find funds and resources to facilitate community outreach, discussions, and decisions on TOD development and area-wide parking. It takes several years of pre-development work prior to issuance of a Request for Proposal for developers, therefore, any development of BART land within the planning period of 2023-2031 requires sufficient dedicated BART and Co unty staff time to advance a TOD project within a reasonable timeframe. b. Prohousing Designation: BART will prioritize projects in jurisdictions that are pursuing a Prohousing Designation by California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Prohousing Designation is emblematic of local support for housing and provides jurisdictions with an advantage such as priority processing or funding points for certain funding programs. This is a designation that has emerged from HCD since BART originally completed its work plan.
c. Environmental Studies: Locally supportive zoning is a minimum standard for gauging local support. For BART’s purposes, BART will determine that local zoning is supportive of TOD if the density allowed is 75 units per acre or greater, and such a density is assumed in environmental documents.
2. Infrastructure Needs:
a. Station Access and Parking Strategies: BART has evaluated its development priorities based on the anticipated cost of new infrastructure, including parking replacement. As such, until BART is able to secure external sources of funding to support construction of necessary infrastructure, BART cannot pursue development. In areas requiring substantial amounts of parking (e.g. auto dependent and auto reliant stations, partner jurisdictions will need to support BART in securing funding for parking replacement or other station access improvements.
Further, to address potential commu nity opposition to replacing surface parking with housing, the City should plan for and implement a locally led parking resource assessment a nd
m
anagement plan for at least ¼-mile radius around the station area. It should identify parki ng oppor
tunities for BART riders that would minimize the number of spaces to be included the TOD project and address spillover parking concerns by neighbors. BART staff will work with the jurisdiction to provide support and guidance as needed but implementation of a parking management plan will be a local requirement.
3. BART Policies and Standards : Any development on BART’s land is subject to BART’s review procedures and approval s and shall follow relevant guidelines, policies, and regulations. The ju
risdiction should commit to support and meet BART ’s policies and standards. Most of these policies and are summarized on our TOD Guidelines and Procedures webpage.
We look forward to building our partnerships with the City to realize our shared goal of increasing the amount of housing near transit. Please contact us to further our conversation on advancing TOD projects on BART’s land.
S
incerely,
____
____________________________________
Tim Chan
Group Manager – Stations Planning
B-30
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) BART comment on Fremont Housing Element
Seung-Yen Hong <[email protected]>
Wed 8/3/2022 5:19 PM
To:housingelement <[email protected]>
Cc: Wayland Li <[email protected]>;Tobias Liebermann <[email protected]>;Tim Chan <[email protected]>;Joel Pullen <[email protected]>
Hello,
BART provided Wayland Li with a comment le er about BART’s land and the City’s Housing Element on July 26, 2022. We have one addi onal comment specific to the Housing Element Sites Inventory. We no ced in the Housing Element Sites Inventory that BART-owned proper es at the Fremont Sta on were shown to have all units in the Lower Income Capacity Category. While BART strongly supports affordable housing as reflected in BART policies, the amount of affordable housing that can be supported on our property is greatly dependent on the amount of affordable housing funding available including local subsidies. Given current funding availability, the size of some of the BART proper es included in the sites inventory, the costs associated with developing BART land and related access and parking improvements, achieving 100% affordable units may not be feasible. In addi on, the assumed density is low at 58 or 59 DU/acre. Please clarify if the City assumed there would be other types of development on the site in addi on to affordable housing.
Regards,
Seung-Yen
Seung-Yen Hong, LEED Green Associate
Senior Planner, Sta on Area Planning
BART Planning & Development
2150 Webster St, 8th Floor
Oakland, CA. 94612
[email protected]
M: 510-230-3429
B-31
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) [email protected]
July 1, 2022
City of Fremont
3300 Capital Ave.
Fremont, CA 94538
Transmitted Electronically
Dear Sir/Madam,
RE: 6th Cycle Housing Element: Constraints Section
The Building Industry Association of the Bay Area (BIA) respectfully submits the comments contained herein regarding Fremont’s draft Housing Element. Inclusive in each city’s DRAFT Housing element is a require ment to include a chapter that provides a comprehensive listing and honest review of government and private sector constraints that may inhibit a city’s ability to achieve buildout of its Housing Element.
Per HCD’s Construction by Income Building Activi ty Annual Report, Fremont permitted 861 residential units in 2021 (VLI: 140, LI: 21, Mod: 0, Mkt: 700). ABAG’s 6th cycle RHNA allocation (2023 -2031) for Fremont is 12,897 total units i.e., VLI: 3,640 , LI: 2,096, Mod: 1,996 and Mkt: 5,165 . Considering the ongoing housing crisis, it is recommended that Fremont thoroughly analyze all government-imposed constraints along with non -government constraints that add to the cost and/or inhibit the city’s ability to permit and produce new housing of all income levels i.e., VLI, LI, Moderate and Market Rate.
BIA recommends the Constraints Section of the city’s Housing Element provide , at a minimum, a listing and analysis of the fo llowing:
GOVERNMENT IMPOSED CONSTRAINTS :
Development Regulations:
• Parking
• FAR
• Height and/or Density Ranges
• Moratoriums on conversion of non -residential zoned land • Requiring Commercial Square Footage within Mixed-Use projects Mitigation Fees
• Increased Park Dedication Fees
• Increase Affordable Housing Fees
Inclusionary Housing (IZ)
• Increasing Inclusionary Housing mandates i.e., accelerating/increasing VLI/LI requirements for new housing projects
• Amenity/Community Benefit Plans (Public Art, PoPo’ s i.e., Privately Owned/Public Open Spaces, Childcare centers)
B-32
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) • Requiring “above & beyond” dedication requirements for Parks, Roads/Transportation, et c.
Environmental Constraints
• Fault Zones
• Historic Buildings/Neighborhoods
New Taxes
• CFD’s for Schools, Infrastructure or Services
• New/Increased/Extended Parcel Taxes
• Any/All New Taxes on Housing
• Revenue “Neutral” conditions (requiring new housing pay 100% for city services) Mandated Labor Requirements
• Project Labor Agreements
• Prevailing Wage Requirements
• “Local” Construction Workforce Requirements
• Union Apprenticeship Requirements
• “Local” Business Sourcing Requirement
Citizen Concerns:
• Nimbyism/Neighborhood Opposition
• CEQA Lawsuits solely to stop/delay housing projects
Permit Processing Time
Long permitting processing times or permit processes that have a high degree of uncertainty i.e., discretionary reviews or processes with multiple public meetings, increase the cost of housing development for developers by (1) increasing carrying costs waiting for permits or (2) increasing the chance that a project will be rejected following a lengthy processing period.
NON-GOVERNMENT CONSTRAINTS
Land & Housing Development/Construction Costs
• Land (average cost per multi-family unit approaches $100,00 0 throughout Bay Area) • Hard Costs (materials & labor)
• Soft Costs (architects, consultants, govt fees, financing) • Supply-chain and inflationary costs of materials
BIA appreciates this opportunity to provide comment and recommendation on the City’s 6 th Cycle Housing Element and looks forward to working with the City o f Fremont to positively address the region’s on -going housing crisis .
Respectfully,
Patricia E. Sausedo, Director
BIA Bay Area South Bay Government Affairs
B-33
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) Campaign for Fair Housing Elements
fairhousingelements.org
The City of Fremont
Via email: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
August 8, 2022
Re: Fremont’s Draft Housing Element
To the City of Fremont:
The Campaign for Fair Housing Elements and YIMBY Law believe that the City’s draft housing element is a good start. We appreciate the City’s thorough explanation of how it calculates “realistic development capacity” for opportunity sites. (Gov. Code § 65583.2(c)(2); see Draft, pp.8-18 to -27.) But the housing element must “remove” constraints to development, not just identify them. (Gov. Code § 65583(c)(3); see Draft, ch.5.) In particular, the City’s draft should do more to increase density, streamline project approvals, and lower fees.
First, increase density. As we wrote in April, Fremont is currently producing only enough housing to meet 64% of its sixth-cycle development target. Meeting the target will require a new approach. We are therefore disappointed to see Fremont remove its program to redesignate land for higher intensity (Draft, p.6-22). Some 88% of Fremont’s residential land is currently zoned for single-family housing (Id. pp.7-100 to -101 and PDF p.415), mostly below the 30 homes per acre considered favorable for a
ffordable development (see id. p.5-9). High-density housing should be prioritized throughout the City, not merely “explore[d] … near transit.” (Cf. id. p.2-17).
Second, streamline project approvals. The City’s effort to showcase “a diversity of housing types in numerous zoning districts” fails to grasp how arbitrary, and confusingly regulated, that “diversity” is in practice. (See Draft, pp.5-10 to -11.) All of B-34
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) these housing types could be allowed everywhere; they are not. That the City has “over 700 Planned Districts” is not an achievement; it is an admission that the City’s review process for these districts has cumulatively delayed these projects by some 269-538 years, given that a planned district application takes 20-40 weeks. (Compare id. p.5-18, with id. p.5-39.) The City has ten di
fferent design review guidelines where
instead it could have zero. (Id. p.5-26.) There is no legitimate reason to tie up housing construction in a housing shortage for want of “architectural detailing” other than “[s]tucco-textured foam trim molding” and “decorative wood corbels” on garage doors. (Cf. Fremont Multifamily Design Guidelines, pp.8,32.) Finally, “Fremont has among the highest fees in the state.” (Draft, PDF p.416.) The City must lower them. Development fees should not add six
figures to the cost of a
townhome. (See id. p.5-35.) Fees are passed onto homeowners, and even the City’s $14,160 fee for a simple ADU adds roughly a down payment to the cost of the unit. If these fees re
flect a long and uncertain development review process, as discussed above, the City should streamline those processes.
We look forward to the City’s next draft. Please contact me if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Keith Diggs
Housing Elements Advocacy Manager, YIMBY Law
[email protected]
Campaign for Fair Housing Elements
fairhousingelements.org
B-35
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) ADU plan
Chaunie Langland <[email protected]>
Sat 8/6/2022 9:59 PM
To:housingelement <[email protected]>
Hi,
I would like to see language included to protect our existing trees. Fremont is already short on trees and shrubs compared to the peninsula or Sacramento and so is not as nice a place to live as it could be. I would not want to see it get any worse. We should be encouraging people to plant trees. Surely the needed ADUs can be added without making our tree situation worse.
I remember seeing city code assessing fees on businesses for putting planter boxes out front. This place seems determined to cut off it’s nose to spite it’s face.
Regards,
Chaunie Langland
878 Cashew Way
Fremont
B-36
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) Protect our trees and our climate!!!
Diane Harvey <[email protected]>
Sat 8/6/2022 11:19 PM
To:housingelement <[email protected]>
There is no question more affordable housing is needed. But there is no language in the document that protects trees from being removed for projects. AND mitigation fees and development fees are being waived! Property owners are getting a very sweet deal in order to encourage housing units be put in all neighborhoods throughout the city. But fees that go for street and park trees are being waived.
That is extremely shortsighted.
My concern is that without specific guidelines, front yard trees will be removed without considering other options first.
Also I am concerned that the remainder of the front yard can be concreted over, creating urban decay and heat island effects.
Just when our Climate Action Plan , Parks Plan, and Urban Forest Master Plan call for much more green infrastructure, the trees we have are unprotected from property owners' whims. I am asking for absolute protection of trees as stated in our tree ordinances. There is room to accomplish housing AND protect our trees.
We need to protect our climate while we deal with our housing issue! One cannot be done without consideration for the other!
Diane Harvey
Living in Fremont since 1986
B-37
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) Trees!
Bee Newell <[email protected]>
Sun 8/7/2022 4:17 PM
To:housingelement <[email protected]>
Cc: Lynn Miller <[email protected]>
In view of the worsening climate problem and increased carbon dioxide in in the air, I implore the city to protect trees. Trees are the single best vegetation that mitagates climate disaster.
As ADUs are built have them built around or far enough from trees roots so as to protect trees from being cut down or dying.
Only policy and enforcement can save this city.
Sincerely
Elizabeth B Newell
Parkmont area, Fremont 95536
B-38
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) August 8, 2022
To: City of Fremont
Re: Housing Element Public Comment
Introduction
Fremont For Everyone (FFE) is a Tri-City-based grassroots advocacy organization engaged and dedicated residents who work together to help address our Statewide housing crisis. Our vision is for inclusive, affordable housing for our residents, and to ensure Fremont welcomes new neighbors for living closer to work, raising a family, and gaining a place – a home for everyone! We encourage Fremont residents to visit our website at www.fremontforeveryone.com and who are aligned with our vision to join us!
FFE’s mission mirrors the objectives to be achieved under the State-mandated requirements that must be met by the City of Fremont in its updated Housing Element for the Planning Period 2023-2031 in order to obtain certification by the State’s Housing and Community Development (HCD) agency.
For this reason, the Policy Committee for FFE has carefully reviewed the City’s current Draft Housing Element and offered public comments orally and in writing at various Planning Commission and City Council meetings and study sessions. We have met directly with Staff during Staff’s public outreach phase, including most recently, its Open House last Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at the Downtown Event Center.
Our initial comments were submitted to Staff and the Planning Commission prior to the most recent Study Session of the Planning Commission on July 28, 2022. This letter reaffirms many of the comments previously articulated taking into account the comments of the Planning Staff at the Open House and augmented by further matters for the City to consider viewing achieving HCD certification as a minimum objective. More importantly, beyond certification, FFE strives to ensure that Fremont’s next Housing Element is a practical directive that can be implemented in achieving our Regional House Needs Allocation (RHNA), especially for our chronically underserved lower income residents in fulfilling what City itself in its Draft Housing Elements B-39
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) affirms is its “continued commitment to increasing the supply of affordable housing…that is affordable for teachers, public safety personnel, nurses, and child care workers …seniors, peoples with disabilities, and others with limited mobility and fixed income.” (Draft Housing Element, pp. 1-1-1-2.) In short, what FFE calls for, a “home for everyone.” Our analysis is a data-driven and evidence-based review of the Draft Housing Element in its current iteration before submission to the HCD and the close of public comments on Monday August 8, 2022. Our review examines proposed policies and programs in Chapter 2 and the sites inventory in Chapter 8 of the Draft Housing Element.
Overview
● We want the non-vacant site analysis to use a numeric probability of development based on past data.
● We would like to, and have suggested some improvements on policies concerning increased walkability, increased affordability, tenants rights, and unhoused concerns.
Policies and Programs
We have analyzed the listed policies and programs in chapter two, and offer our suggestions here. We also suggest additional policies and programs which are not listed in chapter two, though we nevertheless believe would be a great benefit to the City of Fremont.
Analysis of, and suggestions concerning policies and programs listed in chapter two ● Program 1: Proactively enforce anti-substandard housing provisions, by not fully relying on tenant complaints, as this can protect tenants from retaliation ● Program 2: Host an annual training for tenants about their legal rights ● Program 5: Where feasible, work to increase walkability and quality of life in the areas described, as well as throughout the city, by allowing gentle mixed use zoning (ie.
Neighborhood corner stores), and investing in wider sidewalks, more tree cover, safe bike infrastructure, and pedestrians infrastructure such as modal filters ● Program 6: Require that a minimum percentage of the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget be allocated to non-car infrastructure
● Program 7: Implement TOPA (Tenant Opportunity to Purchase) and good cause eviction for mobile homes
● Program 8: Levy a tax on condominium conversions
● Program 12: Proactively enforce provisions requiring landlords to notify tenants of the rent review ordinance
● Program 12: Define an explicit right for tenants and landlords to have their rent review hearing at a time when they do not need to work
● Program 12: Levy fines, or more severe consequences, for landlords who retaliate against tenants for participating in the rent review process ● Program 12: Create an easily accessible, searchable rental registry database which includes information about the owners of all rental properties in Fremont, and information about the amount how much rent is, and was, being paid for each rental unit. Tenants B-40
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) should be able to access background-check-style information about landlords, in a way that respects the landlords’ personal privacy but reveals relevant information about how the landlord treats tenants (such as compliance with habitability regulations, rate of no-cause evictions, etc).
● Program 12: Implement TOPA, good cause eviction, and rent control on all units allowed by state law
● Program 14: Fund a free eviction defense attorney program for all Fremont tenants facing eviction, such as the successful program in New York City ● Program 15: Expand this program to greater than 10 families per year ● Program 16: Implement a right to return for all displaced tenants, and ensure that temporarily displaced tenants have appropriate housing during the time they are displaced. Tenant displacement protections should apply for a broad set of displacement causes including Red Tagging (condemning the building) and/or rebuilding. ● Program 24: We applaud the city’s plan to make ADU permitting quicker & easier for homeowners, and encourage inclusion of duplexes now legal through SB 9. ● Program 25: During the Open House, staff emphasized that the City has cut City impact fees by 50% for affordable housing. The City is credited for doing so, but can more be done to eliminate or further reduce City impact fees for affordable housing? In addition, obtain City Council authorization to work with the School District, including the City-FUSD School District liaison committee to have the School District reduce or eliminate school impact fees on new affordable housing perhaps sunsetted when the District is no longer experiencing declining enrollments. Introduce as part of the State legislative agenda, encouraging our local legislators to introduce a Bill to offset any shortfalls due to reductions in school impact fees for affordable housing production. ● Program 33: We are excited to see this proposal to expand housing opportunities in some of Fremont’s most centrally located & resource rich neighborhoods. In light of their analysis showing that these neighborhoods have historically not provided affordable housing opportunities, we ask the city to commit to this important step toward Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, and look forward to working to make it a success. ● Program 34: Eliminate parking minimums, or implement parking maximums citywide, while at the same time increasing prioritization for sustainable non-car modes of transportation
● Program 35: Set a city-wide general density floor / minimum density outside of mixed-use and non TOD commercial zones, while raising it in TOD areas ● Program 35: Study the effects of removing the maximum density stipulations found in Fremont’s general plan. Currently, many of Fremont’s R-3 zoning districts allow lower density than is possible in R-1 districts through SB 9, and these densities are also too low to adequately accommodate housing affordable to lower income residents. ● Program 37: We should go beyond the minimums prescribed in SB 478 and consider much stronger FAR updates, for example, eliminate maximum FAR for Commercial-Town-Center and Commercial-Mixed-Use. FAR is among the constraints identified in table 5-3, and the 1.25 and 0.3 FARs for those two example land use types are unnecessarily restrictive. Additionally, remove or greatly raise the FAR for all land use types.
B-41
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) ● Program 44: In addition to State mandated “by right” development under SB 35 and AB 1387, initiate an update to the Code to encourage more ministerial review of projects for housing. We recommend the following types of projects be subject to ministerial review:
subsidized housing (which is already likely to be ministerial and by right), higher density and affordable by design (whether it is in an existing TOD or not), apartments (which are very likely higher density affordable by design) which are now subject to AB 1842 rent cap stabilization over time. Alternatively, use the Downtown Plan adopted in 2012, and the code updates thereunder, to create a modified Zoning Administrator review of these new types of projects mentioned above. The current policy of allowing ministerial review for single-family homes less than 7,500 square feet but requiring public hearings for multi-family homes puts multi-family housing at a disadvantage, and we should level the playing field.
● Program 46: Adopt objective, evidence-based standards which make it such that private green space, or other public benefits developers provide are likely to be used ● Program 47: In addition to the use of boomerang funds rather than merely funding the housing trust fund with NOFAs (Notice of Funding Availabilities) for nonprofit and for profit affordable housing developers, explore creating a publicly funded social housing program to anticipate or in the absence of State law if Section 34 of the California Constitution is repealed or that does not otherwise violate Article 34. This is consistent with City Policy 3.04 Intensify Residential Development within Urban Neighborhoods, Policy 4.02 Maximize Financial Resources Available for Affordable Housing and Program 35, with attendant code updates. It should also be noted that properly funded social housing has been a massive success in places such as Vienna, Austria. ● Program 50: Study the impact of further reducing these fees for 100% affordable projects, if these affordable housing projects are deed restricted longer than 55 years ● Program 51: Implement processes to routinely and objectively check whether ADUs and other such non-deed restricted units counted towards VLI, LI, or MOD income levels, actually remain affordable at those income levels
● Program 52 / 53: In light of Fremont not being allocated Project Homekey funds for the Motel 6 Project, implement new policies concerning applications for state funding which proactively address any actionable reasons for which Fremont was denied funding previously, and reasons which it’s foreseeable Fremont could be denied funding in the future
● Program 58: Audit affordable housing providers (including but not limited to property managers, owners, and support staff) to ensure they are not, intentionally or unintentionally, acting abusively towards or discriminating against tenants, as these tenants are uniquely vulnerable. Additionally audits of this type on all landlords and property managers (not just those who are involved with affordable housing) would promote equity.
● Program 60: When creating new, or updating existing, projects for the unhoused, (safe parking, HNCs) ensure that families are permitted and supported with appropriate services
● Program 60: Pursue the development of additional HNCs (including ones that allow for families), and safe parking, which allows RVs and families, on public property B-42
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) ● Program 63: Build a dense, walkable, affordable, and mixed-use area on the Fremont BART parking lot
● Program 64: Churches can be excellent sites for Affordable Housing development, provided the congregation is interested. However, technical assistance will be insufficient if the sites are not also adequately zoned & subject to an approval process that shelters the development & congregation from NIMBY opposition. We have already seen one case of a church seeking to provide transitional housing on their land that was derailed by local NIMBYism.
● Program 72: Implement methods to proactively ask unhoused residents what they need, and accurately document their responses
● Program 72: Provide dumpsters, portapotties, and trash collection services to areas where many unhoused residents are congregated
● Program 72: Officially allow congregations of unhoused people to stay where they are at, to prevent the possibility of sweeps
Additional policies and programs not listed in chapter two ● When Fremont specific data is released from the 2022 PIT (Point in Time) count, be committed to implementing policies which address the root causes of homelessness, with specific emphasis on the prevention section of the survey data ● Work with Urban3 to develop an understanding of which types of development are solvent and fiscally responsible long-term in Fremont
● Implement empirical standards, based upon previous localized trends, while taking into account new policy changes, to measure whether sites in the sites inventory are likely to have housing built on them in the next eight years. Then, only include sites in the sites inventory which are likely to have housing built on them in the next eight years. ● When general plan amendments or changes to the zoning code are made, require an analysis of whether those changes would increase or decrease car dependency (based upon density, mixed-use nature, proximity to businesses, building requirements etc). If the most car dependent types of development allowed in the zones would increase car dependency, require changes to building requirements to mitigate that impact. ● Proactively study which parts of the existing zoning code and other building requirements contribute the most to car dependency, and update them such that car dependency is reduced
● Require a minimum number of electric car charging stations at multi-family rented buildings
● Ban rental application fees (including credit check fees) ideally for all units, though at the very least for affordable units
● Implement permanent emergency rental assistance and assistance paying move-in fees, such as programs in neighboring cities
● Explains the TOD areas to have a radius of 1 mile
● Require bike lanes near all high schools
● Retroactively increase requirements for safe bicycle parking, throughout Fremont B-43
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) ● Affirmatively increase walkability and bikeability by ensuring that new developments have street patterns which contribute to walkability (such as patterns without cul de sacs) and multiple entry and exit points (especially modal filters, which do not allow cars) ● Affirmatively increase walkability and bikeability in existing developments by working to install modal filters and other non-car infrastructure
● Implement a rental relocation assistance program, which provides funds to tenants when they are evicted
● Implement a citywide 100% affordable housing overlay, such as the one implemented by Cambridge MA, since while density bonuses have encouraged some affordable housing production, they have not caused Fremont to come anywhere close to its VLI, LI, and MOD RHNA assessments
● Extend the length of time affordable housing must deed restricted for beyond 55 years ● Greatly expand areas zoned for mixed use, as these zones decrease the proximity between where residents live, shop, work, and play
● Where appropriate, increase or remove default height limits, and evaluate applications using more nuanced criteria
● Where appropriate, remove setback requirements
Sites Inventory
The following challenges the City’s foundational assumption and claim that “Fremont has adequate sites to accommodate the community’s RHNA for the 2023-2031 planning period for all income levels.” (Chapter 8: Sites Inventory, p.8-2.) In other words, the City Staff does not anticipate either amending the General Plan or upzoning any current sites to meet the RHNA assessments at all income levels for the next 2023-2031 planning period, including very low-income (VLI) and low-income (LI) units.
Table 8-1 indicates that nearly half of Fremont’s RHNA Allocation (45.5%) of the 12,897 units to be built are either a combined VLI (3,640 units; 28.2%) or LI (2,09 units; 16.3%). There are a combined RHNA Allocation target of 5.736 units for VLI or LI low-income housing. If you include “moderate-income units” that represents another 15.5% pushing the total percentage of housing for residents who do not have above-moderate income to more than 60% of the RHNA total of 12,897 units.
Past City housing elements have projected with confidence meeting our RHNA Allocation targets at every income level for every prior RHNA cycle. Yet, with the exception of above-moderate income units, we have historically fell far short of meeting our RHNA Allocation for VLI, LI, and MOD units.
We appreciate that City Staff supports and embraces the more recent legislative changes at the State level since 2017 ensuring greater accountability by Housing and Community Development (HCD) over the housing elements submitted by cities for HCD Certification. Yet, without more information, the historic trend suggests that the City’s projections are based on overly optimistic B-44
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) assumptions. In short, the projections set forth in Tables 8-4 and 8-5 we fear will not match actual production of low-income housing in the next 2023-2031 planning period.
In particular, especially in light of the heightened HCD review, FFE is concerned that what the City considers are “pipeline developments” without further explanation or verifiable evidence, the City’s Draft Element as currently written will not fulfill HCD’s requirement under HCD’s guidelines.
Nearly half of the sites to meet RHNA projections for the next cycle fall into the category of “Pending, Approved or Permitted Development.” (See Table 8-3.) Sadly, for the sites in Tables 8-4 and 8-5 with the greatest immediate potential for meeting RHNA targets, only 1,382 units, or less than 25% of the RHNA combined 5,736 VLI and LI units are identified as “affordable to lower-income households.” [page 8-3, Tables 8-4, 8-5; cf Table 8-1.) That means that more than 75% of the units “affordable to lower-income households” will of necessity come from ADUs, Vacant and Non-Vacant Underutilized Sites which will be subject to further review and analysis by the FFE Policy Committee. (p. 8-3 and Tables 8-4, 8-5.) The Draft Housing Element on p 8-10 under Notes (1) the City states that 60% of inventoried ADUs in the “pipeline” for lower-income housing.
And while in general terms, the City is able under HCD Guidelines to identify and to credit towards its RHNA assessment, the following categories in the pipeline which are set forth, as follows:
● “Under Review”; e.g., Table-8-4, 514 Acoma Way;
● “Approved” e.g., Table 8-4, 4667 Cerritos Avenue and Table 8-5, Mahmush Condominiums;
● “Pre-Application Review”; e.g., Table 8-5, Mission Homes 38765 Mission Blvd.; and ● “Entitlement Review”; e.g., Table 8-5,Fremont Hub Mixed Use, 39150 Argonaut Way.
An HCD Guideline, in relevant part, states, as follows: “For projects, yet to receive their certificate of occupancy or final building permit, the element must demonstrate that the project is expected to be built within the planning period.”
The City undoubtedly can make a good argument that if final building permits and certificate of occupancies are issued for all projects that are “Under Review,” “Approved,” or subject to “Pre-Application Review” and “Entitlement Review,” the units will be built within the 2023-2031 planning period. And the City does not appear to be stuffing projects without any pending application under the heading “Pending, Approved or Permitted Development” to inflate the number of units that the City is crediting towards its RHNA Allocation.
The City though makes an implicit assumption, that is not made explicit or a matter of further detailed discussion in the Draft Housing Element, namely, that all such projects will be approved in the first instance, or even if approved, will actually be built by the end of the 2023-2031 B-45
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) planning period. Without supporting historical documentation for projects in past RHNA Cycles for the sub-categories “Under Review,” “Approved,” “Pre-Application Review” and “Entitlement Review,” HCD may demand further explanation. Either the City does not have such historical data in the manner it is now inventorying sites in Tables 8-4 or 8-5, or a more searching inquiry would net a percentage less than 100% that should be applied to the number of units for all categories except “building Permit Issued” in Tables 8-4 and 8-5.
At the Open House, planners expressed confidence that any project that they have categorized as “in the pipeline” is fairly certain will be built in the next planning period and will fulfill Fremont’s RHNA Allocation. FFE suggests that the Housing Element affirmatively sets forth data-driven and evidence-based reasons, such as historical projections realized during the current or past planning periods, to justify its projections. To the extent the City is deviating from past metrics whether mandated by new State law or otherwise from past planning periods, provide a supporting rationale which these new metrics are predictive in netting achievable results over the next 8 years.
To be clear, we should be seen as an ally in offering support to the City in its efforts to obtain HCD certification. FFE’s advocacy, however, is not merely limited to ensuring that the City obtains HCD certification. We are more concerned that Fremont meets its RHNA Allocation with realistic evidence-based assumptions for all types of housing; and to do so, in particular, for lower-income housing.
The historical data shows that the existing General Plan, zoning, and consequent market conditions have enabled the City in the past to meet or exceed its RHNA assessments only for above moderate-income housing.
But where less than just 25% of the City’s RHNA Allocation for lower income unit in the 2023-2031 planning period are coming from “Pending, Approved or Permitted Development,” we all need to make sure we getting this Draft Housing Element right with projections that are not based on optimistic assumptions that 100% of the units identified in Tables 8-4 and 8-5 will in fact house the underhoused and those otherwise experiencing homelessness in our community for in the next eight years of the 2023-2031 planning period.
We are further concerned that the Non-Vacant Sites Analysis Methodology is not quantitative enough. It provides examples of sites that have been redeveloped in the past, but it does not estimate the proportion of sites in the site list that are expected to be redeveloped in this cycle.
Realistically, it will not be 100%. Ideally, a numerical likelihood of development factor should be calculated based on the percentage of past sites that got developed in previous cycles. The total number of units provided by the inventory should be high enough that we meet or exceed the RHNA numbers after multiplying by the likelihood of development.
While we at FFE have not at this time conducted a full analysis of which sites were developed from past housing elements, we note that there are 3685 units listed in table 8-16 where it is indicated that AB 1397 applies, meaning that these sites have been listed in previous housing B-46
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) elements. This value, if we assume that most of these units were included in the most recent housing element (and please correct us if that's a false assumption) represents 61% of the 6084 RHNA total from the 2015-2023 cycle, a very significant percentage. This strongly suggests that many of the units will not actually be built this cycle, and so the expected number of units delivered should be scaled down accordingly.
Other Items
On a lighter note, we'd like to request that the page number be absolute numbers (for example, running from 1 to 430). It's difficult to use the table of contents to find the start of the chapter when all it says is that it begins on [chapter_number]-1.
Respectfully,
The Fremont For Everyone Policy Committee
B-47
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) 8/9/22, 12:03 PM Mail - housingelement - Outlook
Public comment - Hamza Shaikh
Hamza Shaikh <[email protected]>
Sun 7/24/2022 4:43 PM
To:housingelement <[email protected]>
Hello I am Hamza Shaikh a 29 year old who has been living in Fremont his whole life. Our city needs to focus more on dense mixed used zoning and we need to reduce suburban sprawl. We need proper infrastructure so that we can bike or walk to the grocery store and to public transportation from where we live. This infrastructure needs to be low-stress. We need people oriented infrastructure.
Pacific Commons is an example of car oriented development that we need to move away from. The stores are nice there but you literally can't go from one store to another without driving or risking walking across a high traffic street. The stores should have been much closer together and parking should have been restricted to a parking structure. As is, the land dedicated to parking and the abundance of cars ruins the community vibe of the area, and likely limits the value of the area.
Thank you for reading my public comment.
Hamza Shaikh
B-48
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) 8/9/22, 11:50 AM Mail - housingelement - Outlook
Comment on housing element paper
Jan Quilici <[email protected]>
Mon 8/8/2022 9:41 PM
To:housingelement <[email protected]>
Cc: Quilici Jan <[email protected]>
I am very happy that the city is doing something about our homeless problem and I support this project. My concern, however, is that without specific guidelines, front yard trees will be removed without considering other options first.
Also I am concerned that the remainder of the front yard can be concreted over, creating urban decay and heat island effects.
The City has declared itself a tree friendly community and has done much to plant trees throughout the city. However, when reading the plan for this housing, it seems that no one cares any longer about trees and their benefits. Surely, this project can be done with care taken so that we don't end up with a treeless City that is also paved over with concrete.
Please take my comments into account as you finalize the draft.
Janet M Quilici
36910 Montecito Dr
Fremont, CA 94536
510 791-2341
B-49
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) B-50
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 164
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) 8/9/22, 11:45 AM Mail - housingelement - Outlook
Housing Element Draft
[email protected] <[email protected]>
Tue 8/9/2022 6:22 AM
To:housingelement <[email protected]>
Dear City of Fremont,
Please consider trees in the Housing Element Draft. Trees throughout the city must be protected. We cannot lose our green canopy to overcrowded housing. Cutting down trees will decrease the quality of the environment for everyone.
Kate Chouta.
B-51
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) Wayland Li
From: Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 3:23 PM
To: Dan Schoenholz; Wayland Li; Joel Pullen; Robert Daulton Cc: Raj Salwan; Teresa Cox; Jenny Kassan
Subject: Under-performing retail sites could convert to affordable housing — many such sites in MSJ, Centerville
Hundreds of affordable homes could replace southwest San Jose shopping center Hundreds of affordable homes could replace
southwest San Jose shopping c...
A San Jose shopping center might be replaced by a big residential complex with hundreds of affordable homes and ...
B
y George Avalos
July 20, 2022 at 5:30 a.m. | UPDATED: July 20, 2022 at 1:05 p.m. https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/07/20/affordable-home-replace-san-jose-shopping-center-real-estate-develop/ S
AN JOSE — A big residential complex with hundreds of affordable homes and some retail might replace a San Jose shopping center, plans being floated at city hall show.
An estimated 280 homes would be developed on the site of a shopping center at the corner of Union Avenue and South Bascom Avenue in southwest San Jose, according to a very preliminary proposal filed with San Jose planners.
The residences being eyed at the proposed development would be “100% affordable,” the planning documents show.
The building would be six stories high, including the ground-floor retail, ground-floor parking and five levels of residences.
The site currently features a retail center called Maplewood Plaza, which is occupied by numerous shops and restaurants. “The Maplewood Plaza development proposal follows a pattern of under-performing retail sites converting to affordable housing,” said Bob Staedler, principal executive with Silicon Valley Synergy, a land-use consultancy.
The existing retail on the site where the development would occur totals 23,800 square feet, the project plans show.
Among the merchants whose locations might be bulldozed for the proposed development: Gyro’s Burgers & More, Harbor Fish & Chips, Anwar Bazaar & Bakery, Union Chinese Restaurant, Maya’s Cafe, Diamond Shoe Repair, Song’s Kung Fu, Lush Spaw and Vogue Salon & Lounge.
Along with the 280 homes, the proposal envisions the development of 11,900 square feet of new retail spaces.
The new retail would occupy part of the ground floor and be located primarily along Union Avenue.
B-52
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) San Francisco-based Maracor Development is listed as the applicant seeking city approval for the affordable homes project.
The development proposal is in a very preliminary stage and was submitted to obtain feedback from city officials. The ultimate plans could be considerably different from what is on file at present.
Maracor has proposed several projects in the Bay Area, including some in San Jose, along with others in San Francisco, Oakland and Fremont, according to the real estate firm’s website.
The affordable homes project at the Union and Bascom avenues site would include a variety of unit sizes.
Of the 280 units, 112 would be studios, 77 would be two-bedroom units, 75 would be three- bedroom homes and 16 would be one-bedroom units, the preliminary plans state.
The proposed affordable homes development is located within approximately 1.5-2 miles of multiple light rail stops that are on the Old Ironsides-Winchester line and the Baypointe-Santa Teresa line. “I wouldn’t be surprised if similar retail sites with some level of vacancies are getting multiple unsolicited offers for redevelopment to affordable housing,” Staedler said.
B-53
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) Alberto Quintanilla
From: Lisa Danz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 3:32 PM
To: citycouncil
Subject: 7/12/2022 item 5A Public Comment
Dear City Council and Staff,
Thank you for producing the updated Housing Element draft and providing the opportunity to comment. I haven't had time to read all 430 pages of it yet, so I will try to follow up with more thorough comments before the August 8 public comment deadline. In the meantime, I wanted to offer a few initial notes.
Broadly, we need more housing. A lot more housing. I would like the Housing Element to convince me and other community members that Fremont will actually produce enough housing to meet all of its RHNA numbers. I know that the city is not on the hook for funding all of the subsidized affordable housing, but there are levers to pull to make housing production substantially more likely.
Initially, here are a few specific items that I've noticed:
1. ADU quantity: adjusting over time
On page 8-14:
As a program of the Housing Element, Fremont will monitor ADU production annually and, if production trends are less than anticipated halfway through the planning period, implement measures to further facilitate their production.
I
think it’s wonderful that (1) we’ve removed constraints and ADU production is going up, and (2) we’re monitoring and adjusting.
However, the language around adjusting is too vague. What specific “measures” would be put in place if the numbers fall short? It would be better to provide for an automatic adjustment. For example, if the numbers are lower than what we’ve planned for, we’ll automatically change some particular regulation to make it easier to build ADUs.
2. Likelihood of development
(I'm still trying to understand this part, so my apologies if I've missed something.) I didn't see an analysis of what share of the 2015-2023 cycle site inventory was actually developed. I do see the total numbers of housing built for each income level, and I could potentially try to figure this out for myself by comparing the two, but I think this analysis could be helpful to include directly in this cycle's Housing Element, to inform the likelihood that sites in the inventory will be developed.
If I understand correctly, the "adjustment factors" that are specified in table 8-10 tell us, given that a site gets developed, what percentage of the total zoned capacity gets built. But I don't see an estimate of whether it will be built in the first place.
The one place that this is addressed is for non-vacant sites, but I'm a bit confused by the analysis there as well. Rather than doing a statistical analysis of a random sample of potential sites and figuring out which get built (or surveying the owners and asking about their plans), it is simply noting the important characteristics of those sites that did get built. I don't see how we can deduce from that what the probability is of a random currently-in-use site will be redeveloped.
B-54
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) I
f what I think are missing analyses are actually there and I just haven't found them yet (of if there's another analysis that meets the same need), I'd be grateful if you can point me to them. Otherwise, I'll keep reading more carefully.
I'm sorry for my abbreviated analysis, this was a lot to read and the comment deadline for this meeting is fast approaching. I hope to have more to say in the future. Thank you again for the opportunity.
Regards,
Lisa Danz
B-55
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 169
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) Dear City Staff,
As I read through the Housing Element Draft, I found some items that appeared to be errors or typos. I’m sharing them here in the hopes that this is useful to you when editing.
The following were already noted in Fremont for Everyone’s letter that was submitted on July 28:
● On page 8-27, it says ""Based on an analysis of inventory sites against the criteria above, a finding can be made that existing uses on non-vacant sites will not impede residential development of those sites and have a high likelihood of discontinuing during the 2015- 2023 planning period to allow for new residential development." Shouldn't this say 2023-2031?
● Table 8-16's last page jumps from 262 to 264 in the row numbers. That's the only jump in the table; are we intentionally skipping 263?
● Site 543-256-22-4 is listed as "4178 Decoto Rd" in table 8-16 but "4175 Decoto Rd" in table 8-14.
● Site 501-1800-1-50 is listed as 41 units in table 8-16 but 43 units in table 8-14. ● Several of the numbers listed in table 8-3 do not match the sums of the numbers of units in the various site inventory tables:
○ Moderate-income vacant+nonvacant add up to 2228 in table 8-16 but are listed as 204 + 2042 = 2246 in table 8-3 (site inventory is 16 short of 8-3's total) ○ Lower-income in-pipeline units add up to 1088 in tables 8-4 and 8-5 but are listed as 1383 in table 8-3 (site inventory is 295 short of table 8-3's value) ○ Moderate-income in-pipeline units add up to (only!) 1 in tables 8-4 and 8-5 but are listed as 84 in table 8-3 (site inventory is 83 short of table 8-3's value) ○ Above-moderate in-pipeline units add up to 4771 in tables 8-4 and 8-5 but are listed as 4668 in table 8-3 (site inventory is 103 over table 8-3's value) The following are additional possible typos that I found as I was reading through (highlights added):
● Page 2-1: “The community’s fair housing challenges, as identified in Chapter 8, Fair Housing Assessment.”
○ Shouldn’t this say Chapter 7?
● Page 2-35, Program 83: “These services, such as In-Home Assessment and Care Coordination for seniors, paratransit, the Family Resource Center (FRD), and SparkPoint, enable households to stay housed.”
○ Should say “FRC” rather than “FRD,” right?
● Page 5-8: “The land use designations where the greatest intensity of residential development is expected to occur are in the planning period are City Center, Town Center and Urban Residential and Mixed Use.”
○ I think this word should be removed.
B-56
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 170
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) ● Page 5-8: “Each area includes is intended to be pedestrian-oriented with an attractive and distinct identity, along with amenities such as small parks, public art, and plazas that creates a Main Street ambiance.”
○ I think this word should be removed.
● Page 5-13: “As a program in the Housing Element, the City will development technical guidance and a local ordinance to implement the requirements of SB 9 and to create objective standards will provide greater certainty to property owners considering developing their property under SB 9.”
○ I think “development” should be “develop.”
○ I think the word “that” should be inserted between “standards” and “will.” ● Page 5-18: “Safe parking sites are location that provides homeless individuals and/or families living in a vehicle a dedicated, safe place to park.” ○ The highlighted section should be something like “are locations that provide.” ● Page 5-26: “Fremont’s mixed use regulations (FMC Section 18.45.040) do not provide specificity regarding which street frontages require a commercial component in certai n situations, such as when a development site is a through lot, or has street frontages on all sides.”
○ There’s an extra space in the middle of the word “certain.” ● Page 5-26: “Small Lot Design Guidelines (small-lot single-family residential” ○ Missing the closing “)”
● Page 5-34, in table 5-13: "fraction thereof above $100,00 valuation" ○ Should this be $100,000?
Thank you for all your hard work on the Housing Element. This is an exciting opportunity for us to try to make progress on fixing the housing crisis.
Regards,
Lisa Danz
B-57
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) On Aug 1, 2022, at 5:24 PM, Lynn Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Director Schoenholz,
For several weeks I have wanted to speak to someone about this draft. Wayland and I had an appointment which he forgot about and he has not responded to my queries about another.
As time to comment closes soon, I am more anxious to share my concerns with you directly.
After reading through the draft, I found no mention of preservation of trees on property under developmental processes. "Conservation policies" 7-9.1 and 7-9.2 emphasize green building and energy efficiency, but not green "infrastructure" from trees.Currently, there are ordinances regarding removal of mature trees from front or back yard properties. Will these ordinances prioritize tree protection over housing design? Housing Element Policy 3.01 "encourages" development of regulations that promote a balance between sustainability goals and housing needs. That is extremely general.
There needs to be protection verbiage in the document and if the removal of mature trees occurs, there should be size per size mediation required. For instance, if a 65 year old Oak tree is in the yard, plans should be directed toward a design so as to avoid its removal. If a tree is removed- mediation cost would be obtained to go into the urban forest budget so that equivalent multiple smaller (15 gallon) trees would be planted in the city.
We have a beautiful 67 year old Deodar Cedar street tree. Our neighbor is currently seeking to build an ADU out front next to our tree. If foundation concrete and digging kill the tree's roots, there is a problem. Specific protection language needs to be apparent early in the development process to save time, money, and the tree.
Housing Element Draft 22 -"Coordinate development review with outside agencies" There has, it seems, not been coordination within Fremont's departments! Your department,Community Development, is tasked with this project, but, it seems, there has been no integration of the Community Services Department's Tree division? This seems short sighted and unfortunate because integration of the Urban Forest Plan and CAP 2.0 makes sense and supports tree protections. Both call for more green infrastructure and, as the Housing Element states, parks and green space is the primary desire of citizens.
To back up the Housing Elements, what should be, obvious mandate to protect trees above construction pressure, is Governor Newsom's 2020 Executive Order N-82-20.
Among other climate emergency measures, it orders that our urban greenscapes be protected and accelerated.
It states- Climate resilience is a priority and outdoor access to green spaces is equitable.
I believe Program 51 is unnecessary. It calls for a Waiver of development impact fees, especially for ADUs. Having an extended payment plan is a good incentive, but to not collect taxes on newly built units supports the wealthy and is short sighted. Tax money is badly needed to support the greening of urban areas that are vital to the community living in dense urban settings that this Housing Element encourages broadly.
I appreciate the complexity and size of the Housing Element Draft. Many times, in the draft, it specified that the community's values, concerns, and priorities be included. Surveys from Parks and Recreation Plan, Climate Action Plan, and the Urban Forestry Plan demonstrate high value on our city trees and the desire to protect and grow our urban canopy.
Thank you for your consideration,
Lynn Miller, Board Member of Tri City Ecology Center
Lynn Miller
[email protected]
510-604-8206
tufatrees.org
Tuesday - Thursday
B-58
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 172
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) Re: Housing for Senior Citizens
Mervin Roy <[email protected]>
Mon 7/11/2022 11:06 PM
To:housingelement <[email protected]>
Sir,
I have an earnest request to have more senior housing complexes in fremont and at rates starting from $300/. At the moment the system is to have lottery and pay $1200 per month is out of question at least for seniors.. With multiple senior housing the rent could be as stated above and no need for a lottery system. We have to do away with the century old system of a lottery system.Further these housing would be close to Bart, shopping malls as well as downtown. I am confident of this set up in the very near future.
B-59
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 173
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) Need some mention on trees/greenage
Paul Nissler <[email protected]>
Tue 8/9/2022 4:20 AM
To:housingelement <[email protected]>
Dear Fremont Committee;
Please include some mention of trees and greengage in this draft. I generally agree with much of draft, but see no concern for protecting and maintaining trees and/greenage. Taking climate change and it’s affects on us more serious and working solutions concretely into policy is of utmost concern.
I thank you in advance for working to include this in next draft. sincerely
Paul Nissler, Ph.D.
Fremont resident
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
B-60
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 174
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) I support the recognition for two critical environmental goals. 1) For each Accessory Dwelling Unit. build a fee should be charged that will go towards better, safer transportation in Fremont that does not bow to the overuse of automobiles and VMT. 2) ...
Richard Godfrey <[email protected]>
Sat 8/6/2022 10:32 PM
T
o: housingelement <[email protected]>
B-61
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 175
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) My Comments on "Housing Element Draft"
Bob Thomas <[email protected]>
Mon 8/8/2022 10:52 AM
To:housingelement <[email protected]>
My comments on "Housing Element Draft”
I agree that additional affordable-housing needs to be built in Fremont & ADU’s are one way to do this. I also think that expensive & time-consuming individual-environmental-studies are not appropriate for small projects. However, environmental considerations do matter when individual projects add up & affect the livability of the entire community.
For example, one important metric of livability is Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) cover percentage.
According to the 2020 Fremont UTC Assessment
(
fremont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/1061/637751511027500000), Fremont UTC is 14.4% compared to a range of 37% to 18% for Palo Alto, Oakland, Cupertino, Alameda, Campbell, and Mountain View (page 7).
To protect & improve Fremont’s UTC, this Assessment recommends: 1) protect most existing trees in Fremont, 2) plant new trees on an ongoing basis to replace trees that die from any cause, 3) plant additional trees to increase community canopy cover in the future for the many benefits that trees provide such as:
"improving air quality, reducing temperature, making spaces more inviting, & carbon sequestration."
"Planting trees near impervious surfaces can offset the urban heat island effect, stormwater runoff and energy consumption. Plantable space in the right-of-way in many cases is near to high concentrations of impervious surfaces. ... The priority planting analysis should be used to identify planting opportunities in areas with high concentrations of impervious surfaces…" Building new housing means adding to the current 67% impervious surfaces in Fremont (page 2) which by itself degrades community livability. This means that mitigation using new trees is essential to offset new development as well as to help make up for current low-densities of trees in some communities.
Please add text to "Housing Element Draft” to protect existing trees as much as practical and to require planting and caring for more than just replacement trees (as space allows in each project).
Each project proposal should include a map of 1) existing trees and impervious surfaces, 2) trees proposed to be removed, and 3) proposed sites for new trees with tree species selected from an approved list.
A reference to "
fremont.gov/permits/tree-permit” should be included to provide information related to requirements for protecting & planting street trees in Fremont.
A reference to Municipal Code on "Tree Preservation"
(codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/#!/Fremont18/Fremont18215.html#18.215.050) should be included to provide info on protecting existing trees in Fremont.
B-62
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 176
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) Sincerely,
Robert Thomas
B-63
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 177
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) Save Fremont's Trees
Steve Elman <[email protected]>
Mon 8/8/2022 6:13 AM
To:housingelement <[email protected]>
S
teven Elman
41461 Timber Creek Terrace
Fremont, CA 94539
While I agree that Fremont needs to create more housing, it should not be done at the expense of our existing trees. All existing trees need to be fully protected as stated in our tree ordinances. Trees provide multiple benefits to our environment, which sorely needs help to mitigate the effects of climate change.
We must assure that any new ordinances or plans provide safeguards to prevent tree removal and to prevent replacement of green space with concrete. Failure to provide these protections of trees and green surfaces would result in the creation of “heat island effects” and would contribute to the damaging effects of climate change.
Please assure the absolute protection of our trees.
B-64
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 178
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) Comment, Housing Element
Tara Gill <[email protected]>
Mon 8/8/2022 6:50 PM
To:housingelement <[email protected]>
Hello,
I was happy to hear that Fremont will be allowing additional ADU's for property owners. I hope this measure will help meet the housing needs of our growing population. One item of concern with this draft is that there is no mention of how street trees will be protected. I am concerned that without addressing the issue, many trees will be removed and that lots that are supposed to have a tree but do not, will not be required to plant one.
Many of our recent reports such as the Climate Action Plan, Parks Plan, and Urban Forest Master Plan call for much more green infrastructure, and I would hate to see us lose more tree canopy because we did not take the time to seize the opportunity to follow our own recommendations.
Thank you, and I hope that this communication will influence you to introduce some language in the draft that will uphold our tree ordinances.
Sincerely,
Tara Gill
2925 Barrington Terrace, Fremont, CA 94536
B-65
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 179
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) Draft Housing Element
Timothy Gavin <[email protected]>
Sun 8/7/2022 11:33 PM
To:housingelement <[email protected]>
I would like to see more aesthetic considerations in the location and setbacks of ADU's. Moreover, some maintenance of the existing trees should be part of the plan. Good luck with your project. Tim Gavin, Fremont resident.
Tim GAvin
510.676.7060
Get
Outlook for iOS
B-66
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 180
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) Save Fremont's trees
Tom Holt <[email protected]>
Mon 8/8/2022 6:17 AM
To:housingelement <[email protected]>
Although Fremont needs more housing, existing trees should be saved as a priority, as well. New plans and ordinances should include protections for trees. Thank you very much! Thomas Holt
Fremont resident
B-67
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 181
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) August 3, 2022
Planning Department and City Council
City of Fremont
39550 Liberty Street
Fremont, CA 94538
Re: Draft Housing Element Needs Robust and Specific Parking Reforms Dear Fremont Planning Department and Fremont City Council, TransForm is a regional non-profit focused on creating connected and healthy communities that can meet climate goals, reduce traffic, and include housing affordable to everyone. We applaud Fremont’s work to date on the Draft Housing Element. However, to meet housing, transportation, and climate goals, Fremont needs to expand on its successful programs and initiate some new ones.
In particular, there will need to be an effective mix of:
● Reducing the amount of parking mandated for housing and providing incentives and programs to drive less (Transportation Demand Management or TDM)
● Developing sufficient programs to meet affordable home targets of RHNA We appreciate Program 34 which will further reduce parking requirements and study the feasibility of eliminating residential parking minimums. However this program lacks specifics on how much Fremont plans to reduce parking in the TOD zone, or a commitment to implementing other parking reforms like those listed above. It is clear that Fremont understands the constraint to development parking poses, however lacks a clear and specific plan to implement reform.
The need to eliminate or greatly reduce parking minimums is more important than ever. Each new parking space costs $30,000-$80,000. With inflation driving up construction costs since these1 estimates, two spaces may now cost up to $200,000. Beyond construction costs, parking takes up essential space that could provide more homes, services, or community amenities.
TransForm recommends that Fremont consider the following policies in the Housing Element:
1. Funding a more robust study of parking reforms, particularly how smart parking policies (in addition to eliminating minimums) could positively impact housing, transportation and other goals. 1 https://www.shoupdogg.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/05/Cutting-the-Cost-of-Parking-Requirements.pdf 560 14TH STREET , SUITE 400, OAKLAND, CA 94612 | T: 510.740.3150 | WWW.TRANSFORMCA.ORG 1 B-68
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE)
2. Requiring unbundled parking for certain transit oriented developments.This is easier for building managers to implement now with new parking tech tools like Parkade.
3. Implementing TDMs such as requiring developers to buy annual bus passes for residents at a discounted bulk rate.
To show the tremendous transportation and climate benefits of these policies, as well as some of the financial savings for residents and reduced costs for development, we have used our GreenTRIP Connect tool to create scenarios for a potential future development site at39160 Paseo Padre Parkway located in the TOD zone. This site is identified in Fremont’s draft Housing Element Site Inventory as a potential future opportunity site for this RHNA cycle, currently the Gateway Plaza. The California Office of Planning and Research recommends GreenTRIP Connect as a tool to use while developing General Plans and is especially useful during the development of Housing Elements (the tool is free to use and supports better planning at the site and city-wide level).
By implementing the strategies above at 39160 Paseo Padre Parkway, GreenTRIP Connect predicts:
1. Implementing unbundling and providing transit passes at this site would decrease demand for parking by 36% and result in resident transportation savings of $1,008 per year.
2. With right-sized parking, incorporating the benefits of unbundled parking and free transit passes, the development would cost $3,225,000 less to build relative to current parking standards.
3. When combined with 100% affordable housing these strategies resulted in an incredible 62% reduction in driving and greenhouse gas emissions for the site, compared to the county average.
4. If an affordable development with smart parking strategies were built on this site each household would drive 7,165 less miles per year creating a greener and safer community.
Through eliminating the high costs of parking, homes can be offered at more affordable prices, reducing the number of community members that face extreme housing cost burdens, getting priced out of their community, and/or becoming unsheltered. Residents, new and old alike, will greatly benefit from the reduction in vehicle traffic and associated air pollution (see scenarios here).
In addition to parking and transportation strategies, we applaud some of the proposed strategies to support more affordable homes, since these would have such tremendous benefits as noted in the GreenTRIP scenario. Two of the most important are Program 63 which will prioritize affordable housing on public property and Program 50 which allows reduced impact fees for Affordable Housing Projects.
These programs are a cost-effective complement to strategies focused on housing production.
The GreenTRIP scenarios and the chart on the final page of our Scenario document also show the imperative of programs to accelerate development of affordable homes, like Programs 63 & 50. Not only do these households use transit more and drive much less than average, but success in this area can help provide homes for unsheltered individuals and families. A commitment to these programs will show that Fremont is committed to planning for all levels of the 7,732 RHNA BMR units anticipated in this cycle.
560 14TH STREET , SUITE 400, OAKLAND, CA 94612 | T: 510.740.3150 | WWW.TRANSFORMCA.ORG 2 B-69
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) Please let me know if you have any questions. TransForm hopes this information explains why Fremont should make parking reform and affordable housing development a priority in the Housing Element update.
Sincerely,
Kendra Ma
Housing Policy Analyst
[email protected]
560 14TH STREET , SUITE 400, OAKLAND, CA 94612 | T: 510.740.3150 | WWW.TRANSFORMCA.ORG 3 B-70
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 184
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) Trees
Marilyn <[email protected]>
Sat 8/6/2022 10:36 PM
To:housingelement <[email protected]>
Please be sure that adu projects are done without tree removal- or require replacement if trees need to be removed. Use water permeable hard scape to eliminate runoff. Landscaping will be important to blend the additional units into the neighborhoods. Thank you. Marilyn Singer
Sent from my iPhone
B-71
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) Removing trees to install ADUs
bonnie lee kellogg <[email protected]>
Sun 8/7/2022 5:02 AM
To:housingelement <[email protected]>
Fremont has always been a beautiful city and one of the reason has been our strict tree ordinances.
I am greatly GREATLY concerned that your proposed ADU policy will allow the indiscriminate removal of valuable trees from our city.
Especially now with global warming, TREES are one of our best heat mitigators. If residents are allowed to remove trees from our yards and replace them with cement we will be creating a sweltering concrete jungle
Please ensure that no trees can be removed and that appropriate landscaping is required, especially in front of homes.
Thank you.
bonnie kellogg
5104 troy avenue
fremont, ca. 94536
510-760-7207
B-72
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 186
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) Housing Element Open House
Carol Schneider <[email protected]>
Sun 8/7/2022 11:34 PM
To:housingelement <[email protected]>
Hello City of Fremont,
When you write the document on ADC housing, I hope it includes language that also protects trees.
There is no urgency to finish this document. It should also include the usual fees for the development of housing.
Thank you for working on this housing problem but also considering the longer and important problem of tree cover and need.
Sincerely,
Carol Schneider
B-73
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 187
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE)
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 188
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE)
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 189
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE)
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 190
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE)
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 191
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) Exhibit A
1. 39160 Paseo Padre Parkway-645 units
2. 39410 Fremont Blvd. -87 units
3. 3923 Stenerson Ln. -36 units
4. 39360 Fremont Blvd. -41 units
5. 39390 Fremont Blvd. -49 units
6. Mowry Ave./Hastings -11 units
7. 39310 Fremont Blvd. -58 units
8. 3850 Beacon Ave. -34 units
9. 3200 Mowry Ave. -65 units
10. 3744 Mowry Ave. -191 units
11. 3400 Mowry Ave. -42 units
12. 3456 Mowry Ave. -35 units
13. 3340 Mowry Ave. -81 units
14. 3101 Walnut Ave. -366 units
15. 39222 Fremont Blvd. -43 units
16. 39039 Paseo Padre Parkway-94 units
17. 36930 Fremont Blvd. -21 units
18. 3723 Peralta Blvd. -37 units
19. 3769 Peralta Blvd. -13 units
20. 3833 Peralta Blvd. - 16 units
21. 3055 Mowry Ave. -44 units
22. 38700 Paseo Padre Parkway-75 units
23. 38750 Paseo Padre Parkway-76 units
24. 36580 Fremont Blvd. -41 units
25. 36640 Fremont Blvd. -28 units
26. Beacon Ave./Fremont Blvd. -52 units
27. 4050 Alder Ave. -17 units
28. 36761 Fremont Blvd. -53 units
29. 36789 Fremont Blvd. -68 units
30. 4075 Thornton Ave. -19 units
31. 4045 Thornton Ave. -15 units
32. 4088 Thornton Ave. -17 units
33. 37063 Fremont Blvd. -28 units
34. 37119 Fremont Blvd. -16 units
35. 37555 Dusterberry Way -9 units
36. 37557 Dusterberry Way -13 units
37. 4461 Peralta Blvd. -15 units
38. 37485 Fremont Blvd. -16 units
39. 4100 Peralta Blvd. -92 units
40. 38487 Fremont Blvd. -23 units
41. 38491 Fremont Blvd. -101 units
42. 38665 Fremont Blvd. -18 units
43. 38619 Fremont Blvd. -65 units
44. 585 Mowry Ave. -94 units
B-78
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 192
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE)
45. 670 Mowry Ave. -152 units
46. 39160 Paseo Padre Parkway-645 units
47. 43456 Ellsworth St. -30 units
48. 1500 Washington Blvd. -39 units
49. 40645 Fremont Blvd. -217 units
50. 41989 Fremont Blvd. -62 units
51. 42151 Blacow Road -18 units
52. 39554 Paseo Padre Parkway-18 units
53. 42088 Osgood Road -47 units
54. Osgood Rd./Blacow Rd. -160 units
55. 41791 Osgood Road -20 units
56. 41094 Fremont Blvd. -35 units
57. 41068 Fremont Blvd. -20 units
58. 3902 Washington Blvd. -78 units
59. 41060 Fremont Blvd. -36 units
60. 3906 Washington Blvd. -12 units
61. 3741 Washington Blvd. -15 units
62. Washington Blvd./Union St. -15 units
63. 3824 Union St. -31 units
64. 40984 Fremont Blvd. -30 units
65. 40968 Fremont Blvd. -18 units
66. 40860 Fremont Blvd. -19 units
67. 40750 Chapel Way-12 units
68. 40820 Fremont Blvd. -14 units
69. 40900 Fremont Blvd. -29 units
70. 40910 Fremont Blvd. -45 units
71. 40922 Fremont Blvd. -31 units
72. 40880 Fremont Blvd. -12 units
73. 40815 Fremont Blvd. -44 units
74. 40861 Fremont Blvd. -28 units
75. 41085 Fremont Blvd. -55 units
76. 41057 Fremont Blvd. -39 units
77. 41025 Trimboli Way-35 units
78. 40786 Fremont Blvd. -18 units
79. 39737 Paseo Padre Parkway -29 units
80. 39767 Paseo Padre Parkway -79 units
81. 41200 Blacow -112 units
82. Stevenson Blvd./Blacow Rd. -100 units
83. 35057 Fremont Blvd. -18 units
84. 3880 Lake Arrowhead Ave. -47 units
B-79
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 193
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) December 19, 2022
To: City of Fremont, California Department of Housing and Community Development Re: Housing Element Public Comment
Fremont For Everyone supports the California Housing and Community Development (HCD) written comments to Fremont's proposed Housing Element.1 We thank HCD for their thoroughness and support all of the concerns and recommendations that they raised.
We have a few further suggestions, many of which are based on Fremont’s response to our earlier comments.
In regard to Programs:
1. Fremont for Everyone would like to see stronger language on proactive enforcement for substandard housing violations. We appreciate the city for adding language to Program 1 around proactive enforcement in response to our previous public comments, however, we don’t feel that the language goes far enough. The current language relies on one unit in an apartment complex to make the first complaint before the city proactively inspects other units.
Proactive enforcement should not require any resident complaint. Rather, the City should initiate random inspections. This protects tenants in various ways. In a complaint-based system, landlords can retaliate against tenants who make complaints.
In a proactive system, landlords would know that there may not have been any tenants who complained, so they should be less likely to retaliate.
Proactive enforcement language should further explicitly mention that these random inspections should check for ADA violations and that the City should enforce remedying accessibility issues that are found. It should be clarified in plain language, that in accordance with existing law, the tenant must not be forced to pay the cost of ADA accessibility renovations; instead the landlord must pay for these changes as part of their duty without displacing the current tenants or causing undue hardship on each tenant. 1 https://www.fremont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/12005 B-80
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 194
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE)
2. For Program 33, we applaud Fremont for adding a specific commitment. However, we feel that it does not go far enough to take advantage of the high value of the land in those areas. We encourage Fremont to alter the base zoning through SB 10 to allow more homes per lot in more configurations, not limited to the ADU configuration, up to 10 units per lot. Instead or in addition, the Program could explicitly clarify that the additional ADUs could be added on lots created through an SB 9 urban lot split.
In regard to the Sites Inventory:
1. In our previous public comment, we raised a concern about the large number of sites where AB 1397 applies, that is to say, sites that have appeared on previous housing elements already. The City responded to that part of our letter under the label 8.46; however, the specific concern about the number of AB 1397 sites was not addressed.
Specifically, we would like to understand, given that these sites have not seen development during previous 8-year cycles, what has changed so that the City believes there is a good chance they will be developed in this cycle? Certainly, thanks to AB 1397 and the corresponding overlay zone (noted in Program 44), they now enjoy by-right approval for projects that contain enough affordable housing units. Does the city believe that that is sufficient that most of these sites will get developed this time? Is there more that can be done to facilitate development on these sites, such as zoning them to accommodate higher density?
2. Many of the high-unit-count sites are based on partial redevelopment of active shopping centers. While we agree that these would be excellent sites for housing due to the access to groceries, restaurants, and other amenities in these shopping centers, there are many challenges to this pattern of partial redevelopment. To help ensure development on these sites is a success, we recommend the city adopt an ordinance to allow homebuilders to maximize density by calculating the Floor Area Ratio based on the size of the full parcel, even in the case that said full parcel has been split into separate lots, for purposes of conforming to maximum densities specified by the zoning code.
3. There are some sites as an example and not limited to #268 (4440 Decoto Rd) where the existing use is already housing. For that particular site, the existing use is listed as “triplex,” while the proposed redeveloped use is 2 units, which appears to be a net decrease in housing units. It’s unclear how that would be consistent with SB 8, the Housing Crisis Act, or how it would add to the housing stock.
Thank you for your time and consideration, and for all your hard work on the Housing Element.
Sincerely,
Fremont for Everyone
B-81
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 195
Attachment: Informational Item 3 - Planning Commission Notes and Corrections Sheet (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE)
Minutes Planning Commission – December 22, 2022 PAGE 1
MINUTES
FREMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 22, 2022
This meeting was conducted utilizing the teleconferencing software Zoom , consistent with Government Code Section 54953(e) (Assembly Bill 361).
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Daulton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Daulton
Vice Chairperson Rao
Commissioners Basrai, Liu, Steckler, Yee, Zhang
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Joel Pullen, Planning Manager
Heather Lee, Senior Deputy City Attorney
Rafael E. Alvarado, Jr., City Attorney
Wayland Li, Principal Planner
Courtney Pal, Associate Planner
Trish Cordova, Recording Clerk
Maria Salinas, Recording Clerk
Chavez Company, Remote Stenocaptioning
Napoleon Batalao, Video Technician
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Zhang moved to approve minutes from the December 8, 2022 meeting and Commissioner Yee seconded.
Motion carried unanimously.
DISCLOSURES: None
Timestamps from the video webcast are listed below each Public Hearing Item Number and are in hours format, as follow s: (hours:minutes:seconds). Video webcasts of Planning Commission meetings can be found at: https://fremontca.viebit.com/#
CONSENT CALENDAR None
Planning Manager Joel Pullen formally introduced City Attorney Rafael E. Alvarado, Jr. to the Commission. Mr. Alvarado then expressed pleasure in meeting and working with this Commission.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 196
Attachment: Informational Item 4 - Draft 12.22.22 Planning Commission Minutes (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE)
Minutes Planning Commission – December 22, 2022 PAGE 2
PUBLIC/ORAL
COMMUNICATIONS None
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Chairperson Daulton requested that Item 2 be hear d first, as it will be continued to a date uncertain. No objections were made.
Item 2. WINTER 2022/2023 CODE UPDATE - CITYWIDE - (PLN2023-00122) – To (00:06:18) consider amending various chapters of the Fremont Municipal Code Title 17 (Subdivisions) and Title 18 (Planning and Zoning) to clarify and enhance definitions, procedures, and standards related to development and use of property within the City; and to consider exemptions from the requirements of the Cali fornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), each on a separate and independent basis, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15061 (Review for Exemption) and §15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning).
Planning Manager Joel Pullen introduced the item and explained that staff needed more time to prepare, before presenting to the Commission.
Chairperson Daulton opened and closed t he public hearing, as there was no one requesting to speak.
Commissioner Yee moved to approve staff recommendation and Commissioner Steckler seconded.
IT WAS MOVED ( YEE/STECKLER) AND CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE (7 -0-0-0-0) THE PLANNING COMMISSION – HELD A PUBLIC HEARING;
AND
CONTINUED THE ITEM TO A DATE UNCERTAIN.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: 7 – Basrai, Daulton, Liu, Rao, Steckler, Yee, Zhang NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: 0
RECUSE: 0
Item 1. 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE - CITYWIDE - (PLN2022-00335) – (00:08:40) To consider a General Plan Amendment to adopt the 2023- 2031 Housing Element, an eight-year plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community, and to consider a finding that no further environmental review is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per, without limitation, each as a separate and independent basis, CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and/or 15162, in that the proposed Housing Element update is consistent with the density established by the General Plan, for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2010082060)
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 197
Attachment: Informational Item 4 - Draft 12.22.22 Planning Commission Minutes (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE)
Minutes Planning Commission – December 22, 2022 PAGE 3
was previously prepared and certified, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed Housing Element update would have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Additionally, many programs in the Housing Element qualify as being statutorily or categorically exempt from CEQA review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378 (Definition of a Project), 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies), 15267 (Financial Assistance to Low- or Moderate-Income Housing), 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land), 15301 (Existing Facilities), and 15311 (Accessory Structures).
Planning Manager Joel Pullen introduced the item.
Principal Planner Wayland L i and Associate Planner Courtney Pal co-presented.
Wayland Li brought attention to the notes and corrections document (attached).
Commissioner Yee asked about the length of the document and if the report would be translated into multiple languages, to which Pri ncipal Planner Wayland L i responded. Planning Manager Joel Pullen added that the document was posted on the City’s website, which provides translation assistance.
Commissioner Zhang asked clarifying questions regarding the timeline and due date of the document, to which Principal Planner Wayland Li responded.
Chairperson Daulton asked clarifying questions about non- vacant sites, and mixed- use and affordable development projects, to which Principal Planner Wayland Li responded.
Commissioner Yee asked clarifying questions regarding Accessory Dwelling Unit and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit developments, as well as correspondence received just before the meeting, to which Principal Planner Wayland Li responded.
Commissioner Liu commented on the Housing Element Update coinciding with the State’s plan to phase out non-electric vehicles and the strain it would have on the City’s current infrastructure, to which Planning Manager Joel Pullen responded that the subject was important to address, and that the topic was greater than the focus of the Housing Element Update alone.
Commissioner Zhang asked clarifying questions regarding short-term rental units, to which Planning Manager Joel Pullen responded.
Chairperson Daulton opened the public hearing and invited public comments.
Kelly Abreu commented on the development impact fees imposed by the City of Fremont for developments and then questioned why specialized fee indexes would be used.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 198
Attachment: Informational Item 4 - Draft 12.22.22 Planning Commission Minutes (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE)
Minutes Planning Commission – December 22, 2022 PAGE 4
Lisa Danz commented on the topic of electric vehicles and encouraged the Commission to remember that they have the power to make land use policy that decreases vehicle miles traveled.
Steve Reilly stated that he was involved with two development proposals that were situated near the Warm S prings/South Fremont BART Station and wanted t he Commission to know that the organization he represents (unidentified) is amenable to having those potential development sites listed in the Housing Element Update report.
Chairperson Daulton closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Yee moved t o approve staff recommendation and Commissioner Zhang seconded.
IT WAS MOVED ( YEE/ZHANG) AND CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE (7-0-0-0-0) THE PLANNING COMMISSION – HELD PUBLIC HEARING; AND
FOUND THAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), PER, WITHOUT LIMITATION, EACH AS A SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT BASIS, CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183 AND/OR 15162 IN
THAT THE PROPOSED HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE DENSITY ESTABL ISHED BY THE GENERAL PLAN, FOR WHICH AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) (SCH#2010082060) WAS
PREVIOUSLY PREPARED AND CERTIFIED AND NONE OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSITATING FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ARE PRESENT; AND/OR CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(B)(3), IN THAT
IT CAN BE SEEN WITH CERTAINTY THAT THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY THAT
THE PROPOSED HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE WOULD HAVE THE
POTENTIAL FOR CAUSING A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT. ADDITIONALLY, MANY PROGRAMS IN THE HOUSING
ELEMENT QUALIFY AS BEING STATUTORILY OR CATEGORICALLY
EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15378 (DEFINITION OF A PROJECT), 15262 (FEASIBILITY AND PLANNING STUDIES), 15267 (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO LOW - OR MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING), 15305 (MINOR ALTERATIONS IN LAND), 15301 (EXISTING FACILITIES), AND 15311 (ACCESSORY STRUCTURES); AND
FOUND THAT THE 2023 -2031 HOUSING ELEMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN;
AND
FOUND THAT THE ADOPTION OF THE 2023 -2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
FURTHERS THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITY;
AND
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 199
Attachment: Informational Item 4 - Draft 12.22.22 Planning Commission Minutes (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE)
Minutes Planning Commission – December 22, 2022 PAGE 5
RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN TO ADOPT THE 2023 -2031 HOUSING ELEMENT (EXHIBIT “A”).
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: 7 – Basrai, Daulton, Liu, Rao, Steckler, Yee, Zhang NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: 0
RECUSE: 0
DISCUSSION ITEMS
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
Information from Commission and Staff:
• Information from staff, as reported by Planning Manager Joel Pullen:
o The Housing Element Update is scheduled to go before City Council on January 10, 2023.
Clarification was then given to Action Items that will be presented to this Commission as they come up in rotation (i.e., 12, 24, and 36 months, following adoption of said update). o The decision on the Pape Machinery Pylon Sign Conditional Use Permit (PLN2021-00378) has been appealed to the City Council and is anticipated to be heard either January or February 2023.
o Mayor Lily Mei appointed Shobana Ramamurthi to serve on the Planning Commission .
She will be onboarded prior to the next meeting.
o Lastly, Planning Commission will resume in-person meetings at the first meeting in 2023, and the meetings will held in the City Council Chambers. Information regarding training for those meetings will be forthcoming.
• Actions from City Council Regular Meetings: None
• Information from Commission:
o Commissioner Yee commented on registration for the annual Planning Commissioner s Academy scheduled for March 29-31, 2023 and encouraged his fellow Commissioners to attend. Commissioner Yee then wished everyone Happy Holidays. o Chairperson Daulton announced that this would be his final meeting on the Planning Commission. Chair Daulton then thanked his fellow Commissioners, City staff, and Mayor Lily Mei, and expressed pleasure in serving on this Commission, and wishe d everyone Happy Holidays.
o Each of the Planning Commissioners then expressed appreciation for Chair Daulton’s service and leadership and wished him well for the future. Planning Manager Joel Pullen echoed thanks and appreciation for Chairperson Daulton’s service.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 200
Attachment: Informational Item 4 - Draft 12.22.22 Planning Commission Minutes (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE)
Minutes Planning Commission – December 22, 2022 PAGE 6
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
SUBMITTED and APPROVED BY:
Kim Salazar, Recording Clerk Joel Pullen, AICP, Secretary Planning Commission Planning Commission
Wayland Li, AICP, Principal Planner for
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 201
Attachment: Informational Item 4 - Draft 12.22.22 Planning Commission Minutes (4779 : 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) Fremont City Council Meeting: 01/10/23 07:00 PM
3300 Capitol Avenue Div/Dept: City Council
Fremont, CA 94538 Category: Council Referrals & Appointments
SCHEDULED
Sponsors:
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT (ID # 4788) DOC ID: 4788
Updated: 1/5/2023 12:19 PM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 1 MAYOR MEI REFERRAL: REFERRAL FOR FLAG RAISING
Contact Persons:
Name: Lily Mei
Title: Mayor
Div/Dept: City Council
Phone: 510-284-4011
E-Mail: [email protected]
MAYOR MEI REFERRAL: REFERRAL FOR FLAG RAISING
In recognition of tonight’s (12/20/2022) proposed referral for flag raising passing in the spirit of unity and being equitable as a compassionate welcoming city I am requesting that flag raising for other Diversity Equity Inclusion protected class (including but not exclusive to):
1. API Heritage Month
2. Cesar Chavez Day
3. Confucius Birthday
4. Latino Heritage Month
5. Native American Heritage Month
6. Filipino Heritage Month
7. Jewish Heritage Month
8. Muslim Heritage Month
9. Hindu Heritage Month
10. Sikh Heritage Month
11. Fred Korematsu Day
12. Lunar New Year
13. Diwali
14. Larry Itliong Day
15. March Fong Eu Day
16. Transgender Remembrance Day note in addition to Pride Day
17. Autism,Awareness Day
18. Deaf Awareness Month
19. Blind Awareness Month
7.A.1
Packet Pg. 202