cos tc o business center fuel fa cility initial stu dy/ mitig at ed ...

September 2019

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

C O S T C O B U S I N E S S C E N T E R F U E L FA C I L I T Y I N I T I A L S T U D Y/

M I T I G AT E D N E G AT I V E D E C L A R AT I O N

This page intentionally left blank

Development Services Department Planning Division T: 510.583.4200 TTD: 510.247.3340 777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541 F: 510.583.3649 www.hayward-ca.gov

September 27, 2019 Alameda County Clerk 1106 Madison Street, 1st Floor Oakland, CA 94607 SUBJECT: Notice of Intent to Adopt A Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation

Monitoring and Reporting Program for a Major Modification to Planned Development (PD) District to allow for the Development of a Fuel Facility (Gas Station) at the Costco Business Center located at 22330 Hathaway Avenue, Assessor Parcel No. 429-0082-003-00 in the City of Hayward.

Barghausen Consulting Engineers (Applicant on Behalf of Costco Wholesale) 18215 72nd Avenue South, Kent WA 98032

Please post this letter with the attached Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for a period of 20 days to conform to Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The specific posted comment period is from Friday, September 27, 2019 to Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 5:00 p.m. This item is scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission of the City of Hayward on Thursday, October 24, 2019, at 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, City Hall, 777 B Street, Hayward, to obtain citizen input on the proposed project and the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. A copy of the staff report can be viewed on the City's website at https://hayward.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx after October 18, 2019. The Planning Commission can either recommend approval or denial to the City Council on the proposed Major Modification to a Planned Development (PD) application. City Council review and approval is required for applications proposing major modifications to existing PD zoning districts. The project is not on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. If recommended for approval or denial, a public hearing is tentatively scheduled before the City Council for final decision on Tuesday, November 19, 2019, at 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, City Hall, 777 B Street, Hayward. A copy of the City Council staff report can be viewed on the City's website at https://hayward.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx after November 15, 2019.

https://hayward.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx

https://hayward.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx

Copies of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are available for public review at Hayward City Hall at 777 B Street, Hayward on the First-Floor Permit Center, Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and City Clerk’s Office. Copies of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are also available for public review at the Weekes Branch Library located at 27300 Patrick Avenue Hayward, California, and on the City’s website at http://www.hayward-ca.gov/content/projects-under-environmental-review-0. Please see the Library and Community Services webpage at http://www.library.ci.hayward.ca.us/ for library days and hours. If the Mitigated Negative Declaration is adopted and approved, the City will promptly file a Notice of Determination (NOD) for the project with the Alameda County Clerk’s Office. If you have any questions, please contact Marcus Martinez, Associate Planner at (510) 583-4236 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Sincerely, Marcus Martinez Associate Planner Attachments: Mitigated Negative Declaration for Application No. 201706217 c: Barghausen Consulting Engineers (Applicant on behalf of Costco Wholesale)

--END--

http://www.hayward-ca.gov/content/projects-under-environmental-review-0

http://www.library.ci.hayward.ca.us/

mailto:[email protected]

September 2019

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

C O S T C O B U S I N E S S C E N T E R F U E L FA C L I T Y I N I T I A L S T U D Y/

M I T I G AT E D N E G AT I V E D E C L A R AT I O N

Submitted to:

Marcus Martinez, Associate Planner Development Services Department, Planning Division

City of Hayward 777 B Street

Hayward, California 94541

Prepared by:

LSA 157 Park Place

Pt. Richmond, California 94801 510.236.6810

Project No. HAY1701.05


IN IT IAL S TUDY/MIT IGATED NEGAT IVE DECLARAT ION SEPTEMBER 2019

COSTCO BUS INESS CENTER FUEL FAC I L ITY PRO JECTHAYWARD, CAL IFORNIA

\\ptr11\projects\HAY1701.05 Hayward Costco Gas\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Hayward Coscto Gas Public IS.docx (09/25/19) i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................ iii

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ................................................................................... 1‐1

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................ 2‐1

2.1 Determination ................................................................................................................... 2‐1

3.0 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .................................................................. 3‐1

3.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................. 3‐4 3.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 3‐6 3.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 3‐16 3.5 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 3‐20 3.6 Energy .............................................................................................................................. 3‐23 3.7 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................ 3‐27 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................. 3‐32 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................. 3‐38 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................... 3‐43 3.11 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................... 3‐48 3.12 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................... 3‐50 3.13 Noise................................................................................................................................ 3‐51 3.14 Population and Housing .................................................................................................. 3‐61 3.15 Public Services ................................................................................................................. 3‐62 3.16 Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 3‐64 3.17 Transportation ................................................................................................................ 3‐65 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 3‐82 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................... 3‐84 3.20 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................ 3‐88 3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................ 3‐90

4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .......................................................................................... 4‐1

5.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 5‐1

APPENDICES

A: CALEEMOD OUTPUT SHEETS B: ARBORIST REPORT C: PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT D: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT E: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS PEER REVIEW F: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT RESPONSE TO AGENCY COMMENTS MEMORANDUM G: AB 52 LETTERS

COSTCO BUS INESS CENTER FUEL FAC I L ITY PRO JECT HAYWARD, CAL IFORNIA

IN IT IAL S TUDY/MIT IGATED NEGAT IVE DECLARAT IONSEPTEMBER 2019

\\ptr11\projects\HAY1701.05 Hayward Costco Gas\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Hayward Coscto Gas Public IS.docx (09/25/19) ii

FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES

Figure 1‐1: Project Location and Regional Vicinity Map ..................................................................... 1‐3 Figure 1‐2: Aerial Photograph of the Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses .................................. 1‐4 Figure 1‐3: Conceptual Costco Business Center Site Plan ................................................................... 1‐7 Figure 1‐4: Conceptual Project Site Plan ............................................................................................. 1‐8 Figure 1‐5: Conceptual Fuel Facility Elevations .................................................................................. 1‐9 Figure 3‐1: Project Trip Distribution ................................................................................................. 3‐71 Figure 3‐2: Existing Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................. 3‐72 Figure 3‐3: Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes .............................................................................. 3‐73 Figure 3‐4: Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 3‐75 Figure 3‐5: Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes ........................................................................ 3‐77

TABLES

Table 3.A: Project Construction Emissions in Pounds Per Day ......................................................... 3‐10 Table 3.B: Project Operational Emissions ......................................................................................... 3‐12 Table 3.C: Estimated Annual Energy Use of Proposed Project ......................................................... 3‐24 Table 3.D: GHG Emissions (Metric Tons Per Year) ............................................................................ 3‐35 Table 3.E: Consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan Policies ................................................. 3‐36 Table 3.F: Exterior Noise Compatibility Standards for Various Land Uses ....................................... 3‐53 Table 3.G: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ................................................................. 3‐55 Table 3.H: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment ............................................. 3‐59 Table 3.I: Level of Service Criteria – Signalized Intersections ........................................................... 3‐67 Table 3.J: Level of Service Criteria – Unsignalized Intersections ...................................................... 3‐68 Table 3.K: Trip Generation at Costco Fuel Stations .......................................................................... 3‐69 Table 3.L: Project Trip Generation Estimates ................................................................................... 3‐69 Table 3.M: Existing Plus Project Level of Service Summary .............................................................. 3‐70 Table 3.N: Background Plus Project Level of Service Summary ........................................................ 3‐74 Table 3.O: Cumulative Plus Project Level of Service Summary......................................................... 3‐76 Table 3.P: Metropolitan Transportation System Freeway Level of Service Summary ..................... 3‐78 Table 3.Q: Metropolitan Transportation System Arterial Level of Service Summary ...................... 3‐79



\\ptr11\projects\HAY1701.05 Hayward Costco Gas\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Hayward Coscto Gas Public IS.docx (09/25/19) iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments

ACTC Alameda County Transportation Commission

Air basin San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin

APN Assessor’s Parcel Number

BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District

BART Bay Area Rapid Transit

Business Center Hayward Costco Business Center

CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model

CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency

CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code

CCR California Code of Regulations

City City of Hayward

Clean Air Plan BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan

CO carbon monoxide

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

EVR Enhanced Vapor Recovery

GDFs gasoline dispensing facilities

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GPH gallons per hour

HFD Hayward Fire Department

I‐580 Interstate 580

I‐880 Interstate 880



\\ptr11\projects\HAY1701.05 Hayward Costco Gas\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Hayward Coscto Gas Public IS.docx (09/25/19) iv

IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

mgd million gallons of water per day

MI Mixed Industrial

NAHC Native American Heritage Commission

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOx nitrogen oxides

O3 ozone

Pb lead

PD Planned Development

PM particulate matter

POTWs publicly owned treatment works

Project Costco Business Center Fuel Facility Project

PTi Prevention Technologies, Inc.

ROG reactive organic gases

SO2 sulfur dioxide

State Water Board State Water Resources Control Board

TACs toxic air contaminants



\\ptr11\projects\HAY1701.05 Hayward Costco Gas\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Hayward Coscto Gas Public IS.docx (09/25/19) 1‐1

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

The section describes the proposed Costco Business Center Fuel Facility Project (project) that is evaluated in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). An overview of the project site is followed by a description of the proposed development and a summary of requested approvals and entitlements. The City of Hayward (City) is the Lead Agency for environmental review.

1. Project Title: Costco Business Center Fuel Facility Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address

City of Hayward 777 B Street Hayward, California 94541

3. Contact Person and Phone Number

Marcus Martinez, Associate Planner Development Services Department – Planning Division 777 B Street, Hayward, California 94541 Phone: (510) 583‐4236 Email: marcus.martinez@hayward‐ca.gov

4. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address

Barghausen Consulting Engineers 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032

5. General Plan Designation: Mixed Industrial (MI)

6. Zoning: Planned Development (PD)

7. Project Location

The project site is located within the existing Hayward Costco Business Center (business center) at 22330 Hathaway Avenue in the City of Hayward, Alameda County. The business center property is bounded by commercial uses to the north, Union Pacific Railroad tracks to the north and east, West A Street to the south, and Hathaway Avenue to the west.

Regional vehicular access to the project site is provided by Interstate 880 (I‐880), access to which is provided approximately two blocks west via the West A Street on‐ and off‐ramps. Direct local access is primarily via Hathaway Avenue, which is a local street with direct access from West A Street, an arterial roadway. Figure 1‐1 depicts the site’s regional and local context. Figure 1‐2 depicts an aerial view of the project site and surrounding land uses.





LEGEND

Project Site

0 200 400

FEET

Project Site

Project Loca�on

FIGURE 1-1

SOURCE: ESRI, USGS (04/19).

P:\HAY1701.05 Hayward Costco Gas\Graphics\Figures\Fig_1-1.ai (4/8/19)

Costco Business Center Fuel Facility Project IS/MND

Hathaway Ave

Hathaway Ave

Meekland Ave

Meekland Ave

UPRRUPRR

ArborA

ve

ArborA

ve

Princeton St

Princeton St

Arbor Ct

Arbor Ct

E A Street

Smalley Ave

Smalley Ave

Poplar Ave

Poplar Ave

Sunset Blvd

Sunset Blvd

Lansing Wy

Lansing Wy

Mar

n Lu

ther K

ing D

r

Hathaway Ave

Meekland Ave

UPRR

ArborA

ve

Princeton St

Arbor Ct

E A Street

Smalley Ave

Poplar Ave

Sunset Blvd

Lansing Wy

Mar

n Lu

ther K

ing D

r

880

FEET

3000 150 Project Site

FIGURE 1-2

SOURCES: GOOGLE EARTH, 4/2/18; LSA, 2019.



Aerial Photograph of Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses




8. Description of Project

The proposed project would result in the development of a new fuel station on the project site, which is located within the existing Costco Business Center property. The existing site conditions and background, and the proposed project itself are described below.

a. Site Characteristics and Current Site Conditions. The proposed fuel facility is located within the approximately 10.87‐acre business center site (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 429‐0082‐003‐00). The business center property consists of an approximately 115,000‐square‐foot Costco Business Center, which provides bulk business item shopping for paid small‐ to medium‐sized businesses and retail members only,1 as well as associated parking spaces, drive aisles, and infrastructure. A total of 503 parking spaces are currently designated within the business center property for use by Costco members and employees.

The generally L‐shaped proposed fuel facility site is located in the northern corner of the existing business center property and is approximately 2.1 acres in size, of which 1.74 acres is developed. The proposed fuel station is located on a portion of the project site, which is currently developed with an approximately 8,850‐square‐foot single‐story building constructed in 1986. The building was previously used as a Costco tire center that operated in conjunction with the business center; however, the building is currently vacant. A total of 105 parking spaces are located within the project site itself. There are approximately 24 existing mature trees within the project site, primarily located at the site’s northwestern border with the Union Pacific Railroad corridor.

The site was previously developed with a warehouse building and parking lot associated with a bottling plant from at least 1939 through 1982. On August 2, 1983, the General Plan land use designation for the site was changed from Industrial to Commercial and the zoning district was changed from Industrial to Planned Development (PD) to allow development and operation of the Costco Business Center and associated tire center. Project approvals at that time permitted development of a semi‐public warehouse operation with direct retail sales to the public and businesses. In 1986, the General Plan land use designation was changed from Commercial to Mixed Industrial (MI).

In November 1998, the project site was included in the Expanded Redevelopment Area and became part of the Downtown Hayward Redevelopment Project Plan. The site is also located within the Hayward Cannery Area Neighborhood Plan, within Sub Area 1.

b. Proposed Project. The proposed project would involve demolition of the existing structure and all existing pavements on the project site and redevelopment of the site with a new fuel station with 12 dispensers (24 fueling positions), as well as associated parking and circulation, landscaping, and utility improvements. The proposed project components are described in detail below.

1 Although Costco Business Centers primarily offer services and products targeted for small‐ to medium‐

sized businesses, regular Costco Wholesale members may also patronize business center locations.




Figure 1‐3 depicts the conceptual overall site plan for the Costco property. Figure 1‐4 depicts the conceptual site plan for the project site. Conceptual elevations for the proposed fuel facility are shown in Figure 1‐5.

(1) Proposed Fuel Facility. The proposed project would result in the redevelopment of the project site with a fuel facility that would include a total of three covered fueling bays, each with four fuel dispensers which could accommodate four vehicles on each side. The fueling station would also have 6 stacking lanes, each of which would be approximately 126 feet in length, to allow approximately 35 vehicles to queue at any given time in addition to the 24 vehicles at the dispensers, for a total of 59 vehicles to be accommodated at any given time. The fuel facility would include a 9,346‐square‐foot canopy and a 112‐square‐foot controller enclosure, located on the eastern portion of the fuel facility to house the control and mechanical equipment. The dispensers would be fully automated and self‐service for Costco members only. An attendant would be present to oversee operations and to assist members. Three underground fuel tanks with a capacity of 40,000 gallons each and one with a capacity of 3,500 gallons would be installed as part of the fuel facility. Fuel facility hours are dictated by the needs of the members and are anticipated to be from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no service on Sundays.2 Fuel would be delivered to the facility as required for member needs and facility operation. In addition, fuel truck size would be dictated by the needs of the facility and local, State, and federal regulatory requirements.

2 Costco Business Center hours are from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 7:00 a.m. to

4:00 p.m. Saturdays. The business center is closed on Sundays.

WEST A

STRE

ET O

VERP

ASS

YOLO STREET

EXISTING

F.H.

COSTCO

PARKING

OTHER

PARKING

EXIST. EXIT

EXIST. ENTRANCE

EXISTINGLANDSCAPING

HATHAWAY AVENUE

HC4

EXISTING FIREHYDRANT

EXISTINGUNDERGROUNDPOWER LINE

EXIST.LOADING DOCK

EXIST. COMPACTORw/ CANOPY

EXISTINGTRANSFORMER

EXISTINGGENERATOR

EXISTINGREFR. UNIT

CITY

OF HAY

WAR

D'S L

EASE

PAR

CEL

TO T

HE PR

ICE

COMPA

NY

WEST A STREET

WES

T A

STREE

T OVE

RPASS

HC9

PROPERTYLINE

60'

22'-3"

EXISTINGLANDSCAPING

EXISTINGLANDSCAPING

27'-6"

14'-4

"

EXISTING FENCEW/ GATE

EXISTING FENCEW/ GATE

EXISTING FENCE

COSTCO BUSINESSCENTER SIGN

COSTCO BUSINESSCENTER SIGN

INGRESS, EGRESS,PARKING AND LANDSCAPEMAINTENANCE EASEMENT

MAINDRIVEWAYEASEMENT

TRAFFIC SIGNALFACILITIES EASEMENT

NO BUILDAREAEASEMENT

233

3

15

6

FIREHYDRANT

FIRE HYDRANT

PROPERTY LINE

HC3

19

4

12

14

16

7

13

30'

67'

125'

-9"

13

9

8

1

6

BIOSWALE

BIOSWALE

BIOSWALE

0 20' 40' 80'

PROJECT SITE BOUNDARY

FEET

800 40

TRUE PROJECT

FIGURE 1-3

SOURCE: MG2, 2018.



Conceptual Costco Business Center Site Plan

FIREHYDRANT

(2) 40K GASOLINE UST(1) 40K GASOLINE/DIESEL UST(1) 3.5K SPLIT ADDITIVE UST

CONTROLLERENCLOSURE

TRANSFORMER

HEALY CLEANAIR SEPARATOR

MULTIPRODUCTDISPENSER(TYP. 12)

SPEED BUMP(TYP)

TRAFFICCONTROLSTRIPING

EDGE OFCANOPY

WASTERECEPTOR (TYP)

TRAFFIC MARKING

34'

20'20'

92'

107'

-7"

10'-11"

28'

28'

124'

-3"

28'

47'

NEW BIOSWALE

BIOSWALE

NEW CURB

NEW CURB

NEW CURB

NEW CURB

NEW CURB

RE-STRIPE PARKING STALLS

RE-STRIPE PARKING STALLS

RE-STRIPE PARKING STALLS RE-STRIPE PARKING STALLS

NEW BIOSWALE

NEW BIOSWALE

0 15' 30' 60'

FEET

600 30Project Site BoundaryTR

UE PROJECT

FIGURE 1-4

SOURCE: MG2, 2018.



Conceptual Project Site Plan

NOT TO SCALE

FIGURE 1-5

SOURCE: MG2, 2018.



Conceptual Fuel Facility Eleva ons








To open and operate the fuel facility, the operator, Costco, would be required to meet the requirements of local, State, and federal regulators and agencies, including the Hayward Fire Department (HFD), the County Department of Environmental Health, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Costco has submitted specific safety and design features it proposes to implement for the facility as listed below. These safety and design features are understood to be uniformly implemented by Costco for all of its new fuel facilities.

Operations

1) The fueling facility would be designed to operate as an unattended self‐serve facility. However, it is Costco's policy to provide a Costco Gasoline Program trained employee and supervisor at the site during all hours of operation. The training program includes an interactive test that all gasoline employees must pass before working at a Costco fuel facility.

2) In addition to the above‐mentioned attending employee, the facility would be supported by senior management in the warehouse during all fuel station operation hours. The supervisor would be equipped with a roam telephone programmed to receive calls from the fueling facility and warehouse. Every fuel facility is equipped with a "911" telephone that automatically contacts emergency dispatch in addition to a regular telephone line and roam phones.

3) Employees are trained to identify maintenance requirements and physically inspect the fuel islands regularly during operating hours. Their training includes the proper spill clean‐up and emergency response procedures. Trained employees check for leaking hoses, malfunctioning nozzles, fuel spills, and physical damage to the dispensers and controller enclosure. During non‐operating hours, the power to the dispensers is turned off and each nozzle pad is locked. Should the system require attention beyond what the trained site person could handle, the local authorized and certified service contractor would be contacted and dispatched to repair the equipment.

4) Emergency shutoff switches would be installed next to the controller enclosure and in locations near the dispensers, as dictated by the fire code.

5) Closed circuit television monitor cameras would be aimed to show all fueling positions, the tank slab, and equipment enclosure and would be mounted on canopy columns adjacent to the fuel islands. A split screen monitor located in the Costco business center warehouse would allow for full‐time monitoring of the fueling operation. All images would be recorded by the camera system.

6) The tank and piping monitoring system would be programmed to activate visual/audible alarms in the event of an alarm condition. A visual/audible alarm would be located on the outside of the controller enclosure. Further, the monitoring system would be




designed so that if power is lost to the monitoring console the facility would be shut down and would not operate.

7) An independent security company currently monitors the business center alarm system and would also be responsible for monitoring the proposed fueling center operation. The alarm system would acknowledge an alarm condition at the fueling facility and notify Costco management staff of an alarm condition should it occur after operating hours.

Design

1) Costco's tank and piping system would be certified to meet the Federal UST leak detection standards of 95 percent probability of detection and 5 percent probability of false alarm. The Water Board also certifies the system under LG‐113.

2) Costco utilizes one of the most durable joint sealers available today to seal the concrete control joints. PTi sealer is a petroleum‐resistant sealant developed by Prevention Technologies, Inc. (PTi). The sealer is used to prevent petroleum products from entering the underlying soil at the concrete joints. This product is used for its superior elasticity and user‐friendly application. The elasticity allows the product to maintain a tight seal even with concrete expansion. The easy application ensures a proper seal whether it is applied by contractor or maintenance personnel. Costco is one of the few, if not only companies, to have a nationwide standard to seal control joints and other areas, including around the island forms and any expansion joints in the concrete around the fueling areas and at the UST slab to prevent product spills from reaching the soil.

3) The storm drainage system for the fueling facility area would be designed in accordance with State of California Best Management Practices and Alameda County stormwater standards for water quality treatment standards. Stormwater from the fueling area would be isolated and directed to a catch basin and processed through an oil/water separator, a CDS unit, and an oil stop valve prior to discharge to the downstream system.

4) The underground tank and piping control units would be housed inside the controller enclosure. The enclosure would contain the power console, the dispenser interface unit, the submersible pump variable speed controllers, and the monitoring system console. An air conditioner mounted on the side of the enclosure would have a preset thermostat to maintain a safe operating temperature.

5) The USTs and all containment sumps, including the dispenser sumps would all be double‐walled fiberglass. Fiberglass is used for its corrosion resistance and plasticity. The double‐walled storage tank system would include a hydrostatic interstitial space sensor that monitors the primary and secondary tank walls. If a tank wall is




compromised, the interstitial sensor would immediately shut down the product delivery system and activate a visual/audible alarm.

6) The tanks would be secured in place with anchoring straps (tie‐downs) connected to a concrete hold down deadmen. The entire tank excavation hole would be backfilled with pea gravel and capped with an 8‐inch‐thick reinforced concrete slab (overburden). The tie‐downs, together with the overburden, would overcome any possible buoyancy factors and resist buckling under hydrostatic pressures.

7) All product, vapor and vent piping would be non‐corrosive and provide three levels of protection. First, all product piping would be monitored with pressure line leak detection. Second, all piping would be double walled to provide secondary containment. Third, all fiberglass piping would be additionally monitored under vacuum per California AB2481 regulations such that if a breach is detected in the vacuum, the product delivery system would shut down and the system would sound an audible alarm.

8) All piping connections to the tanks and dispensers would be flexible. Flexible connectors are used to prevent rupture from any form of ground movement.

9) All piping would slope to the sumps at the USTs. If a piping leak occurs, the gasoline would flow through the secondary pipe to the sump, where a sensor would be triggered to immediately shut down the system and activate an audible/visual alarm.

10) All tanks and dispensers would be equipped with latest Stage I and Stage II Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) air pollution control equipment technology per CARB regulations and associated Executive Orders. The Phase I EVR equipment controls the vapors in the return path from the tanks back to the tanker truck during offloading filling operations. The Stage I EVR systems would be 98 percent effective in controlling fugitive emissions from escaping into the environment. The Phase II EVR equipment, which also includes "in‐station diagnostics," controls and monitors the vapors in the return path from the vehicles back to the tanks and would be 95 percent effective in preventing fugitive emissions from escaping into the environment.

11) The UST monitoring system would incorporate automatic shutoffs. If gasoline is detected in the sump at the fuel dispenser, the dispenser would shut down automatically and an alarm would sound. If a problem is detected with a tank, the tank would automatically shut down and an alarm would be sounded. If the product piping system detects a failure of the 0.1 gallons per hour (GPH) test, the line would be automatically shut down and the alarm would sound. Pursuant to federal requirements, monitoring equipment must be able to detect a minimum leak of 3 GPH (equivalent to the accuracy of a mechanical leak detector). By providing monitoring to a higher standard (0.1 vs. 3), Costco maintains a thirty times higher degree of safety than required by current federal requirements.

12) Each fuel dispenser would include several safety devices. Specifically, each dispenser sump would be equipped with an automatic shutoff valve to protect against the effects




of a vehicle impact. In addition, each fuel hose would include a poppeted breakaway device that would stop the flow of fuel at both ends of the hose in the event of an accidental drive‐off. Also, each dispenser would be equipped with internal fire extinguishers. Lastly, all dispensers would include leak detection sensors connected to the alarm console inside the controller enclosure.

(2) Access, Circulation, and Parking. Vehicular access to the fuel facility would be provided via Hathaway Avenue and the western portion of the business center property. Vehicles would access the proposed fuel facility from the west side of the site, approximately 300 feet east of the signalized intersection along Hathaway Avenue and exit to the east of the proposed fuel facility, near the Union Pacific Railroad tracks.

In addition to the construction of the proposed fuel facility, the proposed project would also include restriping of a total of 72 parking spaces, resulting in a net loss of 105 parking spaces for the entire business center. After completion of the proposed project, the entire property would include 398 parking spaces. Pursuant to Municipal Code section 10‐2.330, the entire property is required to provide 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. Currently, a total of 4.05 parking spaces are provided per 1,000 square feet and at project completion parking would be provided at a ratio of 3.44 spaces per 1,000 square feet, which requires approval of a Major Modification to the existing Planned Development. The creation and/or modification of Planned Development zoning districts allow for flexibility in the application of development standards (i.e. parking) provided that the development is consistent with the policies and objectives of the General Plan to meet the standards necessary to satisfy the requirements for public, safety and general welfare.

(3) Landscaping. Of the existing 45 trees on the project site, 17 would be removed to facilitate project construction, four of which are mature trees. Approximately 21 new trees would be planted on the project site, including adjacent to the fuel facility and the parking spaces. In addition, a total of 10,641 square feet of landscaped area would be added to the project site, 3,175 square feet of which would be used as bio‐retention areas, for a total of 14,246 square feet of landscaped area. Four bio‐retention areas would be located throughout the project site to reduce the flow of stormwater runoff. Three of these areas would be located on the western portion of the project site, and one would be located in the northern corner.

(4) Utilities and Infrastructure. The project site is located in an urban area with existing utilities and infrastructure. The proposed project would be required to install the following utility connections to the satisfaction of the applicable utility providers: water, wastewater, stormwater drainage; power; and telecommunications services. Connections to existing infrastructure would occur within the project site. As noted above, the proposed project would include the installation of four underground fuel tanks on the project site.

(5) Demolition, Grading, and Construction. The proposed project would include demolition of the existing approximately 8,580‐square‐foot building and approximately 18,826‐square feet of surface parking spaces on the site. Construction debris, such as old foundations, pavements, and structures, would be collected and hauled off site for disposal. Approximately 3,660 tons of demolition waste would be generated by the proposed project. Up to 18.5 feet of site soils




would be excavated for the underground storage tanks, and up to 2.3 feet of soils would be excavated across the rest of the site to remove materials that may not be suitable for project development. Up to 9,642 cubic yards of soils would be excavated from the site. If soils are determined to be suitable during construction, then approximately 2,000 cubic yards of soils would be retained to balance the site after excavation. If site soils are determined to be unsuitable during construction, then up to 9,642 cubic yards of soils would be off‐hauled.

If approved, construction of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in Spring/Summer 2020 and would occur over a 3 to 4 month period. Demolition activities are anticipated to occur over an approximately 1 month period and grading would occur over an approximately 5 day period. An overlap of demolition and grading activities is anticipated. Exterior work such as foundation installation, construction, and installation of pavements is expected to occur over a 2 to 3 month period. None of the streets or sidewalks within, or adjacent to, the business center site are anticipated to be closed during construction of the proposed project. Aside from the 105 parking spaces proposed to be removed, all existing parking spaces on the site would be accessible during construction.

(6) Discretionary Actions. The proposed project is subject to approval by the City Council following a recommendation from the City’s Planning Commission. The proposed project would require a Major Modification of the previously approved Planned Development from the City.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting

The project site is located in northern Hayward, which is characterized by light industrial, commercial, and residential uses. The project site is generally surrounded by a mix of retail, residential, restaurant, light industrial, and manufacturing uses, as depicted in Figure 1‐2 and further described below.

North of the Project Site.The project site is bordered immediately to the north by Union Pacific Railroad tracks and manufacturing uses. The closest railroad crossing is the West A Street overpass located south of the project site. Further north, across the railroad tracks, are additional manufacturing and light industrial uses, as well as residential and institutional uses.

East of the Project Site.The project site is bordered immediately to the east by the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, across which are light industrial and manufacturing uses, as well as commercial and residential uses. The Hayward Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station is located approximately 1 mile east of the project site.

South of the Project Site.The project site and business center property are bordered immediately to the south by West A Street, across which are predominantly residential uses. The Hayward Caltrain station is located south of West A Street, on the east side of the railroad tracks.




West of the Project Site.The project site and business center property are bordered immediately to the west by Hathaway Avenue. Across Hathaway Avenue are commercial, manufacturing, and residential uses. I‐880 is located east of the project site, with on‐ and off‐ramps accessible from West A Street.

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financial approval, or participation agreements):

The following agencies are responsible for granting additional approvals to allow development and operation of the proposed project: HFD, BAAQMD, State Water Board, CalEPA, EPA, California Department of Industrial Relations, and Alameda County Department of Agriculture.

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resource Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.??

A request form describing the proposed project was sent to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in West Sacramento requesting a list of tribes eligible to consult with the City, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1. The City sent a letter regarding the proposed project to these individuals on June 11, 2019. The City did not receive any requests from any tribes during the 30‐day request period, and therefore consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 has been completed.




2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

None of the following environmental factors would be potentially affected by this project, such that a “Potentially Significant Impact” would result, as indicated by the checklist in Chapter 3.0.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy

Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials

Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources

Noise Population/Housing Public Services

Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources

Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

2.1 DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date








3.0 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

3.1 AESTHETICS

Potentially Significant Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:

a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not

limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway

c. In non‐urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

a. Would the project have a substantial effect on a scenic vista? (No Impact)

In Hayward, scenic vistas are characterized by public views of natural topography, open grassland vegetation, rolling hills, and the Bay shoreline.3 While the City is largely urban, with a relatively dense development pattern that can restrict scenic views, higher elevations in the hills and portions of the shoreline provide scenic vistas of the San Francisco Bay and views to the East Bay hills. The project site is located in a generally flat area, and is located approximately 1.5 miles east of the Hayward Regional Shoreline and areas classified as baylands. The site is located approximately 2 miles west of the City’s hillside areas.

The generally level project site is currently developed with a vacant single‐story building and improvements associated with the existing Costco business center, which occupies the remainder of the parcel, as described in Section 1.0, Project Information. Public views in the vicinity of the project site are generally diverse and characterized by the urban setting. There are no scenic vistas or scenic resources in the vicinity of the project site and views of the hills from the project site are generally obstructed by existing surrounding development and mature trees.

The proposed project would result in the redevelopment of the project site with a fueling facility with a canopy that would be approximately 17 ½ feet in height. The fuel facility canopy would be similar in size to existing surrounding buildings, which, including the existing business center, range in height from approximately 15 to 25 feet. The new structure would blend in with existing surrounding development and would not further obstruct the already limited existing views of any scenic vistas from within the site or nearby public vantage points and there would be no impact.

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




b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (No Impact)

The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of any State scenic highways. Interstate 580 (I‐580) from the limits of the City of San Leandro east to the State Route 24 in Oakland, is listed as an Officially Designated State Scenic Highway.4 In addition, I‐580 from the limits of the City of San Leandro west to the Alameda County line is listed as an Eligible State Scenic Highway, but is not officially designated. The officially designated portion of I‐580 is located approximately 3 miles north of the project site. Given this distance, the proposed project would not be visible from this scenic roadway. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on scenic resources located within view of a State scenic highway.

c. In non‐urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

The project site is located within an urbanized area. As noted in Section 1.0, Project Information, the project site is located within the PD zoning district, and would require a Major Modification of an existing Planned Development, which would provide for the review of the physical improvements to the project site, including the scale, massing, and design to ensure compatibility and compliance with City requirements governing scenic quality. Therefore, because site‐specific review of the proposed fuel facility would be required as part of this process, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality, and this impact would be less than significant.

d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

The project site is located in an urbanized area that is subject to existing exterior lighting from the existing Costco business center building and parking area, surrounding development, and street lighting. The proposed project would introduce new minor sources of light and glare to the area in the form of new exterior, under‐canopy lighting for the fueling facility and security lighting for the surrounding parking area.

Fuel facilities typically include overhead lighting in the evening hours and reduced light levels for safety purposes when not in operation in the evening hours. According to the project applicant, recessed under‐canopy lighting would be provided at the gas station to provide lighting during operating hours and a lower level of security lighting after hours. The queuing lanes would be illuminated with standard, free‐standing downward‐pointing lights, each containing two LED fixtures affixed to a 35‐foot light pole. The lighting fixtures would be designed to provide even light distribution for vehicle safety. All lighting would be timer controlled to limit lighting after the fuel facility has closed and employees are gone. The night lighting would remain on to provide security and emergency lighting only at the

4 Ibid.




fuel canopy. All lighting would incorporate the use of cutoff lenses to keep light from overflowing beyond the project boundaries.

Nighttime security lighting proposed as part of the fuel facility is anticipated to be similar to the exterior security lighting that currently exists within the business center property, some of which would be removed to accommodate the proposed fuel facility and some of which would be replaced. Therefore, the introduction of nighttime lighting associated with the fuel facility is not expected to be substantial in the context of existing lighting sources. In addition, the initial lighting and photometric plans for the proposed fuel facility have been reviewed as part of the Major Modification of an Existing Planned Development approval to ensure that the placement of exterior lights eliminates spillover illumination or glare onto adjoining properties to the maximum extent feasible, and does not interfere with the normal operation or enjoyment of adjoining properties. In addition, on‐site lighting would be further reviewed during the Building and Grading Permit processes and the proposed lighting plan would be subject to standard City conditions of approval that require the provision of adequate lighting and placement of fixtures to ensure that spillover light and glare is reduced to the extent feasible, as required by Section 10‐2.640 of the City’s Municipal Code.

Daytime glare would not be substantial as no highly‐reflective glass elements are proposed as part of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and this impact would be less than significant.




3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.





No Impact

Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of

Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use?

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?

d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?

e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?

a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use? (No Impact)

The project site is located within an urbanized area of the City. There are no agricultural uses located within or adjacent to the project site. Additionally, the site is classified as “Urban and Built‐Up Land” by the State Department of Conservation.5 Therefore, development of the proposed project would not convert agricultural land to a non‐agricultural use. The proposed project would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non‐agricultural use and no impact would occur.

5 California, State of, 2016. Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder (map). Website:

maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/ (accessed April 15, 2019).




b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No Impact)

The project site is designated Mixed Industrial (MI) in the Hayward 2040 General Plan and is zoned Planned Development (PD). The project site is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract.6 Therefore, development of the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and no impact would occur.

c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? (No Impact)

The project site is located within an existing urban area zoned PD within the City. The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest uses, and no impact would occur.

d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forestland to non‐forest use? (No Impact)

Refer to Section 3.2.c. The proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest uses, and no impact would occur.

e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use? (No Impact)

Refer to Sections 3.2.a and 3.2.c. The project site is located within an existing urban environment and would not result in the conversion of farmland to non‐agricultural uses or forest land to non‐forest uses. The proposed project would not adversely affect agricultural or forestry resources, and no impact would occur.

6 California, State of, 2015. Alameda County Williamson Act FY 2014/2015 (map). September 28.




3.3 AIR QUALITY

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.





No Impact

Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable

air quality plan?

b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non‐ attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

The project site is within the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD, which regulates air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area. Air quality conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area have improved significantly since the BAAQMD was created in 1955. Ambient concentrations of air pollutants and the number of days during which the region exceeds air quality standards have fallen substantially. In Hayward, and the rest of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (air basin), exceedances of air quality standards occur primarily during meteorological conditions conducive to high pollution levels, such as cold, windless winter nights or hot, sunny summer afternoons.

Within the BAAQMD, ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), and lead (Pb) have been set by both the State of California and the federal government. The State has also set standards for sulfate and visibility. The BAAQMD is under State non‐attainment status for ozone and particulate matter standards. The BAAQMD is classified as non‐attainment for the federal ozone 8‐hour standard and non‐attainment for the federal PM2.5 24‐hour standard.

a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

The applicable air quality plan is the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan (Clean Air Plan),7 which was adopted on April 19, 2017. The Clean Air Plan is a comprehensive plan to improve Bay Area air quality and protect public health. The Clean Air Plan defines control strategies to reduce emissions and ambient concentrations of air pollutants; safeguard public health by reducing exposure to air pollutants that pose the greatest heath risk, with an emphasis on protecting the communities most heavily affected by air pollution; and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to protect the climate. Consistency with the Clean Air Plan can be determined if the project: 1) supports the goals of the Clean Air Plan; 2) includes

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




applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan; and 3) would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan.

Clean Air Plan Goals. The primary goals of the Bay Area Clean Air Plan are to: attain air quality standards; reduce population exposure and protect public health in the Bay Area; and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect climate.

The BAAQMD has established significance thresholds for project construction and operational impacts at a level at which the cumulative impact of exceeding these thresholds would have an adverse impact on the region’s attainment of air quality standards. The health and hazards thresholds were established to help protect public health. As discussed in Section 3.3.b, implementation of the proposed project would result in less‐than‐significant operation‐period emissions and, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1, the project would result in less‐than‐significant construction‐period emissions. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the Clean Air Plan goals.

Clean Air Plan Control Measures. The control strategies of the Clean Air Plan include measures in the following categories: Stationary Source Measures, Transportation Measures, Energy Measures, Building Measures, Agriculture Measures, Natural and Working Lands Measures, Waste Management Measures, Water Measures, and Super‐Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Control Measures.

Stationary Source Control Measures. The stationary source measures, which are designed to reduce emissions from stationary sources such as metal melting facilities, cement kilns, refineries, and glass furnaces, are incorporated into rules adopted by the BAAQMD and then enforced by the BAAQMD’s Permit and Inspection programs. Since the project would not include any stationary sources, the Stationary Source Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the project.

Transportation Control Measures. The BAAQMD identifies Transportation Measures as part of the Clean Air Plan to decrease emissions of criteria pollutants, TACs, and GHGs by reducing demand for motor vehicle travel, promoting efficient vehicles and transit service, decarbonizing transportation fuels, and electrifying motor vehicles and equipment. Many of the Transportation Measures work to encourage alternative transportation, including transit, ridesharing, bicycle, and pedestrian travel, and encourage efficient plane, freight, truck, vessel, and harbor craft fleet, and would not be applicable to the proposed project. The Transportation Measures that would be applicable to the proposed project include TR2 – Trip Reduction Programs and TR10 – Land Use Strategies as the proposed project would result in the redevelopment of an infill site with a fuel facility that would provide fuel stations near existing retail, residential, restaurant, light industrial, and manufacturing uses, which would include vehicles that are already accounted for in the retail trip generation (i.e., internal trips), and vehicles already traveling on an adjacent roadway that divert to the fuel station (i.e., pass‐by trips). Therefore, the project would promote the BAAQMD’s initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled.

Energy Control Measures. The Clean Air Plan also includes Energy Measures, which are designed to reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants, TACs, and GHGs by decreasing the amount of electricity consumed in the Bay Area, as well as decreasing the carbon intensity of the electricity used by switching to less GHG‐intensive fuel sources for electricity generation. Since these measures apply to electrical utility providers and local government agencies (and not individual projects), the energy control measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the project.




Building Control Measures. The BAAQMD has authority to regulate emissions from certain sources in buildings such as boilers and water heaters, but has limited authority to regulate buildings themselves. Therefore, the strategies in the control measures for this sector focus on working with local governments that do have authority over local building codes, to facilitate adoption of best GHG control practices and policies. As required by the State of California, the proposed project would be required to comply with the latest California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) standards. Therefore, the Building Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the project.

Agriculture Control Measures. The Agriculture Control Measures are designed to primarily reduce emissions of methane. Since the project does not include any agricultural activities, the Agriculture Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the project.

Natural and Working Lands Control Measures. The Natural and Working Lands Control Measures focus on increasing carbon sequestration on rangelands and wetlands, as well as encouraging local governments to ordinances that promote urban‐tree plantings. Since the project does not include the disturbance of any rangelands or wetlands, the Natural and Working Lands Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the project.

Waste Management Control Measures. The Waste Management Control Measures focus on reducing or capturing methane emissions from landfills and composting facilities, diverting organic materials away from landfills, and increasing waste diversion rates through efforts to reduce, reuse, and recycle. The project would comply with local requirements for waste management (e.g., recycling and composting services), including Article 10 of the Municipal Code, Construction and Demolition Debris Waste Reduction and Recycling Requirements, which would divert demolition and construction debris from landfills, and process and return the materials into the economic mainstream, thereby conserving natural resources and stimulating markets for recycled and salvaged materials. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the Waste Management Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan.

Water Control Measures. The Water Control Measures focus on reducing emissions of criteria pollutants, TACs, and GHGs by encouraging water conservation, limiting GHG emissions from publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), and promoting the use of biogas recovery systems. Since these measures apply to POTWs and local government agencies (and not individual projects), the Water Control Measures are not applicable to the project. However, as noted above, the project would be required to comply with the latest CALGreen standards, which includes a variety of different measures, including reduction of wastewater and water use. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, which would reduce outdoor water use. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any of the water conservation and efficiency measures.

Super GHG Control Measures. The Super‐GHG Control Measures are designed to facilitate the adoption of best GHG control practices and policies through the BAAQMD and local government agencies, such as reducing methane from landfills and farming activities through the Waste Management Control Measures and the Agricultural Control Measures, enforce applicable regulations on the servicing of existing air conditioning units in motor vehicles, tracking progress in adoption and implementation of GHG reduction measures in local plans, and developing a GHG air monitoring plan for the Bay Area. Many of these measures do not apply to individual projects; however, as identified above, the project




would be consistent with the applicable Waste Management Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with the Super‐GHG Control Measures.

Clean Air Plan Implementation. As discussed above, the proposed project would generally implement the applicable measures outlined in the Clean Air Plan, including Transportation Control Measures, Building Control Measures, Waste Management Control Measures, and Water Control Measures. Therefore, the project would include applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan and would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)

Both State and federal governments have established health‐based ambient air quality standards for six criteria air pollutants: CO, ozone (O3), NO2, SO2, Pb, and suspended particulate matter (PM). These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. As identified above, the BAAQMD is under State non‐attainment status for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards. The Air Basin is also classified as non‐attainment for both the federal ozone 8‐hour standard and the federal PM2.5 24‐hour standard.

Air quality standards for the proposed project are regulated by the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, to meet air quality standards for operational‐related criteria air pollutant and air precursor impacts, the project must not:

Contribute to CO concentrations exceeding the State ambient air quality standards;

Generate average daily construction emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx) or PM2.5 greater than 54 pounds per day or PM10 exhaust emissions greater than 82 pounds per day; or

Generate average operational emissions of ROG, NOx or PM2.5 of greater than 10 tons per year or 54 pounds per day or PM10 emissions greater than 15 tons per year or 82 pounds per day.

The following sections describe the proposed project’s construction‐ and operation‐related air quality impacts and CO impacts.

Construction Emissions. During construction, short‐term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate matter emissions (i.e., fugitive dust) generated by demolition, grading, hauling, and other activities. Emissions from construction equipment are also anticipated and would include CO, NOx, ROG, directly‐emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as diesel exhaust particulate matter.

Site preparation and project construction would involve demolition, grading, paving, and other activities. Construction‐related effects on air quality from the proposed project would be greatest during the site preparation phase due to the disturbance of soils. If not properly controlled, these




activities would temporarily generate particulate emissions. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit dirt and mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. PM10 emissions would depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of operating equipment. Larger dust particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site.

Water or other soil stabilizers can be used to control dust, resulting in emission reductions of 50 percent or more. The BAAQMD has established standard measures for reducing fugitive dust emissions (PM10). With the implementation of these Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would not result in adverse air quality impacts.

In addition to dust‐related PM10 emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment powered by gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, SO2, NOx, ROGs and some soot particulate (PM2.5 and PM10) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic congestion in the area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles are delayed. These emissions would be temporary and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction site.

Construction emissions were estimated for the project using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2, consistent with BAAQMD recommendations. Approximately 3,624 tons of demolition waste would be generated by the proposed project. The proposed project would require up to 6,475 cubic yards of cut to be excavated from the site. Project construction would begin in Spring/Summer 2020 and would occur for approximately 3 to 4 months. Demolition activities are anticipated to occur over an approximately 1 month period and grading would occur over an approximate 5 day period. An overlap of demolition and grading activities is anticipated. Exterior work such as foundation installation, construction, and installation of pavements is expected to occur over a 2 to 3 month period. Construction‐related emissions are presented in Table 3.A. CalEEMod output sheets are included in Appendix A.

Table 3.A: Project Construction Emissions in Pounds Per Day

Project Construction ROG NOx Exhaust PM10

Fugitive Dust PM10

Exhaust PM2.5

Fugitive Dust PM2.5

Average Daily Emissions 2.0 15.2 0.7 1.3 0.6 0.4

BAAQMD Thresholds 54.0 54.0 54.0 BMP 82.0 BMP

Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No Source: LSA (July 2019).

As shown in Table 3.A, construction emissions associated with the project would be less than significant for ROG, NOx, PM2.5, and PM10 exhaust emissions. Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD, the following Basic Construction Mitigation Measures would be required to reduce construction fugitive dust impacts to a less‐than‐significant level as follows:




Mitigation Measure AIR‐1: In order to meet the BAAQMD fugitive dust threshold, the following BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be implemented:

All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off‐site shall be covered.

All visible mud or dirt tracked‐out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.

All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

A publicly‐visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Hayward regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Operational Emissions. Long‐term air pollutant emission impacts are those associated with mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), energy sources (e.g., electricity and natural gas), and area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment) related to the proposed project.

PM10 emissions result from running exhaust, tire and brake wear, and the entrainment of dust into the atmosphere from vehicles traveling on paved roadways. Entrainment of PM10 occurs when vehicle tires pulverize small rocks and pavement and the vehicle wakes generate airborne dust. The contribution of tire and brake wear is small compared to the other PM emission processes. Gasoline‐powered engines have small rates of particulate matter emissions compared with diesel‐powered vehicles.

Energy source emissions result from activities for which electricity and natural gas are used in buildings. The quantity of emissions is the product of usage intensity (i.e., the amount of electricity or natural gas) and the emission factor of the fuel source. Major sources of energy demand include building mechanical systems, such as heating and air conditioning, lighting, and plug‐in electronics, such as refrigerators or computers. Greater building or appliance efficiency reduces the amount of energy




required for a given activity and thus lowers the resultant emissions. The emission factor is determined by the fuel source, with cleaner energy sources, like renewable energy, producing fewer emissions than conventional sources.

Typically, area source emissions consist of direct sources of air emissions located at the project site, including architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment. Area source emissions associated with the project would include emissions from the use of landscaping equipment and the use of consumer products (e.g., cleaning products and insecticides).

Emission estimates for operation of the project were calculated using CalEEMod. Model results are shown in Table 3.B. The primary emissions associated with the project are regional in nature, meaning that air pollutants are rapidly dispersed on release or, in the case of vehicle emissions associated with the project; emissions are released in other areas of the Air Basin. The daily emissions associated with project operational trip generation, energy, and area sources are identified in Table 3.B for ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. The results shown in Table 3.B indicate the project would not exceed the significance criteria for daily ROG, NO2, PM10 or PM2.5 emissions; therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant effect on regional air quality and mitigation would not be required. This impact would be less than significant.

Table 3.B: Project Operational Emissions

ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5

Pounds Per Day

Area Source Emissions 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Energy Source Emissions <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Mobile Source Emissions 3.4 10.9 3.1 0.9

Total Emissions 3.5 10.9 3.1 0.9

BAAQMD Thresholds 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0

Exceed Threshold? No No No No

Tons Per Year

Area Source Emissions <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0

Energy Source Emissions <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Mobile Source Emissions 0.6 2.2 0.6 0.2

Total Emissions 0.6 2.2 0.6 0.2

BAAQMD Thresholds 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0

Exceed Threshold? No No No No Source: LSA (July 2019).

Localized CO Impacts. Emissions and ambient concentrations of CO have decreased dramatically in the Bay Area with the introduction of the catalytic converter in 1975. No exceedances of the State or federal CO standards have been recorded at Bay Area monitoring stations since 1991. The BAAQMD’s 2017 CEQA Guidelines include recommended methodologies for quantifying concentrations of localized CO levels for proposed transportation projects. A screening level analysis using guidance from the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines was performed to determine the impacts of the project. The screening methodology provides a conservative indication of whether the implementation of a proposed project would result in significant CO emissions. According to the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, a proposed project would result




in a less‐than‐significant impact to localized CO concentrations if the following screening criteria are met:

The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, and the regional transportation plan and local congestion management agency plans.

Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.

The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, or below‐grade roadway).

Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) for designated roads or highways, a regional transportation plan, or other agency plans. According to the Trip Generation Analysis,8 the proposed project would generate approximately 190 AM peak hour trips and 194 PM peak hour trips; therefore, the project’s contribution to peak hour traffic volumes at intersections in the vicinity of the project site would be well below 44,000 vehicles per hour, as no intersection is anticipated to have a peak hour traffic volume of more than 6,000 vehicles under any conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in localized CO concentrations that exceed State or federal standards and this impact would be less than significant.

c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)

Sensitive receptors are defined as residential uses, schools, daycare centers, nursing homes, and medical centers. Individuals particularly vulnerable to diesel particulate matter are children, whose lung tissue is still developing, and the elderly, who may have serious health problems that can be aggravated by exposure to diesel particulate matter. Exposure from diesel exhaust associated with construction activity contributes to both cancer and chronic non‐cancer health risks.

According to the BAAQMD, a project would result in a significant impact if it would: individually expose sensitive receptors to TACs resulting in an increased cancer risk greater than 10.0 in one million, increased non‐cancer risk of greater than 1.0 on the hazard index (chronic or acute), or an annual average ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). A significant cumulative impact would occur if the project in combination with other projects located within a 1,000‐foot radius of the project site would expose sensitive receptors to TACs resulting in an increased cancer risk greater than 100.0 in one million, an increased non‐cancer risk of greater than 10.0 on the hazard index (chronic), or an ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.8 µg/m3 on an annual average basis. Impacts from substantial pollutant concentrations are discussed below.

8 Kittelson & Associates, Inc., 2018. Transportation Impact Analysis for the Hayward Costco Business Center

Fuel Station Addition. September.




The closest sensitive receptors include the residences located approximately 240 feet southwest of the project boundary across Hathaway Avenue. The residences would be approximately 400 feet southwest of the nearest fueling station. Construction of the proposed project may expose these nearby sensitive receptors to airborne particulates, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel‐fueled vehicles and equipment). However, construction contractors would be required to implement Mitigation Measure AIR‐1 (the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures). With implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1, project construction emissions would be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level.

Once the project is constructed, the proposed project would include a fuel facility with 12 fueling stations with dispensers on each side (for a total of 24 pumps). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has developed an Air Quality and Land Use Handbook9 which is intended to serve as a general reference guide for evaluating and reducing air pollution impacts associated with new projects that go through the land use decision‐making process. The CARB Handbook recommends avoiding siting new, sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). While the southernmost boundary of the project site would be located approximately 240 feet northeast of the nearest sensitive receptor, the nearest fueling station would be located over 400 feet northeast of the closest sensitive receptors. In addition, as identified in Table 3.B, project operational emissions of criteria pollutants would be below BAAQMD significance thresholds; thus, they are not likely to have a significant impact on these residences given the distance and the dispersion that would occur. The proposed fuel facility would be required to comply with BAAQMD rules for gasoline vapor recovery, including Regulation 8 Organic Compounds, Rule 7 Gasoline Dispensing Facilities. In addition, any projects involving the vapor recovery system at gasoline dispensing facilities (GDF’s) must have a permit to operate authorized by the BAAQMD prior to construction. This includes the replacement or installation of tanks and/or vapor recovery lines, dispenser modifications and the addition of nozzles to a facility. Piping plans illustrating a CARB certified system are required. The GDF permit requirements are outlined in Section 3.2 of the BAAQMD’s Permit Handbook.10 Compliance with BAAQMD rules would further limit doses and exposures, reducing potential health risk related to gasoline vapors to a level that is not significant. Therefore, nearby sensitive receptors are not expected to be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during project construction or operation, and potential impacts would be considered less than significant.

d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

During project construction, some odors may be present due to diesel exhaust. However, these odors would be temporary and limited to the construction period. The fuel facility could release localized odors; however, all the gasoline dispensers would be equipped with vapor recovery systems. In addition, such odors in general would be confined mainly to the project site and would readily

9 California Air Resources Board, 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.

April. 10 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2018. Permit Handbook. October 23. Website:

www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/engineering/permit‐handbook/baaqmd‐permit‐handbook.pdf (accessed June 2019).




dissipate. Therefore, objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people would not occur as a result of the project and this impact would be less than significant.




3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES





No Impact

Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through

habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat

modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (No Impact)

There are no known occurring special‐status species on the project site. Due to the developed nature of the project site and the presence of buildings and associated hardscape, it is unlikely that the project site would support any special status species.11 Therefore, no impact to special‐status species would occur with the proposed project.

11 Hayward, City of, 2014a, op. cit.




b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (No Impact)

The project site is classified as a Developed Area on Figure 7‐1 of the City’s General Plan Background Report and does not support any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities.12 Therefore, no impact related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would occur with the proposed project.

c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (No Impact)

The project site is within a developed area and is not located in an area that supports wetlands, drainages, or water bodies as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.13 The proposed project would not result in the direct removal, filling, or hydrological interruption of such wetlands. Therefore, no impact to federally protected wetlands would occur with the proposed project.

d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)

The project site is a developed, landscaped area that supports wildlife species typically associated with urban and suburban areas. Because the project site is within a developed area, there are no major wildlife movement corridors that pass through or are adjacent to the site. Existing trees are located throughout and around the project site. Trees and other landscape vegetation generally have the potential to support nests of common native bird species. All native birds, regardless of their regulatory status, are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Wildlife Code. The proposed project would result in the removal of 17 trees in total, 4 of which are mature. If such removal is conducted during the breeding season (February through August), vegetation removal and construction activities could directly impact nesting birds by removing trees or vegetation that support active nests. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less‐than‐significant level.

Mitigation Measure BIO‐1: If feasible, all vegetation removal shall be conducted during the non‐breeding season (i.e., September 1 to January 31) to avoid direct impacts to nesting birds. If such work is scheduled during the breeding season from February to August, a qualified biologist or ornithologist shall conduct a pre‐construction survey to determine if any birds are nesting within the project site. The pre‐construction survey shall be conducted within 15 days prior to the start of work from March through May (since there is a higher potential for birds to initiate nesting during this period), and within 30 days prior to the start of work from June through July. If active nests are found during the survey, the biologist or ornithologist shall determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work will be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The

12 Ibid. 13 Ibid.




size of the buffer shall be determined by the biologist or ornithologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and would be based on the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, and the expected types of disturbance.

e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

The City of Hayward requires a permit for the removal of any trees with the following characteristics:

Trees having a minimum trunk diameter of eight inches measured 54 inches above the ground. When measuring a multi‐trunk tree, the diameters of the largest three trunks shall be added together.

Street trees or other required trees such as those required as a condition of approval, Use Permit, or other Zoning requirement, regardless of size.

All memorial trees dedicated by an entity recognized by the City, and all specimen trees that define a neighborhood or community.

Trees of the following species that have reached a minimum of four inches diameter trunk size: (a) Big Leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum); (b) California Buckeye (Aesculus californica); (c) Madrone (Arbutus menziesii); (d) Western Dogwood (Cornus nuttallii); (e) California Sycamore (Platanus racemose); (f) Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia); (g) Canyon Live Oak (Quercus chrysolepis); (h) Blue Oak (Quercus douglassii); (i) Oregon White Oak (Quercus garryana); (j) California Black Oak (Quercus kelloggi); (k) Valley Oak (Quercus lobate); (l) Interior Live Oak (Quercus wislizenii); and, (m) California Bay (Umbellularia californica).

As noted above, 17 existing trees on the project site would be removed and 21 new trees would be planted as a part of the proposed project. All of the trees that would be removed would be classified as protected trees pursuant to the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance as they were installed pursuant to a condition of approval for the original development of the site. The project applicant would be required to obtain a tree removal permit from the City prior to removal of these trees.

The City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance requires all protected trees that are removed to be replaced with like‐size, like‐kind trees or an equal value tree or trees.14 An arborist report (available in Appendix B) prepared for the project site determined that the proposed project would result in the removal of 17 trees valued at a total of $14,220. The proposed project would include the planting of 21 trees valued at $15,380.15 Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and this impact would be less than significant.

14 Hayward, City of, 2019. Hayward Municipal Code. Chapter 10, Article 15: Tree Preservation. June 29 (as

amended). 15 Arborwell Professional Tree Management, 2018. Arborist Report & Tree Appraisal for Costco Business Center

#823 at 22330 Hathaway Avenue, Hayward, CA. October 1.




f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (No Impact)

There are no Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved habitat conservation plans that apply to the project site, and no impact would occur.




3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES





No Impact

Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a

historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource

pursuant to §15064.5? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)

For a cultural resource to be considered a historic resource (i.e., eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources [CRHR]), it generally must be 50 years or older. Under CEQA, historical resources can include pre‐contact (i.e., Native American) archaeological deposits, historic‐period archaeological deposits, historic buildings, and historic districts. The existing building on the project site was built in the early 1980s16 and has not been identified as a historic resource by the City.17,18

Although no archaeological deposits have been recorded at the project site, there is the potential for previously unknown pre‐contact archaeological deposits to be unearthed during construction activities. Should project excavation unearth intact archaeological deposits, a substantial adverse change to a historical resource would occur due to the partial or complete destruction of the resource. This destruction would undermine the integrity of the resource, such that it would no longer be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. As such, project ground‐disturbing activities could have a substantial adverse change on buried archaeological deposits that qualify as historical resources, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and could materially impair pre‐contact archaeological deposits. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to historic archaeological resources to a less‐than‐significant level.

Mitigation Measure CUL‐1: Cultural resources materials may include pre‐contact resources such as flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone, ceramics, and fire‐affected rock, as well as historic resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or structural remnants.

The applicant shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project site for archaeological deposits, and include the following directive on the project grading plans:

16 Hayward City of, 2002. City of Hayward Planning Commission Agenda Report. Modification of Planned

Development No. PL‐2002‐0003/0002 – Bruce Creager of Barghausen Consulting Engineers for Costco Wholesale (Applicant)/The Price Club Company DBA Costco Wholesale (Owner). December 19.

17 Hayward, City of, 2014a, op. cit. 18 CIRCA: Historic Property Development, 2010. City of Hayward Historical Resources Survey & Inventory Report.

July.




“The subsurface of the construction site is sensitive for archaeological deposits. If archaeological deposits are encountered during project subsurface construction, all ground‐disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist shall assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials. Archaeological deposits can include, but are not limited to, shellfish remains; bones, including human remains; flakes of, and tools made from, obsidian, chert, and basalt; mortars and pestles; historical trash deposits containing glass, ceramics, and metal artifacts; and structural remains, including foundations and wells.”

The City shall verify that the language has been included in the grading plans prior to issuance of a grading permit or other permitted project action that includes ground‐disturbing activities on the project site.

If the deposits are uncovered on the site and found to be significant (i.e., eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources), the applicant shall be responsible for funding and implementing appropriate mitigation measures. Mitigation measures may include recordation of the archaeological deposit, data recovery and analysis, and public outreach regarding the scientific and cultural importance of the discovery. Upon completion of the selected mitigations, a report documenting methods and findings shall be prepared, and the final report shall be submitted to the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University. Significant archaeological materials shall be submitted to an appropriate curation facility and used for public interpretive displays, as appropriate and in coordination with a local Native American tribal representative.

b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)), if the project would affect an archaeological deposit, the lead agency must first determine whether the deposit is a “historical resource” (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)). If the deposit is not a historical resource, the lead agency must determine if the deposit is a “unique archaeological resource.”

Based on the significance criteria identified above, the proposed project would have a significant impact on the environment if ground‐disturbing activities would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource. A substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource would occur from its demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of the resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1)). For the proposed project, the significance of an archaeological resource would be materially impaired if ground disturbance would alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of the resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources. The proposed project could affect previously unidentified archaeological deposits, thereby causing a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5. However, potential impacts would be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL‐1.




c. Would the project disturb any humans remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)

The potential to uncover Native American human remains exists in locations throughout California. Although not anticipated, human remains could be identified during site preparation and grading activities and could result in a significant impact to human remains. Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which requires compliance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code, would reduce potential adverse impacts to human remains to a less‐than‐significant level.

Mitigation Measure CUL‐2: Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that, in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours of this identification. The NAHC will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendent (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.

Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code states that the NAHC, upon notification of the discovery of Native American human remains pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, shall immediately notify those persons (i.e., the MLD) it believes to be descended from the deceased. With permission of the landowner or a designated representative, the MLD may inspect the remains and any associated cultural materials and make recommendations for treatment or disposition of the remains and associated grave goods. The MLD shall provide recommendations or preferences for treatment of the remains and associated cultural materials within 48 hours of being granted access to the site.




3.6 ENERGY





No Impact

Would the project: a. Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due

to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation?

b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful,

inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

The proposed project would increase the demand for electricity, natural gas, and gasoline. The discussion and analysis provided below is based on data included in the CalEEMod output, which is included in Appendix A.

Construction‐Period Energy Use. The anticipated construction schedule assumes that the proposed project would be built over a 3 to 4 month period. The proposed project would require demolition, grading, site preparation, and building activities during construction.

Construction of the proposed project would require energy for the manufacturing and transportation of construction materials, preparation of the site for demolition and grading activities, and construction of the fuel facility. Petroleum fuels (e.g., diesel and gasoline) would be the primary sources of energy for these activities. Construction activities are not anticipated to result in an inefficient use of energy as gasoline and diesel fuel would be supplied by construction contractors who would conserve the use of their supplies to minimize their costs on the project. Energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources. In addition, to increase energy efficiency on the site during project construction, the project would restrict equipment idling times to 5 minutes or less and/or would require construction workers to shut off idle equipment, as required by Mitigation Measure AIR‐1. In addition, construction activities are not anticipated to result in an inefficient use of energy as gasoline and diesel fuel would be supplied by construction contractors who would conserve the use of their supplies to minimize their costs on the project. Energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources. Therefore, construction energy impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Energy Use. Energy use consumed by the proposed project would be associated with natural gas use, electricity consumption, and fuel used for vehicle trips associated with the project. Energy and natural gas consumption was estimated for the project using default energy intensities by building type in CalEEMod. In addition, the proposed buildings would be constructed to CALGreen standards as required by the State, which were included in CalEEMod inputs. Electricity and natural gas usage estimates associated with the proposed project are shown in Table 3.C.




In addition, the proposed project would result in energy usage associated with gasoline to fuel project‐related trips. Based on the CalEEMod analysis, the proposed project would result in approximately 1,427,123 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per year. The average fuel economy for light‐duty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and SUVs) in the United States has steadily increased from about 14.9 miles per gallon (mpg) in 1980 to 22.0 mpg in 2015.19 Therefore, using the USEPA fuel economy estimates for 2015, the proposed project would result in the consumption of approximately 64,869 gallons of gasoline per year. Table 3.C, below, shows the estimated potential increased electricity and natural gas demand associated with the proposed project.

Table 3.C: Estimated Annual Energy Use of Proposed Project

Land Use Electricity Use (kWh per year)

Natural Gas Use (therms per year)

Gasoline (gallons per year)

Fuel Facility 12,807 419 64,869

Parking Lot 10,080 0 0

Total 22,887 419 64,869 Source: LSA (May 2019).

As shown in Table 3.C, the estimated potential increased electricity demand associated with the proposed project is 22,887 kilowatt‐hours (kWh) per year. In 2017, California consumed approximately 288,614 gigawatt‐hours (GWh) or 288,614,000,000 kWh.20 Of this total, Alameda County consumed 11,113 GWh or 11,112,655,423 kWh.21 Therefore, electricity demand associated with the proposed project would be less than 0.01 percent of Alameda County’s total electricity demand.

In addition, as shown in Table 3.C, the estimated potential increased natural gas demand associated with the proposed project is 419 therms per year. In 2017, California consumed approximately 12,571 million therms or 12,571,000,000 therms, while Alameda County consumed approximately 379 million therms or approximately 379,032,277 therms.22 Therefore, natural gas demand associated with the proposed project would be less than 0.01 percent of Alameda County’s total natural gas demand.

In addition, the proposed project would result in energy usage associated with gasoline to fuel project‐related trips. As shown above in Table 3.C, vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would consume approximately 64,869 gallons of gasoline per year. In 2015, vehicles in California consumed approximately 15.1 billion gallons of gasoline.23 Therefore, gasoline demand generated by vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would be a minimal fraction of gasoline and diesel fuel consumption in California.

19 U.S. Department of Transportation. “Table 4‐23: Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles.” Website:

www.bts.gov/archive/publications/national_transportation_statistics/table_04_23/ (accessed May 2019). 20 California Energy Commission, 2017. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Electricity

Consumption by County. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed May 2019). 21 Ibid. 22 California Energy Commission, 2017. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Gas Consumption by

County. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx (accessed May 2019). 23 California Energy Commission, 2017. California Gasoline Data, Facts, and Statistics. Website:

www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/transportation_data/gasoline (accessed April 2019).




In addition, the proposed project would be constructed to CALGreen standards, which would help to reduce energy and natural gas consumption. As discussed further in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would also be consistent with the applicable policies in the City’s Climate Action Plan, including LU‐1.8 Green Building and Landscape Requirements, M‐8.4 Automobile Commute Trip Reduction, NR‐2.6 Greenhouse Gas Reduction in New Development, NR‐4.1 Energy Efficiency Measures, NR‐4.3 Efficient Construction and Development Practices, NR‐6.9 Water Conservation, PFS‐7.4 Solid Waste Diversion, PFS‐7.12 Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling, and PFS‐7.21 Mandatory Recycling. The proposed project would be consistent with these measures as the project would result in the redevelopment of an infill site with a fuel facility that would provide fuel stations near existing retail, residential, restaurant, light industrial, and manufacturing uses, which would include vehicles that are already accounted for in the retail trip generation (i.e., internal trips), and vehicles already traveling on an adjacent roadway that divert to the fuel station (i.e., pass‐by trips), therefore reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled, which would reduce gasoline and diesel fuel consumption. In addition the project would comply with State local requirements for waste management, including construction and demolition debris waste reduction and recycling requirements and CalRecycle Diversion and Recycling Mandate, reducing energy generated by land filling of refuse material.

The proposed project would implement energy reduction design features and comply with the most recent energy building standards consistent with applicable plans and policies. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel or energy and would incorporate renewable energy or energy efficiency measures into building design, equipment use, and transportation. Therefore, construction and operation period impacts related to consumption of energy resources would be less than significant.

b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

In 2002, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1389, which required the California Energy Commission (CEC) to develop an integrated energy plan every two years for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels, for the California Energy Policy Report. The plan calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for zero emission (ZE) vehicles and their infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban designs that reduce VMT and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.

The CEC adopted the 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report.24 The 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report provides the results of the CEC’s assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California. Many of these issues will require action if the State is to meet its climate, energy, air quality, and other environmental goals while maintaining energy reliability and controlling costs. The 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report covers a broad range of topics, including implementation of Senate Bill 350, integrated resource planning, distributed energy resources, transportation electrification, solutions to

24 California Energy Commission, 2017. 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy Commission.

Publication Number: CEC‐100‐2017‐001‐CMF.




increase resiliency in the electricity sector, energy efficiency, transportation electrification, barriers faced by disadvantaged communities, demand response, transmission and landscape‐scale planning, the California Energy Demand Preliminary Forecast, the preliminary transportation energy demand forecast, renewable gas (in response to Senate Bill 1383), updates on Southern California electricity reliability, natural gas outlook, and climate adaptation and resiliency.

As indicated above, energy usage on the project site during construction and grading would be temporary in nature. In addition, energy usage associated with operation of the proposed project would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources and energy impacts would be negligible at the regional level. Because California’s energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the project’s total impact to regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed project would not conflict with California’s energy conservation plans as described in the CEC’s 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Thus, as shown above, the project would avoid or reduce the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy and not result in any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of energy. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation and this impact would be less than significant.




3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS





No Impact

Would the project: a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse

effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?

b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that

would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk

of loss, injury, or death involving:

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

Fault rupture is generally expected to occur along active fault traces that have exhibited signs of recent geological movement (i.e., within the last 11,000 years). Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones delineate areas around active faults with potential surface fault rupture hazards that would require specific geological investigations prior to approval of certain kinds of development within the delineated area. The Hayward fault, which trends northwestward through the City, is located approximately 1 mile east of the project site. There are no mapped faults within or adjacent to the project site, and the project site is not located within an Alquist‐Priolo Zone.25 Therefore, the

25 California Department of Conservation, 2019. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation (map). Website:

maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ (accessed May 3, 2019). April 4.




proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects related to fault rupture, and this impact would be less than significant.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

The project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area, a region of intense seismic activity. Ground shaking is likely to occur within the life of the project as a result of future earthquakes. As noted above, the Hayward Fault is approximately 1 mile east of the project site. Other active faults within the area that are likely to produce large earthquakes include the Calaveras, located approximately 9.5 miles east, and San Andreas, located approximately 19 miles southwest.26 Due to the location of the project site in a seismically active area, strong seismic ground shaking at the project site is highly probable during the life of the project. The intensity of ground shaking would depend on the characteristics of the fault, distance from the fault, the earthquake magnitude and duration, and site‐specific geologic conditions.

The City currently requires projects to comply with the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) (Title 24, California Code of Regulations) or the applicable building code in effect at the time of the building permit application,27 which provides for stringent construction requirements on projects in areas of high seismic risk based on numerous inter‐related factors. It is acknowledged that seismic hazards cannot be completely eliminated, even with implementation of advanced building practices. However, the seismic design standards of the CBC are intended to prevent catastrophic structural failure in the most severe earthquakes currently anticipated.

The 2019 CBC will become effective on January 1, 2020. The 2019 CBC does not include any substantial changes to the seismic design standards included in the 2016 CBC.28 Therefore, compliance with the applicable CBC, which is required by both the City and the State, would ensure that the potential impacts associated with ground shaking would be less than significant.

iii. Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)

Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon primarily associated with saturated soil layers located close to the ground surface. During ground shaking, these soils lose strength and acquire “mobility” sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, saturated, fine‐grained sands that lie relatively close to the ground surface. However, loose sands that contain a significant amount of fines (i.e., silt and clay) may also liquefy. Lateral spreading is a form of horizontal displacement of soil toward an open channel or other “free” face, such as an excavation boundary. In a lateral spread failure, a layer of ground at the surface is carried on an underlying layer of liquefied material over a nearly flat surface toward a river channel or other bank. The lateral spreading hazard tends to mirror the liquefaction hazard for a site.

26 Ibid. 27 Hayward, City of, Municipal Code, Chapter 9, Article 1. 28 California Department of General Service, Building Standards Commission, 2019. California Building

Standards Commission Information Bulletin 19‐04. June 24.




The project site is located in an area that has been identified by the California Geological Survey (CGS) as being susceptible to seismically‐induced liquefaction.29 The City requires the completion of a geotechnical investigation for new construction sites within a fault zone, liquefaction zone, and/or a landslide zone.30 Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO‐1, which requires the project applicant to incorporate all of the recommendations included in a design‐level geotechnical investigation into the project development plans, would reduce the potential impacts related to liquefaction to a less‐than‐significant level.

Mitigation Measure GEO‐1: A licensed Geotechnical Engineer, or their representative, shall be retained to perform a design‐level geotechnical investigation once site development plans are final. The design‐level geotechnical investigation shall include evaluation of potential geologic hazards related to seismic‐related ground failure as a result of liquefaction and lateral spreading and the development of detailed recommendations for design and construction of the fuel station as well as installation of below grade fuel tanks and other utilities. The recommendations in the design‐level geotechnical investigation for the project shall be incorporated into all design and engineering plans. At the end of construction, the Geotechnical Engineer shall provide a letter regarding contractor compliance with project plans and specifications with the recommendations of the design‐level geotechnical investigation and any supplemental recommendations issued during construction. The letter shall be submitted for review to the City of Hayward Building Division.

iv. Landslides? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

A landslide generally occurs on relatively steep slopes and/or on slopes underlain by weak materials. The project site is relatively level and is not located next to any slopes. Furthermore, the project site is not located within an area that would be subject to earthquake‐induced landslides.31 Therefore, the potential of the proposed project to exposure people or structures to risk as a result of landslides would be less than significant.

b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)

Topsoil is defined as the upper part of the soil profile that is relatively rich in humus and is technically known as the A‐horizon of the soil profile.32 Grading and earthmoving during project construction has the potential to result in erosion and loss of topsoil. Exposed soils could be entrained in stormwater runoff and transported off the project site. However, this impact would be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level through compliance with water quality control measures, which include the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), as required by Mitigation Measure HYD‐1 (refer to Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality). Although designed primarily to protect stormwater quality, the SWPPP would incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize

29 California Department of Conservation, 2019, op. cit. 30 Hayward, City of, 2014b. Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document, Hazards Element, Policy HAZ‐2.2.

January. 31 Hayward, City of, 2014a, op. cit. 32 California State Mining and Geology Board, 2014. Surface Mining Reclamation Act Regulations. California

Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 2, Chapter 8, Subchapter 1.




impacts related to erosion to a less‐than‐significant level. Additional details regarding the SWPPP are provided in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality of this Initial Study.

c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)

As discussed in Section 3.7.a, site soils would not be subject to landslides, but do have the potential for liquefaction‐induced settlement and lateral spreading. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO‐1 and compliance with the requirements of the CBC would ensure that potential risks to people and structures as a result of liquefaction would be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level.

d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)

Expansive soils are characterized by the potential for shrinking and swelling as the moisture content of the soil decreases and increases, respectively. Shrink‐swell potential is influenced by the amount and type of clay minerals present and can be measured by the percent change of the soil volume. Soils at the project site contain clay, and therefore have shrinking and swelling potential.33 However, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO‐1 and compliance with the requirements of the CBC would ensure that potential risks to people and structures as a result of expansive soils would be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level.

e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (No Impact)

Development of the proposed project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems.

f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation)

There are no known paleontological resources within or near the project site. According to a search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) at the University of California, Berkeley, there are 1,563 known paleontological resources in Alameda County, 5 of which, consisting of Pleistocene‐age fossil remains, have been recovered from the City. Each of these known resources was recovered more than 0.25 mile from the project site. However, the possibility of accidental discovery of paleontological resources during project construction cannot be discounted. Therefore,

33 Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2018. Web Soil Survey (map). Website: websoilsurvey.sc.egov.

usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed May 3, 2019).




implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO‐2, described below, would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less‐than‐significant level.

Mitigation Measure GEO‐2: Should paleontological resources be encountered during project subsurface construction activities, all ground‐disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. For purposes of this mitigation, a “qualified paleontologist” shall be an individual with the following qualifications: (1) a graduate degree in paleontology or geology and/or a person with a demonstrated publication record in peer‐reviewed paleontological journals; (2) at least two years of professional experience related to paleontology; (3) proficiency in recognizing fossils in the field and determining their significance; (4) expertise in local geology, stratigraphy, and biostratigraphy; and (5) experience collecting vertebrate fossils in the field. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant and project activities cannot avoid them, measures shall be implemented to ensure that the project does not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the paleontological resource. Measures may include monitoring, recording the fossil locality, data recovery and analysis, a final report, and accessioning the fossil material and technical report to a paleontological repository. Upon completion of the assessment, a report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review. If paleontological materials are recovered, this report also shall be submitted to a paleontological repository such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology, along with significant paleontological materials. Public educational outreach may also be appropriate.

The project applicant shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project site for paleontological resources and shall verify that the following directive has been included in the project grading plans:

“The subsurface of the construction site may be sensitive for fossils. If fossils are encountered during project subsurface construction, all ground‐disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or move any paleontological materials. Fossils can include plants and animals, and such trace fossil evidence of past life as tracks or plant imprints. Ancient marine sediments may contain invertebrate fossils such as snails, clam and oyster shells, sponges, and protozoa; and vertebrate fossils such as fish, whale, and sea lion bones. Contractor acknowledges and understands that excavation or removal of paleontological material is prohibited by law and constitutes a misdemeanor under California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.5.”




3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS





No Impact

Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or

indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are present in the atmosphere naturally, released by natural sources, or formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely understood to be the principal contributors to human‐induced global climate change are:

Carbon dioxide (CO2);

Methane (CH4);

Nitrous oxide (N2O);

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs);

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and

Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6).

Over the last 200 years, humans have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to be released into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and enhanc‐ing the natural greenhouse effect, believed to be causing global warming. While manmade GHGs include naturally‐occurring GHGs such as CO2, methane, and N2O, some gases, like HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are not naturally‐occurring.

Certain gases, such as water vapor, are short‐lived in the atmosphere. Others remain in the atmos‐phere for significant periods of time, contributing to climate change in the long term. Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs above because it is short‐lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.

These gases vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG. The definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO2




over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of “CO2

equivalents” (CO2e).

California’s major initiative for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is AB 32, passed by the State legislature on August 31, 2006. This effort aims at reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The CARB has established the level of greenhouse gas emissions in 1990 at 427 MMT CO2e. The emissions target of 427 MMT requires the reduction of 169 MMT from the State’s projected business‐as‐usual 2020 emissions of 596 MMT. AB 32 requires the CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for meeting the 2020 deadline and to reduce greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change. The Scoping Plan was approved by the CARB on December 11, 2008, and contains the main strategies California will implement to achieve the reduction of approximately 169 MMT of CO2e, or approximately 30 percent, from the State’s projected 2020 emission level of 596 MMT of CO2e under a business‐as‐usual scenario (this is a reduction of 42 MMT CO2e, or almost 10 percent from 2002‐2004 average emissions). The Scoping Plan also includes CARB‐recommended greenhouse gas reductions for each emissions sector of the State’s greenhouse gas inventory. The Scoping Plan calls for the largest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to be achieved by implementing the following measures and standards:

Improved emissions standards for light‐duty vehicles (estimated reductions of 31.7 MMT CO2e);

The Low‐Carbon Fuel Standard (15.0 MMT CO2e);

Energy efficiency measures in buildings and appliances and the widespread development of combined heat and power systems (26.3 MMT CO2e); and

A renewable portfolio standard for electricity production (21.3 MMT CO2e).

Signed into law on October 1, 2008, Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) supplements greenhouse gas reductions from new vehicle technology and fuel standards with reductions from more efficient land use patterns and improved transportation. Under the law, the CARB approved greenhouse gas reduction targets in February 2011 for California’s 18 federally designated regional planning bodies, known as Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). The CARB may update the targets every four years and must update them every eight years. MPOs in turn must demonstrate how their plans, policies and transportation investments meet the targets set by the CARB through Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS). The SCS are included with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), a report required by State law. However, if an MPO finds that their SCS will not meet the greenhouse gas reduction target, they may prepare an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS). The APS identifies the impediments to achieving the targets.

In summer 2016 the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), and Assembly Bill 197 (AB 197). SB 32 affirms the importance of addressing climate change by codifying into statute the greenhouse gas emissions reductions target of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 contained in Governor Brown’s April 2015 Executive Order B‐30‐15. SB 32 builds on AB 32 and keeps us on the path toward achieving the State’s 2050 objective of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels, consistent with an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) analysis of the emissions trajectory that would stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at 450 parts per million CO2e and reduce the likelihood of catastrophic impacts from climate change.




The companion bill to SB 32, AB 197, provides additional direction to CARB related to the adoption of strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Additional direction in AB 197 meant to provide easier public access to air emissions data that are collected by CARB was posted in December 2016.

a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

This section describes the proposed project’s construction‐ and operational‐related GHG emissions and contribution to global climate change. The BAAQMD has not addressed emission thresholds for construction in their CEQA Guidelines; however, the BAAQMD encourages quantification and disclosure. Thus, construction emissions are discussed in this section.

Construction Activities. Demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project would produce combustion emissions from various sources. During construction, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically use fossil‐based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil‐based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on‐site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change.

The BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction‐related GHG emissions. However, lead agencies are encouraged to quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction. Using CalEEMod, it is estimated that construction of the proposed project would generate approximately 133.4 metric tons of CO2e. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1 would reduce GHG emissions by reducing the amount of construction vehicle idling and by requiring the use of properly maintained equipment. Therefore, project construction impacts associated with GHG emissions would be less than significant.

Operational Emissions. Long‐term operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions from area and mobile sources as well as indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption. Mobile‐source GHG emissions would include project‐generated vehicle trips associated with trips to the proposed project. Area‐source emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping and maintenance on the project site, and other sources.

Following guidance from the BAAQMD, GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. Table 3.D shows the calculated GHG emissions for the proposed project. Motor vehicle emissions are the largest source of GHG emissions for the project at approximately 98 percent of the total. Energy source emissions and waste source emissions are each approximately 1 percent of the total. Additional calculation details are included in Appendix A.




Table 3.D: GHG Emissions (Metric Tons Per Year)

Emissions Source Operational Emissions

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Percent of

Total

Area Source Emissions <0.1 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1

Energy Source Emissions 9.8 <0.1 <0.1 9.9 1

Mobile Source Emissions 794.0 <0.1 0.0 795.3 98

Waste Source Emissions 2.6 0.2 0.0 6.5 1

Water Source Emissions 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.8 <0.1

Total Annual Emissions 812.4 100

BAAQMD Threshold 1,100 ‐

Exceed? No ‐ Source: LSA (July 2019).

According to the BAAQMD, a project would result in a less‐than‐significant GHG impact if it would:

Result in operational‐related greenhouse gas emissions of less than 1,100 metric tons of CO2e a year; or

Result in operational‐related greenhouse gas emissions of less than 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per service population (residents plus employees).

Based on the results of the construction and operation analysis, the project would not generate GHG emissions that would have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed project would generate 812.4 metric tons of CO2e which would be well below the BAAQMD’s numeric threshold of 1,100 metric tons CO2e. Operation of the proposed project would not generate substantial GHG emissions; therefore, impacts related to operational GHG emissions would be less than significant.

b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

Hayward’s original Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted by the City Council on July 28, 2009 and later incorporated into the City's General Plan in 2014. The purpose of the CAP is to make Hayward a more environmentally and socially sustainable community by reducing GHG emissions. In addition, the CAP is intended to carry out and implement the State’s goals and policies under AB 32, SB 375, and SB 32. The Hayward 2040 General Plan integrates and updates the comprehensive, communitywide GHG emission reduction strategy contained in the City’s 2009 CAP to achieve a GHG emission reduction target of 20 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020. The General Plan also recommends longer‐term goals for GHG reductions of 62.7 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2040 and 82.5 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2050.

The General Plan contains policies and implementation programs that serve as actions to reduce GHG emissions. Many of these policies and implementation programs would not be applicable to the proposed project as they work to reduce automobile use and traffic congestion. The proposed project’s consistency with applicable CAP policies is identified in Table 3.E below.




Table 3.E: Consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan Policies

Climate Action Plan Policies Project Consistency

LU‐1.8 Green Building and Landscape Requirements: The City shall maintain and implement green building and landscaping requirements for private‐ and public‐sector development to: Reduce the use of energy, water, and natural

resources. Minimize the long‐term maintenance and utility

expenses of infrastructure, buildings, and properties. Create healthy indoor environments to promote the

health and productivity of residents, workers, and visitors.

Encourage the use of durable, sustainably‐sourced, and/or recycled building materials.

Reduce landfill waste by promoting practices that reduce, reuse, and recycle solid waste.

Consistent. The proposed project would comply with the latest CALGreen standards, which includes a variety of different measures, including reduction of wastewater and water use. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, which would reduce outdoor water use. In addition, the proposed project would comply with State and local requirements for waste management, including construction and demolition debris waste reduction and recycling requirements and the CalRecycle Waste Diversion and Recycling Mandate. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with green building and landscaping requirements.

NR‐2.6 Greenhouse Gas Reduction in New Development. The City shall reduce potential greenhouse gas emissions by discouraging new development that is primarily dependent on the private automobile; promoting infill development and/or new development that is compact, mixed use, pedestrian friendly, and transit oriented; promoting energy‐efficient building design and site planning; and improving the regional jobs/housing balance ratio.

Consistent. The proposed project would result in the redevelopment of an infill site with a fuel facility that would provide fuel stations near existing retail, residential, restaurant, light industrial, and manufacturing uses, which would include vehicles that are already accounted for in the retail trip generation (i.e., internal trips), and vehicles already traveling on an adjacent roadway that divert to the fuel station (i.e., pass‐by trips).

NR‐4.1 Energy Efficiency Measures. The City shall promote the efficient use of energy in the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of public and private facilities, infrastructure, and equipment.

Consistent. The proposed project would comply with the latest CALGreen standards.

NR‐4.3 Efficient Construction and Development Practices. The City shall encourage construction and building development practices that maximize the use of renewable resources and minimize the use of non‐renewable resources throughout the life‐cycle of a structure.

Consistent. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1, the proposed project would incorporate the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. In order to increase energy efficiency on the site during project construction, the project would restrict equipment idling times to 5 minutes or less and would require construction workers to shut off idle equipment, as required by Mitigation Measure AIR‐1.

NR‐6.9 Water Conservation. The City shall require water customers to actively conserve water year‐round, and especially during drought years.

Consistent. The project would be required to comply with the latest CALGreen standards, which includes a variety of different measures, including reduction of wastewater and water use. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, which would reduce outdoor water use.




Table 3.E: Consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan Policies

Climate Action Plan Policies Project Consistency

PFS‐7.4 Solid Waste Diversion. The City shall comply with State goals regarding diversion from landfill, and strive to comply with the provisions approved by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority.

Consistent. The proposed project would comply with State and local requirements for waste management, including construction and demolition debris waste reduction and recycling requirements and the CalRecycle Waste Diversion and Recycling Mandate. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with green building and landscaping requirements.

PFS‐7.12 Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling. The City shall require demolition, remodeling and major new development projects to salvage or recycle asphalt and concrete and all other non‐hazardous construction and demolition materials to the maximum extent practicable.

Consistent. The proposed project would comply with Article 10 of the Municipal Code, Construction and Demolition Debris Waste Reduction and Recycling Requirements, which would divert demolition and construction debris from landfills, and process and return the materials into the economic mainstream, thereby conserving natural resources and stimulating markets for recycled and salvaged materials.

PFS‐7.21 Mandatory Recycling. The City shall implement mandatory recycling for commercial and multifamily uses and work with StopWaste.org to increase participation in this program.

Consistent. The proposed project would be consistent with the CalRecycle Waste Diversion and Recycling Mandate, which would reduce solid waste production during operation of the proposed project by 25 percent.

Source: City of Hayward (July 2014) and LSA (June 2019).

As indicated in Table 3.E, the proposed project would implement measures included in the CAP that are applicable to the project. Overall, the proposed project would be in compliance with the CAP and, therefore, would be consistent with the GHG reduction strategy, and would not generate emissions that would exceed the project‐level significance criteria established by the BAAQMD. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions and this impact would be less than significant.




3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS





No Impact

Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment

through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?

f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

The following discussion is based on the findings from the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment34 (Phase I ESA) prepared for the proposed project. A copy of the Phase I ESA is included in Appendix B of this report.

a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

The proposed project would include the development and operation of a new fuel facility on the project site. As such, the proposed project would include dispensing of gasoline and other chemicals that, if not properly handled per local, State, and federal requirements, could result in spills of hazardous materials. In addition, the proposed project would include the installation of four underground storage tanks, piping to transport the fuel from the tanks to the dispensing stations, and the daily delivery of gasoline. The project applicant has submitted its gasoline dispensing program, which is part of the proposed project as outlined in Section 1.0, Project Information.

34 Kleinfelder, 2016. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Costco Fuel Facility, Costco Wholesale

Business Center No. 823, 22330 Hathaway Avenue, Hayward, California. May 23.




These operational and design measures are part of the proposed project and would be ensured by incorporation into the conditions of approval for the proposed project. The project’s design and operations features would ensure the potential for accidental fuel releases is minimized and if such an event should occur it would be immediately identified and corrective action taken to address the situation. The City would review and approve of the final design prior to issuance of construction permits. The design and operation of the proposed fuel facility would also be required to comply with local, State, and federal regulations that are applicable to fueling facilities, including those of the Hayward Fire Department, BAAQMD, State Water Board, CalEPA, EPA, CDIR, and ACDA. The regulations of these agencies require that fuel pumping facilities meet certain standards for design, operation, maintenance, and safety. In addition, the hauling of fuel to and from the site is regulated by the Department of Transportation and enforced by the California Highway Patrol. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

There are two main ways that the public and/or the environment could be affected by the release of hazardous materials from the project site into the environment: 1) exposing workers and/or the public to potentially contaminated soil and groundwater during construction and/or operation of the project; and 2) exposing workers and/or the public to hazardous building materials (e.g., lead paint, asbestos) during demolition activities. As noted in Section 3.9.a, operation of the proposed project would result in a less‐than‐significant impact due to the design and operations features and compliance with existing regulations.

The Phase I ESA prepared for the project site did not identify any recognized environmental conditions (RECs) for the project site. The Phase I ESA identified one Historical REC in association with the removal of three USTs that were removed in 1991. However, case closure was issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) in 1994 for site assessment and by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in 1996 for remediation. Therefore, any potential subsurface contamination associated with these USTs appears to have been adequately assessed and remediated, and thus the proposed project would not expose workers and/or the public to potentially contaminated soils during construction.

Construction of the proposed project would involve demolition of one building on the project site. Therefore, the project applicant would be required to obtain a Job Number from the BAAQMD.35 In order to obtain a Job Number, the project applicant would be required to complete an asbestos survey and describe the work practices and controls to be used including emission control procedures for asbestos removal and waste handling if asbestos is found to be present, and a description of the procedures to be followed in the event that unexpected asbestos is found, among other requirements.36 In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the State’s

35 Hayward, City of, 2018. Demolition Permit Requirements. February 20. 36 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1998. Regulation 11, Hazardous Pollutants, Rule 2, Asbestos

Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing. October 7.




construction lead standard (Title 8, California Code of Regulations [CCR], Section 1532.1), which would ensure that handling of demolition debris that could contain lead would not result in the release of lead into the environment. Contractors whose employees disturb more than 100 square feet of LBP, are required to submit written notification to the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health 24 hours in advance notice prior to LBP disturbance (per Health and Safety Code, Title 17 CCR Section 36000 (c)).

Because the proposed project would not expose workers and/or the public to potentially contaminated soils or hazardous building materials during demolition and construction activities as a result of compliance with existing regulations, and would include design and operations features to ensure the potential for accidental fuel releases is minimized and would comply with existing regulations, this impact would be less than significant.

c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (No Impact)

There are no existing schools within one‐quarter mile of the project site. The nearest school is the Hayward Adult School, located at 22100 Princeton Street, approximately 0.3 miles east of the project site. In addition, Burbank Elementary School, located at 222 Burbank Street, and the Hayward Christian School, located at 354 B Street, are both approximately 0.6 miles southeast of the project site. Therefore, no impact related to the emission from or handling of hazardous materials within one‐quarter mile of a school would occur.

d. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

As noted in the Phase I ESA, the business center is listed on several lists of hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List), including the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST), Facility Index System (FINDS), and California Facility and Manifest Data (HAZNET) databases. Some or all of these listing may be relevant to the project site, as it comprises a portion of the existing business center. The proposed project would include excavation of soil to accommodate the foundations of the proposed fuel facility and new underground storage tanks. However, as noted in the Phase I ESA the listed sites, which include the project site, are not likely to include impacted soil, soil vapor, or groundwater beneath the site. In addition, the LUST case was closed as of October 20, 1994. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard based on its presence the Cortese List, and this impact would be less than significant.




e. Would the project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

The project site is located approximately 6.5 miles southeast of the Oakland International Airport, and is not located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA).37 The project site is located approximately 1 mile east of the Hayward Executive Airport, and is located within the AIA (Safety Compatibility Zone 6: Traffic Pattern Zone).38 The proposed project would consist of a fuel facility, and would not conflict with the Safety Compatibility Criteria in the Hayward Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) which allow gas stations, manufacturing, research and development, warehouse and distribution, and industrial land uses. Therefore, the proposed gas station use meets the requirements of the City’s Airport Overlay Zone Ordinance as presented in Chapter 10, Article 6 of the Hayward Municipal Code. The Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) requests that certain types of actions within AIAs be referred to the ALUC for determination of consistency with the ALUCP prior to their approval by the local jurisdiction, including any discretionary development proposal having a building floor area of 20,000 square feet or greater, and any industrial use having the potential to interfere with, or create hazards to aircraft in flight including, but not limited to:

1. Electrical or other interference with radio communications or navigational signals;

2. Lighting which could be mistaken for airport lighting;

3. Thermal plumes;

4. Glare in the eyes of pilots or aircraft using the airport; or

5. Impaired visibility near the airport from smoke or steam.39,40

Therefore, because the proposed project would not have a building floor area of 20,000 square feet or greater and would reduce potential off‐site glare through design measures detailed in Section 3.1.d, the proposed project plans would not need to be submitted to the ALUC for review, meaning that the ALUC has determined that the proposed project does not meet criteria that would indicate it would result in a safety hazard or excessive noise. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with airport safety, and this impact would be less than significant.

37 Alameda County Community Development Agency, 2010. Planning Department. Oakland International

Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. December. 38 Alameda County Community Development Agency, 2012. Planning Department. Hayward Executive Airport,

Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. August. 39 Ibid. 40 Alameda County Community Development Agency, Planning Department, 2010, op. cit.




f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

The Hayward Fire Department (HFD) coordinates the City’s preparedness efforts to mitigate, plan for, respond to and recover from natural and technological disasters. The proposed project would not reduce the number of traffic lanes on any adjacent streets and would not alter the existing street grid, and therefore it would not alter or obstruct emergency evacuation routes or response plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to impair the function of nearby emergency evacuation routes or response plan and would have less than significant impacts on implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? (No Impact)

The project site is located in an urban area and is not within or adjacent to a wildland fire hazard area, as shown on Figure 5‐4 of the City’s General Plan Background Report.41 Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, and there would be no impact.





3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY





No Impact

Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge

requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?

b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?

c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site; ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface

runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on‐ or offsite;

iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or

iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of

pollutants due to project inundation?

e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or

otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)

The State Water Board and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards regulate water quality of surface water and groundwater bodies throughout California. In the Bay Area, including the project site, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) is responsible for implementing the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan establishes beneficial water uses for waterways and water bodies within the region.

The proposed project would be subject to the Water Board’s Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), implemented in November 2015 by Order R2‐2015‐0049. Provision C.3 of the MRP requires new development and redevelopment projects that are special land use categories as defined by the MRP that include 5,000 or more square feet of impervious surface area for retail gasoline outlets to include post‐construction stormwater control in project designs. Under the C.3 requirements, the preparation and submittal of a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) would be required for the project site. The purpose of an SCP is to detail the design elements and implementation measures necessary to meet the post‐construction stormwater control requirements of the MRP. In particular, SCPs must include Low Impact




Development (LID) design measures, which reduce water quality impacts by preserving and recreating natural landscape features, minimizing imperviousness, and using stormwater as a resource, rather than a waste product. The proposed project would also be required to prepare a Stormwater Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan to ensure that stormwater control measures are inspected, maintained, and funded for the life of the project.

The City of Hayward is a member of the Alameda County Clean Water Program, which provides stormwater management for the area including the project site. As previously discussed, the 1.74‐acre project site is currently developed and includes a total of 56,764 square feet (75 percent) of impervious surfaces. The proposed project would create an additional 9,936 square feet of new impervious surfaces.

Runoff water quality is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program (established through the federal Clean Water Act). The NPDES program objective is to control and reduce pollutant discharges to surface water bodies. Compliance with NPDES permits is mandated by State and federal statutes and regulations. Locally, the NPDES Program is administered by the Water Board. According to the water quality control plans of the Water Board, any construction activities, including grading, that would result in the disturbance of 1 acre or more would require compliance with the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activity (Construction General Permit). The project site is approximately 1.74 acres and, as such, would be required to comply with the Construction General Permit.

Construction activities associated with the proposed project would cause disturbance of soil during excavation work, which could adversely impact water quality. Contaminants from construction vehicles and equipment and sediment from soil erosion could increase the pollutant load in runoff being transported to receiving waters during development. Although surface runoff from the site would likely decrease with the proposed project (due to the proposed stormwater treatment measures), runoff from the project site may contain gasoline (associated with minor spills), residual pesticides and nutrients (associated with landscaping) and sediment and trace metals (associated with atmospheric deposition) during operation of the project. Operation of the proposed project could incrementally contribute to the long‐term degradation of runoff water quality and as a result, adversely affect water quality in the receiving waters and San Francisco Bay. The proposed project would be considered a “regulated project” under the MRP, indicating that the State Water Resources Control Board has determined the size and nature of the project has the potential to discharge a significant pollutant load to stormwater runoff and receiving waters. Therefore, the potential discharges associated with the proposed project are considered to be a potentially significant impact.

Implementation of the following two mitigation measures would ensure that the proposed project complies with the Water Board’s water quality standards by reducing the potential construction‐ and operation‐period impacts to water quality to a less‐than‐significant level.




Mitigation Measure HYD‐1: Prior to construction, the project applicant shall prepare and implement a SWPPP, meeting Construction General Permit requirements (State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2009‐000–DWQ, as amended) designed to reduce potential adverse impacts to surface water quality through the project construction period. The SWPPP shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of any permits for ground disturbing activities.

The SWPPP shall be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer, as defined by the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), in accordance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit. These include: BMPs for erosion and sediment control, site management/housekeeping/waste management, management of non‐stormwater discharges, run‐on and runoff controls, and BMP inspection/maintenance/repair activities. BMP implementation shall be consistent with the BMP requirements in the most recent version of the California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Handbook‐Construction.

The SWPPP shall include a construction site monitoring program that identifies requirements for dry weather visual observations of pollutants at all discharge locations, and as appropriate (depending on the Risk Level), sampling of the site effluent and receiving waters. A Qualified SWPPP Practitioner, as defined by the CASQA, shall be responsible for implementing the BMPs at the site and performing all required monitoring and inspection/maintenance/repair activities.

Mitigation Measure HYD‐2: The project applicant shall fully comply with the Water Board stormwater permit requirements, including Provision C.3 of the MRP. The project applicant shall prepare and implement a SCP for the project. The SCP shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of any permits for ground disturbing activities. The SCP would act as the overall program document designed to provide measures to address potential water quality impacts associated with the operation of the proposed project. At a minimum, the SCP for the project shall include:

An inventory and accounting of existing and proposed impervious areas.

Low Impact Development (LID) design details incorporated into the project. Specific LID design may include, but is not limited to: using pervious pavements and green roofs, dispersing runoff to landscaped areas, and/or routing runoff to rain gardens, cisterns, swales, proprietary devices and other small‐scale facilities distributed throughout the site.

Measures to address potential stormwater contaminants. These may include measures to cover or control potential sources of stormwater pollutants at the project site.

A Draft Stormwater Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan (Stormwater Maintenance Plan) for the project site, which will include periodic inspection and maintenance of the storm drainage system. Persons responsible for performing and funding the requirements of this plan shall be identified in the Stormwater Maintenance Plan. The Stormwater Maintenance Plan must be finalized prior to issuance of building permits for the project.




b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

The proposed project would include the relocation of an existing fire hydrant that would reconnect to the existing 6‐inch fire service water line located within the project site and either of the existing 12‐inch water mains on Hathaway Avenue or West A Street. Although no use of groundwater is included for the proposed project, some dewatering may be required during construction. Any dewatering activities would be expected to be temporary in nature. Therefore, the proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.

c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site; ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on‐ or offsite; iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)

The proposed project would not alter the course of a stream or river. The project site is located in a developed area and would not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or offsite. Furthermore, compliance with construction‐ and operation phase stormwater requirements (Mitigation Measures HYD‐1 and HYD‐2) would further ensure that development of the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

The project site is not located within a 100‐year flood hazard zone as mapped by FEMA and is not located within a mapped dam failure inundation area.42 There are no levees protecting the site from flooding and as a result, no risk of failure. The project site and surrounding areas are generally level and would not be subject to mudflows. The project site is not located within a mapped tsunami area for Hayward43 and no seismically induced seiche waves have been documented in the San Francisco Bay throughout history.44 Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

42 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2009. FEMA Flood Map Service Center (map).

msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=22330%20Hathaway%2C%20Hayward%2C%20CAS#searchresultsanchor (accessed May 1, 2019).

43 California, State of, 2009. California Emergency Management Agency. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning: San Leandro Quadrangle. July 31.

44 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2013. Plan Bay Area. July 18.




e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)

The East Bay Plain Subbasin is identified by the California Department of Water Resources as a medium priority basin; therefore, development of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan is required by February 1, 2020.45 However, a Groundwater Sustainability Plan has not yet been adopted for the East Bay Plain Subbasin. Regardless, as noted in Section 3.10.a, implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD‐1 and HYD‐2 would require preparation and implementation of both a SWPPP and SCP, and would ensure that the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to stormwater runoff. Therefore, the proposed project would not obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

45 California Department of Water Resources, 2019. SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. Website:

gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp‐dashboard/p2 (accessed September 23, 2019).




3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING





No Impact

Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict

with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

a. Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact)

The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community, or between a community and outlying area. For instance, the construction of an interstate highway through an existing community may constrain travel from one side of the community to another; similarly, such construction may also impair travel to areas outside the community.

The project site is located in an urban area in the City of Hayward and is surrounded by commercial and light‐industrial uses. The proposed project would include the construction of a new fuel facility on a previously developed site. The proposed project would not require the construction of any new infrastructure that would divide an established community, and would not remove any means of access. The proposed project would not result in a physical division of an established community or adversely affect the continuity of land uses in the vicinity, and no impact would occur.

b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

As previously discussed, the City of Hayward is the Lead Agency for environmental review. The City of Hayward General Plan Land Use Map designates the project site as MI and the City’s Zoning Map identifies the project site as PD. As noted in Section 1.0, Project Information, the proposed project would require a major modification of the existing Planned Development district to allow construction of the proposed fuel facility.

It should be noted that according to CEQA, policy conflicts do not, in and of themselves, constitute a significant environmental impact. Policy conflicts are considered to be environmental impacts only when they would result in direct physical impacts or where those conflicts relate to avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts. As such, associated physical environmental impacts are discussed in this Initial Study under specific topical sections. The proposed project would not result in any direct physical impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less‐than‐significant level.




Although the proposed project would require a major modification to the existing Planned Development district to allow a fuel facility, the proposed project would not conflict with any policy or goal in the City’s General Plan or zoning regulations that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and this impact would be less than significant.




3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES





No Impact

Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource

that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of

value to the region and the residents of the state? (No Impact)

The United States Geological Survey has identified 11 past, present, or prospective mining sites within the City.46 The past and present mining sites include those owned by the American Salt Company, the Oliver Salt Company, East Bay Excavation Company, and Ideal Cement Company, as well as the La Vista Quarry and Mill. These sites contain or contained a variety of mineral resources, including: stone, limestone, clay, fire clay, halite, and salt. There are three sites identified for prospective stone and clay extraction. The project site is not designated as a mineral resource zone, and no known or potential mineral resources are located on or near the project site. The closest mineral resource zone, shown on Figure 7‐8 of the City’s General Plan Background Report, is located approximately 1.6 miles north of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or residents of the State, and no impact would occur.

b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (No Impact)

Refer to Section 3.12.a. The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of any known locally‐important mineral resource recovery sites, and no impact would occur.





3.13 NOISE





No Impact

Would the project result in: a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent

increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, or sleep. Several noise measurement scales exist that are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative intensity of a sound. Sound levels in dB are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a 10‐fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness; and similarly, each 10 dB decrease in sound level is perceived as half as loud. Sound intensity is normally measured through the A‐weighted sound level (dBA), and this scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The A‐weighted sound level is the basis for 24‐hour sound measurements which better represent how humans are more sensitive to sound at night.

As noise spreads from a source, it loses energy so that the farther away the noise receiver is from the noise source, the lower the perceived noise level would be. Geometric spreading causes the sound level to attenuate or be reduced, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in the noise level for each doubling of distance from a single point source of noise to the noise sensitive receptor of concern.

There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. Equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the Leq, the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), and the day‐night average level (Ldn) based on A‐weighted decibels (dBA). CNEL is the time varying noise over a 24‐hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale, but without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening relaxation hours. CNEL and Ldn are within one dBA of each other and are normally exchangeable. The noise adjustments are added to the noise events occurring during the more sensitive hours.




A project would result in a significant noise effect if it would substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of applicable regulatory agencies, including, as appropriate, the City of Hayward.

Certain land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others. Examples of these include residential areas, educational facilities, hospitals, childcare facilities, and senior housing. The project site is generally surrounded by a mix of retail, residential, restaurant, light industrial, and manufacturing uses. The closest sensitive receptors include the residences located approximately 240 feet southwest of the project boundary across Hathaway Avenue. The residences would be approximately 400 feet southwest of the nearest fueling station.

Existing noise sources at the project site are primarily associated with traffic on surrounding roadways, including Hathaway Avenue and West A Street. According to Figure HAZ‐1 in the City’s General Plan, the project site is subject to traffic noise levels of approximately 70 dBA. In addition, the Niles branch rail line, owned by the Union Pacific Railroad is directly north of the project site. Approximately 22 freight trains per day and 14 passenger trains per day operate on this railroad track.47

As shown in Table 3.F, the City of Hayward sets noise and land use compatibility standards in the General Plan. The General Plan identifies exterior noise thresholds of up to 70 dBA Ldn as normally acceptable for commercial land uses.

In addition, the City of Hayward regulates noise in the City’s Municipal Code, Chapter 4, Article 1, Public Nuisances. This ordinance limits noise from commercial or industrial property to no more than 70 dBA at any point outside of the property plane. The ordinance also limits construction and landscaping activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Monday through Saturday and between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays, and limits noise levels generated by an individual device or piece of equipment to no more than 83 dBA at a distance of 25 feet from the source, and the noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed 86 dBA.





Table 3.F: Exterior Noise Compatibility Standards for Various Land Uses

Land Use Type Highest Level of Exterior Noise Exposure That is

Regarded as “Normally Acceptable” a

(Ldn b or CNEL c)

Residential: Single‐Family Homes, Duplex, Mobile Home 60

Residential: Townhomes and Multi‐Family Apartments and Condominiums

65

Urban Residential Infill d and Mixed‐Use Projects e 70

Lodging: Motels and Hotels 65

Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 70

Auditoriums, Concert Hall, Amphitheaters Mitigation based on site‐specific study

Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports Mitigation based on site‐specific study

Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 70

Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 75

Office Buildings: Business, Commercial, and Professional 70

Industrial Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 75 Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State of California General Plan Guidelines 2003, October 2003 and City of Hayward, 2014. Notes: a As defined in the State of California General Plan Guidelines 200, “Normally Acceptable” means that the specified land uses is

satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any building involved is of normal conventional construction, without any special noise mitigation. For projects located along major transportation corridors (major freeways, arterials, and rail lines) this “normally acceptable” exterior noise level may be exceeded for certain areas of the project site (e.g. the frontage adjacent to the corridor or parking areas) with the exception of primary open space areas (see policies HAZ‐8.5 and HAZ‐8.6).

b Ldn or Day Night Average is an average 24‐hour noise measurement that factors day and night noise levels. c CNEL or Community Noise Equivalent Level measurements are a weighted average of sound levels gathered throughout a 24‐hour

period. d Urban residential infill would include all types of residential development within existing or planned urban areas (such as

Downtown, The Cannery Neighborhood, and the South Hayward BART Urban Neighborhood) and along major corridors (such as Mission Boulevard).

e Mixed‐Use Projects would include all mixed‐use developments throughout the City of Hayward.

a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)

Construction‐Period Impacts. Construction of the proposed project could include demolition and construction activities that would result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project site vicinity. Maximum construction noise levels would be short‐term, generally intermittent depending on the construction phase, and variable depending on receiver distance from the active construction zone. The duration of noise impacts generally would be from one day to several days depending on the phase of construction. Project construction would occur for approximately 3 to 4 months. The level and types of noise impacts that would occur during construction are described below.

Short‐term noise impacts would occur during grading and site preparation activities. Table 3.G lists maximum noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments for typical construction equipment, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. Construction‐related




short‐term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels currently in the project area but would no longer occur once construction of the project is completed.

Two types of short‐term noise impacts could occur during construction of the proposed project. The first type involves construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site for the proposed project, which would incrementally increase noise levels on roads leading to the site. As shown in Table 3.G, there would be a relatively high single‐event noise exposure potential at a maximum level of 85 dBA Lmax with trucks passing from 50 feet.

The second type of short‐term noise impact is related to noise generated during excavation, grading, and construction on the project site. Construction is performed in discrete steps, or phases, each with its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on site. Therefore, the noise levels vary as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction‐related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.

Table 3.G lists maximum noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments for typical construction equipment, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. Average maximum noise levels range up to 86 dBA Lmax at 50 feet during the noisiest construction phases. The site preparation phase, including excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels because earthmoving machinery is the noisiest construction equipment. Earth‐moving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backfillers, bulldozers, draglines, and front loaders. Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full‐power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.

As identified above, the project site is generally surrounded by a mix of retail, residential, restaurant, light industrial, and manufacturing uses. The closest sensitive receptors include the residences located approximately 240 feet southwest of the project boundary across Hathaway Avenue. The residences would be approximately 400 feet southwest of the nearest fueling station. The 240‐foot distance would decrease the noise level by approximately 14 dBA compared to the noise level measured at 50 feet from the construction activity. Therefore, the closest off‐site residences may be subject to short‐term construction noise levels of 72 dBA Lmax when construction is occurring at the project site boundary, and this noise level would be lower than existing noise levels at the off‐site residences.




Table 3.G: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels

Equipment Description Acoustical Usage Factor (%) Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) at 50 Feet1

Backhoes 40 80

Compactor (ground) 20 80

Compressor 40 80

Cranes 16 85

Dozers 40 85

Dump Trucks 40 84

Excavators 40 85

Flat Bed Trucks 40 84

Forklift 20 85

Front‐end Loaders 40 80

Graders 40 85

Impact Pile Drivers 20 95

Jackhammers 20 85

Pick‐up Truck 40 55

Pneumatic Tools 50 85

Pumps 50 77

Rock Drills 20 85

Rollers 20 85

Scrapers 40 85

Tractors 40 84

Welder 40 73 Source: Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA 2006). Note: Noise levels reported in this table are rounded to the nearest whole number. 1 Maximum noise levels were developed based on Spec 721.560 from the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) program to be consistent

with the City of Boston’s Noise Code for the “Big Dig” project. Lmax = maximum instantaneous sound level

The Hayward Municipal Code also limits noise levels generated by an individual device or piece of equipment to no more than 83 dBA at a distance of 25 feet from the source and the noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed 86 dBA. The project’s construction noise levels could result in an exceedance of the City’s allowable construction noise levels from construction equipment and could result in a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI‐1 for project construction would ensure compliance with the Hayward Municipal Code.

Mitigation Measure NOI‐1: The project contractor shall implement the following measures during construction of the project:

Equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards.

Place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the active project site.




Locate equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest possible distance between construction‐related noise sources and noise‐sensitive receptors nearest the active project site during all project construction.

Construction haul trucks and materials delivery traffic shall avoid residential areas whenever feasible.

Prohibit extended idling time of internal combustion engines by either shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes.

Ensure that all general construction related activities are restricted to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Monday through Saturday and between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays.

Designate a “disturbance coordinator” at the City of Hayward who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and would determine and implement reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem, and ensure noise levels do not exceed noise ordinance standards.

Implementation of the above mitigation measure would limit construction activities to the less noise‐sensitive periods of the day and would reduce construction impacts to a level of less than significant with mitigation.

Long‐Term Noise Impacts. The project would generate long‐term noise impacts from both traffic and stationary noise sources, as discussed below.

Traffic Noise Impacts. As identified above, existing noise sources at the project site are primarily associated with traffic on surrounding roadways, including Hathaway Avenue and West A Street. According to Figure HAZ‐1 in the City’s General Plan, the project site is subject to traffic noise levels of approximately 70 dBA. Motor vehicles with their distinctive noise characteristics are the dominant noise source in the project vicinity. The amount of noise varies according to many factors, such as volume of traffic, vehicle mix (percentage of cars and trucks), average traffic speed, and distance from the observer.

Implementation of the proposed project would result in new daily trips on local roadways in the project site vicinity. A characteristic of sound is that a doubling of a noise source is required in order to result in a perceptible (3 dBA or greater) increase in the resulting noise level. This analysis assumes that the proposed project would generate approximately 2,477 net new average daily trips. The adjacent Hathaway Avenue carries approximately 14,750 average daily trips. Project trips would represent a small increase in noise levels, up to approximately 0.7 dBA CNEL based on the following equation:

𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑑𝐵𝐴 10 ∗ lo g𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒𝐹𝑢𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒




Therefore, based on the existing traffic noise levels at the project site and the minimal increase in traffic noise levels, daily project trips would not result in a perceptible noise increase along any roadway segment in the project vicinity. Therefore, traffic noise impacts would be less than significant.

Stationary Noise Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would generate various on‐site stationary noise sources, including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment for the fuel facility controller enclosure, parking lot and fuel station activities, and fuel delivery operations. The closest sensitive receptors include the residences located approximately 240 feet south of the project site across Hathaway Avenue.

The Hayward Municipal Code limits non‐construction noise from commercial or industrial property to 70 dBA at any point outside of the property. Of the on‐site stationary noise sources during operation of the project, noise generated by fuel delivery activities would generate the highest maximum noise levels. Typical parking activities, such as people conversing or doors slamming, would generate noise levels of approximately 60 dBA to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 feet, while fuel delivery activities would result in maximum noise levels generate a noise level of 75 dBA Lmax at 50 feet based on measurements previously conducted by LSA.

Operational noise levels may increase due to the redevelopment of the tire center, which is currently not in operation, to a fuel facility. However, the project site is located within the existing business center property, which consists of an approximately 115,000‐square‐foot Costco Business Center as well as associated parking spaces, drive aisles, and infrastructure. The business center currently generates stationary noise sources associated with HVAC equipment, parking lot activities, and loading dock operations. Operation of the proposed fuel facility would be internal to the project site and is not expected to substantially contribute to the exterior noise environment. Therefore, noise levels due are anticipated to remain unchanged and the proposed project would not substantially increase noise levels over existing conditions. This impact would be less than significant.

b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

Vibration refers to groundborne noise and perceptible motion. Groundborne vibration is almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors. Vibration energy propagates from a source, through intervening soil and rock layers, to the foundations of nearby buildings. The vibration then propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of the structure. Building vibration may be perceived by the occupants as the motion of building surfaces, rattling of items on shelves or hanging on walls, or as a low‐frequency rumbling noise. The rumbling noise is caused by the vibrating walls, floors, and ceilings radiating sound waves. Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by 10 dB or less. This is an order of magnitude below the damage threshold for normal buildings.




Typical sources of groundborne vibration are construction activities (e.g., pavement breaking and operating heavy‐duty earthmoving equipment), rail activity, and occasional traffic on rough roads. In general, groundborne vibration from standard construction practices is only a potential issue when within 25 feet of sensitive uses. Groundborne vibration levels from construction activities very rarely reach levels that can damage structures; however, these levels are perceptible near the active construction site. With the exception of older buildings built prior to the 1950s or buildings of historic significance, potential structural damage from heavy construction activities rarely occurs. When roadways are smooth, vibration from traffic (even heavy trucks) is rarely perceptible.

The roadways surrounding the project area, including Hathaway Avenue, West A Street, and the existing driveways, are paved, smooth, and unlikely to cause significant groundborne vibration. In addition, the rubber tires and suspension systems of buses and other on‐road vehicles make it unusual for on‐road vehicles to cause groundborne noise or vibration problems. It is, therefore, assumed that no such vehicular vibration impacts would occur and, therefore, no vibration impact analysis of on‐road vehicles is necessary.

The Niles branch rail line, owned by the Union Pacific Railroad is directly north of the project site. Approximately 22 freight trains per day and 14 passenger trains per day operate on this railroad track.48 Hayward General Plan Policy HAZ‐8.23 requires a vibration evaluation for new residential and commercial projects located within 200 feet of railroad lines. Because the proposed project would include the fuel facility canopy and controller enclosure, a vibration impact analysis is included below.

The following vibration impact analysis discusses the level of human annoyance using vibration levels in VdB and will assess the potential for structural damages using vibration levels in PPV (in/sec) because vibration levels calculated in RMS are best for characterizing human response to building vibration, while vibration level in PPV is best used to characterize potential for damage.

Operational Vibration. Vibration standards included in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidelines are used in this analysis for ground‐borne vibration impacts on human annoyance. The FTA guidelines criteria account for variation in project types as well as the frequency of events, which differ widely among projects. It is intuitive that when there will be fewer events per day, it should take higher vibration levels to evoke the same community response. This is accounted for in the criteria by distinguishing between projects with frequent and infrequent events, in which the term “frequent events” is defined as more than 70 events per day.

Rail activity near the project site is classified as an infrequent event given that there are fewer than 70 vibration events per day.49 Therefore, according to FTA guidelines, groundborne vibration impacts would occur at 80 VdB for residential land uses and 83 VdB for institutional land uses. Although the proposed project would not include residential or institutional land uses, as noted above, Hayward General Plan Policy HAZ‐8.23 requires a vibration evaluation for new commercial projects located within 200 feet of railroad lines.

48 Hayward, City of, 2014a, op. cit. 49 Ibid.




The critical distance for residential land uses near conventional commuter railroads is 200 feet and for institutional land uses is 120 feet. The proposed fueling stations would be located approximately 80 feet from the railroad tracks. Based on Figure 4, Maximum Train Vibration Levels vs. Distance, in Caltrans’ Transportation‐Related Earthborne Vibrations document, at a distance of 80 feet (or 24 meters [m]) from the centerline of the railroad tracks, the PPV is 2 millimeters per second (mm/sec) (or 0.00656 in/sec). This level of vibration is equivalent to 64 VdB. This would be the maximum train operational vibration level at the project site. As noted above, the level of vibration is equivalent to 64 VdB. This vibration level would be below the FTA’s vibration standard of 83 VdB for infrequent events at institutional land uses. Therefore, train‐related vibration impacts would be less than significant.

Construction Vibration. Construction of the proposed project could result in the generation of groundborne vibration. This construction vibration impact analysis discusses the level of human annoyance using vibration levels in VdB and will assess the potential for building damages using vibration levels in PPV (in/sec) because vibration levels calculated in RMS are best for characterizing human response to building vibration, while vibration level in PPV is best used to characterize potential for damage. The FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidelines indicate that a vibration level up to 102 VdB (an equivalent to 0.5 in/sec in PPV) is considered safe for buildings consisting of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster), and would not result in any construction vibration damage. For a non‐engineered timber and masonry building, the construction vibration damage criterion is 94 VdB (0.2 in/sec in PPV).

Table 3.H shows the PPV and VdB values at 25 feet from a construction vibration source. As shown in Table 3.H, bulldozers and other heavy‐tracked construction equipment (except for pile drivers and vibratory rollers) generate approximately 87 VdB of groundborne vibration when measured at 25 feet, based on the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. At this level, groundborne vibration would result in potential annoyance to residents and workers, but would not cause any damage to the buildings. Construction vibration, similar to vibration from other sources, would not have any significant effects on outdoor activities (e.g., those outside of residences and commercial/office buildings in the project vicinity). Outdoor site preparation for the proposed project is expected to include the use of bulldozers and loaded trucks. The greatest levels of vibration are anticipated to occur during the site preparation phase. All other phases are expected to result in lower vibration levels.

Table 3.H: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment

Equipment

Reference PPV/LV at 25 feet

PPV (in/sec) LV (VdB)a

Pile Driver (Impact), Typical 0.644 104

Pile Driver (Sonic), Typical 0.170 93

Vibratory Roller 0.210 94

Hoe Ram 0.089 87

Large Bulldozer 0.089 87

Caisson Drilling 0.089 87

Loaded Trucks 0.076 86

Jackhammer 0.035 79

Small Bulldozer 0.003 58 Sources: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2018). a RMS vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) is 1 µin/sec.




µin/sec = micro‐inches per second FTA = Federal Transit Administration in/sec = inches per second LV = velocity in decibels

PPV = peak particle velocity RMS = root‐mean‐square VdB = vibration velocity decibels

The distance to the nearest buildings for vibration impact analysis is measured between the nearest off‐site buildings and the project boundary (assuming the construction equipment would be used at or near the project boundary) because vibration impacts occur normally within the buildings. The formula for vibration transmission is provided below.

LvdB (D) = LvdB (25 ft) – 30 Log (D/25) PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5

For typical construction activity, the equipment with the highest vibration generation potential is the large bulldozer, which would generate 87 VdB at 25 feet. The closest surrounding buildings to the project site include the existing business center, located approximately 25 feet south of the project site and the manufacturing uses located approximately 40 feet north of the project site property line. The business center building would experience vibration levels of up to 87 VdB (0.089 PPV [in/sec]). This vibration level at the nearest building from construction equipment would not exceed the FTA threshold of 94 VdB (0.2 in/sec PPV) for building damage. Although construction vibration levels at the nearest buildings would have the potential to result in annoyance, these vibration levels would no longer occur once construction of the project is completed. Therefore, groundborne vibration impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be considered less than significant.

c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

The closest airport to the project site is the Hayward Executive Airport, located approximately 1 mile west of the project site. In addition, the Oakland International Airport is located approximately 6.5 miles northwest of the project site. The project site is not located within the 55 dBA CNEL noise contours for either of these airports and is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Although aircraft‐related noise may be audible on the project site, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels due to the proximity of a public airport. In addition, the City’s Airport Noise Ordinance included within the Municipal Code regulates sound generated from aircraft going to and from the Hayward Executive Airport, which would further reduce potential noise impacts on people residing or working in the project area. This impact would be less than significant.




3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING





No Impact

Would the project: a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area,

either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for

example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

The proposed project includes the demolition of the existing vacant building on the project site and the construction of a new fueling facility. The proposed project does not include housing and is located in a developed urban area. As noted in Section 1.0, Project Information, one employee would be present at the project site at all times. In addition, a second employee may be present during peak times or as needed for efficient operation of the fuel facility. The project site is designated as MI, which is intended to provide for warehouses and light industrial buildings. Therefore, because it is anticipated that uses within the MI designation would provide employment, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area, and this impact would be less than significant.

b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact)

The proposed project is currently developed with a commercial building and no housing is located on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the displacement of housing and would not require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and no impact would occur.




3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES





No Impact

Would the project: a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated

with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

i. Fire protection? ii. Police protection? iii. Schools? iv. Parks? v. Other public facilities?

a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision

of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i. Fire protection? ii. Police protection? iii. Schools? iv. Parks? v. Other public facilities? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

Fire Protection. The City of Hayward Fire Department (HFD) would provide fire protection services to the proposed project. The HFD provides fire, paramedic advanced life support/emergency medical, and emergency services to all areas within City limits. There are nine HFD fire stations in Hayward, with the closest fire station to the project site being HFD Fire Station 2, located at 360 West Harder Road, approximately 2 miles south of the project site.50 Planned growth under the General Plan would increase calls for fire protection service in the City. The proposed project is consistent with the site’s General Plan designation and does not represent unplanned growth given that the project site would be developed consistent with its land use and zoning designations. The proposed project could result in an incremental increase in demand for fire protection service due to the increase in daytime population at the project site and the potential for accidental hazardous materials releases or fires that could be associated with emergency situations at the fuel facility. However, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable codes for fire safety and emergency access. In addition, the project applicant would be required to submit plans to HFD for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits to ensure the project would conform to applicable building and fire codes.

The HFD would continue providing services to the project site and would not require additional firefighters to serve the proposed project. The construction of a new or expanded fire station would not be required. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact on the physical

50 Hayward, City of, 2019. Hayward Fire Department: Stations. Website: www.hayward‐ca.gov/fire‐

department/stations (accessed May 6, 2019).




environment due to the incremental increase in demand for fire protection and life safety services. The incremental increase in demand for services is not expected to adversely affect existing responses times to the site or within the City. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact on fire protection and safety services and facilities.

Police Protection. The Hayward Police Department (HPD) provides police protection services to the surrounding project area and project site. The HPD headquarters are located at 300 West Winton Avenue, approximately 1.4 miles south of the project site. Planned growth under the General Plan would increase calls for police protection service in the City. The proposed project is consistent with the site’s General Plan designation and does not represent unplanned growth. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to increase the demand for police protection services as it is consistent with the City’s General Plan and due to the location of the fuel facility on the site, and this impact would be less‐than‐significant. In addition, the existing business center is currently monitored by private security cameras which act as a deterrent to criminal activity on the site.

The HPD would continue to provide services to the project site and would not require additional officers to serve the project site, and the construction of new or expanded police facilities would not be required. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with Section 10‐2.640 of the City’s Municipal Code, which requires appropriate lighting for safety and security, including lighting throughout the parking lot and around the proposed fuel facility. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse impact associated with the provision of additional police facilities or services, and this impact would be less than significant.

Schools. The proposed project does not include any residential uses, and therefore would not directly affect student population. A fraction of new employees hired as a result of implementation of the proposed project may move to the City. However, this growth would be minimal and result in an incremental increase in student population and would be spread amongst the whole school district, depending upon place of residence. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in the number of school‐age children in the area, and this impact would be less than significant.

Parks. The proposed project does not include any residential uses and would not generate a direct need for additional park space. As noted above, a fraction of employees of the proposed fuel facility may move to the City. However, this growth would only result in an incremental increase in demand for parks, and would be spread throughout the City, depending on place of residence. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to parks.

Other Public Facilities. Development of the proposed project would not increase demand for other public service including libraries, community centers, and public health care facilities. As previously discussed, the proposed project does not include development of residential uses and would therefore not result in an increased demand for public facilities, and this impact would be less than significant.




3.16 RECREATION





No Impact

a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other

recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (No Impact)

The proposed project would include the development of a new fueling facility on the project site. As such, the proposed project would not directly generate population growth that would result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts to parks or recreational facilities would occur as a result of the proposed project.

b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (No Impact)

Refer to Section 3.16.a. The proposed project would not require the expansion of existing recreational facilities or construction of additional recreational facilities elsewhere. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact on existing recreational facilities.




3.17 TRANSPORTATION





No Impact

Would the project: a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing

the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)?

c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

d. Result in inadequate emergency access?

The following section is based on information provided in the Transportation Impact Analysis51 and Transportation Assessment Summary Memorandum52 (collectively referred to as the TIA) prepared for the proposed project by Kittelson & Associates, and peer review of the TIA prepared by LSA.53 The TIA evaluates the transportation impacts that could result from the proposed project, including impacts associated with traffic congestion, transit services, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation. The TIA, peer review, and peer review response memo54,55 are included as Appendices D, E, and F of this report, respectively.

a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

Overview. The TIA prepared for the proposed project was conducted according to the City of Hayward, the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC), and the County of Alameda requirements. The ACTC administers the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) of Alameda County. The proposed project is expected to generate more than 100 weekday PM peak hour trips, and is therefore subject to Alameda County’s Transportation Impact Analysis requirements. Alameda County’s requirements entail a segment analysis on roadways included in the San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) Plan.

The TIA includes an analysis of weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions for five intersections in the vicinity of the project site, one of which is unsignalized. The TIA also includes an analysis of site access and on‐site circulation, vehicle queuing, and transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access. Based on

51 Kittelson & Associates, Inc., 2018, op. cit. 52 Kittelson & Associates, Inc., 2018. Hayward Costco Business Center Fuel Station Addition Transportation

Assessment. September 27. 53 LSA Associates, Inc., 2019. Hayward Costco Business Center Fuel Station Addition Project – Transportation

Impact Analysis Peer Review. May 13. 54 Kittelson & Associates, Inc., 2019. Hayward Costco Business Center Response to Agency Comments. June 7. 55 Kittleson & Associates, Inc., 2019. Hayward Costco Business Center Response to Agency Comments regarding

Trip Generation. September 18.




consultation with the City as the Lead Agency, the following intersections were analyzed for the proposed project:

1. Hathaway Avenue at Costco Access

2. Hathaway Avenue at Costco Access (Unsignalized; Right‐in/Right‐Out)

3. Hathaway Avenue at West A Street

4. Interstate 880 Northbound Ramps at West A Street

5. Interstate 880 Southbound Ramps at West A Street

Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for both the weekday AM and PM peak hours of adjacent street traffic. The AM peak hour typically occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and the PM peak hour typically occurs between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on a regular weekday. These are the peak commute hours during which traffic volume is highest on the roadways in the study area.

Study intersections were evaluated under six different scenarios to determine the proposed project’s effects on level of service. These scenarios provide detailed analysis of the incremental effects of the proposed project on traffic conditions, and allow a comparison of the traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed project to the amount of traffic expected to be generated by future development. Each of the scenarios is described below.

Existing Conditions. Existing traffic volumes at the study intersections were obtained from traffic counts conducted in November and December 2017. The study intersections were evaluated with a level of service analysis using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology.

Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions. Existing traffic volumes with the project were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Existing plus Project conditions were evaluated relative to Existing Conditions in order to determine the effects the project would have on the existing roadway network.

Year 2020 Background (Background) Conditions. Background traffic volumes reflect traffic added by projected volumes from approved but not yet completed developments in the project area. The approved project trips and/or approved project information were obtained from recent traffic studies in the City of Hayward.

Background Plus Project Conditions. Background traffic volumes with the project were estimated by adding to background traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Project Conditions were evaluated relative to background conditions to determine potential project impacts.

Cumulative 2035 (Cumulative) Conditions. Cumulative traffic volumes represent traffic growth through the year 2035. The 2035 forecasts are consistent with regional totals for growth projected by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2009 and therefore reflects the




traffic from growth in the City as well as traffic from future developments in the region that may use local roadways.

Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Cumulative Plus Project conditions were evaluated relative to cumulative no project conditions to determine potential project impacts.

Analysis Methodology. Traffic conditions within the study area are assessed through the evaluation of intersection Levels of Service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free‐flowing conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays, as shown in Table 3.I.

Table 3.I: Level of Service Criteria – Signalized Intersections

Level of Service (LOS)

Average Delay (Second/Vehicle)

Description

A < 10 LOS A represents free‐flow travel with an excellent level of comfort and convenience and the freedom to maneuver.

B > 10 and < 20 LOS B has stable operating conditions, but the presence of other road users causes a noticeable, though slight, reduction in comfort, convenience, and maneuvering freedom.

C > 20 and < 35 LOS C has stable operating conditions, but the operation of individual users is substantially affected by the interaction with others in the traffic stream.

D > 35 and < 55 LOS D represents high‐density, but stable flow. Users experience severe restriction in speed and freedom to maneuver, with poor levels of comfort and convenience.

E > 55 and < 80

LOS E represents operating conditions at or near capacity. Speeds are reduced to a low but relatively uniform value. Freedom to maneuver is difficult with users experiencing frustration and poor comfort and convenience. Unstable operation is frequent, and minor disturbances in traffic flow can cause breakdown conditions.

F > 80

LOS F is used to define forced or breakdown conditions. This condition exists wherever the volume of traffic exceeds the capacity of the roadway. Long queues can form behind these bottleneck points with queued traffic traveling in a stop‐and‐go fashion.

Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (2018).

The proposed project would have a significant impact on traffic and circulation of signalized intersections if it would degrade the AM or PM peak hour operations from an acceptable LOS E or better under the No Project scenario to an unacceptable LOS under the Plus Project scenario. The exception to this criterion is when LOS F is determined by the City of Hayward as acceptable due to right‐of‐way constraints or when there would be unacceptable impacts to other modes of travel, such as bicycle, pedestrian or transit.




Level of service analysis at unsignalized intersections is generally used to determine the need for modification in the type of intersection control (i.e., all‐way stop or signalization). As part of the evaluation, traffic volumes, delays and traffic signal warrants are evaluated to determine if the existing intersection control is appropriate. The correlation between average control delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections is shown in Table 3.J.

Table 3.J: Level of Service Criteria – Unsignalized Intersections

Level of Service (LOS)

Average Delay (Second/Vehicle)

Description

A < 10 Little or no delay

B > 10 and < 15 Short traffic delay

C > 15 and < 25 Average traffic delays

D >25 and < 35 Long traffic delays

E > 35 and < 50 Very long traffic delays

F > 50 Extreme delays potentially affecting other traffic movements in the intersection Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (2018).

At unsignalized intersections, projects are evaluated based on LOS and delay, and whether any of the following are met: (1) traffic signal warrant (peak hour); (2) pedestrian signal warrant; or (3) all‐way stop warrant. Solely triggering a warrant does not constitute an impact, but the City will, at its discretion, require or not require a signal be installed, where warranted.

Regardless of intersection control, a project would have a significant impact on traffic and circulation of an intersection operating at LOS F under an Existing or No Project scenario if the addition of Project traffic results in an increase of 5.0 seconds or more in the average control delay.

Project Trip Estimates. The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear were estimated using a three‐step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site was estimated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution step, an estimate was made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip assignment step, the project trips were assigned to the project driveways.

Trip generation data was collected at the existing gas stations at Costco Business Centers in Hawthorne and Commerce, California. The trip generation for both sites is shown in Table 3.K.




Table 3.K: Trip Generation at Costco Fuel Stations

Business Center/Fuel Station Location

Fueling Positions Fuel Station Trip Generation

Weekday AM Peak Hour

Weekday PM Peak Hour

Saturday Midday Peak Hour

Hawthorne, California1 12 270 276 316

Commerce, California 16 422 426 444

Average 346 351 380 Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (2018). 1 Additional data collected at the Hawthorne site shows an “internalization” of trips between the fuel station and Business Center of 5‐7 percent during all peak periods.

As shown in Table 3.K, the two locations display a range of trip generation, likely due to a variety of factors such as traffic volumes on adjacent roadways, Costco membership in the area, surrounding land uses, and activity at the Costco Business Center on‐site. The proposed project is anticipated to result in a trip generation that is similar to the range shown in Table 3.K, given that is also located at a Costco Business Center. In addition, data gathered at Costco Business Centers and Costco Warehouses nationally has indicated that there is not a linear relationship between fuel positions and trip generation, rather it is a function of the number of members in the market.

The proposed trip generation based on the similar Costco Fuel Stations was compared to the trip generation based on the Institute of Transportation Engineer (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. The proposed trip generation is approximately 20 percent higher than ITE rates for the weekday AM peak hour and 5 percent higher for the weekday PM peak hour. The internalization rate and pass‐by rates applied are based on surveys from other fuel stations and are anticipated to be a conservative estimate.56 The resultant trip generation estimates for the proposed project are presented in Table 3.L.

Table 3.L: Project Trip Generation Estimates

Use Size Unit Weekday AM Peak Hour Trips Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips

Total In Out Total In Out

Fuel Station 24 Fueling positions

346 173 173 352 176 176

Internal (5 percent)1 18 9 9 18 9 9

Pass‐by (42 percent)2 138 69 69 140 70 70

Net New 190 95 95 194 97 97 Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (2018). 1 Internal trips represent customers that frequent both the fuel station and Costco Business Center. Therefore, these trips are

already on the system. Additional data collected at the Hawthorne Costco Business Center reflected an internalization rate of 5‐7 percent during all peak periods.

2 Pass‐by trips represent customers that are traveling by the site on adjacent roadways and stop at the site while on their way to another destination. Surveys conducted at the Costco Warehouses in Salem, Oregon and Hillsboro Oregon reflected pass‐by rates ranging from 41‐53 percent. A 42 percent pass‐by rate was assumed to provide a conservative analysis.

56 Applying ITE rates to the proposed gas station results in similar or lower trip generation than analyzed in the

TIA. Utilizing ITE rates instead of surveyed Costco rates would result in 86 fewer trips during the AM peak hour and 1 more trip during the PM peak hour.




The trip distribution pattern for the project, shown in Figure 3‐1, was developed based on existing travel patterns on the surrounding roadway system and the locations of complementary land uses. The peak hour vehicle trips generated by the project were assigned to the roadway network in accordance with the trip distribution pattern.

Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions. Existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3‐2 and the result of the intersection LOS under Existing Conditions are shown in Table 3.M. As shown in Table 3.M, all intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS.

Existing plus Project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3‐3 and the results of the intersection LOS analysis under Existing plus Project Conditions are shown in Table 3.M. As shown in Table 3.M, all of the study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on the operations of any study area intersections under Existing plus Project Conditions.

Table 3.M: Existing Plus Project Level of Service Summary

ID # Intersection Control Peak Hour

Existing Existing Plus Project Delay Delta (s/veh)

Delay (s/veh) LOS Delay (s/veh) LOS

1 Hathaway Avenue & Costco Access (Signal)

Signal AM 3.9 A 6.3 A +2.4

PM 5.1 A 6.6 A +1.5

2 Hathaway Avenue & Costco Access (OWSC)

OWSC1 AM 9.5 (WBR) A 9.6 (WBR) A +0.1

PM 11.2 (WBR) B 11.3 (WBR) B +0.1

3 Hathaway Avenue & West A Street

Signal AM 40.8 D 43.6 D +2.8

PM 46.4 D 53.3 D +6.9

4 I‐880 Northbound Ramps & West A Street

Signal AM 17.5 B 19.5 B +2.0

PM 19.0 B 19.1 B +0.1

5 I‐880 Southbound Ramps & West A Street

Signal AM 28.9 C 29.1 B +0.2

PM 22.2 C 22.7 B +0.5 Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (2018). 1 LOS and Control delays for unsignalized intersections are presented for the critical movement. OWSC = One‐Way Stop Control s = seconds

NOT TO SCALE

SOURCE: KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC., SEPTEMBER 2018.


FIGURE 3-1


Project Trip Distribu on

NOT TO SCALE



FIGURE 3-2


Exis ng Traffic Volumes

NOT TO SCALE



FIGURE 3-3


Exis ng Plus Project Traffic Volumes




Background and Background Plus Project Conditions. The results of the intersection LOS analysis under Background Conditions are shown in Table 3.N. As shown in Table 3.N, all intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS.

Background plus Project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3‐4 and the results of the intersection LOS analysis under Background plus Project Conditions are shown in Table 3.N. As shown in Table 3.N, all of the study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on the operations of any study area intersections under Background plus Project Conditions.

Table 3.N: Background Plus Project Level of Service Summary


Background Background Plus

Project Delay Delta (s/veh) Delay (s/veh) LOS Delay (s/veh) LOS


Signal AM 3.9 A 6.5 A +2.6

PM 5.2 A 6.6 A +1.4


OWSC1 AM 9.5 (WBR) A 9.6 (WBR) A +0.1

PM 11.2 (WBR) B 11.4 (WBR) B +0.2


Signal AM 46.3 D 51.1 D +4.8

PM 49.6 D 56.8 D +7.2


Signal AM 19.3 B 23.3 B +4.0

PM 19.6 B 19.7 B +0.1


Signal AM 32.0 C 32.4 B +0.4

PM 22.9 C 23.5 B +0.6 Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (2018). 1 LOS and Control delays for unsignalized intersections are presented for the critical movement. OWSC = One‐Way Stop Control s = seconds

NOT TO SCALE



FIGURE 3-4


Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes




Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. The results of the intersection LOS analysis under Cumulative Conditions are shown in Table 3.O. As shown in Table 3.O, all intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS.

Cumulative plus Project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3‐5 and the results of the intersection LOS analysis under Cumulative plus Project Conditions are shown in Table 3.O. As shown in Table 3.O, all of the study intersections would continue to operate at LOS E or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on the operations of any study area intersections under Cumulative plus Project Conditions.

Table 3.O: Cumulative Plus Project Level of Service Summary


Cumulative Cumulative Plus Project Delay Delta (s/veh)

Delay (s/veh) LOS Delay (s/veh) LOS


Signal AM 3.9 A 6.6 A +2.7

PM 5.1 A 6.7 A +1.6


OWSC1 AM 9.6 (WBR) A 9.6 (WBR) A ‐

PM 11.4 (WBR) A 11.5 (WBR) B +0.1


Signal AM 69.5 E 75.8 E +6.3

PM 69.6 E 78.8 E +9.2


Signal AM 45.9 D 50.1 D +4.2

PM 21.3 C 21.8 E +0.5


Signal AM 42.5 D 43.6 D +1.1

PM 26.7 C 28.1 D +1.4 Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (2018). 1 LOS and Control delays for unsignalized intersections are presented for the critical movement. OWSC = One‐Way Stop Control s = seconds

Congestion Management Program. The Alameda CTC has not adopted a policy for determining a significant impact for freeway and arterial segments. For this analysis, the threshold for a significant impact is considered a 0.05 increase or more in volume‐to‐capacity (V/C) ratio for facilities operating at LOS F. A 0.05 increase can be considered a reasonably measured increase in traffic. As shown below, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to MTS freeway or arterial segments. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the CMP, and this impact would be less than significant.

Freeway Segments. The Highway Capacity Software (HCS) tool was used to analyze freeway mainline segments according to the above criteria. The MTS freeway segment analysis results are presented in Table 3.P. As shown in Table 3.P, under year 2020 and 2040 conditions, which represents cumulative conditions, all freeway segments operate within standards with or without the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to MTS freeway segments.

NOT TO SCALE



FIGURE 3-5


Cumula ve Plus Project Traffic Volumes




Table 3.P: Metropolitan Transportation System Freeway Level of Service Summary

Freeway Location Year No Project Plus Project Change

in V/C Volume Density1 LOS Volume Density LOS

I‐238 EB 14th Street to I‐580 2020 4,871 27.3 D 4,879 27.3 D N/A

2040 5,293 30.8 D 5,301 30.8 D N/A

I‐238 WB 14th Street to I‐580 2020 3,369 17.1 B 3,377 17.8 B N/A

2040 3,659 19.3 C 3,667 19.4 C N/A

I‐880 NB West A Street to Hesperian Boulevard

2020 6,745 28.6 D 6,755 28.6 D N/A

2040 7,069 30.6 D 7,709 30.7 D N/A

I‐880 NB West Winton Avenue to West A Street

2020 6,958 29.9 D 6,973 30 D N/A

2040 7,469 33.4 D 7,484 33.5 D N/A

I‐880 SB West A Street to Hesperian Boulevard

2020 7,224 31.7 D 7,234 31.7 D N/A

2040 8,203 39.6 E 8,213 39.7 E N/A

I‐880 SB West Winton Avenue to West A Street

2020 7,584 34.4 D 7,599 34.4 D N/A

2040 8,425 41.8 E 8,440 42 E N/A Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (2018). 1 Density = Passenger cars per mile per lane N/A = V/C criterion not met, as LOS is E or better.

Arterial Segments. Table 3.Q shows the results of the LOS analysis for the designated MTS arterial segments. As shown in Table 3.Q, the following arterial segments would operate below the LOS standard of F under year 2020 and/or 2040, which represents cumulative conditions, during the PM peak hour without the proposed project:

Eastbound W A Street, east of Hathaway Avenue (2020 and 2040)

Eastbound W A Street, west of Hathaway Avenue (2040)

Northbound Hesperian Boulevard, north of W A Street (2020 and 2040)

Northbound Hesperian Boulevard, south of W A Street (2040)

With the addition of traffic from the proposed project, all of these segments operating below the LOS standard of E would continue to operate below the standard, but would not experience an increase in the V/C ratio of 0.05 or more. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to MTS arterial segments.




Table 3.Q: Metropolitan Transportation System Arterial Level of Service Summary

Segment Metric No Project Plus Project

2020 2040 2020 2040

West A Street, east of Hathaway Avenue (eastbound)

Volume 1,689 1,782 1,708 1,801

LOS F F F F

V/C Change 0.011 0.011

West A Street, east of Hathaway Avenue (westbound)

Volume 1,109 1,473 1,128 1,492

LOS C D C D

V/C Change 0.017 0.013

West A Street, west of Hathaway Avenue (eastbound)

Volume 1,464 1,708 1,508 1,752

LOS D F D F

V/C Change 0.030 0.026

West A Street, west of Hathaway Avenue (westbound)

Volume 1,273 1,279 1,317 1,323

LOS D D D D

V/C Change 0.035 0.034

Hesperian Boulevard, north of West A Street (northbound)

Volume 2,884 3,087 2,894 3,097

LOS F F F F

V/C Change 0.003 0.003

Hesperian Boulevard, north of West A Street (southbound)

Volume 1,005 1,944 1,015 1,954

LOS C D C D

V/C Change 0.009 0.005

Hesperian Boulevard, south of West A Street (northbound)

Volume 2,240 2,704 2,250 2,714

LOS D F D F

V/C Change 0.004 0.004

Hesperian Boulevard, south of West A Street (southbound)

Volume 507 1,353 517 1,363

LOS C C C C

V/C Change 0.019 0.007 Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (2018). Bold text indicates substandard operations

Transit, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Facilities. Due to the automobile‐centered nature of the proposed project, it is not expected to generate significant transit, pedestrian, and bicycle trips internal or external to the project site. The proposed project would not preclude, modify, or otherwise affect existing or proposed transit, pedestrian, or bicycle projects or policies identified by the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing transit, pedestrian, or bicycle facilities.

b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)? (No Impact)

Effective December 28, 2018, the CEQA Guidelines were updated and require the evaluation of vehicle miles transportation (VMT) as the criteria for analyzing transportation impacts for land use projects. As noted in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(c), the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 shall apply prospectively as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15007. A lead agency may elect to be governed by the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 immediately; however, beginning on July 1, 2020, the provisions of this section shall apply Statewide. The City of Hayward, as lead agency, has not yet elected to be governed by the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. Therefore,




the proposed project would neither conflict nor be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, and there would be no impact.

c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

Site access and on‐site circulation issues that could contribute to hazardous conditions are discussed below. As discussed, these impacts would be less than significant.

Site Access. The proposed project would be accessed via the existing driveways for the business center along Hathaway Avenue. Both existing driveways provide access for circulation for autos, loading and delivery trucks, waste vehicles and emergency vehicles. No sight distance or visibility issues were identified at the driveways.

The proposed project is not expected to generate a significant number of pedestrian, bicycle, or transit trips given that it is an automobile‐centric use. The existing business center is also primarily patronized by customers that are driving rather than using alternate modes of transportation. The existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities on, and in the vicinity of, the business center, including the existing pedestrian walkways west of the proposed fuel facility, would not be altered. In addition, vehicle queues would not extend beyond the limits of the project site and would not back up onto the crosswalks at Hathaway Avenue. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to generate hazards related to site access and this impact would be less than significant.

Internal and Truck Circulation. The proposed fuel facility would be accessed via either of the existing driveways for the business center along Hathaway Avenue. Vehicles would enter the fuel facility from the west side, approximately 300 feet east of the signalized entrance along Hathaway Avenue, so that the queueing area would be internal to the site with no potential for queues to back‐up off site on to Hathaway Avenue. Vehicles would exit from the east side of the fuel station and could exit the business center site from either driveway along Hathaway Avenue. The current exit width is consistent with Costco's standard fuel facility exit width and allows larger vehicles, such as RVs, to exit the facility without conflict.

Fuel trucks would access the fuel station by entering and turning right at the signalized driveway on Hathaway Avenue. Trucks would access the fuel station from the north and fill outside of the queueing area. Trucks would then exit the site by turning left at the signal on Hathaway Avenue. The proposed project has been designed to provide an appropriate path for the fuel trucks between Hathaway Avenue and the fuel station. The fuel station was located to allow fuel delivery trucks to circulate the site without impacting the business center delivery trucks and members entering the business center. In addition, fuel trucks are anticipated to deliver fuel early in the morning to further ensure delivery trucks and members would not be impacted; however, fuel would be delivered to the facility as required for member needs and facility operation. Therefore, potential hazards related to internal site circulation due to design features would be less than significant.




Parking Supply. Parking‐related impacts, such as insufficient parking supply to meet demand, are not considered impacts under CEQA.57 Therefore, the discussion of parking demand and supply is provided for informational purposes only.

The City’s Municipal Code requires the entire business center parcel to provide vehicle parking spaces at a rate of 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area. The entire business center site provides a total of 503 parking spaces on site for a ratio of approximately 4.05 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area.

The proposed project would result in the net removal of 105 parking spaces, for a total of 398 parking spaces, which would result in a ratio of approximately 3.44 spaces per 1,000 square feet. As shown in the TIA, the business center would have a peak demand, occurring mid‐Saturdays, of 2.61 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Therefore, the proposed parking supply is higher than what is considered to be the effective capacity supply needed to serve both typical and atypical days at the business center.

d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

The proposed project would not result in the alteration of any access points, and therefore emergency vehicle access to the overall site would remain unchanged. Emergency vehicles, including fire trucks and ambulances, would be able to access the fuel station portion of the site through either of the site accesses and circulate in and around the entire business center site, and this impact would be less than significant.

57 Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th

1013.




3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES





No Impact

Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a

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

i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? Or

ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural

resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? Or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), which became law on January 1, 2015, provides for consultation with California Native American tribes during the CEQA environmental review process, and equates significant impacts to “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts. Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21074 states that “tribal cultural resources” are:

Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe and are one of the following:

○ Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.




○ Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of PRC Section 5020.1.

○ A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

A “historical resource” (PRC Section 21084.1), a “unique archaeological resource” (PRC Section 21083.2(g)), or a “nonunique archaeological resource” (PRC Section 21083.2 (h)) may also be a tribal cultural resource if it is included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register.

The consultation provisions of the law require that a public agency consult with local Native American tribes that have requested placement on that agency’s notification list for CEQA projects. Within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete, or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency must notify tribes of the opportunity to consult on the project, should a tribe have previously requested to be on the agency’s notification list. California Native American tribes must be recognized by the California Native American Heritage Commission as traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site, and must have previously requested that the lead agency notify them of projects. Tribes have 30 days following notification of a project to request consultation with the lead agency.

The purpose of consultation is to inform the lead agency in its identification and determination of the significance of tribal cultural resources. If a project is determined to result in a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource, the consultation process must occur and conclude prior to adoption of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, or certification of an Environmental Impact Report (PRC Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3).

The City sent letters, which are included in Appendix G, describing the project and maps depicting the project site via certified mail on June 11, 2019, to Native American contacts that had previously requested to be contacted by the City for potential consultation pursuant to AB 52. The City did not receive any requests for consultation during the 30-day notification period. Therefore, the City considers the AB 52 consultation process to be concluded.

As noted in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, the project site is not listed on, or eligible for listing on, the CRHR. Additionally, the City, as Lead Agency, has not determined that there are any existing resources significant to Native American Tribes within the project site. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.




3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS





No Impact

Would the project: a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or

expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?

c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,

wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

The City of Hayward maintains existing sanitary sewer lines within the vicinity of the project site, including a 12‐inch line within the southern portion of the project site. The proposed project would not require any new connections to the sanitary sewer system and therefore would not cause significant environmental effects related to new wastewater infrastructure.

The City provides water for residential, commercial, industrial, governmental, and fire suppression uses. The City owns and operates its own water distribution system and purchases all of its water from the San Francisco Public Utility Commission (SFPUC). Emergency water supplies are available through connections with the Alameda County Water District (ACWD) and the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) in case of disruption of delivery from SFPUC. The City receives water through two aqueducts along Mission Boulevard and Hesperian Boulevard that have a total capacity of 32 million gallons per day. The aqueducts deliver potable water through a pressurized distribution system with over 360 miles of pipelines, 14 water storage reservoirs, 7 pump stations, transmission system pressure regulating valves, numerous zonal pressure reducing valves, and 2 booster pump stations. Five water wells, certified by the California Department of Health Services for short duration emergency use only, are located within the City limits and can provide up to 13.6 million gallons of water per day (mgd).58

58 Hayward, City of, 2014. Public Review Draft Background Report. November.




The City updated it Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in 2015,59 and adopted the UWMP in 2016. According to the UWMP, the annual water use in 2015 was 4,963 acre‐feet. As discussed in Section 4.19.b, the proposed project would not substantially increase demand for water and would therefore not exceed the capacity of existing water treatment facilities. The proposed project would not require the construction of new water treatment facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities, other than those already planned. The proposed project would include the relocation of an existing fire hydrant, which would reconnect to the existing 6‐inch fire service water line within the project site. The proposed project would connect directly to existing mains, which have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project on water infrastructure would be less than significant.

The proposed storm drainage infrastructure would drain towards the eastern portion of the site into new 6‐inch and 12‐inch storm drains. From there, stormwater would drain to the existing 18‐inch storm drain at the eastern edge of the site. Bioretention areas would also be incorporated into the landscape design of the proposed project to provide appropriate vegetation and water quality treatment in vegetated areas. In addition, on‐site drainage would be designed consistent with the Alameda County NPDES C.3 requirements for Low Impact Development (LID). Therefore, the impact of the proposed project on stormwater infrastructure would be less than significant.

An existing electrical line that runs through the project site would provide electricity to the project site. In addition, as noted in Section 1.0, Project Information, the proposed project includes the construction of four new underground gasoline storage tanks, the effects of which are evaluated throughout this document. In addition, the project site is currently served by telecommunication facilities, and would not require any new construction for telecommunication service.

Therefore, because the proposed project would connect to existing utility services within or adjacent to the project site, and there is sufficient excess capacity within those systems to accommodate project demands, the relocation or reconstruction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, or telecommunications facilities would not be required, and this impact would be less than significant.

b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

As noted above, the City provides water service to the project site and purchases all of its water from the SFPUC. The City’s 2015 UWMP describes the existing and planned sources of water available in the water system service area over the next 20 years, in 5‐year increments.

The City has determined that existing water supply entitlements are sufficient and no additional water supply entitlements are necessary. The UWMP, which identifies water system improvements necessary to meet future water demand, did not identify any deficiencies in the vicinity of the project site. The existing water system infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would be required to coordinate with the HDF to assess fire flow requirements

59 Hayward, City of, 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June.




and comply with them as part of the project. Based on the above, the City would have sufficient water supply to support the proposed project and implementation of the project would not require new or expanded entitlements for water supplies, and impacts related to water supply would be less than significant.

c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (No Impact)

The City owns and operates its municipal wastewater collection system containing 350 miles of sewer mains, 9 sewage lift stations, and 2.5 miles of force mains. Wastewater is collected and transported via underground sewer lines to the City of Hayward Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) located at the terminus of Enterprise Avenue in western Hayward. In 2015, the WPCF treated 3,830 million gallons of wastewater and discharged 3,915 million gallons of treated wastewater.60 The proposed project would not generate domestic wastewater, and therefore would not cause the WPCF to violate any wastewater treatment requirements, and no impact would occur.

d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

The City of Hayward provides weekly garbage collection and disposal services through a Franchise Agreement with Waste Management, Inc. (WMI), a private company. WMI subcontracts with a local non‐profit, Tri‐CED Community Recycling, for residential collection of recyclables. Altamont Landfill is the designated disposal site in the City’s Franchise Agreement with WMI. Altamont Landfill is a Class II facility that accepts municipal solid waste from various cities, including Hayward. The landfill occupies a 2,170‐acre site of which 472 acres are permitted for landfill. In 2001, the landfill received County approval to increase capacity, adding 25 years to the life of the landfill and extending the anticipated closure date to the year 2040.

The Altamont Landfill has a total capacity of 124.4 million cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 65.4 million cubic yards, and can accept 11,150 tons per day.61 On average, auto dealers and service stations generate approximately 0.9 pounds per 100 square feet per day.62 Therefore, the proposed project would generate approximately 85 pounds of solid waste per day, or 15 tons per year. However, it should be noted that this is a conservative estimate,63 and the actual solid waste generation would likely be less. As noted above, the Altamont Landfill has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. As such, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity to accommodate the

60 Hayward, City of, 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June. 61 CalRecycle, 2019. SWIS Facility Detail. Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery (01‐AA‐0009). Website:

www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/01‐AA‐0009/ (accessed May 9, 2019). 62 CalRecycle, 2019. Solid Waste Generation Rates. Website: www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/

General/Rates (accessed May 9, 2019). 63 This estimate of solid waste generation is based on rates for auto dealers and service stations. Actual solid

waste generation would likely be less as the proposed project would only include, aside from the fueling canopy, a 112‐square‐foot controller enclosure that would only be accessible by Costco employees.




project’s waste disposal needs, and impacts associated with the disposition of solid waste would be less than significant.

e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)

The proposed project would comply with all federal, State, and local solid waste statutes and/or regulations related to solid waste, including the City’s construction and demolition debris waste reduction and recycling requirements, which requires preparation of a waste management plan for demolition and construction of any nonresidential buildings. Also refer to Section 3.19.d. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less‐than‐significant impact related to solid waste regulations.




3.20 WILDFIRE





No Impact

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post‐fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

a. Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency

evacuation plan? (No Impact)

The project site is not located within any state responsibility areas (SRA) for fire service,64 and is not within a very high fire hazard severity zone.65 In addition, as noted in Section 3.9.f, the proposed project would not impair the implementation of, or physically interfere with, and adopted emergency response plan and no impact would occur.

b. Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (No Impact)

Refer to Section 3.20.a. Additionally, as noted in Section 2.0, Project Description, the project site is generally level, and is bound by existing development on all sides. Therefore, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire and no impact would occur.

64 California, State of, 2007. Alameda County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA (map). Available at:

frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/alameda/fhszs_map.1.pdf (accessed May 9, 2019). 65 Hayward, City of, 2014a, op. cit.




c. Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (No Impact)

Refer to Section 3.20.a. The proposed project is not located within an SRA for fire service and is not within a very high fire hazard severity zone. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure and no impact would occur.

d. Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post‐fire slope instability, or drainage changes? (No Impact)

Refer to Section 3.20.a and 3.20.b. The project site is generally level and is not located within an SRA for fire service or a very high fire hazard severity zone. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of post‐fire slope instability or drainage and runoff changes.




3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE





No Impact

a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)

c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,

substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)

Implementation of Mitigation Measures Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL‐1 and CUL‐2 and GEO‐1 would ensure that potential impacts to historic and archaeological resources that could be uncovered during construction activities would be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO‐1 would ensure that potential impacts to nesting birds are reduced to a less‐than‐significant level. Therefore, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, development of the proposed project would not: 1) degrade the quality of the environment; 2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; 3) cause a fish or wildlife species population to drop below self‐sustaining levels; 4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; 5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or 6) eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history.

b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)

CEQA defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, or which can compound to increase other environmental impacts.” Section 15130 of




the CEQA Guidelines requires evaluation of potential environmental impacts when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of “reasonably foreseeable probable future” projects, per CEQA Section 15355. Cumulative impacts can result from a combination of the proposed project together with other closely related projects that cause an adverse change in the environment. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over time.

The proposed project’s impacts would be individually limited and not cumulatively considerable, because these impacts are either temporary in nature (i.e., limited to the construction period) or are limited to the project site (i.e., potential discovery of unknown cultural or paleontological resources). The potentially significant impacts that can be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level with implementation of recommended mitigation measures include the topics of aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality, and noise. These impacts would primarily be related to construction‐period activities, would be temporary in nature, and would not substantially contribute to any potential cumulative impacts associated with these topics. For the topic of air quality, potentially significant impacts to air quality standards associated with project construction would be reduced to less‐than‐significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1. For the topic of biological resources, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO‐1 would ensure that impacts to special status‐species are reduced to a less‐than‐significant level. For the topic of cultural resources, potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to less‐than‐significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL‐1 and CUL‐2. For the topic of geology and soils, potentially significant impacts related to seismic‐related ground failure and paleontological resources would be reduced to less‐than‐significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO‐1 and GEO‐2. For the topic of hydrology and water quality, implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD‐1 and HYD‐2 would ensure that potential water quality impacts are reduced to a less‐than‐significant level.

For the topics of aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire, the project would have no impacts or less‐than‐significant impacts, and therefore, the project would not substantially contribute to any potential cumulative impacts for these topics. All environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level through the implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this document.

When future development proposals are considered by the City, these proposals would undergo environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and when necessary, mitigation measures would be adopted as appropriate. In most cases, this environmental review and compliance with project conditions of approval, relevant policies and mitigation measures, and the General Plan, and compliance with applicable regulations would ensure that significant impacts would be avoided or otherwise mitigated to less‐than‐significant levels.




Implementation of these measures would ensure that the impacts of the project and other projects within the vicinity would be below established thresholds of significance and that these impacts would not combine with the impacts of other cumulative projects to result in a cumulatively considerable impact on the environment as a result of project development. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (No Impact)

The proposed project would not result in any environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or indirect adverse effects to human beings.




4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Pt. Richmond, CA 94801

Theresa Wallace, AICP, Principal in Charge Matthew Wiswell, Project Manager Amy Fischer, Principal/Air Quality and Noise Specialist Cara Carlucci, Planner/Air Quality and Noise Specialist Patty Linder, Graphics and Production Charis Hanshaw, Document Management








5.0 REFERENCES

Alameda County Community Development Agency, 2010. Planning Department. Oakland International Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. December.

Alameda County Community Development Agency, 2012. Planning Department. Hayward Executive Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. August.

Arborwell Professional Tree Management, 2018. Arborist Report & Tree Appraisal for Costco Business Center #823 at 22330 Hathaway Avenue, Hayward, CA. October 1.

Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2013. Plan Bay Area. July 18.

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

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2018. Permit Handbook. October 23. Website: www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/engineering/permit‐handbook/baaqmd‐permit‐handbook.pdf (accessed June 2019).

California Air Resources Board, 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April.

California Department of Conservation, 2019. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation (map). Website: maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ (accessed May 3, 2019). April 4.

California Department of General Service, Building Standards Commission, 2019. California Building Standards Commission Information Bulletin 19‐04. June 24.

California Energy Commission, 2017. 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy Commission. Publication Number: CEC‐100‐2017‐001‐CMF.

California Energy Commission, 2017. California Gasoline Data, Facts, and Statistics. Website: www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/transportation_data/gasoline/ (accessed April 2019).

California Energy Commission, 2017. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Electricity Consumption by County. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. (accessed May 2019).

California Energy Commission, 2017. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Gas Consumption by County. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx. (accessed May 2019).

California State Mining and Geology Board, 2014. Surface Mining Reclamation Act Regulations. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 2, Chapter 8, Subchapter 1.




California, State of, 2007. Alameda County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA (map). Available at: frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/alameda/fhszs_map.1.pdf (accessed May 9, 2019).

California, State of, 2009. California Emergency Management Agency. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning: San Leandro Quadrangle. July 31.

California, State of, 2015. Alameda County Williamson Act FY 2014/2015 (map). September 28.

California, State of, 2016. Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder (map). Website: maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/ (accessed April 15, 2019).

CalRecycle, 2019. Solid Waste Generation Rates. Website: www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates (accessed May 9, 2019).

CalRecycle, 2019. SWIS Facility Detail. Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery (01‐AA‐0009). Website: www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/01‐AA‐0009/ (accessed May 9, 2019).

CIRCA: Historic Property Development, 2010. City of Hayward Historical Resources Survey & Inventory Report. July.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2009. FEMA Flood Map Service Center (map). Website: msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=22330%20Hathaway%2C%20Hayward%2C%20CAS#searchresultsanchor (accessed May 1, 2019).

Hayward City of, 2002. City of Hayward Planning Commission Agenda Report. Modification of Planned Development No. PL‐2002‐0003/0002 – Bruce Creager of Barghausen Consulting Engineers for Costco Wholesale (Applicant)/The Price Club Company DBA Costco Wholesale (Owner). December 19.

Hayward, City of, 2014. Public Review Draft Background Report. November.

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

Hayward, City of, 2014b. Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document, Hazards Element, Policy HAZ‐2.2. January.

Hayward, City of, 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June.

Hayward, City of, 2019. Hayward Fire Department: Stations. Website: www.hayward‐ca.gov/fire‐department/stations (accessed May 6, 2019).

Hayward, City of, 2019. Hayward Municipal Code. Chapter 10, Article 15: Tree Preservation. June 29 (as amended).

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




Kittelson & Associates, Inc., 2018. Hayward Costco Business Center Fuel Station Addition Transportation Assessment. September 27.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc., 2018. Transportation Impact Analysis for the Hayward Costco Business Center Fuel Station Addition. September.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc., 2019. Hayward Costco Business Center Response to Agency Comments. June 7.

Kleinfelder, 2016. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Costco Fuel Facility, Costco Wholesale Business Center No. 823, 22330 Hathaway Avenue, Hayward, California. May 23.

LSA Associates, Inc., 2019. Hayward Costco Business Center Fuel Station Addition Project – Transportation Impact Analysis Peer Review. May 13.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2018. Web Soil Survey (map). Website: websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed May 3, 2019).

Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1013.

U.S. Department of Transportation. “Table 4‐23: Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles.” Website: www.bts.gov/archive/publications/national_transportation_statistics/table_04_23/ (accessed May 2019).





cos tc o business center fuel fa cility initial stu dy/ mitig at ed ...

Documents