1 Mark Hungerford
To: Judy Tsai; Kristine Rizzo
Cc: Astrid Lee; Mei O; Mac Carlsen
Subject: RE: Planning Meeting - February 10, 2022
From: Judy Tsai <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 8:36 AM
To: Kristine Rizzo <[email protected]>; Mark Hungerford <[email protected]> Cc: Astrid Lee <[email protected]>; Mei O <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Mac Carlsen <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Planning Meeting ‐ February 10, 2022
Good morning Mark. I am the attorney for the retail center association. Thank you for working with Kristine Rizzo from my office. Just for clarification, the objection/concern lodged with the City regarding negative impact on parking issues has been resolved and my clients are in favor of the development. However, it is not a blanket waiver of the right to raise any future objections that may arise. Thank you.
Judy Tsai
Law Office of Judy Tsai
710 Lakeway Drive, Suite 180
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
(408) 775-8848
F: (408) 775-8838
1 Mark Hungerford
To: Kristine Rizzo
Cc: 'Astrid Lee'; 'Mei O'; [email protected]; 'Mac Carlsen' Subject: RE: Planning Meeting - February 10, 2022
From: Kristine Rizzo <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 7:55 AM
To: Mark Hungerford <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Astrid Lee' <[email protected]>; 'Mei O' <[email protected]>; [email protected]; 'Mac Carlsen' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Planning Meeting ‐ February 10, 2022
Good morning, Mark.
Thank you again for the additional time to communicate with the representative for the applicant, Mac Carlsen. After discussions regarding the reciprocal parking easement, our clients remove the objections to the development. A copy of the easement agreement is attached for the City’s records.
Regards,
Kristine
Kristine Rizzo
Law Office of Judy Tsai
710 Lakeway Drive, Suite 180
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
O: 408‐775‐8848
F: 408‐775‐8838
1 Mark Hungerford
From: Dan Kalauokalani <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 3:11 PM
To: Mark Hungerford
Subject: 40517 Albrae Street - PLN2021-00160
Mark Hungerford,
Thank you for speaking with me on 2/9/2022 regarding the proposed development at 40517 Albrae Street. As discussed, I have concerns, the most pressing of which is the development’s planned ingress and egress of large trucks using Encyclopedia Circle. Your statement that it is the City’s preference to route large trucks through Encyclopedia Circle, rather than Albrae Street is concerning for the following reasons:
1) Page 45 of Exhibit D clearly shows that large trucks exiting onto Encyclopedia Circle will cross into oncoming traffic, beyond the street corner radius and out of sight of oncoming motorists. Albrae Street, being straight at the development’s proposed driveway location, does not pose this risk. It is the more efficient access point, closer to freeways, providing for lower emissions, and (as the development’s identifying street address) likely to be navigated through.
2)
Offices close to the street on Encyclopedia Circle, especially those of 40950 Encyclopedia Circle, will be adversely affected by the increase of truck traffic noise related to acceleration and braking at the proposed driveway. Property quality, use, safety, and value will be impacted.
3)
Encyclopedia Circle is walked by many pedestrians, including neighboring residents, office staff on break, church attendees, and others who will be placed at greater risk.
4)
The City of Fremont initially designated no parking allowed anywhere on Encyclopedia Circle, which is not being enforced. The current challenge of trucks and other vehicles parked illegally on Encyclopedia Circle will grow with increased routed traffic.
Additional truck traffic should not be routed through Encyclopedia Circle. Thank you, in advance, for resolving concerns prior to approving this development.
Sincerely,
Dan Kalauokalani
1 Mark Hungerford
From: Kristine Rizzo <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2022 5:31 PM
To: Mark Hungerford
Cc: 'Astrid Lee'; 'Mei O'; [email protected]
Subject: Planning Meeting - February 10, 2022
Good evening Mark,
Thank you for returning my call earlier. As we discussed, this office represents the retail condo owners in the adjoining property to the “Globe” project. There will be a significant reduction in the number of parking spaces as a result of this development. Our clients believe that there are reciprocal parking easements but need time to review the proposed improvements, rezoning plans and easements. We are requesting a continuation of the February 10, 2022 meeting on this agenda item to perform further investigation.
As requested, we will provide you with the affected property addresses shortly.
Regards,
Kristine
Kristine Rizzo
Law Office of Judy Tsai
Assistant to Judy Tsai
710 Lakeway Drive, Suite 180
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
O: 408‐775‐8848
F: 408‐775‐8838
American Pacific International Capital, Inc.
5 Thomas Mellon Cir., Ste. 305
San Francisco, CA 94134
Tel: 415-881-4481 ● Fax: 415-814-0849
12/14/2021
Honorable Mayor Lily Mei
& Fremont City Council Members
City of Fremont
3300 Capitol Ave,
Fremont, CA 94538
Dear Mayor Mei and Council Members:
We are writing to you in support of the Scannell Properties industrial development proposal for the property located at Albrae Street and Stevenson Blvd in Fremont. We have owned the property at this location for some time and we are currently in contract to transfer ownership to Scannell Properties. In the course of our deliberations we have learned more about Scannell’s plans for this property. We believe that the project as proposed will significantly improve the site and contribute to the economic vitality of Fremont’s western industrial area.
Please reach out if you have any questions. We support this project wholeheartedly.
Sincerely,
APIC The Globe, LLC
Wilson Chen, Its Manager
From: Daniel Gregg
To: Mark Hungerford
Subject: Albrae Industrial Complex
Date: Thursday, February 24, 2022 4:24:55 PM
Mark,
Good afternoon. I just left you a short VM. I am the Senior Field Representative for the Nor Cal Carpenters Union in Alameda County. I spoke a couple weeks ago at the Planning Commission hearing regarding Scannell Properties proposed development on Albrae St. I want to let you know that we are working with the developer and are not currently opposed to the project.
If you find time before the hearing tonight, please give me a call at 510-703-9018.
All the best,
Daniel Gregg
Senior Field Representative
Nor Cal Carpenters Union
This message and any attachments may be privileged, confidential or proprietary. If you are not the intended recipient of this email or believe that you have received this correspondence in error, please contact the sender through the information provided above and permanently delete this message.
Serving Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin and San Francisco counties
PO Box 2663, Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel. (510) 848-0800 Email: [email protected]
Thursday February 24, 2022
Via E-Mail
Mark Hungerford
Project Planner
City of Fremont
Community Development Department
39550 Liberty Street
Fremont CA 94538
[email protected]
Re: First Addendum to the Globe Planned District EIR and Proposed General Plan Amendment SCH#2005042146
Dear Mark Hungerford:
On behalf of the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club Southern Alameda County Group, we have reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared in connection with the Albrae Industrial GPA and Rezoning SCH#2005042146, and Sierra Club has serious concerns about the environmental impacts of the Project as currently proposed and the adequacy of the MND. In particular, the MND substantially understates and fails to analyze the severity and extent of a range of environmental impacts, including potentially significant effects, related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic if the planned project becomes a “Last Mile Delivery Station” (LMDS). As a result, the MND for the Project violates the minimum standards of adequacy under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., and the CEQA “Guidelines,” California Code of Regulations, title 14, § 15000 et seq. All of these impacts should be more fully addressed before Fremont considers approving the projected General Plan Amendment or this project.
Sierra Club commends and supports Fremont’s stated vision to serve as a national model of how an auto-oriented city can evolve into a sustainable, strategically urban environment. In early 2019, the Fremont City Council deepened its commitment to robust climate action by adopting a Post-Carbon Framework with ambitious goals of 55% GHG emissions reductions by 2040 and 100% emissions reductions by 2050 (carbon neutral). We commend Fremont for setting targets to address climate change and achieve carbon neutrality. Achieving the targeted goal requires strong leadership to achieve those goals for all of Fremont including neighborhoods that are disproportionately impacted by climate change, vehicle emissions along highways, or are home to sensitive receptors (those most susceptible to negative environmental impacts).
Fremont is being asked to consider a General Plan Amendment (GPA) for a potential project on Albrae Street that is likely to include a Last Mile Delivery Station (LMDS) with all associated impacts. We offer these comments on the mitigated negative declaration (MND) and ask if this project and potential GPA will help Fremont achieve its climate action plan goal to reduce GHG emissions by 55% by 2030.
I.The MND Fails to Adequately Describe the Project.
In order for the MND to adequately evaluate the environmental ramifications of a project, it must first provide a comprehensive description of the project itself. See San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 713, 730; County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 193). Furthermore, “[a]n accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental effects of a proposed activity.” Id. at 730 (citation omitted). Here, the MND provides only the most general description of the proposed project. Because the Project is so ill-defined, the MND’s analysis of significant environmental impacts is inherently unreliable.
Notwithstanding the MND’s lack of detail, this project is currently planned to include 70 bays around two warehouses. If a Last Mile Delivery Station (LMDS) is approved at this site, those bays will be available to lead and offload goods for local parcel delivery and freight deliveries between sites and local transportation hubs, 24 hours per day, seven days a week at one of the busier intersections on the edge of the City of Fremont and a couple blocks from a major retail / residential areas within the City of Newark. If the LMDS is approved, the change in traffic patterns could include 50-70 parcel delivery vehicles every 30 minutes throughout the day per each 8 - 10 hour shift (similar project proposal for LMDS within East Bay), which could add 1200 - 2500 vehicle trips daily with associated traffic, environmental and air quality impacts.
Within a mile of the proposed development and subject to any associated environmental impacts including vehicle emissions (NOX, CO2), increased vehicular traffic within local neighborhoods and lengthier commute times are sensitive receptors, including senior housing and assisted living, Newark High School, and thousands of local residents within Fremont and Newark. These impacts are likely to stress surrounding communities and any impacts will be added to already existing highway emission levels, add additional minutes to lengthen commute times as pandemic impacts ease, and add higher numbers of vehicles coming and going onto these intersections surrounding the proposed site.
Typically, “Last Mile Delivery Station” freight deliveries would be delivered to the site from fulfillment centers in long haul trucks, packages would be sorted in several shifts, and then delivery vans would leave the site in staggered waves to deliver parcels directly to customers and return to the site eight to ten hours later. These delivery routes are typically on city streets, in local neighborhoods and are 6-20 miles in total length. Truck trips and package
delivery trips would increase seasonally around the holidays. Parcel Deliveries are often made with secondary companies and are not considered “employees” None of this detail appears in the MND or the supporting traffic analysis. Regardless, because an accurate description of the proposed project’s environmental impacts is essential to evaluating its environmental impacts, the MND must be revised to more accurately describe the project. The type of use that will occur on the project site is particularly important to evaluating the air quality and transportation impacts of the project, especially when viewed within the context of Fremont’s Climate Plan Goals. These impacts require preparation of an environmental impact report.
II. The Project’s Potentially Significant Impacts Require Preparation of an EIR.
It is well settled that CEQA establishes a “low threshold” for initial preparation of an EIR, especially in the face of conflicting assertions concerning the possible effects of a proposed project. Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2005) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928. CEQA provides that a lead agency may issue a negative declaration and avoid preparing an EIR only if “[t]here is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment.” Pub. Resources Code § 21080(c)(1) (emphasis added). A lead agency may adopt a mitigated negative declaration only when all potentially significant impacts of a project will be avoided or reduced to insignificance. Id. § 21080(c)(2); Guidelines § 15070(b). A mitigated negative declaration will also be set aside if the proponent’s conclusions are not based on substantial evidence in the record. See Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.
An initial study must provide the factual basis, with analysis included, for making the determination that no significant impact will result from the project. Guidelines § 15063(d)(3). In making this determination, the agency must consider the direct and indirect impacts of the project as a whole (Guidelines § 15064(d)), as well as the project’s cumulative impacts. See City of Antioch v. City Council of Pittsburg (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325, 1332-
33. An agency must prepare an EIR whenever it is presented with a “fair argument” that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, even if there is also substantial evidence to indicate that the impact is not significant. See No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75; see also Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988; Guidelines § 15064(f)(1). Where there are conflicting opinions regarding the significance of an impact, the agency must treat the impact as significant and prepare an EIR. Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Guidelines § 15064(f)(1).
Based on what information is known about the Project, the City must prepare an EIR because, as set forth below, there is a fair argument that the Project will cause significant impacts related to traffic and air quality if a LMDS is installed. A revised environmental
document must include a detailed and thorough analysis of the Project’s likely impacts to permit informed decisions about the Project, and identify effective mitigation measures and alternatives that could reduce these impacts. We strongly recommend that the HIGHEST level of due diligence on the potential HIGHEST IMPACT project that may be placed at this site.
III. The MND’s Air Quality Analysis Is Inadequate, and There Is a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Significant Air Quality Impacts.
1. The MND Fails to Accurately Describe the Project’s Setting in Relation to Sensitive Receptors.
The MND fails to present important contextual information related to air quality conditions on the Project site and in the vicinity as it fails to name, identify and accurately describe the potential project. Accurate and complete information pertaining to the setting of the Project and surrounding uses is critical to an evaluation of a Project’s impact on the environment.
San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Center v. Stanislaus County (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 728; see also Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 875 (incomplete description of the Project’s environmental setting fails to set the stage for a discussion of significant effects). Here, the MND’s deficiencies in describing the Project’s setting undermine its adequacy as an informational document.
The MND fails to note schools, retirement and assisted living group living quarters, and residential neighborhoods within a mile from the Project site. Thus, it is particularly important that the MND evaluate the air quality and health impacts of the proposed project on these sensitive receptors. In fact, CEQA requires an EIR to discuss the specific human health effects that would occur as a result of a project’s significant air pollutant emissions.
Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 517-522. The MND fails to consider other health impacts from NOx and particulate matter.
Moreover, even though the diesel truck traffic generated by the anticipated warehouse uses would be substantial and poses significant health risks, the MND provides no analysis of the health risks of this increased truck traffic on nearby sensitive uses, nor has the City planned outreach to local communities or considered the impacts to the City of Newark, CA. The MND must assess the health impacts of this additional traffic—including that which can be expected to be diesel trucks—on these sensitive receptors.
The adverse impacts from increased air pollution, including both NOx and particulate matter extend beyond the increased risks assessed in the MND and we question veracity of the resulting mitigations calculations. Residents in this area experience asthma and other respiratory illnesses at higher rates than less burdened communities. Given CEQA’s mandate to consider the health effects of increased air pollutant emissions, the MND must be revised to assess the full range of potentially significant health impacts resulting from the Project.
IV. The MND Underestimates the Project’s Operational NOx Impacts, Which Are Potentially Significant.
In addition to underestimating operational impacts to sensitive receptors, the MND underestimates the Project’s nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. NOx is a common criteria air pollutant of concern for warehouse projects due to the high volume of diesel truck trips generated by facility operations. Accurate modeling of NOx emissions is critical to understanding environmental and health impacts because NOx is a “a primary precursor to smog formation and a significant factor in the development of respiratory problems like asthma, bronchitis, and lung irritation.” To properly model the Proposed Project’s NOx emissions and see if those potential emissions will significantly exceed the criteria established by BAAQMD is particularly important during the current Climate Crisis, particularly with recent requirements under review by the State of CA.
V. The MND Fails to adequately disclose or mitigate GHG Emissions from the Project.
Reducing GHG emissions to minimize the harms from climate change is one of the most urgent challenges of our time. Scientific evidence continues to mount that we are not only facing a true climate crisis, but also rapidly running out of time to confront it. The law is clear that lead agencies must thoroughly evaluate a project’s impacts on climate change under CEQA, and identify and adopt feasible mitigation measures to address project-specific or cumulative impacts. See Communities for a Better Env’t v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 89-91; CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4. The GHG analysis suffers from several critical flaws as detailed below.
VI. Any GHG emissions over existing conditions should be considered significant.
The MND relies on a GHG significance threshold of 660 MT of CO2e per year. MND at 70.
This threshold represents a 40% reduction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (“Air District”) 1,000 MT of CO2e originally adopted in 2010. The Air District’s threshold was designed to apply statewide GHG emission reductions goals to the Bay Area.
However, it is not reasonable to assume that the Air District’s GHG thresholds adopted in 2010 are still relevant or supported by substantial evidence in view of new information about the severity of climate change and the need to reduce GHG emissions immediately and as much as possible. Indeed, the Air District has noted that “since 2010 the urgent risks to public health and air quality posed by global climate change continues to come into focus and prominence.” https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality- act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines. Therefore, the Air District is in the process of updating its significance thresholds to reflect evolving science and legal decisions.
Moreover, as the Supreme Court found in Center for Biological Diversity v. California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204 (“Newhall Ranch”), it may not make sense to
translate a general standard (in that case AB 32’s requirement to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020) to a specific project. In fact, Newhall Ranch noted that new projects—such as this Project—may require a greater level of reduction because “[d]esigning new buildings and infrastructure for maximum energy efficiency and renewable energy use is likely to be easier, and is more likely to occur, than achieving the same savings by retrofitting of older structures and systems.” 62 Cal.4th at 226.
Since 2010, it has become clear from a scientific perspective that any additional GHG emissions will contribute to a serious and growing climate crisis. See e.g. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf.
Recognizing this reality, in 2018 Governor Brown signed Executive Order 55-18 calling for the state to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible and no later than 2045. https://www.ca.gov/archive/gov39/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/9.10.18-Executive- Order.pdf. Sierra Club recommends that we reach this threshold even sooner, in 2035.
Given these facts on the ground, the MND should establish a net zero threshold for new emissions. See e.g., CARB 2017 Scoping Plan at 101 (“Achieving no net additional increase in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG impacts, is an appropriate overall objective for new development.”)
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf?utm _medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
VII. The MND underestimates vehicle trips generated by the Project and vehicle miles traveled.
A LMDS would result in a substantial increase in vehicle traffic. Therefore, an accurate assessment of trips generated by the Project and vehicle miles travelled is critical to ensuring the Project’s GHG emissions have been identified and fully mitigated. Because the MND fails to accurately calculate the Project’s GHG emissions, it violates CEQA’s requirement to disclose and analyze a project’s potentially significant GHG emissions. Center for Biological Diversity, 62 Cal.4th at 226; CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4.
VIII. The MND Fails to Adequately Address Transportation Impacts.
The MND fails to conduct any analysis of the vehicle miles that would be generated by the Project should it include LMD. Warehouse delivery projects generate substantial vehicle mileage, far more than would be generated by employee trips alone. An accurate assessment of vehicle mileage from the Project is essential to evaluating air quality and GHG impacts, in addition to transportation impacts. The MND cannot rely on a screening threshold that fails to reflect the actual impacts of the project under consideration. Protect Niles v. City of Fremont (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1129, 1152 (“Thresholds of significance may not be applied in a way that forecloses the consideration of any other substantial evidence showing there may be a significant effect.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
IX. Conclusion
As set forth above, the MND does not come close to satisfying CEQA’s requirements. At a fundamental level, it fails to describe the Project setting and fails to provide a complete analysis of Project impacts and feasible mitigation measures. At the same time, ample evidence demonstrates that a fair argument exists that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts. In light of this, CEQA requires that an EIR be prepared that is appropriate for the actual project intended, or if we do not know the specific use for this site, that we proceed with the highest level of due diligence for the greatest potential impact that could be allowed at this site, in order to protect our Fremont community. Sierra Club SF Bay Chapter, Southern Alameda County Group strongly opposes the proposed change to Fremont’s General Plan under these circumstances.
We would like to be an active partner in community discussions and mitigations for any proposed warehouse projects in the future, and we encourage you to integrate Fremont’s commitments to its Climate Plan within land use decisions and the permit process in the future. Thank you for your consideration!
Respectfully,
Martha Kreeger
Executive Committee Chair, Southern Alameda County Group Sierra Club SF Bay Chapter
510-673-9447
1 Mark Hungerford
Subject: First Addendum to the Globe Planned District EIR and Proposed General Plan Amendment SCH#2005042146
-----Original Message-----
From: Martha Kreeger <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: First Addendum to the Globe Planned District EIR and Proposed General Plan Amendment SCH#2005042146
Dear Hon. Members of the Fremont Planning Commission,
Thank you for your work and your service. We look forward to working with you in the future and want to thank you for providing this forum for public comment and a way to voice our concerns regarding this general amendment change and this potential project as described. I apologize for the lateness of the hour, but wanted to get a more useful document before you. And thanks to the amazing Mark Hungerford, for your guidance and support!
On behalf of the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club Southern Alameda County Group, we have reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared in connection with the Albrae Industrial GPA and Rezoning SCH#2005042146 recommendation. Sierra Club has serious concerns about the environmental impacts of the Project as currently proposed and the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
In particular, it is our opinion that the MND substantially understates and fails to analyze the severity and extent of a range of environmental impacts, including potentially significant effects, related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic if the planned project does in fact become a “Last Mile Delivery Station” (LMDS).
Please accept the attached comments. I have included my cell number below and our organization, including staff, leaders and volunteers would welcome any opportunity to discuss this project, the Last Mile Ecosystem and how CA communities are meeting this challenge and opportunity.
Thank you for your consideration!
Respectfully,
Martha Kreeger
2 Martha H Kreeger She/Her/Hers 510.673.9447 Vice Chair, Sierra Club SF Bay Chapter, & Chair, Sierra Club SAC Group Commissioner, Alameda County Commission on the Status of Women