LAMPHIER-GREGORY 4100 REDWOOD RD, STE 20A - #601, OAKLAND, CA 94619 PHONE 510 535-6690
LAMPHIER-GREGORY
MEMO
TO: Community Development Department Staff
City of Fremont
39550 Liberty St.
Fremont, CA 94538
FROM: Rebecca Auld, Vice President
Lamphier-Gregory, Inc.
SUBJECT: Fremont Albrae Industrial Project Addendum – Review and Discussion of Comment Letters
DATE: March 2, 2022
PURPOSE OF THIS MEMO
This memo provides a brief discussion of written comments received in response to the Addendum for the Fremont Albrae Industrial Project (“project”). Though the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) does not require a lead agency to formally respond to comments received on an Addendum, this memorandum is being provided by the Addendum preparer to demonstrate that additional environmental review is not warranted in response to written comments.
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS
In summary, the Addendum, including technical attachments and reference to the Prior EIR, included substantial evidence1 to support the use of an Addendum as the appropriate environmental document for review of the proposed project.
The comment letters do not present substantial evidence to lead to a conclusion that preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines would be required.
Responses to the particular points in the letters are detailed below.
1 Under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines section 15184), the term “substantial evidence” includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. “…Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment does not constitute substantial evidence.”
3/2/22 PAGE 2 OF 5
LAMPHIER-GREGORY 4100 REDWOOD RD, STE 20A - #601, OAKLAND, CA 94619 PHONE 510 535-6690
COMMENTS RECEIVED
There is no official comment period for an Addendum. Two comment letters were received following issuance of the Addendum, as listed below.
• Teamsters Joint Council No. 7 Letter: Doug Bloch, Political Director, dated February 23, 2022 • Sierra Club Letter: Martha Kreeger, Executive Committee Chair, Southern Alameda County Group, Sierra Club SF Bay Chapter, dated February 24, 2022
DISCUSSION OF COMMENT LETTERS
Teamsters Joint Council No. 7
The comment letter makes specific points under the headings Vehicle Miles Traveled Impacts and Greenhouse Gas Emissions and includes a summary in the introductory paragraphs and under the heading Conclusion. These are addressed under similar headings below.
Vehicle Miles Traveled
The letter asserts that the calculation of trips was based on the incorrect land use, and that the project could have a larger volume of trips/traffic than reported. The complete Transportation Impact Analysis was included as Attachment D to the Addendum. The Transportation Impact Analysis detailed the choice of land use (pages 5 and 6 including Table 2 of Attachment D to the Addendum). As noted, the Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, Tenth Edition “High-Cube Fulfillment Center” land use (numbered 155) trip generation rate was further differentiated in the follow up Tenth Edition Supplement. Trip generation rates for all potential uses of the warehouse component were compared, including Warehousing (151), High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse (154), High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse, Non-Sort (155), High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse, Sort (155), and High-Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse (156). The daily trip rates for these land uses varied from 1.74 trips per 1,000 square feet to 6.44 trips per 1,000 square feet. While the exact tenant is speculative, for a conservative analysis, the highest trip rate of 6.44 was chosen, which is associated with the ITE land use 155 for “High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse, Sort.” This subcategory of the ITE land use 155 is described as, “a fulfillment center that ships out smaller items, requiring extensive sorting, typically by manual means.” The last-mile type delivery facilities mentioned as a concern in the letter would be categorized within this ITE land use subcategory. Trip rates for other possible uses and resultant traffic volumes and related emissions would be the same or less than that analyzed. While the letter references the ITE rate used, it does not present an alternative appropriate ITE land use or trip rate that would result in a higher volume of trips or related emissions.
The letter asserts that the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis improperly excluded delivery trips but this contention is incorrect. The City’s threshold of significance for employment uses, which is consistent with the State Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, only accounts for the commute trip between home and work for the site employees.
Regardless of the use, the VMT for potential deliveries is not included in the VMT thresholds or analysis.
The VMT analysis included in the Addendum is consistent with State and City methodology.
As detailed in the Transportation Impact Analysis (Attachment D of the Addendum), the accepted methodology relies upon the Alameda CTC Model to estimate the home-work VMT per employee based upon the location of employment. The Alameda CTC Model has determined an average home-work VMT per employee of 15.1 at the project location (see Table 1 and surrounding text in Attachment D of the 3/2/22 PAGE 3 OF 5
LAMPHIER-GREGORY 4100 REDWOOD RD, STE 20A - #601, OAKLAND, CA 94619 PHONE 510 535-6690 Appendix for additional detail). While the letter contends that an estimate of the number of employees is necessary for the analysis, this contention is incorrect. As noted, determination of the number of employees is not necessary to utilize this methodology.
The letter suggests that an analysis cannot be performed without knowing the specifics of the future tenant(s). However, it is often the case that the first (or subsequent) tenants of a development are not known at the time of environmental analysis. As noted above, to address the speculative nature of possible future tenants, the highest trip-generating potential land use was assumed. Trip rates for other possible uses and resultant traffic volumes and related emissions would be the same or less than that analyzed.
The letter suggests that VMT could be considered to be new information that was not known and could not have been known for the Prior EIR. VMT was not expressly addressed in the Prior EIR. However, the concept of VMT was incorporated in the traffic models and emissions models at the time as it is today and was a recognized factor in determining the level of transportation and emissions impacts.
Therefore, VMT would not be considered “new information” per CEQA Guidelines section 15162(3) and would not be a potential warrant for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. That being said, even if VMT was considered new information, the project would need to result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts than in the Prior EIR. The Transportation Impact Analysis (Attachment D of the Addendum) determined that the home-work VMT per employee would be below significance thresholds, so would not result in a significant impact.
Consistent with conclusions in the Addendum, the proposed project would result in substantially lower trips than those that would have resulted from the uses assumed in this area in the Prior EIR, would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts than under the Prior EIR, and therefore that no subsequent or supplemental EIR is warranted under CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 or 15163.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
These comments assert that mitigation measures beyond those available at the time of the Prior EIR should be implemented for the project to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As noted in the Addendum, greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed project would be substantially lower than those that would have resulted from the uses assumed in this area in the Prior EIR: year 2030 annual emissions of 5,096 MT CO2e2 compared to 13,507 MT CO2e (Addendum page 45). Because the greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced compared to those from the project analyzed in the Prior EIR, there would not be new or increased significant impacts with respect to greenhouse gas emissions and a subsequent EIR would not be required under CEQA Guidelines sections 15162(1), and 15162(2).
The letter also seems to acknowledge that greenhouse gas emissions would not be considered new information per CEQA Guidelines section 15162(3) because, as discussed in the Addendum, it was information that was known or could have been known for the Prior EIR. Additionally, electric vehicles and electric building operations were known technologies at the time of the Prior EIR and also would not be considered new information. Because greenhouse gas emissions and potential mitigation measures would not constitute new information, section 15162(3) and its subsections would not be applicable.
While not necessary to reach CEQA conclusions, the project would implement measures to reduce
2 MT CO2e stands for metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is the industry standard unit for measuring greenhouse gas emissions.
3/2/22 PAGE 4 OF 5
LAMPHIER-GREGORY 4100 REDWOOD RD, STE 20A - #601, OAKLAND, CA 94619 PHONE 510 535-6690 greenhouse gas emissions beyond those identified in the Prior EIR as discussed in the Addendum and summarized below.
As noted in the letter, Mitigation Measure 3.1.2 from the Prior EIR would be implemented to reduce vehicle trips (and associated emissions) and would primarily be applicable to employee trips. As further discussed in the Addendum (pages 46 and 47), since the Prior EIR, the City has undertaken city-wide planning for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the 2012 City of Fremont Climate Action Plan and subsequent regulatory updates. The project would meet or exceed current code requirements that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including those related to facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists and carpoolers, requirements for tree planting, and energy and water efficiencies, and inclusion of electric vehicle parking stalls with chargers.
While the letter does not acknowledge the additional measures detailed in the paragraph above and in the Addendum, it does specifically recommend measures that can be summarized as full or additional “electrification of vehicle and building operations.” The City is currently undergoing a process to update the city-wide Climate Action Plan, which includes consideration of the feasibility of various measures, but these are not yet in place or applicable to the current project and involve broader policy issues.
However, to reiterate the point above, because greenhouse gas emissions and referenced mitigation measures would not constitute new information, section 15162(3) and its subsections would not be applicable and there is no evidence of feasible mitigation or alternatives that would reduce impacts below significance levels at this time.
Consistent with conclusions in the Addendum, the proposed project would result in substantially lower greenhouse gas emissions than those that would have resulted from the uses assumed in the Prior EIR and would implement additional measures to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions and no subsequent or supplemental EIR is warranted under CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163.
Introduction and Conclusion
The letter asserts that a subsequent or supplemental EIR should have been prepared for the reasons outlined in the letter. The specific points of the letter are disputed in the discussion above.
While the letter uses the argument that the changes to the project and/or circumstances are “substantial”, per the CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163, the threshold for determining what is to be considered substantial with respect to the question of whether a subsequent or supplemental EIR needs to be prepared is whether those changes involve “new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.” While the difference in proposed use at the site may be considerable from other perspectives, from an environmental perspective, the revised project is similar to what would have been allowed at the site under the Prior EIR baseline and would have impacts that are the same or less than those assessed in the Prior EIR in all respects. This is documented with substantial evidence throughout the Addendum document.
Therefore, the changes in the project and circumstances do not meet the definition of “substantial” under CEQA.
Consistent with conclusions in the Addendum, the project would not satisfy the conditions to warrant preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines and an Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for this project under CEQA. 3/2/22 PAGE 5 OF 5
LAMPHIER-GREGORY 4100 REDWOOD RD, STE 20A - #601, OAKLAND, CA 94619 PHONE 510 535-6690 Sierra Club Letter
The Sierra Club letter makes reference to an MND and specific points in it that appear to be referencing a different document and not this Addendum document and the associated Prior EIR.
The legal points appear to be contingent on an MND document, which has a different standard of legal review than an EIR Addendum and do not appear applicable. Most of the points also appear to have been drafted in response to a different CEQA document with different analysis than in the Addendum and do not appear applicable to this Addendum.
While it is unclear if and how the comments actually relate to this Addendum, some points touch upon questions that have already been addressed under the response to the Teamsters letter above, namely:
whether the analysis was performed for the correct type of land use (as it applies to transportation and emissions impacts), whether the VMT analysis was conducted correctly, and whether additional greenhouse gas reduction measures should be required.
The comments in this letter do not present substantial evidence to lead to a conclusion that preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines would be required and an Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for this project under CEQA.