storage areas, utility rooms, and a restroom in the mechanic's garage. Total area within the building was reported as 2,000 square feet.

Currently, there are minimal interior improvements including exposed concrete slab, painted gypsum-board and plaster walls, painted plaster ceiling at the former gas station, restroom, and storage areas, and no ceiling in the main area of the mechanic's garage.

Condition
Common Areas: All interior space is intended for tenant occupancy; therefore, no common-use areas are provided.

N/A
Tenant Areas: Finishes include the following materials:

Doors: Stained wood set within painted-wood
frames
Floors: Exposed concrete slab
Base: Painted wood or none
Walls: Painted gypsum board/plaster in store,
restroom, and silk-screen room
Ceilings: Painted plaster and gypsum wallboard at
store, restroom, and silk-screen room;
exposed structure at mechanic area and
storage rooms
Lighting: 2'x4' surface-mounted and recessed
fluorescent fixtures with prismatic lenses
Poor-Fair
Restrooms: A single multi-user restroom is provided in the mechanic's garage. A sampling of plumbing fixtures
operated as required.

Finishes in observed tenant restrooms include the
following materials:

Entry Doors: Stained wood-grained doors set within
painted wood frames
Floors: Exposed concrete slab
Base: Painted wood; Medium-Density
Fiberboard (MDF)
Walls: Painted gypsum board
Ceilings: Painted gypsum board
Good
Property Condition Assessments, LLC 29 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
Condition
Lighting: 1'x4' surface-mounted fixtures
Lavatories: Drop-in vitreous china sinks
Faucets: Single-lever, polished chrome
Toilets: Floor-mounted vitreous china with tank
and manual flush valve
Accessories: Stainless steel
Mold: Mold and/or fungi growth generally occurs on
cellulose-based material, such as wood or drywall paper that has been exposed to excess moisture. The presence
of mold and/or fungi growth is normally an indication
of a plumbing, roofing, or other leak, and/or a water
source that results in the abnormal presence of interior moisture. Significant fungal-spore growth inside walls, insulation, attic spaces, or other areas can exist and not be visible on the finished surfaces of interior spaces.

PCA did not perform: 1) a mold/fungi reconnaissance;
2) sampling of any building material for surface mold;
nor, 3) air sampling for mold spores.

The site contact stated that there have been no
complaints of mold or poor indoor-air quality at the
Subject Property. PCA did not observe mold or mildew
in the areas accessed during the site visit.

Good
Moisture:

Code Compliance: Specific compliance observations from the observed sampling of interior spaces are listed below:
• Building exits discharge directly to building
exteriors.

Refer to Section J, "Fire and Life-Safety Systems," for additional information.

Poor-Good
Adequacy: Building interiors generally appeared adequate for their intended purposes.

Recommendation(s): E.01 Rentable Area Verification: Consider engaging a qualified consultant to verify existing floor plans at tenant and common use areas. Verification shall utilize space measurement standards per BOMA/ANSI guidelines. Area takeoffs shall be based upon desktop review of as-built construction documents. This cost is a preliminary budget only, which should be validated by additional investigation and contractor bid[s]. Work is subject to the verified terms and conditions of the existing lease agreement. ($3,000) Property Condition Assessments, LLC 30 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
F. LIMITED DISABLED-ACCESS ASSESSMENT
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
The ADA was written into law in 1990 and became effective on January 26, 1992. The ADA is not a building code; it is a civil rights law and enforcement is under the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Department of Justice (DOJ). And, while local building departments may require ADA-related disabled-access upgrades as conditions for building permit approvals, the DOJ does not recognize a local building department's authority to modify the requirements of the legislation, such as by allowing "Grandfathering" of a non-compliant condition. ADA regulations are applicable retroactively to existing buildings and there are no Grandfather provisions within the ADA, except in cases where an owner made upgrades in compliance with the original 1992 ADA design standards, and such applicable standards were later revised by the 2010 edition of the ADA. In this case, the owner is not retroactively required to upgrade previously implemented modifications until such a time as future renovations are undertaken.

The ADA, however, does not prohibit a state or local building department from adopting disabled-accessibility standards that are more restrictive than the ADA standards. While ADA standards are generally more restrictive than the requirements of local codes, the morerestrictive portions of either standard must be implemented. All future renovation work will have to meet the requirements of the more-restrictive standard.

There are three main sections of the ADA that apply to real property, which are identified as follows:

Title I – Employment-Related Compliance Provisions
Title II – Public Entity Compliance Provisions (e.g., government buildings) Title III – Compliance Provisions related to "Places of Public Accommodation" Under Title I of the ADA, it is the responsibility of an employer to make a disabled employee's workplace accessible; PCA excludes assessment of Title I compliance from its reporting.

Typically, the owner-tenant lease agreements stipulate that the respective tenants are responsible for all interior design features within their suites, including compliance with all ADA requirements.

Title III of the ADA requires properties that are open to the general public to provide access to the disabled. Depending upon the use and occupancy of a property, the property may or may not be classified as a "Place of Public Accommodation." Properties where the public has unencumbered access to site and most/some building interiors are generally considered "Places of Public Accommodation", where those that are secured, and access is by invitation only are generally not. With specific regard to the Subject Property, areas within office/warehouse buildings that are accessible to the public are considered places of public accommodation and are required to be fully accessible throughout. These areas include public parking and paths of travel to the main building entrance, and the main entry lobby.

Applicable disabled-access regulations contain the following established set of priorities for barrier removal:

Priority 1 – Accessible Approach and Entrance
Priority 2 – Access to Goods and Services
Priority 3 – Access to Public Toilet Rooms
Property Condition Assessments, LLC 31 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
Priority 4 – Access to Other Items Such as Water Fountains and Public Telephones Non-compliant building spaces or components should be modified, and barriers should be removed when they are "Readily Achievable." This is interpreted to mean that the work is accomplished without unreasonable difficulty or expense, representing an "Undue Hardship" to the property owner. Barriers should be removed within the facility to allow independent access and use by the disabled. "Readily Achievable" is subjective and dependent upon a number of factors, including the financial wherewithal of the property owner. Accordingly, PCArecommended modifications for the Subject Property should be reviewed with legal counsel to determine which should be considered "Readily Achievable." Any items that appear to represent an "Undue Hardship" should be discussed with an enforcement representative of the DOJ and/or local building authorities for potential waiver of the requirement.

Condition
Site Access: Primary arrival into the site is vehicular. Arrival is provided through driveways from Mission Boulevard
and F Street.

A public sidewalk extends along both adjoining streets.

There is no path-of-travel from the public sidewalks to the entrance. The entrance door is at grade level and
must be accessed via the dirt/gravel parking lot.

Poor
Parking: A disabled-access parking space is not provided, nor is there a path-of-travel from the parking area to the
entrance.

Poor
Common-Area
Interiors:

Since the building is designed for single tenant
occupancy, there are no common-use areas.

N/A
Tenant Interiors: Interior spaces generally are not in compliance with the ADA. Door opening widths are less than required. The
restroom has no ADA features.

Poor
Adequacy: Exterior and interior areas are not compliant with ADA design guidelines.

Recommendation(s): F.01 Compliant Sidewalk: Provide a sidewalk from the public way to the main building entrance. Ensure the existing door meets
requirements for opening width, threshold, and opening force. ($6,000)
F.02 Restroom Compliance: Upgrade the public restroom to meet ADA requirements. The restroom is currently not compliant with ADA design guidelines. Scope to also include addition of new compliant dual basin water fountain. This cost is a preliminary budget only, which should be validated by additional investigation and contractor bid[s]. ($25,000)
Property Condition Assessments, LLC 32 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
G. HVAC
No base-building air conditioning is provided in the building. Heating is provided by two natural-gas-fired furnaces that are suspended from the roof framing in the mechanic's garage.

Furnaces are controlled by analog thermostats.

This assessment of HVAC systems does not include observation of 100% of the base-building systems throughout the Subject Property. It also does not include testing or operation of the equipment, and management/maintenance staff were not made available to provide information concerning historical maintenance and repairs. Accordingly, this report is based upon visual observations only.

Heating: Heating is provided by two natural-gas-fired furnaces that are suspended from the roof framing. Furnaces
were manufactured by Reznor and are rated at 35,100
Btu/hr output. Based on the serial number, the units
were manufactured in 1982.

Fair
Ventilation: Interior ventilation is provided by operable man-doors, truck doors, and gravity vents at the mechanic's garage.

Restroom-exhaust air is provided by ceiling exhaust
fans ducted to the roof.

Good
Temperature
Control:

Wall-mounted, low-voltage analog thermostats provide
temperature control for the furnaces.

Fair
Adequacy: The heating system capacities appear adequate to serve the requirements of the Subject Property.

Recommendation(s): G.01 HVAC Replacements: Budget to replace ceiling mounted gas fired area heaters. Although the heaters appeared in good condition, the equipment has reached the end of its statistical service life during the assessment term. This cost is a preliminary budget only, which should be validated through additional investigation and contractor bid[s]. ($6,000)
Property Condition Assessments, LLC 33 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
H. PLUMBING
Condition
Domestic Water: Domestic water service is provided via a service main located at the entry of the site, adjacent to Mission
Boulevard.

Domestic cold-water distribution piping throughout the
building was observed to be a combination of
galvanized steel and copper. It appears that the original piping was galvanized steel, with copper used for
repairs.

Poor-Good
Heated Domestic
Water
Heated domestic water is not provided. N/A
Plumbing Fixtures: Lavatories comprise wall-mounted vitreous-china sinks with polished-chrome, single-lever faucets. Toilet
fixtures are floor-mounted, vitreous-china units.

Good
Natural Gas: Natural-gas service is provided at the Subject Property via a meter and pressure reducer located on the west side of the building. Distribution is by black steel piping.

Good
Sanitary Sewer: Sanitary-sewer systems serving the building flow to the municipal sanitary sewer, presumably in Mission
Boulevard. Sanitary-sewer piping material appears to be galvanized steel.

Poor
Stormwater: Stormwater systems at the roof include primary roof drainage via through-wall scuppers and wall-mounted,
metal downspouts that discharge at grade.

Fair
Irrigation: No automatic-irrigation system is not provided in landscaped areas.

N/A
Adequacy: Plumbing systems appeared adequate for their
respective purposes. However, the presence of
galvanized steel distribution and waste lines could lead to corrosion and poor flow.

Recommendation(s): H.01 Water Supply Piping - Replacement: Re-plumb the galvanized piping water supply with copper piping. This cost is a preliminary budget only, which should be validated by additional investigation and contractor bid[s]. ($15,000)
Property Condition Assessments, LLC 34 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
H.02 Water Heater Replacement: Budget to replace electric water heater.

Water heater appeared in fair condition but will reach the end of its statistical service life during the assessment term. This cost is a preliminary budget only, which should be validated through additional investigation and contractor bid[s]. ($2,600) Property Condition Assessments, LLC 35 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
I. ELECTRICAL
Amperage Voltage Watts Date of Last Infrared Scan
Unknown 240 3 None
Condition
Power: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electrical power to the site via an underground
transformer. Building service extends above-ground to
a GE Smartmeter.

Distribution to equipment and receptacles is by copper
conductors. Typically, there are no power receptacles in proximity to lavatory sinks.

A single meter is present.

Main electrical switchboards and distribution panels
have a typical Expected Useful Life (EUL) of
approximately 45 to 50 years. Electrical switchgear
appeared to be maintained in fair condition and, with
certification, cleaning, and ongoing preventative
maintenance, are anticipated to remain serviceable
through the assessment term.

The following minor deficiencies were noted:
• There were no tags on switchboards or sub-panels
indicating the date of the most recent infrared
inspection. Infrared testing can detect loose
connections, overloaded circuits, and defective
circuit breakers, and are suggested on an annual
cycle as part of routine maintenance.
• There were no tags on switchboards or sub-panels
indicating whether Arc Flash testing has ever been
conducted. Arc-Flash testing should be conducted
every five years.

Fair-Good
Emergency Power: Emergency power is not provided at the Subject Property. No emergency generator is provided. No
battery-powered egress or exit lighting was observed.

N/A
Interior Lighting: Interior lighting is composed of 2'x4' surface-mounted and recessed fluorescent fixtures with prismatic lenses and 1'x4' surface-mounted fixtures. No supplemental
lighting source was observed.

All garage-area lighting is via fluorescent fixtures.

Good
Property Condition Assessments, LLC 36 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
Condition
These fixtures are suspended from the exposed
structure.

Security: No surveillance cameras are present at the Subject Property.

N/A
Adequacy: Except as noted above, electrical systems appeared adequate to serve the requirements of the Subject
Property.

Recommendation(s): I.01 Electrical Maintenance - Infrared Scans: Budget to retain a qualified electrical contractor to perform infrared scans of main electrical switchgear and primary subpanels on an annual cycle, as per current NFPA 70B regulations. Cost includes a limited allowance for minor maintenance and cleaning of the systems. ($5,500)
I.02 Electrical Maintenance - Ground-Fault Testing: Budget to retain a qualified electrical contractor to perform required five-year ground-fault testing of the main electrical switchgear. This cost is a preliminary budget only, which should be verified through additional investigation and contractor bid[s] ($7,500) Property Condition Assessments, LLC 37 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
J. FIRE-AND LIFE-SAFETY SYSTEMS
Condition
General: Emergency fire service and property inspections are under the jurisdiction of the Alameda County Fire
Department. The closest fire station is Fire Station No. 33, located approximately 0.5 miles to the south of the Subject Property on 7th Street.

Good
Fire Sprinklers: The building is not protected by an automatic firesprinkler system. N/A Portable Fire
Extinguishers:

Portable ABC-type, dry-chemical, fire extinguishers are provided in wall-mounted locations throughout the
building. A sampling of observed extinguisher
inspection tags indicate that fire extinguishers were last inspected and certified by Fire Protection Specialists of Pleasanton, California in November of 2024.

Good
Fire Hydrants: Municipal fire hydrants are located along the public street.

Good
Fire Alarm: The building is not equipped with a fire alarm. N/A Fire-Rated
Penetrations:

There are no fire-rated assemblies. N/A
Adequacy: Fire- and life-safety systems appeared minimal but adequate use for present use.

Recommendation(s): No significant issues were identified.

Property Condition Assessments, LLC 38 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
K. VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION
There are no vertical transportation features at the Subject Property.

Property Condition Assessments, LLC 39 33623 Mission Boulevard Confidential Client Material 01-25-0052
Format Copyrighted by PCA 2016
L. PUBLIC RECORDS REVIEW
Refer to Zoning Analysis included in the appendices of this report.

APPENDIX A
33623 Mission Boulevard 01-25-0052
Union City, California 94587

APPENDIX B
Section 1
Subject Property

1. North elevation of Subject Property.

Section 2
Site

1. East side of site and driveway. 2. West side of site.

Reference Photographs
Property Condition Assessment, LLC. 33623 Mission Boulevard

Confidential Client Information 05-14-2025
Section 2
Site

3. View along Mission Boulevard looking east. 4. Driveway off of F Street on west side of site.

5. West side of site. 6. Public planters on west side of site.

7. Public planters on west side of site. 8. Trellis structure in yard on west side of building.

Reference Photographs
Property Condition Assessment, LLC. 33623 Mission Boulevard

Confidential Client Information 05-14-2025
Section 2
Site

9. Sign and trash container on west side of site. 10. Shipping containers on east side of site.

11. Drain inlet at front of building.

Reference Photographs
Property Condition Assessment, LLC. 33623 Mission Boulevard

Confidential Client Information 05-14-2025
Section 3
Structural (/Seismic) Systems

1. Roof framing at garage area. 2. Wood stud wall and wood roof framing.

3. Wood truss at garage area. 4. Wood truss and wood post at garage area.

5. Wood stud wall and wood roof framing. 6. Wood beam and wood post.

Reference Photographs
Property Condition Assessment, LLC. 33623 Mission Boulevard

Confidential Client Information 05-14-2025
Section 4
Building Exteriors

1. North elevation. 2. Drive-through lane looking west.

3. Drive-through lane looking east. 4. Ceiling of drive-through lane.

5. Planter at drive-through lane. 6. West elevation.

Reference Photographs
Property Condition Assessment, LLC. 33623 Mission Boulevard

Confidential Client Information 05-14-2025
Section 4
Building Exteriors

7. Lean-to on east side of building. 8. South elevation.

9. East elevation. 10. Mural on garage door.

11. Typical window with security bars. 12. Damage to wood window frame.

Reference Photographs
Property Condition Assessment, LLC. 33623 Mission Boulevard

Confidential Client Information 05-14-2025
Section 5
Roofing

1. View of garage roof. 2. Roof drain and overflow scupper.

3. Penetrations in garage roof. 4. Built-up roofing membrane at old gas station.

5. Damaged parapet coping at garage. 6. Damaged parapet coping at old gas station.

Reference Photographs
Property Condition Assessment, LLC. 33623 Mission Boulevard

Confidential Client Information 05-14-2025
Section 5
Roofing

7. Patch in built-up membrane. 8. Roof of lean-to.

9. Downspouts discharge at grade.

Reference Photographs
Property Condition Assessment, LLC. 33623 Mission Boulevard

Confidential Client Information 05-14-2025
Section 6
Interiors

1. Restroom. 2. Parts storage.

3. Silk screen room. 4. Signs of leaks at window.

5. Entry to office/sales room (old gas station). 6. Display case in sales room.

Reference Photographs
Property Condition Assessment, LLC. 33623 Mission Boulevard

Confidential Client Information 05-14-2025
Section 6
Interiors

7. Bike storage room (old garage). 8. Workshop.

Section 7
HVAC

1. Furnace 1 of 2 suspended from roof framing. 2. Furnace 2 of 2 suspended from roof framing.

Reference Photographs
Property Condition Assessment, LLC. 33623 Mission Boulevard

Confidential Client Information 05-14-2025
Section 7
HVAC

3. Thermostat for furnace. 4. Non-working thermostat for furnace.

5. Identification plaque on furnace.

Reference Photographs
Property Condition Assessment, LLC. 33623 Mission Boulevard

Confidential Client Information 05-14-2025
Section 8
Plumbing

1. west side of building. 2. Galvanized pipe at hose bib.

Section 9
Electrical

1. Electrical meter and main service. 2. Breaker panel.

Reference Photographs
Property Condition Assessment, LLC. 33623 Mission Boulevard

Confidential Client Information 05-14-2025
Section 9
Electrical

3. Breaker panel. 4. Copper home runs.

5. Copper distribution wires. 6. Wall-mounted security light fixture.

7. Wall-mounted security light fixture. 8. Fluorescent light fixture at interior.

Reference Photographs
Property Condition Assessment, LLC. 33623 Mission Boulevard

Confidential Client Information 05-14-2025
Section 10
Fire and Life-Safety

1. Wall-mounted fire extinguisher. 2. Inspection tag on fire extinguisher.

Reference Photographs
Property Condition Assessment, LLC. 33623 Mission Boulevard

Confidential Client Information 05-14-2025

APPENDIX C
Zoning Analysis for
33623 Mission Blvd., Union City CA
33623 Mission Blvd., Union City CA
Table of contents
Site Information 1
Permitted Use Groups 2
Summary of Development Rights 2
1 Site Information
Satellite view Map view
Address Current zoning Lot size Existing Building Class 33623 Mission
Blvd, Union City
CA
CMU
Community district:

Corridor Mixed Use –
Commercial
The purpose of the
Corridor Mixed Use
Commercial (CMU)
district is to establish a
mixed use
residential/commercial
district of high-density
residential, commercial
and office uses by
intensifying the land use
and providing
opportunities for new
mixed use (residential
and commercial/office)
developments
14,410 sf One story retail
2 Tax lot | BL Intersecting map layers
Parcel Number
486-6-32
Block - 74
Lot - 32
Fault Zone - None
Flood Zone- None
FIRM Panel ID - None
Liquefaction Zone – No
Landslide Zone – No
Overlay District – None
Permitted Use Groups
Permitted use group(s) Permitted uses as-of-right
A.

Residential uses with a minimum density of
17 units per acre and a maximum density of
45 units per acre with activated ground floor
uses, including, but not limited to, residential
amenity space, leasing office, lobby, and
business center.

B.

Residential mixed-use developments with a
minimum density of 17 units per acre and a
maximum density of 45 units per acre with
ground floor commercial uses located along
the primary frontage.

C.

Commercial Uses on the Ground Floor as
Part of a Residential Mixed-Use
Development.

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

2. Business services.

3. Office uses.

4. Civic facilities.

5. Food, such as restaurants and cafés, quick
service, full service, bakeries with retail sales,
retail and carry-out;

6. Food stores, up to 25,000 square feet,
excluding convenience markets.

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

8. Health clubs.

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

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

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

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

D.

Commercial and/or Office Uses Not Part of a
Residential Mixed-Use Development.

1. Any commercial use permitted in the CC
District.

Summary of Development Rights
Max. permitted Building Zoning Floor Area
Ratio
The minimum FAR shall be 0.5 and the
maximum shall be 1.5 for mixed use
developments. The minimum FAR shall be 0.3
and the maximum shall be 1.0 for non-residential
uses.

Maximum Building Height The maximum height of buildings shall be 55 feet, excluding non-habitable architectural
features, mechanical penthouses and elevator
towers; provided, that they do not exceed 25% of
the roof area of the building.

Max. permitted number
of stories
N/A
Required Setback On Mission Boulevard, the front yard setback shall be five feet from the property line and a
minimum of 15 feet from the face of curb to
ensure a comfortable pedestrian environment.

No side yards shall be required, subject to the
following exceptions:

A. On the side street side of a corner site, a side
yard of not less than 10 feet shall be required.
4 B. One foot shall be added at ground level to
each interior side yard for each three feet of
height by which the structure exceeds 12 feet.

Rear yards. A minimum rear yard setback of 10
feet shall be required
Lot Type and Lot Coverage Lot size.

Every lot shall have a minimum width of at least
200 feet and a minimum depth of 100 feet.

NON-CONFORMING
Lot coverage.

The amount of the site area covered by
structures shall not be restricted.

Minimum / Maximum Dwelling Units A minimum of 17 units per acre and a maximum of 45 units per acre is permitted. The minimum
site area per dwelling unit shall be 968 square
feet.

Minimum required accessory off-street
parking
Residential Use. Provide automobile and bicycle
parking at residential district standards for the
RM 1500 zoning district per Section 18.32.160,
except that 100% affordable rental developments
may provide off-street parking pursuant to the
standards contained in Section 18.32.160(B)(5).

Commercial Uses. Provide automobile and
bicycle parking at commercial district standards
per Section 18.36.150 (off-street parking in
commercial districts). For commercial uses on
the ground floor as part of a mixed use
development, shared parking shall be evaluated
on a case-by-case basis.
5 Summary
CMU District: CMU is a commercial district that is predominantly residential in character. It is the intent of the Master Plan to incentivize mixeduse development by way allowances in bulk requirements over non-mixed-use projects. It is recommended for the highest and best use of real estate; a mixed-use solution be pursued.

Maximum Floor
Area The maximum permitted mixed-use floor area is 21,615 sf. The existing single-story building is approximately 2,120 sf, which provides a development potential of an additional 19,000 +/- sf for rental income. Height limitations and codes would limit additional floors to a total of 4. It is recommended that further
investigation of bearing capacities of the existing structure and soils be undertaken by a qualified professional.

Suggested Use To take advantage of the zoning incentives and the existing lot and building configuration, it is recommended that two to three new residential floors be constructed atop the existing building which would remain a commercial use. It is also recommended that a market analysis and proforma based on current construction costs and local rents be undertaken by a qualified
professional.

Limitations There are several third-party approvals required precedent to project approval. Several bulk variances (lot size) and infrastructure (traffic) approvals would be prerequisite to commencing construction. It is recommended to engage
qualified professionals to develop a schematic design
package defining and soliciting approvals from all
governmental agencies having jurisdictional authority.
6