Agenda packet, first session — Fremont City Council, April 16, 2024 (part 3 of 3)

1. City of Fremont, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan. Land Use Element. Adopted December 2011.

Available: https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning-buildingpermit-services/plans-maps-guidelines/general-plan.

2. City of Fremont, 2023. SACGISA. Fremont Mapping. Available online at https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/gis.

3. City of Fremont, 2023. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Planning and Zoning. Available online at https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/.

4. Project Plans. Prepared for the City of Fremont.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 65

1.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:

GP EIR
Findings
Relationship to GP EIR
Findings: Project Conclusions:

Equal or
Less
Severe
New or
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
Applicable Mitigation,
Standards and
Requirements
Resulting
Level of
Significance
a): Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state?
LTS ◼ ☐ - No Impact
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
LTS ◼ ☐ - No Impact

1.12.1 Environmental Setting
The Project would redevelop a 3.23-acre portion of the Gateway Plaza Shopping Center adjacent to Walnut Avenue and BART Way with a new five-story market-rate apartment building containing 206 units. Parking for the project consists of an integrated five-story parking garage containing 263 vehicle parking spaces. The project would be built at the southeast edge of the shopping center in an area that is currently improved with a 26,550- square-foot commercial space (long a fitness center, but currently operating as a seasonal retail use) and a parking field containing 237 vehicle parking spaces that serves existing shopping center uses. These improvements would be demolished as part of project activities, replaced by the proposed building and a new parking field off its southwestern edge containing 48 vehicle parking spaces.

The City of Fremont General Plan identifies six mineral resource sectors in the City designated by the State Mining and Geology Board as containing regionally significant aggregate resources. The project site is not within any of these sectors identified in the General Plan. According to the USGS Mineral Resources On-Line Spatial Data (USGS, 2017), the project site is not in close proximity to or located on a known mineral resource.

1.12.2 Discussion
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
According to local and state mineral resources maps (USGS, 2017), there are no known mineral resources of importance to the state or region on the site or within the surrounding area. Therefore, no impact to such resources would result and no mitigation is required.

There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: None
Mitigation: None required.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 66
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? The project site is not identified as containing any locally important mineral resources in the Fremont General Plan. There are no operating mines or quarries in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no impact to such resources would result and no mitigation is required.

There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding loss of availability of a locally important mineral resources recovers site. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: None
Mitigation: None required.

1.12.3 CEQA Conclusions Pertaining to Mineral Resources CEQA Conclusions Relative to an Infill Development Exemption The Project is not located in a particularly sensitive environment (such as a known important mineral deposit).

The Project would not affect any environmental resources of critical concern as designated by federal, state or local agencies (such as mineral deposits or active mineral extraction operations considered important locally or regionally, as identified by the California Department of Conservation). The exception under CEQA Guidelines §15300.2(a) does not apply.

References

1. City of Fremont, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan. Land Use Element. Adopted December 2011.

Available: https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning-buildingpermit-services/plans-maps-guidelines/general-plan.

2. City of Fremont, 2023. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Planning and Zoning. Available online at https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/.

3. City of Fremont, 2023. SACGISA. Fremont Mapping. Available online at https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/gis.

4. United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2017, Mineral Resources On-Line Spatial Data, Available at https://mrdata.usgs.gov/general/map.html, Accessed 11/18/2023

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 67

1.13 NOISE
Would the Project:

GP EIR
Findings
Relationship to GP EIR
Findings: Project Conclusions:

Equal or
Less
Severe
New or
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
Applicable Mitigation,
Standards and
Requirements
Resulting
Level of
Significance
a): Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or in other applicable
local, state, or federal standards?
SU, even with
MM Noise-1
through
Noise-4
◼ ☐ SDR Construction
Noise
LTS with
SDR
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
SU, even with
MM Noise-5
◼ ☐ LTS
c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
LTS ◼ ☐ - LTS

1.13.1 Environmental Setting
The Project would redevelop a 3.23-acre portion of the Gateway Plaza Shopping Center adjacent to Walnut Avenue and BART Way with a new five-story market-rate apartment building containing 206 units. Parking for the project consists of an integrated five-story parking garage containing 263 vehicle parking spaces. The project would be built at the southeast edge of the shopping center in an area that is currently improved with a 26,550- square-foot commercial space (long a fitness center, but currently operating as a seasonal retail use) and a parking field containing 237 vehicle parking spaces that serves existing shopping center uses. These improvements would be demolished as part of project activities, replaced by the proposed building and a new parking field off its southwestern edge containing 48 vehicle parking spaces.

The proposed project would comply with the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code building measures and Title 24 standards. In addition, the proposed project would be designed to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Gold or Silver standards and would include 66 electric vehicle (EV) ready spaces, including 14 spaces with an EV charger installed, 27 EV capable spaces and one EV accessible van space. Once operational, the proposed project would generate approximately 898 average daily trips (Kimley Horn 2022). The proposed project would include a 150- to 250- horsepower diesel fire pump, which is expected to run 26 hours per year.

Construction activities for the project would begin the first quarter of 2025 and continue for 24 months ending in 2027. The proposed project would include the demolition of 26,550 square feet of existing uses and the import of 4,900 cubic yards of soil.

There are no airports within the City of Fremont or within two miles of the project site. Airports are not a significant contributor to the existing noise environment. The closest airports by approximate distance from the project site are San Jose International Airport (12.5 miles to the project site), Moffett Federal Airfield (9.5 miles to the project site), and Hayward Executive Airport (10.1 miles to the project site).

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 68
The nearest noise-sensitive use is the Kaiser Hospital to the east, approximately 400 feet from the eastern edge of the project site.

1.13.2 Discussion
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards? While construction noise will vary, it is expected that average noise levels during construction at the nearest commercial uses to the west would approach 83 dBA Leq, while noise levels at the nearest sensitive uses to the east would approach 66 dBA Leq during the site preparation phase, which would take place for a duration of approximately 2 weeks. Average noise levels during other construction phases would range from 69 dBA Leq to 82 dBA Leq. While construction operations have the potential to generate audible noise at surrounding uses, construction noise levels generated during the permitted hours are exempt from compliance with City noise standards and would be less than significant. No noise reduction measures are required. Furthermore, the elevated noise levels would cease once project construction is completed.

Construction activities will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the City’s General Plan and the Municipal Code, which limits temporary construction work within 500 feet of residential land uses to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and holidays. The City does not allow construction activities on Sundays for sites located within 500 feet of one or more residences. Further, the City shall require the construction crew to adhere to the Section

18.218.050 in the Municipal Code as shown below:

FMC 18.218.050(d) Noise: To reduce the potential for noise impacts during construction, the following requirements shall be implemented:

1. Construction equipment shall be well-maintained and used judiciously to be as quiet as practical.

2. Construction, excavating, grading, and filling activities (including the loading and unloading of materials, truck movements, and warming of equipment motors) shall be limited as provided in Section 18.160.010.

3. All internal combustion engine-driven equipment shall be equipped with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.

4. The contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.

5. Loading, staging areas, stationary noise generating equipment, etc., shall be located as far as feasible from sensitive receptors.

6. The contractor shall comply with Air Resource Board idling prohibitions of unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.

7. Signs shall be posted at the construction site that include permitted construction days and hours, a day and evening contact number for the job site, and a contact number for the project sponsor in the event of noise complaints. The applicant shall designate an on-site complaint and enforcement manager to track and respond to noise complaints. (Ord. 27-2016 § 37, 12-6-16; Ord. 23-2018 § 41, 10-2-18.) As stated above, noise impacts associated with construction activities are regulated by the City’s Noise Ordinance. The proposed project would be required to comply with the construction hours specified in the City’s Noise Ordinance, which states that construction activities on sites within 500 feet of a residentially zoned property shall be limited to the weekday hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and weekend or holiday hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Additionally, Policy 10 – 8.5 of the City’s General Plan Noise Element requires the proposed project to develop techniques to minimize the noise impacts on residences from construction activities in or near residential neighborhoods. With the required Construction Management Plan as part of FMC Section 18.218.050 (c), construction activity noise impacts would be less than significant.

There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding an increase in ambient noise levels. The proposed project would

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 69
result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Ground-borne noise and vibration from construction activity would be mostly low. Table I of the Noise Memo prepared for the project by LSA Associates provides reference PPV (in/sec) values from typical construction vibration sources at 25 ft. Although the specific pieces of equipment that would be used on the site are unknown at this time, to provide an analysis of potential vibration levels expected for a project of this size, a large bulldozer would generate 0.089 PPV (in/sec) of ground-borne vibration when measured at 25 ft, based on the FTA Manual (2018). As shown in Table D of the Noise Memo prepared for the project by LSA Associates, it would take a minimum of 0.20 PPV (in/sec) to cause any potential building damage to non-engineered timber and masonry buildings. The closest structures to the project site are the commercial uses to the west of the site, approximately 10 ft from the construction activity limits. it is expected that vibration levels generated by dump trucks and other large equipment that would be as close as 15 ft from the property line would generate ground-borne vibration levels of up to 0.192 PPV (in/sec) at the closest structures to the project site. This vibration level would not exceed the 0.2 PPV (in/sec) threshold that is considered safe for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings. It is expected that construction activities using heavy equipment would generate vibration levels greater than 0.2 in/sec in PPV when operating within 10 ft of the property line, which would result in a potentially significant impact.

Vibration levels at all other buildings would be lower. With the incorporation of the CMP as required by Section

18.218.050 (c), construction would not result in any vibration damage, and impacts would be less than significant.

There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding groudborne vibration or noise. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The City does not have a commercial, military, or general aviation airport. Moffett Federal Airfield is a joint civilmilitary airport located about 9.5 miles southwest of the project site. Hayward Executive Airport and Mineta San José International Airport, which are both public-use airports, are located approximately 10.1 miles northwest and

12.5 miles south of the project site, respectively. The project site lies outside the area of influence for each of these airports. Noise from aircraft would not substantially increase ambient noise levels at the project site, and interior noise levels resulting from aircraft would be compatible with the proposed project. Therefore the project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation would be required.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required

1.13.3 CEQA Conclusions Pertaining to Noise and Vibration CEQA Conclusions Relative to an Infill Development Exemption As fully documented above, approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to noise. To reduce the potential for noise impacts during construction, the City’s SDR will be implemented. The Project would

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 70
not result in significant effects related to noise or vibration, and would meet the criteria pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d) (2) for an Infill Exemption based on noise.

References

1. City of Fremont, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan. Land Use Element. Adopted December 2011.

Available: https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning-buildingpermit-services/plans-maps-guidelines/general-plan

2. City of Fremont, 2023. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Planning and Zoning. Available online at https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/

3. City of Fremont, 2023. SACGISA. Fremont Mapping. Available online at https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/gis

4. LSA Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memo, October 31, 2023, prepared for the City of Fremont by LSA Associates

5. Project Plans. Prepared for the City of Fremont

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 71

1.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the Project:

GP EIR
Findings
Relationship to GP EIR
Findings: Project Conclusions:

Equal or
Less
Severe
New or
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
Applicable Mitigation,
Standards and
Requirements
Resulting
Level of
Significance
a): Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or
other infrastructure)?
LTS ◼ ☐ LTS
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
LTS ◼ ☐ No Impact

1.14.1 Environmental Setting
The Project would redevelop a 3.23-acre portion of the Gateway Plaza Shopping Center adjacent to Walnut Avenue and BART Way with a new five-story market-rate apartment building containing 206 units. Parking for the project consists of an integrated five-story parking garage containing 263 vehicle parking spaces. The project would be built at the southeast edge of the shopping center in an area that is currently improved with a 26,550- square-foot commercial space (long a fitness center, but currently operating as a seasonal retail use) and a parking field containing 237 vehicle parking spaces that serves existing shopping center uses. These improvements would be demolished as part of project activities, replaced by the proposed building and a new parking field off its southwestern edge containing 48 vehicle parking spaces. The project site is zoned City Center Urban Office and is subject to the City Center Community Plan. The General Plan land use designation for the site is City Center Commercial.

1.14.2 Discussion
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The project would construct 206 new residential units on a portion of a currently developed shopping center. The zoning for the site is City Center Urban Office and multi-family residential uses are a permitted use in the district.

The City Center community plan anticipated residential development so the population growth is not unplanned.

The City of Fremont 2023-2031 Housing Element as certified by the state of California, requires that per California Government Code Section 65583(a)(3) local governments to prepare an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. Chapter 8 of the Housing Element contains the sites inventory list for the City of Fremont, and the project site is identified on that list. Furthermore, in the City of Fremont’s adopted General Plan, Chapter 2 “Land Use,” it states that the City Center, which this project is located in, may also accommodate mid to high-rise residential projects incorporating housing above nonresidential uses. The population growth to the project site, and area it is located in, is planned and encouraged in both the 2023-2031 Housing Element and the City of Fremont General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce a substantial unplanned population growth in the area and would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant and no mitigation would be necessary. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 72
different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding unplanned population growth. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The proposed project would redevelop a portion of an existing commercial shopping center to residential uses.

The site does not currently have any residential uses and no residents would be displaced by the proposed project. Therefore, the project would have no impact and no mitigation would be required. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding displacement of existing people and housing. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: None
Mitigation: None required

1.14.3 CEQA Conclusions Pertaining to Population and Housing CEQA Conclusions Relative to an Infill Development Exemption Based on the information presented above, the Project is consistent with the General Plan land use classification for the Project site. The Project’s residential density is consistent with the General Plan’s residential density range and it’s provision of new housing opportunities is consistent with the Fremont Housing Element goals for providing new housing. Based on these characteristics, the Project would meet the criteria pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(a) for an Infill Exemption based on General Plan and zoning consistency.

References

1. State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State — January 1, 2021-2023. Sacramento, California, May 2023. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-citiescounties-and-the-state-2020-2023/ Accessed November 8, 2023.

2. City of Fremont, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan. Housing Element. Adopted January 2023.

Available: https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning-buildingpermit-services/plans-maps-guidelines/general-plan.

3. City of Fremont, 2023. SACGISA. Fremont Mapping. Available online at https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/gis.

4. City of Fremont, 2023. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Planning and Zoning. Available online at https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/.

5. Project Plans. Prepared for the City of Fremont.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 73

1.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the Project:

GP EIR
Findings
Relationship to GP EIR
Findings: Project Conclusions:

Equal or
Less
Severe
New or
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
Applicable Mitigation,
Standards and
Requirements
Resulting
Level of
Significance
a) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, or the need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
• Fire protection
• Police Protection
• Schools
• Parks
• Other Public facilities
LTS ◼ ☐ LTS

1.15.1 Environmental Setting
Fire Protection
Fire protection services in the project area are provided by the City of Fremont Fire Department. In 2020, the Fire Department responded to 9,321 medical calls for service and 602 fire emergencies. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) response accounted for approximately 65% of all calls (City of Fremont Fire Department, 2020). The Fire Department aims to maintain a five minute thirty second response time 90 percent of the time for all emergencies located below the “Toe of the Hill” line. As of 2018, the average response time is three minutes twenty-eight seconds, which surpasses the City’s goal (City of Fremont Fire Department, 2018). The closest station to the project site is Fire Station 1, approximately 0.9 miles from the project site.

Police Protection
Police protection services are provided by the City of Fremont Police Department. The Police Department Dispatch Center handles an average of 800 calls per day. The Police Department deploys officers in three separate zones. The project site is located in Zone 1. The City has one police station located at 2000 Stevenson Boulevard, which is approximately 0.5 miles from the project site.

Schools
The project site is located within the service boundaries of the Fremont Unified School District (FUSD). The project site is currently entirely commercial and located within a commercial neighborhood with some residences existing in the immediate vicinity. Existing neighborhoods adjacent to the project site are currently served by Parkmont Elementary School, which is located at 2601 Parkside Drive approximately 0.9 miles from the project site. The middle school that serves nearby residences is Centerville Middle School, which is located at 41365 Chapel Way approximately 1.8 miles from the project site. Finally, the high school that serves nearby residences is Washington High School, which is located at 38442 Fremont Boulevard and approximately 1.3 miles from the project site.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 74
Parks
Parks operated by the City of Fremont in the vicinity of the project site include Central Park. The City maintains a parkland standard of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The park development impact fee for new residential development is based on maintaining this ratio (City of Fremont, 2011).

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

Fire protection?
The project would replace the existing 26,550 commercial building with the construction of a new five story residential building containing 206 apartments. The new building would result in additional fire protection demand for the new development. The nearest fire station is Fire Station #1 located at 4200 Mowry Avenue. (1.5 miles away). The proposed Project has been reviewed in coordination with the Fremont Fire Department, and no new or physically altered stations or facilities have been determined to be required. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding fire protection.

The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Police protection?
The Fremont Police Department provides police protection to the Project site. The Police Department deploys officers in three separate zones. The project site is located in Zone 1, which covers the central portion of the City.

The City has one police station located at 2000 Stevenson Boulevard, which is approximately 0.5 miles from the project site. The Project would add 206 residential units, which could result in a minor associated increase in the demand for police protection services. The proposed Project has been reviewed and no required new or physically altered stations or facilities have been identified. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding police protection. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Schools?
The proposed project would construct a new residential building containing 206 residential units. While the Project would result in some small increase in demand of school services, the Project would not have the potential to contribute to substantially reduced performance ratios or the need for new facilities. The Fremont Unified School District charges new development projects school impact fees to help offset the increase cost to the school district to provide services resulting from the proposed project. The impact of the Project related to schools would be less than significant and no mitigation is necessary. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding schools. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 75
Parks?
The increased population resulting from the project would be expected to marginally increase use of public parks.

The population growth that would be attributable to the proposed project would be consistent with the Fremont General Plan and the new development would be subject to development impact fees including those for parkland and park facilities to help offset the impact to Fremont’s parks. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding parks. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Other public facilities?
The Project would add 206 new residential units which would could result in minor increases in impacts to other public facilities in Fremont and beyond. The increase in services required would be minor and no new facilities would be required. For these reasons, the impact of the Project related to other public facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation is necessary.Additionally, as with all development Project in the City of Fremont, the Project would be required to pay Development Impact Fees, which are intended to fund and sustain improvements that are needed as a result of new development. Under this program, the required Capital Facility Fee helps pay for services in such categories as City Administration facilities, City Services Maintenance Center and Corporation Yard, and Libraries.

For reasons stated above, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities and no mitigation is required. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than Significant
Mitigation: None

1.15.3 CEQA Conclusions Pertaining to Public Services
CEQA Conclusions Relative to an Infill Development Exemption As fully documented above, the Project site is located within a fully urbanized portion of the City of Fremont and is served by all required public services (e.g. police and fire services, and public schools). The Project would not result in significant effects related to public services, and would meet the criteria pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(e) for an Infill Exemption because it can be adequately served by all required public services.

References

1. City of Fremont, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan. Parks and Recreation Element. Adopted December 2011. Available: https://fremont.gov/generalplan.

2. City of Fremont, 2023. SACGISA. Fremont Mapping. Available online at https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/gis.

3. City of Fremont, 2023. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Planning and Zoning. Available online at www.fremont.gov/fmc.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 76

4. Project Plans. Prepared for the City of Fremont.

5. Fremont Police Department, 2022. Annual Report. Available online at:
https://www.fremontpolice.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/992/638200098114430000

6. Fremont Fire Department, 2018. Annual Report.

7. Fremont Unified School District, 2023. School Locator. Available online at https://www.myschoollocation.com/fremontusd2/.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 77

1.16 RECREATION
Would the Project:

GP EIR
Findings
Relationship to GP EIR
Findings: Project Conclusions:

Equal or
Less
Severe
New or
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
Applicable Mitigation,
Standards and
Requirements
Resulting
Level of
Significance
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
LTS ◼ ☐ Development Impact
FeesLTS
b) Include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities that might have an
adverse physical effect on the
environment?
LTS ◼ ☐ - LTS

1.16.1 Environmental Setting
The City of Fremont’s Recreation Services Division provides parks and recreation facilities and services to the City of Fremont. The City maintains approximately 1,223 acres of parkland, spread over 61 parks, which provide recreational facilities and opportunities to the community. A number of other agencies also maintain park and trail systems within the City, including the East Bay Regional Parks District, the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, and the San Francisco Bay Trail. Parks operated by the City of Fremont in the vicinity of the project site include Fremont Central Park (0.31 miles), Downtown Event Center Plaza (0.37 miles), Centerville Community Park (0.6 miles).

1.16.2 Discussion
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
The construction of the proposed new mixed-use building would generate a higher usage at local parks and recreational facilities. The Fremont Municipal Code section 18.290 “Development Impact Fees” establishes a fee structure for new development projects, such as the one proposed, to pay to maintain and provide city services.

Two of these fees are Parkland and Park Facilities fees. The purpose of the parkland acquisition and park facilities impact fees is to fund the acquisition of parkland and the development of park facilities, respectively, needed to serve new development. A report by Willdan Financial Services was prepared May 17th, 2021 to analyze the development impact fee needed for these two categories to support future growth consistent with the Fremont General Plan. The fees were set using a model anticipating population growth through 2035. The proposed project would be subject to these fees, so the increase usage of current facilities would be a less than significant impact, as the increase usage was anticipated. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding parks or other recreational facilities. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 78
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? As previously discussed, development impact fees were implemented with the knowledge that the population would continue to grow within the City of Fremont, and this would provide the mechanism to maintain and expand current services. Therefore, the impact of the Project related to recreational facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation is necessary. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding parks or other recreational facilities. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required

1.16.3 CEQA Conclusions Pertaining to Public Services
CEQA Conclusions Relative to an Infill Development Exemption As fully documented above, the Project site is located within a fully urbanized portion of the City of Fremont and is served by parks and recreation services. The Project would not result in significant effects related to recreation, and would meet the criteria pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(e) for an Infill Exemption.

References

1. City of Fremont, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan. Parks and Recreation Element. Adopted December 2011. Available: https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/community-development/planningbuilding-permit-services/plans-maps-guidelines/general-plan.

2. City of Fremont, 2023. SACGISA. Fremont Mapping. Available online at https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/gis.

3. City of Fremont, 2023. City of Fremont Parks & Recreation, Available online at https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/parks-recreation.

4. City of Fremont, 2023, City of Park Maintenance, Available online at https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/maintenance-services.

5. Project Plans. Prepared for the City of Fremont.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 79

1.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the Project:

GP EIR
Findings
Relationship to GP EIR
Findings: Project Conclusions:

Equal or
Less
Severe
New or
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
Applicable Mitigation,
Standards and
Requirements
Resulting
Level of
Significance
a): Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities?
No Impact ◼ ☐ - LTS
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
NA ◼ ☐ - LTS
c) Substantially increase hazards due to
a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
LTS ◼ ☐ - LTS
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
LTS ◼ ☐ - LTs
The Transportation analysis of the General Plan EIR focused primarily on transportation metrics/thresholds of delay and level of service/congestion. These thresholds no longer apply, having been replaced by vehicle miles travelled (VMT)

1.17.1 Environmental Setting
The Project would redevelop a 3.23-acre portion of the Gateway Plaza Shopping Center adjacent to Walnut Avenue and BART Way with a new five-story market-rate apartment building containing 206 units. Parking for the project consists of an integrated five-story parking garage containing 263 vehicle parking spaces. The project would be built at the southeast edge of the shopping center in an area that is currently improved with a 26,550- square-foot commercial space (long a fitness center, but currently operating as a seasonal retail use) and a parking field containing 237 vehicle parking spaces that serves existing shopping center uses. These improvements would be demolished as part of project activities, replaced by the proposed building and a new parking field off its southwestern edge containing 48 vehicle parking spaces. The project site is zoned City Center Urban Office and is subject to the City Center Community Plan. The General Plan land use designation for the site is City Center Commercial.

Regulatory Setting
The Alameda County Transportation Commission’s (ACTC) Congestion Management Program (CMP) describes performance measures related to the circulation system. The CMP emphasizes multi-modal accessibility and transportation/land use integration. It also provides specific measurement tools to assess the performance of roadways, transit service, bicycling, and walking. The CMP recommends a detailed transportation impact analysis (TIA) for projects generating 100 vehicle-trips or more during the weekday PM peak hour. This is consistent with the City of Fremont’s standard practice of requiring a TIA for projects that generate more than 100 peak trips in either the AM or PM peak hours.

In the summer of 2020, the City adopted a General Plan amendment to identify Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) as a measure indicating a project’s transportation impacts. Per the General Plan, the threshold of significance for a residential project is 15% below the average VMT per capita in the City of Fremont.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 80

1.17.2 Discussion
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Construction worker trips would be likely to occur during the weekday AM and PM peak periods (7:00 AM to 9:00AM for AM peak, and 4:00PM to 6:00PM for PM peak). However, even assuming all workers arrived during the AM peak hour and departed during the PM peak hour, the number of trips during each peak hour would be significantly less than the City of Fremont’s threshold for completing a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), which is 100 net new trips in peak hours.

Construction activities at the site would also generate heavy vehicle trips, including truck trips for off-site soil export, heavy equipment transport, and material deliveries. The consequence of construction-related heavy truck traffic would be a temporary and intermittent lessening of street performance in the project site vicinity due to the larger turning radii of construction trucks compared to passenger vehicles. However, heavy truck traffic would be spread throughout the entire day and would not be concentrated during peak hours.

Construction activities could result in increased truck traffic and impeded roadway access on the immediate project frontage on Walnut Avenue. Any construction within the public right of way would require an encroachment permit from the City of Fremont Public Works department with appropriate traffic controls. Transit routes passing the project site along Walnut Avenue may encounter intermittent delays due to construction within the public right of way but traffic management plans required by the encroachment permit process would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Pedestrian circulation past the project site may be intermittently interrupted during construction but would also be subject to the encroachment permit process. Bicycle traffic has the potential to be impacted by heavy truck traffic in the vicinity of the project site.

Bicyclists could be sharing the road with heavy diesel-powered trucks that have a wider turning radius than typical passenger vehicles. Construction trucks could also obscure lines of sight for bicyclists due to their mass and height. If constant and pervasive, these impacts could reduce the usage and safety of the bicycle system.

However, any impact from construction trucks would be temporary and minimal due to the volume and timing of trips. Additionally, truck trips would be dispersed throughout the day and therefore the impact on bicycle travel at any given time is likely to be minimal. Construction trucks would follow applicable vehicular safety ordinances and any signing and striping related to bicycle-vehicular interactions. Therefore, the construction traffic would not conflict with adopted policies on mass transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities and the impact would be less than significant. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding circulation system conflicts. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b), which pertains to vehicle miles travelled?
The City of Fremont’s VMT thresholds consider the VMT performance of residential and non-residential components of a project separately, using the efficiency metrics of VMT per capita and VMT per employee, respectively. For retail components of a project, or other customer-focused uses, the regional VMT change is analyzed. The VMT threshold of significance under the Fremont General Plan for a residential project is 15% below baseline (existing) average VMT per Capita for the City of Fremont. A VMT analysis memo for the project was prepared for the City by Kimley Horn in December 2022.

Based on the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Handbook, the screening criteria for the project was reviewed to determine if further quantitative VMT analysis was required, or if the project would be screened. The location-based screening for residential projects was used. If the project location is located in an area with low (below the threshold) VMT per capita, in an area with planned growth, and meets the criteria listed in Figure 3 of the TIA Handbook, then the residential project would be screened and presumed to have a less than significant impact. The location of the residential project was also compared to Figure 4 – CEQA Transportation Screening Map for Residential Projects in the City’s TIA Handbook to determine if the project would meet the location based

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 81
screening criteria. The project is located within a portion of the map that indicates the project is screened.

However, the project does not meet the parking spaces requirement and therefore does not screen out.

Although the project does not screen out, Figure 4 – CEQA Transportation Screening Map for Residential Projects was used to determine that the project would have a VMT per capita that would be below the City’s threshold and therefore would result in a less than significant transportation impact. Therefore, the Project is presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.

There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding vehicle miles traveled. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The proposed project has been reviewed by the City of Fremont’s Transportation Engineering department to ensure that traffic circulation patterns remain safe as part of the development review process for the project. The project would be located within an existing shopping center and occupy a portion of the center’s parking lot. The drive aisles in the parking lot would be reconfigured to accommodate the new development. Existing truck docks at the rear of the shopping center would continue to be accessed by the existing circulation route from BART Way and would have a less than significant impact. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the public right of way’s travel lanes for pedestrians, motor vehicles, and cyclists. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding traffic safety hazards or incompatible uses related to traffic. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
The Fremont Fire Department has reviewed the proposed project for conformance with applicable codes and regulations related to emergency access. The project will have dedicated emergency vehicle access easements to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles throughout the site. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to emergency access and no mitigation would be required. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding emergency access. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required

1.17.3 CEQA Conclusions Pertaining to Transportation
CEQA Conclusions Relative to an Infill Development Exemption As fully documented above, the Project would not exceed the City’s applicable significance thresholds related to transportation. The Project would meet the criteria pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d) for an Infill Exemption because it would not result in any significant effects relating to transportation.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 82
CEQA Conclusions Relative to the Project’s Consistency with the General Plan EIR Based on an examination of the analysis, findings and conclusions of the prior General Plan EIR, implementation of the Project would not substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts related to transportation as identified in that Program EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to transportation that were not previously identified. Although there are now new thresholds applicable to transportation impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR, these new thresholds and new information do not demonstrate that the Project’s effects related to transportation would be significant. The prior Program EIR did not identify any mitigation measures related to transportation that would apply to the Project and none would be needed.

References

1. AC Transit, 2023. Maps & Schedules. Available online at https://www.actransit.org/maps-schedules.

Accessed November 27, 2023.

2. Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC), 2022. Congestion Management Program.

Accessed online at https://www.alamedactc.org/planning/congestion-management-program. Accessed November 27, 2023.

3. City of Fremont, 2023. SACGISA. Fremont Mapping. Available online at https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/gis.

4. City of Fremont, 2023. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Planning and Zoning. Available online at https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/.

5. City of Fremont, 2016. Pedestrian Master Plan. Available online at https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/transportation-engineering/walkingbicycling/pedestrian-master-plan.

6. City of Fremont, 2018. Bicycle Master Plan. Available online at https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/transportation-engineering/walking-bicycling/bicyclemaster-plan.

7. City of Fremont, 2014. City of Fremont Standard Details for Improvements in Public Right of Way.

Available online: https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/engineering.

8. Project Plans. Prepared for the City of Fremont.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 83

1.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:

GP EIR
Findings
Relationship to GP EIR
Findings: Project Conclusions:

Equal or
Less
Severe
New or
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
Applicable Mitigation,
Standards and
Requirements
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as
either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined
in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
LTs ◼ ☐ - No Impact
b) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth
in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resource Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe?
LTS with MM
Cultural-2
◼ ☐ SDR Cultural and
Tribal Cultural
Resources-2:

Accidental Discovery
LTs

1.18.1 Environmental Setting
Tribal cultural resources are: 1) sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are listed, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), or local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k); or, 2) a resource determined by the lead CEQA agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(c). For a cultural landscape to be considered a tribal cultural resource, it must be geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape (PRC Section 21074[b]). Also, an historical resource, as defined in PRC Section 21084.1, unique archaeological resource, as defined in PRC Section 21083.2(g), or non-unique archaeological resource, as defined in PRC Section 21083.2(h), may also be a tribal cultural resource.

While there are no known underground resources at the site, substantial ground-disturbing activities associated with construction could result in the destruction or disturbance of unidentified subsurface resources or human remains. Fremont Municipal Code section 18.218.050(d)(2) contains rules related to accidental discovery of cultural resources.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 84

1.18.2 Discussion
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? The Project site is currently developed with a commercial building constructed in the 1960s. A historic evaluation was performed by City of Fremont staff and the building was determined to be ineligible for the historic register.

No listed or eligible historic resources have been identified on the Project site. Therefore, there would be no impact and no mitigation is required. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding tribal cultural resources. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: None
Mitigation: None Required
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? The project site does not contain any known or suspected cultural resources. Per FMC Section 18.218.010, all development projects that have the potential to adversely disturb or impact a) special-status species; b) cultural resources; and c) air quality due to construction activities such as grading, demolition, and tree and shrub removal, shall implement the adopted standard development requirements to address resource protection provided in FMC Section 18.218.050. This includes, FMC Section 18.218.050(d), copied below, which addresses cultural resources. As a standard project requirement, the proposed Project implements FMC Section

18.218.050(d), which incorporates measures that would ensure the Project avoids significant impact to cultural resources, including Tribal Cultural Resources.

FMC 18.218.050(d) Cultural Resources:

1. Notification, Affiliated California Native American Tribes. Prior to preparation of an environmental assessment and within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete, the city shall provide formal notification to the designated contact or a tribal representative of traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested to receive such notice from the city. The written notification shall include a brief description of the proposed project and its location, project contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to AB 52.

2. Accidental Discovery of Cultural Resources. The following requirements shall be met to address the potential for accidental discovery of cultural resources during ground disturbing excavation:
a. The project proponent shall include a note on any plans that require ground disturbing excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources. b. The project proponent shall retain a professional archaeologist to provide a preconstruction briefing to supervisory personnel of any excavation contractor to alert them to the possibility of exposing buried cultural resources, including significant prehistoric archaeological resources. The briefing shall discuss any cultural resources, including archaeological objects, that could be

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 85
exposed, the need to stop excavation at the discovery, and the procedures to follow regarding discovery protection and notification of the project proponent and archaeological team. c. In the event that any human remains or historical, archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during ground disturbing excavation, the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5(e) and (f), and of subsection (c)(2)(D) of this section, requiring cessation of work, notification, and immediate evaluation shall be followed. d. If resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities that may be classified as historical, unique archaeological, or tribal cultural resources, ground disturbing activities shall cease immediately, and the planning manager shall be notified. The resources will be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and, in the planning manager’s discretion, a tribal cultural monitor. If the resources are determined to be historical, unique archaeological, or tribal cultural resources, then a plan for avoiding the resources shall be prepared. If avoidance is infeasible, then all significant cultural materials recovered shall be, as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. Any plan for avoidance or mitigation shall be subject to the approval of the planning manager.

The Project would be subject to these rules contained in FMC 18.218.010. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on tribal cultural resources and no mitigation is required. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding tribal cultural resources. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than Significant
Mitigation: None Required

1.18.3 CEQA Conclusions Pertaining to Tribal Cultural Resources CEQA Conclusions Relative to an Infill Development Exemption As concluded above, the possibility that Tribal cultural resources may become apparent during construction excavation is not considered likely, and in the unlikely event that such resources may be discovered, regulatory requirements would apply that address the appropriate treatment of such a discovery, as well as required coordination with the NAHC and tribal representatives. No exception that would preclude a Class 32 Infill Development exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 (g) pertaining to other potential effects applies to the Project.

References

1. City of Fremont, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan. Parks and Recreation Element. Adopted December 2011. Available: https://fremont.gov/generalplan.

2. City of Fremont, 2023. SACGISA. Fremont Mapping. Available online at https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/gis.

3. City of Fremont, 2023. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Planning and Zoning. Available online at www.fremont.gov/fmc.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 86

1.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the Project:

GP EIR
Findings
Relationship to GP EIR
Findings: Project Conclusions:

Equal or
Less
Severe
New or
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
Applicable Mitigation,
Standards and
Requirements
Resulting
Level of
Significance
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment
or stormwater drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunication
facilities, the construction or relocation
of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
LTS ◼ ☐ LTS
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
LTS with MM
Util-1A and
MM Util -1B
◼ ☐ - LTS
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider that
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand, in addition
to the provider’s existing commitments?
LTS with MM
Util-2
◼ ☐ LTS
d) Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in excess of
the capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
LTs ◼ ☐ - LTS
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
LTs ◼ ☐ - LTS

1.19.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is currently a developed commercial site located in a developed area served by all municipal utilities. Utility connections to water, wastewater, stormwater, solid waste, electric, natural gas, and communications facilities are available to the project site. All existing utilities are currently on the existing site, connected to the existing commercial shopping center and the standalone commercial pads on site.

Water service to the Project would be provided by the Alameda County Water District (ACWD). Wastewater from the Project would be treated at the Alvarado Wastewater Treatment Plant (AWTP), which is operated by Union Sanitary District (USD). The Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFC) and the City of Fremont share responsibility for storm drainage within the City. The Project would need to connect to existing public and private utilities, including water, sewer, and storm drain facilities, via underground connections within the property.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 87
Wastewater
USD operates Alvarado Treatment Plan, and provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services to approximately 350,000 people in Fremont, Newark, and Union City. The Alvarado Treatment Plan has a capacity of 33 million gallons per day (mgd), and in 2022 treated an average of 22.23 mgd (USD, 2016). The treatment plant provides both primary and secondary treatment. The District maintains over 839 miles of sewer lines and has 118,338 connections for residential living units (USD, 2022). Seven pump stations operate in USD’s service area, with most of Fremont’s wastewater going to the Irvington Pump Station first before being conveyed to the Alvarado Treatment Plan.

Water Supply and Treatment
ACWD would provide water supplies to the Project. ACWD serves a population of approximately 350,000 people over 104.8 square miles in Fremont, Newark, and Union City. ACWD has developed an Integrated Resource Plan to manage water supply and ensure that current and future demands are met. ACWD has analyzed the long-term water needs of the Tri-City (Fremont, Newark, Union City) and identified the most efficient ways to meet these demands. Through water-saving strategies, demand has dropped by more than 25% from 1995 despite continued growth (ACWD, 2014).

The State of California’s Urban Water Management Planning Act (specifically in Water Code Sections 10610 – 10656) requires that every urban water supplier providing water for municipal purposes to 3,000+ customers or supplying 3,000+ acre-feet of water annually to prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)(ACWD, 2016). ACWD developed its UWMP 2015 – 2020 in 2016. It included growth projections for the Tri-City area up to the year 2040. According to the UWMP, the District estimates that future water demands for single-family residential uses would amount to 22,700 acre-feet per year (AF/yr) in 2020 and 22,600 AF/yr in 2024 (ACWD, 2016).

Approximately 50% of area water production is obtained from the Niles Cone Groundwater Basis, with the other 50% originating from the Del Valle Reservoir. Approximately 70% of the water produced is used for residential purposes. In 2014 – 2015, the average daily production was 34.3 mgd and the maximum day production was

52.2 gallons (ACWD, 2015).

Water treatment is provided by ACWD Water Treatment Plan No. 2 (WTP2). The sustainable production rate at WTP2 is 26 mgd (ACWD, 2017).

Storm Drainage
The Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCWCD) provides flood protection to the Project area via planning, designing, constructing, and maintaining flood control projects, including natural creeks, channels, levees, pump stations, dams, and reservoirs. The City of Fremont manages the municipal stormwater system. Project stormwater facilities have been designed to meet all local, state and federal standards, including requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) and Clean Water Program (CWP) for Alameda County, including connection to an existing 15” storm drain line under the Osgood Road right-of-way.

Solid Waste
Solid waste services in the City of Fremont are provided by Republic Services. Republic Services provides curbside pick-up of recyclables, organics, and garbage and transports materials to the Fremont Recycling and Transfer Station (41149 Boyce Road) for processing.

The Alameda County Waste Management Authority, now known as Stopwaste.org, is responsible for developing and implementing a County-wide Integrated Waste Management Plan. This plan includes a Source Reduction and Recycling Element, a Non-disposal Facility Element, and a Household Hazardous Waste Element (City of Fremont, 2011). According to data supplied by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority, the 2011 diversion rate for Fremont is 73%, a rate above the diversion rate required by AB 939, which mandates jurisdictions to divert 50% of their landfill waste. The Fremont Recycling and Transfer Station facility has diverted more than 250,000 tons of recyclable materials since 2006. Alameda County is planning to establish a countywide composting facility, which would further improve the City’s diversion rate (City of Fremont, 2011)

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 88

1.19.2 Discussion
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The proposed project would connect to existing water, sewer and storm drain lines located on the project site and adjacent Fremont Boulevard that already serve the area. The utility companies that would provide utility services to the proposed dwellings were notified of the project and did not indicate that it would generate an increase in wastewater or stormwater runoff levels that could exceed the capacity of the sewer and storm drain lines serving the property or require excessive amounts of water that could not be provided by the existing water mains that already serve the area. As such, the existing sewer, storm drain, and water lines serving the area need not be expanded to accommodate the proposed development and impacts to utilities would be less than significant.

There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding relocation or construction of new or expanded utilities. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? The development would be served by the Alameda County Water District (ACWD) utilizing the District’s existing water supply system. No issues with obtaining water supplies in normal, dry, and multiple dry years has been identified by ACWD, therefore the project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation would be necessary. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding sufficient water supplies to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, onsite, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
The proposed project would connect into existing sewer lines located in Osgood Road. Wastewater service is provided by the Union Sanitary District (USD). No issues with wastewater capacity related to this project have been identified by USD, therefore the project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation would be necessary. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding adequate wastewater capacity. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 89
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? The Project would comply with all applicable waste reduction goals and regulations. The Project would be served by the City’s franchised waste hauler, Republic Services, in compliance with the applicable standards governing solid wastes and recyclables and would comply with all applicable waste reduction goals and regulations. During the construction phase, construction debris are required to be recycled or otherwise diverted from the landfill.

When in operation, the facility would be required to maintain waste containers for recycling. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact with respect to solid waste standards and reduction goals and no mitigation is required. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding generation of excessive solid waste. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The Project would be served by the City’s franchised waste hauler, Republic Services, in compliance with the applicable standards governing solid wastes and recyclables and would comply with all applicable waste reduction goals and regulations. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact with respect to solid waste and no mitigation is required. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding solid waste regulations. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required

1.19.3 CEQA Conclusions Pertaining to Utilities and Service Systems CEQA Conclusions Relative to an Infill Development Exemption As fully documented in the CEQA Checklist, the Project site is located within a fully urbanized portion of the City of Fremont and is served by all needed utilities (e.g. water, electricity, sanitary sewer facilities, and storm drain facilities). The Project will require specific on-site extensions and improvements to existing utility infrastructure to serve the new buildings. The Project would not result in significant effects related to utilities or public services, and would meet the criteria pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(e) for an Infill Exemption because it can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

CEQA Conclusions Relative to the Project’s Consistency with the General Plan EIR Based on an examination of the analysis, findings and conclusions of the prior General Plan EIR, implementation of the Project would not substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts related to utilities or service systems as identified in that prior Program EIR. The Project would not result in new significant impacts related to utilities or service systems that were not previously identified. There is new information about utilities and service systems serving Fremont that is now available, but that was not available at the time of preparation of the General Plan EIR. However, this new information does demonstrate that the Project’s effects related to utilities or service systems would be more severe than as discussed in the prior General Plan EIR. The prior Program EIR did not identify any mitigation measures related to utilities or service systems that would apply to the Project and none would be needed.

References

1. Alameda County Water District, 2023. ACWD Fact Sheet. Available: http://acwd.org/index.aspx?nid=93.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 90

2. City of Fremont, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan. Public Facilities Element. Adopted December 2011.

Available: https://fremont.gov/generalplan.

3. City of Fremont, 2023. SACGISA. Fremont Mapping. Available online at http://egis.fremont.gov/apps/public/.

4. City of Fremont, 2023. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Planning and Zoning. Available online at www.fremont.gov/fmc.

5. City of Fremont, 2023. Construction & Demolition Debris. Available online at https://fremont.gov/2174/Construction-Demolition-Debris.

6. Project Plans. Prepared for the City of Fremont.

7. Union Sanitary District, 2023. About Us. Available online at http://www.unionsanitary.com/about-us.

8. Waste Management, 2023. Sustainability. Available online at http://altamontlandfill.wm.com/sustainability/index.jsp.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 91

1.20 WILDFIRE
Would the Project:

GP EIR
Findings
Relationship to GP EIR
Findings: Project Conclusions:

Equal or
Less
Severe
New or
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
Applicable Mitigation,
Standards and
Requirements
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Is the project located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified
as high fire hazard severity zones?
If located in or near state responsibility
areas or lands classified as very high
fire hazard severity zones, would the
project:

N/A ◼ ☐ No
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
◼ ☐ - No Impact
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose project occupants
to pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
◼ ☐ LTS
Require the installation of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
◼ ☐ - No Impact
Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
◼ ☐ - LTS

1.20.1 Environmental Setting
There is a risk of wildfire in Fremont due to the interface of residential and open space land uses. Wildfire risk is greatest adjacent to the open space frame of the City, and becomes less significant towards the interior of the City. The project site is an infill site that is surrounded by urbanized land uses.

Regulatory Setting
The City’s Disaster Management Operations Plan (DMOP) provides policies and procedures for an evacuation, dispersal, or relocation of people from hazardous areas during natural disasters, including wildfires. The DMOP was developed in compliance with State requirements and also meets the requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as the City’s local hazard mitigation plan. The DMOP specifies multiple evacuation routes that may be utilized in the event of a natural disaster depending on the type and location of the emergency.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 92
The City of Fremont adopted an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) (City of Fremont 2019) which outlines the framework used by the City should a natural disaster, including a wildfire, occur. Specifically, it provides guidance for personnel assigned to emergency management by delineating the strategic, operational, and tactical initiatives employed by the City in response to an emergency. The EOP assigns authority and responsibility, outlines coordination efforts and communications systems, and identifies and provides the location of predesignated emergency facilities, and resources. The Fire Department is currently working on a City of Fremont Hillside Evacuation Plan and is partnering with neighboring county agencies to collaborate on countywide evacuation planning. The City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (City of Fremont 2016) includes risk mitigation plans and strategies pertinent to relevant local hazards including natural disasters such as flooding, earthquakes, landslides, and wildfire. The plan also identifies key facilities, such as schools, hospitals, and utility infrastructure, which may be especially vulnerable in a disaster scenario.

In order to address local wildfire risk, the City of Fremont has adopted a Wildland Urban Interface Ordinance that designates areas of the City as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, even if they are not designated as Fire Hazard Areas on state maps. The Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone generally includes lands to the east of Mission Boulevard in north Fremont and to the east of I-680 in South Fremont. As previously mentioned, the project site is not located within a City-designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The project site is served by the Fremont Fire Department.

1.20.2 Discussion
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The Project is an infill development located outside the Fire Hazard Severity Zone identified in the General Plan Safety Element’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones map. Project development would occur entirely on private property and thus not alter any or infringe upon any emergency response or evacuation routes. As such, no impact would result. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding emergency plans. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None required
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
The Project site is not among the areas of the City at risk for wildfire, as it lacks rugged or sloping terrain, flammable vegetation, or limited access. It is thus not susceptible to the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Future Project occupants could potentially be subject to a wildfire-related decrease in air quality. These impacts would likely be regional and not be limited to only Project site occupants, and the duration of wildfire-related air quality impacts would be temporary. A less than significant impact would thus occur. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding exposure of project occupants to pollutants from a wildfire. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than Significant
Mitigation: None required

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 93
c) Require the installation of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Given the site’s distance from areas of wildfire risk and the degree to which the site would be covered with impervious surfaces or landscaped areas that would be regularly maintained and subject to automatic irrigation, the Project would not necessitate wildfire prevention/suppression design or infrastructure. No impact would result. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding infrastructure that may exacerbated fire risk. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None required
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The Project site is located outside the City’s mapped Fire Hazard Severity Zone and therefore faces minimal risk for wildfire or risks associated with post-wildfire conditions and hazards. Impacts would thus be less than significant. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding exposure of people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than Significant
Mitigation: None required

1.20.3 CEQA Conclusions Pertaining to Wildfire
CEQA Conclusions Relative to an Infill Development Exemption As fully documented above, the Project would not exceed the City’s applicable significance thresholds related to wildfire. The Project would meet the criteria pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d) for an Infill Exemption because it would not result in any significant effects relating to wildfire.

References

1. City of Fremont, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan. Parks and Recreation Element. Adopted December 2011. Available: https://fremont.gov/generalplan.

2. City of Fremont, 2023. SACGISA. Fremont Mapping. Available online at https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/gis.

3. City of Fremont, 2023. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Planning and Zoning. Available online at www.fremont.gov/fmc.

4. Chang Architecture, JMH Weiss Civil Engineering, & CALA Associates Landscape Architect, 2020.

Project Plans. Prepared for the City of Fremont.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 94

1.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
GP EIR
Findings
Relationship to GP EIR
Findings: Project Conclusions:

Equal or
Less
Severe
New or
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
Applicable Mitigation,
Standards and
Requirements
Resulting
Level of
Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of an
endangered, rare, or threatened
species, or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Yes ◼ ☐ No
Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects.)
Yes ◼ ☐ - No
c) Does the project have environmental
effects that will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
No ◼ ☐ No

1.21.1 Discussion
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
The site is characterized by an urban setting, and is entirely surrounded by similar commercial development. The site is fully developed and does not contain habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species on the project site and the site does not serve as habitat for a significant wildlife population. The project site does not contain any historical or prehistoric cultural resources. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding substantially degrading the quality of the environment, substantially reducing the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, causing a fish or wildlife

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 95
population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of environmental impacts.

Because of the urban, built-up nature of the project site and the surrounding area, there is no potential for any cumulative considerable impacts related to agriculture, biological resources, historic resource, hydrology, land use, or minerals.

The project would be required to comply with the California Building Code standards, NPDES C.3 provisions and standard erosion control measures. Therefore, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts associated with geology, soils, seismicity or water quality.

The project, and other cumulative development in the City will incrementally increase demands for fire protection, police protection, schools, libraries, parks, trails and other recreational facilities. All cumulative development will be required to provide development impact fees to finance capital improvements to these facilities, and to maintain acceptable service ratios and performance standards. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding individually limited, but cumulatively considerable impacts. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
As described throughout this initial study, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the environment though existing regulations and project design. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding causing substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
Authority for the Environmental Checklist: Public Resources Code Sections 21083, 21083.5.

Reference: Government Code Sections 65088.4.

Public Resources Code Sections 21080, 21083.5, 21095; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Minutes Zoning Administrator – December 12, 2023 PAGE 1

MINUTES

FREMONT ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2023
CALL TO ORDER: Acting Zoning Administrator David Wage called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.

PRESENT: Acting Zoning Administrator David Wage
Mark Hungerford, Senior Planner
Kim Salazar, Recording Clerk

PUBLIC/ORAL
COMMUNICATION None

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Item 1. FREMONT HUB MIXED-USE – 39150 Argonaut Way – (PLN2022-00487) – To consider a Discretionary Design Review Permit to allow a proposed mixed-use development consisting of a freestanding 13,000-square-foot retail-pharmacy building with a drive-through lane and a six-story mixed-use building containing 314 apartment units and 14,157 square feet of retail-commercial space at 39150 Argonaut Way in the Central Community Plan Area, and to consider an exemption from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as the project is consistent with the density established by the General Plan, for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2010082060) was previously prepared and certified, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, as none of the circumstances requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred.

Senior Planner Mark Hungerford briefly spoke to the item. Since the public hearing notices were distributed, City staff received one email stating opposition to the project, and one phone message, also, stating opposition to the project. Additionally, a written challenge was received from Adams Broadwell Joseph and Cardozo (a law firm) asserting that the City’s CEQA conclusions were incorrect.

Acting Zoning Administrator David Wage opened the public hearing for this item.

Bryan Wenter, with Miller Starr Regalia (a law firm) representing the applicant (Kimco), spoke in response to the letter from Adams Broadwell Joseph and Cardozo.

Michael Strahs, representing Kimco Realty, and his team were available for questions.

INFORMATIONAL ITEM NO. 3

GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS
PLN2024-00129 (PLN2023-00198)

CITY COUNCIL HEARING
04/16/2024

5.B.f
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Informational Item No. 3 - Zoning Administrator Hearing Minutes (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Minutes Zoning Administrator – December 12, 2023 PAGE 2 Joseph and Jan Valenti, Fremont residents, spoke in opposition of the project on the grounds of overcrowding, traffic, and safety.

Ariana Abedifard, representing East Bay Residents for Responsible Development, spoke in opposition of the project claiming that it does not comply with CEQA requirements, and on the grounds of environmental impacts.

Shawn Olyaie, representing Hub Valero (gas station), spoke in favor of the project.

Hoda Makar, Fremont resident, expressed concern over increased traffic and safety.

Acting Zoning Administrator David Wage closed the public hearing for this item, and took the following action on Item 1:

HELD PUBLIC HEARING;
AND

FOUND THAT NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183, AS THE

PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DENSITY ESTABLISHED BY THE

GENERAL PLAN, FOR WHICH AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) (SCH#2010082060) WAS PREVIOUSLY PREPARED AND CERTIFIED, AND CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15162 AND 15164, AS NONE OF THE

CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRING PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT OR
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR HAVE OCCURRED;
AND

FOUND THE REQUESTED DISCRETIONARY DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN AND THAT THE

PROPOSED SITE IS PHYSICALLY SUITABLE FOR THE TYPE, DENSITY, AND

INTENSITY OF THE PROPOSED USE, WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH

DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY, AND WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO

THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY AS ENUMERATED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT;
AND
APPROVED PLN2022-00487, AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT “A,” SUBJECT TO THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT “B”.

Item 1 was approved based on finding and subject to conditions.

Acting Zoning Administrator David Wage stated that if anyone sought to appeal this decision to the Planning Commission, pursuant to Fremont Municipal Code (FMC) Chapter 18.300, that appeals must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, December 22, 2023, which is the tenth calendar day following this approval action. In accordance with FMC, failure to file a timely appeal may preclude any interested party from raising any issues in court. Appeals to the Planning Commission must be accompanied by an $1,800 appeal deposit and letter that sets forth: (a) the action being appealed; (b) the facts and basis for the appeal; and (c) the relief or action sought.

5.B.f
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Informational Item No. 3 - Zoning Administrator Hearing Minutes (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Minutes Zoning Administrator – December 12, 2023 PAGE 3 Item 2. GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS – 39160 Paseo Padre Parkway – (PLN2023- 00198) – To consider a Discretionary Design Review Permit to allow a proposed fivestory, 206-unit apartment building within the Gateway Plaza Shopping Center at 36190 Paseo Padre Parkway in the Central Community Plan Area, and to consider an exemption from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Infill Development Projects, and a finding that no further environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as the project is consistent with the density established by the General Plan, for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2010082060) was previously prepared and certified, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, as none of the circumstances requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred.

Senior Planner Mark Hungerford briefly spoke to the item. Since the public hearing notices were distributed, City staff received one phone call in opposition to the project.

Additionally, a written challenge was received from Adams Broadwell Joseph and Cardozo asserting that the project’s CEQA conclusions were incorrect.

Acting Zoning Administrator David Wage opened the public hearing for this item.

Bryan Wenter, with Miller Starr Regalia representing the applicant (Kimco), briefly spoke to the conformity of the project. Michael Strahs, representing Kimco Realty, and his team were available for questions.

Rick Franco, representing East Bay Residents for Responsible Development, spoke in opposition of the project claiming that it does not comply with CEQA requirements, and on the grounds of environmental impacts.

Jim Griffin, Fremont resident and business owner, expressed concerns related to construction activity and increased parking for construction workers.

Senior Planner Mark Hungerford confirmed that a construction staging, and management plan was part of the Conditions of Approval for this item.

Acting Zoning Administrator David Wage closed the public hearing for this item and took the following action on Item 2:

HELD PUBLIC HEARING;
AND

FOUND THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332, INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS,

AND THAT NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED
PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183, AS THE PROJECT IS

CONSISTENT WITH THE DENSITY ESTABLISHED BY THE GENERAL PLAN,

5.B.f
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Informational Item No. 3 - Zoning Administrator Hearing Minutes (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.f
Packet Pg. 697
Attachment: Informational Item No. 3 - Zoning Administrator Hearing Minutes (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ARIANA ABEDIFARD SACRAMENTO OFFICE
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RI CHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
TARA C. RENGIFO

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCIS CO, CA 94080-7037
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444-6201
FAX: (916) 444-6209
TEL: (650) 589-1660
FAX: (650) 589-5062
kl ede rma n@ada msb road well. com
Of Counsel
MAR C D. JOSEPH
DANIE L L. CARDOZO
December 21, 2023
Via Hand Delivery and Email
Mark Hungerford, Project Planner
Community Development
Department, Planning Division
City of Fremont
39550 Liberty Street
Fremont, CA 94537
Email: [email protected]
Joel Pullen, Planning Manager
jpullen@fremon t. gov
Fremont Planning Commissioners
Charles Haiyun Liu, Chair;
Y onggang Zhang, Vice Chair;
Jasmine Basrai; Reena Rao
Shobana Ramamurthi
Craig Steckler; Benjamin Yee
Emails: [email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
csteckler@fremon t. gov;
[email protected]
Re: Appeal to Planning Commission of Zoning Administrator Approval of Gateway Plaza Apartments Project Discretionary Design Review Permit (PLN2023-00198)
Dear Mr. Hungerford, Mr. Pullen, and Honorable Commissioners Liu, Zhang, Basrai, Rao, Ramamurthi, Steckler, and Yee:

We are writing on behalf of East Bay Residents for Responsible Development ("East Bay Residents" or "EBRRD") to appeal the December 12, 2023 Fremont Zoning Administrator approval of the Discretionary Design Review Permit submitted by Kimco Realty ("Applicant") to the City of Fremont ("City") for the Gateway Plaza Apartments Project (PLN2023-00198) ("Project") and approval of the CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist ("CEQA Checklist") prepared for the Project (collectively, "Appeal"). This appeal is filed pursuant to City of Fremont ("City") Municipal Code Section 18.300.030.

East Bay Residents appeals all actions taken by the Zoning Administrator on December 12, 2023 with regard to the Project, including the Zoning Administrator's 686 l-005acp
� printed on recycled paper
INFORMATIONAL ITEM NO. 4

GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS
PLN2024-00129 (PLN2023-00198)

CITY COUNCIL HEARING
04/16/2024

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 699
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 700
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 701
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 702
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 703
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 704
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 705
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 706
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 707
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 708
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 709
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 710
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 711
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 712
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 713
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 714
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 715
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 716
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 717
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 718
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 719
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 720
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 721
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 722
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 723
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 724
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 725
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 726
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 727
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 728
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.g
Packet Pg. 729
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Planning Commission
February 22, 2024

Page 1 ends

Proposal: GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS APPEAL - 39160 Paseo Padre Parkway - PLN2024-00091 - To consider a third party appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve: 1) the
Discretionary Design Review Permit (under PLN2023-00198) to allow a proposed five-story, 206-unit apartment building within the Gateway Plaza Shopping Center at 36190 Paseo Padre
Parkway in the Central Community Plan Area; and, 2) an
exemption from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Infill Development Projects, and a finding that no further environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as the project is consistent with the density established by the General Plan, for which an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2010082060) was
previously prepared and certified, and CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15162 and 15164, as none of the circumstances
requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred.

Recommendation: Deny the Appeal and approve the project based upon findings and subject to conditions.

Location: 39160 Paseo Padre Parkway
APN: 507-465-13-1
Area: Development of an approximately 331,832-square-foot building on a 3.23-acre portion of a 14.86-acre parcel.

People: East Bay Residents for Responsible Development, c/o Kelilah Federman (Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo), Appellant
Mark Rickards and Michael Strahs (Kimco Realty), Applicants Lisa Majchrzak (TCA Architects), Architect
Tyler Whaley (Kimley-Horn), Civil Engineer
Mark Hungerford, Staff Planner, (510) 494-4541,
[email protected]
General Plan: Commercial – City Center
Zoning: City Center – Urban Office (CC-UO)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATIONAL ITEM NO. 5

GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS
PLN2024-00129 (PLN2023-00198)

CITY COUNCIL HEARING
04/16/2024

5.B.h
Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5092) Meeting of February 22, 2024 GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS APPEAL PLN2024-00091 Page 2
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a third-party Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s action of December 12, 2023, to approve a Discretionary Design Review Permit for the Gateway Plaza Apartments project, a proposed residential development consisting of a five-story, 206-unit market-rate apartment building that would be built at the southeastern portion of the Gateway Plaza Shopping Center.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the Appeal, which challenges the project approval on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and General Plan compliance grounds, lacks merit and that the evidence in the record supports the use of a CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32) Infill Exemption, a streamlining exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, and a CEQA addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15164.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the Appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve the project, as shown in Exhibit “A,” pursuant to findings and conditions contained in Exhibit “B.”

BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS ACTIONS
Site Development/Improvements
Initially developed in the 1960s, the Gateway Plaza Shopping Center covers approximately

15.8 acres of land between Paseo Padre Parkway, Walnut Avenue, Capitol Avenue, and BART Way. The shopping center contains approximately 204,000 square feet of retailcommercial floor area spread across 37 tenant spaces, plus supporting on-site parking fields that contain a total of 820 unassigned vehicle parking spaces. Anchor tenants within the center include a 62,400-square-foot supermarket (Raley’s), a 26,000-square-foot movie theater (Ciné Lounge), and a vacant 26,550-square-foot building that would be demolished as part of proposed project. The building proposed for demolition has been evaluated for historic significance and been found to possess no qualities that would make it eligible for listing on a historic register.

Zoning Administrator Hearing and Appeal Filing
On December 12, 2023, the Gateway Plaza Apartments project (PLN2023-00198) was presented at a noticed Zoning Administrator public hearing. Following a presentation from staff that included a project approval recommendation and testimony from the applicant’s legal counsel, two members of the public spoke on the item. One speaker, a local business owner, expressed concerns about construction worker vehicle parking needs, while the other, Rick Franco from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo representing East Bay Residents for Responsible Development (Appellant), challenged staff’s finding that the project is eligible for a Class 32 Infill Exemption, that the project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, and that subsequent CEQA documentation is not needed for the project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164. After considering testimony and the whole of the record, the Zoning Administrator approved the project, as conditioned.

On December 21, 2023, within the post-action 10-day appeal period, the Appellant filed a qualifying third-party Appeal (PLN2024-00091) of the Zoning Administrator’s approval action. Within the letter that accompanied the Appeal application (Informational Item No. 2), the Appellant makes a number of assertions, including:

5.B.h
Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5092) Meeting of February 22, 2024 GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS APPEAL PLN2024-00091 Page 3

1. The City improperly determined that the project qualifies for a Class 32 Infill Exemption or other exemptions because of potential water quality, air quality, noise, and greenhouse gas impacts stemming from the project;

2. There is a lack of substantial evidence to support approval of the project under a Community Plan (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183) exemption;

3. The specific project was not analyzed in the 2011 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or the City Center Community Plan;

4. The necessary findings to approve the project entitlements cannot be made; and

5. The project is inconsistent with the Housing Element and Regional Housing Needs Assessment.

A response letter addressing these points has been prepared and included as Informational Item No. 3. Further analysis of the matter is included in the Environmental Review section of this report.

Senate Bill 330: Preliminary Application
On December 22, 2022, a Senate Bill 330 Preliminary Application (PRP2023-00026) for the project was deemed complete, as submitted, pursuant to the California Housing Crisis Act of 2019. Accordingly, the project is subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect at the time of Preliminary Application submittal. Among the applicable ordinances, policies, and standards include those relating to “development impact fees, capacity or connection fees or charges, permit or processing fees, and other exactions.” PROCEDURE FOR TONIGHT’S HEARING
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider the following:

1. A finding that the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Infill Development Projects, and not subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as the project is consistent with the density established by the General Plan, for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2010082060) was previously prepared and certified, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, as none of the circumstances requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred;

2. A finding that the proposed project’s Discretionary Design Review Permit is consistent with the City’s General Plan and that the proposed site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of the proposed use, would be compatible with development in the vicinity, and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of persons or property in the vicinity as enumerated within the staff report; and

3. A finding that the proposed project’s removal of fifty-eight (58) private protected trees enables reasonable and conforming use of the property.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting approval of a Discretionary Design Review Permit to redevelop a

3.23-acre portion of the Gateway Plaza Shopping Center adjacent to Walnut Avenue and

5.B.h
Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5092) Meeting of February 22, 2024 GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS APPEAL PLN2024-00091 Page 4
BART Way with a new five-story market-rate apartment building containing 206 units.

Parking for the project consists of an integrated five-story parking garage containing 263 vehicle parking spaces. The project would be built at the southeast edge of the shopping center in an area that’s currently improved with a 26,550-square-foot commercial building (long a fitness center, but most recently operating as a seasonal retail use) and a 237-space parking field serving existing shopping center uses. These improvements would be demolished as part of project activities, replaced by the proposed building and a new parking field off its southwestern edge containing 48 vehicle parking spaces. The project building would be designed to be all-electric.

Vehicles would access the building’s parking garage via a single entry off BART Way, a private roadway located off the building’s northeast elevation. Ground floor lobby areas on the building’s southwest (primary lobby) and northeast (secondary lobby) elevations, which face the new parking field and BART Way, respectively, are designed as the building’s pedestrian access points. The new parking field, which is intended to serve the shopping center but would double as visitor parking for the project, is accessible from an existing driveway off Walnut Avenue as well as existing shopping center drive aisles that link to Paseo Padre Parkway.

The building would contain five stories of both apartment units and vehicle parking and stand approximately 61’-4” tall. The ground floor Walnut Avenue frontage would consist of resident-exclusive fitness center (2,448 square feet), co-working (2,581 square feet), and bicycle parking (1,456 square feet) amenity spaces. The aforementioned lobby areas, as well as additional amenity and service room areas, would combine with residential units to make up the rest of the building’s ground floor perimeter. Interior areas of the ground floor would consist of a 7,789-square-foot courtyard wrapped by residential units, and the first level of the parking garage. Levels 2 – 5 of the building largely mirror each other, with units lining the building’s perimeter and wrapping the garage and open courtyard areas. Unique to Level 2 is a 1,726-square-foot roof deck situated directly over the building’s primary ground floor lobby, and Level 5 features a 1,664-square-foot rooftop terrace at the building’s southeastern corner, overlooking Walnut Avenue. Of the project’s 206 units, 43 (21%) would be studios, 105 (51%) would contain one bedroom, 54 (26%) would contain two bedrooms, and four (2%) would contain three bedrooms. The average unit size would measure 772 square feet, and the overall density equates to 63.8 dwelling units per acre.

Within the project boundaries there are currently 58 private protected trees. Roughly half of these trees are located within the existing parking field adjacent to Walnut Avenue, and the other half are located along BART Way. Of these, 36 trees are proposed for removal and two trees are proposed for relocation elsewhere on-site. A total of 114 new trees are proposed with the project, including 36 mitigation trees, 27 new parking lot trees, and 16 new street trees within tree grates along Walnut Avenue and BART Way.

Frontage improvements for the project include creation of a 14’ monolithic public sidewalk with street trees along the Walnut Avenue project frontage and a 10’ monolithic sidewalk (proposed as a public access easement) with street trees along BART Way. The existing Class IV bikeway along the Walnut Avenue frontage would remain unmodified, and BART Way would be upgraded to a Class III bikeway through the addition of shared bicycle roadway markings (“sharrows”) in conjunction with project development.

5.B.h
Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5092) Meeting of February 22, 2024 GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS APPEAL PLN2024-00091 Page 5
As outlined in this report’s tables below and further described in the Project Analysis section, the project is designed to meet all objective standards. Subject to Senate Bill 330 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019), a proposed housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, may not be disapproved or conditioned in such a way as to require development at a lower density, unless written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record shows that both of the following conditions exist: (1) the housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density; and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the identified adverse impact described in (1) other than by disapproving the housing project or imposing conditions that require development at a lower density.

PROJECT ANALYSIS
General Plan Conformance
The General Plan land use designation for the subject site is Commercial – City Center. This land use designation applies to the roughly 460 acres in the heart of Fremont, which is intended to serve as the City’s primary center of employment, commerce, culture and entertainment. The designation intends to foster a more urban, pedestrian-focused environment that accommodates uses such as mid- to high-rise residential and mixed-use developments. The proposed project would redevelop a segment of a suburban-style shopping center with a dense, mid-rise apartment building that features a pedestrianoriented design and easy access to public transit (Fremont BART is roughly ¼-mile north of the project site, and the site is served locally by 99, 200, 212, 216, 239, and 251 Alameda County Transit Authority bus lines) in accordance with City Center objectives. In addition, the project would be consistent with the following goals, policies, and implementation measures of the General Plan:

LAND USE POLICY 2-1.5: Fremont City Center - Plan for the transformation of Fremont’s Central Business District into a pedestrian-oriented urban district known as “City Center.” City Center should contain a mix of office, retail, health care, government, high-density residential, cultural, and entertainment land uses designed to create an active, lively street environment and strong sense of place. By 2035, Fremont City Center should be the major economic activity center of southern Alameda County.

LAND USE IMPLEMENTATION 2-1.5.B: City Center as a Priority Development Area - Recognize City Center as Fremont’s highest priority for multi-family development and pedestrian-oriented shopping, cultural, civic and entertainment land uses. Future land use decisions throughout Fremont should support the vision of City Center as the heart of the City, and should take care not to siphon off demand for these uses to other parts of the City.

COMMUNITY CHARACTER ELEMENT POLICY 4-3.10: Development of Urban Residential and Mixed-Use Projects - Encourage multi-story residential and mixed-use development in Fremont’s designated Centers. The most intense development in the City, and the principal location for any high-rise

5.B.h
Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5092) Meeting of February 22, 2024 GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS APPEAL PLN2024-00091 Page 6
construction, should be the City Center.

COMMUNITY PLANS POLICY 11-4.1: City Center Sub-Districts - Create a stronger identity for Fremont’s City Center and its different sub-districts. City Center should be a recognizable and memorable place. It should evolve from its current form into a more urban environment with taller buildings, denser development, mixed-uses, new amenities for pedestrians and bicyclists, and other features typical of a full-service downtown. Each sub-district of City Center should be characterized by a slightly different mix of uses and development intensities.

COMMUNITY PLANS POLICY 11-4.4: Downtown Housing - Support additional high-density residential development in City Center. The addition of downtown residents can help support downtown retail, increase pedestrian activity, and help achieve the City’s goal of accommodating sustainable, mixed income, transit-oriented development.

LAND USE POLICY 2-1.10: Pedestrian Scale - Create a more pedestrianoriented environment in Fremont’s City Center, its five Town Centers, and the other Transit-oriented Development areas shown in the General Plan Land Use Map. These areas should be characterized by:

1. Convenient and continuous sidewalks, crosswalks and walkways;

2. Easy access to transit;

3. Comfortable outdoor spaces for pedestrian use; and

4. Parking that is located in structures or in shared lots to the rear of buildings rather than between buildings and the streets they face.

LAND USE POLICY 2-4.6: Conversion of Older Shopping Centers and Commercial Uses – Support the adaptive reuse, renovation, or redevelopment of older shopping centers or commercial uses that are no longer viable due to changing market conditions, demographics, or retail trends. Such reuse or redevelopment should be planned to help sustain other retail centers in the City, provide opportunities for higher-density housing and civic or group assembly uses while ensuring that residents continue to have convenient access to goods and services.

LAND USE POLICY 2-4.12: Mixed Use and Multi-family Housing as a Component of Centers – Support the development of housing as a component of Fremont’s retail centers, preferably in vertical mixed use formats where housing is located on the upper floors of buildings with ground floor retail.

HOUSING ELEMENT POLICY 3.03: Promote Housing Development in Highest Resource Neighborhoods.

HOUSING ELEMENT POLICY 3.04: Intensify Residential Development within

5.B.h
Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5092) Meeting of February 22, 2024 GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS APPEAL PLN2024-00091 Page 7
Urban Neighborhoods.

MOBILITY ELEMENT POLICY 3-2.2: Reducing Vehicle Trips through Land Use Choices - Support new forms of development that reduce the number of trips generated as compared to traditional suburban development. This includes live-work development, mixed-use development (reducing the need to drive to services), and higher density development around transit stations (reducing the need to own and/or use a vehicle).

Analysis: The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, 2023-31 Housing Element, and City Center Community Plan. The project’s redevelopment of the southeastern portion of the Gateway Plaza Shopping Center with a compact, mid-rise apartment building would locate dense housing in a transit-rich location in close proximity to goods, services, civic amenities, and jobs. The project would bring additional activation to the site and further aims of creating vibrancy within the greater downtown. The project is designed to maximize pedestrian-orientation, with the building located near the back of the Walnut Avenue and BART Way sidewalks and appropriate frontage types incorporated along its three public-facing elevations. Building frontages would feature double-height, highlytransparent ground floors to enliven these more publicly-visible spaces and their interior functions. In addition to the numerous offerings within Gateway Plaza, several major retailers including Target, Whole Foods Market, and other businesses are located within short walking distance of the site, which contributes to the site’s high resource area designation in the Housing Element and increases the likelihood of the project to add more foot traffic to the area. Walkability of the project is further enhanced by its close proximity to major employers such as Kaiser Permanente, Washington Hospital and City of Fremont offices. Additionally, the project would provide a new, expanded sidewalk along the site’s Walnut Avenue frontage and a new sidewalk along its BART Way frontage, plus the introduction of shared bicycle roadway markings along BART Way to further provide safer, more convenient travel options.

The Gateway Plaza Shopping Center is identified as an underutilized parcel in Table 8-16 – Vacant and Nonvacant Sites Inventory of the Housing Element. The shopping center was included in the Sites Inventory because of its likelihood for at least partial redevelopment during the next housing cycle. The projected residential capacity at buildout of the site is 645 units. In this initial phase, the project would redevelop a smaller 3.23-acre portion of the shopping center to achieve nearly one-third of this projected residential capacity. With a total land area of nearly 15 acres, further redevelopment of the shopping center property in the future could reasonably be assumed to achieve the full buildout capacity as identified in the Housing Element. Additionally, the applicant has elected to pay the affordable housing in-lieu fees in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance. The fees collected by the City will help fund development of affordable housing projects citywide.

Per the Land Use Element, residential-exclusive projects within Commercial – City Center designated areas are not subject to floor area ratio (FAR) or residential density standards.

The proposed project has a FAR of 2.37 and a density of 63.77 units per acre based on project site area.

5.B.h
Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5092) Meeting of February 22, 2024 GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS APPEAL PLN2024-00091 Page 8
Zoning Compliance:

The project site is zoned City Center – Urban Office (CC-UO). The Urban Office zone, one of three unique zoning areas within the City Center District, is generally applied to areas northeast of Paseo Padre Parkway and southwest of the Fremont BART Station. The City Center District implements the standards of the adopted Transit Overlay District, as applicable. The following table illustrates the proposed project’s compliance with applicable standards of the CC-UO zone:

Development
Standard
Requirement (CCUO Zone)Proposed Compliant?
Building Site Depth Minimum: 100 feet
Maximum: 400 feet
393 feet Yes
Building Site Width Minimum: 75 feet
Maximum: 400 feet
212 feet Yes
Building Height Maximum: 10 stories 6 stories Yes
Ground Floor Height Minimum: 16 feet 16 feet Yes
Upper Story Heights Minimum: 10 feet 10+ feet Yes
Front Setback Minimum: Zero
Maximum: 10 feet
6 feet Yes
Side Setback Minimum: Zero
Maximum: N/A
Approx. 29 feet
(BART Way) and 350
feet (Paseo Padre
Parkway)
Yes
Rear Setback Minimum: 10 feet
Maximum: N/A
32 feet Yes
Façade Plane-Break Minimum: 5 feet ×
25 feet for every 100
feet of building
length
5+ feet × 25+ feet
plane-breaks (all
elevations)
Yes
On-Site, Semi-Public
Open Space
Minimum: 15% of
site area (21,097 SF)
28,347 SF Yes
Private Open Space Minimum: 50 SF per
dwelling unit
50+ SF per dwelling
unit (all)
Yes
Private Storage Space Minimum: 100 CF per
unit
125+ CF per unit
(all)
Yes

5.B.h
Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5092) Meeting of February 22, 2024 GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS APPEAL PLN2024-00091 Page 9
Properties within the City Center District are required to be developed with “urban” frontage types. The proposed project incorporates the shopfront frontage type on Walnut Avenue and the forecourt frontage type on its BART Way and interior surface parking lot edges. Per Fremont Municipal Code (FMC) Table 18.43.220, both of these frontage types are permitted in the CC-UO zone. The following table illustrates the proposed project’s compliance with applicable building frontage requirements:

Development
Standard
Requirement (CCUO Zone)
Proposed Compliant?
Storefront Glazing
(Shopfront Standard)
Minimum: 70% of
façade
70%+ Yes
Walls Without Openings
(Shopfront Standard)
Maximum: 10 LF <10 LF Yes
Height to Top of
Opening
(Shopfront Standard)
Minimum: 12 feet
Maximum: 22 feet

13.5 feet Yes
Width of Bays
(Shopfront Standard)
Minimum 8 feet
Maximum: 25 feet

8.5 feet – 9 feet Yes
Height of Bulkhead
(Shopfront Standard)
Minimum: 8 inches
Maximum: 3.5 feet
1 foot Yes
Forecourt Width
(Forecourt Standard)
Minimum: 25 feet 26 feet Yes
Forecourt Depth
(Forecourt Standard)
Minimum: 25 feet 25 feet Yes
The table below illustrates the proposed project’s compliance with parking standards applicable to the CC-UN district:

5.B.h
Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5092) Meeting of February 22, 2024 GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS APPEAL PLN2024-00091 Page 10
Additionally, the proposed project would result in the removal of 237 surface parking spaces that serve existing shopping center uses. The portion of the impacted surface parking lot area located southwest of the proposed building would be redesigned to accommodate 48 new vehicle parking spaces. The net-loss of 189 vehicle parking spaces would not render the shopping center’s on-site parking count nonconforming, per the table below:

Design Analysis
The proposed project has been reviewed for consistency with the objective design guidelines of the City Center Community Plan. Based on these reviews, which involved a several-round iterative process, staff has found that the project would comply with all applicable objective criteria.

Architecture
Development
Standard
Requirement (CCUO Zone)Proposed Compliant?
Residential Automobile
Parking (Exclusive Use)
Minimum: 1 space
per dwelling unit
(206 spaces)
Maximum: 2 spaces
per dwelling unit
(412 spaces)
263 spaces Yes
Bicycle Parking Short-term:

Minimum 4 + 1 per
10 units (25 spaces)
Long-term:

Minimum 2 + 0.5
per unit (105
spaces)
26 short-term
spaces; 136 longterm spaces
Yes
Development
Standard
Requirement (CCUO Zone)
Proposed Compliant?
Commercial Use (NonHealthcare) Parking
*Proposed Shopping
Center GFA: 177,554 SF
Minimum: 3.3
spaces per 1,000 SF
(586 spaces)
Maximum: 5 spaces
per 1,000 SF (888
spaces)

3.54 spaces per
1,000 SF (631
spaces)
Yes

5.B.h
Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5092) Meeting of February 22, 2024 GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS APPEAL PLN2024-00091 Page 11
Project design is consistent with the objective standards adopted in the City Center Community Plan and CC-UO zoning, which collaboratively require architecture that reflects a high-level of design, supports active and continuous pedestrian-oriented environments, incorporates massing and form variation, and utilizes quality materials and details to express a welcoming urban character.

The proposed project features a clean, contemporary design that fits the vision for mid-rise buildings within the site’s City Center setting. The project enhances the Walnut Avenue streetscape by featuring a pedestrian-scaled architectural design that includes minimal building setbacks and ground-floor aluminum storefront systems featuring sizable openings and a high-degree of transparency. Plane-breaks and other forms of massing relief have been thoughtfully incorporated into the project to refine and enhance the building’s appearance. Proposed stucco, stone tile, and composite wood panel applications are successfully integrated into building facades, and mesh screening with supporting climbing vines will sufficiently screen the limited area of parking garage exposure at the rear of the building.

Landscaping/Open Space
The project features an attractive urban landscape design that targets specific “zones” of the project for different plant and hardscape treatments based on the areas’ intended function. The project’s Walnut Avenue and BART Way frontages would feature street trees within 5’ × 10’ grates and amenities such as short-term bicycle parking spaces and freestanding lighting to enhance the streetscape and accentuate the building’s edges. On the southwestern edge of the site, where the building opens onto the surface parking lot, enhanced linear “rail” paving would mix with in-grate trees and potted plants to provide a welcoming plaza and entry element to the project. The relatively narrow open space areas located between the proposed building and the existing retail shops would be designed with an active turf area, custom wood bench seating, and decorative paving and lighting.

The ground-floor of the building would include a large amenity courtyard that features a pool with an adjacent daybed and chaise lounge area, a barbeque area with table seating, a focal trellis, and a fire table. Mixed with these amenities would be a variety of trees and shrubs to create a more natural setting. Smaller terrace areas on the building’s second and sixth floors would provide more passively-designed open space areas for tenant enjoyment.

Tree Removal
The project’s tree inventory chart identifies 58 trees at the site that qualify for protection under the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. The project proposes to remove 36 and relocate two of these private protected trees to enable reasonable and conforming use of the property. The most numerous of the trees to be removed – redwoods (13), crepe myrtles (8), and chinese pistache (8) – are generally located along BART Way, in the area of the proposed building’s footprint, and in the existing surface parking field that would be redesigned.

A total of 114 new trees are proposed with the project, including 36 mitigation trees, 27 new parking lot trees, and 16 new street trees within tree grates along Walnut Avenue and BART Way.

City Center Art
The City Center District has an established art program that promotes artwork installations, art education, and arts experiences throughout the district. The City Center Art Program is

5.B.h
Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5092) Meeting of February 22, 2024 GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS APPEAL PLN2024-00091 Page 12
funded by art fees collected for new public and private developments. The project applicant would be required to pay the full art fee (currently $0.72 per square foot of construction) or pay 50 percent of the required art fee and use the remaining 50 percent of the fee for an on-site public art installation. Any in-lieu fees would be added to the City Center Art Fund for the commissioning and installation of artwork within the district. However, if the applicant elects to incorporate art into the project, the applicant would be required to propose public art subject to compliance and procedures set forth in the City’s Art in Public Places Program Policy. As proposed, the project does not include on-site artwork.

Off-Site Improvements
No right-of-way dedications are required for the proposed project, and the existing Walnut Avenue roadway width and protected bicycle lane would remain unmodified by the project.

The existing substandard Walnut Avenue sidewalk would be expanded and modified along the full extent of the project’s approximately 375 LF frontage to consist of a 14’-wide, monolithic sidewalk with in-grate street trees in accordance with General Plan and City Center District complete streets policies.

Affordable Housing
Pursuant to Fremont Municipal Code (FMC) Chapter 18.155, the applicant proposes payment of affordable housing in-lieu fees rather than providing below market rate units as part of the project. The ordinance specifies that payment of fees is an acceptable alternative to providing below market rate units within the project. The final fee amount would be calculated based on the project’s individual unit sizes with the fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Affordable housing fees paid to the City will be used for future development of affordable housing units.

FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:

Discretionary Design Review Permit
Pursuant to FMC Section 18.235.060, in order to approve a Discretionary Design Review Permit, the approval authority must make the following findings applicable to the project:
(a) The proposed project is consistent with the general plan, any applicable community or specific plan, planning and zoning regulations, and any adopted design rules and guidelines.

Analysis: The proposed project is designed in conformance with the requirements of the Commercial – City Center designation of the General Plan, the City Center Community Plan, and City Center District zoning with respect to site planning, massing, architecture, and other urban design characteristics. The project is aligned with the objectives of the City Center Community Plan in that it delivers a dense residential development that provides housing opportunities in the heart of the City Center. The project will positively contribute to the ongoing transformation of the district into a walkable, pedestrian-oriented district that mixes complementary land uses and brings vitality to the area. Additionally, it adds housing to a parcel identified in the Housing Element’s Sites Inventory.

5.B.h
Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5092) Meeting of February 22, 2024 GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS APPEAL PLN2024-00091 Page 13
(b) When a proposed project is inconsistent with an adopted design rule, the purpose and intent of the design rule is met through alternative means.

Analysis: The proposed project is designed in conformance with all applicable objective design rules, as described in the staff report. (c) The multifamily residential project’s architectural, site, and landscape design will not be detrimental to the public health or safety; or a nonmultifamily project’s architectural, site, and landscape design will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of adjacent development nor be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare; and Analysis: The proposed wholly residential project, as designed, will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of adjacent developments, nor would it be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare in that the proposed project is compatible in scale with development allowances within the City Center District. Additionally, Building Division and Fire Department staff have reviewed the project and found that it can be constructed in conformance with all applicable California Building and Fire Code life safety regulations, thereby minimizing project potential for detrimental impacts to public health, safety, or the welfare of persons or property in the project site’s vicinity.
(d) Where HARB review is required, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable standards and findings required in Chapters 18.135 and 18.175.

Analysis: The proposed project does not involve a site within a historical overlay district or one that includes a Register or Register-eligible historic resource. As such, HARB review is not required for the project.

Tree Removal
Pursuant to FMC Section 18.215.070, the following finding is required in order to allow for the proposed removal of trees that are subject to protection under the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance:
(a) The proposed removal of 36 protected trees would be consistent with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance.

Analysis: The project’s proposed removal of 36 private protected trees is necessary to enable reasonable and conforming use of the property. All trees to be removed cannot be preserved by a reasonably required project redesign. The protected trees that would be lost would be replaced with 114 new trees planted throughout the site in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Landscape Development Requirements & Policies.

5.B.h
Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5092) Meeting of February 22, 2024 GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS APPEAL PLN2024-00091 Page 14
CEQA
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the following findings are required for projects when an EIR has been certified for a project and no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

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

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Analysis: As documented in the CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (Information Item No. 1) prepared for the project, none of the criteria listed above has occurred. This checklist and other evidence in the record supports the use of the

5.B.h
Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5092) Meeting of February 22, 2024 GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS APPEAL PLN2024-00091 Page 15
certified General Plan Update EIR for the project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, finding that the mitigation measures from the EIR are applied to and adequate for the proposed project, which is within the scope of the EIR, and that no further CEQA documentation is required.

CITY FEES
The project will be subject to development impact fees for Capital Facilities, Fire Facilities, Traffic, Parkland, and Park Facilities, as well as affordable housing fees.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to a Class 32 Infill Exemption, as the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; would occur within the city limits on a site no greater than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; would occur on a site that has no habitat value for endangered, rare or threatened species; would not result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality and water quality; and is on a site adequately served by utilities and public services.

The City Center Community Plan was adopted by the Fremont City Council in May 2015. The Community Plan implements the General Plan, which was last comprehensively updated in December 2011 in a process that included preparation and certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). As described within this report and detailed in the accompanying CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist, the project is consistent with the City Center Community Plan and the applicable standards of the City Center District. As such, the project requires no further environmental review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

Additionally, the project has been found to not trigger subsequent documentation under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 as no substantial changes are proposed in the project that would require revisions to the General Plan Update EIR, nor have substantial changes occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the proposed project would be undertaken require revisions to the General Plan Update EIR, nor has new information of substantial importance been identified that would indicate the project would have any new or more significant effects or require new or additional mitigation than what was included in the General Plan Update EIR. The programmatic mitigation measures from the General Plan Update EIR and/or the standard development requirements contained within FMC Chapter

18.218 adequately address the potential environmental effects of the project. The project is thus within the scope of the General Plan Update EIR and no further CEQA documentation is required. The prepared checklist serves as an addendum, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, to the previously certified EIR. Each of the foregoing provides, without limitation, on a separate and independent basis for the no further environmental review finding.

Following the Appeal filing, staff commissioned CEQA consultant Lamphier-Gregory to prepare a response letter that addresses the specific claims made in the Appellant’s challenge letter. The response letter establishes that the project is consistent with the General Plan, that potential project impacts on the environment were properly disclosed in the CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist, and that the City’s use of CEQA streamlining in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and no additional CEQA analysis pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 were appropriate for the project.

5.B.h
Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5092) Meeting of February 22, 2024 GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS APPEAL PLN2024-00091 Page 16
Additionally, the response letter further establishes project qualification for the Class 32 Infill Exemption.

PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT
Public hearing notification is applicable. A total of 256 notices were mailed to owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the site. The notices to owners and occupants were mailed on February 8, 2024. A Public Hearing Notice was published by The Tri-City Voice on February 6, 2024.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Hold public hearing.

2. Find that, without limitation and on a separate and independent basis, the project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Infill Development Projects, and not subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as the project is consistent with the density established by the General Plan, for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2010082060) was previously prepared and certified, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, as none of the circumstances requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred;

3. Find the requested Discretionary Design Review Permit consistent with the City’s General Plan and that the proposed site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of the proposed use, would be compatible with development in the vicinity, and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of persons or property in the vicinity as enumerated within the staff report; and

4. Deny the third-party Appeal (PLN2024-00091) and approve the Discretionary Design Review Permit (PLN2023-00198), as shown in Exhibit “A,” subject to findings and conditions contained in Exhibit “B.”

ENCLOSURES
• Exhibit A - Project Plans
• Exhibit B - Findings and Conditions of Approval
• Informational Item No. 1 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist • Informational Item No. 2 - Appeal Letter
• Informational Item No. 3 - Appeal Response Letter

5.B.h
Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690

LAMPHIER-GREGORY
Memo
TO: Mark Hungerford, Senior Planner
City of Fremont Community Development
via email at: [email protected]
FROM: Scott Gregory, Lamphier-Gregory
SUBJECT: Response to Appeal of Gateway Plaza Apartments Project and its CEQA Document DATE: February 8, 2024
At its public hearing on December 12, 2023, the City of Fremont Zoning Administrator approved a Discretionary Design Review Permit to allow a proposed five-story, 206-unit apartment building within the Gateway Plaza Shopping Center at 36190 Paseo Padre Parkway in the Central Community Plan Area.

The zoning Administrator also adopted an Exemption from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332: Infill Development Projects, and adopted a finding that no further environmental review is required for the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as the Project is consistent with the density established by the General Plan, for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2010082060) was previously prepared and certified.

On December 21, 2023, the law firm of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo filed an appeal of this decision on behalf of East Bay Residents for Responsible Development. The basis for this appeal is the assertion that the City's decision to rely on a Class 32 Infill Exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 ("Class 32" or "Infill Exemption"), a streamlining exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, and a CEQA addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, violated CEQA and were not supported by substantial evidence.

Lamphier-Gregory has reviewed the basis of the appeal, the CEQA document and supporting technical studies prepared for the Gateway Plaza Apartment Project, and we believe that the City’s CEQA document is both valid and supported by substantial evidence. Lamphier-Gregory has prepared the following responses to those CEQA issues raised in the appeal letter, as itemized below.

Applicability of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32 Infill Development Exemption) and Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan and Zoning) Basis of the Appeal
The appeal asserts the following related to the applicability of CEQA Guidelines section 15183 and section 15332 for the Project:
“East Bay Residents' comments explain that the City's decision to rely on a Class 32 Infill Exemption under California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA'') Guidelines Section 15332 ("Class 32" or "Infill Exemption"), a streamlining exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 ("Community Plan Exemption"), and a CEQA addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, violated CEQA and were not supported by substantial evidence because the Project was not contemplated in the 2011 General Plan Update, and has new or more severe significant impacts than INFORMATIONAL ITEM NO. 6

GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS
PLN2024-00129 (PLN2023-00198)

CITY COUNCIL HEARING
04/16/2024

5.B.i
Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Mark Hungerford, City of Fremont 2/8/24 Page 2
Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 previously analyzed in the 2011 General Plan Update EIR which are peculiar to the Project site and were not known and could not have been known at the time of the EIR's certification. These impacts include potentially significant hazardous materials impacts from soil and groundwater contamination, on air quality, noise, and from greenhouse ("GHG") emissions, which require disclosure and mitigation in a project-level EIR.”
“The City's reliance on Sections 15183, 15162, and 15164 is misplaced because the Project was not contemplated in the 2011 General Plan Update, and has new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 General Plan Update EIR which are peculiar to the Project site and were not known and could not have been known at the time of the EIR's certification because the Project had not yet been proposed when the 2011 EIR was certified.” “This Project was not contemplated in the Community Plan or General Plan because the Project’s application was filed December 12, 2022, long after both plans were adopted by the City.” Response to the Appeal
These assertions of the appeal are fundamentally incorrect and misconstrue the CEQA requirements for consistency with the General Plan and zoning. Moreover, these assertions are directly contradicted by facts contained in the CEQA document and its administrative record.

The CEQA Environmental Compliance Checklist prepared for the Project does rely on a Class 32 Infill Exemption and Community Plan Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, which contemplates that a specific development project occurring later in time will be evaluated based on its consistency with a prior CEQA document. Each of these exemptions provide a separate and independent basis for CEQA compliance. A fundamental requirement for both the Class 32 Infill Exemption and the Community Plan Exemption is that the Project must be consistent with the development density as established by existing zoning, community plan or General Plan for which a previously prepared EIR has been certified. As fully described in the CEQA Environmental Compliance Checklist and the December 12, 2023 Staff Report to the Zoning Administrator, the Project is fully consistent with the development density and land use characteristics established pursuant to the 2011 Fremont General Plan and as analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The Project is also consistent with the development densities, bulk and land use standards as established by policies of the Fremont City Center Community Plan, and implementing regulations of the applicable City Center – Urban Office (CC-UO) zoning district for the site. The appeal does not challenge these consistency determinations and misstates the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

The appeal asserts that specifics of the Project were not contemplated in the Community Plan or General Plan because the Project’s application was filed long after both of these Plans were adopted, but CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 does not contemplate or require such a scenario. Clearly, the specifics of the Gateway Plaza Apartment Project, or any other individual development project, were not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was prepared in 2011. However, contemplation of the details of specific development projects is not the CEQA standard of consistency for these CEQA exemptions. The standard for consistency as established in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15332 and 15183 is consistency with the development densities and land use standards of the General Plan, community plan and zoning as analyzed in a previously prepared EIR. Findings of the Project’s consistency with density and land use standards have been made and supported by substantial evidence, and they are not challenged here.

Accordingly, the Project meets the General Plan and zoning consistency standards of CEQA guidelines section 15332 and 15183, and the Project is eligible for these CEQA exemptions.

5.B.i
Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Mark Hungerford, City of Fremont 2/8/24 Page 3
Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 Reliance on Mitigation Measures and Standard Development Requirements Basis of the Appeal
The appeal asserts the following related to mitigation measures and standard development requirements:
“The City cannot rely on the Class 32 exemption or a Community Plan Exemption, or any other CEQA exemption or streamlining because the City seeks to rely on mitigation measures as a basis for concluding that the Project is categorically exempt.”
“The absence of any previous project-specific analysis renders the City's determination that Standard Development Requirements ("SDRs") would mitigate the impact is unsupported. The City's reliance on SDRs to mitigate these impacts, without first analyzing them in an EIR, violates the requirements of Section 15183, rendering it inapplicable to the Project.” Response to the Appeal
These assertions of the appeal are directly contradicted by the CEQA Guidelines and facts contained in the CEQA document and its administrative record.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15183 (e)[1], the City does have the authority to impose those mitigation measures from the prior General Plan EIR that the City finds applicable to the Project. The only mitigation measure from the General Plan EIR identified in the Project’s CEQA Environmental Compliance Checklist as being applicable to the Project are the BAAQMD’s recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, which now apply to all development projects and which have been incorporated into FMC Section 18.218.050 as Standard Development Requirements.

Additionally, CEQA Guidelines section 15183 (f) provides that an effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project . . . if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the city or county, with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects. The finding shall be based on substantial evidence, which need not include an EIR. These provisions do not apply if substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect.

As specifically provided in FMC Section 18.218.050, the purpose of the City’s Standard Development Requirements is to ensure universal application of standard development requirements to all development projects that have the potential to adversely disturb or impact special-status species, cultural resources, and air quality due to construction activities such as grading, demolition, and tree and shrub removal. These development standards are consistent with legislative requirements and resource agency protocol to ensure protection of limited or endangered resources, in particular when a proposed project is not subject to, or may be exempt from CEQA. These universal development standards are applicable to all temporary project sites, new development project sites, and sites being redeveloped, where there may be a potential adverse impact to special-status species, cultural, archeological and/or paleontological resources, possible burial sites associated with indigenous cultures, and/or to air quality resulting from the elimination of trees, site grading, ground disturbing construction activities and/or demolition of buildings. Additional Standard Development Requirements apply to issues related to geology and soils, hazardous materials and construction noise.

The City of Fremont’s Standard Development Requirements were adopted by Ordinance, finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate environmental effects when applied to future projects. Accordingly, the Standard Development Requirements cited in the Project’s CEQA Environmental Compliance Checklist do apply to the Project, are not unique mitigation measures specific to the Project, but will serve to mitigate the Project’s potential impacts.

5.B.i
Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Mark Hungerford, City of Fremont 2/8/24 Page 4
Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 Substantial Environmental Effects
Basis of the Appeal
The appeal asserts the following related to substantial environmental effects of the Project:
“The record before the ZA does not contain substantial evidence that the Project will not be detrimental to the public health or safety [or] unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of adjacent development nor be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare as required for approval of the discretionary design review permit.”
The individual assertions of the appeal related to substantial environmental effects are addressed individually, below.

Hazardous Materials Exceeding Residential Screening Levels Basis of the Appeal
The appeal asserts the following related to potential impacts related to hazardous materials and water quality:
“The Phase II ESA failed to compare residual contamination to the more stringent residential ESLs which apply to the Project. The Project aims to convert the contaminated site to residential use, not commercial/industrial use.”
“The CEQA Checklist fails to analyze the Project's hazardous contamination impacts compared to residential screening levels, which may be significant and unmitigated. The City therefore lacks substantial evidence demonstrating that approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to water quality. Moreover, the onsite contamination may constitute an unusual circumstance where an exemption is likewise inapplicable.” Response to the Appeal
These assertions of the appeal are incorrect and directly contradicted by facts contained in the CEQA document and its administrative record.

The Project site is located on an approximately 3.3-acre portion of a larger 15-acre parcel that comprises the majority of the Gateway Plaza Shopping Center that comprises much of the block between Paseo Padre Parkway and Civic Center Drive, and between Walnut Avenue and Capitol Avenue. As identified in the CEQA Environmental Compliance Checklist for the Gateway Plaza Apartments project, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the Project site (identified in the Phase I ESA as “the Property”) and its surrounding area in January 2023. As fully disclosed in that Phase I ESA, no historical recognized environmental conditions or controlled recognized environmental conditions were identified at the Project site, but the Phase I ESA did identify that an adjacent portion of the Shopping Center that is not a part of the Project site presented a recognized environmental condition related to a former drycleaner facility. That drycleaner facility was located within an adjacent portion of the Gateway Plaza Shopping Center but not on the Project site, and is no longer in operation. It was a known user of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) as part of its drycleaner operation. The Phase I ESA found no impacts to soil or groundwater at the Project site from that former drycleaners, but did identify elevated soil vapor levels in the surrounding area.

A Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) also cited in the CEQA Checklist compared sub-slab soil vapor sampling collected from the area to applicable commercial Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) and to the more stringent residential ESLs that apply to the Project. This comparison concluded that “PCE [Tetrachloroethylene] and its degradation daughter product TCE [Trichloroethene] were not detected above laboratory reporting limits in sub-slab soil vapor samples collected from the site (24-Hour

5.B.i
Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Mark Hungerford, City of Fremont 2/8/24 Page 5
Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 Fitness building and the adjacent parking lot). PCE and TCE concentrations in soil gas in the courtyard between the 24-Hour Fitness building and the former drycleaners facility did not exceed their respective RWQCB ESLs. Therefore, there appear to be no potential vapor intrusion concerns for the proposed redevelopment and no further investigations are recommended for the proposed redevelopment. The sampling results from the sample locations in the Future Mixed Use Development Area meet the requirements of the residential thresholds (RWQCB Residential ESLs).”1 The Focused Phase II Report specifically evaluated soil vapor conditions surrounding the off-site former drycleaner facility, including sub-slab soil vapor sampling, soil gas sampling, groundwater sampling and soil sampling conducted within a portion of the Project site nearest to the former drycleaners, and at off-site locations within the portions of the Gateway Plaza shopping center to remain at and near the former drycleaner (i.e., not on the Project site). The analytical results of these investigations are presented in the Phase II Report. 2 These results pertaining to the Future Mixed Use Development Area (i.e., the Project site) indicate the following:
• Sub-slab vapor samples collected from sub-slab vapor probes at locations SS-07 and SS-08 (within the Project site) found concentrations of PCE at 11 and 2.7 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) respectively. These concentrations are below the applicable SFRWQCB 2019 Residential Screening Level for PCE of 15 ug/m3.3

• Sub-slab vapor samples collected from these same vapor probes (SS-07 and SS-08) found concentrations of TCE at 8.6 and 2.1 ug/m3, respectively. These concentrations are below the applicable SFRWQCB 2019 Residential Screening Level for TCE of 16 ug/m3. • Soil gas samples collected from soil gas probes at locations RB-06, RB-07 and SG-01 (within the Project site) found concentrations of PCE at 2.7, 8.2 and 2.4 ug/m3, respectively. These concentrations are below the applicable SFRWQCB 2019 Residential Screening Level for PCE of 15 ug/m3.
• Soil samples collected from these same soil gas probes (RB-06, RB-07 and SG-01) found concentrations of TCE at 2.1, 3.4 and 1.9 ug/m3, respectively. These concentrations are below the applicable SFRWQCB 2019 Residential Screening Level for TCE of 16 ug/m3.

According to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB), “it is unlikely that the presence of a chemical in soil, soil gas or groundwater at concentrations below the corresponding ESL will pose a significant threat to human health, water resources, or the environment.”4 The Phase II report finds no potential vapor intrusion concerns for the proposed Project site that exceed applicable residential ESLs and recommends no further investigations at the Project site.

Accordingly, sub-slab vapors and soil gas concentrations at the Project site do not constitute an unusual circumstance and do not present an exception to the Project’s CEQA exemption.

The Phase II Report does present the results of sub-slab soil vapors, soil gas samples, soil samples and groundwater samples collected off-site, at the Gateway Shopping Center and specifically at the off-site location of the former drycleaner (i.e., not at the Project site). The analytical results from these samples are appropriately compared to Commercial Screening Levels, as these areas are not part of the Project and will remain in commercial use. The Phase II Report does identify exceedances of the minimum

1 Roux Associates, Inc., Focused Phase II Subsurface Environmental Investigation Report, July 14, 2023, page 10 2 Roux, 2023, Table 2: Sub-Slab Soil Vapor and Soil Gas Sampling Results 3 SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Summary of Soil Vapor ESLs, 2019 4 SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, User’s Guide: Derivation and Application of Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs), 2019, Revision 1, page iii

5.B.i
Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Mark Hungerford, City of Fremont 2/8/24 Page 6
Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 Commercial Screening Levels for PCE and TCE at these off-site locations, and indicates that these exceedances will need to be addressed separately (i.e., not as part of the Project) under regulatory oversight. These off-site conditions do not constitute an unusual circumstance for the Project and do not present an exception to the Project’s CEQA exemption.

Hazardous Materials Exposure during Construction
Basis of the Appeal
The appeal asserts the following related to potential impacts related to hazardous materials and water quality during construction of the Project:
“Project construction will also disturb soil and groundwater, potentially releasing contaminants during construction. These impacts are peculiar to the Project site and were not known or analyzed at the time the General Plan EIR was prepared.”
Response to the Appeal
These assertions of the appeal are incorrect and directly contradicted by facts contained in the CEQA document and its administrative record.

The Phase II Report included collection of soil samples at seven different locations, including two soil samples collected at the Project site (soil sample locations RB-06 and RB-07, at 5 feet bgs). These samples were collected to assess whether the source of PCE soil vapor exists in the soil. Based on the analytic results presented in the Phase II Report, PCE was detected in one soil sample, at sample site RB01-5 located off-site within the former dry-cleaners location. PCE was detected at a concentration of 12 micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg), well below its respected Commercial/Industrial ESL of 2,700 μg/kg. No other volatile organic chemicals (including PCE or TCE) were detected at concentrations that exceed their respective ESLs for soil at the Project site.

As a point of additional comparison, the analytic results of soil samples collected at the Project site were all below the reporting limits of 4.1 ug/kg. According to the SFBRWQCB’s 2019 ESLs, the ESL for Human Health Risk, Direct Human Exposure during Construction is a concentration of 590 ug/kg. Soils at the Project site are well below these ESLs. Furthermore, the primary health concern from PCE and TCE is vapor intrusion to indoor air from sub-surface soil gas. These chemicals are of less concern outdoors, as the compounds naturally dissipate once they reach the open air.

The Phase II Report included groundwater sampling collected from three locations within the parking lot immediately adjacent to the former drycleaner location. During this sampling, initial groundwater was observed at approximately 45 feet below ground surface. The analytical results presented in the Phase II report found that PCE was not detected at or above a reporting limit of 0.5 micrograms per liter (ug/L) in any of the groundwater samples, as compared to a Commercial/Industrial ESL of 2.8 ug/L and a Residential ESL of 0.64 ug/L. Furthermore, the Project’s construction activity is not expected to involve any deep excavations for parking garages or basements. Ground disturbance of perhaps 5 to 6 feet for grading, and perhaps 8 feet for utility trenching, is expected. The Project’s construction activity is not expected to disturb or encounter groundwater.

Accordingly, disturbance of soil and groundwater would not result in a significant release of contaminants during construction, does not constitute an unusual circumstance, and does not present an exception to the Project’s CEQA exemption.

Air Quality
Basis of the Appeal
The appeal asserts the following related to potential air quality impacts during operation of the Project:

5.B.i
Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Mark Hungerford, City of Fremont 2/8/24 Page 7
Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 “The Air Quality Analysis fails to analyze sources of operational emissions, including the back-up generator that will be required for the elevator on-site. California Building Code Title 24, Part 2 § 2702.2.2 requires that standby power shall be provided for elevators and platform lifts where, as here, a building has an accessible floor four or more stories above an emergency exit. The Project is required to have standby power in the form of a back-up generator for the elevator, but the Air Quality analysis fails to analyze the backup generator's air quality and GHG emissions impacts in comparison to BAAQMD thresholds or on nearby sensitive receptors. Given the proximity to Kaiser Permanente Hospital and the IVF clinic within 90 feet, the air quality and health-risk impacts of the back-up generator may be significant, but are insufficiently analyzed and mitigated. The City cannot rely on a categorical exemption, or any other CEQA exemption, because the Project may result in significant impacts to air quality which require mitigation.” Response to the Appeal
These assertions of the appeal are incorrect and directly contradicted by facts contained in the CEQA document and its administrative record.

Construction Period Noise
Basis of the Appeal
The appeal asserts the following related to potential noise impacts during construction of the Project:
“An EIR must be prepared because the Project results in significant noise impacts, precluding reliance on an Infill Exemption or any other CEQA exemption. Here, the Project's Noise analysis analyzes the Project's noise impacts to Kaiser Hospital with a 600-foot distance between the center of construction to sensitive receptors in the hospital. This metric is incorrect, and unsupported by substantial evidence. In fact, the construction noise will be heard by receptors in Kaiser as close as 400 feet away from the edge of the Project's construction site.” Response to the Appeal
These assertions of the appeal are incorrect and directly contradicted by facts contained in the CEQA document and its administrative record.

The CEQA Environmental Compliance Checklist discloses that, “while construction noise will vary, it is expected that average noise levels during construction at the nearest commercial uses to the west would approach 83 dBA Leq.” More specifically, the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis for the Fremont Gateway Plaza Apartments Project (LSA, October 2023) provides that, “Project construction would result in short-term noise and vibration impacts on adjacent land uses. Maximum construction impacts would be short term, generally intermittent depending on the construction phase, and variable depending on receiver distance from the active construction zone.”
Depending on the construction sequence and phase, construction activities for the Project will occur as close as 400 feet from the Kaiser Hospital, and as far as 860 feet from the Kaiser Hospital. To account for these variable distances, the construction noise analysis correctly relies on a 630-foot average distance from the center of the construction site to the Kaiser Hospital. Reliance on measurements from the center of the construction site is a common professional best practice and a logical means for approximating the average construction noise from a larger construction site. Relying on a composite construction noise level for the site preparation phase of construction (the construction phase expected to result in the greatest noise level), average construction noise levels at the Kaiser Hospital are calculated to be 66 dBA Leq and 70 dBA Leq at the Medical Center, also located to the east of the Project site. While construction operations have the potential to generate audible noise at the Kaiser Hospital and at the Medical Center, hearing construction noise is not the applicable CEQA Threshold. As presented in the CEQA Environmental Compliance Checklist, the threshold for construction noise is a

5.B.i
Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Mark Hungerford, City of Fremont 2/8/24 Page 8
Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or Noise Ordinance. According to the Fremont Noise Ordinance, temporary construction noise levels generated during permitted construction hours are exempt from compliance with City noise standards. Temporary construction noise is considered less than significant, provided the Project complies with the construction hours as specified in the City’s Noise Ordinance, and implements the Standard Development Requirements of Section 18.218.050(g) of the FMC related to construction noise.

The Project’s construction does not constitute an unusual circumstance within the surrounding urban environment. The FMC defines construction noise as exempt from compliance with City noise standards and therefore a less than significant impact, provided all applicable construction-period Standard Development Requirements are implemented, as they will be here. Construction noise does not present an exception to the Project’s CEQA streamlining.

Construction Period Vibration
Basis of the Appeal
The appeal asserts the following related to potential vibration impacts during construction of the Project:
“The methodology used in the Noise Memo is not adequate to identify potentially significant noise and vibration impacts since activities such as demolition and compaction would occur near the north and east property lines, closest to sensitive buildings. The Medical Center appears to be 90 ft to the north of the project, and the Kaiser Hospital appears to be 415 ft to the east. Recalculating the noise and vibration impacts could identify significant impacts requiring mitigation. An exemption is improper and an EIR must be prepared to adequately analyze the Project's potentially significant noise and vibration impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.” Response to the Appeal
These assertions of the appeal are directly contradicted by facts contained in the CEQA document and its administrative record.

The CEQA Environmental Compliance Checklist relies on the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018) to define a significant vibration impact threshold of 0.20 PPV (in/sec).

Construction vibrations exceeding this threshold have the potential for building damage to nonengineered timber and masonry buildings. The analysis presented in the CEQA Environmental Compliance Checklist as derived from the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis for the Fremont Gateway Plaza Apartments Project (LSA, October 2023) finds that vibration levels generated by dump trucks and other large equipment operating at the Project site would generate ground-borne vibration levels of

0.192 PPV (in/sec) at the closest structures to the Project site. These closest structures are the remaining Gateway Shopping Center’s commercial uses to the west of the site that are approximately 10 feet from the Project’s construction activity. Vibration levels at these structures 10 feet from construction activity would not exceed the CEQA threshold of 0.2 PPV (in/sec). All other buildings, including the Kaiser Hospital (at either 630 feet average or 400 feet at its nearest point) and the Medical Center Building (at 390 feet average or 175 feet at its nearest point) are substantially further removed from the Project’s construction activity, and vibration levels would be substantially lower than the threshold.

The Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis also addresses impacts related to potential human annoyance from construction vibration. That analysis relies on a ground-borne vibration threshold of “distinctly perceptible”, which corresponds to approximately 72 VdB for frequent vibration events at locations where people sleep. The analysis presented in the CEQA Environmental Compliance Checklist as derived

5.B.i
Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Mark Hungerford, City of Fremont 2/8/24 Page 9
Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 from the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis for the Fremont Gateway Plaza Apartments Project (LSA, October 2023) finds that the Kaiser Hospital (at 630 feet from the center of the Project site) would experience ground-borne vibration levels of approximately 45 VdB. This level of construction vibrations from the Project would not exceed the FTA vibration threshold of 72 VdB for human annoyance at the Kaiser Hospital.

Even under a more conservative scenario where heavy construction equipment (i.e., a hoe ram, large bulldozer and/or heavy trucks) operate as close as 175 feet from the nearest point at the Medical Center, the resulting vibration level would be approximately 62 VdB. These vibration levels would be less than the FTA threshold of 75 VdB for institutional land uses with primarily daytime use, and would be less than the FTA threshold of 65 VdB for buildings where vibration might interfere with interior operations (i.e., for operation of most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes).

Vibration levels would be even lower at 400 feet, or at the nearest point from the Project site to the Kaiser Hospital.

The Project’s construction does not constitute an unusual circumstance within the surrounding urban environment. Calculated vibration levels due to heavy construction activity would not exceed threshold levels at any of the nearby land uses, including the Kaiser Hospital and the Medical Center. The Project would not have a significant construction-period impact related to vibrations. Accordingly, construction vibrations do not present an exception to the Project’s CEQA exemption.

Construction Period Traffic Noise
Basis of the Appeal
The appeal asserts the following related to potential traffic noise impacts during construction of the Project:
“The City's Noise Analysis for the Project is not supported by substantial evidence for its failure to appropriately evaluate the potential significance of temporary noise increases from construction traffic. The truck traffic noise analysis should consider the speed and stop-and-go conditions which can generate more severe noise levels than free-flow traffic.” “The General Plan Noise Element provides that trucks passing by at 50 feet can reach noise levels of 75-85 dBA. These noise levels may result in a significant noise impact to nearby sensitive receptors.” Response to the Appeal
These assertions of the appeal are directly contradicted by facts contained in the CEQA document and its administrative record.

As disclosed in the CEQA Environmental Compliance Checklist and more specifically analyzed in the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis for the Fremont Gateway Plaza Apartments Project (LSA, October 2023), temporary construction noise would result from the transport of construction equipment and materials to the Project site and construction worker commutes. These transportation activities would incrementally raise traffic noise along access roads leading to the site. The effect of temporary construction traffic on ambient noise levels would be small when compared to existing daily traffic volumes on Walnut Avenue. During the building construction phase, an additional 628 vehicles consisting of worker and haul trips would be added to the roadway adjacent to the Project site. Because the existing traffic volume on Walnut Avenue is considerably more than 628 vehicles, typical construction-related vehicle trips would not approach existing daily traffic volumes, and traffic noise would not increase by an applicable CEQA threshold of 3 dBA CNEL The CEQA Environmental Compliance Checklist and its technical appendix also disclose that there would be a relatively high single-event noise exposure resulting from passing trucks, which may generate up to

5.B.i
Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Mark Hungerford, City of Fremont 2/8/24 Page 10
Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 84 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. However, like all construction noise levels generated during permitted construction hours, construction-period traffic noise is exempt from compliance with City noise standards, and temporary construction noise is considered less than significant. The single-event noise generated by passing haul trucks is not unique or peculiar to the Project, and the temporary construction-related impacts equipment and materials transport to the Project site would not be a significant CEQA impact. Accordingly, construction traffic noise does not present an exception to the Project’s CEQA exemption.

Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Basis of the Appeal
The appeal asserts the following related to the Project’s contribution toward cumulative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions:
“The CEQA Checklist fails to meaningfully address the Project's cumulative GHG impacts and instead states that no feasible mitigation was found capable of fully reducing these impacts. The 2011 General Plan results in potentially significant and unmitigated cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, for which no mitigation would fully reduce the significant impacts. Here, the Project's increased contribution to the General Plan's significant exceedances of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions is a project-level impact that is peculiar to the Project site and were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and will result in more severe GHG impacts than previously contemplated. These project-specific impacts must be analyzed in a project-level EIR.

Response to the Appeal
These assertions of the appeal are directly contradicted by facts contained in the CEQA document and its administrative record.

As fully described in the CEQA Environmental Compliance Checklist and the December 12, 2023 Staff Report to the Zoning Administrator, the Project is fully consistent with the development density and land use characteristics established pursuant to the 2011 Fremont General Plan, the 2015 City Center Community Plan, and existing zoning. Concurrent with adoption of the 2011 General Plan Update, the City prepared and certified a General Plan Update EIR. That GP EIR analyzed the potential environmental effects that were anticipated to occur pursuant to buildout of the General Plan. The GP EIR assumed that the year 2035 was the earliest time period that the growth anticipated pursuant to the General Plan would be achieved. As a project that is consistent with the General Plan, the City Center Community Plan and zoning, the Project’s cumulative effects were fully anticipated and included in the GP EIR analysis. Specifically, the Projects GHG emissions are part of, and not in addition to the GHG emissions as calculated for General Plan buildout.

The CEQA Environmental Compliance Checklist correctly provides an analysis of whether the Project’s GHG emissions are peculiar to the Project or its site, and whether the Project may result in an impact related to GHG emissions that may be more severe than the GHG impact previously disclosed in the GP EIR. This analysis identifies that buildout the General Plan would result in per capita emissions of 5.5 MT CO2e per service population. The calculated GHG emissions for the Project were found to be 1,038 metric ton of CO2e, resulting in a Project-specific GHG efficiency of 1.6 MT CO2e per service population.

The Project’s efficiency metric for GHG emissions is well below the per capita emissions of 5.5 MT CO2e per service population identified for buildout of the General Plan.

Although the Project would contribute incrementally to the significant and unavoidable GHG impacts as previously disclosed in the GP EIR, the Project would not result in any operational GHG impacts that are new or more significant than those analyzed in the GP EIR. Incremental GHG emissions attributed to the Project do not present an exception to the Project’s CEQA exemption.

5.B.i
Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Minutes Planning Commission – February 22, 2024 PAGE 1

MINUTES

FREMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2024
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Zhang called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

PRESENT: Chairperson Zhang
Vice Chairperson Basrai
Commissioners Liu, Ramamurthi, Steckler, Yee
ABSENT: Commissioner Rao
STAFF PRESENT: Joel Pullen, Planning Manager
Heather Lee, Senior Deputy City Attorney
Mark Hungerford, Senior Planner
Mayank Patel, Associate Planner
Kim Salazar, Recording Clerk
Khanh Vo, IT Specialist II
Chavez Company, Remote Stenocaptioning
Napoleon Batalao, Video Technician
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Steckler moved to approve minutes for the regular meeting of January 25, 2024 and Commissioner Yee seconded. Motion carried by all present.

DISCLOSURES: Commissioner Liu drove by the proposed project site for Item 2 (PLN2024-00090).

Commissioner Yee visited the proposed project sites for Item 1 (PLN2023-00143), Item 2 (PLN2024-00090), and Item 3
(PLN204-00091). Commissioner Yee also spoke with the
applicant for Items 2 and 3; as well as business owners, residents, and non-residents in the areas related to Items 2 and 3.

Vice Chairperson Basrai drove by the proposed project sites for Item 1 (PLN2023-00143), Item 2 (PLN2024-00090), and Item 3 (PLN204-00091).

Chairperson Zhang drove by and walked the properties of the proposed project sites for Item 1 (PLN2023-00143), Item 2 (PLN2024-00090), and Item 3 (PLN204-00091).

INFORMATIONAL ITEM NO. 7

GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS
PLN2024-00129 (PLN2023-00198)

CITY COUNCIL HEARING
04/16/2024

5.B.j
Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Informational Item No. 7 - Draft Planning Commission Hearing Minutes (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Minutes Planning Commission – February 22, 2024 PAGE 2
Timestamps from the video webcast are listed below each Public Hearing Item Number and are in hours format, as follows: (hours:minutes:seconds). Video webcasts of Planning Commission meetings can be found at: https://fremontca.viebit.com/# CONSENT CALENDAR None

PUBLIC/ORAL
COMMUNICATIONS Matthew Beeston, representing the Northern California Carpenters Union, advocated in general regarding labor standards.

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Item 1. WITHERLY LANE HOMES – 830 Witherly Lane – PLN2023-00143 – To (00:09:22) consider a Design Review Permit, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 8546, and a Private Street in conjunction with a proposal to subdivide the three-lot, 4.15-net-acre site into 10 single-family lots at 830 Witherly Lane in the Mission San Jose Community Plan Area and to consider a finding that no further environmental review is required pursuant to an exemption from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as the project is consistent with the land use envisioned for the site as established by the General Plan for which an Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2010082060) was previously prepared and certified.

There were no public speakers for this project.

IT WAS MOVED (BASRAI/LIU) AND CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE (6-0-0-1-0) THE PLANNING COMMISSION – HELD PUBLIC HEARING; AND
CONTINUED ITEM TO THE MARCH 28, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

The motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: 6 – Basrai, Liu, Ramamurthi, Steckler, Yee, Zhang NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: 1 – Rao
RECUSE: 0
Item 2. FREMONT HUB MIXED-USE APPEAL – 39150 Argonaut Way – PLN2024- (00:10:39) 00090 – To consider a third-party Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve: 1) the Discretionary Design Review Permit (under PLN2022-00487) to allow a proposed mixed-use development consisting of a freestanding 13,000-square-foot retail-pharmacy building with a drive-through lane and a six-story mixed-use building containing 314 apartment units and 14,157 square feet of retail-commercial space at 39150 Argonaut Way in the Central Community Plan Area; and, 2) an exemption from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to

5.B.j
Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Informational Item No. 7 - Draft Planning Commission Hearing Minutes (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Minutes Planning Commission – February 22, 2024 PAGE 3
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as the project is consistent with the density established by the General Plan, for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2010082060) was previously prepared and certified, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, as none of the circumstances requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred.

Planning Manager Joel Pullen introduced the item.

Senior Planner Mark Hungerford gave a comprehensive presentation and answered questions from the Commission regarding phase one (1) of the proposed project as it relates to the existing CVS Pharmacy.

Chairperson Zhang opened the public hearing on this item.

The appellant, Ariana Abedifard with Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, representing East Bay Residents for Responsible Development, spoke to the specifics of their appeal, and responded to questions regarding construction impacts and emissions, as compared to other construction projects.

The applicant, Michael Strahs with Kimco Realty, spoke to the proposed development project; and Bryan Wenter, land use attorney with Miller Starr Regalia representing Kimco Realty, spoke to issues related to the appeal. Michael Strahs then responded to questions from the Commission related to demolition and construction hours, contact with and utilization of union workers, development timelines, plans to activate commercial space and revitalization of the Hub, and the expected types of retailers.

Brandon Evans, representing IBEW Local 595, spoke in favor of the appeal, and requested that a project level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be done.

Lisa Danz and Shahin Olyaie both spoke (separately) in favor of the development project, and opposed the appeal.

Kelly Abreu commented on the production of reactive organic compounds and other environmental issues that occur during construction.

Ariana Abedifard spoke in rebuttal, stating that the City must comply with CEQA by providing a project level EIR to disclose and mitigate significant health and noise impacts.

Michael Strahs spoke in rebuttal, requesting that the Commission deny the appeal and approve the proposed development project. Bryan Wenter then spoke in rebuttal to the matters related to CEQA and the previously prepared EIR.

Chairperson Zhang closed the public hearing on this item.

5.B.j
Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: Informational Item No. 7 - Draft Planning Commission Hearing Minutes (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Minutes Planning Commission – February 22, 2024 PAGE 4
Senior Planner Mark Hungerford and Planning Manager Joel Pullen responded to clarifying questions from the Commission regarding CEQA, the City’s General Plan, distance measurements for noise studies, and calculations of emissions from construction, with assistance from the City’s environmental consultant, Scott Gregory with Lamphier-Gregory.

IT WAS MOVED (YEE/RAMAMURTHI) AND CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE (6-0-0-1-0) THE PLANNING COMMISSION – HELD PUBLIC HEARING; AND

FOUND THAT NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183, AS THE

PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DENSITY ESTABLISHED BY THE

GENERAL PLAN, FOR WHICH AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) (SCH#2010082060) WAS PREVIOUSLY PREPARED AND CERTIFIED, AND CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15162 AND 15164, AS NONE OF THE

CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRING PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT OR
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR HAVE OCCURRED;
AND

FOUND THE REQUESTED DISCRETIONARY DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN AND THAT THE

PROPOSED SITE IS PHYSICALLY SUITABLE FOR THE TYPE, DENSITY, AND

INTENSITY OF THE PROPOSED USE, WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH

DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY, AND WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO

THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY AS ENUMERATED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT;
AND
DENIED THE THIRD-PARTY APPEAL (PLN2024-00090) AND APPROVED THE DISCRETIONARY DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (PLN2022-00487), AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT “A,” SUBJECT TO FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT “B.”
The motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: 6 – Basrai, Liu, Ramamurthi, Steckler, Yee, Zhang NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: 1 – Rao
RECUSE: 0
Chairperson Zhang called for a brief recess at 8:29 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:39 p.m.

Item 3. GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS APPEAL – 39160 Paseo Padre Parkway – (01:41:34) PLN2024-00091 – To consider a third party appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve: 1) the Discretionary Design Review Permit (under PLN2023- 00198) to allow a proposed five-story, 206-unit apartment building within the Gateway Plaza Shopping Center at 36190 Paseo Padre Parkway in the Central Community Plan Area; and, 2) an exemption from the requirements of the California Environmental

5.B.j
Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Informational Item No. 7 - Draft Planning Commission Hearing Minutes (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Minutes Planning Commission – February 22, 2024 PAGE 5
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Infill Development Projects, and a finding that no further environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as the project is consistent with the density established by the General Plan, for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2010082060) was previously prepared and certified, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, as none of the circumstances requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred.

Planning Manager Joel Pullen introduced the item.

Senior Planner Mark Hungerford gave a comprehensive presentation and answered questions from the Commission regarding distance measurements related to the conducted noise studies.

Chairperson Zhang opened the public hearing on this item.

The appellant, Kelilah Federman with Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, representing East Bay Residents for Responsible Development, spoke to the specifics of their appeal. The Commission posed no clarifying questions to the appellant.

The applicant, Michael Strahs with Kimco Realty, spoke to the proposed development project; and Bryan Wenter, land use attorney with Miller Starr Regalia representing Kimco Realty, spoke to issues related to the appeal. Bryan Wenter offered clarifying comments regarding the specific CEQA sections that streamline the environmental review process for eligible infill projects.

Lisa Danz spoke in favor of the development project, and opposed the appeal.

Jim Griffin expressed concern over parking, as well as ingress and egress, for the proposed project.

Kelly Abreu spoke in favor of the development project. The speaker also commented on the abundance of parking lots in the downtown area, and sensitivity receptors related to projects outside of the City of Fremont.

The appellant, Kelilah Federman, spoke in rebuttal, stating that the environmental effects of the project with respect to health risk, air quality, construction, and noise, must be analyzed and mitigated in a subsequent EIR in order to comply with CEQA; and that the mitigation measures proposed for the project do not adequately mitigate the potentially significant impact.

The applicant, Michael Strahs and Bryan Wenter, both spoke in rebuttal, requesting that the Commission deny the appeal and approve the proposed development project.

Bryan Wenter further commented that the project was protected by the Housing Accountability Act, and that it was the type of project that the law and streamlining approaches for CEQA exemptions exist for.

5.B.j
Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: Informational Item No. 7 - Draft Planning Commission Hearing Minutes (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Minutes Planning Commission – February 22, 2024 PAGE 6
Chairperson Zhang closed the public hearing on this item.

Senior Planner Mark Hungerford responded to a clarifying question from the Commission regarding notification and feedback from the community regarding the proposed project.

IT WAS MOVED (YEE/BASRAI) AND CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE (6-0-0-1-0) THE PLANNING COMMISSION – HELD PUBLIC HEARING; AND

FOUND THAT, WITHOUT LIMITATION AND ON A SEPARATE AND

INDEPENDENT BASIS, THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE

REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332, INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, AND NOT SUBJECT TO FURTHER

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183, AS THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DENSITY ESTABLISHED

BY THE GENERAL PLAN, FOR WHICH AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (EIR) (SCH#2010082060) WAS PREVIOUSLY PREPARED AND CERTIFIED, AND CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15162 AND 15164, AS NONE

OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRING PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT OR SUPPLEMENTAL EIR HAVE OCCURRED;
AND

FOUND THE REQUESTED DISCRETIONARY DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN AND THAT THE

PROPOSED SITE IS PHYSICALLY SUITABLE FOR THE TYPE, DENSITY, AND

INTENSITY OF THE PROPOSED USE, WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH

DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY, AND WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO

THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY AS ENUMERATED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT;
AND
DENIED THE THIRD-PARTY APPEAL (PLN2024-00091) AND APPROVED THE DISCRETIONARY DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (PLN2023-00198), AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT “A,” SUBJECT TO FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT “B.”
The motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: 6 – Basrai, Liu, Ramamurthi, Steckler, Yee, Zhang NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: 1 – Rao
RECUSE: 0
Item 4. 2023 Annual Progress Report – Citywide – To consider an annual report on the status (02:19:13) of implementation of the General Plan and the 2023 – 2031 Housing Element; and to consider exemptions from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), each on a separate and independent basis, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines

5.B.j
Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: Informational Item No. 7 - Draft Planning Commission Hearing Minutes (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Minutes Planning Commission – February 22, 2024 PAGE 7
§15061 (Review for Exemption), §15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning), and §15378 (Project).

Planning Manager Joel Pullen introduced the item.

Associate Planner Mayank Patel gave a comprehensive presentation and responded to questions from the Commission with assistance from Planning Manager Joel Pullen regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), affordable housing units, and Senate Bill (SB) 9.

Chairperson Zhang opened the public hearing on this item.

Kelly Abreu commented on the reduced population of Fremont over the last couple of years and the lack of density in the residential areas of Niles and Mission San Jose.

Chairperson Zhang closed the public hearing on this item.

IT WAS MOVED (RAMAMURTHI/STECKLER) AND CARRIED BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE (6-0-0-1-0) THE PLANNING COMMISSION – HELD PUBLIC HEARING;
AND
RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL:

FIND THE ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT (APR) IS EXEMPT FROM THE

REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), EACH ON A SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT BASIS, PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES §15061 (REVIEW FOR EXEMPTION), §15183 (PROJECTS

CONSISTENT WITH A COMMUNITY PLAN, GENERAL PLAN, OR ZONING), AND §15378 (PROJECT);
AND
ACCEPT EXHIBIT “A” AND EXHIBIT “B,” WHICH DEPICT THE STATUS OF

THE GENERAL PLAN AND HOUSING ELEMENT, AND DIRECT STAFF TO SUBMIT THE APR TO THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND

RESEARCH (OPR) AND STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (HCD).

The motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: 6 – Basrai, Liu, Ramamurthi, Steckler, Yee, Zhang NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: 1 – Rao
RECUSE: 0
DISCUSSION ITEMS None

5.B.j
Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: Informational Item No. 7 - Draft Planning Commission Hearing Minutes (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Minutes Planning Commission – February 22, 2024 PAGE 8

MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
Information from Commission and Staff:
• Information from staff, as reported by Planning Manager Joel Pullen:
o The next regular meeting is tentatively scheduled for March 28, 2024. • Actions from City Council Regular Meetings: None
• Information from Commission:
o Commissioner Yee reported that the Planning Commissioners Academy for March 6-8, 2024 was sold out.

ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:41 p.m.

SUBMITTED and APPROVED BY:

Kim Salazar, Recording Clerk Joel Pullen, AICP, Secretary Planning Commission Planning Commission

5.B.j
Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Informational Item No. 7 - Draft Planning Commission Hearing Minutes (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) INFORMATIONAL ITEM NO. 8

GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS
PLN2024-00129 (PLN2023-00198)

CITY COUNCIL HEARING
04/16/2024

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 764
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 765
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 766
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 767
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 768
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 769
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 770
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 771
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 772
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 773
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 774
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 775
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 776
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 777
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 778
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 779
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 780
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 781
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 782
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 783
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 784
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 785
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 786
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 787
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 788
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 789
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 790
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 791
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 792
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 793
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 794
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 795
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 796
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 797
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 798
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 799
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 800
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 801
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 802
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 803
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 804
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 805
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 806
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 807
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 808
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 809
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 810
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 811
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 812
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 813
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 814
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 815
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 816
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 817
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 818
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 819
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 820
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 821
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 822
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 823
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 824
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 825
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 826
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 827
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 828
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 829
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 830
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 831
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 832
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 833
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 834
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 835
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 836
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 837
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 838
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 839
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 840
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 841
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 842
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 843
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 844
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 845
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 846
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 847
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 848
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 849
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 850
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 851
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 852
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 853
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 854
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 855
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 856
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 857
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 858
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 859
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 860
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 861
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 862
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 863
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 864
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 865
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 866
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 867
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 868
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 869
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 870
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

5.B.k
Packet Pg. 871
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Fremont City Council Meeting: 04/16/24 07:00 PM
3300 Capitol Avenue Div/Dept: City Clerk's Office
Fremont, CA 94538 Category: Code Adoptions & Amendments

SCHEDULED
Sponsors:

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT (ID # 5143) DOC ID: 5143
Updated: 4/12/2024 9:04 AM by Dina Lewis Page 1

SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING FREMONT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.05.060 (COMPENSATION OF MAYOR AND

COUNCILMEMBERS) TO ADJUST THE SALARIES OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL

MEMBERS
Contact Persons:

Name: Susan Gauthier David Persselin
Title: City Clerk Finance Director
Div/Dept: City Clerk's Office Finance Department
Phone: 510-284-4076 510-494-4631
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]
Executive Summary: Fremont Municipal Code Section 2.05.060 (the “Municipal Code”) establishes the salaries of the Councilmembers and Mayor and the process for reviewing and implementing compensation increases.
“Compensation increases shall be reviewed during each budget cycle and increases shall be considered commensurate with the Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers, San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward in an amount not to exceed 4%. Any increase to the Councilmembers’ salaries shall become effective only upon commencement of a new Council term of office following adoption of an ordinance authorizing the increase. Any increase to the Mayor’s additional compensation (the amount that exceeds the Councilmembers’ salary amount) shall become effective as set forth in the ordinance adopting the increase.”
The ordinance was introduced by the City Council at its April 9, 2024 meeting. The ordinance is now before the Council for adoption.

ATTACHMENTS:
• Draft Ordinance Mayor and Council Compensation Increase RECOMMENDATION: Adopt ordinance amending the Fremont Municipal Code to authorize an increase in the salary of the City Councilmembers to $2,602.56 per month and of the Mayor to $4,623.83 per month, effective after the new City Council is seated following the election of November 5, 2024.

9.1 Packet Pg. 872
Ordinance No. XX- 2024 Page 1 of 3
DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO. XX-2024

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

FREMONT AMENDING FREMONT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION

2.05.060 (COMPENSATION OF MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS)

TO ADJUST THE SALARIES OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL

MEMBERS
WHEREAS, Section 36516 of the California Government Code authorizes Councilmembers to receive a monthly salary, and Section 365161.1 authorizes the Mayor to receive compensation in addition to that which the Mayor receives as a Councilmember; and
WHEREAS, Fremont Municipal Code Section 2.05.060 establishes the salaries of the Mayor and Councilmembers and sets forth a process for reviewing and adjusting compensation; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.05.060(c) permits increases to compensation commensurate with the Consumer Price Index, in an amount not to exceed four percent; and
WHEREAS, the monthly salary for the City Council was adjusted to the current level of $2,427.76 per month for Councilmembers and $4,313.28 per month for the Mayor, which became effective upon seating of the Councilmembers elected on November 8, 2022; and
WHEREAS, California Senate Bill 329, effective January 1, 2024, amended California Government Code Section 36516 to permit adjustments to city council salaries by an amount not exceeding the greater of either five percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary, or based on inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index, which shall not exceed 10 percent for each calendar year; and
WHEREAS, based on the most recent information from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers, San Francisco-OaklandHayward, inflation has increased from December 2022 through February 2024 at an annualized rate of 3.60%; and
WHEREAS, consistent with Senate Bill 329 and local law, the City Council

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: Draft Ordinance Mayor and Council Compensation Increase (5143 : Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance-SALARY Ordinance No. XX- 2024 Page 2 of 3
desires to adjust the City Council salary to account for inflation based on the annualized rate of 3.60% increase in the Consumer Price Index; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that adjusting Councilmembers compensation is needed to address the impacts of inflation and economic realities on those who serve on the City Council, and to encourage persons from different income levels to consider service on the City Council by making the compensation more reflective of the time and work being performed.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FREMONT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. FREMONT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.05.060.

The Fremont Municipal Code Section 2.05.060 is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 2.05.060. Compensation of mayor and councilmembers. (a) Each member of the council other than the mayor shall receive a salary of $2427.76 $2,602.56 per month.
(b) The mayor shall receive a salary of $4,313.28 $4,623.83 per month. (c) Compensation increases shall be reviewed during each budget cycle and increases shall be considered commensurate with the Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers, San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Metropolitan Area in an amount not to exceed 4%. Any increase to the councilmembers’ salaries shall become effective only upon commencement of a new council term of office following adoption of an ordinance authorizing the increase. Any increase to the mayor’s additional compensation (the amount that exceeds the councilmembers’ salary amount) shall become effective as set forth in the ordinance adopting the increase.

SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY.

The City Council hereby declares that, should any provision, section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, be rendered or declared invalid or unconstitutional by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, such decision or action shall not affect the validity of the remaining section or portions of the Ordinance or part thereof, and further declares that it would have independently adopted the remaining provisions, sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases, or words of this Ordinance.

SECTION 3. CEQA.

The City Council finds, under Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3) and 15378, that this ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: Draft Ordinance Mayor and Council Compensation Increase (5143 : Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance-SALARY Ordinance No. XX- 2024 Page 3 of 3
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that it is not a Project which has the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and is a governmental activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The Ordinance shall take effect on November 5, 2024, and the salary increases authorized herein shall commence on the start of the new City Council term of office following the November 5, 2024 election.

SECTION 5. PUBLICATION AND POSTING.

The City Clerk has prepared and published at least five days before the date of adoption a summary of this ordinance once in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in Alameda County and circulated in the City of Fremont. A certified copy of the full text of the ordinance was posted in the office of the City Clerk since at least five days before this date of adoption. Within 15 days after adoption of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause the summary to be published again with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the ordinance and shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of the full text of this adopted ordinance with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the ordinance.

The foregoing ordinance was introduced before the City Council of the City of Fremont at the regular meeting of the City Council, held on the _____day of ________________ and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _____ day of __________________ by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Clerk City Attorney

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: Draft Ordinance Mayor and Council Compensation Increase (5143 : Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance-SALARY

Fremont City CouncilApril 16, 2024

Fremont City Council
April 16, 2024