Fremont City Council
March 15, 2022

City Council Chambers
3300 Capitol Avenue
Fremont, CA

Fremont City Council

Lily Mei, Mayor
Raj Salwan, Vice Mayor
Teresa Keng, District 1
Rick Jones, District 2
Jenny Kassan, District 3
Yang Shao, District 4
Teresa Cox, District 6

City Staff

Karena Shackelford, City Manager
Rafael Alvarado, Jr., City Attorney
Christina Briggs, Assistant City Manager
Brian Stott, Assistant City Manager

Allen DeMers, Human Resources Director
Susan Gauthier, City Clerk
Curtis Jacobson, Fire Chief
Hans Larsen, Public Works Director
David Persselin, Finance Director
Dan Schoenholz, Community Dev. Director
Suzanne Shenfil, Human Services Director
Sanford Taylor, Information Technology Director
Sean Washington, Chief of Police
Suzanne Wolf, Community Services Director

Fremont City Council
Agenda and Report
March 15, 2022

General Order of Business

1. Preliminary
• Call to Order
• Salute to the Flag
• Roll Call

2. Consent Agenda

3. Ceremonial Items

4. Public Communications

5. Scheduled Items
• Public Hearings
• Appeals
• Reports from Commissions, Boards and
Committees

6. Report from City Attorney

7. Other Business

8. Council Communications

9. Adjournment

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
This meeting is being conducted utilizing
teleconferencing and electronic means Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54953(e) (Assembly Bill
361), The live stream of the meeting may be viewed
on the City of Fremont’s website at
www.Fremont.gov/Channel27 , which also provides
a link to the live stream; or, on Comcast Channel 27.

Please note at this time, Channel 27 is only
available to Comcast cable subscribers. The public
may only view the meeting on television and/or
online and not in the Council Chamber.

Submission of Public Comments: For those wishing
to make public comments at the March 15, 2022
Council meeting, you may either: (1) submit your
comments by email prior to the meeting, or (2) by
Spoken Public Comment during the meeting. If you
experience technical problems with the telephonic
meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at
(510)284-4060 or [email protected] .

See instructions on next page.

Agenda and Report - Fremont City Council Meeting - March 15, 2022

March 15, 2022 Fremont City Council Page 2
How to submit Public Communications / Public Comment by email prior to the meeting:

Send an email to [email protected] by 4:00 p.m. the day of the meeting. Please identify the agenda item number and meeting date in the subject line of your email or specify that it is not related to an agenda item. Emails will be compiled into files by agenda item number, distributed to the City Council and staff, and published in the City's Agenda Center on www.fremont.gov. If you wish to share an attachment/exhibit during a public comment portion of the zoom meeting, submit the pdf formatted document(s) to the email above by the noted deadline. Use the “raise hand” feature to request to speak. When called upon by the Mayor, City staff can share the document(s) while you are speaking during the time allotted.

Electronic comments on agenda items for the City Council meeting may only be submitted by email. Comments via text and social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) will not be accepted.

How to provide Spoken Public Comment during the meeting:
1) By phone 833-430-0037 (toll free). Webinar ID: 971 6925 4720. Click *9 to raise a hand to speak. 2) By online https://zoom.us/j/97169254720
a. Use a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. Mute all other audio before speaking. Using multiple devices can cause an audio feedback. b. Enter an email address and name. The name will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak.
c. When the Mayor calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on “raise hand.” Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.
d. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted.

If you are an individual with a disability and need a reasonable modification or accommodation pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, or if you do not have access to email or the internet, please contact The City Clerk’s Office at (510)284-4060 or [email protected] prior to the meeting for assistance.

Order of Discussion
Generally, the order of discussion after introduction of an item by the Mayor will include comments and information by staff followed by City Council questions and inquiries. The applicant, or their authorized representative, or interested citizens, may they speak on the item; each speaker may only speak once to each item. At the close of public discussion, the item will be considered by the City Council and action taken. Items on the agenda may be moved from the order listed.

Consent Calendar
Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion and one vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered separately.

Additionally, other items without a “Request to Address the City Council” card in opposition may be added to the consent calendar. The City Attorney will read the title of ordinances to be adopted.

Oral Communications
Any person desiring to speak on a matter which is not scheduled on this agenda may do so under the Oral Communications section of Public Communications. Please submit your speaker card to the City Clerk prior to the commencement of Oral communications. Only those who have submitted cards prior to the beginning of Oral Communications will be permitted to speak. Please be aware the California Government Code prohibits the City Council from taking any immediate action on an item which does not appear on the agenda, unless the item meets stringent statutory requirements. The Mayor will limit the length of your presentation (see instructions on speaker card) and each speaker may only speak once on each agenda item.

The City Council Agendas may be accessed by computer at the following World Wide Web Address:
www.fremont.gov

Availability of Public Records
All disclosable public records relating to an open session item on this agenda that are distributed by the City to all or a majority of the City Council less than 72 hours prior to the meeting will be available for public inspection in specifically labeled binders located in the lobby of Fremont City Hall, 3300 Capitol Avenue during normal business hours, at the time the records are distributed to the City Council.

Information about the City or items scheduled on the Agenda and Report may be referred to:

Address: City Clerk
City of Fremont
3300 Capitol Avenue, Bldg. A
Fremont, California 94538
Telephone: (510) 284-4060

Your interest in the conduct of our City’s business is appreciated.

March 15, 2022 Fremont City Council Page 3
Agenda
Fremont City Council Regular Meeting
March 15, 2022
City Council Chambers, 3300 Capitol Avenue, Building A
7:00 PM

1. Preliminary
A. Call to Order
B. Salute the Flag
C. Roll Call
D. Announcements by Mayor / City Manager

2. Consent Calendar
Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion and one vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Additionally, other items without a “Request to Address Council” card in opposition may be added to the consent calendar. The City Attorney will read the title of ordinances to be adopted.

A. Motion To: Waive Further Reading of Proposed Ordinances (This permits reading the title only in lieu of reciting the entire text.) B. Approval of Minutes - None.

C. ON-CALL POOL PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT PARTS FOR AQUA ADVENTURE WATERPARK – Authorize the City Manager or Designee to Execute On-Call Pool Preventative Maintenance and Replacement Parts for Aqua Adventure Waterpark Agreement(s) with National Aquatic Services and Skyblue Pool Supply ‘N Service, Inc.

Contact Persons:

Name: Kim Beranek Suzanne Wolf
Title: Deputy Director Community Services Director
Dept: Community Services Community Services
Phone: 510-494-4330 510-494-4329
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute a five year on-call maintenance service agreement with National Aquatic Services Inc. in an amount not to exceed $99,000 annually, and subject to available funding for on-call pool maintenance services at Aqua Adventure Waterpark.

2. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute a five year on-call maintenance service agreement with Skyblue Pool Supply ‘N Service, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $99,000 annually, and subject to available funding for on-call pool maintenance services at Aqua Adventure Waterpark.

March 15, 2022 Fremont City Council Page 4
D. DUSTERBERRY WAY RAILROAD CROSSING SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - Authorization to Execute a Public Road Crossing Improvement Agreement with Union Pacific Railroad Related to the Dusterberry Way Section 130 Safety Improvement Project (PWC 8964); Allocate Additional Appropriations; Make Findings of CEQA Exemptions
Contact Persons:

Name: Jeanne Suyeishi Hans Larsen
Title: Senior Civil Engineer Public Works Director
Dept: Public Works Public Works
Phone: 510-494-4728 510-494-4722
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]

RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the following actions related to the Dusterberry Way Section 130 Safety Improvement Project (PWC 8964):

1. Authorize the City Manager or her designee to execute all agreements with Union Pacific Railroad for the Dusterberry Way Safety Improvement Project (PWC 8964).

2. Find that this project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review pursuant to, without limitation CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 as the repair, maintenance or minor alteration of existing facilities involving no or negligible expansion of use beyond that presently existing; Section 15302, as replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities located on the same site and with substantially the same purpose and involving negligible or no expansion of capacity; Section 15303, as new construction or conversion of small structures, including street improvements; Section 15304, as minor alterations to land; and/or Section 15311, as construction or replacement of minor structures accessory to existing facilities including but not limited to on-premise signs. Each of the foregoing provides a separate and independent basis for CEQA compliance.

3. Appropriate $50,000 in Section 130 funds to the Dusterberry Way Safety Improvement Project (PWC 8964-522).

E. AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE BABBLING BROOK AND MAMMOTH PICNIC AREA RENOVATIONS PROJECT - Approve Plans and Specifications and Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $494,007.50, to IBS USA, Inc., for the Babbling Brook and Mammoth Picnic Area Renovations Project (PWC8999 & PWC9029); and Approve the Reallocation of $59,308 from the Dusterberry Neighborhood Park Project (PWC8581) to Central Park Mammoth Picnic Area (PWC9029) and Find the Project Exempt From Further Environmental Review Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15302, Replacement or Reconstruction Contact Persons:

Name: Eva Lee Suzanne Wolf
Title: Landscape Designer II Community Services Director Dept: Landscape Architecture Community Services
Phone: 510-494-4776 510-494-4329
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Find Babbling Brook and Mammoth Picnic Area Renovations Project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15302, Replacement or Reconstruction.

2. Reallocate $59,308 from the Dusterberry Neighborhood Park Project (PWC8581-540) to Central Park Mammoth Picnic Area (PWC9029-540).

3. Approve the Plans and Specifications for the Babbling Brook and Mammoth Picnic Area Renovations Project (PWC8999 and PWC9029).

4. Award a Construction Contract of $449,097.50 to IBS USA Inc., plus a 10% March 15, 2022 Fremont City Council Page 5
Construction Contingency in the amount of $44,910, for a total construction contract amount of $494,007.50.

F. AUTHORIZE AMENDMENT FOR KB SON INC. OWNER OF DAYS INN - Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amendment with KB SON INC., Owner of Days Inn, to Continue Providing Units for the Winter Relief Non- Congregate Shelter Program
Contact Persons:

Name: Laurie Flores Suzanne Shenfil
Title: Homeless Services Manager Director
Dept: Human Services Department Human Services Department Phone: 510-574-2040 510-574-2051
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]

RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment with KB Son Inc. in an amount not to exceed $71,000 for a new total agreement not to exceed $170,000.

G. ELECTRIC UTILITY RATE PLAN - Council Direction Regarding Utility Rate Plan for City Operations
Contact Persons:

Name: Rachel DiFranco Dan Schoenholz
Title: Sustainability Manager Community Development Director Dept: Community Development Community Development
Phone: 510-494-4451 510-494-4438
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]

RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to enroll all City electricity accounts in EBCE’s Renewable 100 rate plan, and reflect this change in the City’s proposed FY 2022/23 budget and find the action exempt from CEQA, as detailed in staff report.

3. Ceremonial Items
A. Proclamation: Proclaiming March 2020 as the 20th Annual March for Meals Month

4. Public Communications
A. Oral and Written Communications
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - None.

PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY - None.

CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR

5. Scheduled Items
A. ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021-00160 - Public Hearing (Published Notice) To Consider the Planning Commission's Recommendation To: 1) Adopt a Resolution Approving a General Plan Amendment To Tech Industrial; 2) Introduce and Ordinance Approving the Rezoning to Preliminary and Precise Planned District P-2021-160; 3) Approve Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 11171; and 4) Adopt a Resolution Adopting an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report and Supplemental (EIR) (SCH No. 2005042146) Previously March 15, 2022 Fremont City Council Page 6
Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Approval of the Proposed Project Would Facilitate and Allow Development of a Three-Building Industrial Development Totaling Approximately 397,000 Square Feet on a 22.4 Acre Site Located at 40517 Albrae Street in the Bayside Industrial Community Plan Area.

Contact Persons:

Name: Mark Hungerford Joel Pullen
Title: Associate Planner Planning Manager
Dept: Planning Planning
Phone: 510-494-4541 510-494-4436
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Hold public hearing.

2. Upon conclusion of the public hearing, adopt a resolution adopting the Addendum and Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project as shown in Exhibit “A,” and find on the basis of the whole record before it that the project is consistent with the previously-certified EIR for site development, project changes reflect a decrease in intensity from the previously analyzed project, and that there is no substantial evidence that the project introduces significant effects on the environment or increases the severity of previously identified impacts, and that this action reflects the independent judgment of the City of Fremont;

3. Find that the General Plan Amendment, as shown in Exhibit “B,” conforms with and contains the requirements provided for in the City’s planning processes, constitutes a suitable and logical change in the plan for physical development of the City of Fremont, and is in the public interest.

4. Find the project is in conformance with the relevant provisions contained in the City’s General Plan, including the designated goals and polices set forth in the Land Use, Mobility, and Economic Development Chapters of the General Plan as enumerated in the staff report;

5. Find that the project plans for Preliminary and Precise Planned District P- 2021-160 as shown in Exhibit “D” and in the accompanying Planned District Guidelines as shown in Exhibit “E” fulfill the applicable requirements set forth in the Fremont Municipal Code;

6. Adopt a resolution approving a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Regional Commercial to Tech Industrial, as shown in Exhibit “B;”

7. Introduce an ordinance adopting Preliminary and Precise Planned District P- 2021-160 as shown in Exhibit “C” (Planned District Rezoning) and Exhibit “D” (Preliminary & Precise Planned District Plans and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map) and the accompanying Planned District Guidelines as shown in Exhibit “E,” based upon the findings and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit “F;”

8. Approve the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map as shown in Exhibit “D” pursuant to FMC Section 17.20.200 and Government Code Section 66474, because none of the following findings for denial can be made, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit “F;” and

9. Direct staff to prepare and the City Clerk to publish a summary of the resolution and ordinance.

March 15, 2022 Fremont City Council Page 7
B. 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT - Public Hearing (Published Notice) To Consider an Annual Report on the Status of Implementation of the General Plan and the 2015 – 2023 Housing Element, and to Consider an Exemption from the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 in that the Annual Report Does Not Meet CEQA's Definition of a "Project."
Contact Persons:

Name: Courtney Pal Hang Zhou
Title: Planner II Planner II
Dept: Planning Planning
Phone: 510-494-4532 510-494-4545
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Find the annual report is exempt from, and not subject to the requirements of, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to, without limitation, CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), in that the annual report does not meet CEQA's definition of a "project,” and as a separate and independent basis, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (no possibility of significant environmental effect)

2. Accept Exhibit A and Exhibit B, which depict the current status of the General Plan and Housing Element, and direct staff to submit the required materials to OPR and HCD.

6. Report from City Attorney - None.

7. Other Business
A. ADOPTION OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN - Adopt a Resolution to adopt the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and make a finding that the Parks and Recreation Master Plan is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guidelines Sections 15162, 15163, 15262, and 15378(b), and no further environmental review is required at this time.

Contact Persons:

Name: Tara Bhuthimethee Suzanne Wolf
Title: Senior Landscape Architect Community Services Director Dept: Community Services Community Services
Phone: 510-494-4738 510-494-4329
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Find that the Parks and Recreation Master Plan is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guidelines Sections 15162, 15163, 15262, and 15378(b), and no further environmental review is required at this time.

2. Find that the Parks and Recreation Master Plan complies with the City’s General Plan Policy 8-1.6.A: Review and Update of Relevant Plans and supports Goal 8-1: A Wide Range of Parks and Recreational Facilities.

3. Adopt a resolution to adopt the Parks and Recreation Master Plan included with this report.

March 15, 2022 Fremont City Council Page 8

8. Council Communications
A. Council Referrals - None.

B. Oral Reports on Meetings and Events

9. Adjournment
March 15, 2022 Fremont City Council Page 9

ACRONYMS

ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments GIS Geographic Information System ACE Altamont Commuter Express GPA General Plan Amendment ACFCD Alameda County Flood Control District HARB Historical Architectural Review Board ACTC Alameda County Transportation
Commission
HBA Home Builders Association
HRC Human Relations Commission
ACWD Alameda County Water District ICMA International City/County Management Association ARB Art Review Board
BAAQMD

BART
Bay Area Air Quality Management
District
Bay Area Rapid Transit District
JPA Joint Powers Authority
LLMD Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance
District
BCDC Bay Conservation & Development
Commission
LOCC League of California Cities
LOS Level of Service
BMPs Best Management Practices MOU Memorandum of Understanding BMR Below Market Rate MTC Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
CALPERS California Public Employees’ Retirement
System
NEPA
NLC
National Environmental Policy Act
National League of Cities
CBC
CDD
California Building Code
Community Development Department
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
CC & R’s Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions NPO Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance CDBG Community Development Block Grant PC Planning Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act PD Planned District CERT Community Emergency Response Team PDA Priority Development Area CIP Capital Improvement Program PUC Public Utilities Commission CNG Compressed Natural Gas PVAW Private Vehicle Accessway COF City of Fremont PWC Public Works Contract
COPPS Community Oriented Policing and Public
Safety
RFP Request for Proposals
RFQ Request for Qualifications
CSAC California State Association of Counties RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation CTC California Transportation Commission ROP Regional Occupational Program dB Decibel RRIDRO Residential Rent Increase Dispute
Resolution Ordinance DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report DU/AC Dwelling Units per Acre RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board EBRPD East Bay Regional Park District SACNET

Southern Alameda County Narcotics
Enforcement Task Force EDAC Economic Development Advisory Commission (City)
EIR
EIS
Environmental Impact Report (CEQA)
Environmental Impact Statement
STIP State Transportation Improvement
Program

ERAF
(NEPA)
Education Revenue Augmentation Fund
TCRDF Tri-Cities Recycling and Disposal Facility
TOD Transit Oriented Development
EVAW
FAR
Emergency Vehicle Accessway
Floor Area Ratio
TS/MRF Transfer Station/Materials Recovery
Facility
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency UBC See CBC
FFD Fremont Fire Department VTA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
FMC Fremont Municipal Code WMA Waste Management Authority FPD Fremont Police Department
FRC Family Resource Center ZA Zoning Administrator
FUSD Fremont Unified School District ZTA Zoning Text Amendment

@
March 15, 2022 Fremont City Council Page 10

UPCOMING MEETING AND CHANNEL 27

BROADCAST SCHEDULE
Date Time Meeting Type Location
Cable
Channel
27 March 15, 2022 6:00 p.m. City Council Closed Session Meeting Virtual Live
March 15, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Virtual Live March 22, 2022 5:30 p.m. CC/FUSD Liaison Committee
Meeting City Hosts Live
March 22, 2022 No 7 PM City Council Meeting
(4th Tuesday)
March 29, 2022 No 7 PM City Council Meeting
(5th Tuesday)
April 5, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Council
Chambers Live
April 12, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Council
Chambers Live
April 19, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Council
Chambers Live
April 26, 2022 *CANCELLED*
April 26, 2022 No 7 PM City Council Meeting
(4th Tuesday)
Monday,
May 2, 2022 5:30 p.m. Joint City Council/FUSD
Meeting City Hosts Live
May 3, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Council
Chambers Live
May 10, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Council
Chambers Live
May 17, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Council
Chambers Live
May 24, 2022 5:30 p.m. CC/FUSD Liaison Committee
Meeting FUSD Hosts Live
May 24, 2022 No 7 PM City Council
Meeting (4th Tuesday)
May 31, 2022 No 7 PM City Council
Meeting (5th Tuesday)
June 7, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Council
Chambers Live
June 14, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Council
Chambers Live
June 21, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Council
Chambers Live
June 28, 2022 5:30 p.m. CC/FUSD Liaison Committee
Meeting
City Hosts Live

Fremont City Council Meeting: 03/15/22 07:00 PM
3300 Capitol Avenue Div/Dept: Community Services
Fremont, CA 94538 Category: Agreements and Contracts

SCHEDULED
Sponsors: Recreation Superintendent I Lance Scheetz
STAFF REPORT (ID # 4551) DOC ID: 4551 C
Updated: 3/8/2022 9:33 AM by Alberto Quintanilla C Page 1

ON-CALL POOL PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT PARTS FOR AQUA ADVENTURE WATERPARK – Authorize the City Manager or Designee to Execute On-Call Pool Preventative Maintenance and Replacement Parts for Aqua Adventure Waterpark Agreement(s) with National Aquatic Services and Skyblue Pool Supply ‘N Service, Inc.

Contact Persons:

Name: Kim Beranek Suzanne Wolf
Title: Deputy Director Community Services Director
Div/Dept: Community Services Community Services
Phone: 510-494-4330 510-494-4329
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]

Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to authorize the City Manager to execute two five-year on-call pool preventative maintenance service agreements for Aqua Adventure Waterpark.

BACKGROUND: The City of Fremont Aqua Adventure Waterpark opened in 2009. A portion of the required maintenance for this municipal aquatic facility has always included contracted services for preventative and general maintenance, such as pool plaster repair and maintenance, pool tile and molding repair and replacement, UV system repair and replacement, pump, filter, valve and heater services/replacement and plumbing services to control systems as well as other operating systems to sustain pool functions. The City of Fremont has contracted on-call maintenance services with National Aquatics Services Inc. since the park opened. Pool maintenance service providers that meet municipal contract requirements are in high demand and National Aquatics Services Inc. response times have continued to increase due to the increasing demand for their services. Staff anticipates that having access to multiple on-call service providers will help to minimize delays, costly repairs and shutdowns, while improving safety, customer satisfaction and ultimately financial performance.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: A Request for Proposals (# RFP 22-008) for Pool Preventative Maintenance and Replacement Parts for Aqua Adventure Waterpark was advertised on November 22, 2021 through the City’s Periscope System. The RFP remained open until December 7, 2021. The on-call pool preventative maintenance and equipment scope of services includes, but is not limited to pumps, heaters, valves, back wash systems, chemical controllers, VFDs, plaster and tile, netting, handrails, support structures, UV systems, piping, plumbing and electrical.

The City received two competitive proposals for this service: National Aquatic Services Inc. and Skyblue Pool Supply ‘N Service, Inc. These proposals were evaluated by three raters applying the following factors: qualifications, scope of work, feasibility, costs and responsiveness. Based on this evaluation National Aquatic Services Inc. and Skyblue Pool Supply ‘N Service, Inc. both scored competitively and meet the qualifications. All contractors were required to provide hourly rates for the services advertised in the RFP.

2.C
Packet Pg. 11
Staff Report (ID # 4551) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/8/2022 9:33 AM by Alberto Quintanilla C Page 2 Staff is recommending awarding a five year contract to both National Aquatic Services Inc. and Skyblue Pool Supply ‘N Service, Inc. with an annual not to exceed amount of up to $99,000 per contractor, and a total not to exceed amount of $495,000 per contractor over the five year term based on approved budgets. The contractors’ compensation rates may be adjusted effective at the commencement of each fiscal year. Any adjustment to the contractors’ compensation rates shall be reflected in a written amendment to their agreements.

FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for these on-call Waterpark maintenance services were approved in the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Adopted Operating Budget and in the Fiscal Year 2021/22 – 2022/23 Adopted Capital Improvement Program. Continued funding for these on- call Waterpark maintenance services are proposed in the 2022/23 Fiscal Operating Budget and will be proposed annually each budget cycle throughout the agreement period.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities as the services provided will maintain and repair an existing facility.

ATTACHMENTS: None.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute a five year on-call maintenance service agreement with National Aquatic Services Inc. in an amount not to exceed $99,000 annually, and subject to available funding for on-call pool maintenance services at Aqua Adventure Waterpark.

2. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute a five year on-call maintenance service agreement with Skyblue Pool Supply ‘N Service, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $99,000 annually, and subject to available funding for on-call pool maintenance services at Aqua Adventure Waterpark.

2.C
Packet Pg. 12
Fremont City Council Meeting: 03/15/22 07:00 PM
3300 Capitol Avenue Div/Dept: Public Works
Fremont, CA 94538 Category: Agreements and Contracts

SCHEDULED
Sponsors:

STAFF REPORT (ID # 4498) DOC ID: 4498
Updated: 3/8/2022 9:22 AM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 1

DUSTERBERRY WAY RAILROAD CROSSING SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - Authorization to Execute a Public Road Crossing Improvement Agreement with Union Pacific Railroad Related to the Dusterberry Way Section 130 Safety Improvement Project (PWC 8964); Allocate Additional Appropriations; Make Findings of CEQA Exemptions
Contact Persons:

Name: Jeanne Suyeishi Hans Larsen
Title: Senior Civil Engineer Public Works Director
Div/Dept: Public Works Public Works
Phone: 510-494-4728 510-494-4722
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]

Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to facilitate the continued development of a project to implement safety improvements at the railroad crossing of Dusterberry Way in the Centerville area of Fremont. An agreement has been prepared with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) identifying the scope and implementation responsibilities within railroad property.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the Railroad/Highway At-Grade Crossing Program (Section 130) is to reduce the number and severity of train collisions by eliminating the hazards to vehicles and pedestrians at existing railroad crossings. A project must satisfy the following requirements to qualify for the Section 130 federal funds – (1) project must be on a public road; and (2) project must be included on the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) Section 130 annual priority list.

At the October 17, 2017 City Council meeting, City Council authorized City Manager or his/her designee to execute all related documents for the $538,988 Section 130 Fund Agreement with the Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The funding agreement was executed on November 3, 2017 with an effective date of contract from August 18, 2017 to August 18, 2020 for design and construction of safety improvements at the Dusterberry Way railroad crossing. Two amendments have been executed with Caltrans to extend the effective date of contract to August 18, 2023 as well as increase the Section 130 Funds by $50,000 to account for additional UPRR construction costs. The project is being done in conjunction with Union Pacific Railroad implementing safety improvements to their facilities at this location through the Section 130 Program.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: The City has received approval from the CPUC, UPRR and Caltrans to implement an agreed upon set of safety improvements at the Dusterberry Way railroad crossing. The final step before sending this project out for bid is to execute the Public Road Crossing Improvement Agreement with UPRR.

The Public Road Crossing Improvement agreement between UPRR and the City of Fremont establishes terms for the City and the City’s contractor to construct safety improvements for the project within UPRR’s right of way.

2.D
Packet Pg. 13
Staff Report (ID # 4498) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/8/2022 9:22 AM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 2 The scope of work is as follows:
• Reconstruct sidewalk, curb & gutter in all quadrants around the at-grade crossing. • Install detectable warning surfaces on all sidewalk approaches. • Install a ten-foot wide, eight-inch high raised median north and south of the at-grade crossing.
• Remove a portion of the asphalt pathway in the southwest quadrant. • Construct a street barricade at the end of Baine Avenue to prevent access from Baine Avenue to Dusterberry Way.

Staff is now requesting City Council authorization for City Manager or her designee to execute the Public Road Crossing Improvement agreement with UPRR.

FISCAL IMPACT: The cost to implement the safety improvements at the Dusterberry Way at-grade crossing are within the scope of the Section 130 funds received from Caltrans.

Council is requested to appropriate $50,000 of additional Section 130 to the project.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to, without limitation, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 as the repair, maintenance or minor alteration of existing facilities involving no or negligible expansion of use beyond that presently exists; Section 15302, as replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities located on the same site and with substantially the same purpose and involving negligible or no expansion of capacity; Section 15303, as new construction or conversion of small structures, including street improvements; Section 15304, as minor alterations to land; and/or Section 15311, as construction or replacement of minor structures accessory to existing facilities including but not limited to on-premise signs. Each of the foregoing provides a separate and independent basis for CEQA compliance.

ATTACHMENTS: None.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the following actions related to the Dusterberry Way Section 130 Safety Improvement Project (PWC 8964):

1. Authorize the City Manager or her designee to execute all agreements with Union Pacific Railroad for the Dusterberry Way Safety Improvement Project (PWC 8964).

2. Find that this project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review pursuant to, without limitation CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 as the repair, maintenance or minor alteration of existing facilities involving no or negligible expansion of use beyond that presently existing; Section 15302, as replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities located on the same site and with substantially the same purpose and involving negligible or no expansion of capacity; Section 15303, as new construction or conversion of small structures, including street improvements; Section 15304, as minor alterations to land; and/or Section 15311, as construction or replacement of minor structures accessory to existing facilities including but not limited to on-premise signs. Each of the foregoing provides a separate and independent basis for CEQA compliance.

3. Appropriate $50,000 in Section 130 funds to the Dusterberry Way Safety Improvement Project (PWC 8964-522).

2.D
Packet Pg. 14
Fremont City Council Meeting: 03/15/22 07:00 PM
3300 Capitol Avenue Div/Dept: Landscape Architecture
Fremont, CA 94538 Category: Agreements and Contracts

SCHEDULED
Sponsors:

STAFF REPORT (ID # 4552) DOC ID: 4552 A
Updated: 3/8/2022 9:37 AM by Alberto Quintanilla A Page 1

AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE BABBLING BROOK AND MAMMOTH PICNIC AREA RENOVATIONS PROJECT - Approve Plans and Specifications and Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $494,007.50, to IBS USA, Inc., for the Babbling Brook and Mammoth Picnic Area Renovations Project (PWC8999 & PWC9029); and Approve the Reallocation of $59,308 from the Dusterberry Neighborhood Park Project (PWC8581) to Central Park Mammoth Picnic Area (PWC9029) and Find the Project Exempt From Further Environmental Review Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15302, Replacement or Reconstruction
Contact Persons:

Name: Eva Lee Suzanne Wolf
Title: Landscape Designer II Community Services Director Div/Dept: Landscape Architecture Community Services
Phone: 510-494-4776 510-494-4329
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]

Executive Summary: Approve the project plans and specifications, accept the bid, and award a construction contract to IBS USA, Inc., for the Babbling Brook and Mammoth Picnic Area Renovations Project (PWC8999 and PWC9029), in the amount of $494,007.50 including 10% contingency. Approve the reallocation of $59,308 from the Dusterberry Neighborhood Park Project (PWC8581) to Central Park Mammoth Picnic Area (PWC9029).

BACKGROUND: The proposed project will improve and upgrade the existing Central Park Babbling Brook and Mammoth picnic areas for accessibility and to provide additional space for public use and group picnic rentals. Site improvements include demolition of the existing picnic areas, concrete pavement, site grading and excavation; followed by installation of new concrete pavement, City-furnished shade structures, site furnishings, storm drain system improvements, and minor irrigation and landscaping improvements.

Due to the delays associated with the global supply chain and shortage of labor and raw materials, the general lead time for fabrication and delivery of the shade structures will take longer than usual, approximately 16 weeks. To expedite the construction working days, the shade structures have been purchased separately by the City. The structures will be furnished and delivered to the contractor for installation during construction.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: The Babbling Brook and Mammoth Picnic Area Renovations project was advertised for bid on January 25, 2022. On February 17, 2022, the City received eleven (11) bids for construction. The lowest responsible bid was submitted by IBS USA, Inc. for the bid amount of $449,097.50, and is approximately 7% below the Engineer’s estimate of $480,000. All bidders and their respective bid amounts are listed below:

Contractor Total Bid

2.E
Packet Pg. 15
Staff Report (ID # 4552) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/8/2022 9:37 AM by Alberto Quintanilla A Page 2 IBS USA Inc. 1 $449,097.50
B and D Excavation and
Construction
2 $498,365
Galeb Paving, Inc. 3 $503,075
Star Construction Inc. 4 $508,109.50 *
Terramark General Engineering
Contractors Inc.
5 $521,200
Innovate Concrete Inc. 6 $632,088
Robert A Bothman Construction 7 $634,500
Bay Construction Co. 8 $668,085 *
Kerex Engineering, Inc. 9 $679,930
GEMS Environmental
Management Services, Inc.
10 $754,535.54
Sposeto Engineering Inc. 11 $831,418.25
*Bid Mathematically Corrected – Corrected for computation errors pursuant to the Instruction to Bidder’s, Part 6.1(A)

The low monetary bidder for the project, IBS USA Inc., is a responsible bidder experienced in this type of work. Their bid is responsive and all bid documents are in order.

Project Schedule: Construction is anticipated to begin in April 2022 with completion anticipated in August 2022.

Bid Protest: A protest was submitted by the second low bidder, B & D Excavation and Construction, claiming that the bid submitted by IBS USA, Inc. be deemed non-responsive and rejected. The protest claimed that IBS USA, Inc. did not list a subcontractor on the Subcontractor List to perform trucking work.

A Contractor must provide the name of the subcontractor on the Subcontractor List in the bid if a portion of the work performed is in excess of one-half of 1% of the Bidder’s total Contract Price. IBS USA, Inc. responded to the protest by confirming that they intend to self-perform the trucking work; therefore, the omission of the subcontractor on the Subcontractor List does not render their bid non-responsive nor give an unfair advantage to the protested bidder. Staff finds the bid protest without merit and recommends that IBS USA, Inc. be awarded the project as the lowest responsive bidder.

FISCAL IMPACT: The Babbling Brook and Mammoth Picnic Area Renovation project is funded with $206,000 from Fund 541 Central Park Babbling Brook Picnic Area (PWC8999),

2.E
Packet Pg. 16
Staff Report (ID # 4552) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/8/2022 9:37 AM by Alberto Quintanilla A Page 3 $500,000 from Fund 540, and $86,000 from Fund 541 Central Park Mammoth Picnic Area (PWC9029), for a total funding of $792,000.

The projected project expenditures of $851,308 show a budget shortfall of $59,038 due to the added site improvements of a third shade structure and additional concrete pathway, which were not part of the original project scope.

Additional Needs and Transfer: The shortfall will be covered through a reallocation of funds from the Dusterberry Neighborhood Park Project (PWC8581-540). In January 2022, the Dusterberry Neighborhood Park Project was awarded a $4,000,000 State Parks Program Proposition 68 Grant. This award frees up the unallocated portion of the Dusterberry Neighborhood Park 540 fund to be transferred to other priority park projects. Staff recommends reallocating $59,038 from the Dusterberry Neighborhood Park Project (PWC8581-540) to the Central Park Mammoth Picnic Area Project (PWC9029-540).

1. Total Funds Available to the Project:
541 Park Dedication Quimby Impact Fund (PWC8999) $206,000 540 Park Facility Impact Fee Fund (PWC9029) $500,000 541 Park Dedication Impact Fund (PWC9029) $86,000

Subtotal $792,000

2. Project Expenses to Date:

Project Management and Design $125,500
Consultant Services and Permit Fees $35,000
Purchase Order for Shade Structures $71,800

3. Planned Expenditures:

Construction Bid (Rounded) $449,098
Construction Administration and Management (Estimated) $125,000 Construction Contingency $44,910

Subtotal $851,038

Balance -$59,308

4. Total Proposed Reallocation of Funds:

From Dusterberry Neighborhood Park, (PWC8581-540) to
Central Park Mammoth Picnic Area (PWC9029-540) $59,308

Estimated Remaining Funds $0

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15302, Replacement or Reconstruction, as the project involves replacement or reconstruction of an existing picnic facility at the same location involving negligible expansion of capacity.

ATTACHMENTS: None.

LINKS: https://fremont.gov/2113/Current-Park-Projects

2.E
Packet Pg. 17
Staff Report (ID # 4552) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/8/2022 9:37 AM by Alberto Quintanilla A Page 4

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Find Babbling Brook and Mammoth Picnic Area Renovations Project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15302, Replacement or Reconstruction.

2. Reallocate $59,308 from the Dusterberry Neighborhood Park Project (PWC8581-540) to Central Park Mammoth Picnic Area (PWC9029-540).

3. Approve the Plans and Specifications for the Babbling Brook and Mammoth Picnic Area Renovations Project (PWC8999 and PWC9029).

4. Award a Construction Contract of $449,097.50 to IBS USA Inc., plus a 10% Construction Contingency in the amount of $44,910, for a total construction contract amount of $494,007.50.

2.E
Packet Pg. 18
Fremont City Council Meeting: 03/15/22 07:00 PM
3300 Capitol Avenue Div/Dept: Human Services Department Fremont, CA 94538 Category: Agreements and Contracts

SCHEDULED
Sponsors:

STAFF REPORT (ID # 4560) DOC ID: 4560
Updated: 3/8/2022 9:40 AM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 1 AUTHORIZE AMENDMENT FOR KB SON INC. OWNER OF DAYS INN - Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amendment with KB SON INC., Owner of Days Inn, to Continue Providing Units for the Winter Relief Non-Congregate Shelter Program
Contact Persons:

Name: Laurie Flores Suzanne Shenfil
Title: Homeless Services Manager Director
Div/Dept: Human Services Department Human Services Department Phone: 510-574-2040 510-574-2051
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]

Executive Summary: In November 2020, the City Council approved the implementation of a non-congregate temporary shelter winter relief program. KB Son Inc., owner of Days Inn in Fremont, (KB Son) was selected as a motel room provider for the program. Staff wishes to amend an existing $99,000 agreement with KB Son and recommends the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a $71,000 amendment to the contract, for a new total contract amount not to exceed $170,000.

BACKGROUND: On November 2, 2021, the City Council approved the implementation of a winter relief program which provides non-congregate shelter to program participants through temporary motel stays at partnering hotel sites, as well as wrap-around services.

This program is consistent with Alameda County Shelter Health guidelines, to maintain the health and safety of participants and staff. Eligible participants must be referred directly by service providers or emergency services personnel. Program expectations for participants include working with an assigned case manager or housing navigator, respecting the property, and adhering to the rules of the program. Families with minor children, older and medically frail adults, and those with a pathway toward housing are prioritized for the program.

In December, in order to expedite program implementation, the City executed contracts with two motel partners, Days Inn and Mission Peak, in amounts not to exceed $99,000 each, the administrative contract threshold. Ultimately, Days Inn had more rooms available than Mission Peak Hotel and has therefore reached its contract limit. An Amendment for additional bed nights would cause the Days Inn contract to exceed $99,000 and therefore require City Council authorization. Staff anticipates reducing Mission Peaks Hotel’s purchase order, by the anticipated unused portion, to accommodate the increase in the Days Inn contract.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: The current agreement with KB Son includes reimbursement of $85 per night for one-bed units and $95 per night for two-bed units, per occupied unit. The term of the agreement ends on March 31, 2022, the projected end date of the Winter Relief program. Through the first 9 weeks of the program, the Days Inn provided over 932 bed nights of temporary shelter.

2.F
Packet Pg. 19
Staff Report (ID # 4560) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/8/2022 9:40 AM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 2 Amendment #1 would keep the current term through March 31, 2022 and the same unit rates. Staff is requesting an amendment of $71,000, the projected total cost of the current room occupancy at the Days Inn through the end of the program.

FISCAL IMPACT: The recommended action has no fiscal impact on the General fund.

Costs for this amendment are covered through funds provided by Alameda County (Fund 193) and donations (Fund 146). In anticipation of this contract, sufficient funding has been appropriated through previous City Council actions.

Agreement Amount
Current Agreement $99,000
Amendment #1 $71,000
Total: $170,000

Upon execution of the recommended amendment, the total contract amount will not exceed $170,000.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The action is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to, without limitation, CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b) and/or 15061(b)(3), each as a separate and independent basis, as it is an administrative or fiscal activity that has no possibility of directly or indirectly causing a significant effect on the environment

ATTACHMENTS: None.

RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment with KB Son Inc. in an amount not to exceed $71,000 for a new total agreement not to exceed $170,000.

2.F
Packet Pg. 20
Fremont City Council Meeting: 03/15/22 07:00 PM
3300 Capitol Avenue Div/Dept: Community Development
Fremont, CA 94538 Category: Fees & Rates

SCHEDULED
Sponsors:

STAFF REPORT (ID # 4545) DOC ID: 4545
Updated: 3/8/2022 9:29 AM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 1 ELECTRIC UTILITY RATE PLAN - Council Direction Regarding Utility Rate Plan for City Operations
Contact Persons:

Name: Rachel DiFranco Dan Schoenholz
Title: Sustainability Manager Community Development Director Div/Dept: Community Development Community Development
Phone: 510-494-4451 510-494-4438
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]

Executive Summary: East Bay Community Energy (EBCE), a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that has included the City of Fremont since the JPA’s formation in 2016, is Fremont’s default local electricity provider. In 2021, EBCE revised the rate plans offered to municipal customers, requiring the City to select a new rate plan. In February 2021, staff sought Council direction regarding the desired plan for City operations. The two choices were the Renewable 100 product (100% renewable power) at a 10% cost premium above PG&E rates or the Bright Choice product (86% carbon-free) at a 1% discount to PG&E. Due to budget uncertainty related to the COVID pandemic, Council voted at that time to select Bright Choice, recognizing that this decision would result in an increase in annual carbon emissions related to City electricity usage of 527 metric tons. However, given Council’s adopted goals related to climate action, Council also requested that this decision be revisited at a time of greater budget stability.

As noted in the budget update provided to Council on March 8, 2022, the City’s financial situation has stabilized and a transition to the Renewable 100 rate plan can now be accommodated. Utilizing 100% renewable electricity is a cost-effective step to achieving environmental goals adopted by Council and supports the growth of local renewable energy generation. Staff therefore recommends that Council authorize the transition to Renewable 100 for City operations.

BACKGROUND: When EBCE launched, it offered three product options to its customers, as follows:

Product Power Mix* Carbon-Free
Content
Cost
Renewable 100

100% Renewable 100% Approx. 10% premium
Brilliant 100

100% Carbon-free 100% Same as PG&E
Bright Choice

86% Carbon-Free 86% 1% discount
*Carbon-free content includes solar, wind, and large hydropower.

Renewable content in Renewable 100 includes California-produced wind and solar power.

When East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) launched service in 2018, Fremont City Council chose Brilliant 100 as the product for all municipal accounts. In November

2.G
Packet Pg. 21
Staff Report (ID # 4545) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/8/2022 9:29 AM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 2 2020, however, the EBCE Board voted to phase out Brilliant 100 because it was not generating enough revenue. Accordingly, the City of Fremont had the decision to either opt-up to Renewable 100 or default down to Bright Choice.

At its January 21, 2021 meeting, the Environmental Sustainability Commission (ESC) voted 7-0 to recommend that Council select the Renewable 100 product for City operations.

The Commission also recommended that if Council instead selected Bright Choice, that the switch to 100% carbon-free electricity is the first item restored when the City’s budget situation improves.

At the February 16, 2021 City Council meeting, Council voted 6-1 to default to Bright Choice due to budget uncertainty. Recognizing the negative environmental impact of this decision, Council also requested that staff return to Council later to revisit the question when the budget became more stable.

Currently, staff is in the process of developing the proposed FY 2022/23 operating budget. Because the decision of which electricity plan to use for municipal accounts will have budget impacts in FY 2022/23, staff is seeking a Council determination on whether to opt up to Renewable 100 at this time.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: In 2021, net electricity consumption for municipal operations was about 9.1 million kilowatt-hours. This represents a reduction of about 41% since 2015 (consumption that year was 15.4 million kilowatt-hours) thanks to significant energy efficiency upgrades including replacement of all streetlights with LEDs and installation of more than 1.6 MW of solar across seven facilities that generate approximately 2.3 million kilowatt-hours of clean electricity annually.

When the City enrolled in EBCE’s Brilliant 100 in 2018, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the remaining electrical load from municipal operations were eliminated. Council’s decision last February to default down its electricity product to Bright Choice has resulted in adding 527 metric tons back to the City’s annual carbon footprint.

If the City were to select Renewable 100 as its new electricity product, municipal operations would return to producing no net carbon emissions. Carbon free electricity is consistent with the Council’s adopted goal of net carbon neutrality for the entire community by 2045. Renewable 100 enrollment would also serve to grow the market for locally produced renewable power, as well as signaling continued City leadership in clean power procurement.

FISCAL IMPACT: Under the current Bright Choice rate plan, the City spends approximately $525,000 per year in generation charges to EBCE. If the City’s accounts are changed to Renewable 100, annual costs would increase by approximately $100,000 to $625,000. These estimates are based on historical 2021 usage and do not include PG&E delivery charges, Franchise Fee, or Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA), which account for an additional $1,640,000 in total utility costs. Annual costs in future years may vary depending on changes in City energy consumption and increases or decreases to EBCE and PG&E rates.

2.G
Packet Pg. 22
Staff Report (ID # 4545) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/8/2022 9:29 AM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 3

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Enrollment in the proposed electric utility rate plan is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to, without limitation, (1) CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(3), (4) &/or (5), as it is a fiscal or administrative activity that will not result in any direct physical impacts to the environment; (2) Section 15273(a)(2), as CEQA does not apply to the establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, or other charges by public agencies which the public agency for the purpose of purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or materials, and/or (3) 15061(b)(3), in that the proposed action would not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment, and is not subject to CEQA review. Each of the foregoing provides a separate and independent basis for CEQA exemption.

ATTACHMENTS: None.

RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to enroll all City electricity accounts in EBCE’s Renewable 100 rate plan, and reflect this change in the City’s proposed FY 2022/23 budget and find the action exempt from CEQA, as detailed in staff report.

Approximate Annual Costs
Current spending on City accounts enrolled in Bright Choice $524,497 If City’s accounts are opted up to Renewable 100 $624,682 Increase in annual budget for new rate plan $100,185

2.G
Packet Pg. 23
Fremont City Council Meeting: 03/15/22 07:00 PM
3300 Capitol Avenue Div/Dept: Planning
Fremont, CA 94538 Category: Development Project

SCHEDULED
Sponsors:

STAFF REPORT (ID # 4538) DOC ID: 4538
Updated: 3/10/2022 3:52 PM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 1 ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021- 00160 - Public Hearing (Published Notice) To Consider the Planning Commission's Recommendation To: 1) Adopt a Resolution Approving a General Plan Amendment To Tech Industrial; 2) Introduce and Ordinance Approving the Rezoning to Preliminary and Precise Planned District P-2021-160; 3) Approve Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 11171; and 4) Adopt a Resolution Adopting an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report and Supplemental (EIR) (SCH No. 2005042146) Previously Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Approval of the Proposed Project Would Facilitate and Allow Development of a Three-Building Industrial Development Totaling Approximately 397,000 Square Feet on a 22.4 Acre Site Located at 40517 Albrae Street in the Bayside Industrial Community Plan Area.

Contact Persons:

Name: Mark Hungerford Joel Pullen
Title: Associate Planner Planning Manager
Div/Dept: Planning Community Development
Phone: 510-494-4541 510-494-4436
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]

Executive Summary: Scannell (the “applicant”) is requesting that the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment from Regional Commercial to Tech Industrial, a Rezoning from Preliminary and Precise Planned District P-2006-10 to Preliminary and Precise Planned District P-2021-160, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 11171, to facilitate and allow the development of a three-building industrial development totaling approximately 397,000 square feet for tech industrial uses on a 22.4-acre site that was never redeveloped by the former Globe project.

Staff has reviewed the proposed project for consistency with the General Plan and Fremont Municipal Code (FMC). Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council:
1) adopt the Addendum for the project as shown in Exhibit “A”; and 2) approve the General Plan Amendment as shown in Exhibit “B,” the Rezoning as shown in Exhibit “C,” the Preliminary and Precise Planned District and subdivision of land as shown in Exhibit “D,” and the accompanying Planned District Guidelines as shown in Exhibit “E,” based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval contained in Exhibit “F.”

BACKGROUND: The project site is located entirely within the boundaries of the 31.48-acre The Globe Planned District. Formerly contemplated as an internationally-themed retail, restaurant, and entertainment center, The Globe was to consist of 557,900 square feet of floor area, including 469,900 square feet of commercial space and 88,000 square feet of mini-storage space.

To allow for development of The Globe, a General Plan Amendment from General Industrial with Commercial-Industrial Overlay to Commercial High Volume Retail (PLN2005-00061) and corresponding Rezoning of the site to Planned District P-2006-0010 (PLN2006-00010)

5.A
Packet Pg. 24
Staff Report (ID # 4538) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/10/2022 3:52 PM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 2 were approved by the City Council in 2007. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified in conjunction with approval of the General Plan Amendment (State Clearinghouse No. 2005042146), and a supplement to that EIR was approved for The Globe Planned District Rezoning.

To date, approximately 102,000 square feet of The Globe has been developed. These developed portions consist of three, one-story commercial buildings located on approximately nine acres of Stevenson Boulevard frontage. The restaurant, retail, and personal service uses that occupy the built-out spaces are consistent with what was generally conceptualized for The Globe. The remainder of The Globe Planned District – areas located off the Stevenson Boulevard frontage, southeast of the three aforementioned buildings – have not been redeveloped since approval of The Globe. These areas are currently improved with two structures: 1) a vacant, approximately 80,000-square-foot single-story commercial building along the Albrae Street frontage that was built in 1987 and previously occupied by a Home Depot store and, subsequent to that, various retail/furniture stores; and 2) an approximately 81,600-square-foot warehouse/manufacturing building that was built in 1960 along the site’s Encyclopedia Circle frontage that was partially demolished in 2018. Both structures would be demolished as part of project activities. Being over 50 years of age, the warehouse/manufacturing building was evaluated for historic significance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was determined not to be a potential historic resource (see Environmental Review section of this report for more details of the project’s CEQA analysis).

Site development is currently subject to the land use and development standards of The Globe Planned District and all conditions of approval adopted as part of The Globe Planned District approval.

Surrounding Uses: As mentioned above, portions of The Globe Planned District northwest of the project site have been improved with commercial development and uses in a manner consist with the approved Planned District. North of the project site, across Albrae Street, are commercially-zoned parcels improved with a multi-tenant commercial strip center and a Walmart store, plus an abutting industrially-zoned building containing a variety of light- industrial occupants. Immediately abutting the project site to the southeast are industrially-zoned parcels containing freestanding buildings occupied by a variety of manufacturing and light-industrial uses. Across Encyclopedia Circle, southwest of the site, are four industrially-zoned parcels all containing wholesale and distribution uses.

Planning Commission Hearing: On February 24, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed project. After receiving staff and applicant presentations and testimony from the public, the commissioners discussed the proposal and a motion recommending City Council approval of the project with an added condition prohibiting last-mile delivery uses within the proposed Planned District was made but failed to receive a second. A subsequent motion recommending City Council approval of the project, as proposed, was approved with a 5-1 vote.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to facilitate construction of a three-building industrial development on portions

5.A
Packet Pg. 25
Staff Report (ID # 4538) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/10/2022 3:52 PM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 3 of The Globe Planned District that feature vacant buildings pre-dating The Globe approvals.

The General Plan Amendment to Tech Industrial would revert the 22.4-acre project site back to an industrial designation similar to what was in place on the site prior to its 2006 conversion to the current Regional Commercial designation. The Rezoning request to Preliminary and Precise Planned District P-2021-160 would effectuate development of the proposed project, which pursuant to FMC Section 18.110.020 is designed and would be governed by the land use and development standards of the Tech Industrial (I-T) zoning district, the zone most similar in nature and function to the proposed development. The project would remove existing lot lines and subdivide the site in a manner that would generally place each of the project’s three proposed buildings and their required parking, stormwater treatment, and other necessary amenities and features on their own parcels.

The site’s two vacant buildings would be demolished and the site would be cleared to accommodate a development consisting of approximately 397,000 square feet of new floor area, 713 open vehicle parking stalls, and associated circulation, landscaping, and stormwater treatment areas. The project’s two largest buildings – Building 1 and Building 2 – would measure 190,503 square feet and 157,783 square feet, respectively, and be designed as flexible industrial spaces intended for warehouse, distribution, e-commerce fulfillment, or manufacturing uses (including advanced manufacturing), and Building 3, located at the northern end of the site, would measure 46,839 square feet and be designed for research and development and advanced manufacturing users.

Project buildings would be located within the site’s interior, with employee parking and landscaped areas located between the buildings and the street and property lines shared with abutting uses. All project buildings would be oriented towards their respective street frontages, and loading dock areas for each building – Buildings 1 and 2 would feature 38 truck bays and Building 3 would feature six truck bays – would be oriented towards the interior of the site, thereby allowing them to be screened from public right-of-way and neighboring property view. Right-of-way dedications of 3’ and 2’-6” along the site’s Albrae Street and Encyclopedia Circle frontages, respectively, would be required to accommodate new 6’-wide sidewalks that would be buffered from right-of-way traffic lanes by landscaped parkway strips with street tree plantings, and on-site parking areas would feature minimum 25’-wide landscape buffers featuring groundcover, tree plantings, and designed bio- retention treatment areas along their street frontages.

The project would take its access via two driveways along Albrae Street, three driveways along Encyclopedia Circle, and an interior drive that connects to Stevenson Boulevard through the abutting 6044 Stevenson Boulevard parcel, which is part of the built-out portion of The Globe. The primary Albrae Street driveway, located adjacent to Building 1, would be aligned with Walmart’s driveway across the street and this intersection would be signalized at the applicant’s expense. An additional traffic signal, also to be funded by the applicant, would be installed at the Encyclopedia Circle / Stevenson Boulevard intersection. As designed and conditioned, truck traffic generated by the project would be restricted to use of Encyclopedia Circle driveways and access to Stevenson Boulevard from Encyclopedia Circle.

Lastly, as a voluntary commitment, the applicant proposes a community benefit pledge of $500,000, payable to the City as a lump-sum upon issuance of the first project building permit, to assist in targeted homeless services programs or other City initiatives should their project be allowed to proceed forward.

5.A
Packet Pg. 26
Staff Report (ID # 4538) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/10/2022 3:52 PM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 4

PROJECT ANALYSIS
General Plan Conformance
The subject property is currently designated Regional Commercial. To enable industrial development at the site, the applicant is proposing a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation to Tech Industrial, which permits research and development, “clean and green” tech, and semi-conductor, computer hardware, software and related technological, administrative, sales, and engineering facilities, as well as warehouse and distribution, e-commerce fulfillment, and manufacturing facilities. Staff supports the proposed General Plan Amendment because the proposal would be consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies:

Land Use Policy 2-1.11: Infill Emphasis – Focus new development on underutilized or “skipped over” sites that are already served by infrastructure and public streets.

Strongly discourage, and where appropriate prohibit, the conversion of open space or underdeveloped land on the fringes of Fremont to urban uses.

Land Use Goal 2-2.1: Opportunity Areas for Growth and Change – Guide new growth and development to specific areas [… including] commercially and industrially zoned lands in the city with the potential to create job and housing opportunities while contributing to the city’s evolution into a more sustainable and pedestrian- oriented city.

Land Use Policy 2-3.6: Conversion of Older Shopping Centers and Commercial Uses – Support the adaptive reuse, renovation, or redevelopment of older shopping centers or commercial uses that are no longer viable due to changing market conditions, demographics, or retail trends.

Land Use Policy 2-5.1: Land Supply and Job Growth – Maintain an industrial land supply that is adequate and suitable for the continued growth of the City’s core industries, including computer and communications manufacturing, biotechnology, green technology, logistics/distribution, and emerging technologies. The City should capitalize on its proximity to Silicon Valley, regional transportation facilities, and educated and skilled work force to create opportunities for job growth.

Analysis

The proposed project would redevelop an urban, blighted commercial site with overgrown vegetation and vacant and partially demolished buildings with a new industrial development that would be compatible with existing industrial uses adjacent to and in vicinity of the site, as well as the adjacent commercial uses that make up the developed portion of The Globe Planned District. This would be achieved through quality site design, appropriate building scale, and restrictions on truck circulation to, from, and within the site that would minimize conflicts between passenger vehicles and trucks associated with project operations. The portion of The Globe Planned District that the project would develop was never built out with commercial uses as envisioned, and as described further in the Economic Development

5.A
Packet Pg. 27
Staff Report (ID # 4538) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/10/2022 3:52 PM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 5 Element analysis below, the viability of the site for future commercial development and long-term commercial use is in question. Conversion to the Tech Industrial designation and implementation of the proposed project would facilitate a significant investment in an underutilized, dilapidated, and vacated site that would result in a more productive and efficient use of the land than current conditions allow, create job growth in the City’s growing industrial sector, and be a new revenue source for the City.

Mobility Goal 3-1: Complete Streets – City streets that serve multiple modes of transportation while enhancing Fremont’s appearance and character.

Mobility Goal 3-4.4: Mitigating Development Impacts – Require new development to mitigate its impacts on mobility conditions through traffic impact fees, street and intersection improvements, transportation demand management programs, and other measures.

Mobility Goal 3-6.6: Trucking and Land Use Compatibility – Generally discourage the location of businesses generating large amounts of truck traffic in areas where residential streets or land uses would be negatively impacted. In mixed use areas where businesses and residences are in close proximity, ingress and egress for truck traffic should be designed to minimize the potential for impacts on residences and neighborhood streets. The site plan review process should be used to ensure that businesses are designed to minimize the impact of truck traffic and delivery vehicles on through-traffic. Loading docks and delivery/service areas should be sited to the rear of buildings to minimize traffic disruption and maintain the visual quality of public streets.

Analysis

Development of the proposed project would include the widening of the site’s current curb face to property line areas along the Albrae Street and Encyclopedia Circle frontages to meet current City parkway and sidewalk standards. These improvements would encourage an increase in pedestrian activity in an around the site by creating linkages to adjacent sites and contribute to an overall enhancement of the streetscape of each frontage. Upon building permit issuance, the project would be subject to development impact fees that include traffic impact fees intended to improve City transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and for use in traffic calming projects. As identified in a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project by Fehr & Peers, traffic signals are warranted at the project’s primary Albrae Street driveway (directly aligned and across from that of Walmart’s) and at the Encyclopedia Circle / Stevenson Boulevard intersection. The signalized Albrae Street intersection would facilitate safe and efficient passenger vehicle movement from each site and within the Albrae Street right-of-way. The signalized intersection would be designed in a manner that would prohibit large truck use so as to avoid passenger vehicle and truck conflicts. Truck access to and from the site would instead come via Encyclopedia Circle, which currently, aside from the project site, is bounded exclusively by industrially- designated land and is therefore more suitable for truck travel. Within the site, the proposed connection to Stevenson Boulevard via the internal drive aisle through the developed portion of The Globe Planned District would include a median designed to restrict large truck use of this accessway, enhancing compatibility between the project and existing commercial operations. Lastly, project buildings are positioned such that their loading dock areas are screened from public right-of-way view for aesthetic purposes.

5.A
Packet Pg. 28
Staff Report (ID # 4538) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/10/2022 3:52 PM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 6 Economic Development Policy 6-1.1: Increasing the Tax Base – Encourage economic development that generates sales tax, property tax, and other revenues that help sustain municipal services.

Economic Development Policy 6-3.1: Diverse Industrial and Technology Uses – Provide for a variety of industrial uses to minimize the impact of industry-specific downturns on the local economy, to provide a range of job opportunities for local residents, and to provide opportunities for synergy between various industries.

Economic Development Policy 6-3.2: Attracting Emerging Growth Industries – Recruit and retain emerging growth (industries with significant employment and performance potential) industries in order to increase employment opportunities for a wide range of skill levels and salaries to meet current and future employment, with an emphasis on industries such as high tech, biotech and clean tech that seek to locate in Silicon Valley.

Analysis

Since approval of The Globe Planned District in February 2007, the 22.4-acre portion of the district proposed in this application for industrial redesignation and development has yet to develop with the intended commercial uses. Through coordination with the Economic Development Department it’s understood that a number of factors have contributed to the site remaining undeveloped in the years since The Globe Planned District was approved.

These include the site’s location away from a high-traffic street frontage (such as Stevenson Boulevard), the rise in e-commerce shopping, the extremely close proximity to two other major retail sites (Pacific Commons and Newpark Mall), and high overhead costs for traditional, brick and mortar retail-commercial spaces. These factors, in addition to the unknown long-term impacts of Coronavirus Disease 2019 and its variants on the future of traditional retail shopping, have effectively eliminated near-term prospects for retail- commercial development and clouded forecasts for long-term viability of retail-commercial at the site. Conversely, the City is benefitting significantly from the current high demand for industrial land in the City and the greater Bay Area, particularly for uses such as advanced manufacturing, research and development, and logistics and warehousing. This demand is contrasted by a low supply of available land and low vacancy rates for industrial / advanced manufacturing space in the City. The proposed project is seen as the best, most feasible use of the site, and the relative stability and strength of the industrial market would result in a high probability that the project remains financially viable for both the City and the developer in both the short- and long-term.

A comprehensive Market Assessment and Economic Benefits Analysis, prepared by Strategic Economics, a local leading economist, was also prepared for the proposed project. The Assessment supports and builds off the feedback received from the Economic Development Department. The Assessment details how retail growth in the City has slowed since 2014, and how the project site is already well served by existing regional-serving retail centers and is thus not well positioned to attract a similar type development. Furthermore, the Assessment finds that development of a new retail-commercial shopping center at the site would add supply to a relatively weak retail-commercial market and would require competing for demand against existing shopping centers, such as the nearby Pacific Commons, causing them potential economic harm. The Assessment concludes that trends favor reinvestment in existing shopping centers, not the development of new ones. The site’s retail future is additionally hindered because it is not located abutting Interstate-880,

5.A
Packet Pg. 29
Staff Report (ID # 4538) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/10/2022 3:52 PM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 7 a condition that could potentially result in the shopping center and appurtenant signage having relatively low visibility from motorists on the highway.

The Assessment finds that new industrial space at the project site would be well-positioned to attract a diverse array of uses due to the City’s direct access to Silicon Valley businesses and the City’s access to a workforce with a diverse range of education and specialized skills.

Though Fremont competes with neighboring and area jurisdictions for industrial tenants, the Assessment cites Fremont as the most desirable location for R&D and advanced manufacturing, particularly for pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical device manufacturing, electronic equipment, computer technology, and sustainability technologies and products. Within the area, demand for space for these uses is highest in the area between Stevenson Boulevard and Dixon Landing Road, an area which encompasses the project site.

As detailed in the Assessment, the proposed project, as an industrial development, would be subject to Capital Facilities, Fire Facilities, and Traffic development impact fees, plus affordable housing fees. Below is a summary of estimated development impact fees and affordable housing fees for the project based on a calendar-year 2022 building permit issuance:

Capital Facilities ($456/KSF for warehouse; $648/KSF for manufacturing): $189,170 Fire Facilities ($377/KSF for warehouse; $385/KSF for manufacturing): $149,336 Traffic ($3,503/KSF for warehouse; $2978/KSF for manufacturing): $1,329,532 Developer Impact Fees: $1,668,038

Affordable Housing ($4.64/SF for warehouse and manufacturing): $1,833,380

In addition to development impact and affordable housing fees, the proposed project would generate annual sales tax revenue, property tax revenue, and business tax revenue to the City. Industrial sales tax is less cyclical than retail-commercial sales tax generation, so the project would provide a reliable source of revenue to the City and contribute to the City’s diversified tax base, which already benefits from a high industrial tax base. The Assessment estimates that the proposed project would generate approximately $130,000 in annual sales tax revenue, approximately $148,000 in annual secured property tax revenue, and approximately $16,500 in annual business tax revenue. Over a 10-year period, with inflation and tax and accessed value increases factored in, operating revenues for the project could potentially total over $3 million dollars. The proposed project would also function as an employment center, bringing jobs to a site which has failed to generate jobs under its current land use designation and use allowances. The Assessment estimates that the proposed project could generate approximately 650 jobs under the proposed land use allowances that would govern the site should the project be approved.

Furthermore, the project would feature significant public improvements including sidewalk and parkway improvements, the installation traffic signals at two separate intersections, and an applicant community benefit pledge of $500,000, payable to the City as a lump-sum upon issuance of the first project building permit, to assist in targeted homeless services programs or other City initiatives.

Zoning Regulations

5.A
Packet Pg. 30
Staff Report (ID # 4538) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/10/2022 3:52 PM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 8 The subject property is currently zoned P-2006-10, otherwise known as The Globe Planned District. The applicant is requesting a Rezoning of the site to a new Preliminary and Precise Planned District, P-2021-160, to enable the construction of an industrial development consisting of approximately 370,000 square feet of floor area spread among three, one- story buildings. Per FMC Section 18.110.020, the standards governing development within a proposed Planned District shall be based upon the standards of the zoning district most similar in nature to the proposed use. In this case, the I-T zoning district, which is the designation governing land use and development on properties adjacent and abutting the site to the south and southwest, provided the basis for design of the proposed project.

The following table provides an overview of the project’s conformance with the development standards of the I-T zone:

In establishing a Planned District, the City Council may approve exceptions to the straight application of base district standards – in this case those of the I-T zoning district – and to other standards of the zoning ordinance when it can be found that such exceptions or Standard I-T Zone
Requirement
(FMC Table

18.50.030)
Proposed Project Compliant
(Yes/No)
Minimum Lot Area 20,000 SF Bldg 1 Parcel: 442,455 SF
Bldg 2 Parcel: 369,529 SF
Bldg 3 Parcel: 161,873 SF

Yes (All)
Minimum Lot
Width
70 Feet Bldg 1 Parcel: approx. 1,001 Feet
Bldg 2 Parcel: approx. 970 Feet
Bldg 3 Parcel: approx. 431 Feet

Yes (All)
Minimum Front
Setback
25 Feet (across
the street from
non-residential)
Bldg 1: 96’-6”
Bldg 2: 99’-8”
Bldg 3: 97’-4”

Yes (All)
Minimum Rear
Setback
None (adjacent to
non-residential)
Bldg 1: approx. 60 Feet
Bldg 2: approx. 60 Feet
Bldg 3: 92’-7”

Yes (All)
Minimum Side
Setback
(All Interior)
None (adjacent to
non-residential)
Bldg 1: 99 Feet (N)/87 Feet (S)
Bldg 2: 45 Feet (N)/94 Feet (S)
Bldg 3: approx. 45 Feet (N)/68 Feet
(S)

Yes (All)
Maximum Building
Height
75 Feet Bldg 1: 45 Feet
Bldg 2: 45 Feet
Bldg 3: 41 Feet

Yes (All)
Maximum Floor
Area Ratio (FAR)

0.35, except 0.45
for warehousing
and manufacturing
facilities
Bldg 1 :0.43 (warehouse/manuf.
use)
Bldg 2: 0.43 (warehouse/manuf.
use)
Bldg 3: 0.29 (R&D, advanced manuf.
use)

Yes (All)

5.A
Packet Pg. 31
Staff Report (ID # 4538) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/10/2022 3:52 PM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 9 modifications encourage a desirable living environment and are warranted by the design and amenities incorporated in the precise plan, or provided to the community at large.

However, as the table shows, no deviations from the I-T zoning district development standards are sought for the proposed Planned District. The proposed project is fully compliant with current zoning development standards. The proposed Planned District Guidelines for the site would establish the I-T zoning district’s land use and development standards for future changes to the site, thereby ensuring consistency with these adjacent uses from a land use and development scale standpoint. Though specific tenants for each building are not known at this stage, contemplated project occupants including advanced manufacturing, research and development, and warehousing and distribution uses are permitted by-right in the I-T zoning district.

5.A
Packet Pg. 32
Staff Report (ID # 4538) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/10/2022 3:52 PM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 10 The following table provides an overview of the project’s conformance with the on-site parking requirements applicable to each building:

As the table shows, all parking requirements for the proposed project would be met.

Parking required for each building would be located on their respective parcel with the exception of 29 stalls required for Building 2 that would be located on the Building 1 (three stalls) and Building 3 (26 stalls) parcels. As conditioned, these Building 2 off-site stalls would be subject to a restrictive covenant and signage tying them and restricting them to use of the Building 2 occupant(s). Of the 713 total automobile parking stalls, 73 would be designed for electric vehicle use and equipped with charging stations in accordance with building code regulations.

Rezoning to a Preliminary and Precise Planned District provides certainty about the look and layout of site development, as well as a higher level of oversight regarding future proposals that could change the character of the site. Additionally, approval of a specific development via a Planned District allows for more precise comparison of project impacts to those identified in the previously-prepared environmental analysis for the site.

Design Analysis

Site Planning:

Standard Requirement
(FMC Chapter 18.183)
Proposed Project Compliant
(Yes/No)
Minimum
Automobile
Parking Stall
Count
Bldg 1: 1.6 stalls / KSF
(305 total)
Bldg 2: 1.6 stalls / KSF
(253 total)
Bldg 3: 3.3 stalls / KSF
(155 total)

Bldg 1: 305 stalls
Bldg 2: 253 stalls
Bldg 3: 155 stalls

Yes (All)
Maximum
Compact Par king
Stall Count
35% of total Bldg 1: 23% (71 stalls)
Bldg 2: 0% (no compact
parking)
Bldg 3: 34% (53 stalls)
Yes (All)
Minimum Bicycle
Parking, Short -
Term
Bldg 1: 4 + 5% auto (20
total)
Bldg 2: 4 + 5% auto (17
total)
Bldg 3: 4 + 5% auto (12
total)
Bldg 1: 20 spaces
Bldg 2: 18 spaces
Bldg 3: 12 spaces
Yes (All)
Minimum Bicycle
Parking, Long -
Term
Bldg 1: 1 + 5% auto (17
total)
Bldg 2: 1 + 5% auto (14
total)
Bldg 3: 1 + 5% auto (9
total)
Bldg 1: 18 spaces
Bldg 2: 14 spaces
Bldg 3: 10 spaces
Yes (All)

5.A
Packet Pg. 33
Staff Report (ID # 4538) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/10/2022 3:52 PM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 11 The proposed project’s buildings are sited and oriented in such a way as to provide adequate setbacks from public streets and adjacent uses and conceal truck bays and related loading operations from public right-of-way view and view from neighboring properties.

Project frontages would feature wide, heavily-planted landscape buffers to conceal the surface parking and drive aisle areas that wrap each building and provide a buffer between neighboring developments. Since trucking operations would be required to utilize Encyclopedia Circle for site ingress and egress, drive aisles leading directly from the truck bays of each building to Encyclopedia Circle driveways would be 40’ in width, wider than drive aisles elsewhere within the project that are primarily intended to serve as access to passenger vehicle parking. The buildings would be oriented such that their main entry areas are in prominent, public-facing locations and their truck bays and loading areas, trash enclosures, and above-ground utilities would be screened from view by either the buildings themselves or landscape treatments.

Architecture:

The proposed project’s buildings feature a contemporary industrial aesthetic with a consistent architectural theme. Building designs are fully-developed and well-executed and have been enhanced through the project’s multi-round staff-level review process. The concrete tilt-up paneled buildings feature increased articulation and double-height glazing at building corners to highlight these areas as locations of interior lobby and office space and convey a sense of openness and invitation. Building facades feature changes in plane to create relief and shadow lines, and bands of clerestory glass, color accents, and vertical sections of roofline variation add additional interest to the buildings. Building architecture has been designed to be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Citywide Design Guidelines for non-residential building design.

Access/Circulation:

The project would take its access via two driveways along Albrae Street, three new driveways along Encyclopedia Circle, and via an existing drive aisle that currently serves commercial uses at the 6000 Stevenson Boulevard and 6044 Stevenson Boulevard properties and terminates at the project site boundary. Albrae Street access would be provided from one existing driveway that currently serves commercial uses at 6000 Stevenson Boulevard but would dually serve the proposed project, and one new driveway aligned with Walmart’s Albrae Street driveway that would be subject to installation of a traffic signal for improved circulation and public safety. These driveways are each 26’ wide – too narrow to accommodate large trucks – and thus would be intended for passenger vehicle use only. Proposed Encyclopedia Circle access consist of two, 40’ wide driveways on the edges of the site for truck access and one interior driveway of 26’ width intended for exclusive passenger vehicle use. Direct access to Stevenson Boulevard from the project site would be provided by a connection to the aforementioned interior drive aisle that bisects the developed portions of The Globe Planned District. At its point of connection with the project site, a median would be installed to reduce lane widths such that large trucks would not be able to use this as an Encyclopedia Circle bypass route. Emergency vehicle and truck turn template overlays applied to the proposed site plan have been reviewed by Fire Department and Transportation Division staff and been deemed consistent with City standards.

An Emergency Vehicle Access Easement would encircle each building, and Fire Department staff have verified that the necessary quantity of access points to the site have been

5.A
Packet Pg. 34
Staff Report (ID # 4538) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/10/2022 3:52 PM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 12 provided. Since proposed driveways, drive aisles, and parking stalls cross proposed lot lines in certain instances, private ingress-egress and joint access easements are necessary and would be required as project conditions of approval.

5.A
Packet Pg. 35
Staff Report (ID # 4538) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/10/2022 3:52 PM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 13 Tree Removal/Replacement:

There are currently no on-site trees at the project site owing to previous demolition and site-clearing activities at the site. A tree assessment prepared for the project identified the presence of seven street trees along the site’s Albrae Street frontage and 21 off-site, private protected trees in close proximity to the site’s perimeter, with 20 of those trees located along its southeast border. These street trees – six chinese Pistache and one river she-oak – and off-site trees – a mix of callery pear, raywood ash, London plane, nichol’s gum, flaxleaf paperbark, blackwood acacia, and Mexican fan palm – would be preserved in place as part of project activities, and complemented by the additional planting of 207 new trees.

New tree plantings would be evenly spaced along the project’s street frontages, interior perimeters, and within the parking fields to create a cohesive, unified site appearance. Tree locations, quantities, and species have been deemed suitable and sufficient for the project by the City’s landscape architecture review staff.

Grading/Drainage:

The project site is generally level, with approximately 4’ or less of relief across the site.

Project grading activities would consist of preparing the site to accommodate the building pad and parking lots with a level fine grade. The project engineer estimates total project grading would consist of 35,114± cubic yards of cut and 46,903± cubic yards of fill, which includes 11,789± cubic yards of imported soils.

The Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (MRP) requires all new and redevelopment projects to incorporate measures to prevent pollutants from being conveyed in stormwater runoff and into the public storm drain system. This project would be required to comply with the MRP by incorporating source controls and treatment measures into the project design. Per the project’s stormwater management plan, the project would meet the quantitative storm water treatment requirements by constructing a total of 25 bioretention ponds and flow- through planters throughout the site. In order to conform to the quantitative performance criteria of the Countywide NPDES permit, the applicant may be required to incorporate additional treatment control best management practices (BMPs) to treat stormwater runoff.

The stormwater treatment design would be integrated into the storm drain design for the project and subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to building permit approval.

Geologic Hazards:

The project site is not located within a special flood hazard area, an earthquake fault trace zone, or an earthquake-induced landslide zone. The site is, however, located within an area of potential earthquake-induced liquefaction. In accordance with the California Building Code, the applicant has commissioned and filed a geotechnical report prepared by a State- licensed geotechnical engineer that contains specific recommendations to mitigate the risk of damage to the project from liquefaction, including removal of undocumented fill and replacement with chemically-treated engineered fill, compaction, deep soil mixing below building foundations, and employment of deep foundations. This report will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and peer-reviewed by a City-commissioned geotechnical consultant during the building permit application process.

5.A
Packet Pg. 36
Staff Report (ID # 4538) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/10/2022 3:52 PM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 14 Public Improvements:

Improvements to the public rights-of-way adjacent to the project site would include a number of dedications and other exactions required by code and conditions of approval in order to offset the capital improvements to public infrastructure necessary to support the project. These include 3’ and 2.5’ sidewalk dedications along Albrae Street and Encyclopedia Circle, respectively, construction of full ADA sidewalk, curb, and intersection improvements, and new 7’-wide parkways complete with ground cover, street trees, and irrigation systems on both street frontages. Additionally, as warranted by a signal analysis prepared for the project, the project’s primary Albrae Street driveway, designed to align with the adjacent Walmart driveway, would be subject to installation of a new traffic signal, as would the Encyclopedia Circle / Stevenson Boulevard intersection in order to efficiently accommodate truck movements to and from the project. Furthermore, the Encyclopedia Circle roadway would be widened by approximately 10’ to bring the road into conformity with City standards. Each of these public improvements are required to accommodate the use of public facilities and infrastructure in the vicinity of the site associated with construction and operation of the project.

FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
In order to approve the proposed General Plan Amendment, Preliminary and Precise Planned District, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map, the project must be found consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Regulations. Based upon the above analysis, the proposed project would be in conformance with applicable standards and regulations and recommends approval of the following findings:

General Plan Amendment:

Pursuant to FMC Section 18.225.050, the City Council may approve or approve with modifications a proposed General Plan Amendment only when the following findings can be made:

(a) The proposed amendment is consistent with the general plan and, where the amendment is to the text of the general plan, it is consistent with the other policies and chapters; and

(b) The proposed amendment furthers the public interest, convenience, and general welfare of the city.

Analysis: The proposed General Plan Amendment to designate the project site Tech Industrial will establish industrial land use allowances after a prior land use designation change from industrial to Regional Commercial failed over a period of 15 years to result in the envisioned site development. A land use change to Tech Industrial will facilitate a substantial investment in the site consisting of a three-building industrial employment center that will improve what’s currently a blighted, skipped-over urban site with a development that’s compatible in use and scale with surrounding uses, the majority of which are similarly industrial in nature and governed by the same I-T zoning district land use and development standards that the proposed development is designed in accordance to. The project will improve the site’s visual character and will support City innovation goals and enhance its strong industrial base, providing significant jobs and tax revenues. Public

5.A
Packet Pg. 37
Staff Report (ID # 4538) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/10/2022 3:52 PM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 15 improvements such as fully redeveloped sidewalks and parkways along site frontages, the widening of the Encyclopedia Circle roadway to standard width, the installation of two new traffic signals – signals that have been found to be warranted even without the proposed project – and an applicant pledge of a $500,000 community benefit for use on City initiatives will further the City welfare and interests.

Preliminary and Precise Planned District Rezoning:

Pursuant to FMC Section 18.110.070, the City Council may by ordinance establish a Planned District if the following findings can be made in support of the proposal:

(a) The Planned District is consistent with the City’s general plan and any applicable community or specific plan;
Analysis: The proposed Preliminary and Precise Planned District will conform to the proposed Tech Industrial designation, which supports and recognizes the essential role in the Silicon Valley economy and the high volume of business-to-business sales tax to the City that flexible industrial developments, such as the proposed project, contribute. The proposed Planned District will support City mobility policies through significant improvement to the Albrae Street and Encyclopedia Circle rights-of-way, including the installation of traffic signals at two key intersections, and the funneling of project truck traffic to Encyclopedia Circle, away from more high-volume and commercially-oriented routes to minimize potential conflicts. Additionally, the proposed Planned District will improve a vacant, long-blighted site that is not well positioned to attract new local- or regional-serving retail-commercial development, as evidenced by the lack of site development since adoption of the current retail-commercial Planned District in place for the site and exacerbated by other factors such as the rise of e-commerce and the presence of established regional shopping venues in close proximity to the site, namely Pacific Commons and NewPark Mall (in Newark).

The proposed Planned District will be consistent with the site’s Bayside Industrial Community Plan Area location. As a flexible industrial development, the Planned District will further a number of goals of the Bayside Industrial Community Plan Area, including supporting the Plan Area as a major employment center and revenue generator, contributing a healthy range of possible industrial uses to an industrially-dominant area of the City, and development of the site in a manner that’s compatible with adjacent uses.

(b) The precise plan and supplementary documents incorporate and conform to the required standards of FMC Section 18.110.020 and, where applicable, FMC Section 18.110.030;
Analysis: The proposed Preliminary and Precise Planned District is suitable and sufficiently- sized for the project stie. The project has been designed to strictly comply with the standards for lot area, lot width, setbacks, building height, and FAR applicable to the I-T zoning district, a zoning designation consistent with the Tech Industrial land use designation proposed for the site and consistent and compatible with adjacent properties zoned for and developed with industrial uses.

(c) The uses proposed will not be detrimental to present and potential surrounding uses;

5.A
Packet Pg. 38
Staff Report (ID # 4538) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/10/2022 3:52 PM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 16 Analysis: The proposed Preliminary and Precise Planned District will consist of new industrial buildings of similar density and relative scale as those which currently occupy properties adjacent to the site. The uses proposed will enhance the industrial output and character of the area and support the goals of the Bayside Industrial Community Plan Area. Though the site is also adjacent to existing retail-commercial uses, the development has been designed to enhance street frontages and the public realm, and truck loading bays and other industrially-oriented features of the project are located away from public view.

Furthermore, conditions of approval will require large trucks associated with the project to use Encyclopedia Circle for site access, eliminating the potential for traffic conflicts that would otherwise occur on Albrae Street and the proposed internal connection through The Globe to Stevenson Boulevard.

(d) The project provides suitable and adequate connections and capacity for both circulation and infrastructure to surrounding properties; Analysis: The proposed Preliminary and Precise Planned District will provide suitable and adequate connections and capacity to surrounding properties through a variety of public improvements such as new sidewalks and parkways built to City standards along the site’s Albrae Street and Encyclopedia Circle frontages and the installation of traffic signals at the project’s primary Albrae Street intersection and the Stevenson Boulevard / Encyclopedia Circle intersection. These improvements have been reviewed and found to be suitable for project needs and designed for compatibility with surrounding uses and properties.

(e) Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the development; Analysis: The proposed Preliminary and Precise Planned District will feature adequate utility infrastructure to support build-out of the project. Water, sewer, gas, stormwater, and electricity connections will be coordinated with City staff and service providers during the permitting phase of the project to ensure sufficient capacity for project implementation.

(f) Any exception or modification from standard ordinance requirements will encourage a desirable living environment and is warranted by the design and amenities incorporated in t he precise plan or provided to the community at large; and
Analysis: The proposed Preliminary and Precise Planned District will be designed and developed in strict accordance with the standards of the I-T zoning district. No exceptions or modifications from I-T zoning district standards or other standards of the Fremont Municipal Code are sought.

(g) The project substantially conforms to any applicable design guidelines.

Analysis: The proposed Preliminary and Precise Planned District will conform to the Citywide Design Guidelines, the design standards that will be applicable to development at the site as part of the new Planned District. In accordance with the Guidelines, site frontages feature wide, attractively-landscaped setback areas, and project buildings will be oriented towards the public streets in such a way as to provide contextual continuity along the frontages. The primary elevations of each building feature large amounts of transparent glazing, increased articulation, and pedestrian-oriented design features at potential lobby and office areas to

5.A
Packet Pg. 39
Staff Report (ID # 4538) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/10/2022 3:52 PM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 17 reduce perceived scale. To maintain their clean aesthetic, service and truck loading areas are located at the rear of each building, hidden from public view and views from neighboring properties. All told, site design and project buildings will feature a high-quality design aesthetic that will complement existing uses and development in the project vicinity and enhance the visual quality of the site.

5.A
Packet Pg. 40
Staff Report (ID # 4538) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/10/2022 3:52 PM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 18 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map:

Based on the analysis contained in the staff report, and pursuant to FMC Section 17.20.200 and Government Code Section 66474, proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 11171 is in conformance with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the Subdivision Map Act, and none of the following findings can be made:

(a) The map fails to meet or perform one or more of the requirements or conditions imposed by the Subdivision Map Act or Title 17 of the Municipal Code (Subdivisions);

(b) The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvements, is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans;

(c) The site is not physically suitable for the type or proposed density of development;

(d) The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;

(e) The design of the subdivision or the type or improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems; and

(f) The design of the subdivision or th e type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the commission may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdictio n and no authority is hereby granted to the commission to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

In addition, the following finding should be made pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5:

(g) The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan or any specific plan in that the proposed subdivision, as designed, and the proposed land use and land us e density are consistent and compatible with the objectives, policies, and programs of the proposed General Plan designation, as articulated in this report.

5.A
Packet Pg. 41
Staff Report (ID # 4538) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/10/2022 3:52 PM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 19 Tree Removal: Pursuant to FMC Section 18.215.070, in order to allow remove existing private trees that are subject to protection under the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, the decision-making body must make the following finding:

(a) Development project plans currently filed for the lot indicate that it is necessary to damage, remove, or relocate the t rees to enable reasonable and conforming use of the property or to achieve a superior project; and the trees cannot be preserved or left undamaged by a reasonably required redesign of the project.

Analysis: There are currently no private protected trees on the project site, and no street trees within project-adjacent parkways or private protected trees on adjacent parcels will be removed as part of project activities.

FISCAL IMPACT: This project would be subject to citywide Development Impact Fees, including fees for fire protection, capital facilities, and traffic facilities. The project would also be subject to the affordable housing fees applicable to non-residential development. All applicable fees would be calculated and paid at the fee rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. The applicant may elect to defer payment of the fees in accordance with the City’s Impact Fee Deferral Program. Additionally, the applicant has pledged a $500,000 community benefit payment in conjunction with the requested General Plan Amendment.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: CEQA Guidelines section 15164 specifies that an Addendum to an adopted EIR may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.

Section 15162 specifies that no subsequent EIR shall be prepared unless one or more of the following conditions are met:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR or negative declaration was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR or negative declaration;

5.A
Packet Pg. 42
Staff Report (ID # 4538) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/10/2022 3:52 PM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 20 c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR or negative declaration would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

An Environmental Checklist, commissioned by the City and prepared by consulting firm Lamphier-Gregory, was prepared for the project. The checklist summarizes the impact findings of The Globe EIR and analyzes whether impacts of the proposed project would fall within those identified in the prior EIR and whether new or more significant environmental impacts than those identified in the prior EIR would be introduced. The analysis, which was informed by a number of technical studies prepared to assess the proposed project, found that the project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; that there are no changes in circumstances that would result in the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and that there is no new information resulting in new significant environmental effects, a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or a change in the feasibility (or acceptance) of mitigation measures.

The recommended Addendum and supporting documents (Exhibit “A”) constitute substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that preparation of a Supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required under Section 15162 for implementation of the proposed Planned District. As detailed in the Environmental Checklist, the project is consistent with the previously- certified EIR for The Globe and would involve a change of use that is less in development intensity than the previously analyzed and approved regional shopping center project. The updated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed project reflects this decrease in intensity as well as subsequent changes to policies and regulations, including the introduction of universally-applied standard development requirements that address construction-period dust control and equipment emissions and guidelines for the appropriate handling of contaminated soil (FMC Chapter 18.218) and the elimination of service-based impacts as a CEQA transportation evaluation metric, have resulted in the deletion of certain previously adopted mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures found to still apply to the proposed project have been restated in the Revised MMRP.

In conformance with the requirements of Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1, notice of the proposed project was sent by certified mail and email on July 7, 2021 to the fifteen Native American tribal representatives whose names and contact information were provided by the Native American Heritage Commission. At the time of completion of this report, no requests for consultation have been received.

Correspondence on the project’s CEQA analysis was received prior to the February 24, 2022 Planning Commission hearing from the Teamsters and Sierra Club. The Teamsters letter asserted that the calculation of project trips was based on the incorrect land use, that the project would have a higher volume of trips than reported, and that mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions beyond those available at the time of original EIR certification should be implemented for the project. A response memo prepared by Lamphier-Gregor provides additional details supporting the use of an Addendum for the

5.A
Packet Pg. 43
Staff Report (ID # 4538) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/10/2022 3:52 PM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 21 project and no additional environmental review being necessary. The Sierra Club letter argued against the use of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and not an Addendum, which is the actual CEQA document prepared for the project, and thus the standard of legal review cited in the letter is different than what’s applicable to the project. Furthermore, the letter does not present substantial evidence that preparation of a subsequent or Supplemental EIR would be required under CEQA guidelines.

ATTACHMENTS:
• Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • Exhibit B - General Plan Amendment
• Exhibit C - Rezoning
• Exhibit D - Planned District Plans
• Exhibit E - Planned District Guidelines
• Exhibit F - Findings and Conditions of Approval
• Informational 1 - Planned District Statement
• Informational 2 - Architectural Design Statement
• Informational 3 - Albrae Economic Analysis
• Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis
• Informational 5 - Public Correspondence
• Informational 6 - Addendum Response
• Informational 7 - Planning Commission Staff Report
• Draft CEQA Resolution
• Draft General Plan Amendment Resolution
• Draft Rezoning Ordinance

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Hold public hearing.

2. Upon conclusion of the public hearing, adopt a resolution adopting the Addendum and Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project as shown in Exhibit “A,” and find on the basis of the whole record before it that the project is consistent with the previously-certified EIR for site development, project changes reflect a decrease in intensity from the previously analyzed project, and that there is no substantial evidence that the project introduces significant effects on the environment or increases the severity of previously identified impacts, and that this action reflects the independent judgment of the City of Fremont;

3. Find that the General Plan Amendment, as shown in Exhibit “B,” conforms with and contains the requirements provided for in the City’s planning processes, constitutes a suitable and logical change in the plan for physical development of the City of Fremont, and is in the public interest.

4. Find the project is in conformance with the relevant provisions contained in the City’s General Plan, including the designated goals and polices set forth in the Land Use, Mobility, and Economic Development Chapters of the General Plan as enumerated in the staff report;

5.A
Packet Pg. 44
Staff Report (ID # 4538) Meeting of March 15, 2022
Updated: 3/10/2022 3:52 PM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 22

5. Find that the project plans for Preliminary and Precise Planned District P-2021-160 as shown in Exhibit “D” and in the accompanying Planned District Guidelines as shown in Exhibit “E” fulfill the applicable requirements set forth in the Fremont Municipal Code;

6. Adopt a resolution approving a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Regional Commercial to Tech Industrial, as shown in Exhibit “B;”

7. Introduce an ordinance adopting Preliminary and Precise Planned District P-2021-160 as shown in Exhibit “C” (Planned District Rezoning) and Exhibit “D” (Preliminary & Precise Planned District Plans and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map) and the accompanying Planned District Guidelines as shown in Exhibit “E,” based upon the findings and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit “F;”

8. Approve the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map as shown in Exhibit “D” pursuant to FMC Section 17.20.200 and Government Code Section 66474, because none of the following findings for denial can be made, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit “F;” and

9. Direct staff to prepare and the City Clerk to publish a summary of the resolution and ordinance.

5.A
Packet Pg. 45

ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL PROJECT

1 ST

ADDENDUM

TO THE GLOBE PLANNED DISTRICT

EIR AND SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2005042146

Lead Agency:

City of Fremont
Community Development Department
39550 Liberty St.

Fremont, CA 94538

Prepared By:

Lamphier–Gregory, Inc.
4100 Redwood Rd, STE 20A - #601
Oakland, CA 94619

January 2022

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page i Table of Contents
page
I.  Background, Purpose, and Organization ...................... ...................................................... 1 II.  Project Description  ....................................... ..................................................................... 4 III.  Summary of CEQA Findings  ................................. ............................................................. 15 IV.   Environmental Checklist .................................. ................................................................ 16 Overview.................................................................................................................................. 16 A. Aesthetics  ............................................................................................................................ 17 B. Agricultural and Forest Resources ...................................................................................... 20 C. Air Quality  ............................................................................................................................ 23 D. Biological Resources  ............................................................................................................ 29 E. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................ 33 F. Geology and Soils  ................................................................................................................. 39 G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................. 44 H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Wildfire ................................................................. 48 I. Hydrology and Water Quality  ............................................................................................... 55 J. Land Use  ............................................................................................................................... 59 K. Mineral Resources  ............................................................................................................... 61 L. Noise .................................................................................................................................... 63 M. Population & Housing ........................................................................................................ 67 N. Public Services & Recreation .............................................................................................. 69 O. Transportation and Circulation  ........................................................................................... 71 P. Utilities and Service Systems and Energy  ............................................................................ 78 Q. Mandatory Findings of Significance  .................................................................................... 82 Attachments
A:   Standard Development Requirements and Mitigation Monitoring  and Reporting Program B:   Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis
C:   Cultural Resource Assessment
D:   Transportation Impact Analysis
Figures
Figure 1: Project Location  ....................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2: Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 3: Site Plan  ................................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 4: Elevations, Building 1 ............................................................................................................ 12 Figure 5: Elevations, Building 2 ............................................................................................................ 13 Figure 6: Elevations, Building 3 ............................................................................................................ 14 Tables
Table 1: Current Project Construction Period Criteria Pollutant Emissions  ......................................... 25 Table 2: Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions  ................................................................................ 27 Table 3: Project Trip Generation .......................................................................................................... 75 Table 4: Project Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Summary ...................................................................... 75

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 1 I. Background, Purpose, and Organization
Background and Previous Environmental Review
The Globe Planned District was conceptualized in the 2000s as r evitalization of an approximately 31‐ acre  industrial  area  with  largely  vacant  warehouse  and  commercial  buildings  as  a  multi‐cultural retail and entertainment destination.

As part of the approval process leading up to the Globe Planned  District approvals, a General Plan Amendment was approved in 2006 to re‐designate the site from In dustrial to Regional Commercial, for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and  certified. This included an Initial Study  in  2005,  a  Draft  EIR  in  2005,  and  a  Final  EIR  in  2006.  For  subsequent  approval  of  the  Globe Planned  District  rezoning  in  2007,  a  Supplemental  EIR  was  prepared  in  2006  that  tiered  from  the earlier 2006 EIR. The Supplementa l EIR reflected minor changes  to the previously analyzed project, and no additional mitigation was deemed necessary. Together, th ese prior CEQA review documents (all  listed  under  State  Clearinghouse  Number  2005042146)  are  referred  to  as  the  “Prior  EIR”.  The Prior  EIR  is  hereby  incorporated  by  reference  and  can  be  obtain ed  from  the  City  of  Fremont Community Development Services Center at 39550 Liberty St., Fre mont, CA 94538, and on the City of  Fremont  website  at:  https://www.fremont.gov/430/Environmental‐Review  under  the  “Fremont Albrae Industrial” project. Referenced and additional project m aterials can also be accessed in those locations.

The Globe Planned District allowed for up to 557,900 square fee t of gross floor area (GFA), including 469,900 square feet of commercial GFA, and 88,000 square feet of mini‐storage GFA.

Since  approval  of  the  Globe  Planned  District,  the  parcels  fronting  Stevenson  Boulevard  developed generally as conceptualized under the Globe Planned District; t he remainder of the Planned District has not. The current project is located on the 22.48‐acre porti on of the Planned District that had not developed according to the Globe concept.

As  noted  above,  the  previous  approvals  included  an  Amendment  to t h e  F r e m o n t  G e n e r a l  P l a n  t o reflect  the  proposed  Globe  Planned  District.  The  Fremont  General  Plan  has  since  been  updated consistent  with  the  Globe  Planned  District.  The  Fremont  General   Plan  Update  EIR  (SCH  No. 2010082060)  is  hereby  incorporated  by  reference  and  can  be  obtained  from  the  City  of  Fremont Community  Development  Services  Center  available  in‐person  at  the  City  of  Fremont  Development Services  Center  at  39550  Liberty  St.,  Fremont,  CA  94538  and  onl ine  at www.fremont.gov/generalplan.

Standard Development Requirements
S i n c e  t h e  P r i o r  E I R ,  t h e  C i t y  o f  F r e m o n t  h a s  e s t a b l i s h e d  s t a n d ard  development  requirements  to address  resource  protection  (Fremont  Municipal  Code  Chapter  18.218).  These  requirements  apply to air quality (construction‐related emissions), biological res ources (special‐status species), cultural resources  (notification  of  affiliated  California  Native  American  Tribes  and  accidental  discovery  of cultural resources), and noise (construction‐related noise).

T h e  p r o p o s e d  p r o j e c t  w o u l d  c o m p l y  w i t h  t h e s e  s t a n d a r d  d e v e l o p m ent  requirements,  which  are detailed in the relevant sections (see Construction Activities  and Schedule, below and Sections: C(b)‐

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Air Quality, D(d)‐Biological Res ources, E(b)‐Cultural Resources , F(c) Geology and Soils, H(b) Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Wildfire, L(a)‐ Noise) and are included in full in Appendix A.

Purpose
The purpose of this CEQA document is to analyze the current pro ject to determine if it qualifies for an Addendum pursuant to Public R esources Code Section 21166 and  State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 such that no additional environmental review is required.

The  current  project  is  a  modification  of  a  22.48‐acre  portion  of  The  Globe  Planned  District  (see Background  and  Previous  Environmental  Review  above).  This  portio n  h a d  n o t  d e v e l o p e d  p e r  T h e Globe  Planned  District  concept  and  is  currently  unoccupied.  The   current  project  represents  a reversion of the site designation back to industrial and related uses (see Project Description below).

CEQA Guidelines section 15164 spec ifies that an addendum to an  adopted EIR may be prepared if only  minor  technical  changes  or  additions  are  necessary  or  none  of  the  conditions  described  in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.

Section  15162  specifies  that  no  subsequent  EIR  shall  be  prepare d  unless  one  or  more  of  the following conditions are met:

1)  Substantial  changes  are  proposed  in  the  project  which  will  r equire  major  revisions  of  the previous  EIR  or  negative  declaration  due  to  the  involvement  of new  significant  environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2)  Substantial  changes  occur  with  respect  to  the  circumstances  under  which  the  project  is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous E IR or negative declaration due to the  involvement  of  new  significant  environmental  effects  or  a  s ubstantial  increase  in  the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3)  New  information  of  substantia l  importance,  which  was  not  known  and  could  not  have  been known  with  the  exercise  of  reasonable  diligence  at  the  time  the   previous  EIR  or  negative declaration was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

A)  The  project  will  have  one  or  more  significant  effects  not  discussed  in  the  previous  EIR  or negative declaration;
B)  Significant effects previousl y examined will be substantiall y more severe than shown in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
C)  Mitigation  measures  or  alternatives  previously  found  not  to  be  feasible  would  in  fact  be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significan t effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure  or alternative; or mitigation measures  or  alternatives  which  are  considerably  different  from  those  analyzed  in  the previous  EIR  or  negative  declaration  would  substantially  reduce o n e  o r  m o r e  s i g n i f i c a n t effects  on  the  environment,  but  the  project  proponents  decline to  adopt  the  mitigation measure or alternative.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 3 The Environmental Checklist contained in this document summarizes the impact findings of the Prior EIR,  which  is  the  underlying  EIR  for  the  proposed  project,  and assesses  whether  impacts  of  the p r o p o s e d  p r o j e c t  w o u l d  f a l l  w i t h i n  t h o s e  i d e n t i f i e d  i n  t h e  P r i or  E I R  o r  w h e t h e r  n e w  o r  m o r e significant environmental impacts than those identified in the  Prior EIR are identified which would trigger the need for a Subsequent EIR.

Organization
Section I, Background, Purpose, and Organization (this section).

Section II, Project Description details the proposed project.

Section III, Summary of CEQA Findings summarizes the findings of this document.

Section  IV,  Environmental  Checklist  details  the  potential  envir onmental  impacts  of  the  project, including  the  impact  findings  of  the  Prior  EIR  and  relevant  Standard  Development  Requirements (SDRs) or Mitigation Measures (MMs) and explains whether the cu rrent project would cause new or more significant environmental impacts than those identified in the Prior EIR.

Attachment  A  includes  full  text  of  the  SDRs  and  MMs  applicable  to  the  current  project  in  the proposed Standard Development Requirements and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

II. Project Description
Project Characteristics

1. Project Title:   Fremont Albrae Industrial Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:  City of Fremont
Community Development Department
39550 Liberty St.

Fremont, CA 94538

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:  Mark Hungerford, Associate Planner (510) 494‐4541
[email protected]

4. Project Location:  6000 Stevenson Boulevard and 40451 through 40525 Albrae Street, Fremont, CA
APNs: 531‐416‐003, ‐004, ‐005, ‐006

5. Project Sponsor’s Names and Address:  Scannell Properties San Francisco Bay Area Office
3468 Mt. Diablo Blvd.

Suite B‐115
Lafayette, CA 94549
Contact: Mac Carlsen
925.298.5204
[email protected]

6. General Plan Designations:  Regional Commercial (REG COM) (existing) Tech Industrial (proposed)

7. Zoning:   Planned District: The Globe (P‐2006‐10)  (existing) Planned District P‐2021‐160 (proposed)

8. Description of Project:   Addressed below

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:   Addressed below

10. Other Public Agencies whose Approval is Required:

No  other  public  agency  approvals  are  required  for the proposed project.
1 1 .  H a v e  C a l i f o r n i a  Na t i v e  A m e r i c a n  t r i b e s  t r a d i t i o n a l l y  a n d  c ulturally  affiliated  with  the  project area  requested  consultation  pursuant  to  Public  Resources  Code  §21080.3.1?  If  so,  is  there  a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determina tion of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? As discussed further under Section IV.E: Cultural and Tribal Cu ltural Resources, the California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with th e project area were contacted to inform them of the project and so they may request consultation.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 5 Project Site and Vicinity
Project Site
The  22.48‐acre  project  site  is  l ocated  within  the  31.48‐acre  Gl obe  Planned  District,  which  was approved by the City of Fremont in 2007 to allow for redevelopm ent of an industrially‐zoned area as a multi‐cultural retail and ente rtainment destination. Project  site addresses include 6000 Stevenson Boulevard and 40451 through 40525 Albrae Street. The location of the project is shown in Figure 1.

The remainder of the Globe Planned District is adjacent to the  northwest of the current project site.

These parcels fronting Stevenson Boulevard have been developed  generally as conceptualized under the Globe Planned District, with small format cultural restaurant, retail, and commercial spaces.

The  project  site  is  currently  unused  though  two  structures  are present.  On  the  northeastern  side along Albrae Street is a currently‐vacant approximately 80,000‐ square‐foot commercial building that was originally constructed in 1987 as a Home Depot. To the sout hwest of that is the remnant of a 1960‐constructed  manufacturing  building.  The  remnant  structure is  approximately  320  feet  wide and 250 feet long to cover approximately 80,000 square feet of  concrete floor surface. The remnant structure has a flat roof and lacks wall coverings so the steel  frame structure is visible. The existing condition of the project site is shown in Figure 2.

Surrounding Land Uses
Much of the project vicinity is developed with light industrial  and commercial uses. Residential uses begin  over  1,000  feet  from  the  project  site,  to  the  west  of  Stevenson  Boulevard  in  the  City  of Newark, and to the north on the other side of I‐880, in the City of Fremont Irvington area.

Surrounding  sites  include  commercial  establishments  and  restaurants.  East  of  the  project  site  on Encyclopedia are a cluster of three buildings that contain two  semiconductor manufacturers and an electronic component manufacturer.

Proposed Project
The  proposed  project  would  replace  existing  vacant  industrial  /  commercial  development  at  the

22.36‐acre project site with a total of 396,500 square feet of  warehouse, R&D manufacturing, and associated  office  uses  in  three  buildings.  See  the  project  site   plan  and  elevations  in  Figures  3 through 6.

Under  the  current  project,  the  applicant  seeks  to  amend  the  General  Plan  designation  of  a  22.48‐ acre portion of The Globe site from Regional Commercial to Tech  Industrial, and to rezone this same property  from  the  Globe  Planned  District  (P‐2006‐10)  to  a  new  Planned  District  (P‐2021‐160)  that follows the land use and development standards of the I‐T Tech Industrial zoning district.

Development pursuant to the project would include the following new buildings:

Building 1 at the southeast part of the site, which would consist of an a pproximately 190,503 square foot  warehouse  building  (including  approximately  8,000  square  fe e t  o f  o f f i c e  s p a c e  f o r the warehouse use) located along the site’s Albrae Street frontage

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Building  2  at  the  southwest  part  of  the  site,  which  would  consist  of  an  approximately  157,783 square  foot  warehouse  building  (including  approximately  6,500  s quare  feet  of  office space for the warehouse use) located along the site’s Encyclopedia Circle frontage Building  3  at  the  northwest  part  of  the  site,  which  would  consist  of  approximately  10,000  square feet  of  office  and  approximately  36,839  square  feet  of  industrial  R&D/manufacturing space located on the Albrae Street frontage
Overall, the project would provide approximately 24,500 square  feet of office, 333,786 square feet of warehouse, and 36,839 square feet of industrial R&D/manufacturing space. 713 automobile parking spaces would be provided in surface park ing lots along internal drive aisles.

Truck docks would be located along the southwest side of Buildi ng 1 (38 bays), the northeast side of Building 2 (38 bays), and the southeast side of Building 3 (6 bays).

Comparison to The Globe Planned District (P-2006‐10)
The  impacts  of  the  entitled  project  were  evaluated  in  the  Prior   EIR  and  included  development assumptions  of  50,000  square  feet  of  Quality  Restaurant  and  412 ,252  square  feet  of  Regional Shopping Center on a 31.48 acre site.
102,000 square feet of Regional Shopping Center has already bee n constructed on 9 acres along the Stevenson Boulevard frontage.

The  remaining  envisioned  50,000  square  feet  of  Quality  Restaurant  and  310,252  square  feet  of Regional  Shopping  Center  were  not  built  and  the  remaining  22.48   acres  of  The  Globe  Planned District is vacant today.

The current project is proposing that the 22.48 acres of The Globe Planned District that has not been developed according to that plan instead be developed with the uses currently proposed.

Improvements and Landscaping
Access and Circulation
Access  to  the  site  would  be  provided  directly  through  two  driveways  on  Albrae  Street,  and  three driveways  on  Encyclopedia  Circle .  Internal  circulation  would  in clude  drive  aisles  between  and around all buildings and would connect to internal circulation  of the two adjacent developed parcels along Stevenson Boulevard, as well as maintaining circulation a ccess to the developed parcels to the east.

Utilities, Services, and Stormwater
The  proposed  project  would  include  utility  connections  to  existing  services  within  the  project  site and to adjacent existing services, which is anticipated to include the following:

Water Supply:   Alameda County Water District
Fire Protection:  City of Fremont Fire Department
Sanitary Sewer:   Union Sanitary District
Storm Drain:   City  of  Fremont,  Alameda  County  Flood  Control  Dis trict,  and  Alameda  County Water Control District

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 7 Gas and Electricity:   Pacifi c Gas and Electric (PG&E) Solid Waste:  Republic Services
Telephone:   AT&T
The  proposed  stormwater  system  includes  lined  bioretention  basins,  which  would  allow  natural cleaning  and  slowing  of  stormwater  prior  to  release  into  the  City’s  stormwater  system  without impacting site contamination (see Section H: Hazards & Hazardous Materials).

Landscaping
There are 28 trees on or near the project site. None of them ar e slated for removal as a part of this p r o j e c t .  A p p r o x i m a t e l y  2 0 7  t r e e s  w o u l d  b e  p l a n t e d  a s  p a r t  o f  t he  proposed  project.  A  total  of 129,907 square feet of landscaping is proposed, including lands caped bioretention areas. Trees and landscaping  would  be  distributed  throughout  the  site,  primarily  around  the  proposed  buildings, along drive aisles, and along adjacent public roadways.

Construction Activities and Schedule
Construction  of  the  project  is  projected  to  take  approximately  12  months  to  complete.  The applicants  had  originally  noted  a  target  start  date  of  August  2021,  which  was  incorporated  in  this analysis.  However,  a  later  start  date  would  have  the  same  or  reduced  impacts  (due  to  increasing emissions controls) and would not change the conclusions in this document.

Site grading activities would involve 35,995 cubic yards of cut  and 46,983 cubic yards of fill, mostly balanced on site. A total of 10,988 cubic yards of soil would be imported to the site.

Per  Fremont  Municipal  Code  (FM P)  18.218.050(c),  a  construction  management  plan  must  be submitted to the City for review and approval:

FMC  18.218.050(c):  Construction  Man agement  Plan.  Prior  to  the  i ssuance  of  the  first construction‐related  permit  for  a  new  development  project,  the project  applicant  and  his/her general contractor shall submit a construction management plan  (CMP) for review and approval by  the  planning  and  building  divisions  and  other  relevant  city departments,  such  as  the  fire department and the public works department, as directed. The CM P shall contain measures to minimize  potential  construction  impacts  including  measures  to  comply  with  all  construction‐ related  conditions  of  approval  (and  mitigation  measures  if  applicable)  such  as  dust  control, construction  emissions,  hazardous  materials,  construction  days/ hours,  construction  traffic control,  waste  reduction  and  recycling,  erosion  and  sedimentati on  control,  storm  water pollution  prevention,  noise  control,  complaint  management,  and  cultural  and  tribal  cultural resource  management  as  applicable.  The  CMP  shall  provide  projec t‐specific  information including descriptive procedures, approval documentation, and d rawings (such as a site logistics plan,  fire  safety  plan,  construction  phasing  plan,  proposed  truck  routes,  traffic  control  plan, complaint management plan, construction worker parking plan, an d litter/debris clean‐up plan) that specify how potential construction impacts will be minimiz ed and how each construction‐ related requirement will be satisfied throughout construction of the project.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

AB52 Notification
I n  c o n f o r m a n c e  w i t h  t h e  r e q u i r e m e n t s  o f  P u b l i c  R e s o u r c e s  C o d e  section  21080.3.1,  notice  of  the proposed project was sent by certified mail and email on July 7 , 2021 to the fifteen Native American tribal representatives whose names and contact information were  provided by the Native American Heritage Commission. To date, no requests for consultation purs uant to AB52 have been received.

Additional details are provided in Section E, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources.

Project Approvals
This Addendum is intended to cover all the discretionary action s required for implementation of the project.  These  include,  without  limitation:  the  following  discretionary  approvals  from  the  City  of Fremont:
 General Plan Amendment (from Regional Commercial to Tech Industrial)  Rezoning (from Preliminary and Precise Planned District P‐2006‐10 to Preliminary and Precise Planned District P‐2021‐160)
 Tentative Parcel Map (#11171)
Other Public Agencies Requiring Approval
This  Addendum  covers  all  project  approvals,  without  limitations,  including,  among  other  things, acceptance of the Updated Risk M anagement Plan by the San Franc isco Bay Regional Water Quality Control  Board,  acceptance  of  stormwater  plans,  and  will‐serve  l etters  from  service  and  utility providers.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 9

Figure 1: Project Location
Source: Fehr & Peers, April 2021, Transportation Demand Management Plan and Project Plan Set, dated 12/10/21

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE

Figure 2: Existing Conditions
Source: Project Plan Set, dated 12/10/21

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 11

Figure 3: Site Plan
Source: Project Plan Set, dated 12/10/21

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE

Figure 4: Elevations, Building 1
Source: Project Plan Set, dated 12/10/21

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 13

Figure 5: Elevations, Building 2
Source: Project Plan Set, dated 12/10/21

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE

Figure 6: Elevations, Building 3
Source: Project Plan Set, dated 12/10/21

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 15 III. Summary of CEQA Findings
Given the substantial evidence included in this Addendum docume nt and attachments and the Prior EIR, the current project would not require subsequent analysis to th e Prior EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section  15162,  for  the  following  reasons  and  supported  by  the  a nalyses  and  conclusions  of  the environmental checklist contained herein:
( 1 )  T h e  c u r r e n t  p r o j e c t  w o u l d  n o t  r e s u l t  i n  n e w  s i g n i f i c a n t  e nvironmental  effects  or  a  substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2)   There  are  no  changes  in  circumstances  that  would  result  in  the  involvement  of  new  significant environmental  effects  or  a  substantial  increase  in  the  severity  of  previously  identified  significant effects; and
(3)   There  is  no  new  information  resulting  in  a  new  significant e f f e c t  n o t  d i s c u s s e d  i n  n e w  s i g n i f i c a n t environmental  effects,  a  substantial  increase  in  the  severity  o f  previously  identified  significant effects, or a change in the feasibility (or acceptance) of mitigation measures.

While  the  project  has  been  revised  since  the  Prior  EIR,  this  as sessment  has  determined  that  this Addendum, in conjunction with the Prior EIR, serve to satisfy r equirements under CEQA and no further documentation  is  required  per  CEQA  Guidelines  Sections  15164  an d  15162.  This  addendum  only includes  necessary  minor  technical  changes  and  none  of  the  conditions  described  in  CEQA  Guideline section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.

M a r k   H u n g e r f o r d ,   A s s o c i a t e   P l a n n e r City of Fremont, Community Development

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Overview
The  Environmental  Checklist  below  compares  potential  environment a l  i m p a c t s  o f  t h e  p r o j e c t  t o  t h e findings  of  the  Prior  EIR  (The  Globe  Planned  District  SCH  No.  2005042146),  notes  whether  the  project would  result  in  new  significant  impacts  or  impacts  substantially  greater  or  more  severe  than  those previously  identified  in  the  Prior  EIR,  and  includes  an  explanation  substantiating  the  findings  for  each topic.  It  uses  the  abbreviation  SU  for  Significant  and  Unavoidab l e, L T S  f or  l e ss t h an si g n i f ican t , L T S w / MMs for impacts that are reduced to LTS with implementation of  identified mitigation measures (MMs), and NI for when No Impact was identified in the Prior EIR. If SDRs are applicable, these are indicated.

The  checklist  also  lists  mitigation  measures  applicable  to  the current  project  impacts.  A  full  list  of  the applicable  MMs  can  be  found  in  Attachment  A,  Standard  Development  Requirements  and  Mitigation Monitoring  and  Reporting  Program  (SDR/MMRP).  Project  materials  and  more  detail  regarding  the impacts and mitigation from the Prior EIR is available within t hose complete documents available from the City of Fremont Community Development Department at 39550 L iberty St., Fremont, CA 94538, and on  the  City  of  Fremont  website  at:  https://www.fremont.gov/430/ Environmental‐Review  under  the “Fremont Albrae Industrial” project.

When a dash (‐‐) appears in the checklist below, it means that  the Prior EIR did not identify impacts or MMs related to that environmental topic.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 17 A. Aesthetics

Impacts
Related To:

Prior EIR
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)

PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
EIR Findings
Applicable SDRs or MMs
Project Level
of Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Scenic Vistas   LTS  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  LTS
b. Scenic Resources  NI  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  NI
c. Visual Character   NI  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  NI
d.  Light or Glare  NI  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  NI
Discussion
Aesthetic Changes from The Globe Planned District
As  under  The  Globe  Planned  District,  existing  structures  on  the  project  site  would  be  demolished  and replaced with new buildings. Project plans and elevations can be seen in Figures 3 through 5.

Scenic Vistas
a)   Would the project have a subs tantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Same  Conclusion  (conclusion  remains  LTS) :  The  current  project  would  not  change  the  less‐than‐ significant conclusion as there are no scenic vistas across the  site from nearby locations and the project would not be prominent in scenic vistas from more distant locat ions. Therefore, the potential to impact views  is  generally  the  same  as  under  The  Globe  Planned  District  despite  revisions  to  the  specifics  of building massing and location.

The Prior EIR concluded that The Globe Planned District would n ot have a significant impact on scenic vistas because “preservation of  existing vistas will be maintai ned through the site plan and architectural review  process”.  The  Fremont  General  Plan  indicates  that  scenic   vistas  would  be  views  of  creeks, baylands, hillsides, and ridgelines from public spaces. 1 The project site itself is in a developed area and would not itself be considered a natural resource. The area in  which the project is located is generally flat and views across the site toward natural resources are alr eady predominantly blocked by other area development and landscaping. While there is the potential that  the project could be visible from more distant,  higher‐elevation  locations,  due  to  the  distance,  the  p r o j e c t  d e v e l o p m e n t  w o u l d  n o t  b e p r o m i n e n t  i n  t h o s e  v i e w s .  T h e r e f o r e ,  t h e  p r o j e c t  w o u l d  n o t  h a v e  the  potential  to  significantly  impact scenic  vistas.  The  conclusion  of  less‐than‐significant  in  regard  t o  s c e n i c  v i s t a s  w o u l d  r e m a i n  t h e  s a m e even with the specific massing and location of buildings proposed with the current project.

For  the  above  reasons,  the  proposed  project  would  not  result  in s i g n i f i c a n t  i m p a c t s  r e l a t e d  t o  s c e n i c vistas not previously identified in the EIR or addressed throug h uniformly applied development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

1 Fremont General Plan, Chapter 4: Community Character.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Scenic Resources
b)  Would  the  project  substantially  damage  scenic  resources,  incl u d ing , b u t  n ot  l i m i t e d  t o, t r ee s, r oc k outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Same  Conclusion  (conclusion  remains  NI) :  The  current  project  would  not  change  the  no  impact c o n c l u s i o n  r e l a t e d  t o  s c e n i c  h i ghways,  as  the  lack  of  scenic  designation  of  the  nearby  highways  is  the same as under The Globe Planned District.

The  Prior  EIR  concluded  that  The  Globe  Planned  District  would  no t  h a v e  a n  i m p a c t  r e l a t e d  t o  s c e n i c highways. The State Scenic Highway Program was consulted to confirm that there remain no state scenic highways in the vicinity of the project site. The closest desig nated or eligible state scenic highways are I‐ 680, over 2 miles to the east, and CA‐84 north of Route 238, be ginning over 4 miles to the north. 2 The project site is not within a designated or eligible state scenic highway corridor. Therefore, the conclusion of  no  impact  in  regard  to  resources  within  a  state  scenic  highwa y  w o u l d  r e m a i n  t h e  s a m e  w i t h  t h e current project.

For  the  above  reasons,  the  proposed  project  would  not  result  in s i g n i f i c a n t  i m p a c t s  r e l a t e d  t o  s c e n i c resources  not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR  or  addressed  through  uniformly  applied  development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Visual Character
c)   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  publicly  accessible vantage  points.)  If  the  project  is  in  an  urbanized  area,  would the  project  conflict  with  applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Same  Conclusion  (conclusion  remains  NI) :  The  current  project  would  not  change  the  no  impact conclusion  as  re‐development  consistent  with  applicable  design  criteria  would  not  be  considered  a degradation of character or quality of the environment.

The  Prior  EIR  concluded  that  The  Globe  Planned  District  would  not  have  an  impact  related  to  visual character noting, “It is anticipated that the project will impr ove the visual character and quality of the site by eliminating sub‐standard structures with new, modern de velopment. The entitlement process for this  project  includes  a  Planned  District  Major  Amendment  and  wi ll  be  subject  to  site  plan  and architectural  approval  by  the  City  of  Fremont’s  Planning  Commission,  and  will  be  scrutinized  for  its design  compatibility  with  surrounding  developments.”  Consistent  with  the  previous  assessment,  the current project will be subject to site plan and architectural  approval and the conclusion of no impact in regard to visual character would remain the same with the current project.

For  the  above  reasons,  the  proposed  project  would  not  result  in  significant  impacts  related  to  visual character  not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR  or  addressed  through  uniformly  applied  development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

2   CalTrans, State Scen ic Highway website, available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap‐landscape‐ architecture‐and‐community‐livability/lap‐liv‐i‐scenic‐highways.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 19 Light and Glare
d)   Would the project create a new source of substantial light  or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Same  Conclusion  (conclusion  remains  NI) :  The  current  project  would  not  change  the  no  impact conclusion  as  the  proposed  lighting  levels  and  potential  for  lig h t  a n d  g l a r e  w o u l d  b e  c o n s i s t e n t  w i t h lighting standards and design guidelines and typical of existin g surrounding commercial/industrial urban development.

The Prior EIR concluded that The Globe Planned District would n ot have an impact related to light and glare noting, “On‐site lighting will be reviewed through the De velopment Organization (building permit) review process to ensure adequate light levels that do not spil l onto adjacent properties.” The proposed site uses may be operable 24 hours a day, which could increase  lighting in the area. However, consistent with the previous assessment, the current project will be subject to standard review of proposed lighting (per  FMC  Section  18.50.050(e))  to  prevent  illumination  of  adjoining  properties  or  objectionable  visual impacts on other properties or the streets and the conclusion o f no impact in regard to light and glare would remain the same with the current project.

For the above reasons, the proposed project would not result in  significant impacts related to lights and glare not previously identified in the EIR or addressed through  uniformly applied development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

B. Agricultural and Forest Resources

Impacts Related
To:

Prior EIR
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)

PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
EIR Findings
Applicable SDRs or MMs
Project Level
of Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Convert Farmland  NI  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  NI
b. Conflict with
Agricultural
Designation
NI  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  NI
c. Conflict with Forest
Designation1
NI  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  NI
d.  Convert Forest1 N I   ☒  ☐  ‐‐  NI
e.  Indirect Conversion
of Agricultural or
Forest Land
1 NI  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  NI
1   Note that forest resources were not explicitly assessed in the Prior EIR, which under CEQA is a presumption that the project would not have a significant impact, as discussed below.

Discussion
Agriculture and Forest Resources  Changes from The Globe Planned  District Since  analysis  of  The  Globe  Planned  District,  CEQA  thresholds  ha v e  b e e n  a d d e d  t o  m a k e  i t  c l e a r  t h a t forest  resources  would  be  considered  in  addition  to  agricultural  resources.  There  have  been  no  other changes relevant to this topic.

Convert Farmland
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? Same  Conclusion  (NI):  There  have  been  no  changes  in  circumstance  or  new  information   related  to Farmland ‐ which does not occur in the project area  ‐ and there   would be no  change to the no impact conclusion related to these topics.

The  Prior  EIR  concluded  that  no  part  of  the  project  site  is  des ignated  as  Prime  Farmland,  Unique Farmland,  or  Farmland  of  Statewide  Importance  (Farmland),  and  w o u l d  t h e r e f o r e  n o t  i n v o l v e  t h e conversion of such lands. The project is a currently developed  site located in an urbanized area and the prior conclusions remain applicable.

For  the  above  reasons,  the  proposed  project  would  not  result  in s i g n i f i c a n t  i m p a c t s  r e l a t e d  t o  t h e conversion  of  farmland  not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR  or  addressed  through  uniformly  applied development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 21 Conflict with Agricultural Designation
b)   Would the project conflict wi th existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Same  Conclusion  (NI):  There  have  been  no  changes  in  circumstance  or  new  information   related  to agriculture zoning or Williamson Act contracts ‐ which do not o ccur in the project area ‐ and there would be no change to the no impact conclusion related to these topics.

T h e  P r i o r  E I R  c o n c l u d e d  t h a t  t h e  p r o j e c t  w o u l d  n o t  i n v o l v e  t h e  conversion  of  farmland  and  does  not include  properties  under  Williamson  Act  contract.  The  project  s ite  is  currently  zoned  as  Regional Commercial,  with  a  proposed  zone  of  Tech  Industrial,  neither  of  w h i c h  a l l o w s  f o r  c o m m e r c i a l agricultural use and there are no Williamson Act contracts in p lace at the project site. The project is a currently developed site located in an urbanized area and the prior conclusions remain applicable.

For  the  above  reasons,  the  proposed  project  would  not  result  in  s i g n i f i c a n t  i m p a c t s  r e l a t e d  t o  a n agricultural use zoning conflict or a conflict with a Williamso n Act contract not previously identified in the  EIR  or  addressed  through  uniformly  applied  development  poli cies  or  standards  and  no  further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Conflict with Forest Designation
c)   Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cau se 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))?
Same Conclusion (NI): There have been no changes in circumstance or new information  related to forest resources  ‐  which  do  not  occur  in  the  project  area  ‐  and  there would  be  no  change  to  the  no  impact conclusion related to these topics.

No part of the project site is zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. The project site is currently zoned as Regional Commercial, with a proposed zone of Tech Industrial.

For the above reasons, the proposed project would not result in  significant impacts related to a forest land  or  timberland  zoning  conflict  not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR  or  addressed  through  uniformly applied  development  policies  or  standards  and  no  further  environmental  review  is  necessary  for  this topic.

Convert Forest
d)   Would the project result in  the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use? Same Conclusion (NI): There have been no changes in circumstance or new information  related to forest resources  ‐  which  do  not  occur  in  the  project  area  ‐  and  there would  be  no  change  to  the  no  impact conclusion related to these topics.

T h e  p r o j e c t  i s  l o c a t e d  i n  a n  u r b a n i z e d  a r e a .  N o  p a r t  o f  t h e  s i te  is  mapped  as,  zoned  for,  or  currently being used for forestry purposes.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

For  the  above  reasons,  the  proposed  project  would  not  result  in  s i g n i f i c a n t  i m p a c t s  r e l a t e d  t o conversion  of  forest  land  not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR or  addressed  through  uniformly  applied development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Indirect Conversion of Agr icultural or Forest Land
e)   Would the project involve other changes in the existing env ironment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐agricult ural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?
Same  Conclusion  (NI):  There  have  been  no  changes  in  circumstance  or  new  information   related  to agriculture and forest resources ‐ which do not occur in the pr oject area ‐ and there would be no change to the no impact conclusion related to these topics.

The Prior EIR concluded that the project would not result in in direct conversion of agricultural or forest land.  The  project  is  located  in  an  urbanized  area,  with  no  adjacent  farmland,  agricultural  land,  forest land, or timberland and the prior conclusions remain applicable.

For  the  above  reasons,  the  proposed  project  would  not  result  in s i g n i f i c a n t  i m p a c t s  r e l a t e d  t o  t h e indirect  conversion  or  loss  of  farmland,  agricultural  land,  for est  land,  or  timberland  not  previously identified in the EIR or addressed through uniformly applied de velopment policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 23 C. Air Quality

Impacts
Related To:

Prior EIR
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)

PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
EIR Findings
Applicable SDRs or MMs
Project Level
of
Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a.   Conflict with Air
Quality Plan
LTS  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  LTS
b. Criteria Air
Pollutants
(Construction
Period)
LTS w/MM  ☒  ☐
SDR FMC 18.218.050(a) Construction
Related Emissions (supersedes MM 3.1.1:

Dust Control Measures)
LTS
(Operational)  SU w/MM  ☒  ☐  MM 3.1.2: Reduce Vehicle Trips  SU w/MM c.   Sensitive
Receptors
LTS  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  LTS
d. Odors

NI  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  NI
Discussion
Air Quality Setting Changes from The Globe Planned District Since the Prior EIR, the Bay Area Air Quality Management Distri ct (BAAQMD) has updated its CEQA Air Quality  Guidelines  (BAAQMD  Guidelines),  which  assists  lead  agencies  in  evaluating  and  mitigating  air quality impacts. The latest draft of the BAAQMD guidelines was  issued in May 2017. The recommended emissions model with which to quantify project emissions has also been updated.

Since the Prior EIR, the Bay Area Clean Air Plan has undergone  regular updates. The latest 2017 update to the Clean Air Plan includes similar but updated control measures as discussed below.

A quantification of project emissions and comparison to emissio ns under the Globe Planned District has been prepared as follows.

Air  quality  consultant  Illingworth  &  Rodkin  prepared  an  Air  Qua lity  and  Greenhouse  Gas  Emissions Analysis for the current project as referenced in this document and included in full as Attachment B.

Conflict with Air Quality Plan
a)   Would the project conflict wi th or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Same  Conclusion  (conclusion  remains  LTS) :  The  current  project  would  not  change  the  less‐than‐ significant conclusion related to conflict with an Air Quality Plan.

The  Prior  EIR  concluded  that  The  Globe  Planned  District  would  h a v e  a  l e s s ‐ t h a n ‐ s i g n i f i c a n t  i m p a c t related  to  conflict  with  the  air  quality  plan  noting,  “The  request  for  a  General  Plan  Amendment  will modify  the  overall  land  use  of  the  site.  The  existing  General  P lan  designation  allows  large  scale commercial  uses.  The  new  designation  would  allow  a  combination of  large  scale  commercial,  retail, assembly uses and restaurants. Although the specific nature of uses on site will change, the General Plan anticipates this site for commercial uses.  Therefore, the redevelopment of the site is consistent with the

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Fremont  General  Plan  in  terms  of  increasing  the  amount  of  development  on  site,  and  not  conflicting with  an  air  quality  plan.”  Consistent  with  the  previous  assessme n t ,  t h e  c u r r e n t  p r o j e c t  w o u l d  a g a i n revise the  particulars of development  at the site while still r epresenting anticipated redevelopment at that location.

The Clean Air Plan is the regional air quality plan, and has been regularly updated since the Prior EIR. The latest update to the plan, adopted in April 2017, is the 2017 B ay Area Clean Air Plan. BAAQMD currently r e c o m m e n d s  a n a l y z i n g  a  p r o j e c t ’ s  c o n s i s t e n c y  w i t h  c u r r e n t  a i r  quality  plan  primary  goals  and  control measures. The impact would be significant if the project would  conflict with or obstruct attainment of the primary goals or implementation of the control measures.

The  primary  goals  of  the  Bay  Area  2017  Clean  Air  Plan  are  to  attain  all  state  and  national  air  quality standards,  eliminate  disparities  among  Bay  Area  communities  in  cancer  health  risk  from  toxic  air contaminants, and reduce Bay Area greenhouse gas emissions to 4 0 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. (This last standard is addressed in Section G: Greenhouse Gas Emissions.) The  current  project  would  be  required  to  comply  with  all  applicable  rules  and  regulations  related  to emissions  and  health  risk  and,  as  detailed  under  the  “Criteria Air  Pollutants”  topic  below,  would  have reduced emissions from what would have occurred under developme nt of The Globe Planned District as originally proposed and therefor e would not result in conflict  with the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Many of the Clean Air Plan’s control measures are targeted to a rea‐wide improvements, large stationary source reductions, or large employers and these are not applica ble to the proposed project. However, the project would be consistent with all rules and regulations  related to construction activities and the proposed  development  would  meet  current  standards  of  energy  and w a t e r  e f f i c i e n c y  ( C l e a n  A i r  P l a n Energy  Control  Measure  EN1  and  Water  Control  Measure  WR2)  and  r ecycling  and  green  waste requirements  (Clean  Air  Plan  Waste  Management  Control  Measures  WA3  and  WA4)  and  does  not conflict  with  applicable  control  measures  aimed  at  improving  ac cess/connectivity  for  bicycles  and pedestrians (Clean Air Plan Transportation Control Measure TR9) or any other control measures.

The  project,  therefore,  would  be  consistent  with  the  Clean  Air Plan  and  have  a  less‐than‐significant i m p a c t  i n  t h i s  r e g a r d .  W h i l e  t h e  C l e a n  A i r  P l a n  a n d  B A A Q M D  r e c ommendations  for  determining consistency have been updated since the Prior EIR, this conclusion is consistent with the Prior EIR.

For the above reasons, the proposed project would  not result in  significant impacts related to conflict with  an  air  quality  plan  not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR  or  addressed  through  uniformly  applied development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Criteria Air Pollutants
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?
Construction Period
Reduced Conclusion (conclusion was revised from LTS w/MM to LTS ): While the Prior EIR had identified an  impact  and  mitigation  related  to  construction‐period  pollutants  and  required  Mitigation  Measure

3.1.1,  standard  development  requirement  FMC  18.218.050  (a)  supersedes  the  Mitigation  Measure  and

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 25 with  it,  the  project  would  have  a  less‐than‐significant  impact  with  respect  to  construction  period pollutants with compliance with applicable regulations.

A s  n o t e d  i n  t h e  P r i o r  E I R ,  c o n s t r u c t i o n  a c t i v i t i e s  c o u l d  r e s u l t  in  construction  dust  and  emissions.

However, consistent with common practice at the time, as tempor ary emissions expected to already be included in area planning, construction emissions were not quan tified.  Mitigation Measure 3.1.1: Dust Control  Measures,  was  applied  to  minimize  construction  dust  and  emissions  and  the  resulting  level  of significance  related  to  construction  period  emissions  was  determined  to  be  less  than  significant  with mitigation.

BAAQMD has now adopted construction period emissions thresholds  and recommends quantification to determine  significance.  The  Illingworth  &  Rodkin  Emissions  Anal ysis  (Attachment  B)  has  quantified project emissions per current BAAQMD guidance as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Current Project Construction Period Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Pounds per Day) Description
Reactive
Organic Gases
Nitrogen
Oxides
Particulate
Matter (PM10)*
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5) *
Maximum Average Daily Emissions   33  31  2  1
BAAQMD Daily Thresholds  54  54  82  54
Exceeds Threshold?  No  No  No  No
* Applies to exhaust emissions only
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis, 2020, summarized from Table 4.

Construction‐period  emissions  levels  are  below  current  BAAQMD  t hresholds  presented  in  Table  1.

However,  BAAQMD  considers  dust  generated  by  grading  and  construc t i on ac t i vi t ie s t o be  a si g n i f i c ant impact  associated  with  project  development  if  uncontrolled  and  recommends  implementation  of construction  mitigation  measures  to  reduce  construction‐related  emissions  and  dust  for  all  projects, regardless  of  comparison  to  their  construction‐period  threshold s.  These  recommendations  are consistent  with  the  City  of  Fremont’s  standard  development  requ irements  relating  to  construction period emissions:

FMC  18.218.050(a)  Construction  Related  Emissions.  The  following  construction  measures,  as periodically  amended  by  BAAQMD,  are  required  for  all  proposed  d evelopment  projects  to reduce construction‐related fugitive dust and exhaust emissions:
(A)    All  exposed  surfaces  (e.g.,  parking  areas,  staging  areas,   soil  piles,  graded  areas,  and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times daily. (B)      All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered. ( C )     A l l  v i s i b l e  m u d  o r  d i r t  t r a c k ‐ o u t  o n t o  a d j a c e n t  public  roads  shall  be  removed  using  wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per  day. The  use  of  dry power sweeping is prohibited.
(D)      All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

(E)      All  roadways,  driveways,  and  sidewalks  to  be  paved  shal l  be  completed  as  soon  as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after  grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
(F)    Idling  times  shall  be  minimized  either  by  shutting  equipm ent  off  when  not  in  use  or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required b y 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. ( G )    A l l  c o n s t r u c t i o n  e q u i p m e n t  s h a l l  b e  m a i n t a i n e d  a n d  p r o p e rly  tuned  in  accordance  with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked b y a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. ( H )    A  publicly  visible  sign  shall  be  posted  with  the  telephone  number a n d  p e r s o n  t o  c o n t a c t regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take c orrective action within 48 hours.  BAAQMD’s  phone  number  shall  also  be  visible  to  ensure  co mpliance  with applicable regulations.

FMC  18.218.050(a)  fully  supersedes  Mitigation  Measure  3.1.1:  Dus t  C o n t r o l  M e a s u r e s  f r o m  t h e  P r i o r EIR. Consistent with the Prior EIR analysis, the current projec t would result in construction period dust and emissions, the impacts of which would be reduced through im plementation of construction‐period dust control measures identifie d in FMC 18.218.050(a). The conc lusion of a less‐than‐significant impact with mitigation in regard to construction emissions would be do wngraded to less‐then‐significant with the current project.

Operational Period
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains SU w/ MM) : The current project would not change Impact 3.2.2 and  the  significant  and  unavoidable  with  mitigation  conclusion  related  to  operational‐period  criteria pollutant emissions.

For operational emissions, the P rior EIR quantified operational  emissions using the URBEMIS model and determined  The  Globe  Planning  District  would  have  emissions  abo ve  significance  threshold  levels.

Mitigation  Measure  3.1.2:  Reduce  Vehicle  Trips  was  identified  to  reduce  emissions,  but  the  reduction would not be sufficient to reduce emissions below significance  thresholds and therefore the impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable.

Prior EIR Mitigation Measure 3.1.2: Reduce Vehicle  Trips. The f ollowing are feasible mitigation measures identified by the BAAQMD for commercial development:
•   Provide transit facilities, e. g., bus bulbs/turnouts, benches, shelters, etc. •   Provide bicycle land and/or p aths, connected to community‐wide network. •   Provide  sidewalks  and/or  paths,  connected  to  adjacent  land  u ses,  transit  stops,  and/or community‐wide network.
•   Provide secure and conveniently located bicycle storage. •   Provide preferential parking  for electric or alternatively‐fueled vehicles. •   Implement  feasible  TDM  measures  including  a  ride‐matching  pr ogram,  coordination  with regional ridesharing organizations and provision of transit information.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 27 Mitigation Measure 3.1.2 identified physical on‐site improvemen ts to promote pedestrians and bicycle use, improvements  to transit facilities, preferential  parking f or electric or alternatively‐fueled vehicles, and  implementation  of  Transportation  Demand  Management  (TDM)  measures  as  feasible.  Mitigation Measure 3.1.2 would remain applicable to the current project. T here are currently no transit facilities or l i n e s  a l o n g  t h e  c u r r e n t  p r o j e c t ’ s  f r o n t a g e ,  s o  n o  t r a n s i t  i m p r ovements  are  planned  as  a  part  of  the current  project.  On‐site  improvements  for  pedestrians  and  bicycles  as  well  as  electric  vehicle  parking stalls (10+%) and “Clean Air”/ vanpool stalls (8+%) are identif ied on the project plans and would meet or exceed current City requiremen ts. Section 18.50.050 of the Frem ont Municipal Code now includes TDM requirements for new developments in the City of Fremont. The p reliminary TDM Plan prepared by the applicants calculated that considering the project uses and loc ation, and the available transit service and pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the area, with implementat ion of feasible TDM measures, the project would be able to achieve a 2 to 4 percent reduction in single‐o ccupancy vehicle trips. The Prior EIR had estimated that Mitigation Measure 3.1.2 could reduce emissions  by 5 to 10 percent, which is consistent with  identified  reductions  in  single‐occupancy  vehicle  trips  (2  to  4  percent)  combined  with  electrical vehicle and clean air vehicle use (10+% of parking stalls) under the current project.

The  emissions  for  the  current  project  were  quantified  using  the   currently‐recommended  emissions model,  CalEEMod,  and  compared  to the  emissions  from  the  Prior  EI R ,  a s  d e t a i l e d  i n  t h e  I l l i n g w o r t h  & Rodkin Emissions Analysis (Attachment B). A summary of these results is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Pounds per Day) Description
Reactive
Organic Gases
Nitrogen
Oxides
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Current BAAQMD Daily
Significance Thresholds   54  54  82  54
The Globe Planned District 1  129  130  111  <111 2
Exceeds Threshold?  Yes  Yes  Yes  (Yes)  2
Current Industrial Project  43  67  47  <47 2
Exceeds Threshold?  No  Yes  No  No
Difference  ‐86  ‐63  ‐64  ‐ <80 2
1 The Globe Planned District daily trips shown are from the Prior EIR and incorporate the portion of the site that the current project is on. 2 There were no thresholds for PM2.5 at the time of the Prior EIR and it was not explicitly assessed.  Since PM2.5 is a fraction of PM10 and therefore could have been known as such at the time, those emissions are reported as less than or “<” the PM10 value for comparison in this table.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis, 2020, summarized from Table 5.

As shown in Table 2, in all cases, emissions that would result from the current project are less than those that  would  have  resulted  from  The  Globe  Planned  District.  There fore,  the  impact  with  respect  to operational criteria pollutants is equal or less than that iden tified in the Prior EIR, Mitigation Measure

3.1.2 would remain applicable to the current project, and the c onclusions of significant and unavoidable with mitigation would remain the same for the current project.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Sensitive Receptors
c)   Would the project expose sen sitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Same  Conclusion  (conclusion  remains  LTS) :  The  current  project  would  not  change  the  less‐than‐ significant conclusion related to exposure of sensitive receptors.

As noted in the Prior EIR, while some of the emissions from the  project would be toxic air contaminants, especially diesel emissions during construction, the bulk of the emissions would occur at the project site, which is not proximate to sensitive receptors so the impact was considered less‐than‐significant.

Illingworth & Rodkin re‐assessed this topic in the Emissions Re port (Attachment B) to verify significance conclusions for the current project. According to current stand ards, emissions from project construction c o u l d  i m p a c t  s e n s i t i v e  r e c e p t o r s  a s  w e l l  a s  o p e r a t i o n a l  t r u c k  traffic  and  diesel‐powered  emergency generators  on  site.  BAAQMD  Guidelines  recommend  quantification  of  impacts  to  sensitive  receptors within  1,000  feet  of  the  project  site.  Illingworth  &  Rodkin  conc l u d e  t h a t  b e c a u s e  t h e  c l o s e s t  s e n s i t i v e receptors are over 1,000 feet from the project site, impacts on  sensitive receptors would be considered to be below current significance threshold levels.

Therefore,  as  under  the  Prior  EIR,  the  current  project  is  not  c lose  enough  to  substantially  impact sensitive receptors and the conclusion of a less‐than‐significa nt impact in that regard would remain the same with the current project.

For the above reasons, the proposed project would not result in  significant impacts related to sensitive receptors  not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR  or  addressed  through  uniformly  applied  development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Odors
d)   Would  the  project  result  in  other  emissions  (such  as  those leading  to  odors)  adversely  affecting  a substantial number of people?
Same  Conclusion  (conclusion  remains  NI) :  The  current  project  would  not  change  the  no  impact conclusion related to odors.

As  noted  in  the  Prior  EIR,  the  project  site  is  surrounded  by  similar  uses  and  is  located  distant  enough from sensitive receptors not to have the potential to result in  a significant impact with respect to odors.

This  remains  true  for  the  current  project.  Therefore,  consistent  w i t h  t h e  P r i o r  E I R ,  t h e  p r o j e c t  w o u l d have no impact related to odors.

For the above reasons, the proposed project would not result in  significant impacts related to odors not previously  identified  in  the  EIR  or  addressed  through  uniformly   applied  development  policies  or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 29 D. Biological Resources

Impacts
Related To:

Prior EIR
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)

PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
EIR Findings
Applicable SDRs or MMs
Project Level
of
Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a.   Special‐Status
Species
NI  ☒  ☐  SDR FMC 18.218.050(b)(2): Nesting
Birds, SDR FMC 18.218.050(b)(3):

Roosting Bats
NI
b. Riparian/Sensitive
Habitat
NI  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  NI
c.   Wetlands  NI  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  NI
d. Wildlife Corridors/
Nursery Sites
NI  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  NI
e. Conflict with Local
Biological Policies
LTS  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  LTS
f.  Conflict with
Conservation Plans
NI  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  NI
Discussion
Biological Resources Changes fro m The Globe Planned District The  current  condition  of  the  site  with  respect  to  biological  resources  was  updated  per  the  following technical reports, which are available as part of project application materials.

A Biological Site Visit and follow‐up was performed by biologis ts at Johnson Marigot Consulting for the current applicants, dated 6/15/21 and 7/7/21.

A  Tree  Inventory  Report  was  performed  by  HortScience/Bartlett  Consulting  for  the  current  applicants, dated 9/20/20.

Special‐Status Species
a)   Would the project have a subs tantial 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 Fi sh and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Same  Conclusion  (NI):  There  have  been  no  changes  in  circumstance  or  new  information   related  to special‐status species ‐ which do not occur in the project area  ‐ and there would be no change to the no impact conclusion related to this topic.

As noted in the Prior EIR, “There are no known special status s pecies or any protected riparian habitats or wetlands located on the projec t site. The existing site is p aved and developed and contains little, if any, habitat capable of supporting burrowing owls.” A Biologica l Site Visit and follow‐up was performed in  June  and  July  2021  to  assess  current  site  conditions  and  confirm  conclusions.  Due  to  the  highly disturbed nature of the site, only one special‐status plan or w ildlife species has the potential to occur at

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

the  site:  Congdon’s  tarplant  ( Centromadia  parryi  ssp.  congdonii);  however,  the  biological  follow‐up confirmed that this species is not present at the site.

The Biology Report noted that “the open, sparsely vegetated por tions of the Property provide suitable nesting  habitat  for  ground‐nesting  birds.  Similarly,  the  abandoned  structures  on  the  Property  provide suitable nesting habitat for birds and suitable roosting habita t for bats.”  The City of Fremont’s Standard Development Requirements for nesting birds and roosting bats would apply:

FMC  18.218.050(b)(2):  Nesting  Birds.  New  development  projects  w ith  the  potential  to  impact nesting  birds  through  tree  or  shrub  removal  shall  implement  the   following  measures  prior  to removal of any trees/shrubs, grading, or ground disturbing activities:
(A)   Avoidance. Proposed projects shall avoid construction act ivities during the bird nesting season (February 1st through August 31st).
(B)  Preconstruction Surveys. If construction activities are sc heduled during the nesting season, a qualified  biologist  shall  conduct  a  preconstruction  survey  to  i dentify  any  potential  nesting activity.  The  biologist  shall  determine  the  number  and  time  fram e  ( p r i o r  t o  c o n s t r u c t i o n )  o f surveys to be conducted.
(C)    Protective  Buffer  Zone(s).  If  the  survey  indicates  the  presence  of  nesting  birds,  protective buffer  zones  shall  be  established  around  the  nests.  The  size  of   the  buffer  zone  shall  be recommended  by  the  biologist  in  consultation  with  the  CDFW  depending  on  the  species  of nesting bird and level of potential disturbance.
(D)   Initiation of Construction Activities. The buffer zones s hall remain in place until the young have fledged  and  are  foraging  independently.  A  qualified  biologist  shall  monitor  the  nests  closely until it is determined the nests are no longer active, at which  time construction activities may commence within the buffer area.

FMC 18.218.050(b)(3): Roosting Bats . New development with poten tial to impact special‐status or roosting  bat  species  through  demolition  of  existing  structures o r  r e m o v a l  o f  t r e e s  o n  s i t e  s h a l l conduct the following measures prior to demolition:
( A )    P r e c o n s t r u c t i o n  S u r v e y s .  A  q u a l i f i e d  b i o l o g i s t  s h a l l  c o n duct  a  preconstruction  survey  during seasonal periods of bat activity (mid‐February through mid‐Octo ber) to determine suitability of structure(s) or trees as bat roost habitat.
( B )   P r o t e c t i v e  B u f f e r  Z o n e ( s ) .  I f  a c t i v e  b a t  r o o s t s  a r e  f o u n d  on  site,  a  suitable  buffer  from construction shall be established per the biologist. The biolog ist shall determine the species of bats present and the type of roost.
( C )    M i t i g a t i o n  a n d  E x c l u s i o n .  I f  t h e  b a t s  a r e  i d e n t i f i e d  a s  common  species,  and  the  roost  is  not being  used  as  a  maternity  roost  or  hibernation  site,  the  bats  may  be  evicted  using  methods developed  by  a  qualified  biologist.  If  special‐status  bat  species  are  found  present,  or  if  the roost  is  determined  to  be  a  maternity  roost  or  hibernation  site f o r  a n y  s p e c i e s ,  t h e n  t h e qualified  biologist  shall  develop  a  bat  mitigation  and  exclusion  p l a n  t o  c o m p e n s a t e  f o r  l o s t roost. The site shall not be disturbed until CDFW approves the mitigation plan.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 31 For the above reasons, the proposed project would not result in  significant impacts related to special‐ status species not previously identified in the EIR or addresse d through uniformly applied development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Riparian/Sensitive Habitat
b)   Would  the  project  have  a  substantial  adverse  effect  on  any  riparian  habitat  or  other  sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, polici es, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Same  Conclusion  (NI):  There  have  been  no  changes  in  circumstance  or  new  information   related  to riparian/sensitive habitats ‐ which do not occur in the project  area ‐ and there would be no change to the no impact conclusion related to these topics.

As noted above, the Prior EIR stated that the project site was  paved and there were no riparian habitats.

T h e  f o l l o w ‐ u p  v i s i t  n o t e d  t h a t  s o m e  p a v e m e n t  a t  t h e  s i t e  h a s  b een  removed  and  the  site  is  currently characterized  by  sparse  ruderal  (weedy)  vegetation  within  heavily  compacted  and  gravely  soils,  large gravel piles, and abandoned structures.

For the above reasons, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to riparian or sensitive  habitats  not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR  or  addr essed  through  uniformly  applied development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for these topics.

Wetlands
c)   Would  the  project  have  a  substantial  adverse  effect  on  stat e  o r  f e d e r a l l y  p r o t e c t e d  w e t l a n d s (including,  but  not  limited  to,  marsh,  vernal  pool,  coastal,  et c.)  through  direct  removal,  filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Same  Conclusion  (NI):  There  have  been  no  changes  in  circumstance  or  new  information   related  to wetlands‐  which  do  not  occur  in  the  project  area  ‐  and  there  would  be  no  change  to  the  no  impact conclusion related to this topic.

As noted in the Prior EIR, the project site contains no wetland s. While the biologists noted at the follow up  visit  that  water  accumulates  in  topographically  low  areas  on  t h e  s i t e ,  t h e r e  a r e  n o  i n d i c a t o r s (vegetation  types,  soil  characteristics,  surface  signs)  either  at  the  site  or  visible  on  aerial  imagery throughout the year that would indicate the site would qualify as a wetland or waters of the U.S.

For the above reasons, the proposed project would not result in  significant impacts related to wetlands not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR  or  addressed  through  uniformly  applied  development  policies  or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Wildlife Corridors/ Nursery Sites
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 migr atory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Same  Conclusion  (NI):  There  have  been  no  changes  in  circumstance  or  new  information   related  to wildlife corridors or nursery sites ‐ which do not occur in the  project area ‐ and there would be no change to the no impact conclusion related to these topics.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

As noted in the Prior EIR, the project site is fully developed  and characterized by an urban setting and is entirely  surrounded  by  similar  development.  As  such,  the  project  site  does  not  have  the  capability  to function as a substantial wildlife corridor or wildlife nursery site.

For  the  above  reasons,  the  proposed  project  would  not  result  in si g n i f i c ant  i mp ac t s r e l at e d t o w i ld l i f e corridors  or  nursery  sites  not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR  or  addressed  through  uniformly  applied development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Local Biological Policies
e)   Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordin ances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS) : As under the Prior EIR, the project would be subject to the City’s  Tree  Preservation  Ordinance  and  the  current  project  would  not  change  the  less‐than‐significant impact conclusion related to local biological policies.

As noted in the Prior EIR, “There are no significant trees located on site, although it is possible that some smaller trees may be removed during  site construction. A tree s urvey will be required  prior to project approval to determine if mitigation is needed for any trees rem oved from the site. The tree survey and resulting mitigation, if required, will conform to the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance.” The Tree Inventory Report prepared for the current project indi cates that there are 28 trees at/near the p r o j e c t  s i t e ,  a l l  o f  w h i c h  h a v e  d i a m e t e r s  g r e a t e r  t h a n  6  i n c h e s  and  would  meet  the  definition  of “protected”  trees  subject  to  removal  permit  and  replacement  pro visions  under  the  City’s  Tree Preservation  Ordinance.  The  trees  are  located  outside  the  immediate  development  area,  including  6 trees along Albrae Street, 21 trees along the southeastern prop erty line, and one tree on Encyclopedia Circle.  All  existing  trees  are  currently  proposed  to  remain  with  implementation  of  construction‐period protection measures as detailed in the Tree Inventory Report. I f any tree removal was determined at a later date, it would be required to conform to the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance.

Therefore,  as  under  the  Prior  EIR,  the  current  project  would  conform  to  the  City’s  Tree  Preservation Ordinance  and  the  conclusion  of  a  less‐than‐significant  impact with  respect  to  local  biological  policies would remain the same with the current project.

Conflict with Conservation Plans
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? Same  Conclusion  (NI):  There  have  been  no  changes  in  circumstance  or  new  information   related  to conflict  with  conservation  plans  and  there  would  be  no  change  to  the  no  impact  conclusion  related  to these topics.

Just as under the Prior EIR, there are no conservation plans that cover the project site.

For the above reason, the propos ed project would not result in  significant impacts related to conflicts with  conservation  plans  not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR  or  addressed  through  uniformly  applied development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 33 E. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

Impacts
Related To:

Prior EIR
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)

PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
EIR Findings
Applicable SDRs or MMs
Project Level
of
Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Historical
Resource
NI   ☒  ☐  ‐‐  NI
b. Archaeological
Resource
LTS   ☒  ☐

SDR FMC 18.218.050(d)(2): Accidental
Discovery of Cultural Resources.

LTS
c. Human Remains  NI  ☒  ☐  NI
d. Tribal Cultural
Resources 1
LTS   ☒  ☐  LTS
e. Paleontological
Resource 2
NI   ☒  ☐  NI
1  Note that Tribal Cultural Resou rces are now called out as a separate topic under CEQA but under the Prior EIR would have been addressed as part of the Cultural Resources topics. Prior EIR findings were applied from previous conclusions.
2  Note that Paleontological Resou rces are now included under the Geology and Soils section, but are addressed here as they were under the Prior EIR.

Discussion
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Setting Changes from The  Globe Planned District T h e r e  h ave be e n  n o c h ang e s t o t he  cul t u r al  an d  t r ib al  c u lt u r al  resources  environmental  setting  of  the project  site,  and  the  details  of  the  current  project  do  not  change  the  potential  for  cultural  and  tribal cultural resources impacts.

Since the Prior EIR, the Native American Historic Resource Protection Act (Assembly Bill 52 or AB 52) was passed, which is intended to minimize conflict between Native A merican and development interests. AB 52 adds "tribal cultural resources" to the specific cultural re sources analyzed under CEQA. As had been s t a n d a r d  p r ac t i c e  a t  t h e  t i m e ,  t h e  P r i o r  E I R  c o n s i d e r e d  t r i b a l  c u l t u r a l  r e s o u r c e s  a s  p a r t  o f  t h e  c u l t u r al resources analysis, so they are discussed in this section.

T o  c o n f i r m  t h e  c u r r e n t  c o n d i t i o n  o f  t h e  s i t e  w i t h  r e s p e c t  t o  c ultural  and  tribal  cultural  resources,  a Cultural Resource Assessment was prepared by PaleoWest for this  analysis, including a literature review and records search of the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) a t Sonoma State University, a survey of the  site,  and  a  historic  assessmen t  of  the  existing  structures.  The  Cultural  Resource  Assessment  is included as Attachment C to this document.

Additionally,  a  search  of  the  Sacred  Lands  Files  by  the  Native American  Heritage  Commission  (NAHC) w a s  r e q u e s t e d  ( i n c l u d e d  i n  A t t a c h m e n t  C ) .  N o  t r i b e s  h a v e  r e q u e sted  consultation  for  area  projects under AB 52, however as recommended by the NAHC, certified lett ers and emails were sent on July 7, 2021, to contacts for all the local tribes to notify them of th e project and  providing an opportunity to provide input. One tribal representative expressed interest in  possible consultation following the initial letters, and on August 11, 2021, was emailed the completed Cult ural Resources Assessment. There was

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

no further request from the tribal representative in response t o that email nor to the follow up email sent on September 1, 2021.

Historical Resources
a)  Would  the  project  cause  a  substantial  adverse  change  in  the  significance  of  a  historical  resource pursuant to Public Resources Section 15064.5?
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The current project would not change the less‐than‐significant conclusion related to cultural and tribal cultural resources.

The project includes the demolition and removal of an existing 1960‐constructed manufacturing building remnant  and  the  1987‐constructed  commercial  building.  The  1987‐constructed  commercial  building  is not  historic  age  (50+  years)  and  no  additional  assessment  was  necessary  for  that  building.  While  the 1960‐constructed  building  remnant  was  not  historic  age  during  preparation  of  the  Prior  EIR  –  which correctly indicated there were no historic resources at the pro ject site ‐ it is now over 50 years of age so has been assessed for its potential significance as a historical resource as discussed below.

The remnant structure was originally constructed in 1960 as a s emi‐truck trailer manufacturing building and  office  for  Trailmobile  Corp  but  was  subsequently  sold  and  u sed  by  other  tenants  for  other manufacturing,  warehouse,  and  retail  purposes,  which  had  included  substantial  renovations  over  the years. It appears that the partial demolition occurred in 2018/ 2019 leaving the structure in its current state. It is approximately 320  feet wide and 250 feet long to c over approximately 80,000 square feet of concrete floor surface. The remnant structure has a flat roof a nd lacks wall coverings so the steel frame structure is visible.

The Cultural Resources Assessmen t (Attachment C) has determined  that although the structure is over 50  years  old,  the  1960  commercial building  remnant  does  not  appear  eligible  for  listing  as  a  historic r e s o u r c e  o n  t h e  s t a t e  o r  n a t i o n a l  r e g i s t e r  b e c a u s e  i t  i s  n o t  a ssociated  with  important  events,  is  not associated with the lives of important persons, is not a distin ctive work, and does not yield information important to prehistory or history. (See Attachment C for additional detail.) Demolition of all existing structures is proposed as it was und er The Globe Planned District, and while o n e  o f  t h o s e  s t r u c t u r e s  i s  n o w  h i s t o r i c ‐ a g e ,  i t  i s  n o t  a  s i g n i ficant  historical  resource.  Therefore,  the conclusion of no impact with respect to historical resources un der the Prior EIR would remain the same with the current project.

For the above reasons, the proposed project would not result in  significant impacts related to historical resources  not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR  or  addressed  through  uniformly  applied  development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Archeological Resources
b)   Would  the  project  cause  a  substantial  adverse  change  in  the   significance  of  an  archaeological resource pursuant to Public Resources Section 15064.5?
Same  Conclusion  (conclusion  remains  LTS) :  The  current  project  would  not  change  the  less‐than‐ significant conclusion related to archeological resources.

The Prior EIR concluded that The Globe Planned District would n ot have a significant impact related to cultural resources, noting, “No known significant historical, p aleontological or archaeological resource,

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 35 site structure or object has been identified either on the proj ect site or in the general area of the project site.  There  are  no  known  unique  cultural  resources,  and  therefo r e ,  n o  p o t e n t i a l  f o r  r e s t r i c t i o n s .

However,  should  any  human  remains  or  historical  or  unique  archaeological  resources  be  discovered during  site  development  work,  the  provisions  of  CEQA  Guidelines,  Section  15064.5.(e)  and  (f)  will  be followed to reduce impacts to a non‐significant level.” The referenced CEQA Guideline sections detail steps to be taken  in the event of accidental discovery of cultural resources or human remains. These same measures have b een subsequently formalized as the following Standard Development Requirement:

FMC 18.218.050(d)(2): Accidental Discovery of Cultural Resources.  The following requirements shall be  met  to  address  the  potential  for  accidental  discovery  of  cul tural  resources  during  ground disturbing excavation:
( A )   T h e  p r o j e c t  p r o p o n e n t  s h a l l  i n c l u d e  a  n o t e  o n  a n y  p l a n s  t ha t  r e q u i r e  g r o u n d  d i s t u r b i n g excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources. ( B )    T h e  p r o j e c t  p r o p o n e n t  s h a l l  r e t a i n  a  p r o f e s s i o n a l  a r c h a e ologist  to  provide  a  preconstruction briefing to supervisory personnel of any excavation contractor  to alert them to the possibility of exposing buried cultural resources, including significant pr ehistoric archaeological resources.

The briefing shall discuss any cultural resources, including ar chaeological objects, that could be exposed, the need to stop excavation at the discovery, and the  procedures to follow regarding discovery protection and notification of the project proponent and archaeological team. (C)    In the event that any human remains or historical, archa eological or paleontological resources are discovered during ground disturbing excavation, the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5(e)  and  (f),  and  of  subsection  (c)(2)(D)  of  this  section,  requiring  cessation  of  work, notification, and immediate evaluation shall be followed. (D)    If  resources  are  discovered  during  ground  disturbing  activ ities  that  may  be  classified  as historical, unique archaeological, or tribal cultural resources , ground disturbing activities shall cease immediately, and the planning manager shall be notified.  The resources will be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and, in the planning manager’s dis cretion, a tribal cultural monitor.

If  the  resources  are  determined  to  be  historical,  unique  archae ological,  or  tribal  cultural resources, then a plan for avoiding the resources shall be prep ared. If avoidance is infeasible, then all significant cultural materials recovered shall be, as  necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, p rofessional museum curation, and documentation  according  to  current  professional  standards.  Any  plan  for  avoidance  or mitigation shall be subject to the approval of the planning manager. (E)    As used herein, “historical resource” means a historical  resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a); “unique archae ological resource” means uniq ue archaeological resource as defined by Cal. Pub. Res. Code §  21083.2(g); and “tribal cultur al resource” means tribal cultural resource  as  defined  by  Cal.  Pub.  Res.  Code  §  21074.  Collectivel y ,  t h e s e  t e r m s  d e s c r i b e “significant cultural materials.”
The project would be required to implement Standard Development  Requirement FMC 18.218.050(d)(2) in the event of accidental discovery of cultural resources and  the impact of the project would be less‐ than‐significant.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

For  the  above  reasons,  the  proposed  project  would  not  result  in  s i g n i f i c a n t  i m p a c t s  r e l a t e d  t o archeological  resources  not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR  or  addressed  through  uniformly  applied development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Human Remains
c)   Would  the  project  disturb  any  human  remains,  including  thos e  interred  outside  of  formal cemeteries?
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The current project would not change the less‐than‐significant conclusion related to human remains.

The Prior EIR concluded that The Globe Planned District would n ot have a significant impact related to cultural resources, noting, “No known significant historical, p aleontological or archaeological resource, site structure or object has been identified either on the proj ect site or in the general area of the project site.  There  are  no  known  unique  cultural  resources,  and  therefo r e ,  n o  p o t e n t i a l  f o r  r e s t r i c t i o n s .

However,  should  any  human  remains  or  historical  or  unique  archaeological  resources  be  discovered during  site  development  work,  the  provisions  of  CEQA  Guidelines,  Section  15064.5.(e)  and  (f)  will  be followed to reduce impacts to a non‐significant level.” The referenced CEQA Guideline sections detail steps to be taken  in the event of accidental discovery of human remains. These same measures have been subsequently forma lized as a Standard Development Requirement FMC 18.218.050(d)(2)(C), as detailed above.

The project would be required to implement Standard Development  Requirement FMC 18.218.050(d)(2) in the event of accidental discovery of cultural resources and  the impact of the project would be less‐ than‐significant.

For  the  above  reasons,  the  proposed  project  would  not  result  in s i g n i f i c a n t  i m p a c t s  r e l a t e d  t o  h u m a n remains  not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR  or  addressed  throu gh  uniformly  applied  development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Tribal Cultural Resources
d)   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 la ndscape, 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  discretio n  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 subd ivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section  5024.1,  the  lead  agency  shall  consider  the  significance o f  t h e  r e s o u r c e  t o  a  C a l i f o r n i a Native American tribe.

Same  Conclusion  (conclusion  remains  LTS) :  The  current  project  would  not  change  the  less‐than‐ significant conclusion related to tribal cultural resources.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 37 City of Fremont Standard Development Requirement FMC 18.218.050 (d)(1) requires notification of the project be sent to the local tribal contacts.

FMC 18.218.050(d)(1): Notification, Affiliated California Nativ e  American Tribes. Within 14 days of determining  that  an  application  for  a  project  is  complete  or  a  d e c i s i o n  b y  t h e  c i t y  i s  m a d e  t o undertake a project, the  city shall provide formal notification  to the designated contact or a tribal representative  of  traditionally  and  culturally  affiliated  California  Native  American  tribes  that  have r e q u e s t e d  t o  r e c e i v e  s u c h  n o t i c e  f r o m  t h e  c i t y .  T h e  w r i t t e n  n o tification  shall  include  a  brief description of the proposed project and its location, project c ontact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to reques t consultation pursuant to Cal. Pub.

Res. Code § 64352.4.

U p o n  r e q u e s t ,  t h e  N a t i v e  A m e r i c a n  H e r i t a g e  C o m m i s s i o n  p r o v i d e d  contact  information  for  fifteen Native  American  tribal  representatives.  Notice  of  the  proposed project  was  sent  by  certified  mail  and email to all fifteen contacts on July 7, 2021. The City respond ed to a request for additional information on  August  11,  2021.  To  date,  no  requests  for  consultation  or  mit i g at i on  h ave  b e e n  r e c ei ved .  S t an d ar d Development Requirement FMC 18.218.050(d)(1) has been satisfied for this project.

The Prior EIR concluded that The Globe Planned District would n ot have a significant impact related to cultural resources, noting, “No known significant historical, p aleontological or archaeological resource, site structure or object has been identified either on the proj ect site or in the general area of the project site.  There  are  no  known  unique  cultural  resources,  and  therefo r e ,  n o  p o t e n t i a l  f o r  r e s t r i c t i o n s .

However,  should  any  human  remains  or  historical  or  unique  archaeological  resources  be  discovered during  site  development  work,  the  provisions  of  CEQA  Guidelines,  Section  15064.5.(e)  and  (f)  will  be followed to reduce impacts to a non‐significant level.” The referenced CEQA Guideline sections detail steps to be taken  in the event of accidental discovery of underground resources or human remains. These same measures hav e been subsequently formalized as Standard Development Requirement FMC 18.218.050(d)(2).

The project would be required to implement Standard Development  Requirement FMC 18.218.050(d)(2) in the event of accidental discovery of tribal cultural resourc es and the impact of the project would be less‐than‐significant.

For  the  above  reasons,  the  proposed  project  would  not  result  in s i g n i f i c a n t  i m p a c t s  r e l a t e d  t o  t r i b a l cultural  resources  not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR  or  addr essed  through  uniformly  applied development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Paleontological Resources
e)   Directly or indirectly destr oy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Same  Conclusion  (conclusion  remains  NI) :  The  current  project  would  not  change  the  no  impact conclusion related to paleontological resources.

The Prior EIR concluded that The Globe Planned District would n ot have a significant impact related to paleontological  resources,  noting,  “No  known  significant  historical,  paleontological  or  archaeological resource, site structure or object has been identified either o n the project site or in the general area of the  project  site.  There  are  no  known  unique  cultural  resources,   and  therefore,  no  potential  for restrictions.    However,  should  any  human  remains  or  historical or  unique  archaeological  resources  be

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

discovered during site development work, the provisions of CEQA  Guidelines, Section 15064.5.(e) and (f) will be followed to reduce impacts to a non‐significant level.” The referenced CEQA Guideline sections detail steps to be taken  in the event of accidental discovery of underground  resources.  These  same  measures  have  been  subsequent ly  formalized  as  Standard Development Requirement FMC 18.218.050(d)(2), as detailed above.

The project would be required to implement Standard Development  Requirement FMC 18.218.050(d)(2) in the event of accidental discovery of paleontological resourc es and the impact of the project would be less‐than‐significant.

For  the  above  reasons,  the  proposed  project  would  not  result  in  s i g n i f i c a n t  i m p a c t s  r e l a t e d  t o paleontological  resources  not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR or  addressed  through  uniformly  applied development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 39 F. Geology and Soils

Impacts
Related To:
1 Prior EIR
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)

PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
EIR Findings
Applicable SDRs or MMs
Project Level
of
Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a.   Seismic Hazards   LTS  ☒  ☐  SDR FMC 18.218.050(e)  LTS b. Soil Erosion  NI  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  NI
c. Unstable Soil  LTS  ☒  ☐  SDR FMC 18.218.050(e)  LTS d. Expansive Soil  LTS  ☒  ☐  SDR FMC 18.218.050(e)  LTS e. Septic Tanks  NI  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  NI
1 Note that the current CEQA Guidelines include paleontological resources in this section. That topic has been addressed under Section E. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources instead, as it was in the Prior EIR.

Discussion
Geology and Soils Setting Changes from The Globe Planned Distri ct The  current  project  would  be  required  to  meet  current  rules  and  regulation,  including  the  updated California  Building  Code.  These  regular  updates  to  regulatory  d ocuments  would  not  change  the conclusions of the Prior EIR.

There  have  been  no  changes  to  the  geology  and  soils  at  the  proj ect  site,  however  the  geological characteristics of the site and relationship to the currently p roposed development was assessed in the following technical reports, which are available as part of project application materials.

A Report of Expected Geotechnical Conditions and Geotechnical Peer Review Response was prepared by Terracon for the current applicants, dated 8/26/2020 and 4/8/2021.

Seismic Hazards
a)   Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential su bstantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i)  Rupture  of  a  known  earthquake  fault,  as  delineated  on  the  mo st  recent  Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake  Fault  Zoning  Map  issued  by  the  State  Geologist  for  th e  a r e a  o r  b a s e d  o n  o t h e r substantial  evidence  of  a  known  fault?  (Refer  to  Division  of  Mi nes  and  Geology  Special Publication 42)
ii)   Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii)   Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv)   Landslides?
Same  Conclusion  (conclusion  remains  LTS):  As  under  the  Prior  EIR,  the  project  would  be  subject  to regulatory  requirements  to  address  regional  seismicity  and  the specific  conditions  at  the  site  and  the current project would not change the less‐than‐significant impa ct conclusion related to seismic hazards and unstable or expansive soils.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

The Prior EIR concluded that The Globe Planned District would n ot have a significant impact related to s e i s m i c  h a z a r d s ,  n o t i n g ,  “ T h e  p r o j e c t  s i t e  i s  l o c a t e d  i n  a  s e i smic  area  and  in  a  liquefaction  zone  as identified by the State of California Geologic Survey. Because  of this location any proposed construction will require the adoption of appropriate engineering design in  conformance with geotechnical standards for  construction.  A  geotechnical  study  and  peer  review  by  the  City’s  geotechnical  consultant  will  be performed prior to the issuance of building permits.”
The  Geotechnical  Report  completed  for  the  current  project  confirmed  and  expanded  upon  previous known  conditions  at  the  site,  as  follows.  There  are  no  known  faults  at  the  project  site.  Due  to  the relatively flat vicinity, landslides are not a hazard to the si te. Soils subject to liquefaction are known to be located in the area and were studied at the site. The antici pated potential total liquefaction‐induced settlement  was  calculated  to  be  about  ½  to  2½  inches  and  differential  settlement  to  be  about  1  inch over  100  feet.  The  proposed  foundation  and  construction  specific s  w o u l d  a d d r e s s  s i t e  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , including  use  of  chemically‐treated  or  non‐expansive  fill  under  building  slabs,  and  the  exact  details would  be  confirmed  during  required  design‐level  review.    This  has  been  formalized  as  the  following Standard Development Requirement:

FMC 18.218.050(e): Geology and Soils . New development projects  with the potential to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including  the risk of loss, injury, or death due to  seismic  activity  and  potential  seismic‐related  ground  shakin g  including  liquefaction,  if  so determined by a site‐specific geotechnical study prepared to the satisfaction of the city engineer o r  h i s / h e r  d e s i g n e e ,  s h a l l  i m p l e m e n t  t h e  f o l l o w i n g  m e a s u r e s  p r ior  to  or  during  project construction, as applicable.
(A)    The  project  geotechnical  consultant  shall  review  all  geotechnical  aspects  of  the  project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading,  site drainage improvements, and  design  parameters  for  foundations,  and  retaining  walls).  The  consultant  shall  verify that their recommendations, including those regarding the need  for further evaluation for potential liquefaction and the pr esence and lateral extent of a ny undocumented fill as well as  laboratory  testing  for  corrosive  soil,  have  been  properly  conducted  and  any  necessary design  measures  are  incorporated  into  the  construction  plans.  T he  results  of  the  plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a  letter and submitted to the city engineer prior to issuance of building permits for the project. ( B )   T h e  p r o j e c t  g e o t e c h n i c a l  c onsultant  shall  inspect,  test  (a s  needed),  and  approve  all geotechnical  aspects  of  project  construction.  The  inspections  s hall  include,  but  not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining wal ls prior to the placement of  steel  and  concrete.  The  results  of  these  inspections  and  the  as‐built  conditions  of  the project  shall  be  summarized  by  the  project  geotechnical  consult ant  in  a  letter  and submitted to the city building official/city engineer for review prior to final (as‐built) project approval.

To further address and reduce impacts related to potential seis mic activity and liquefaction, all grading,  foundations,  and  structures  for  the  proposed  project  w ould  be  required  to  be engineered  and  designed  in  conformance  with  applicable  geotechn ical  and  soil  stability standards as required by the California Building Code (CBC), as adopted by the city.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 41 The  project  would  be  required  to  implement  Standard  Development  Requirement  FMC  18.218.050(e) requiring site‐specific geotechnical study and the impact of the project would be less‐than‐significant.

Consistent  with  conclusions  in  the  Prior  EIR,  the  project  will  need  to  comply  with  site‐specific geotechnical  recommendations,  now  f o r m a l i z e d  a s  S t a n d a r d  D e v e l opment  Requirement  FMC

18.218.050(e).  Therefore,  the  conclusion  of  a  less‐than‐signifi cant  impact  with  respect  to  seismic hazards under the Prior EIR would remain the same with the current project.

For  the  above  reasons,  the  proposed  project  would  not  result  in si g n i f i c ant  i mp ac t s r e l at e d t o se i sm i c hazards  not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR  or  addressed  throu gh  uniformly  applied  development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Soil Erosion
b)   Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the  loss of topsoil, creati ng substantial risks to life, property, or creek/waterways?
Same  Conclusion  (conclusion  remains  NI) :  As  under  the  Prior  EIR,  the  project  would  be  subject  to regulatory requirements to include best management practices to  reduce soil erosion potential and the current project would not change the no impact conclusion related to soil erosion.

As  an  urban  site,  the  project  would  largely  involve  the  soil  being  covered  by  buildings  and  pavement, consistent  with  the  prior  development  of  the  site.  Under  these circumstances,  soil  erosion  could  have the  potential  to  occur  during  construction  activities  and  as  a result  of  runoff  from  landscaped  areas  if not properly controlled. Prevention of soil erosion is addresse d through implementation of stormwater pollution prevention measures, which are regulatory requirement s. As noted in the Prior EIR under the Hydrology and Water Quality sect ion, “Best Management Practices  for stormwater pollution prevention are intended to achieve compliance with the  goals of the Alamed a County Urban Storm Water Runoff Program  in  conformance  with  the  Federal  National  Pollutant  Discharge  Elimination  System  (NPDES) program established by the Clean Water Act.”
As under The Globe Planned District, the project would be requi red to implement stormwater pollution prevention measures – which include measures to prevent soil er osion ‐ under regulatory requirements during both the construction‐period and for ongoing operations.  Therefore, the conclusion of no impact with respect to soil erosion under the Prior EIR would remain the same with the current project.

For  the  above  reasons,  the  proposed  project  would  not  result  in s i g n i f i c a n t  i m p a c t s  r e l a t e d  t o  s o i l erosion  not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR  or  addressed  throu gh  uniformly  applied  development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Unstable Soil
c )  W o u l d  t h e  p r o j e c t  b e  l o c a t e d  o n  a  g e o l o g i c  u n i t  o r  s o i l  t h a t i s  u n s t a b l e ,  o r  t h a t  w o u l d  b e c o m e unstable  as  a  result  of  the  project,  and  potentially  result  in on‐  or  off‐site  landslide,  lateral  spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Same  Conclusion  (conclusion  remains  LTS):  As  under  the  Prior  EIR,  the  project  would  be  subject  to regulatory  requirements  to  address  specific  conditions  at  the  site  and  the  current  project  would  not change the less‐than‐significant impact conclusion related to unstable soils.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

The Prior EIR concluded that The Globe Planned District would n ot have a significant impact related to unstable soil, noting, “…any pro posed construction will require  the adoption of appropriate engineering design  in  conformance  with  geotechnical  standards  for  construction.  A  geotechnical  study  and  peer review by the City’s geotechnical consultant will be performed prior to the issuance of building permits.” The  Geotechnical  Report  completed  for  the  current  project  confirmed  and  expanded  upon  previous known  conditions  at  the  site,  as  follows.  Soils  subject  to  liquefaction  and  expansion  are  known  to  be located  in  the  area  and  were  studied  at  the  site.  The  anticipated  potential  total  liquefaction‐induced settlement  was  calculated  to  be  about  ½  to  2½  inches  and  differential  settlement  to  be  about  1  inch over  100  feet.  The  proposed  foundation  and  construction  specific s  w o u l d  a d d r e s s  s i t e  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , including  use  of  chemically‐treated  or  non‐expansive  fill  under  building  slabs,  and  the  exact  details would be confirmed during required design‐level review.

Consistent  with  conclusions  in  the  Prior  EIR,  the  project  will  need  to  comply  with  site‐specific geotechnical  recommendations,  now  f o r m a l i z e d  a s  S t a n d a r d  D e v e l opment  Requirement  FMC

18.218.050(e).  Therefore,  the  conclusion  of  a  less‐than‐significant  impact  with  respect  to  unstable  soil under the Prior EIR would remain the same with the current project.

For the above reasons, the proposed project would not result in  significant impacts related to unstable soil not previously identified in  the EIR or addressed through  uniformly applied development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Expansive Soil
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? Same  Conclusion  (conclusion  remains  LTS):  As  under  the  Prior  EIR,  the  project  would  be  subject  to regulatory  requirements  to  address  regional  seismicity  and  the specific  conditions  at  the  site  and  the current project would not change the less‐than‐significant impact conclusion related to expansive soils.

The Prior EIR concluded that The Globe Planned District would n ot have a significant impact related to expansive  soil,  noting,  “The  project  site  is  located  in  a  seism ic  area  and  in  a  liquefaction  zone  as identified by the State of California Geologic Survey. Because  of this location any proposed construction will require the adoption of appropriate engineering design in  conformance with geotechnical standards for  construction.  A  geotechnical  study  and  peer  review  by  the  City’s  geotechnical  consultant  will  be performed prior to the issuance of building permits.”
The  Geotechnical  Report  completed  for  the  current  project  confirmed  and  expanded  upon  previous known  conditions  at  the  site,  as  follows.  Soils  subject  to  liquefaction  and  expansion  are  known  to  be located  in  the  area  and  were  studied  at  the  site.  The  proposed foundation  and  construction  specifics would  address  site  characteristics,  including  use  of  chemically ‐treated  or  non‐expansive  fill  under building slabs, and the exact details would be confirmed during required design‐level review.

Consistent  with  conclusions  in  the  Prior  EIR,  the  project  will need  to  meet  regulatory  requirements  to comply  with  the  California  Building  Code  and  FMC  18.218.050(e)  and  project‐specific  geotechnical recommendations  and  building  permit  requirements  to  address  reg ional  seismicity  and  the  specific conditions  at  the  site.  Therefore,  the  conclusion  of  a  less‐tha n‐significant  impact  with  respect  to expansive soils under the Prior EIR would remain the same with the current project.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 43 For the above reasons, the proposed project would not result in  significant impacts related to expansive soil not previously identified in  the EIR or addressed through  uniformly applied development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Septic Tanks
e)   Would  the  project  have  soils  incapable  of  adequately  suppor ting  the  use  of  septic  tanks  or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not a vailable for the disposal of waste water?
Same  Conclusion  (conclusion  remains  NI) :  The  current  project  would  not  change  the  no  impact conclusion related to septic systems as the project area is ser viced by the city’s sewer system, which has not changed since The Globe Planned District.

As  under  The  Globe  Planned  District,  no  septic  tanks  are  proposed.  Therefore,  the  conclusion  of  no impact with respect to septic tanks under the Prior EIR would remain the same with the current project.

For  the  above  reason,  the  propose d  p r o j e c t  w o u l d  n o t  r e s u l t  i n  s i g n i f i c a n t  i m p a c t s  r e l a t e d  t o  s e p t i c tanks not previously identified in the EIR or addressed through  uniformly applied development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Impacts
Related To:

Prior EIR
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)

PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
EIR Findings
Applicable SDRs or MMs
Project Level
of
Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a.   GHG Emissions  ‐‐  1   ☒  ☐  ‐‐  ‐‐
b. Conflict with GHG
Reduction Plans
‐‐ 1  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  ‐‐
1 Note that GHG topics were not formally assessed in the Prior EIR. As shown in this table, the project impact under these topics would be equal to or less severe than what would have been identified under the Prior EIR.

Discussion
Greenhouse  gas  (GHG)  emissions  were  not  expressly  addressed  in  the  Prior  EIR.  However,  since information on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions was  known, or could have been known by that time, it is not “new information” as specifically defined  under CEQA that would trigger preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

However,  a  comparison  between  GHG  emissions  under  the  Globe  Pla nned  District  and  the  current project is provided for comparison purposes as follows.

Illingworth  &  Rodkin  prepared  an  Air  Quality  and  Greenhouse  Gas E m i s s i o n s  A n a l y s i s  f o r  t h e  c u r r e n t project as referenced in this document and included in full as Attachment C.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Setting Changes from The Globe Planned  District The  regulatory  environment  related  to  greenhouse  gas  emissions has  evolved  since  the  Prior  EIR  was approved. A summary of regulations and policies related to greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change is presented below.

Federal and State Regulatory Changes
The  Kyoto  Protocol  was  an  international  treaty  that  commits  state  parties  to  reduce  greenhouse  gas emissions, based on the scientific consensus that global warmin g is occurring and that human‐made CO₂ emissions  are  driving  it.  Originated  in  the  late  1990s,  by  the t i m e  o f  t h e  P r i o r  E I R ,  o v e r  5 0  n a t i o n s worldwide had ratified its climate change‐related policies. How ever, the United States has opted for a voluntary  and  incentive‐based  approach  toward  emissions  reductio n s  i n  l i e u  o f  t h e  K y o t o  P r o t o c o l ’ s mandatory framework.

In  June  2005,  Governor  Schwarzenegger  established  California’s  greenhouse  gas  emissions  reduction targets in Executive Order (EO) S‐3‐05. The EO established the following goals: greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010; to 1990 levels by 202 0; and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by  2050.  California’s  major  initiatives  for  reducing  greenhouse  gas  emissions  are  outlined  in  Assembly Bill  32,  the  “Global  Warming  Solutions  Act,”  passed  by  the  California  State  legislature  on  August  31, 2006, which codified EO S‐3‐05 along with other related legislation.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 45 CEQA  Guideline  amendments  providing  guidance  to  public  agencies   regarding  the  analysis  and mitigation of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions in CEQA documents went into effect in 2010.

State  Senate  Bill  32  was  passed  in  2016,  which  codified  a  2030 GHG  emissions  reduction  target  of  40 percent below 1990 levels.

Regional Regulatory Changes
Since The Prior EIR, the Bay Area Air Quality Management Distri ct (BAAQMD) has updated its CEQA Air Quality  Guidelines  (BAAQMD  Guidel i n e s ) ,  w h i c h  a s s i s t  l e a d  a g e n cies  in  evaluating  and  mitigating  air quality  impacts.  The  latest  draft  of  the  BAAQMD  guidelines  was  issued  in  May  2017  and  includes thresholds related to GHG emissions.

The regional Bay Area Clean Air  Plan is regularly updated inclu ding multiple updates since the Prior EIR, with 2017 being the most recent version.

Local Regulatory Changes
On  November  13,  2012,  the  City  of  Fremont  adopted  a  Climate  Action  Plan  (CAP)  with  guidelines  of reaching  a  target  reduction  of  25%  below  baseline  2005  GHG  emis sions  levels  by  2020  includes strategies to achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions charac terized along a ‘continuum of actions’ for  intervention  by  the  City.  The  CAP  is  intended  to  build  upon  existing  environmental  preservation, public health, and energy saving efforts.

GHG Emissions
a)  Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either  directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Same  Conclusion  (Equal  or  Less  Severity):  While  not  specifically  analyzed  in  the  Prior  EIR,  the  current project would have less GHG emissions than development under The Globe Planned District.

The  project’s  GHG  emissions  were  modeled  using  CalEEMod,  as  disc u s s e d  i n  s e c t i o n  3 :  A i r  Q u a l i t y .  A summary  of  the  results  are  included  below  and  the  CalEEMod  inpu t  and  output  can  be  found  in Attachment C.

Annual  emissions  from  the  project  are  predicted  to  be  5,779  MT of  CO2e,  compared  to  15,214MT  of CO2e for the entitled retail s hopping center in the year 2023.  The 2030 GHG emissions for the proposed project  would  be  5,096  MT  of  CO2e  and  for  the  entitled  retail  it  would  be  13,507  MT  of  CO2e.  The proposed project would have less operational GHG emissions than the entitled retail land use.

Greenhouse  gas  (GHG)  emissions  were  not  expressly  addressed  in the  Prior  EIR,  which  was  prepared when  this  topic  was  not  customarily  evaluated  under  CEQA.  However,  since  information  on  climate change  and  greenhouse  gas  emissions  was  known,  or  could  have  bee n  k n o w n  b y  t h a t  t i m e ,  i t  i s  n o t “new information” as specifically defined under CEQA and thus i s not  required to be analyzed as part of this Addendum. However, this analysis demonstrates that the cur rent project would have reduced GHG emissions than what would have been quantified for The Globe Planned District.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

For  the  above  reasons,  the  proposed  project  would  not  result  in s i g n i f i c a n t  i m p a c t s  r e l a t e d  t o  G H G emissions not previously identified in the Prior EIR or address ed through uniformly applied development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Consistency with GHG Reduction Plans
b)   Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy  or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Same Conclusion (Conclusions remains LTS) : While Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans has been adopted since the Prior EIR, the current project would be consistent wi th relevant plans and the impact would be the same or reduced from that under The Globe Planned District.

The  Prior  EIR  concluded  that  The  Globe  Planned  District  would  h a v e  a  l e s s ‐ t h a n ‐ s i g n i f i c a n t  i m p a c t related  to  conflict  with  the  air  quality  plan,  noting,  “The  request  for  a  General  Plan  Amendment  will modify  the  overall  land  use  of  the  site.  The  existing  General  P lan  designation  allows  large  scale commercial  uses.  The  new  designation  would  allow  a  combination of  large  scale  commercial,  retail, assembly uses and restaurants. Although the specific nature of uses on site will change, the General Plan anticipates this site for commercial uses.  Therefore, the redevelopment of the site is consistent with the Fremont  General  Plan  in  terms  of  increasing  the  amount  of  development  on  site,  and  not  conflicting with  an  air  quality  plan.”  Consistent  with  the  previous  assessme n t ,  t h e  c u r r e n t  p r o j e c t  w o u l d  a g a i n revise the  particulars of development  at the site while still r epresenting anticipated redevelopment at that location.

Since  the  Prior  EIR,  the  City  adopted  a  GHG  reduction  plan  in  2012,  known  as  the  City  of  Fremont C l i m a t e  A c t i o n  P l a n  ( “ F r e m o n t  C A P ” ) .  M a n y  o f  t h e  F r e m o n t  C A P ’ s  e m i s s i o n  r e d u c t i o n  a c t i o n s  a r e targeted to city‐wide strategies that are not directly applicab le to the proposed project except through compliance  with  related  regulations.  The  project  would  comply  w ith  City  requirements  related  to facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists and carpoolers (relat ed to Fremont CAP actions L‐A2, L‐R1, L‐R3, and  L‐P2),  would  meet  or  exceed  requirements  for  tree  planting,   lighting  efficiencies,  and  water c o n s e r v a t i o n  /  e f f i c i e n c i e s  ( r e l a t e d  t o  F r e m o n t  C A P  a c t i o n s  E ‐ P2 ,  E ‐ R 2 ,  W ‐ C 1 ,  a n d  W ‐ C 6 ) ,  a n d  w o u l d comply with construction and oper ational solid waste reduction  requirements (related to Fremont CAP actions  SW‐A5,  SW‐R‐1,  SW‐R2,  SW‐A8,  and  SW‐A9).  The  current  project  would  not  conflict  with  or obstruct the Fremont CAP.

The Clean Air Plan is the regional air quality plan, and has been regularly updated since the Prior EIR. The latest update to the plan, adopted in April 2017, is the 2017 B ay Area Clean Air Plan. BAAQMD currently r e c o m m e n d s  a n a l y z i n g  a  p r o j e c t ’ s  c o n s i s t e n c y  w i t h  c u r r e n t  a i r  quality  plan  primary  goals  and  control measures. The impact would be significant if the project would  conflict with or obstruct attainment of the primary goals or implementation of the control measures.

The  primary  goals  of  the  Bay  Area  2017  Clean  Air  Plan  are  to  attain  all  state  and  national  air  quality standards,  eliminate  disparities  among  Bay  Area  communities  in  cancer  health  risk  from  toxic  air contaminants, and reduce Bay Area greenhouse gas emissions to 4 0 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. (This last standard is addressed in Section G: Greenhouse Gas Emissions.) The  current  project  would  be  required  to  comply  with  all  applicable  rules  and  regulations  related  to emissions  and  health  risk  and,  as  detailed  under  the  “Criteria Air  Pollutants”  topic  below,  would  have reduced emissions from what would have occurred under developme nt of The Globe Planned District as

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 47 originally proposed and therefor e would not result in conflict  with the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Many of the Clean Air Plan’s control measures are targeted to a rea‐wide improvements, large stationary source  reductions,  or  large  employers  and  these  are  not  directly  applicable  to  the  proposed  project.

However, the project would be consistent with all rules and reg ulations related to construction activities and the proposed development would meet current standards of en ergy and water efficiency (Clean Air Plan  Energy  Control  Measure  EN1  and  Water  Control  Measure  WR2) and  recycling  and  green  waste requirements  (Clean  Air  Plan  Waste  Management  Control  Measures  WA3  and  WA4)  and  does  not conflict  with  applicable  control  measures  aimed  at  improving  ac cess/connectivity  for  bicycles  and pedestrians (Clean Air Plan Transportation Control Measure TR9) or any other control measures.

The project, therefore, would be consistent with the Fremont CA P and Clean Air Plan and have a less‐ than‐significant impact in this regard. While the regulatory pl ans have been updated since the Prior EIR, this conclusion is consistent with the Prior EIR.

For  the  above  reasons,  the  proposed  project  would  not  result  in  s i g n i f i c a n t  i m p a c t s  r e l a t e d  t o c o n s i s t e n c y  w i t h  G H G  r e d u c t i o n  p l a n s  n o t  p r e v i o u s l y  i d e n t i f i e d  in  the  Prior  EIR  or  addressed  through uniformly applied development policies or standards and no furt her environmental review is necessary for this topic.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Wildfire

Impacts
Related To:

Prior EIR
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)

PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
EIR Findings
Applicable SDRs or MMs
Project Level
of
Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a.   Routine Hazardous
Materials Use
NI  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  NI
b. Risk of Upset  LTS w/MM  ☒  ☐  SDR FMC 18.218.050(f) (Supersedes MM 3.2.1A: PCB Removal
and Disposal)
( MM 3.2.1B: Maintain Access to All
Existing Groundwater Monitoring
Wells, MM 3.2.1C: Ongoing
Groundwater Monitoring/ Reporting
have previously been satisfied and are
no longer applicable)
MM 3.2.2: Preparation and
Implementation of an Emergency
Action Plan
MM 3.2.3: Survey and Properly Handle
Materials from Structures that May
Contain Asbestos or Lead‐Based Paint
LTS w/MM
c. Hazardous
Materials within a ¼‐
mile of a School
NI  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  NI
d. Hazardous
Materials Site
LTS w/MM  ☒  ☐  SDR FMC 18.218.050(f)
(Supersedes MM 3.2.1A: PCB Removal
and Disposal)
( MM 3.2.1B: Maintain Access to All
Existing Groundwater Monitoring
Wells, MM 3.2.1C: Ongoing
Groundwater Monitoring/ Reporting
have previously been satisfied and are
no longer applicable)
LTS w/MM
e. Airport Hazards  NI  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  NI
f.  Emergency Access
Routes
NI  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  NI
g.   Wildfire 1 N I   ☒  ☐  ‐‐  NI
1 Note that the current CEQA Guidelines include wildfire as an independent section. This topic has been addressed here as it was in the Prior EIR.

Discussion
Hazards and Hazardous Materials  Setting Changes from The Globe  Planned District As  discussed  in  this  section,  an  Updated  Risk  Management  Plan  has  been  prepared  for  the  project  by Farallon  Consulting,  dated  Septe mber  17,  2021  and  available  as  part  of  the  project  files.  Unless otherwise indicated, the information in this section is from the Updated Risk Management Plan.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 49 The  project  site  contains  contamination  from  releases  of  indust rial  constituents  associated  with historical uses. The site underwent remedial actions for site c ontamination to the satisfaction of the San Francisco  Bay  Regional  Water  Quality  Control  Board  (Water  Board,  the  regulatory  agency  overseeing hazardous materials issues at th is site), which issued a No Fur ther Action determination (NFA) October 17,  2016.  The  NFA  determination  was  contingent  on  placing  a  deed  restriction  on  the  site  (allowing commercial  or industrial land uses only), which was recorded wi th Alameda County on April 27, 2016; and managing future earthwork ac tivities in accordance with  the  Risk Management Plan (RMP), dated May 2015, prepared by SCA Environ mental, Inc.; an d the Addendum  to RMP dated September 1, 2016, prepared by Roger Shanks Consulting.

Although  residual  concentrations  of  petroleum  hydrocarbons  and  trichloroethylene  in  groundwater continued to exceed Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs), the  Water Board’s 2016 NFA determination concluded  that  because  the  site  deed  restriction  prohibits  the use  of  groundwater  for  any  purposes, groundwater  at  the  site  has  been  adequately  remediated  and  appropriately  managed,  and  use  of  the monitoring wells was discontinued.

To summarize, current contamination of concern at the site includes the following:
 PCBS, lead, nickel, arsenic, and ethylbenzene in soil on the former Home Depot parking lot;  PCBs in soil in the former ramp/platform area;
 Lead in soil beneath and around the perimeter of the former Home Depot Building; and  Benzene in soil gas beneath the former Home Depot Building.

Since  the  Prior  EIR,  the  CEQA  Guidelines  have  been  updated  to  i nclude  more  detailed  threshold questions related to wildfire impacts in its own section. As ha d been standard practice at the time, the P r i o r  E I R  c o n s i d e r e d  w i l d f i r e  r i s k  a s  p a r t  o f  t h e  h a z a r d s  a n d  hazards  materials  section,  so  this  topic  is discussed  here. The expanded wildfire considerations apply  to p rojects in areas that are very high fire severity zones, which does not apply to the project, so are not further detailed.

Routine Hazardous Materials Use
a)   Would the project create a significant hazard to the public  or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Same  Conclusion  (conclusion  remains  NI) :  The  current  project  would  be  required  to  comply  with applicable  regulations,  plans  and  programs,  related  to  any  routine  use  of  hazardous  materials,  which remains unchanged since the Prior EIR.

This section pertains to recurring transportation, use or dispo sal of hazardous materials as part of long term  operation.  Short‐term  transportation,  use  or  disposal  of  h azardous  materials  related  to construction and development is discussed in the following sections.

W h i l e  s p e c i f i c  t e n a n t s  h a v e  n o t  y e t  b e e n  i d e n t i f i e d ,  R & D  l a b o r at o r i e s  a r e  l i k e l y  t o  h a n d l e  m a t e r i a l s considered to be biological haza rds, chemical hazards and/or ca rry a risk of fire or explosion. Office uses would  involve  household  hazardous  waste  such  as  cleaners  and  ve hicle  components.  The  risk  of accidental upset and environmental contamination from routine t ransport, storage, use and disposal of hazardous  and  potentially  hazardous  materials  to  the  public  and  e n v i r o n m e n t  w o u l d  b e  m i t i g a t e d

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

through  compliance  with  applicable  laws  and  regulations,  adhere nce  to  fire  and  safety  codes,  and participation in the County’s requisite Hazardous Materials Business Plan program, as applicable.

Therefore, consistent with conclusions in the Prior EIR, with c ompliance with applicable regulations for routine  handling  of  hazardous  materials,  the  project  would  not  have  an  impact  related  to  routine hazardous materials use.

For the above reasons, the proposed project would  not result in  significant impacts related to routine hazardous  materials  use  not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR  or  addressed  through  uniformly  applied development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Risk of Upset
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?
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM) : The current project would not change the less‐than‐ significant  with  mitigation  conclusion  related  to  risk  of  upset  from  the  Prior  EIR,  as  the  potential  for hazardous  building  materials  in  structures  to  be  demolished  or during  operations  remain  unchanged since  The  Globe  Planned  District.  (Existing  site  contamination i s  fu rt h e r d i sc u ss e d  u nd e r t he  H a z a rdo u s Materials Site topic.)
See  the  Hazardous  Materials  Site  topic  for  discussion  relating to  site  contamination,  for  which  there could be risk of upset during construction activities as noted in that topic.

In addition to contamination of the site soil and groundwater,  due to the age of existing buildings at the site, they could contain hazardous building materials such as l ead‐based paint and asbestos‐containing materials. MM 3.2.3: Survey and Properly Handle Materials from  Structures that May Contain Asbestos or Lead‐Based Paint from the Prior EIR would remain applicable  to the project and requires assessment and proper handling of any hazardous building materials prior to demolition.

Prior EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.3: Survey and Properly Handle  Materials from Structures that May Contain  Asbestos  or  Lead‐Based  Paint.  Prior  to  demolition  or  renovation  of structures  built  before 1978,  a  survey  for  the  presence  of  asbestos‐containing  material s  (ACM)  shall  be  conducted  by Asbestos  Hazard  Emergency  Respons e  A c t  ( A H E R A ) ‐ c e r t i f i e d  p e r s o nnel,  trained  according  to  state and federal regulations. Structures shall also be surveyed for  the presence of lead‐based paint. If the results  of  the  survey  detect  the  presence  of  lead‐based  paint, construction  shall  be  performed  in accordance with the Lead in Construction Standard (8 Cal. Code  of regulations Section 5132.1). ACM will be removed in accordance with the requirements of Cal OSHA  (8 Cal. Code of regulations 5129) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).

The Prior EIR also identified MM 3.2.2: Preparation and Impleme ntation of an Emergency Action Plan to require development and implementation of a plan to be activate d in the event of an accidental release of hazardous substances at a nearby facility.

Prior EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.2: Preparation and Implementat ion of an Emergency Action Plan.

As a condition of Project Approval, the Project Applicant shall be required to develop and implement an Emergency Action Plan to be activated at the Project site in  the event of an accidental release of hazardous substances at any facility near the Project site. Suc h a plan may identify measures to be

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 51 taken to enable those at the Project site to “shelter in place”  as necessary, and shall be approved by the  Fremont  Fire  Department  prior  to  the  issuance  of  any  Certificate  of  Occupancy  at  the  Project site.

The  Prior  EIR  noted  that  the  pro ject  site’s  soil  and  groundwater  contained  contamination.  Existing contamination at the site is discussed in detail under the topi c of Hazardous Materials Sites below but because  construction  could  result  in  accidental  upset  of  site  contamination,  Standard  Development Requirement FMC 18.218.050(f) would be applicable under this to pic as well, requiring remediation of known contaminants and implementation of a soil management plan as appropriate.

Consistent  with  conclusions  in  the  Prior  EIR,  with  implementation  of  MM  3.2.3:  Survey  and  Properly Handle  Materials  from  Structures  that  May  Contain  Asbestos  or  L ead‐Based  Paint  to  address appropriate handling of any hazardous building materials, 3.2.2 : Preparation and Implementation of an Emergency Action Plan to address operational use of hazardous m aterials, and Standard Development Requirement  FMC  18.218.050(f)  requiring  remediation  as  appropriate  (as  discussed  further  under  the topic of Hazardous Materials Sites), the project impact would be less‐than‐significant with mitigation.

For the above reasons, the proposed  project would  not result in  significant impacts related to risks of upset  not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR  as  addressed  through   mitigation  measures  or  addressed through  uniformly  applied  development  policies  or  standards  and  no  further  environmental  review  is necessary for this topic.

Hazardous Materials Near Schools
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? Same  Conclusion  (conclusion  remains  NI) :  The  current  project  would  not  change  the  no  impact conclusion related to hazardous materials near schools as the s ite is not located within one‐quarter mile of a school.

Consistent with the no impact conclusion in the Prior EIR, whil e there are schools located to the west of the project site in Newark, they are located one quarter mile or more from the project site.

For the above reasons, the proposed project would not result in  significant impacts related to hazardous materials  near  schools  not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR  or  addressed  through  uniformly  applied development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Hazardous Materials Site
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?
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM) : The current project would not change the less‐than‐ significant with mitigation conclusion related to a hazardous m aterials site as the need to appropriately handle former contamination at the site has not changed since The Globe Planned District.

The Prior EIR noted that the project site’s soil and groundwate r contained contamination. As discussed above,  some  remediation  and  further  characterization  has  since b e e n  u n d e r t a k e n  a t  t h e  s i t e  a n d  a n Updated RMP (the document that addresses how to handle site contamination) has been prepared.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

This  Updated  RMP  provides  protocols  for  managing  contamination that  may  be  encountered  during future improvements or redevelopment activities conducted at the site, including:
 Communication requirements;
 Health and safety requirements;
 Soil management;
 Groundwater management;
 Stormwater management;
 Unanticipated subsurface conditions; and
 RMP reporting requirements.

Based on updated assessments and the currently proposed project , the Updated RMP determined that historical  environmental  conditions  appear  consistent  with  those  identified  at  the  time  of  the  NFA determination, and appear adequately remediated and appropriate ly managed through implementation of the Updated RMP.

As noted above, the need for groundwater monitoring has been di scontinued at the site per the Water Board’s  determination  that  the  groundwater  at  the  site  has  been   adequately  remediated  and appropriately managed. MMs 3.2.1B and 3.2.1C related to the mon itoring wells have been satisfied and are no longer applicable to the project.

The  Prior  EIR  required  Mitigation  Measure  3.2.1A:  PCB  Removal  and  Disposal  to  address  existing  site contamination.  The  City  has  since  adopted  the  following  Standard  Development  Requirement,  which supersede Mitigation Measure 3.2.1A:

FMC  18.218.050(f):  Hazardous  Materials.  New  development  projects  with  the  potential  to  create  a significant hazard to the public or the environment through rea sonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into th e environment, if so determined by a site‐ specific  environmental  site  assessment  prepared  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  fire  marshal  or  planning manager, shall implement the following measures prior to or during project construction, as applicable:
( A )    A  s o i l  m a n a g e m e n t  p l a n  ( S M P )  s h a l l  b e  d e v e l o p e d  t o  p r o v i de  guidelines  for  the  appropriate handling  and  management  of  soil  with  known  contaminants  or  reco gnized  environmental condition  (REC)  concentrations  above  the  applicable  screening  l evels  recommended  in  the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Office  of Human and Ecological Risk (HERO)  guidance  document  Human  Health  Risk  Assessment  or  similar  document  provided  by DTSC.

Prior  to  issuance  of  building  and/or  grading  permits  for  site  development,  remediation  work  to remove  known  contaminants  or  RECs  at  the  subject  property  shall   be  implemented  to  the satisfaction  of  the  Alameda  County  Water  District  (ACWD),  city  o f  F r e m o n t  f i r e  d e p a r t m e n t , California  Department  of  Toxic  Substance  Control  (DTSC),  or  oth er  appropriate  agency  having jurisdiction, depending on the location (e.g., depth) and the t ype of REC found and the jurisdictional purview  of  the  agencies.  Completion  of  the  remediation  work  and p r oc u r eme n t  of  an  ap p r op r i ate closure document or written statement that the remediation work has been satisfactorily completed and  without  further  conditions  or  obligations  shall  be  submitted  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  city  of Fremont  community  development  department.  Compliance  with  this m i t i g a t i o n  m a y  r e q u i r e  t h e

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 53 applicant  or  their  agent  to  complete  a  preliminary  endangerment   report,  voluntary  cleanup agreement  or  other  documentation  as  determined  by  the  appropria te  agency  and  receive concurrence that the site’s RECs have been resolved.

The  applicant  would  implement  this  requirement  through  implemen tation  of  the  Updated  RMP.

Consistent  with  conclusions  in  the  Prior  EIR  (and  RMP),  the  Upd ated  RMP  concludes  that  with implementation  of  the  RMP  including  deed  restriction  (commercia l  and  industrial  uses  only)  and considering the specifics of the proposed project, “historical environmental conditions appear consistent w i t h  t h ose  i de n t i f i ed  at  t he  t i m e  of  t h e [ W at e r  Boar d ’s N o F u r ther  Action]  determination,  and  appear adequately remediated and appropriately managed.”
Consistent  with  conclusions  in  the  Prior  EIR,  with  implementati on  of  Standard  Development Requirement FMC 18.218.050(f) requiring remediation as appropri ate, the project impact would be less‐ than‐significant with mitigation.

Consistent  with  conclusions  in  the  Prior  EIR,  with  implementation  of  an  Updated  RMP,  the  project impact with respect to Hazardous Materials Sites would be less‐than‐significant with mitigation.

For the above reasons, the proposed project would not result in  significant impacts related to hazardous materials  sites  not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR  as  address ed  through  mitigation  measures  or addressed through uniformly applied development policies or sta ndards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Airport Hazards
e)   For a project located within an airport land use plan or, w here such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, wou ld the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Same  Conclusion  (conclusion  remains  NI) :  The  current  project  would  not  change  the  no  impact conclusion related to airport hazards because the project site  is not located near an airport, consistent with conclusions for The Globe Planned District.

The  project  site  is  not  located  within  two  miles  of  any  public a i r p o r t ,  o r  i n  t h e  v i c i n i t y  o f  a  p r i v a t e airstrip.  The  San  Jose  International  Airport,  located  about  10 miles  away,  is  the  closest  airport  to  the project  site.  As  such,  there  are  no  associated  airport  land  use  plans  applicable  to  the  site,  and  the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive airport noise for people working at the site.

For  the  above  reasons,  the  proposed  project  would  not  result  in s i g n i f i c a n t  i m p a c t s  r e l a t e d  t o  a i r p o r t hazards  not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR  or  addressed  throu gh  uniformly  applied  development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Emergency Access Routes
f )   W o u l d  t h e  p r o j e c t  i m p a i r  i m p l e m e n t a t i o n  o f  o r  p h y s i c a l l y  i n terfere  with  an  adopted  emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Same  Conclusion  (conclusion  remains  NI) :  The  current  project  would  not  change  the  no  impact conclusion as the current project is redevelopment of an existi ng site and would not substantially change major access and evacuation routes, which has not changed since The Globe Planned District.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

The project is required to comply with the California Fire Code ’s access requirements. Additionally, the City  of  Fremont  actively  maintains  a  Disaster  Management  Operations  Plan,  and  the  project  has  been reviewed  by  the  Fire  Department t o  e n s u r e  t h a t  e m e r g e n c y  r e s p o nse  is  not  constrained.  Compliance with these City standards would ensure that the project would n ot have an impact related to emergency response and evacuation planning, which is consistent with conclusions in the Prior EIR.

For  the  above  reasons,  the  proposed  project  would  not  result  in  s i g n i f i c a n t  i m p a c t s  r e l a t e d  t o emergency  access  routes  not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR  or  addressed  through  uniformly  applied development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Wildfire
g)   Would  the  project  expose  people  or  structures,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  to  a  significant  risk  of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Same  Conclusion  (conclusion  remains  NI) :  The  current  project  would  not  change  the  no  impact conclusion  as  the  project  site  is  in  a  developed  area  and  the  lack  of  wildfire  risk  in  the  vicinity  has  not changed since The Globe Planned District.

Wildfire risks occur at the interface of wild lands and develop ment. The project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very hig h fire hazard severity zones.3 Consistent with conclusions in the Prior EIR, the project would not have an impact with respect to wildfire.

For the above reasons, the proposed project would not result in  significant impacts related to wildfire not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR  or  addressed  through  uniformly  applied  development  policies  or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

3   CalFire, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone map, available a t: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire‐ planning‐engineering/wildland‐hazards‐building‐codes/fire‐hazard‐severity‐zones‐maps/

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 55 I. Hydrology and Water Quality

Impacts
Related To:

Prior EIR
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)

PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
EIR Findings
Applicable SDRs or MMs
Project Level
of
Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Water Quality  LTS w/MM  ☒  ☐  (MM 3.2.1B: Maintain Access to all Existing Groundwater Monitoring
Wells, and MM 3.2.1C: Ongoing
Groundwater Monitoring and
Reporting have previously been
satisfied and are no longer applicable)
LTS
b. Groundwater  LTS  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  LTS
c. Alter Drainage  LTS  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  LTS
d. Inundation  LTS  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  LTS
e. Water Plans  LTS  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  LTS
Discussion
Hydrology and Water Quality Setti ng Changes from The Globe Plan ned District Regulations  regarding  handling  of  stormwater  are  addressed  thro ugh  statewide  rules  and  the  local implementation of those rules, including the Statewide National  Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).  These  regulations  and  associated  local  permits  and  implementation  guidelines  are  regularly updated and the current project would conform to current requirements.

Water Quality
a)   Would the project violate an y water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Reduced Conclusion (conclusion was revised from LTS w/ MM to LT S): While the Prior EIR had identified an impact and mitigation related to groundwater contamination a nd monitoring wells at the site, these measures  have  been  satisfied  and  the  monitoring  wells  are  no  longer  used.  The  current  project  would have  a  less‐than‐significant  impact  with  respect  to  water  quali ty  with  compliance  with  applicable regulations.

The Prior EIR noted existing groundwater contamination at the s ite and referenced the need for ongoing groundwater monitoring and remediation due to prior contaminati on. However, since the Prior EIR, the Water  Board  (the  regulatory  agency  overseeing  hazardous  material s  i s s u e s  a t  t h i s  s i t e )  i s s u e d  a  N o Further  Action  determination  in  2016,  including  a  conclusion  that  groundwater  at  the  site  has  been adequately remediated and appropriately managed, and use of the  monitoring wells was discontinued.

Therefore, related MM 3.2.1B: Maintain Access to all Existing G roundwater Monitoring Wells, and MM

3.2.1C:  Ongoing  Groundwater  Monitoring  and  Reporting  have  previ ously  been  satisfied  and  are  no longer applicable to the project.

As discussed further under the Alter Drainage topic below, the  project represents redevelopment of an urban  site  and  is  required  to  comply  with  relevant  requirements  related  to  water  quality  and  water quality plans including implementation of plans for stormwater control and pollution prevention.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Consistent  with  the  previous  assessment  (other  than  regarding  monitoring  wells,  which  are  no  longer active),  the  proposed  development  is  consistent  with  the  type  of  development  historically  at  the  site and would comply with current water quality regulations and the impact would be less than significant.

For  the  above  reasons,  the  proposed  project  would  not  result  in s i g n i f i c a n t  i m p a c t s  r e l a t e d  t o  w a t e r quality not previously identified in the EIR or addressed throu gh uniformly applied development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Groundwater
b)   Would  the  project  substantially  decrease  groundwater  suppli es  or  interfere  substantially  with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainab le groundwater management of the basin?
Same  Conclusion  (conclusion  remains  LTS) :  T h e  c u r r e n t  p r o j e c t  w o u l d  n o t  c h a n g e  t h e  l e s s  t h a n significant  impact  conclusion  related  to  groundwater  as  development  under  the  current  project  would not  result  in  the  potential  for  groundwater  depletion,  which  has  not  changed  since  The  Globe  Planned District.

The Prior EIR concluded that The Globe Planned District would n ot have a significant impact related to groundwater.  The  project  does  not  involve  excavation  that  would   affect  groundwater.  Dewatering a c t i v i t i e s  a r e  n o t  a n t i c i p a t e d  t o  b e  n e c e s s a r y ,  b u t  i f  s u b s e q u ently  determined  to  be  required,  any dewatering activities associated with the proposed project must  comply with requirements established by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board t o ensure that such activities would not result in substantial changes in groundwater flow or quality. F ollowing construction, the project would not  substantially  change  impervi ous  surface  area  and  would  not  have  a  substantial  impact  on groundwater  recharge.  Therefore,  the  conclusion  of  a  less  than  significant  impact  in  regard  to groundwater would remain the same with the current project.

For  the  above  reasons,  the  proposed  project  would  not  result  in  s i g n i f i c a n t  i m p a c t s  r e l a t e d  t o groundwater not previously identified in the EIR or addressed t hrough uniformly applied development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Alter Drainage
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 erosio n 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 off‐site;
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 Same  Conclusion  (conclusion  remains  LTS) :  T h e  c u r r e n t  p r o j e c t  w o u l d  n o t  c h a n g e  t h e  l e s s  t h a n significant impact conclusion related to alteration of drainage  as development under the current project would not substantially alter drainage at the site and could co mply with current stormwater regulations.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 57 While the regulations have been updated since The Globe Planned  District, the conclusions would remain the same.

The Prior EIR concluded that The Globe Planned District would n ot have a significant impact related to altering drainage, noting, “New impervious surface area will no t be created through the redevelopment o f  t h e  s i t e .  I t  i s  n o t  a n t i c i p a t e d  t h a t  r e d e v e l o p m e n t  o f  t h e  s ite  will  increase  stormwater  runoff...  Best Management  Practices  for  stormwater  pollution  prevention  are  intended  to  achieve  compliance  with the goals of the Alameda County Urban Storm Water Runoff Progra m in conformance with the Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program  established by the Clean Water Act.

This will reduce potential impacts [to] insignificant levels.” The  project  site  is  currently  not  being  used,  with  existing  buildings  and  pavement  partially  removed.

H o w e v e r ,  a s  n o t e d  i n  t h e  P r i o r  E I R ,  t h e  s i t e  h a s  h i s t o r i c a l l y  been  fully  developed  and  largely  covered with buildings and pavement. The proposed project would redevel op the site and add landscaping and stormwater  control  areas  consistent  with  current  regulations.  Following  development,  the  site  would include approximately 715,885 square feet of impervious area, r epresenting approximately 74% of the site.  The  proposed  stormwater  system  includes  lined  bioretention  basins,  which  would  allow  natural cleaning  and  slowing  of  stormwater  prior  to  release  into  the  Ci ty’s  stormwater  system  without impacting site contamination (see Section H: Hazards & Hazardous Materials).

As  discussed  under  the  topic  Water  Quality  and  Water  Plans  above ,  t h e  p r o j e c t  i s  r e q u i r e d  t o  c o m p l y with  current  regulations  including  implementation  of  a  SWPPP  to  address  construction‐period  runoff and a SCP to address operational runoff. With compliance with a pplicable regulations, the project would not represent a substantial alteration of the drainage patterns or flow from the site.

Consistent  with  the  Prior  EIR  conclusions,  the  proposed  development  is  consistent  with  the  type  of development  historically  at  the  site  and  would  comply  with  current  regulations  and  the  impact  with respect to altering drainage would be less than significant.

For  the  above  reasons,  the  proposed  project  would  not  result  in si g n i f i c ant  i mp ac t s r e l at ed t o al t e r e d drainage  not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR  or  addressed  thro ugh  uniformly  applied  development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Inundation
d)   Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami or seiche zones,  risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Same  Conclusion  (conclusion  remains  LTS):  The  current  project  would  not  change  the  not  significant conclusions related to flooding and other inundation as the pro ject site is not within a flood hazard area or subject to inundation hazards, which has not substantially changed since The Globe Planned District.

The  Prior  EIR  concludes  the  project  would  not  have  a  significant  impact  with  respect  to  flooding  but notes, “The site is located in the western portion of the Fremo nt between Interstate 880 and the Bay.

T h e  p r o x i m i t y  o f  t h e  B a y  m a y  h a v e  a  s i g n i f i c a n t  e f f e c t  i n  t h e  event  of  a  catastrophic  event,  although unlikely.” Hazard mapping has been updated since the Prior EIR as discussed below.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Based  on  Federal  Emergency  Manag ement  Agency  (FEMA)  Flood  Insur ance  Rate  Maps  (FIRMs),  no portion  of  the  project  site  is  located  within  100‐year  flood  hazard  boundaries,  a  Special  Flood  Hazard Area (100‐year floodplain) or other Areas of Flood Hazard (e.g., the 500‐year [or 2%] flood zone).4 Areas that are highly susceptible to tsunami inundation tend to  be low‐lying coastal areas such as tidal flats, marshlands and former Bay margins that have been artific ially filled. Because of its location at the southern  end  of  the  San  Francisco  Bay  and  the  shallowness  of  the  Bay  along  the  Fremont  waterfront, the project site is not located within a tsunami inundation are a.5 Seiches are not considered a hazard in the San Francisco Bay. The project site is not protected by a l evee. Sea level rise of 16 inches by 2050, and  55  inches  by  2100,  has  been  predicted  by  the  San  Francisco Bay  Conservation  and  Development Commission (BCDC). Even without i mplementation of shoreline pro tection measures such as levees, the increase in sea level associated with the predicted 2100 rise w ould not result in flooding of the project site, which is about 25‐30 feet above sea level.

Therefore,  consistent  with  the  Prior  EIR  conclusions,  the  propo sed  development  would  not  have  a significant impact with respect to flooding and other inundation.

For  the  above  reasons,  the  proposed  project  would  not  result  in  s i g n i f i c a n t  i m p a c t s  r e l a t e d  t o inundation  not  previously  identified  in  the  EIR  or  addressed  through  uniformly  applied  development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Water Plans
e)   Would  the  project  conflict  with  or  obstruct  implementation  of  a  water  quality  control  plan  or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Same  Conclusion  (conclusion  remains  LTS) :  T h e  c u r r e n t  p r o j e c t  w o u l d  n o t  c h a n g e  t h e  l e s s  t h a n significant impact conclusion related to water plans as the cur rent project would be required to follow all applicable water quality regulations, which has not changed since The Globe Planned District.

As discussed further under the Alter Drainage topic above, the  project represents redevelopment of an urban  site  and  is  required  to  comply  with  relevant  requirements  related  to  water  quality  and  water quality  plans  including  implementation  of  plans  for  stormwater  control  and  pollution  prevention.

Consistent  with  the  previous  assessment,  the  proposed  development  is  consistent  with  the  type  of development  historically  at  the  site  and  would  comply  with  current  water  quality  regulations  and  the impact would be less than significant.

For  the  above  reasons,  the  proposed  project  would  not  result  in s i g n i f i c a n t  i m p a c t s  r e l a t e d  t o  w a t e r plans not previously identified in the EIR or addressed through  uniformly applied development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

4   Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), effective 8/3/200 9, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Map Number 06001C0463G, available at https://www.fema.gov/flood‐maps. 5   California Geological Survey, et al., Tsunami Inundation Maps  for Emergency Planning

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -

Albrae Industrial Project – The Globe Planned District Addendum Page 59 J. Land Use

Impacts
Related To:

Prior EIR
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)

PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
EIR Findings
Applicable SDRs or MMs
Project Level
of
Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a.   Division of an
Existing Community
NI  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  NI
b. Conflict with Land
Uses / Land Use
Plans
NI  ☒  ☐  ‐‐  NI
Discussion
Land Use Setting Changes from The Globe Planned District Approval of The Globe Planned District involved changes to the  General Plan designation and zoning of the site consistent with the proposed development. The current  project would again require changes to the General Plan designation and zoning of the site to allow for the proposed development.

Since the Prior EIR, the City’s General Plan was updated in 201 1. The proposed designation is consistent with the current General Plan, as discussed in subsection b) below.

Division of an Existing Community
a)   Would the project physically  divide an established community? Same  Conclusion  (NI):  T h e  c u r r e n t  p r o j e c t  w o u l d  n o t  c h a n g e  t h e  n o  i m p a c t  c o n c l u s i o n a s  t h e  p r o j e c t would  involve  construction  of  on  an  already  urbanized  site,  which  has  not  changed  since  The  Globe Planned District.

As  under  The  Globe  Planned  District,  the  site  does  not  act  to  connect  an  established  community  and development  of  the  site  would  not  result  in  physical  division  of  an  established  community.  Therefore, t h e  c o n c l u s i o n  o f  n o  i m p ac t  w i t h  r e s p e c t  t o  d i v i s i o n  o f  a n  e s t ablished  community  under  the  Prior  EIR would remain the same with the current project.

For the above reasons, the proposed project would not result in  significant impacts related to division of a n  e x i s t i n g  c o m m u n i t y  n o t  p r e v i o u s l y  i d e n t i f i e d  i n  t h e  E I R  o r  addressed  through  uniformly  applied development policies or standards and no further environmental review is necessary for this topic.

Conflict with Land Use Plans
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? Same  Conclusion  (NI):  The  current  project  would  not  change  the  no  impact  conclusion  as  there  are  no conflicts with land uses/land use plans, which has not changed since The Globe Planned District.

The  Prior  EIR  concluded  that  The  Globe  Planned  District  would  no t  h a v e  a n  i m p a c t  r e l a t e d  t o  c o n f l i c t with  land  use  plans  noting,  “The  change  of  land  use  is  needed  t o  accommodate  the  proposed

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: Exhibit A - EIR Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING -