Agenda packet, regular meeting — Fremont City Council, April 16, 2024 (part 2 of 3)

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

5.A.e
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) City of Fremont 91
environment, substantially reducing the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, causing 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 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, 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
Authority for the Environmental Checklist: Public Resources Code Sections 21083, 21083.5.

5.A.e
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) City of Fremont 92
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.A.e
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use 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

FREMONT HUB MIXED-USE
PLN2024-00128 (PLN2022-00487)

CITY COUNCIL HEARING
04/16/2024

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Informational Item No. 3 - Zoning Administrator Hearing Minutes (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use 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.A.f
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Informational Item No. 3 - Zoning Administrator Hearing Minutes (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use 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.A.f
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Informational Item No. 3 - Zoning Administrator Hearing Minutes (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 244
Attachment: Informational Item No. 3 - Zoning Administrator Hearing Minutes (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) INFORMATIONAL ITEM NO.4

FREMONT HUB MIXED-USE
PLN2024-00128(PLN2022-00487)

CITY COUNCIL HEARING
04/16/2024

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 245
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 246
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 247
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 248
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 249
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 250
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 251
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 252
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 253
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 254
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 255
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 256
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 257
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 258
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 259
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 260
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 261
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 262
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 263
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 264
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 265
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 266
Attachment: Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Planning Commission
February 22, 2024

Page 1 ends

Proposal: FREMONT HUB MIXED-USE APPEAL - 39150 Argonaut Way - PLN2024-00090 - 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 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: 39150 Argonaut Way
APN: 501-976-12
Area: Development of approximately 27,157 square feet of retailcommercial floor area and 314 apartment units on a 5.86-acre portion of a 37.3-acre parcel.

People: East Bay Residents for Responsible Development, c/o Ariana Abedifard (Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo), Appellant Mark Rickards and Michael Strahs (Kimco Realty), Applicant Lisa Majchrzak (TCA Architects), Architect
Jonathan Tang (BKF Engineers), Civil Engineer
Mark Hungerford, Staff Planner, (510) 494-4541,
[email protected]
General Plan: Commercial – City Center
Zoning: City Center – Urban Neighborhood

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATIONAL ITEM NO.5

FREMONT HUB MIXED-USE
PLN2024-00128(PLN2022-00487)

CITY COUNCIL HEARING
04/16/2024

5.A.h
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5090) Meeting of February 22, 2024 FREMONT HUB MIXED-USE APPEAL PLN2024-00090 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 Fremont Hub Mixed-Use project, a proposed mixed-use development at the northern corner of the Fremont Hub shopping center involving a new 13,000-square-foot retail-pharmacy building and a six-story mixed-use building containing 314 market-rate apartment units and 14,157 square feet of ground floor retail-commercial space.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the Appeal, which challenges the project approval on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) grounds, lacks merit and that the evidence in the record supports the use of a streamlining exemption pursuant to, without limitation, CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and a CEQA addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 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 early 1960s, the Fremont Hub Shopping Center covers approximately 51.7 acres of land between Mowry Avenue, Fremont Boulevard, Argonaut Way, and Walnut Avenue. The outdoor mall contains 628,393 square feet of retailcommercial floor area spread across approximately 80 tenant spaces, plus supporting onsite parking fields that contain a total of 2,809 unassigned vehicle parking spaces. Anchor tenants within the center include a 123,727-square-foot general merchandise department store (Target) and a 54,741-square-foot supermarket (Safeway). Fourteen tenant spaces, including a 26,584-square-foot retail-pharmacy (CVS) and a 19,300-square-foot office supply store (Staples), would be demolished as part of proposed project improvements.

Buildings proposed to be demolished have been evaluated for historic significance and been found to possess no qualities that would make them eligible for listing on a Federal, State, or local historic register.

Zoning Administrator Hearing and Appeal Filing
On December 12, 2023, the Fremont Hub Mixed-Use project (PLN2022-00487) 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, five members of the public spoke on the item. Of the public speakers, four were opposed to the project and one was in favor of the project. In addition to those speakers who raised concerns about the project’s potential to negatively impact area traffic and public safety, Ariana Abedifard from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo representing East Bay Residents for Responsible Development (Appellant) challenged staff’s finding that the project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, and that subsequent CEQA documentation is not needed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 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 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.A.h
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5090) Meeting of February 22, 2024 FREMONT HUB MIXED-USE APPEAL PLN2024-00090 Page 3

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

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

3. The project may result in new and significant soil and groundwater contamination impacts;

4. The project may result in new and significant construction and operational impacts, including those related to air quality, traffic, noise, and greenhouse gas emissions; and

5. A subsequent or supplemental EIR is needed for the project.

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 (PRP2023-00027) 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 are 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 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 sixty-two (62) private protected trees enables reasonable and conforming use of the property.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes to redevelop a 5.86-acre portion of the Fremont Hub Shopping Center with a two-phase mixed-use development. Existing improvements within the project boundaries consist of 69,308 square feet of retail-commercial floor area and 426 surface parking spaces. These improvements would be demolished as part of project activities.

Phase 1A would consist of a new freestanding, 13,000-square-foot retail-pharmacy building

5.A.h
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5090) Meeting of February 22, 2024 FREMONT HUB MIXED-USE APPEAL PLN2024-00090 Page 4
at 36 feet in height located along the site’s Mowry Avenue frontage. The building would be oriented towards Mowry Avenue and feature a drive-through lane and window on its interior, east elevation. Phase 2B would consist of a six-story mixed-use building containing 314 market-rate apartment units and 14,157 square feet of ground floor retail-commercial space. This building would span 310 feet of the site’s Fremont Boulevard frontage and line an on-site extension of Capitol Avenue that would function as a private vehicle accessway.

Both project buildings would be designed to be all-electric.

Parking for Phase 1A of the project would consist of 64 surface parking spaces striped in areas north, south, and east of the retail-pharmacy building. Parking for Phase 1B of the project would be split between a 430-space, multi-level parking garage integrated into the design of the mixed-use building and 40 surface parking spaces located on both sides of the private vehicle accessway that fronts the eastern and southern portions of the building.

The mixed-use building would stand six stories and approximately 72’-11” tall and contain five floors of residential flats above a ground floor that contains a mix of ground-level residential units (Fremont Boulevard), residential lobby and retail-commercial spaces (Capitol Avenue extension), and utility/service rooms, a secondary residential lobby, and parking garage area (south and west elevations). The building’s second floor podium level would contain residential units and 31,445 square feet of common open space in the form of four separate courtyards, two terrace areas, and a dog park, plus indoor clubroom, fitness, and general amenity spaces. Stacked flats would comprise floors 3 – 6, with the sixth floor featuring a roof terrace with an adjacent indoor lounge area on its northeastern corner, overlooking Fremont Boulevard. Of the project’s 314 units, 40 (13%) would be studios, 154 (49%) would contain one bedroom, 107 (34%) would contain two bedrooms, and 13 (4%) would contain three bedrooms. The average unit size would measure 839 square feet, and the overall density equates to 55 dwelling units per acre based on the overall project site area.

The project’s Fremont Boulevard frontage would be improved with a 15’-wide monolithic sidewalk with street trees in grates. The Capitol Avenue extension in the form of a new access driveway would be designed with 17’-wide travel lanes in each direction and parking on both sides of the roadway. Ground floor spaces of the mixed-use building would open onto an interconnected series of plaza spaces situated between the building and the roadway that total 21,213 square feet in total area. The plaza spaces would feature accent paving, raised seat wall planters, bicycle racks, and other open space amenities. The Mowry Avenue frontage adjacent to the Phase 1A improvement area would feature a 14’-wide monolithic sidewalk with street trees in grates.

There are currently 85 fairly evenly distributed trees within the project boundaries. Of these trees, 62 are proposed for removal to make way for the project buildings and accompanying surface level improvements. A total of 232 new trees are proposed with the project, including 59 mitigation trees and 18 street trees (10 on Fremont Boulevard, eight on Mowry Avenue).

As outlined in the tables below and further described in the Project Analysis section of this report, 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

5.A.h
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5090) Meeting of February 22, 2024 FREMONT HUB MIXED-USE APPEAL PLN2024-00090 Page 5
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 540 acres in the heart of Fremont, includes the Downtown and City Center Community Plan Areas and corresponding zoning districts, and is intended to serve as the City’s primary center of employment, commerce, culture and entertainment. The proposed project fulfills a primary objective of the City’s Downtown and City Center planning vision by converting a portion of what is currently an underutilized suburban-style, legal-nonconforming shopping center into a mixed-use development that carries out the pedestrian character and compact urbanism goals of the City Center. The proposed updating of the Fremont Hub layout would additionally create an attractive and modern urban western terminus of Capitol Avenue, a street that provides a connective and vibrant pedestrian-oriented spine eastward through the Downtown and on to the Fremont BART Station. The project would represent the first step in the shopping center’s eventual transition to a denser, more mixed-use character aligned with adopted policies for the site, which include a more urban, pedestrian-focused environment that accommodates uses such as mid- to high-rise residential and mixed-use developments. In addition, the project would be consistent with the following goals, policies, and implementation measures of the General Plan, including the 2023-31 Housing Element:

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 the 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 construction, should be the City Center.

5.A.h
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5090) Meeting of February 22, 2024 FREMONT HUB MIXED-USE APPEAL PLN2024-00090 Page 6
development, mixed-uses, new amenities for pedestrians and bicyclists, and other features typical of a full-service downtown. Each sub-district of the City Center should be characterized by a slightly different mix of uses and development intensities.

COMMUNITY PLANS POLICY 11-4.3: Mixed-Use Emphasis - Encourage mixeduse development in Fremont’s City Center, emphasizing buildings that include ground floor retail uses and upper story offices or housing. Such development should help create more active streets, reduce the need to drive for goods and services, and give City Center a stronger sense of identity.

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 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

5.A.h
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5090) Meeting of February 22, 2024 FREMONT HUB MIXED-USE APPEAL PLN2024-00090 Page 7
to services), and higher density development around transit stations (reducing the need to own and/or use a vehicle).

Analysis: The proposed redevelopment of the northern portion of the Fremont Hub Shopping Center with a freestanding retail-pharmacy building situated along the site’s Mowry Avenue frontage and a mixed-use apartment building along the site’s Fremont Boulevard frontage and pedestrian-oriented Capitol Avenue extension represents a significant step in the Hub’s transformation into a more urban, diverse, and transit-oriented development consistent with the General Plan, including the Housing Element, and City Center Community Plan. The project would activate what is currently an exclusively retailcommercial site and form synergy with dense mixed-use developments along Capitol Avenue, contributing to the vibrancy of the emergent downtown and City Center area. The two proposed buildings, their parking and drive aisle areas, and the project’s attractive, safely-designed pedestrian linkages are successfully integrated into the shopping center.

Buildings are designed to maximize pedestrian-orientation, and multiple public plaza spaces have been incorporated along the project’s Capitol Avenue extension to create a true gateway element into the Hub and demarcate the site as a downtown bookend. The mixeduse nature of the project, proximity to the Fremont BART Station, and significant retailcommercial options remaining within the Hub and in the area surrounding the project site will reduce vehicle trips and increase foot traffic to and within the site.

The project implements the 2023-31 Housing Element Goal 3 [Promote Production of New Affordable and Market-Rate Housing] by creating and intensifying residential development at an urban scale in a high resource neighborhood. Additionally, as further detailed later in this report, the project would also be required to comply with the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance. For this project, the applicant has opted to pay affordable housing in-lieu fees.

The fees collected would be used by the City to help fund development of affordable housing projects citywide.

Per the Land Use Element, mixed-use projects located in areas of the City Center outside of the Transit Overlay District (such as the project site) are subject to a minimum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.25 and a maximum FAR of 2.5. The project has a conforming FAR of 1.42 based on project site area. Additionally, mixed-use projects within the City Center are subject to a minimum density of 50 units per acre. The project has a conforming density of 55 units per acre based on project site area.

Zoning Compliance:

The project site is zoned City Center – Urban Neighborhood (CC-UN). The Urban Neighborhood zone, one of three unique zoning areas within the City Center District, generally applies to areas south of the downtown and is intended to support the downtown and employment core areas with a wide variety of housing, services, and retail-commercial uses. The following table illustrates the proposed project’s compliance with applicable standards of the CC-UN zone:

Development
Standard
Requirement (CCUN Zone)Proposed Compliant?

5.A.h
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5090) Meeting of February 22, 2024 FREMONT HUB MIXED-USE APPEAL PLN2024-00090 Page 8
Building Site Depth Minimum: 100 feet
Maximum: 400 feet
400 feet Yes
Building Site Width Minimum: 200 feet
Maximum: 400 feet
289 feet Yes
Building Height Maximum:
6 stories / 75 feet
Retail-pharmacy
(RP):
1 story / 36 feet
Mixed-use building
(MUB):
6 stories / 72’-11”
Yes
Ground Floor Height Minimum: 16 feet RP: 36 feet
MUB: 21’-6”
Yes
Upper Story Heights Minimum: 10 feet RP: N/A
MUB: 10+ feet
Yes
Front Street Setback
(Fremont Boulevard)
Minimum: Zero
Maximum: 10 feet
RP: N/A
MUB: 10 feet
Yes
Side Street Setback
(Mowry Avenue)
Minimum: 10 feet
Maximum 15 feet
RP: 13’-6”
MUB: N/A
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 Open Space Minimum: 15% of
site area (38,270 SF)
52,659 SF Yes
On-Site Semi-Public
Open Space
Minimum: 50% of
on-site open space
requirement (19,135
SF)
21,213 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
101+ CF per unit
(all)
Yes
Properties within the City Center District are required to be developed with “urban” frontage types. The proposed project incorporates the “shopfront frontage” type for the retailpharmacy building’s Mowry Avenue façade and the “forecourt frontage” type for the mixed5.A.h Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5090) Meeting of February 22, 2024 FREMONT HUB MIXED-USE APPEAL PLN2024-00090 Page 9
use building’s Fremont Boulevard frontage. Additionally, though not required, the mixeduse building’s Capitol Avenue extension frontage has been designed to meet the City Center District’s shopfront frontage requirements. Per Fremont Municipal Code (FMC) Table

18.43.220, these specific frontage types are permitted in the CC-UN zone. The following table illustrates the proposed project’s compliance with applicable building frontage requirements:

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

15.5 feet Yes
Width of Bays
(Shopfront Standard)
Minimum 8 feet
Maximum: 25 feet
18 feet Yes
Height of Bulkhead
(Shopfront Standard)
Minimum: 8 inches
Maximum: 3.5 feet

1.5 – 2 feet Yes
Forecourt Width
(Forecourt Standard)
Minimum: 25 feet 25-1” Yes
Forecourt Depth
(Forecourt Standard)
Minimum: 25 feet 25’-6” Yes
The table below illustrates the proposed project’s compliance with parking standards applicable to the CC-UN district:

5.A.h
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5090) Meeting of February 22, 2024 FREMONT HUB MIXED-USE APPEAL PLN2024-00090 Page 10
Additionally, the proposed project would result in the removal of 426 surface parking spaces that serve existing shopping center uses. The removal of these parking spaces would not render the shopping center’s post-construction, on-site parking count nonconforming, per the table below:

Development
Standard
Requirement (CCUN Zone)Proposed Compliant?
Residential Automobile
Parking (Exclusive Use)
Minimum: 1 space
per dwelling unit
(314 spaces)
Maximum: 2 spaces
per dwelling unit
(628 spaces)
430 spaces Yes
Retail-Pharmacy +
Mixed-Use Commercial
Automobile Parking
(Non-Exclusive Use)
Minimum : 2.25
spaces / 1,000 SF
(62 spaces)
Maximum : 5 spaces
per 1,000 SF
(136 spaces)
104 spaces Yes
Residential Bicycle
Parking
Short-term:

Minimum 4 + 1 per
10 units (35 spaces)
Long-term:

Minimum 2 + 0.5
per unit (159
spaces)
35 short-term
spaces;
243 long-term
spaces
Yes
Retail-Pharmacy +
Mixed-Use Commercial
Bicycle Parking
Short-term:

Minimum 4 + 5%
commercial parking
(6 spaces)
Long-term:

Minimum 1 + 5%
commercial parking
(3 spaces)
6 short-term spaces;
3 long-term spaces
Yes

5.A.h
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5090) Meeting of February 22, 2024 FREMONT HUB MIXED-USE APPEAL PLN2024-00090 Page 11
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. No exceptions or modifications to zoning standards are being requested.

Architecture
Project design is consistent with the objective standards adopted in the City Center Community Plan and CC-UN 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.

Project buildings feature a refined, contemporary look befitting the site’s prominent City Center setting. The buildings spatially define their adjacent rights-of-way and plaza spaces, and feature pedestrian-oriented architectural designs that activate the public realm and improve street character. The mixed-use building’s front, Fremont Boulevard façade features a forecourt design with ground-level units that open onto the public sidewalk. A large entry plaza near the Fremont Boulevard – Capitol Avenue corner marks a transition from the ground-level units to the building’s lobby, leasing, and retail-commercial spaces, which extend the length of the driveway connecting to Capitol Avenue. These nonresidential spaces feature double-height floor plates and storefront systems with large openings that offer a high degree of transparency at the pedestrian level. Multiple podiumlevel courtyards open onto building edges to break up building massing and provide for light and air into the tenant common open space areas. The retail-pharmacy building similarly addresses its frontage by orienting its front door to the Mowry Avenue sidewalk and lining the right-of-way with an articulated, open façade to maximize visibility into the building’s interior. A materials palette consisting of stucco and composite panel siding is accentuated by aluminum louver and metal canopy elements to further add to the building’s visual interest.

Landscaping/Open Space
The project features landscaping and other urban design elements that enhance the two buildings and their surrounding environments. The mixed-use building’s Fremont Boulevard frontage would feature a row of on-site, building-fronting trees that would complement a separate row of new, in-grate street trees planted within the monolithic right-of-way. The bulk of the project’s grade-level landscaping would occur along the driveway extension from Development
Standard
Requirement (CCUN Zone)
Proposed Compliant?
Commercial Use (NonHealthcare) Parking
*Proposed Shopping
Center GFA: 586,242 SF
Minimum: 3.3
spaces / 1,000 SF
(1,934 spaces)
Maximum: 5 spaces
per 1,000 SF (2,931
spaces)

4.2 spaces per
1,000 SF (2,487
spaces)
Yes

5.A.h
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5090) Meeting of February 22, 2024 FREMONT HUB MIXED-USE APPEAL PLN2024-00090 Page 12
Capitol Avenue, which connects to the aforementioned Fremont Boulevard right-of-way. A series of publicly accessible plaza spaces, activated by the adjacent retail-commercial storefronts on the ground floor of the mixed-use building, would line the roadway extension.

These interconnected plaza spaces would feature accent paving, seat walls, tree plantings, turf areas, and other amenities that together enhance the project’s public realm and provide a venue for gathering. Within the building, 31,445 square feet of courtyard area is proposed on the podium level. These connected spaces, programmed for both active and passive use, feature amenities such as a swimming pool, yoga terrace, and a dog park. On the building’s sixth floor, a 1,504-square-foot roof terrace would provide views overlooking the site’s Fremont Boulevard / Capitol Avenue entry.

Landscaping along the retail-pharmacy building’s Mowry Avenue frontage would consist of new in-grate street trees within a monolithic sidewalk. On-site, proposed parking lot tree plantings and landscape strips would provide shade coverage for the building’s parking fields and help screen parking areas from right-of-way view. A safe, landscape-lined contiguous pedestrian connection from the Mowry Avenue public sidewalk through to the mixed-use building (and, from there, the remnant portions of the shopping center) would be provided.

Tree Removal
The project’s tree inventory chart identifies 85 trees at the site that qualify for protection under the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. The project proposes to remove 62 of these private protected trees to enable reasonable and conforming use of the property. The most numerous of the trees to be removed – various palms (14), sycamores (11), and Modesto Ash (10) – are generally parking lot trees, trees located along portions of the property abutting the off-site gasoline service station property, and trees located within portions of the shopping center’s paseo areas that would be repurposed as part of this proposal as open space areas.

A total of 232 new trees are proposed with the project, including 59 mitigation trees and 18 street trees (10 on Fremont Boulevard, eight on Mowry Avenue).

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 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. At this stage, the applicant proposes to pay the art fee in lieu of providing on-site public art.

Off-Site Improvements
To implement the project, right-of-way dedications are required on the site’s Fremont Boulevard and Mowry Avenue frontages for conformance with General Plan and City Center District complete streets policies. Along the full extent of the project’s Fremont Boulevard frontage, a 5’ street right-of-way easement dedication is required to accommodate a 15’- wide monolithic sidewalk with street trees. Along the full extent of the site’s Mowry Avenue

5.A.h
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5090) Meeting of February 22, 2024 FREMONT HUB MIXED-USE APPEAL PLN2024-00090 Page 13
frontage, a 3.9’ street right-of-way easement dedication is necessary to provide a 14’-wide monolithic sidewalk with street trees. Additionally, grind and overlay of the western half of the Fremont Boulevard roadway between Mowry Avenue and Capitol Avenue would be required.

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, 2023-31 Housing Element, the City Center Community Plan, and City Center District zoning with respect to site planning, massing, architecture, and other urban design characteristics. As a relatively compact mixed-use development within a wholly retail-commercial, suburban-style shopping center, the project will provide greater intensity, scale, and diversity of uses in a key location within the City Center, furthering aims of transforming the area into a more walkable, urban district. (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.

5.A.h
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5090) Meeting of February 22, 2024 FREMONT HUB MIXED-USE APPEAL PLN2024-00090 Page 14
Analysis: The proposed mixed-use project, as designed, will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of adjacent developments, nor will it be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, as it is compatible in scale and use 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 62 protected trees would be consistent with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance.

Analysis: The project’s proposed removal of 62 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 232 new trees planted throughout the site in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Landscape Development Requirements & Policies.

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;

5.A.h
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5090) Meeting of February 22, 2024 FREMONT HUB MIXED-USE APPEAL PLN2024-00090 Page 15

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 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 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 and affordable housing fees. The residential component of the project will be subject to payment of Capital Facilities, Fire Facilities, Traffic, Parkland, Park Facilities, and Affordable Housing fees. The commercial component of the project, subject to credits for existing commercial square footage being demolished as part of the project, would be subject to payment of Capital Facilities, Fire Facilities, and Traffic fees, as applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

5.A.h
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5090) Meeting of February 22, 2024 FREMONT HUB MIXED-USE APPEAL PLN2024-00090 Page 16
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 EIR. As described within this report and detailed in the accompanying CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (Informational Item No. 1), 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 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 CEQA challenge letter. The response letter establishes that project impacts under CEQA 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.

PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT
Public hearing notification is applicable. A total of 883 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 the public hearing.

2. Find 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

5.A.h
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5090) Meeting of February 22, 2024 FREMONT HUB MIXED-USE APPEAL PLN2024-00090 Page 17
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 (PLN2024-00090) and approve the Discretionary Design Review Permit (PLN2022-00487), 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.A.h
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) KMCO-58573\2899718.1 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 Fremont Hub Mixed Use 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 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. The zoning Administrator also 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 streamlining provision 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 Fremont Hub Mixed Use 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 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 for the Project:
“As will be shown in these preliminary comments, the City's reliance on CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183, 15162, and 15164 is misplaced because the Project was not contemplated in the 2011 General Plan Update and the Project has new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 General Plan Update EIR which are peculiar to the Project 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.”
“The 2011 General Plan Update did not contemplate the Project, as the Project did not exist in December 2011. Rather, the Project was proposed over a decade later, in May 2022. Therefore, it was impossible for the General Plan Update EIR to have contemplated the impacts of this Project.” INFORMATIONAL ITEM NO.6

FREMONT HUB MIXED-USE
PLN2024-00128 (PLN2022-00487)

CITY COUNCIL HEARING
04/16/2024

5.A.i
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Mark Hungerford, City of Fremont February 8, 2024 Page 2 KMCO-58573\2899718.1 Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 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 environmental record.

The CEQA Consistency Checklist prepared for the Project does rely on a 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. A fundamental requirement for 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 Consistency 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 consistent with the development densities, bulk and land use standards of the Commercial – City Center designation of the General Plan, the 2023- 31 Housing Element, the City Center Community Plan, and City Center District zoning with respect to site planning, massing, architecture, and other urban design characteristics. 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 City Center 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 Fremont Hub Mixed use Project, or any other currently contemplated individual development project, was 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 this CEQA exemption. The standard for consistency as established in CEQA Guidelines section 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 15183, and the Project is eligible for this CEQA exemption.

Programmatic vs. Project-Specific Effects
Basis of the Appeal
The appeal asserts the following related to the applicability of CEQA Guidelines section 15183 for the Project:
“Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA''), the City prepared a "CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist" ("CEQA Checklist") for the Project. The CEQA Checklist was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, which allows a streamlined environmental review process for projects that are consistent with the densities established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified and for which project-specific effects which are peculiar to the project have been previously analyzed.” Response to the Appeal
These assertions of the appeal inappropriately combine the purpose of a program EIR, such as the City’s 2011 GP EIR, and the purpose of streamlined environmental review, such as the CEQA Consistency Checklist prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 for the Fremont Hub Project.

5.A.i
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Mark Hungerford, City of Fremont February 8, 2024 Page 3 KMCO-58573\2899718.1 Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15186, the Fremont General Plan EIR is a “program” EIR. Among its other purposes and advantages, this program GP EIR allowed the City of Fremont to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures at an early time when the City had greater flexibility to deal with basic issues or cumulative impacts. Later activities pursuant to the GP Program EIR must be examined in the light of the GP Program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. Where later activities involve site-specific activities, the City relies on a written checklist to document the evaluation of the Project and its site, and to determine whether the environmental effects of the Project were within the scope of the program GP EIR.

The Fremont General Plan EIR did not, could not have, and was not required to previously analyze project-specific effects that are peculiar to the Fremont Hub Mixed Use Project. The purpose of the CEQA Consistency Checklist prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 for this Project was to provide that project-specific analysis, and to consider whether the Fremont Hub Mixed Use Project has any significant impacts that are peculiar to the Project and its site that have not have been previously analyzed. The CEQA Consistency Checklist prepared for the Fremont Hub Project did not find any such unique or peculiar significant impacts. Accordingly, the Fremont Hub Project appropriately qualifies for the CEQA exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

Reliance on the City Center Community Plan
Basis of the Appeal
The appeal asserts the following related to use of the City Center Community Plan as part of the review of the Fremont Hub Project:
“As explained above, the General Plan Update EIR does not adequately address this Project. Thus, because the City Center Community Plan relies on the same General Plan Update EIR, rather than having its own EIR, the City Center Community Plan is also insufficient as it still does not address this Project. In fact, while the City Center Community Plan provides a general directive for the Hub particularly, Policy 16.8 states that "[a] variety of uses including large format retail, commercial, residential, or a mix of all of these - may occur in the Hub" – the City Center Community Plan did provide any consideration of the extent of demolition and construction that this Project proposes.” Response to the Appeal
These assertions of the appeal are incorrect on two counts, as specifically cited in the CEQA document and its environmental record.

First, as fully disclosed in the Introduction to the CEQA Consistency Checklist, when the City of Fremont adopted the 2015 City Center Community Plan, the City concluded that the environmental effects attributed to the City Center Community Plan had been fully anticipated under the 2011 General Plan EIR. The City made Findings pursuant to CEQA that the City Center Community Plan and its corresponding Center Code zoning text amendment, and the Zoning Map amendments are implementation measures of the General Plan, and that the potential environmental effects attributed to implementation of the City Center Community Plan had already been assessed in the 2011 General Plan EIR, and no further environmental review was required. Accordingly, the 2011 General Plan EIR provides for streamlined environmental review for individual projects that are consistent with the density and intensity of development as anticipated in the City Center Community Plan.

Secondly, the City Center Community Plan does consider the extent of demolition and construction that this Project proposes. The City Center Plan provides policy guidance, illustrative concepts and implementation actions for a transformation of the entire area near central Fremont, BART and Downtown from an auto-oriented suburban area into a walkable, urban, transit-oriented City Center. It implements the General Plan while consolidating previous planning work within the City Center. The City

5.A.i
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Mark Hungerford, City of Fremont February 8, 2024 Page 4 KMCO-58573\2899718.1 Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 Center Plan recognizes a limited number of sites where rapid transformation to an improved pedestrian environment may be possible, and redevelopment of the Hub Shopping Center is one of those sites.

As specifically noted in the December 12, 2023 Staff Report, “the proposed Project fulfills a primary objective of the City Center planning vision by converting a portion of what is currently an underutilized suburban-style, legal-nonconforming shopping center into a mixed-use development”. Additionally, the Project, “represents the first step in the shopping center’s eventual transition to a denser, more mixeduse character aligned with adopted policies for the site” (emphasis added). The Staff Report make it quite clear that the extent of demolition and construction that this Project proposes is well within the expectations of the City Center Plan.

The City’s 2015 finding that the environmental effects attributed to implementation of the City Center Community Plan had already been assessed in the 2011 General Plan EIR include the full extent of demolition and new construction pursuant to the City Center Plan, including the Project.

Substantial Environmental Effects
Basis of the Appeal
The appeal asserts the following related to substantial environmental effects of the Project:
. . . the Project has new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 General Plan EIR which are peculiar to the Project site. These include health risk, air quality, and contamination from hazardous materials. As a result, reliance on the Community Plan exemption is misplaced, and an EIR must be prepared.”
The individual assertions of the appeal related to potentially significant environmental effects are addressed individually, below.

Soil and Groundwater Contamination and Potential Vapor Intrusion Basis of the Appeal
The appeal asserts the following related to potential groundwater impacts related to the adjacent gas station site:
“The Project site is bounded on both sides by gas stations, and the Project is immediately adjacent to a site listed on the Cortese list. In particular, the former Texaco gas station at 4004 Mowry Avenue encountered a release of petroleum hydrocarbons from underground storage tanks (USTs) and associated piping at the former Texaco gas station. As a result of this historical use as a gas station, petroleum hydrocarbons are present in groundwater, and groundwater sampling has indicated concentrations of TPH-g as high as 350,000 ppb. The Phase I Report prepared for the Project determined that the site is a recognized environmental condition ("REC") because of "the presence of and likely continued migration of petroleum hydrocarbons onto the Property." The migration of petroleum hydrocarbons onto the Property through groundwater may result in a significant hazards impact that was not contemplated or addressed in the 2011 General Plan Update EIR.

Response to the Appeal
These assertions of the appeal are limited to information presented in the CEQA Checklist as cited from the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA, Roux Associates, January 2018), but do not account for more recent information that was also presented in the CEQA document and its environmental record.

The Project site is bounded on one side (not two) by the current Valero gasoline station. Available records indicate that petroleum hydrocarbons were released from underground storage tanks at this site (4004 Mowry Avenue) in the early 1980s, when the gas station was branded as a Texaco station. The

5.A.i
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Mark Hungerford, City of Fremont February 8, 2024 Page 5 KMCO-58573\2899718.1 Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 Phase I ESA considers the adjacent gasoline station as a “Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) because of the presence of, and likely continued migration of petroleum hydrocarbons onto the Property.1 The REC does not originate from the Project site, and is not an impact of the Project.

Chevron Environmental Management Company (Chevron) is the current Responsible Party for cleanup at the former Texaco station. Shortly after preparation of the Phase I ESA for the Project, Chevron submitted a May 2018 Site Conceptual Model and Low-Threat Closure Request (Closure Request) for this property to the SFRWQCB.2 Chevron and the SFRWQCB have been working toward site closure for the former Texaco site since then. A December 2022 State Water Resources Control Board Review Summary Report, “Additional Work, Third Review” (2022 Summary Report) was cited in the City’s Fremont Hub CEQA Checklist.
3 This Summary Report presents the SFRWQCB’s most current conclusions pertaining to Chevron’s Closure Request and implications for off-site properties (i.e., the Project site).

Soil Contamination: According to the Closure Request, approximately 770 cubic yards of soil and pea gravel were removed when the UST at the former Texaco station was removed, and approximately 510 cubic yards of this soil was disposed off-site in 1997. The Closure Report recognized then-current plans to redevelop the parking lot immediately to the southeast of the former Texaco site as a commercial/residential building (then proposed to include subterranean parking) and a slab-on-grade commercial building. That Closure Request found that “groundwater had not been encountered within the upper 25 to 30 feet of soil below grade, and boring logs for off-site wells showed little to no indication of soil impacts above groundwater.”4 According to the 2022 Summary Report, the “likelihood of residual naphthalene or PAHs concentrations in the soil (if any) are minimal.” 5 Accordingly, soil
contamination from the former Texaco leaking underground storage tank is not a significant impact on the currently proposed Project. Moreover, the California Environmental Quality Act requires only an analysis of the impacts of a project on the environment, not the impacts of the environment on a project. (California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist., 62 Cal.4th 369, 392 (2015) (holding that CEQA does not require an agency to consider the effects of existing environmental conditions on a proposed project’s future users or residents).

Petroleum Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air: Chevron’s December 2022 Closure Request addressed potential petroleum vapor intrusion to indoor air at the then-proposed redevelopment at the Project site. The Closure Request found that proposed project would have has at least a 10- to 30-foot bio-attenuation zone from the groundwater, and that soils in the area contain less than 100 mg/kg of TPH. The Water Board’s 2022 Summary Report, which now addresses the currently prosed Project, found that the Project (i.e., Off-Site Development) would meet Case Closure criteria. The Project would provide, “a minimum of five vertical feet between the soil vapor measurement and the foundation of the building or ground surface for future construction. Concentrations of benzene, ethylbenzene, and naphthalene in soil gas are less than the soil gas criteria. Concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline and diesel combined are less than 100 milligrams per kilogram (measured in at least two depths within the five-foot zone.) Oxygen is greater than or equal to four percent measured at the bottom of the five-foot zone.”
6 Accordingly, petroleum vapor intrusion into indoor air within the Project is not a

1 Roux Associates, Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA), January 2018 2 GHD, Site Concept Model and Low-Treat Closure Request, Former Texaco Station (Closure Request), May 11, 2018
3 State Water Resources Control Board, Review Summary Report - Additional Work, Third Review (Summary Report), December 2022
4 GHD, May 2018, page
5 State Water Resources Control Board, December 2022, page 3 6 State Water Resources Control Board, December 2022, page 3

5.A.i
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Mark Hungerford, City of Fremont February 8, 2024 Page 6 KMCO-58573\2899718.1 Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 significant impact, and a vapor barrier is not required for the Project.7 Moreover, the California Environmental Quality Act requires only an analysis of the impacts of a project on the environment, not the impacts of the environment on a project. (California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist., 62 Cal.4th 369, 392 (2015) (holding that CEQA does not require an agency to consider the effects of existing environmental conditions on a proposed project’s future users or residents).

Groundwater Contamination: Chevron’s December 2022 Closure Request presented data pertaining to current conditions in an effort to clarify that the former Texaco site met Low-Threat Closure policy criteria. However, the Water Board’s 2022 Summary Report concluded that the former Texaco site, “does not meet the Low-Threat Closure Policy criteria. The contaminant plume that exceeds the Water Quality Objectives is greater than 250 feet in length, free product (also known as light non-aqueous phase liquid [or LNAPL, e.g., gasoline and diesel]) is present in on-site (i.e., within the former Texaco gas station site) monitoring wells, and the dissolved concentration of benzene is greater than 1,000 micrograms per liter (μg/L).” The Water Board concluded that, “a feasibility study is necessary that identifies applicable remedial technologies and selection of a cost-effective and robust technology to remove free product to the maximum extent practicable so that it is not a significant source of dissolved constituents to groundwater.”
8 Various remedial technologies could be considered.

According to the report, “Historical and Current Environmental Conditions - Fremont Hub Redevelopment (Roux, December 19, 2022) as cited in the CEQA Document, all of the remedial technologies, as required by the Water Board, “could be implemented within the footprint of the former Texaco station. The Project’s proposed new buildings would not interfere with or impede implementation of potential remedial technologies to address the LNAPL present in the groundwater”.9 PCE in Groundwater
Basis of the Appeal
The appeal asserts the following related to potential groundwater remediation that would be necessary at the Project site to reduce PCE concentrations:
“The Phase I Report indicates that the Project will require mitigation to reduce significant hazards and water quality impacts. According to the results from previous soil investigations . . . PCE was detected at concentrations above the respective RWQCB ESLs in both groundwater and soil vapor (RWQCB, 2016). . . . The performance monitoring results indicated that HRC injections were effective at reducing PCE concentrations in groundwater. However, PCE concentrations were still detected above the ESLs.” The appeal asserts that, “additional groundwater remediation would be necessary to further reduce PCE concentrations and subsequent daughter compounds below the RWQCB ESLs.” Response to the Appeal
These assertions of the appeal are incorrect, as they do not apply to the Project or its site.

The information cited in this appeal was prepared for a different site located at 39226 through 39300 Argonaut Way, which is located on the opposite side of the Fremont Hub shopping center and over 1,000 feet from the Project site (Roux Associates, Inc., Enhanced Reductive De-Chlorination Pilot Study Report, 39226 through 39300 Argonaut Way, June 16, 2017). This Pilot Study Report does not pertain to the Project site. PCE concentrations are not a Recognized Environmental Concern (REC) for the Fremont

7 Roux Associates, Inc., Historical and Current Environmental Conditions, Fremont Hub Redevelopment at 4020 Fremont Hub, December 19, 2022, page 2
8 State Water Resources Control Board, December 2022, pages 3-4 9 Roux Associates, Inc., December 19, 2022, page 2

5.A.i
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Mark Hungerford, City of Fremont February 8, 2024 Page 7 KMCO-58573\2899718.1 Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 Hub Mixed Use Project at 39150 Argonaut Way, and no groundwater remediation for PCE is recommended or identified as necessary at the Project site.

Contamination of Drinking Water
Basis of the Appeal
The appeal asserts the following related to potential effects of the Project on drinking water:
“The Phase I Report also fails to provide substantial evidence that the Project will not result in significant contaminant migration on nearby drinking water wells.” Response to the Appeal
These assertions of the appeal are incorrect and directly contradicted by facts contained in the CEQA document and its environmental record.

There is no evidence to indicate that the Project will have any adverse effects on groundwater. The adjacent former Texaco gas station site had a petroleum release that has adversely affected groundwater, but this is an existing baseline condition and not related to or caused by the Project.

According to the Water Board’s 2022 Summary Report, “the former Texaco station’s petroleum release is limited to the soil and shallow groundwater. The affected groundwater is not currently being used as a source of drinking water, and it is highly unlikely that the affected groundwater will be used as a source of drinking water in the foreseeable future.”
10 Speculative potential contaminant migration on nearby drinking water wells is not a significant effect of the Project, and does not present an exception to the Project’s CEQA streamlining.

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 would result in excavation of soil and potential groundwater disturbance or dewatering which can lead to chemical releases. These impacts, which are peculiar to the Project, were not analyzed in a prior project-level CEQA document, and could not have been analyzed in the prior General Plan EIR because the Project had not yet been proposed, and it was therefore unknown that construction of the Fremont HUB Project could result in potentially significant releases of contaminants. The City's own evidence demonstrates that these impacts may be significant and that remediation may be required to reduce potentially significant hazards impacts.” Response to the Appeal
These assertions of the appeal are incorrect and directly contradicted by facts contained in the CEQA document and its environmental record.

Soil Disturbance: The Phase I ESA prepared for the Project site was performed to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) at the property, indicating past, current, or material threats of the release of hazardous materials or petroleum hydrocarbons to the buildings, soil, groundwater or surface water at the property. “Based on the data reviewed and Roux Associates’ observations and understanding of the property’s use and conditions, [only] one REC was identified at the property”, that being “the presence of and likely continued migration of petroleum hydrocarbons onto the property.11

10 State Water Resources Control Board, December 2022, page 2 11 Roux Associates, Inc., January 2018

5.A.i
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Mark Hungerford, City of Fremont February 8, 2024 Page 8 KMCO-58573\2899718.1 Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 The presence of petroleum hydrocarbons is not in the soil at the Project site, but within the groundwater. The Phase I ESA finds no other soil-related contamination at the Project site. In fact, even the remaining soils at the former Texaco station “satisfy the Low-Threat Policy direct contact and outdoor air exposure criteria. The concentrations of benzene and ethylbenzene in the upper 10 feet of soil are less than the residential and commercial /industrial limits for direct contact and outdoor air exposure.”12 Maximum concentrations of petroleum constituents in soil are less than levels that a sitespecific risk evaluation demonstrates will have no significant risk of adversely affecting human health.13 The Project’s grading and shallow excavations would not encounter or upset contaminated on-site soils, and does not present an exception to the Project’s CEQA streamlining.

Dewatering of Contaminated Groundwater
As identified in the Chevron’s 2022 Closure Request, “while the groundwater plume [from the former Texaco station site] extends off-site in a southerly direction, groundwater is not encountered within the upper 25 to 30 feet of soil below grade, and boring logs for off-site wells show little to no indication of soil impacts above groundwater. . . Given the depth to groundwater and lack of impacted soil off-site in these areas [i.e., at the Project site], potential exposure to impacted soil or groundwater by commercial/construction workers is not a significant concern.” 14 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. There is no evidence to indicate that the Project’s construction activity would disturb or encounter groundwater.

Accordingly, the Project is not expected to encounter or expose contaminated groundwater or result in a significant release of contaminants during construction. Disturbance of contaminated groundwater is speculative and not a significant effect of the Project and does not present an exception to the Project’s CEQA streamlining.

Air Quality
Basis of the Appeal
The appeal asserts the following related to potential air quality impacts during operation of the Project:
“The Air Quality Analysis omits key sources of emissions, including failing to analyze the back-up generator that will be required for the elevator that is required as part of the Project. The Air Quality Analysis analyzed only construction back-up generators, even though an emergency generator is legally required for the elevator system at the Project. 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 building must have an elevator with a standby power for the elevator equipment. The Air Quality Analysis fails to analyze the emissions associated with the Project's required back-up generator. The record omits critical information regarding air quality and GHG impacts on nearby sensitive receptors.” Response to the Appeal
These assertions of the appeal are incorrect and omit important exceptions to California Building Code (CBC) requirements pertaining to elevators and stand-by power, as addressed below.

The appeal is correct that the current CBC requires emergency standby power for elevators serving buildings of four or more stories above an exit discharge. However, the CBC also provides exceptions to

12 GHD 2018, page 22, and WQCB December 2022, page 3
13 State Water Resources Control Board, December 2022, page 3 14 GHD 2018, page 17

5.A.i
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Mark Hungerford, City of Fremont February 8, 2024 Page 9 KMCO-58573\2899718.1 Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 this requirement, including the following: “in buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the elevator shall not be required on floors provided with a Horizontal Exit and located at or above the levels of exit discharge” (emphasis added).15 A technical explanation of Horizontal Exit requirements as prepared by the Project’s architects further describes the applicable Horizontal Exit requirements:
i. Must be constructed as a firewall (per CBC Section 706), or fire barrier (per CBC Section 707) with a 2-hour minimum fire resistance rating. Construction Type of building determines which one is required.
ii. Standpipes are required on both sides of the Horizontal Exit (per CBC Section 905.4) and must be provided on all floors (per CBC Section 905.3.1). Exception: If floor areas adjacent to the Horizontal Exit are reachable with a 100-foot hose with a 30-foot hose stream nozzle from a standpipe in an elevator exit stair (130’ measured along the path of travel). iii. Refuge Area (CBC Section 1026.4) of a Horizontal Exit shall be adequate to accommodate the original load of the Refuge Area plus the occupant load form the adjoining compartment. The capacity of the area (CBC Section 1026.4.1) shall be computed based on a net floor area of 3 sf per occupant. Corridors can be utilized as a refuge area and are typically large enough to accommodate the required space.16
The Fremont Hub Project’s application drawings provide a Code Analysis Diagram that demonstrates how the Project complies with the exception to the standby power requirements of the CBC by instead providing appropriate Horizontal Exits for all floors above the ground floor.17 The CEQA Consistency Checklist does not omit key sources of air quality of GHG emissions because the Project provides for an alternative means of compliance with CBC fire safety by using Horizontal Exits, and no generator is proposed.

Construction Period Noise
Basis of the Appeal
The appeal asserts the following related to potential construction noise impacts of the Project:
“. . . the City concludes, absent substantial evidence, that noise impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Standard Development Requirements ("SDRs") as part of the Fremont Municipal Code Chapter 18.218.42 However, compliance with existing noise regulations does provide substantial evidence foreclosing the possibility of significant impacts. The City's noise analysis lacks substantial evidence to conclude that the Project would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to excessive construction and traffic noise from the Project.” Response to the Appeal
These assertions of the appeal are incorrect and directly contradicted by facts contained in the CEQA document and the administrative record.

As presented in the CEQA Consistency Checklist and its technical study,18 the City of Fremont’s threshold for construction noise is 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.

15 CBC, Section 1009.2.1
16 TCA Architects (Architect of record for the Project), January 2024 17 TCA Architecture, Fremont Hub Mixed Use Project, Discretionary Design Review Submittal, Sheets A7 and A8, August 18. 2023
18 LSA, Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis for the Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Project, October 31, 2023

5.A.i
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Mark Hungerford, City of Fremont February 8, 2024 Page 10 KMCO-58573\2899718.1 Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 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 a 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 CEQA Consistency Checklist for the Fremont Hub Project finds that construction noise will vary, that average noise levels during construction at the nearest commercial uses to the southwest would approach 74 dBA Leq, while noise levels at the nearest sensitive residential uses to the west would approach 64 dBA Leq during the site preparation phase, which would take place for a duration of approximately 2 weeks. Average noise levels at sensitive residential receptors during other construction phases would range from 60 dBA Leq to 74 dBA Leq. These construction noise impacts would be short term, generally intermittent depending on the construction phase, and variable depending on receiver distance from the active construction zone. The duration of impacts generally would be from 1 day to several weeks, depending on the phase of construction. Construction noise levels would cease once Project construction is completed.

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 are considered less than significant, provided that noise reduction measures are implemented. The Standard Development Requirements (SDRs) for construction-period noise reduction per Section 18.218.050(g) of the FMC includes:
 Construction equipment shall be well maintained and used judiciously to be as quiet as practical  Construction, excavating, grading and filling activities shall be limited to permitted construction hours
 Internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers  The contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists
 Loading, staging areas and stationary noise generating equipment shall be located as far as feasible from sensitive receptors
 The contractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines  The applicant shall designate an on-site complaint and enforcement manager to track and respond to noise complaints, and
 Temporary noise barriers, such as solid plywood fences, shall be installed around construction sites adjacent to operational businesses, residences, or noise-sensitive land uses, unless an existing wall or other barrier provides equivalent noise attenuation.

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.

5.A.i
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Mark Hungerford, City of Fremont February 8, 2024 Page 11 KMCO-58573\2899718.1 Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 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.
“The [CEQA Checklist] conclusion is unsupported given that the CEQA Checklist omits project-specific sources of GHG emissions which were not known at the time the General Plan Update EIR was prepared. For example, the Project may result in operational GHG impacts that are new and more significant than those analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR because the Project may utilize an onsite diesel backup generator, as discussed herein, which may result in significant GHG emission impacts.”
Response to the Appeal
These assertions of the appeal are directly contradicted by facts contained in the CEQA document and the administrative record.

As fully described in the CEQA Consistency 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 Consistency 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 2,538 metric tons of CO2e, resulting in a Project-specific GHG efficiency of 2.6 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.A.i
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Mark Hungerford, City of Fremont February 8, 2024 Page 12 KMCO-58573\2899718.1 Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 As indicated above, the Project does not propose to utilize an on-site diesel backup generator, and no significant GHG emission impacts that might be attributable to such a generator would occur.

Basis for an Addendum to the GP EIR
Basis of the Appeal
The appeal asserts the following related to the applicability of a CEQA Addendum to the GP EIR for the Project:
“In this case, the City's decision not to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR for the Project is not supported by substantial evidence because of unanalyzed and/or unmitigated impacts. Here, the City has failed to demonstrate that the Project can be lawfully approved based on the CEQA Checklist provided. The CEQA Checklist does not simply provide "some changes or additions are necessary" to the EIR as is allowed under the Addendum provision. Rather, as explained above, it includes a new substantive analysis for a large development project which was not specifically analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR. Because the Project and its predicted impacts was not borne until May 2022, these impacts qualify as "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."
Response to the Appeal
These assertions of the appeal are directly contradicted by facts contained in the CEQA document and the administrative record.

CEQA Guidelines section 15162 provides that, for a project covered by a previously certified EIR, preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required only if one or more of the following conditions occur:
 substantial changes are proposed in the project that 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  substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that 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 the previously identified significant effects, or
 new information of substantial importance, that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
o the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
o significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
o 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 o mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR or negative declaration would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative.

5.A.i
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Mark Hungerford, City of Fremont February 8, 2024 Page 13 KMCO-58573\2899718.1 Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 The discussion above addresses the assertions of the appeal that suggest that the Project will have significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to the topics of soil and groundwater contamination and potential vapor intrusion, PCE in groundwater, contamination of drinking water, hazardous materials exposure during construction, air quality, construction period noise, and cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. The responses to these assertions of the appeal demonstrate that there is substantial evidence in the City’s CEQA Consistency Checklist and the administrative record to find that the Project will not result in any new significant environmental effects nor a substantial increase in the severity of significant effects previously identified in the GP EIR.

Preparation of a checklist under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and an Addendum to the GP EIR is an appropriate means of updating the GP EIR with the additional technical details and minor changes to the GP EIR as represented by the Project. The CEQA Consistency Checklist provides information to the lead agency (City of Fremont) to substantiate a determination that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration have occurred. The CEQA Consistency Checklist references and relies on the analyses completed in the Fremont General Plan EIR and incorporates the conclusions of the GP EIR by reference, as appropriate.

Accordingly, the City's decision not to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR for the project is supported by substantial evidence.

5.A.i
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use 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

FREMONT HUB MIXED-USE
PLN2024-00128 (PLN2022-00487)

CITY COUNCIL HEARING
04/16/2024

5.A.j
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Informational Item No. 7 - Draft Planning Commission Hearing Minutes (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use 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.A.j
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Informational Item No. 7 - Draft Planning Commission Hearing Minutes (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use 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.A.j
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Informational Item No. 7 - Draft Planning Commission Hearing Minutes (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use 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.A.j
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Informational Item No. 7 - Draft Planning Commission Hearing Minutes (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use 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.A.j
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Informational Item No. 7 - Draft Planning Commission Hearing Minutes (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use 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.A.j
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Informational Item No. 7 - Draft Planning Commission Hearing Minutes (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use 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.A.j
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Informational Item No. 7 - Draft Planning Commission Hearing Minutes (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use 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.A.j
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Informational Item No. 7 - Draft Planning Commission Hearing Minutes (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) INFORMATIONAL ITEM NO.8

FREMONT HUB MIXED-USE
PLN2024-00128 (PLN2022-00487)

CITY COUNCIL HEARING
04/16/2024

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 305
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 306
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 307
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 308
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 309
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 310
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 311
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 312
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 313
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 314
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 315
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 316
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 317
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 318
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 319
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 320
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 321
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 322
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 323
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 324
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 325
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 326
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 327
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 328
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 329
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 330
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 331
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 332
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 333
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 334
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 335
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 336
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 337
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 338
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 339
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 340
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 341
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 342
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 343
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 344
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 345
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 346
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 347
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 348
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 349
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 350
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 351
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 455
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 456
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 457
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 458
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 459
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 460
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 461
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 462
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 463
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 464
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 465
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 466
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 467
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 468
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 469
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 470
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 471
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 472
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 473
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 474
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 475
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 476
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 477
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 478
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 479
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 480
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 481
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 482
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 483
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 484
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 485
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 486
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 487
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 488
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 489
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 490
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 491
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal)

5.A.k
Packet Pg. 492
Attachment: Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter (5120 : Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Appeal) Fremont City Council Meeting: 04/16/24 07:00 PM
3300 Capitol Avenue Div/Dept: Planning
Fremont, CA 94538 Category: Appeals

SCHEDULED
Sponsors:

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT (ID # 5121) DOC ID: 5121
Updated: 4/12/2024 9:42 AM by Dina Lewis Page 1
GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS APPEAL – 39160 Paseo Padre Parkway – PLN2024-00129 – Public Hearing (Published Notice) to consider a third party Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a third-party Appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval action of a 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 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.

Contact Persons:

Name: Mark Hungerford Joel Pullen
Title: Senior Planner Planning Manager
Div/Dept: Planning Planning
Phone: 510-494-4541 510-494-4436
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]
Executive Summary: This item is to consider a third-party Appeal of the Planning Commission’s February 22, 2024 action to deny a previous third-party Appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s December 12, 2023 approval of 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. Both the Appeal upheld by the Planning Commission and the subject Appeal were filed by Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of East Bay Residents for Responsible Development (Appellant).

The project is designed to meet all applicable objective General Plan and zoning standards and thus is afforded protection under the State’s Housing Accountability Act (HAA). Per the HAA, an objectively compliant project 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 shows that the housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the identified adverse impact other than by disapproving the housing project or imposing conditions that require development at a lower density.

BACKGROUND
Zoning Administrator Hearing

5.B
Packet Pg. 493
Council Staff Report (ID # 5121) Meeting of April 16, 2024 Updated: 4/12/2024 9:42 AM by Dina Lewis Page 2
On December 12, 2023, the Gateway Plaza Apartments project (PLN2023-00198) was presented at a noticed Zoning Administrator public hearing (Informational Item No. 1 – Zoning Administrator Staff Report). 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. Both speakers were opposed to the project, citing concerns about construction staging and construction worker parking (a neighboring business owner) and project non-compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (the Appellant). The Appellant’s testimony challenged staff’s finding that the project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, that subsequent CEQA documentation is not needed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15164, and that the project was eligible for a Class 32 Infill Exemption (Informational Item No. 2 – CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist). After considering testimony and the whole of the record, the Zoning Administrator approved the project, as conditioned (Informational Item No. 3 – Zoning Administrator Hearing Minutes).

On December 21, 2023, within the post-action 10-day appeal period, the Appellant filed a qualifying third-party Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s approval action (Informational Item No. 4 – Appellant’s Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter).

Planning Commission Hearing
On February 22, 2024, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing to consider the Appellant’s initial Appeal (Informational Item No. 5 – Planning Commission Staff Report). Staff’s presentation included references to an Appeal response letter prepared by the City’s environmental consultant, Scott Gregory of Lamphier-Gregory, that defended the project’s CEQA analysis (Informational Item No. 6 – Zoning Administrator Appeal Response Letter). Following the Appellant’s presentation and a presentation from the applicant and their legal counsel, three members of the public spoke on the item, two in support of the project and one opposed to the project. Questions to staff from the Planning Commissioners related to public noticing and whether project feedback had been received from Kaiser Hospital, which is located across Walnut Avenue from the project site. A motion to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval action and deny the Appeal passed 6-0-1 (Informational Item No. 7 – Planning Commission Hearing Minutes).

On March 1, 2024, within the post-action 10-day appeal period, the Appellant filed a second Appeal (Informational Item No. 8 – Appellant’s Planning Commission Appeal Letter).

Appeal to the City Council
The Appellant’s Appeal to the City Council requests that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project. As detailed in Informational Item No. 8, the Appellant makes several assertions that they believe justify reversal of the Planning Commission’s decision. These points are outlined below.

1. The City’s decision to not prepare a subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 was not supported by substantial evidence;

2. The City lacks substantial evidence to support approval of the project under a CEQA Infill Exemption;

3. The City lacks substantial evidence to support approval of the project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183; and

5.B
Packet Pg. 494
Council Staff Report (ID # 5121) Meeting of April 16, 2024 Updated: 4/12/2024 9:42 AM by Dina Lewis Page 3

4. The City cannot make the necessary findings to approve the project’s entitlements.

ANALYSIS OF APPEAL AND APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION:

1. The City’s decision to not prepare a subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 was not supported by substantial evidence.

The Appellant argues that the specifics of the Gateway Plaza Apartments project were not known and could not have been known at the time of the General Plan Update EIR’s preparation in 2011. They assert that feasible mitigation measures and alternatives which are different from those identified in the General Plan Update EIR including use (during project construction) of Tier 4 engines, ultra-low-sulfur diesel, electric generators, and truck idling reduction measures, would substantially reduce project impacts on the environment.

Additionally, they argue that project noise and vibration impacts are more severe than those disclosed in staff’s analysis.

Analysis: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15186, the Fremont General Plan Update EIR is a “Program” EIR. The General Plan Update’s programmatic EIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the General Plan as a whole. Future projects consistent with the General Plan in land use, intensity, and other areas are to be examined to determine whether an additional environmental document for the project is needed. As detailed in Informational Item No. 2, the project was analyzed to determine if it would result in any significant impacts that are peculiar to the project and its site that were not previously identified in the General Plan Update EIR. The consistency checklist prepared for the project found that 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. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site, or cumulative, and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR. As such, a subsequent EIR is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164.

Mitigation measures recommended by the Appellant for construction equipment emissions control would be implemented by the City’s standard development requirements contained in Fremont Municipal Code (FMC) Section 18.218.050(a). These standard development requirements are universally applied to projects that have the potential to generate adverse impacts. For air quality, the requirements specifically target grading and demolition activities and include the following:
• Idling time of diesel-power equipment restricted to no more than two minutes; • Production of a plan that demonstrates 50+ horsepower off-road equipment to be used achieve a project-wide average 20 percent nitrogen oxide (NOx) and 45 percent particulate matter (PM) reduction compared to the most recent Air Resources Board fleet average standards;
• Use of best available control technology for NOx and PM emission reductions in all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators; and • Use of equipment that meets the Air Resources Board’s most recent certification standards for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines.

5.B
Packet Pg. 495
Council Staff Report (ID # 5121) Meeting of April 16, 2024 Updated: 4/12/2024 9:42 AM by Dina Lewis Page 4
Other recommendations proposed by the Appellant related to noise and vibration are similarly satisfied by the City’s standard development requirements. Per the Safety Chapter of the General Plan, temporary construction noise levels are exempt from compliance with noise standards provided construction operations occur within the hours specified within the noise ordinance and the noise-related standard development requirements of FMC Section

18.218.050(g) are implemented. Adherence to the construction hours regulations and implementation of the standard development requirements would reduce noise impacts to a level that is less than significant. Construction noise therefore does not present an exception to the project’s CEQA streamlining. Furthermore, in accordance with FMC Section

18.218.050(c), the project would be subject to review and approval of a construction management plan prior to construction commencement. The plan must contain measures to minimize construction-period impacts, including impacts related to ground vibration, which may include vibration-related best practice measures identified as mitigation in the General Plan Update EIR. As a result, project groundborne vibration impacts would be less than significant and thus not prohibit use of streamlining for the project.

2. The City lacks substantial evidence to support approval of the project under a CEQA Infill Exemption.

The Appellant argues that the project fails to conform with the General Plan and the City Center Community Plan, and has significant unmitigated effects on air quality and noise, which precludes reliance on the Class 32 Infill Exemption. Furthermore, the Appellant argues that the proximity of Kaiser Hospital to the project site represents an unusual circumstance which precludes reliance on the exemption.

Analysis: The City’s finding for project Class 32 Infill Exemption qualification is supported by substantial evidence in the record. As detailed in Informational Item No. 2 (CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist), the project is consistent with the General Plan and the City Center Community Plan; occurs on a site no greater than five acres surrounded by urban uses; occurs on a site with no habitat value for endangered, rare, or threatened species; would not result in significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and is adequately served by utilities and public services. The proximity of Kaiser Hospital east of the site, across Walnut Avenue, does not warrant an unusual circumstance, as exemptions are commonly used for projects in proximity to sensitive receptors when evidence shows the project would not pose a significant impact on the environment, as is the case with this project. Furthermore, the hospital received public hearing notices for the project’s Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission hearings and did not raise objections to the project.

3. The City lacks substantial evidence to support approval of the project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

The Appellant argues that because the project’s specific impacts were not analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, use of streamlining under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 is inappropriate. The Appellant further argues that the General Plan Update EIR’s mitigation measures and the City’s standard development requirements will not reduce potential project impacts to a level less than significant.

Analysis: The City Center Community Plan was adopted by the City Council in May 2015.

The Community Plan implements the General Plan, which was last comprehensively updated

5.B
Packet Pg. 496
Council Staff Report (ID # 5121) Meeting of April 16, 2024 Updated: 4/12/2024 9:42 AM by Dina Lewis Page 5
in December 2011 in a process that included preparation and certification of an EIR. As described in Informational Item No. 5 (Planning Commission Staff Report), the project is consistent with the City Center Community Plan and the applicable standards of the City Center District. Clearly, the specifics of the subject project were not known and could not have been known at the time General Plan Update EIR certification. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 contemplates that a specific project occurring later in time, post-certification, will be evaluated for its consistency with the prior CEQA document. That evaluation has occurred, and findings that the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment, thus supporting the use of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 streamlining, have been made and are supported by substantial evidence in the record.

4. The City cannot make the necessary findings to approve the project’s entitlements.

The Appellant argues that the project’s Discretionary Design Review Permit findings cannot be made because significant air quality, noise, and public health impacts will render the project detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare.

Analysis: There is substantial evidence in Informational Item No. 2 (CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist) and the administrative record demonstrating that project impacts related to air quality, noise, and other matters of public health, safety, or welfare will be less than significant.

PROJECT FINDINGS:

Please see Informational Item No. 5 (Planning Commission Staff Report) for project description details and associated staff analysis that supports the following findings for project approval:

1. 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.

2. When a proposed project is inconsistent with an adopted design rule, the purpose and intent of the design rule is met through alternative means.

5.B
Packet Pg. 497
Council Staff Report (ID # 5121) Meeting of April 16, 2024 Updated: 4/12/2024 9:42 AM by Dina Lewis Page 6
Analysis: The proposed project is designed in conformance with all applicable objective design rules, as described in the staff report (Informational Item No. 5).

3. 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.

4. Where HARB review is required, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable standards and findings required in Chapters 18.135 and 18.175.

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.

CEQA
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, when an EIR has been certified for a project 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

5.B
Packet Pg. 498
Council Staff Report (ID # 5121) Meeting of April 16, 2024 Updated: 4/12/2024 9:42 AM by Dina Lewis Page 7
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

Analysis: As documented in the CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (Information Item No. 2) 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 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.

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

5.B
Packet Pg. 499
Council Staff Report (ID # 5121) Meeting of April 16, 2024 Updated: 4/12/2024 9:42 AM by Dina Lewis Page 8
December 2011 in a process that included preparation and certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). As described within Informational Item No. 5 and detailed in Informational Item No. 2, 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

ATTACHMENTS:
• Draft Resolution - Gateway Plaza
• Exhibit A - Project Plans
• Exhibit B - Findings and Conditions of Approval
• Informational Item No. 1 - Zoning Administrator Staff Report • Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist • Informational Item No. 3 - Zoning Administrator Hearing Minutes • Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter • Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report • Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter
• Informational Item No. 7 - Draft Planning Commission Hearing Minutes • Informational Item No. 8 - Planning Commission Appeal Letter RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Hold public hearing.

2. Find that the proposed project is in conformance with the relevant provisions of the City’s General Plan, including the goals and objectives set forth in the Land Use, Community Plans, Housing Element, and Safety Chapters of the General Plan.

3. Adopt a Resolution denying the Appeal, adopt findings, and approve Discretionary Design Review Permit PLN2023-00198, as shown in Exhibit “A,” based on findings and subject to the conditions of approval provided in Exhibit “B.”

4. Approve the proposed removal and mitigation of thirty-six (36) private protected trees pursuant to the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance.

5.B
Packet Pg. 500
Resolution 2024-XX Page 1 of 3
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FREMONT DENYING AN APPEAL (PLN2024-00129) AND APPROVING A
DISCRETIONARY DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (PLN2023-00198) FOR THE GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS PROJECT AT 39160 PASEO PADRE
PARKWAY IN THE CENTRAL COMMUNITY PLAN AREA; MAKING

FINDINGS OF CEQA EXEMPTION AND NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL

REVIEW REQUIRED
WHEREAS, Kimco Realty (“Applicant”) applied for a Discretionary Design Review Permit for a new five-story, 206-unit apartment building to be developed in the Gateway Plaza shopping center at 39160 Paseo Padre Parkway (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2023, the Zoning Administrator held a duly noticed public hearing and found the Project to be consistent with the General Plan, the City Center Community Plan, and the City Center – Urban Office zoning district, and that 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 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 as none of the circumstances requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred, with each of the foregoing providing a separate and independent basis for CEQA compliance; and WHEREAS, on December 21, 2023, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of East Bay Residents for Responsible Development (“Appellant”) submitted a qualifying Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s approval action of the Project; and WHEREAS, on February 22, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed de novo public hearing and denied the Appeal (6-0-1), upholding the Zoning Administrator’s prior approval of the Project; and
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2024, the Appellant submitted a qualifying Appeal of the Planning Commission’s action to deny the previous Appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval action of the Project; and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed de novo public hearing to consider the deliberations by the Planning Commission, and all interested persons who desired to comment on or object to the Project were heard.

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Draft Resolution - Gateway Plaza (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Resolution 2024-XX Page 2 of 3

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FREMONT RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds that the Project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 Infill Development Projects, and that the Project is 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 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 as none of the circumstances requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred, with each of the foregoing, detailed in Informational Item Nos. 2 (CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist) and 6 (Appeal Response Letter), providing a separate and independent basis for CEQA compliance, and that this finding reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that the Project is in conformance with the General Plan, including the goals and policies of the Land Use Element, Housing Element, Community Character Element, Mobility Element, and Community Plans Element, in that the Project would redevelop a segment of a suburban-style shopping center with a dense, mid-rise apartment building that features a pedestrian-oriented design and easy access to public transit in accordance with Commercial – City Center District objectives, as described in Informational Item No. 5 (Planning Commission Staff Report).

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds that, based on the available information, evidence presented at the hearing, and consideration of the above, the Project is consistent with the City Center Community Plan and City Center – Urban Office zoning district for the reasons described in Informational Item No. 5 (Planning Commission Staff Report).

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby denies the Appeal (upholding the Planning Commission’s action to deny the previous Appeal) and approves the Project’s Discretionary Design Review Permit as shown in Exhibit “A,” subject to the findings and conditions of approval contained in Exhibit “B”.

ADOPTED ____________, 2024, by the City Council of the City of Fremont by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Draft Resolution - Gateway Plaza (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Resolution 2024-XX Page 3 of 3
ATTEST:
__________________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
City Attorney

5.B.a
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Draft Resolution - Gateway Plaza (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

BOUNDARY AND EASEMENT PLAN

PRELIMINARY CIVIL SITE PLAN

PRELIMINARY SIGNING AND STRIPING PLAN

PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN

PRELIMINARY GRADING SECTIONS

PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN

PRELIMINARY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DETAILS

CLEAN BAY BLUEPRINT

DEMOLITION PLAN

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

UNIT AND AREA SUMMARY

VICINITY MAP

SITE PHOTOS

AERIAL MAP

CONCEPTUAL BLOCK DIAGRAM
BLOCK CONFIGURATION PHASE 1

PLANNING CODE EXHIBIT

OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM

FIRE ACCESS DIAGRAM

CODE ANALYSIS DIAGRAM - GROUND FLOOR

CODE ANALYSIS DIAGRAM - TYPICAL UPPER FLOORS

TRASH DIAGRAM

PARKING DIAGRAM

STORAGE DIAGRAM

PLANNING CODE FRONTAGE EXHIBITS

URBAN DESIGN VISIONING

RENDERINGS

GROUND LEVEL PLAN
LEVEL 2 PLAN
LEVEL 3-5 PLAN

ROOF PLAN

MATERIAL BOARD

ELEVATIONS

SECTIONS

UNIT PLANS

BIKE PARKING DIAGRAM

LANDSCAPE NARRATIVE AND CONCEPT IMAGERY

LANDSCAPE ZONE DIAGRAM

LANDSCAPE INSPIRATION IMAGES

TREE MITIGATION PLAN

TREE SURVEY/PRESERVATION INVENTORY

LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN - GROUND LEVEL
LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN - WORK AREA 2 & TERRACE LEVELS

LANDSCAPE SECTION ELEVATIONS

PLANTING PLAN - GROUND LEVEL
PLANTING PLAN - WORK AREA 2 & TERRACE LEVELS

PLANTING LEGEND

GATEWAY PLAZA

DISCRETIONARY DESIGN REVIEW
(DDR) RESUBMITTAL
1ST SUBMITTAL: DECEMBER 22, 2022
2ND SUBMITTAL: APRIL 14, 2023
3RD SUBMITTAL: JULY 11, 2023

COVER SHEET
INDEX
ARCHITECTURE:

A-0.11
A-0.12
A-0.13
A-0.14
A-0.15
A-0.16
A-0.17
A-0.21
A-0.22
A-0.23
A-0.24
A-0.25
A-0.26
A-0.27
A-0.28
A-0.29
A-0.31 - A0.33
A-0.34 - A0.38
A-1.1
A-1.2
A-1.3
A-1.4
A-2.1
A-2.2 - A-2.4
A-3.1 - A-3.2
A-4.1 - A-4.11
NEW SHEETS:

A-5.1
LANDSCAPE:

L1.0
L2.0
L2.1 - L2.2
L3.0
L3.1
L4.1
L4.2
L4.3
L5.1
L5.2
L5.3
CIVIL:

C100
C200
C201
C300
C301
C400
C500
C501 - C502
C503
C110

EXHIBIT A - PROJECT PLANS

GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS
PLN2024-00129(PLN2023-00198)
CITY COUNCIL HEARING 4/16/2024

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
PROJECT DESCRIPTION A-0.11

PROJECT TEAM
DEVELOPER:

ARCHITECT:

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:

CIVIL ENGINEER:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Gateway Plaza shopping center is located along Walnut Avenue between Civic Center Drive and Paseo Padre, less than a 1/2 mile south of the Fremont BART station. Given its proximity to BART, the site experiences moderate pedestrian traffic as a primary path and retail stop between the neighborhood and the station.

The 3.23-acre project site is envisioned to be developed as an apartment project, featuring 206 rental units, structured parking, a pool courtyard, roof terrace, and residential amenities along Walnut Avenue. The building will be all electric with no gas. Approximately 26,550 square feet of retail would be demolished.

This project is private housing governed by CBC Chapter 11A for accessibility.

APPLICABLE CODES & STANDARDS:
2022 California Building Code
2022 California Mechanical Code
2022 California Electricla Code
2022 California Plumbing Code
2022 California Fire Code
2022 California Energy Code
2022 California Green Building Code
City of Fremont Building Standards Code

VICINITY MAP

PROJECT INFORMATION
ZONING
Fremont Retail Partners, LP.
15 Southgate Ave, #201
Daly City, CA 94015
Contact: Mark Rickards
[email protected]
TCA Architects
1111 Broadway, Suite 1320
Oakland, CA 94607
Contact: Lisa Majchrzak
[email protected]
EPT Design
14988 Sand Canyon Ave, #8
Irvine, CA 92618
Contact: Steve Burkel
[email protected]
Kimley-Horn
4637 Chabot Drive Suite 300
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Contact: Tyler Whaley
[email protected]
P: 650.757.2022
www.kimcorealty.com
P: 510.545.4222
www.tca-arch.com
P: 949.502.4500
www.eptdesign.com
P: 925.383.4840
www.kimley-horn.com

EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER

COMMERCIAL BUILDING AREA (GFA)
EXISTING AREA 204,104 SF
(192,104 SF +12,000 SF OUT PARCELS
UNDER SEPARATE OWNERSHIP, SEE A-0.16)
AREA TO BE DEMOLISHED 26,550 SF
NEW AREA - REDEVELOPMENT IMPACT 177,554 SF (204,104 SF - 26,550 SF) RETAIL PARKING (SEE PARKING DIAGRAM, SHEET A-0.27)
EXISTING SPACES 820 SPACES
REMOVED SPACES - 237 SPACES
NEW RETAIL PARKING ADDED +48 SPACES (NEW SURFACE LOT)
NET RETAIL PARKING 631 SPACES (820 – 237 + 48)

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
GROSS BUILDING AREA 222,238 SF
PARKING GARAGE AREA 109,586 SF

CONSTRUCTION TYPE
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (5) LEVELS TYPE IIIA, FULLY SPRINKLERED STRUCTURED GARAGE (5) LEVELS TYPE IA
OCCUPANCIES RESIDENTIAL R-2
PARKING S-2
ASSEMBLY A-3

BUSINESS B
UNIT COUNT 206 (SEE SHEET A-0.12 FOR ADDITIONAL INFO)

BUILDING HEIGHT
ALLOWED 10 STORIES / 120’
PROPOSED 5 STORIES / 61’4”

OPEN SPACE
REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE 15% OF PROJECT AREA = 21,097 SF REQUIRED PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 50 SF PER UNIT
PROPOSED SEE SHEET A-0.22
RESIDENTIAL PARKING (SEE PARKING DIAGRAM, SHEET A-0.27) REQUIRED 206 MIN - 412 MAX
PROVIDED 263 SPACES (IN STRUCTURED GARAGE)
RESIDENTIAL BICYCLE PARKING (SEE PARKING DIAGRAM, SHEET A-0.27) REQUIRED LONG TERM = 2 + 0.5 PER UNIT = 105
SHORT TERM = 4 + 1 PER 10 UNITS = 25
PROVIDED 136 LONG TERM
26 SHORT TERM

PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL STORAGE
REQUIRED 100 CU.FT PER UNIT
PROVIDED SEE SHEET A-0.28

SITE & ZONING INFORMATION
ADDRESS 39300 PASEO PADRE PKWY, FREMONT, CA 94538
APN 507-046501301
PROJECT BOUNDARY AREA 3.23 ACRES (140,645 SF)

ZONING DISTRICT CITY CENTER DISTRICT-URBAN OFFICE ZONE (UO) REQUIRED SETBACKS WALNUT AVE: 0 TO 10’
SIDE INTERIOR: 0’
REAR: 10’ PASEO PADRE WALNUT AVE

BART FREMONT STATION CIVIC CENTER DR
SITE

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
UNIT AND AREA SUMMARY A-0.12

A R C H I T E C T S
N.T.S.

GATEWAY PLAZA
[PROJECT ADDRESS] 11-23-2022
KIMCO REALTY UNIT AND AREA SUMMARY A-0.1
TCA# 2021-139

BASIC PROJECT SUMMARY

TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS

NET LEASABLE

AVERAGE UNIT SIZE

BUILDING SF

GARAGE SF
TOTAL
F.A.R.

PROJECT BOUNDARY 140,645 SF 3.23 acres
DENSITY 63.77 UNITS PER ACRE

2.37 PROJECT SUMMARY BY USE
LEVEL RESIDENTIAL GARAGE AMENITY B.O.H. CIRCULATION TOTAL

BUILDING
1ST STORY 20,161 SF 0 SF 9,246 SF 5,988 SF 9,043 SF 45,257 SF 2ND STORY T.O. SHT'G. 33,744 SF 0 SF 1,050 SF 1,852 SF 7,599 SF 44,245 SF 3RD STORY T.O. SHT'G. 35,071 SF 0 SF 0 SF 1,878 SF 7,177 SF 44,126 SF 4TH STORY T.O. SHT'G. 35,075 SF 0 SF 0 SF 1,878 SF 7,174 SF 44,126 SF 5TH STORY T.O. SHT'G. 35,075 SF 0 SF 0 SF 1,878 SF 7,174 SF 44,126 SF ROOF 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF 357 SF 357 SF
BUILDING 159,126 SF 0 SF 10,296 SF 13,473 SF 38,525 SF 222,238 SF GARAGE
1ST STORY 0 SF 22,861 SF 0 SF 496 SF 0 SF 23,357 SF
2ND STORY T.O. SHT'G. 0 SF 21,557 SF 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF 21,557 SF 3RD STORY T.O. SHT'G. 0 SF 21,557 SF 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF 21,557 SF 4TH STORY T.O. SHT'G. 0 SF 21,557 SF 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF 21,557 SF 5TH STORY T.O. SHT'G. 0 SF 21,557 SF 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF 21,557 SF GARAGE 0 SF 109,090 SF 0 SF 496 SF 0 SF 109,586 SF
TOTAL 159,126 SF 109,090 SF 10,296 SF 13,969 SF 38,525 SF 331,823 SF

UNIT SUMMARY AVERAGE UNIT SIZE

UNIT TYPE AVERAGE UNIT AREA TOTAL UNIT AREA COUNT PERCENTAGE STUDIO 546 SF 23,478 SF 43 21%
ONE BEDROOM 670 SF 70,387 SF 105 51%
TWO BEDROOM 1,099 SF 59,335 SF 54 26%
THREE BEDROOM 1,481 SF 5,925 SF 4 2%
Grand total 159,126 SF 206 100%

UNIT SUMMARY

UNIT NAME AVERAGE UNIT AREA TOTAL UNIT AREA COUNT PERCENTAGE STUDIO
S1 546 SF 22,385 SF 41 20%
S2 547 SF 1,093 SF 2 1%
23,478 SF 43 21%

ONE BEDROOM
A1 669 SF 39,449 SF 59 29%
A1.1 654 SF 5,886 SF 9 4%
A1.2 653 SF 9,143 SF 14 7%
A2 684 SF 2,737 SF 4 2%
A3 582 SF 5,240 SF 9 4%
A4 858 SF 3,433 SF 4 2%
A4.1 715 SF 715 SF 1 0%
A5 746 SF 2,985 SF 4 2%
A7 798 SF 798 SF 1 0%
70,387 SF 105 51%

TWO BEDROOM
B1 1,085 SF 15,192 SF 14 7%
B2 1,152 SF 10,370 SF 9 4%
B2.1 1,136 SF 5,681 SF 5 2%
B2.2 1,153 SF 3,459 SF 3 1%
B3 1,201 SF 3,603 SF 3 1%
B4 1,011 SF 10,113 SF 10 5%
B5 1,024 SF 1,024 SF 1 0%
B6 1,119 SF 5,596 SF 5 2%
B7 1,074 SF 4,298 SF 4 2%
59,335 SF 54 26%

THREE BEDROOM
C1 1,481 SF 5,925 SF 4 2%
5,925 SF 4 2%
Grand total 159,126 SF 206 100%
222,238 SF
109,586 SF
331,823 SF
159,126 SF
772 SF
206

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
VICINITY MAP A-0.13
FIRE

STATION

CENTRAL PARK &

LAKE ELIZABETH

TULE POND

LAGO LOS
OROS

ARGONAUT WAY

FREMONT HUB

THE ASHER (TCA)WALNUT AVE

0.9 mi

21.5 mins

0.75 mi
18 mins

0.5 mi
12 mins

COMMUNITY
PARK

CAPITOL AVE

BEACON AVE

FREMONT BLVD

0.25 mi
6 mins

GATEWAY

PLAZA SITE
CITY
HALL

PASEO PADRE PKWY

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
SITE PHOTOS A-0.14

WALNUT AVE

PASEO PADRE PKWY

BART FREMONT STATION

CIVIC CENTER DR
3 7
6 2 1
4 5
SITE
5 6
4 7
1 3
2 5.B.b
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
AERIAL MAP A-0.15

WALNUT AVE

PASEO PADRE PKWY

CIVIC CENTER DR
Grocery Anchor
Local Retail
Sweet Tomatoes
Kaiser Permanente
Fremont Medical
Center
The Counter
Pieology Pizzeria
Philz Coffee
Inchin’s Bamboo
Garden
Civic Center Place
24HOUR Fitness
(to be demolished)
SITE
Go Chaatzz
Washington West
Medical Center
TECO Tea &
Coffee Bar
Pet Food Express

BART FREMONT STATION

BART WAY

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
CONCEPTUAL BLOCK DIAGRAM A-0.16
SITE
RETAIL
OP1 OP2
OP3
RETAIL
(GROCERY ANCHOR)

SURFACE

PARKING

SURFACE

PARKING

SURFACE

PARKING

CIVIC CENTER DR

WALNUT AVE

CAPITAL AVE EXTENSION

PASEO PADRE PKWY

NOT UNDER COMMON

OWNERSHIP

BART FREMONT STATION

NOT UNDER COMMON

OWNERSHIP

COLOR LEGEND

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BART WAY LIMIT OF WORK

VEHICULAR CONNECTION

EXISTING RETAIL

PROPOSED SITE

OUTPARCEL

PROPERTY LINE

SURFACE PARKING

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
BLOCK CONFIGURATION PHASE 1 A-0.17

SURFACE

PARKING

SURFACE

PARKING
RETAIL
(GROCERY ANCHOR)
RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL
MULTI. FAMILY
SITE
OP1 OP2
OP3

SURFACE

PARKING

WALNUT AVE

CIVIC CENTER DR BART FREMONT STATION

PASEO PADRE PKWY

CAPITAL AVE EXTENSION

NOT UNDER COMMON

OWNERSHIP

NOT UNDER COMMON

OWNERSHIP

SURFACE

PARKING COLOR LEGEND

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BART WAY LIMIT OF WORK

VEHICULAR CONNECTION

EXISTING RETAIL

PROPOSED SITE

OUTPARCEL

PROPERTY LINE

SURFACE PARKING

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ PLANNING CODE EXHIBIT A-0.21
EB
GM GM
A A
A A
M
M
D
S
D
D
S
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
D
D
D
99'-0"
29'-9" 99'-0" 32'-0"
211'-9"
5'-6"

RAMP UP
96'-1" 26'-0" 84'-0"
99'-0" 33'-7" 99'-6"
392'-10"
71'-2" 60'-2" 76'-6"
207'-9"
26'-0" 92'-4" 57'-6" 46'-8" 17'-0"77'-5"
10'-0"
25'-0"
7'-0"
6'-0"
13'-2"
9'-10" 398'-11"

PROJECT BOUNDARY

LIMIT OF WORK

PROPERTY LINE

FORECOURT

FORECOURT
GATE &

EXIT DOOR
GATE &

EXIT DOOR
5'-0"

A R C H I T E C T S
N
GATEWAY PLAZA 0' 10' 40' 20'
[PROJECT ADDRESS] 11-23-2022

KIMCO REALTY PLANNING CODE
TCA# 2021-139

WALNUT AVE
BART WAY (private access easement, see sheet C100)

NOTES AND LEGEND
WALNUT AVE. “PRIMARY FRONTAGE”: SHOPFRONT
0’ - 10’ REQUIRED SETBACK FROM PROPERTY LINE
MIN 25’ PLANE BREAK AND 5’ DEEP

BUILDING LENGTH

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM A-0.22
EB
GM GM
A A
A A
M
M
D
S
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
D
D
T
R
C

COURTYARD
LEVEL 1

ROOF DECK A
LEVEL 2
COMMON OPEN SPACE LEVEL 1 PUBLIC STREETSCAPE LEVEL 1

PROJECT BOUNDARY

LIMIT OF WORK
93'-3"

RAMP UP

RAMP DOWN

ROOF DECK B

ROOF LEVEL

PROPERTY LINE
113'-4"
17'-2"
27'-10"
159'-9"
GATE &

EXIT DOOR
GATE &

EXIT DOOR

A R C H I T E C T S
N
GATEWAY PLAZA 0' 15' 60' 30'
[PROJECT ADDRESS] 11-23-2022
KIMCO REALTY OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM A-0.11
TCA# 2021-139
COMMON OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS:

PROJECT BOUNDARY (SITE AREA)
TOTAL COMMON OPEN SPACE:

REQUIRED (15% of site area) 21 097 SF

PROVIDED
GROUND LEVEL PUBLIC OPEN SPACE:

REQUIRED (50% of total required) 10 548 SF

PROVIDED
140,645 SF 3.23 acres
COMMON OPEN SPACE SUMMARY:

GROUND LEVEL PUBLIC OPEN SPACE (50' WIDE MIN)
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE (MIN 50 SF PER UNIT)
12,052 SF
PUBLIC
PUBLIC STREETSCAPE 12,052 SF
12,052 SF

SEMI-PUBLIC
COMMON OPEN SPACE 5,116 SF
COURTYARD 7,789 SF
ROOF DECK A 1,726 SF
ROOF DECK B 1,664 SF
16,295 SF
Grand total 28,347 SF
28,347 SF
QTY.PROVIDED
52 96
54 5
207
UNIT TYPE AVG. AREA
ONE BEDROOM 50-100 SF
TWO BEDROOM 58-256 SF
THREE BEDROOM 58-365 SF
STUDIO 51-72 SF
TOTAL 51-365 SF
NOTES:

1. GRADE-LEVEL OPEN SPACE EXCLUDES THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK.

2. OPEN SPACE MAY INCLUDE LANDSCAPING, WATER FEATURES, SEATING, POOL, AND OTHER AMENITY SPACES.

WALNUT AVE
BART WAY (private access easement, see sheet C100)

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 30’ 60’ 120’ FIRE ACCESS DIAGRAM A-0.23
EB
GM GM
M
M
D
S
D
D
S
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
D
D
D

VEHICULAR
ENTRY
EXIT

DISCHARGE

EXIT DISCHARGE

EXIT DISCHARGE
ENTRY

PAD ENTRY

TRANSFORMER PAD

TRANSFORMER
211'-9"
20' WIDE FIRE ACCESS LANE, TYP.

22.5' INSIDE RADIUS, TYP.

SEE C200 FOR ADD'L INFO
150' PULL LENGHT FROM TRUCK

STAGING
R
1 50' -
0"
R 150' - 0"
R 150' - 0"
R 150' - 0"

PROPERTY LINE INGRESS/EGRESS

SHARED ACCESS

AGREEMENT

RAMP UP

FIRE LANE
26'-0"
26'-0"
EXIT

DISCHARGE
EXIT

DISCHARGE FH
FH
FH
LOBBY
LOBBY 2

EXISTING FIRE
HYDRANT 2024 TO
REMAIN

NEW FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT 1987

UTILIZED FOR FIRE FLOW TESTING
GARAGE

ELECTRICAL GARAGE
TRASH

POOL RM
MPOE

PUMP RM

PUMP RM - FIRE

ELECTRICAL
TRASH
B.O.H.

TRASH
TRASH
B.O.H.

CLUBROOM

LEASING

MAIL CO-WORKING

FITNESS

SHOWER RESTROOM

BIKE PARKING
R 150' - 0"
FH
FH

EXISTING FIRE

HYDRANT TO
REMAIN

DOG SPA
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
19'-8"
R 150' - 0"

FH EXISTING FIRE

HYDRANT TO REMAIN
R 150' - 0"

PROJECT BOUNDARY

LIMIT OF WORK
GATE &

EXIT DOOR
GATE &

EXIT DOORS
FH

NEW FIRE HYDRANT
R 150' - 0"
R 150' - 0"

FIRE COMMAND
CENTER

A R C H I T E C T S
N
GATEWAY PLAZA 0' 15' 60' 30'
[PROJECT ADDRESS] 11-23-2022

KIMCO REALTY FIRE ACCESS
TCA# 2021-139
WALNUT AVE (public)
BART WAY (private)

FIRE DIAGRAM LEGEND
150’ HOSE PULL LENGTH FROM

FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD
(PER CFC SECTION 503.1.1)

EXIT DISCHARGE FROM EXIT

STAIR ENCLOSURE

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROPERTY LINE

FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD
(PER CFC SECTION 503)

LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE
2 HR ELEVATOR SHAFT

TYPE IA PODIUM GARAGE
2 HOUR EXIT STAIR ENCLOSURE

EXIT DISCHARGE
FIRE HYDRANT LOCATION. VERYFY

LOCATION WITH CIVIL DRAWINGS
FH

BUILDING ENTRY
ENTRY

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ CODE ANALYSIS DIAGRAM A-0.24

GROUND FLOOR
EB
GM GM
A A
A A
M
M
D
S
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

RAMP UP

PROJECT BOUNDARY

LIMIT OF WORK

PROPERTY LINE

COURTYARD EGRESS
3 HOUR FIRE WALL
3 HOUR FIRE
WALL
3 HOUR FIRE
WALL
3 HOUR HORIZONTAL EXIT

TWO HOUR RATED EXIT

STAIR ENCLOSURE

EXTENTS TO ROOF
MAX. TRAVEL
DISTANCE= 195'

IMAGINARY LINE
MAX. TRAVEL DISTANCE= 96'
3 HOUR

HORIZONTAL
EXIT

TWO HOUR RATED EXIT

STAIR ENCLOSURE

TWO HOUR RATED EXIT

STAIR ENCLOSURE

TWO HOUR RATED EXIT

PASSAGEWAY

TWO HOUR RATED EXIT

PASSAGEWAY

FIRE COMPARTMENT
02 9,183 SF

FIRE COMPARTMENT
01 9,005 SF

FIRE COMPARTMENT
03 7,218 SF

FIRE COMPARTMENT
04 7,237 SF

FIRE COMPARTMENT
05 6,730 SF

FIRE COMPARTMENT
07 23,480 SF

FIRE COMPARTMENT
06 7,573 SF

TYPE IIIA

TYPE IA

TYPE IIIA

TYPE IIIA TYPE IIIA

EXIT DISCHARGE

EXIT DISCHARGE
EXIT

DISCHARGE
EXIT

DISCHARGE

ACCESSIBLE ROUTE OF TRAVEL

ACCESSIBLE

ROUTE OF TRAVEL

CLUBROOM
1,067 SF
LOBBY
1,138 SF MAIL

LEASING

CO-WORKING
2,581 SF

SHOWER RESTROOM

FITNESS

POOL RM MPOE BIKE PARKING

PUMP RM - FIRE

PUMP RM
TRASH

TRASH ELECTRICAL

LOADING
LOBBY 2

FIRE COMMAND
CENTER

ELECTRICAL
GARAGE
B.O.H.

B.O.H.

TRASH
TRASH
33'-9"
18'-5"
17'-5"
OCC.LOAD = 72
A-OCC
3 HOUR FIRE WALL

ACCESSIBLE ROUTE OF TRAVEL

RESIDENTIAL GARAGE
B-OCC
OCC.LOAD = 18
B-OCC
B-OCC

DOG SPA
GATE &

EXIT DOOR
GATE &

EXIT DOORS GATE &

EXIT DOOR

A R C H I T E C T S
N
GATEWAY PLAZA 0' 10' 40' 20'
[PROJECT ADDRESS] 11-23-2022
KIMCO REALTY CODE ANALYSIS_Level 1 A-0.13
TCA# 2021-139
NOTES:

1. PER CBC 1009.1, EACH ACCESSIBLE PORTION OF THE SPACE SHALL BE SERVED BY AN ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS. ALL BUILDING ENTRANCES AND EXITS SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE.

2. FIRE WALLS SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC 706 FOR EXTERIOR WALLS AND OPENING PROTECTION

FIRE COMPARTMENT
COMPARTMENT 01
COMPARTMENT 02
COMPARTMENT 03
COMPARTMENT 04
COMPARTMENT 05
COMPARTMENT 06
COMPARTMENT 07
LEVELS
L1-L5
L1-L5
L1-L5
L1-L5
L1-L5
L1-L5
L1-L5
CONSTR.TYPE

TYPE IIIA

TYPE IA

OCCUPANCY
GROUP
R2/A3/B
R2/B/S2
R2/S2
R2/A3
R2
R2/S2
S2
MAX.ALLOWABLE

AREA PER FLOOR
24,000 SF
24,000 SF
24,000 SF
24,000 SF
24,000 SF
24,000 SF

UNLIMITED

PROPOSED AREA
PER
9,005 SF
9,183 SF
7,218 SF
7,530 SF
6,729 SF
7,590 SF
23,482 SF

ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA
FIRE COMPARTMENT 01
OCCUPANCY GROUP - R2, A3, B. TYPE IIIA
MAX.AREA PER FLOOR ALLOWED = 24,000 SF
MAX.AREA PER BLDG ALLOWED = 48,000 SF
PROPOSED BLDG AREA = 9,005 + 6,795 x 4 = 36,185 SF
FIRE COMPARTMENT 02
OCCUPANCY GROUP - R2, B, S2. TYPE IIIA
MAX.AREA PER FLOOR ALLOWED = 24,000 SF
MAX.AREA PER BLDG ALLOWED = 48,000 SF
PROPOSED BLDG AREA = 9,183 + 9,221 x 4 = 46,063 SF
FIRE COMPARTMENT 03
OCCUPANCY GROUP - R2, S2. TYPE IIIA
MAX.AREA PER FLOOR ALLOWED = 24,000 SF
MAX.AREA PER BLDG ALLOWED = 48,000 SF
PROPOSED BLDG AREA = 7,218 + 7,199 x 4 = 36,014 SF
FIRE COMPARTMENT 04
OCCUPANCY GROUP - R2, A3. TYPE IIIA
MAX.AREA PER FLOOR ALLOWED = 24,000 SF
MAX.AREA PER BLDG ALLOWED = 48,000 SF
PROPOSED BLDG AREA = 7,225 + 7,194 x 4 = 36,001 SF
FIRE COMPARTMENT 05
OCCUPANCY GROUP - R2. TYPE IIIA
MAX.AREA PER FLOOR ALLOWED = 24,000 SF
MAX.AREA PER BLDG ALLOWED = 48,000 SF
PROPOSED BLDG AREA = 6,729 + 6,613 x 4 = 33,181 SF
FIRE COMPARTMENT 06
OCCUPANCY GROUP - R2, S2. TYPE IIIA
MAX.AREA PER FLOOR ALLOWED = 24,000 SF
MAX.AREA PER BLDG ALLOWED = 48,000 SF
PROPOSED BLDG AREA = 7,590 + 7,992 x 4 = 39,558 SF

WALNUT AVE
BART WAY (private access easement, see sheet C100)

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ CODE ANALYSIS DIAGRAM A-0.25

TYPICAL UPPER FLOORS
A A
A A
M
M
D
S
D
D
S
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
D
D
D

FIRE COMPARTMENT
03 7,199 SF

FIRE COMPARTMENT
02 9,221 SF

FIRE COMPARTMENT
01 6,795 SF

FIRE COMPARTMENT
05 6,613 SF

FIRE COMPARTMENT
06 7,992 SF

FIRE COMPARTMENT
07 23,370 SF

FIRE COMPARTMENT
04 7,194 SF

TYPE IIIA

TYPE IA

TYPE IIIA

TYPE IIIA
3 HOUR FIRE WALL
3 HOUR FIRE WALL
3 HOUR FIRE
WALL
3 HOUR HORIZONTAL EXIT

TWO HOUR RATED EXIT

STAIR ENCLOSURE

EXTENTS TO ROOF
MAX. TRAVEL DISTANCE= 235'

TWO HOUR RATED EXIT

STAIR ENCLOSURE

TWO HOUR RATED EXIT

STAIR ENCLOSURE
398'-11"
MAX. TRAVEL DISTANCE= 233'
200'-4"

PROJECT BOUNDARY

LIMIT OF WORK

PROPERTY LINE
75'-10"
92'-3 1/2"

AMENITY
734 SF
MAX.OCC.LOAD = 49

IMAGINARY LINE
3 HOUR FIRE
WALL
24'-9"
21'-10"

RESIDENTIAL GARAGE

ROOF DECK A
1,726 SF
OCC.LOAD = 116
LEVEL 6

ROOF DECK
MAX.OCC.

LOAD = 49
MAX.OCC.SPACE
= 734 SF

A R C H I T E C T S
N
GATEWAY PLAZA 0' 10' 40' 20'
[PROJECT ADDRESS] 11-23-2022
KIMCO REALTY CODE ANALYSIS_Level 2 A-0.14
TCA# 2021-139
NOTES:

1. PER CBC 1009.1, EACH ACCESSIBLE PORTION OF THE SPACE SHALL BE SERVED BY AN ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS. ALL BUILDING ENTRANCES AND EXITS SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE.

2. FIRE WALLS SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC 706 FOR EXTERIOR WALLS AND OPENING PROTECTION

FIRE COMPARTMENT
COMPARTMENT 01
COMPARTMENT 02
COMPARTMENT 03
COMPARTMENT 04
COMPARTMENT 05
COMPARTMENT 06
COMPARTMENT 07
LEVELS
L1-L5
L1-L5
L1-L5
L1-L5
L1-L5
L1-L5
L1-L5
CONSTR.TYPE

TYPE IIIA

TYPE IA

OCCUPANCY
GROUP
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
S2
MAX.ALLOWABLE

AREA PER FLOOR
24,000 SF
24,000 SF
24,000 SF
24,000 SF
24,000 SF
24,000 SF

UNLIMITED

PROPOSED AREA
PER
6,795 SF
9,221 SF
7,199 SF
7,194 SF
6,613 SF
7,992 SF
23,370 SF

ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA

WALNUT AVE
BART WAY (private access easement, see sheet C100)

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 30’ 60’ 120’ TRASH DIAGRAM A-0.26
EB
GM GM
T
T
R
R
T
R
C
T
R
A A
A A
M
M
D
S
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
R T

RAMP UP
TRASH ROOM #1
TRASH ROOM #3
TRASH ROOM #2 TRASH ROOM #4
TRAVEL DISTANCE: 196'

RESIDENTIAL TRASH

STAGING AREA

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROPERTY LINE LIMIT OF WORK
TRAVEL DISTANCE: 239'
(E)RETAIL TENANTS
GATE &

EXIT DOOR
GATE &

EXIT DOOR

RAMP UP

RAMP DOWN
TRAVEL DISTANCE: 237'
TRAVEL DISTANCE: 204'
CHUTE ROOM #1
CHUTE ROOM #2
60"
O

CHUTE FOR

RECYCLING

ORGANIC

RECEPTACLE

CHUTE FOR
TRASH
2CY BIN
2CY BIN
1CY BIN
60"
5'-4"
39'-0"
21'-2"
TRASH

RECYCLING

RECYCLING
TRASH
FLOOR
DRAIN,TYP.

ROLL-UP
DOOR TRASH RM #2
RESID.TRASH RM #4
1CY BIN
4CY BIN

REPLACEMENT

ORGANICS
10'-0"
1CY BIN
2CY BIN
TRASH

COMPACTOR
MIN. 1 FT CLEARANCE (TYP.)

BETWEEN EACH BIN

AND THE BINS AND THE WALL

ELECTRIC

PALLET JACK
4CY BIN
4CY BIN
2CY BIN
COMPAC
TOR2CY BIN
28'-8"
31'-1"
FLOOR
DRAIN,TYP.

ROLL-UP
DOOR
60"

RECYCLING
TRASH
TRASH

TRASHRECYCLING
TRASH RM #1
RESID.TRASH
RM #3
5'-6" 25'-1 1/2"
2CY BIN
1CY BIN1CY BIN
4CY BIN

REPLACEMENT

REPLACEMENT
10'-0"
1CY BIN

ORGANICS
MIN. 1 FT CLEARANCE (TYP.)

BETWEEN EACH BIN

AND THE BINS AND THE WALL
BIN DIMENSIONS (TYP.):
1CY BIN = 80"x30"
2CY BIN = 80"x39"
4CY BIN = 80"x51"

ELECTRIC

PALLET JACK
1CY BIN
4CY BIN 4CY BIN
1CY BIN2CY BIN2CY BIN1CY BIN
ORGANICS RECYCLING TRASH 1CY BIN 1CY BIN 2CY BIN
1CY BIN

TOTAL NUMBER OF

BINS AT STAGING

AREAS BASED ON

TRASH CALCS FOR
5 PICK-UPS/WEEK

SCHEDULE
+ REQUIRED BINS

FOR GROUND FLOOR

RESIDENTS

RESIDENTIAL LOADING AREA

LOADING DOCK
31'-0"
7'-9" 8'-0"
30'-0" 25'-3"
8'-0" 11'-8"

A R C H I T E C T S
N
GATEWAY PLAZA 0' 15' 60' 30'
[PROJECT ADDRESS] 11-23-2022
KIMCO REALTY TRASH DIAGRAM A-0.15
TCA# 2021-139
1" = 30'-0" 1 TRASH DIAGRAM - LEVEL 1
1" = 30'-0" 2 TRASH DIAGRAM - TYP. LEVEL

RESIDENTIAL TRASH CALCULATIONS
GARBAGE: 206 UNITS x 0.33 CY PER UNIT = 68 CY PER WEEK
68 CY / 6CY COMPACTED* BINS = 12 BINS PER WEEK
12 BINS / 4 PICK-UPS PER WEEK = 3 BINS (2 per trash room) EACH RESIDENTIAL TRASH ROOM ON LEVEL 1 WILL HAVE ONE
MINI-M.A.C. APARTMENT COMPACTOR (MFR: MARATHON) ATTACHED TO THE TRASH CHUTE. THE 2CY BIN WILL BE ROLLED OUT FOR SERVICING. * Compaction ratio is up to 4:1; each 2cy bin is calculated to hold 6cy of waste RECYCLING: 50% OF GARBAGE GENERATED PER WEEK = 34 CY PER WEEK 34 CY / 4CY = 9 BINS PER WEEK
9 BINS / 5 PICK-UPS PER WEEK = 2 BINS (1 per trash room) ORGANICS: 206 UNITS x 4 GAL PER UNIT = 824 GAL PER WEEK 824 GAL = 5CY / 1CY = 5 BINS PER WEEK
5 BINS / 5 PICK-UPS PER WEEK = 1 BIN (1 per trash room) 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 CHUTE ROOM #1 - TYP.LEVEL
1/8" = 1'-0" 4 TRASH RM #2 & 4 - LEVEL 11/8" = 1'-0" 5 TRASH RM #1 & 3 - LEVEL 1 1/8" = 1'-0" 6 STAGING AREA AT BART WAY NOTE:

A NEW RETAIL TRASH ENCLOSURE MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE DEMO OF THE CURRENT RETAIL TRASH ENCLOSURE CAN HAPPEN.

WALNUT AVE (public)
BART WAY (private)

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ PARKING DIAGRAM A-0.27
EB
GM GM
M
M
D
S
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
D
D

RAMP UP

CAR SHARE

PROJECT BOUNDARY

LIMIT OF WORK

PROPERTY LINE
GARAGE
ENTRY

SECURITY
GATE
9'-0"
18'-0" 18'-0"
9'-0"
12'-0"
18'-0"
9'-0"
19'-0"

RESIDENTIAL

PARKING GARAGE

RETAIL PARKING LOT
21'-3"
24'-0"24'-0"
24'-0"

EV CAPABLE
24'-0"
9'-0"
19'-0"

PROJECT BOUNDARY

LIMIT OF WORK

EV READY

RAMP UP

RAMP DOWN
9'-0"
18'-0"
9'-0"
19'-0"
24'-0" 24'-0"
26'-0" 19'-0"

RESIDENTIAL

PARKING GARAGE

EV READY EV CHARGERS

EV CAPABLE

EV READY

A R C H I T E C T S
N
GATEWAY PLAZA 0' 15' 60' 30'
[PROJECT ADDRESS] 11-23-2022
KIMCO REALTY PARKING A-0.16
TCA# 2021-139

REQUIRED EV PARKING
25% EV READY 66
(EV RECEPTACLES INSTALLED)
5% EV CHARGERS 14
(EVSE CHARGERS INSTALLED)
10% EV CAPABLE (FUTURE CAPACITY) 27
EV ACCESSIBLE 1
(1 PER 25 EV SPACES (CAL GREEN BLDG 4.106.4.2.2)
1" = 30'-0" 1 PARKING DIAGRAM - LEVEL 1
1" = 30'-0" 2 PARKING DIAGRAM - TYP.LEVEL

REQUIRED SHARED TRANSPORTATION
2 FOR 100+ UNITS,
PLUS 1 FOR EACH 100 UNITS OVER 100 3
(FMC 18.183.172)

REQUIRED RESIDENTIAL PARKING
TOTAL REQUIRED SPACES (EXCLUSIVE USE STD.):

MIN (1PER DU) 206
MAX (2PER DU) 412
(FMC 18.43.130)

REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE PARKING
REQ. TOTAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING (2% TOTAL) 5
REQ. VAN ACCESSIBLE
(1 PER 8 ACC SPACES (CBC 1109A8.6) 1
(CBC 1109A)
NOTE: ALL PARKING STALLS WITHIN GARAGE SHALL
HAVE A VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF AT LEAST 7'-6".

PARKING TYPE COUNT %
06 STANDARD (9-0 x 19-0) 146 56%
06 SHARED TRANSPORTATION (9-0 x 19-0) 3 1%
149
01 ACCESSIBLE VAN (9-0 x 18-0) 1 0%
01 ACCESSIBLE (9-0 x 18-0) 5 2%
6 02 EV READY (9-0 x 19-0) 66 25%
02 EV CHARGER (9-0 x 19-0) 14 5%
02 EV CAPABLE (9-0 x 19-0) 27 10%
02 EV ACCESSIBLE VAN (12-0 x 18-0) 1 0%
108
TOTAL 263
RETAIL
07 STANDARD (9-0 x 19-0) 36 75%
36 01 ACCESSIBLE VAN (12-0 x 18-0) 1 2%
01 ACCESSIBLE (9-0 x 18-0) 1 2%
2 02 EV CHARGER (9-0 x 19-0) 2 4%
2 02 EV CAPABLE (9-0 x 19-0). 8 17%
8 TOTAL: 48 48

SURFACE PARKING PROVIDED

REQUIRED RETAIL PARKING
REQUIRED SPACES:

3.3/TGSF (EXCLUSIVE USE STANDARD)
GATEWAY PLAZA RETAIL AREA SUMMARY:

EXISTING COMMERCIAL AREA 204,104 SF
(192,104 SF plus 12,000 OUT PARCELS

UNDER SEPARATE OWNERSHIP)
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEMO -26,550 SF
(FITNESS BLDG)
TOTAL COMMERCIAL AREA 177,554 SF
RETAIL PARKING SUMMARY:
(E) RETAIL PARKING 820 SPACES
REMOVED SURFACE PARKING -237 SPACES
NEW RETAIL SURFACE LOT +48 SPACES
TOTAL RETAIL PARKING PROVIDED 631 SPACES (3.54/1K SF)
STANDARD ADA SPACES 14
ADA VAN SPACES (REQUIRED 1 PER 6 ADA = 24/6=4) 10
TOTAL ADA SPACES (REQUIRED 2% TOTAL = 13) 24

NEW RETAIL SURFACE LOT
REQUIRED ADA SPACES 2
REQUIRED EV CHARGERS 2
REQUIRED EV CAPABLE SPACES 8

RESIDENTIAL PARKING RETAIL PARKING

RESIDENTIAL PARKING PROVIDED
WALNUT AVE (public)
BART WAY (private)

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 30’ 60’ 120’ STORAGE DIAGRAM A-0.28
M
M
D
S
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

RAMP UP

PROJECT BOUNDARY

LIMIT OF WORK

PROPERTY LINE

SOUTH STORAGE
ROOM

RAMP UP

RAMP DOWN

NORTH STORAGE
ROOM

SOUTH STORAGE
ROOM
5'-3 1/2"
4'-0"
4'-0"
2'-6"
5'-6 1/2"

A R C H I T E C T S
N
GATEWAY PLAZA 0' 15' 60' 30'
[PROJECT ADDRESS] 11-23-2022
KIMCO REALTY STORAGE DIAGRAM A-0.17
TCA# 2021-139
1" = 30'-0" 1 STORAGE DIAGRAM - LEVEL 1
PRIVATE STORAGE (FMC 18.43.070)
REQUIRED: 100 CU.FT PER UNIT ON THE PATIO OR WITHIN THE GARAGE 1" = 30'-0" 2 STORAGE DIAGRAM - TYP.LEVEL (2-5)
1/8" = 1'-0" 3 STORAGE RM - ENLARGED PLAN - TYP.LEVEL
REQ'D. SHARED

STORAGE
2 19
11 UNIT TYPE

PROVIDED

PATIO CLOSET
STUDIO 41
1-BED 86
2-BED 43
3-BED 4
Total 174 32
1/8" = 1'-0" 4 PATIO CLOSET - ENLARGED PLAN - TYP.LEVEL ________________________________________________
2'-6"x5'-6 1/2" = 13.85 SQ.FT

13.85 SQ.FTx9'H = 124.65 CU.FT

PER PATIO CLOSET
4'-0"x4'-0" = 16 SQ.FT
16 SQ.FTx9'H = 144 CU.FT

PER INDIVIDUAL STORAGE
LOCKER

HATCH INDICATES UNITS

USING SHARED STORAGE
UNIT
PROVIDED SHARED STORAGE:
9 STORAGE ROOMS WITH 5 LOCKERS PER ROOM = 45 LOCKERS

HATCH INDICATES UNITS

USING SHARED STORAGE
-
WALNUT AVE (public)
BART WAY (private)

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 8’ 16’ 32’ PLANNING CODE A-0.29

FRONTAGE EXHIBIT
SHOPFRONT NOTES AND LEGEND (per table in FMC 18.43.230) HEIGHT (CLR.) TO TOP OF OPENING (12’ MIN - 22’ MAX)
HEIGHT (CLR.) TO UNDERSIDE OF AWNING (8’ MIN - 18’ MAX) WIDTH OF STOREFRONT BAYS (8’ MIN - 25’ MAX)
HEIGHT OF BULKHEAD/BASE (8” MIN - 42” MAX)
DEPTH OF RECESSED ENTRY (NO MIN, 10’ MAX FOR UP TO 25% OF FACADE) GLASS AREA % OF GROUND FACADE (70% MIN - 90% MAX)
aa
21bcde

WALNUT AVE STOREFRONT ELEVATION
8’-6” 9’-0”
16’-0”

GROUND FLOOR
HEIGHT
13’-6”
13’-10” a2
a
1 e 70%
b
c 1’-0”
b
c 1’-0”
e 70%

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
URBAN DESIGN VISIONING A-0.31

REFINED CORNERS
•ARCHITECTURE WRAPS CORNER WITH SUBTLE ENHANCEMENTS

HIGHLIGHTED

ENTRY CORNER

GROCERY
RETAIL

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
URBAN DESIGN VISIONING A-0.32
88’0”
105’4”
107’0”
84’4”
91’8”
103’4”
103’0”

BROKEN DOWN MASSING
•LARGE BREAKS IN THE BUILDING EVERY +/-100’
•MEETS INTENT OF ZONING CODE, FMC 18.43.100(G)(2)
PLANE-BREAK ALONG THE FACADE EVERY 100 FEET

OF BUILDING LENGTH WITH OFFSET OF AT LEAST
FIVE FEED IN DEPTH AND 25 FEET IN LENGTH

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
URBAN DESIGN VISIONING A-0.33

SHOPFRONT FRONTAGE
•WALNUT AVE AND PARKING LOT FRONTAGE HAS ACTIVE USES SUCH AS LOBBY/

LEASING, FITNESS, CO-WORKING, MAIL AND BIKE PARKING
•ARCHITECTURE MEETS SHOPFRONT FRONTAGE STANDARD
•DISTINCT BASE

BUILDING

ENTRANCE

SHOPFRONT

AMENITY

WALNUT AVE

GROCERY
RETAIL

AMENITY

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
RENDERING A-0.34

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
RENDERING A-0.35

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
RENDERING A-0.36

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
RENDERING A-0.37

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
RENDERING A-0.38

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ GROUND LEVEL PLAN A-1.1
1 1 1
1 1
EB
GM GM
T
T
T
R
R
R
T
R
C
T
R
A A
A A
M
M
D
S
D
D
S
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
D
D
D

ELECTRICAL
738 SF
LOBBY
1,138 SF

LEASING
819 SF

CLUBROOM
1,067 SF

FIRE COMMAND
CENTER
153 SF
LOBBY 2
574 SF

LOADING
491 SF

ELECTRICAL
716 SF

PUMP RM - FIRE
342 SF

PUMP RM
342 SF
MAIL
732 SF
MPOE
448 SF
BIKE

PARKING
1,456 SF

FITNESS
2,448 SF
24'-3"
F.F. +64'-6"
F.F. +62'-6"
S.W. +63'-0"
F.F. +62'-6"
F.F. +62'-6"
F.F. +64'-6"
F.F. +62'-6"

RESIDENT
GARAGE
ENTRY

FIRE LANE
PAD

TRANSFORMER
PAD

TRANSFORMER
TRASH
748 SF
TRASH
765 SF

RETAIL PARKING LOT

CO-WORKING
2,581 SF
211'-9"
F.F. +64'-6"

COURTYARD
7,789 SF
B1
1,085 SF
S1
546 SF
A1
669 SF
GARAGE
20,913 SF
A1
669 SF
B1
1,085 SF
B6
1,119 SF
S2
546 SF
A1.2
653 SF
B4
1,012 SF
B4
1,012 SF
A1
A1 669 SF
669 SF
A1
669 SF
A1.1
654 SF
A1.2
653 SF
A3
582 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF
B2
1,152 SF
B2.1
1,136 SF
A7
798 SF
A1
669 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF
398'-11"
38'-10"
17'-0"

POOL RM
496 SF
S2
547 SF

TRASH STAGING
AREA
A1
669 SF

RESTROOM
B.O.H.

SHOWER
A4.1
715 SF

RAMP UP
46'-8"
21'-3"
TRASH
TRASH

PROJECT BOUNDARY

LIMIT OF WORK

PROPERTY LINE

RESIDENTIAL

PARKING GARAGE
ELEV.

LOBBY
B.O.H.

F.F.+63'-6"

STORAGE
1:20 1:20
1:20
24'-0" 19'-0"
9'-0"
24'-0"

DOG SPA
205 SF
GATE &

EXIT DOOR
GATE &

EXIT DOOR

TRASH STAGING
AREA
8'-0"
10'-0"
LEGEND

LOBBY / LEASING / AMENITY

RESIDENTIAL VERTICAL CIRCULATION

CORRIDOR
UNITS

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
BOH

COMMON OPEN SPACE
BOH

WALNUT AVE

BART WAY

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ LEVEL 2 PLAN A-1.2
T
R
C

RAMP UP

RAMP DOWN
194'-8"
398'-11"
B1
1,085 SF
S1
546 SF
A1
669 SF
A1
669 SF
B1
1,085 SF
A1
669 SF
A1
669 SF
A1
669 SF
A1
669 SF B2
1,152 SF

AMENITY
B2 734 SF
1,152 SF
B5
1,024 SF
A1
669 SF
A1
669 SF
B1
1,085 SF
B6
1,119 SF
A1
669 SF
A1.1
654 SF
A1.2
653 SF
C1
1,481 SF
B4
1,012 SF
B4
1,012 SF

ROOF DECK A
1,726 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF
B7
1,074 SF
99'-0" 92'-4"
A1.2
653 SF
A1.1
654 SF
A1
669 SF
A1
669 SF
A1
669 SF
A5
746 SF
99'-4" 99'-0"
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF
A2
684 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF
A1.2
653 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF
A3
582 SF A1
669 SF
99'-0"
207'-9"
B2.1
1,136 SF
A4
858 SF

RAMP UP

RAMP DOWN
29'-11"
25'-0"
O
O
A3
582 SF

RESTROOM KITCHEN
TRASH
TRASH
33'-7"
10'-0"
55'-0" 51'-1" 75'-6"
84'-8" 26'-0" 84'-0"
26'-0"
392'-10"
71'-2" 60'-1 1/2" 76'-5 1/2"
19'-0" 19'-0"

STORAGE

PROJECT BOUNDARY

LIMIT OF WORK

PROPERTY LINE
24'-0" 24'-0"
9'-0"
81'-4"
92'-9"
GARAGE
21,557 SF
B.O.H.
19'-0" 19'-0"
19'-0"

WALNUT AVE
LEGEND

LOBBY / LEASING / AMENITY

RESIDENTIAL VERTICAL CIRCULATION

CORRIDOR
UNITS

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
BOH

COMMON OPEN SPACE
BOH

BART WAY

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ LEVEL 3-5 PLANS A-1.3
S1
546 SF
A1.2
653 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF
A1
669 SF
B1
1,085 SF
S1
546 SF
A1
669 SF
A1
669 SF
B1
1,085 SF
A1
669 SF
A1
669 SF
A1
669 SF
A1
669 SF B2
1,152 SF
GARAGE
21,557 SF
B3
1,201 SF
B2
1,152 SF

ROOF DECK
LEVEL 2
A1
669 SF
S1
546 SF
A1
669 SF
B1
1,085 SF
B6
1,119 SF
A1
669 SF
A1.1
654 SF
A1.2
653 SF
A2
684 SF
398'-11"
C1
1,481 SF
99'-4"
92'-4"
392'-10"
84'-0" 84'-8"
S1
546 SF
B4
1,010 SF
B4
1,010 SF
33'-7"
S1
546 SF
A1
669 SF
A1
669 SF
A1.1
654 SF
A1.2
653 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF
A1
669 SF
25'-0"
29'-11" 99'-0"
A5
746 SF

RAMP UP

RAMP DOWN
99'-0"
B2.1
1,136 SF
B7
1,074 SF
A3
582 SF
A4
858 SF
B2.2
1,153 SF
A3
582 SF
99'-0"
B.O.H.
194'-8"
26'-0"
55'-0" 51'-1" 75'-6"
10'-0"
76'-5 1/2" 60'-1 1/2" 71'-2"
207'-9"
TRASH

STORAGE

PROJECT BOUNDARY

LIMIT OF WORK

PROPERTY LINE
TRASH
19'-0" 19'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0"
9'-0"
19'-0" 19'-0"
19'-0"
O
LEGEND

LOBBY / LEASING / AMENITY

RESIDENTIAL VERTICAL CIRCULATION

CORRIDOR
UNITS

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
BOH

COMMON OPEN SPACE
BOH

WALNUT AVE

BART WAY

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ ROOF PLAN A-1.4

MECH EQUIP

MECH ROOM
ZONE FOR FUTURE PV PANELS TYP.

STAIR TO ROOF
398'-11"
194'-8"

ROOF DECK B
1,664 SF
MAX
OCC.SPACE=
734 SF
MAX.OCC.

LOAD = 49

TRASH CHUTE VENT

PROJECT BOUNDARY

LIMIT OF WORK

PROPERTY LINE
LEVEL 5
NOTE:

ALL ROOF DRAINS WILL BE PIPED UNDERGROUND INTO
THE SILVACELL SYSTEM AROUND THE BUILDING.

WALNUT AVE

BART WAY
LEGEND

LOBBY / LEASING / AMENITY

RESIDENTIAL VERTICAL CIRCULATION

CORRIDOR
UNITS

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
BOH

COMMON OPEN SPACE
BOH

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
MATERIAL BOARD A-2.1

RAILING SYSTEMS
R1 - GLASS RAILING SYSTEM

STOREFRONT

SF - BLACK ALUMINUM STOREFRONT

MS - MESH SCREEN

STUCCO STONE TILE COMPOSIT WOOD PANELS VINYL WINDOWS

METAL PANEL

METAL CANOPY

METAL SCREEN

MC - BLACK
S1
S4
S2
S3
ST1 CWP
ST2
VW
BLACK
MP

BLACK, TO MATCH STOREFRONT
FRAME
R2 - METAL RAILING, BLACK

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 16’ 32’ 64’ ELEVATIONS A-2.2WALNUT AVE

BART WAY
S1 - STUCCO COLOR 1
S2 - STUCCO COLOR 2
S3 - STUCCO COLOR 3
S4 - STUCCO COLOR 4

VW - BLACK VINYL WINDOW

SF - ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
R1 - GLASS RAILING
R2 - METAL RAILING

CWP - COMPOSIT WOOD PANELS
ST1 - STONE TILES
ST2 - STONE TILES

MC - METAL CANOPY

MS - METAL SCREEN

MP - METAL PANEL

MATERIAL KEY
S4 S3 VW CWP S3 S4 S3 R2 S4 R1 S2 S4 CWP VW S3 S1 CWP VW ST2 CWP SF S1 SF MC R1 CWP CWP MP SF S4 MC R1 S4 LOBBY
WALNUT
AVE

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 16’ 32’ 64’ ELEVATIONS A-2.3WALNUT AVE

BART WAY
S1 - STUCCO COLOR 1
S2 - STUCCO COLOR 2
S3 - STUCCO COLOR 3
S4 - STUCCO COLOR 4

VW - BLACK VINYL WINDOW

SF - ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
R1 - GLASS RAILING
R2 - METAL RAILING

CWP - COMPOSIT WOOD PANELS
ST1 - STONE TILES
ST2 - STONE TILES

MC - METAL CANOPY

MS - METAL SCREEN

MP - METAL PANEL

MATERIAL KEY
MP SF ST2 CWP S4 CWP VW S3 S2 R1 S2 S4 SF S3 S4 S3 VW S2 S1 SF VW ST2 CWP S4 R2 S3 VW CWP S4 S3 VW CWP S2 R1 S4 LOBBY
WALNUT
AVE

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 16’ 32’ 64’ ELEVATIONS A-2.4WALNUT AVE

BART WAY
1 2
2 1 S1 - STUCCO COLOR 1
S2 - STUCCO COLOR 2
S3 - STUCCO COLOR 3
S4 - STUCCO COLOR 4

VW - BLACK VINYL WINDOW

SF - ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
R1 - GLASS RAILING
R2 - METAL RAILING

CWP - COMPOSIT WOOD PANELS
ST1 - STONE TILES
ST2 - STONE TILES

MC - METAL CANOPY

MS - METAL SCREEN

MP - METAL PANEL

MATERIAL KEY
SF S1 R1 MC CWP VW MP S3 S4 ST1 S1 SF ST2 R2 S4 CWP ST1 SF MP S3 CWP S4 VW S3 S2 S1 CWP S4 MS S3 VW S2 R1 S4 S1

VINES ON MESH SCREEN ATTACHED

TO GARAGE WALLS

WALNUT AVE

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ SECTIONS A-3.1 BB A A
Average grade plane=

63.41+62.95+60.90+60.22=
247.53/4=61.88
Max Allowable Zoning Height= 100’
Building Height per Zoning= 61’4”
CBC Type III Max Allowable Building Height= 85’
CBC Building Height= 60’6”
Highest Occupied Floor = 48’0” < 75’0”
LEVEL 2
ELEV. +78’-6”
LEVEL 1
ELEV. +62’-6”
LEVEL 3
ELEV. +89’-2”
LEVEL 4
ELEV. +99’-10”
LEVEL 5
ELEV. +110’-6”
ROOF
ELEV. +123’-10”

TOP OF STAIR
ELEV. +133’-10”
T.O. 61’-4” MAX. PER ZONING CODE
10’8” 10’8” 13’4” 10’8”
HIGHEST OCCUPIED FLOOR 48’0”
16’ - 0” 10’0”
BUILDING HEIGHT 61’-4”
LEVEL 2
ELEV. +78’-6”
LEVEL 1
ELEV. +62’-6”
LEVEL 3
ELEV. +89’-2”
LEVEL 4
ELEV. +99’-10”
LEVEL 5
ELEV. +110’-6”
ROOF
ELEV. +123’-10”

TOP OF STAIR
ELEV. +133’-10”
T.O. 61’-4” MAX. PER ZONING CODE
10’8” 10’8” 13’4” 10’8”
HIGHEST OCCUPIED FLOOR 48’0”
16’ - 0” 10’0”
BUILDING HEIGHT 61’-4”

COLOR LEGEND

LOBBY / LEASING / AMENITY

RESIDENTIAL VERTICAL CIRCULATION

CORRIDOR
UNITS

PARKING
BOH
LEVEL 1
ELEV. +64’-6”

TYPE IIIA CONSTRUCTION

TYPE IA CONSTRUCTION TYPE IIIA CONSTRUCTION

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ SECTIONS A-3.2

STAIR ACCESS TO ROOF
C C
LEVEL 2
ELEV. +78’-6”
LEVEL 1
ELEV. +62’-6”
LEVEL 3
ELEV. +89’-2”
LEVEL 4
ELEV. +99’-10”
LEVEL 5
ELEV. +110’-6”
ROOF
ELEV. +123’-10”

TOP OF STAIR
ELEV. +133’-10”
T.O. 61’-4” MAX. PER ZONING CODE
10’8” 10’8” 13’4” 10’8”
HIGHEST OCCUPIED FLOOR 48’0”
16’ - 0” 10’0”
BUILDING HEIGHT 61’-4”

TOP OF ELEVATOR
ELEV. +141’-10”
LEVEL 1
ELEV. +64’-6”

TYPE IIIA CONSTRUCTION
Average grade plane=

COLOR LEGEND

LOBBY / LEASING / AMENITY

RESIDENTIAL VERTICAL CIRCULATION

CORRIDOR
UNITS

PARKING
BOH

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’ UNIT PLANS A-4.1
QUEEN
19'-0"
8'-7 1/2"
S1
546 SF
32'-0"

PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE
51 SF
8'-0 1/2"
2'-4" 6'-4 1/2"
QUEEN
S2
547 SF
16'-4 1/2"
32'-0"
18'-1"

PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE
72 SF
2'-1"
3'-10" 3'-6" 22'-10" 6'-0"
1ST LEVEL ONLY

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’ UNIT PLANS A-4.2
KING
KING
A1
669 SF
23'-0"
10'-4"
11'-1"
18'-6 1/2"
10'-4"
10'-10 1/2" 10'-0 1/2" 11'-11"
23'-0"
17'-5"
31'-0"
32'-0"
A1.1
654 SF
3'-10"3'-10"

PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE
58 SF

PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE
58 SF
7'-6 1/2"
7'-9"
7'-6 1/2"
7'-9"
2'-1"
KING
A1.2
653 SF
10'-0 1/2" 11'-11"
11'-1"
18'-5"
32'-0"
23'-0"

PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE
58 SF
7'-6 1/2"
7'-9"
2'-1"
4'-10 1/2"

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’ UNIT PLANS A-4.3
KING
A2
684 SF
11'-7"
14'-9 1/2"
22'-0"
12'-0"
33'-7"
5'-1 1/2"
6'-0"
8'-4"

PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE
50 SF
6'-0"
QUEEN
26'-0"
25'-0"
12'-11"
10'-8" 5'-0"
9'-8" 2'-1"
3'-6" 2'-1"
A3
582 SF

PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE
65 SF

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’ UNIT PLANS A-4.4
KING
26'-5 1/2"
7'-9"
6'-6"
10'-8" 7'-8 1/2" 11'-0" 9'-2"
13'-2 3/4"
39'-2"

PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE
50 SF
A4
858 SF
5'-7 1/2"
QUEEN
A4.1
715 SF

PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE
83 SF
31'-0"
13'-0" 16'-10 1/2"
26'-5 1/2" 5'-0"
10'-0 1/2"
5'-7 1/2"
1ST LEVEL ONLY

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’ UNIT PLANS A-4.5
KING

PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE
58 SF
A5
746 SF
6'-7 1/4"
17'-3 3/4"
32'-0"
7'-9" 17'-8"
7'-6 1/2"
29'-8"
10'-10 1/2"
11'-10 1/4"
23'-6 1/2"
KING
A7
798 SF

PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE
100 SF
6'-0" 24'-0 1/4"
12'-2 3/4"
36'-9 3/4"
23'-6 1/2"
12'-6 3/4"
1ST LEVEL ONLY

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’ UNIT PLANS A-4.6
KING
KING
32'-0"
36'-0"
B1
1,085 SF
13'-10" 6'-5"
13'-11 1/2" 10'-0"
11'-5" 5'-6"
10'-8"

PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE
58 SF
7'-6 1/2"
7'-9"
2'-8" 5'-5 1/2"

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’ UNIT PLANS A-4.7
KING
KING
KING
KING
32'-0"
37'-11"
B2
1,152 SF
10'-3 1/2"
11'-9 1/2" 13'-9"
19'-9" 11'-0 1/2"
5'-3" 12'-0"
7'-5"

PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE
58 SF
7'-9"
7'-6 1/2"
5'-1"
5'-0 1/2"
5'-2"
B2.1
1,136 SF
5'-0 1/2" 5'-3" 12'-0"
5'-0" 5'-2" 10'-3 1/2"
11'-9 1/2"
7'-6 1/2"
7'-9" 13'-8 1/2"
37'-2"
19'-9" 11'-1 1/2"
32'-0"

PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE
58 SF
KING
KING
KING
KING
32'-0"
37'-11"
B2
1,152 SF
10'-3 1/2"
11'-9 1/2" 13'-9"
19'-9" 11'-0 1/2"
5'-3" 12'-0"
7'-5"

PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE
58 SF
7'-9"
7'-6 1/2"
5'-1"
5'-0 1/2"
5'-2"
B2.1
1,136 SF
5'-0 1/2" 5'-3" 12'-0"
5'-0" 5'-2" 10'-3 1/2"
11'-9 1/2"
7'-6 1/2"
7'-9" 13'-8 1/2"
37'-2"
19'-9" 11'-1 1/2"
32'-0"

PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE
58 SF

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’ UNIT PLANS A-4.8 KING
KING
B5
1,024 SF
11'-3"
12'-10"
11'-9 1/2"
11'-7 1/2"
19'-7 1/2"
32'-0"
32'-0"
18'-10"

PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE
66 SF
KING
KING
B2.2
1,153 SF
38'-1"
11'-9 1/2" 7'-9" 13'-8 1/2" 7'-6 1/2"
19'-10 1/2" 11'-0"
11'-7"
32'-0"
5'-3" 12'-0"

PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE
58 SF
2ND LEVEL ONLY

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’ UNIT PLANS A-4.9 QUEEN
KING
11'-3 1/2" 5'-6"
13'-9 1/2"
9'-2"
13'-1 1/2"
43'-11 1/2"
11'-9 1/2"
5'-6 1/2"
B4
1,010 SF
KING
KING
B3
1,201 SF
32'-9"
38'-0"
13'-10 1/2" 11'-8"
11'-9" 19'-9 1/2"
11'-5 1/2" 5'-2"
12'-0 1/2" 5'-2"
5'-9"
7'-7"

PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE
62 SF
7'-9"
7'-6 1/2"

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’ UNIT PLANS A-4.10
KING
KING
B7
1,068 SF

PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE
58 SF
7'-9"
17'-4 1/2" 14'-5 1/2"
44'-5 1/2"
7'-6 1/2"
11'-0 1/2"
30'-0 1/2"
19'-0"
11'-10" 4'-8"
KING
KING
B6
1,119 SF
11'-0 1/2" 12'-7" 11'-0 1/2"
36'-0"
12'-0"
13'-4"
37'-6"
6'-5"

PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE
58 SF
7'-9"
7'-6 1/2"

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’ UNIT PLANS A-4.11
KING

KINGKING
5'-8 1/2"
2'-1"
10'-1 1/2" 10'-1"
10'-7"
13'-0"
15'-3 1/2"
20'-2 1/2"
48'-4"
32'-0"
7'-9"
7'-6 1/2"

PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE
58 SF
C1
1,481 SF
6'-2 1/2" 12'-8"
3'-8"

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) A A
A A
1 1
1 1
1 M

M LOADING ONLY LOADING ONLY NO PARKING AMBULATORY EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
(F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F)
(F) (F) EV VAN VAN WALNUT AVE

BART WAY
OTHERS
BY
OWNED
OTHERS
BY
OWNED

FREMONT GATEWAY PLAZA

BOUNDARY AND

EASEMENT PLAN
C100
NORTH
LEGEND

BASIS OF BEARINGS

SITE BENCHMARK

KEY MAP

PASEO PADRE PKWY WALNUT AVE

BART WAY MOWRY AVE

KEY MAP LEGEND

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

WALNUT AVE

BART WAY (PRIVATE)

NO PARKING NO PARKING
A A
A A
1 1
1 1
1 M

M LOADING ONLY LOADING ONLY NO PARKING AMBULATORY EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
(F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) EV VAN VAN

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING

EXISTING RETAIL

BUILDING

EXISTING RALEY'S

BUILDING WALNUT AVENUE PASEO PADRE PARKWAY
1 1 1
1 1
SIGN
M

M LOADING ONLY LOADING ONLY NO PARKING AMBULATORY EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
(F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) EV VAN VAN

FREMONT GATEWAY PLAZA

PRELIMINARY CIVIL SITE
PLAN
C200
NORTH
LEGEND

CONSTRUCTION NOTES

VICINITY MAP
NORTH

PROJECT
SITE

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) A A
A A
1 1
1 1
1 M

M LOADING ONLY LOADING ONLY NO PARKING AMBULATORY EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
(F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) EV VAN VAN WALNUT AVE

BART WAY (PRIVATE)

NO PARKING LOADING ONLY NO PARKING

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING

EXISTING RETAIL

BUILDING

EXISTING RALEY'S

BUILDING

FREMONT GATEWAY PLAZA

PRELIMINARY SIGNING AND

STRIPING PLAN
C201
NORTH
LEGEND

CONSTRUCTION NOTES
1 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STRIPING

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) A A
A A
1 1
1 1
1 M

M LOADING ONLY LOADING ONLY NO PARKING AMBULATORY EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
(F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) EV VAN VAN

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING

EXISTING RETAIL

BUILDING
FFE=(63.4) WALNUT AVE

BART WAY

FREMONT GATEWAY PLAZA

PRELIMINARY GRADING
PLAN
C300
NORTH
LEGEND
D
C301
CC301
B C301A C301
E C301

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

FREMONT GATEWAY PLAZA

PRELIMINARY GRADING
SECTIONS C301

SECTION A A

SECTION C C

SECTION D D

SECTION B B

SECTION E E

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) T
T
T
R
R
R
T
R
A A
A A
T
R
C
1 1
1 1
1 M

M LOADING ONLY LOADING ONLY NO PARKING AMBULATORY EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
(F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F)
(F) (F) EV VAN VAN WALNUT AVE

BART WAY

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING

FREMONT GATEWAY PLAZA
LEGEND
PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN C400

EXISTING UTILITY NOTE
NORTH

WATER NOTES

STORM NOTES

SEWER NOTES

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) T
T
T
R
R
R
T
R
A A
A A
T
R
C
1 1 1
1 1
M

M LOADING ONLY LOADING ONLY NO PARKING AMBULATORY EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
(F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) EV VAN VAN WALNUT AVE

BART WAY
12 0.08
19 0.12
1 0.48
2 0.30
3 0.57
4 0.35
15 0.27
9 0.02
10 0.01
11 0.01
22 0.02
7 0.13
23 0.01
24 0.01
26 0.02
13 0.09
16 0.07
20 0.01
25 0.01
17 0.17
6 0.01
5 0.66
18 0.06
14 0.09
21 0.13
8 0.04

FREMONT GATEWAY PLAZA

PRELIMINARY STORMWATER

MANAGEMENT PLAN
C500
NORTH
LEGEND
X
X.XX

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

FREMONT GATEWAY PLAZA

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
DETAILS C501

N O D U M P I N G

D R A I N S T O
BAY
2 NO DUMPING STENCIL DETAIL

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

PLAN STANDARD NOTES

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

PLAN STANDARD NOTES
1 BIORETENTION SYSTEM - SLOPED
AREA DRAIN: ROUND GRATE w/ NDS SPEE-D
BASIN INLET & OUTLET PIPE 5
SELF RETAINING AREA 3

TYPICAL SECTION
PLAN

ISOMETRIC
4 PRECAST DRAIN INLET

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

FREMONT GATEWAY PLAZA

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
DETAILS C502
6 SILVA CELL SECTION
7 SILVA CELL GEOTEXTILE AND GEOGRID WRAP DETAIL

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) FREMONT GATEWAY PLAZA CLEAN BAY BLUEPRINT C503

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR SUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
LANDSCAPE NARRATIVE L1.0

AND CONCEPT IMAGERY
We are inspired by the landscape and history of the Niles Canyon Hillsides that sit just adjacent to the Fremont Gateway Site. The hillsides feature rolling topography with Oak trees and soft native grasses. Within the many trails that lead you through the natural open space, you’ll also find several reservoirs and natural ponds.

The area also features a historic railway and train depot that is open to the public as a museum.

We hope to draw on both the natural features and aesthetics of the rail lines in our landscape concepts.

Design Narrative

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR SUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
L2.0 0’ 15’ 30’ 60’ LANDSCAPE ZONE DIAGRAM -

GROUND LEVEL WALNUT AVENUE
Retail A
(Grocery Anchor)

BART WAY
Zones
Arrival Court
Canyon Meadow
Hillside Buffer
Canyon Alley
The Hidden Courtyard
Terrace View
Sweet Tomatoes
Civic Center Place

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR SUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
LANDSCAPE INSPIRATION IMAGES - L2.1

GROUND LEVEL

ARRIVAL COURT
LINEAR “RAIL” PAVING

ARRIVAL PARKING LOT

NATIVE PLANTING PALETTE

ENHANCED ENTRY

SHADE TREES FOR PARKING

CANYON MEADOW

MURALS / GREEN SCREEN

ACTIVE TURF AREA (EVA)

PASSIVE TRAIL

SEATING/ BENCHES
SCREENING OF RALEY’S

CANYON ALLEY

CUSTOM WOOD BENCHES

VERTICAL SCREENS
LINEAR “RAIL” PAVING

ENHANCED LIGHTING

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR SUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
L2.2

THE HIDDEN

COURTYARD

SOFT/ NATURAL FORMS

LARGE POOL / SPA

BBQ DINING AREAS

FOCAL TRELLIS

BUILT IN FIREPLACE

HILLSIDE BUFFER

NATIVE/ ADAPTIVE PLANTS

PERIMETER TRAIL

SEATING/BENCHES

STORMWATER TREATMENT

LANDSCAPE INSPIRATION IMAGES -

GROUND LEVEL

TERRACE VIEW

BAR WITH OVERHEAD

ACCENT WALL

LOUNGE SEATING

RAISED PLANTER

POTTED ACCENT PLANT

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR SUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
TREE MITIGATION PLAN L3.0 0’ 15’ 30’ 60’

BART WAY

WALNUT AVENUE
Trees 1-9 and 51 to be preserved in place
(outside of project boundary)
Retail Shops
Sweet Tomatoes
Civic Center Place
Retail A
(Grocery Anchor)
Proposed Building
Outline

PROPOSED PARKING AREA
Proposed Amenity
Courtyard
Proposed Building
Outline
Proposed Exterior
Walkway

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR SUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
TREE SURVEY / PRESERVATION L3.1

INVENTORY
NOTE:

All trees species, overall health, and preservation/relocation recommendations are to be confirmed by a Certified Arborist.
**

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR SUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023 0’ 10’ 20’ 40’ LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN - L4.1

GROUND LEVEL

ELECTRICAL
738 SF
LOBBY
1,138 SF

LEASING
819 SF

CLUBROOM
1,067 SF

DOG SPA
208 SF
LOBBY 2
574 SF

LOADING
491 SF

ELECTRICAL
716 SF

PUMP RM - FIRE
342 SF

PUMP RM
342 SF
MAIL
732 SF
MPOE
448 SF
BIKE

PARKING
1,456 SF

FITNESS
2,448 SF
TRASH
701 SF
TRASH
765 SF

CO-WORKING
2,581 SF
B1
1,085 SF
S1
546 SF
A1
669 SF
GARAGE
20,929 SF
A1
669 SF
B1
1,085 SF
B6
1,119 SF
S2
546 SF
A1.2
653 SF
B4
1,012 SF
B4
1,012 SF
A1
A1 669 SF
669 SF
A1
669 SF
A1.1
654 SF
A1.2
653 SF
A3
582 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF
B2
1,152 SF
B2.1
1,136 SF
A7
798 SF
A1
669 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF

POOL RM
496 SF
S2
547 SF
A1
669 SF

RESTROOM
B.O.H.

SHOWER
A4.1
715 SF
TRASH
TRASH

FIRE CNTL
150 SF
MM

LOADING
ONLY

LOADING
ONLY
NO

PARKING AMBULATORY
EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
(F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F)
(F) (F)
EV
VAN
VAN
T
T
T
R
R
R
TR
AA
A
A
TRC
10'-0"
11'-0"
14'-0"
14'-0"
15'-6"
14'-2"
10'-0"
10'-0"
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L4.2

LOADING TRASH STAGING
AREA

TRASH STAGING
AREA

WALNUT AVENUE
Retail Shops
Work
Area 2
Parking Lot
Retail A
(Grocery Anchor)
Legend
Pool
Spa
4 7
27 7
27 14
7 8
8 14
15 15 15
15 9
99 9
11 20
21 21
12 18
19 1
1 2
23 17
16 23
23 23
* Refer to Bike Parking Diagram (Sheet A-0.30)
for additional information
Bike Racks (26 Spaces Provided) 24
24 24
26 26 26
26 26 26
24 22
13 13
10 10

BART WAY
3 3
26 6
5 3 Shade Structure
Daybed on Pool Deck
4 Lounge Seating
Built-in Banquette Seating With
Fire Table
5 Built-in BBQ and Seating Area 6 Chaise Lounge 7 Light Pole 8 Tivoli Lighting 9 Built-in Wood Bench 13 Murals on Building Facade
10 Raised Corten Planter
14 Pedestrain Gate / Fence
25 Subsurface Transformer to be
Confirmed by PG&E prior to
Building Permit
26 Planter Pots
27 EV Charging Station
12 Retail Service Access Area
16 Existing Bike Lane
17 Existing Trees to Remain
11 Fence/Gate along Retail Edge
15 New Pedestrain Crosswalk
with Enhanced Paving
18 Fire Lane with Vehicular Concrete
19 Fire Lane with (2) 4’ Wide
Vehicular Concrete Strips
(at 8’ O.C.) and Turfblock
20 Vehicular and Pedestrian
Gate/Fence (at EVA)
21 Enhanced Pedestrain Paving
with Flush Curb, Bollards and
Trees in Grates
22 Parking Lot Island for Enhanced
Entry
23 Expanded Sidewalk with Street
Trees in 5’x10’ Grates
25 25
Backflow Devices to be
Screened with Shrub Material
Existing Retail
Egress Doors
Relocated Olive
Tree (Tag #24)
Relocated Chinese
Pistache (Tag #32)

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR SUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN - L4.2
WORK AREA 2 & TERRACE LEVELS
0’ 5’ 10’ 20’
0’ 10’ 20’ 10’
0’ 5’ 10’ 20’
T
T
T
R
R
R
T
R
T
R
C

RALEY'S

ELECTRICAL
738 SF
LOBBY
1,138 SF

LEASING
819 SF
CLUBROOM 1,067 SF

DOG SPA
208 SF
LOBBY 2
574 SF

LOADING
491 SF

ELECTRICAL
716 SF

PUMP RM - FIRE
342 SF

PUMP RM
342 SF
MAIL
732 SF
MPOE
448 SF
BIKE

PARKING
1,456 SF

FITNESS
2,448 SF
TRASH
701 SF
TRASH
765 SF

CO-WORKING
2,581 SF
B1
1,085 SF
S1
546 SF A1
669 SF
GARAGE
20,929 SF
A1
669 SF
B1
1,085 SF
B6
1,119 SF
S2
546 SF
A1.2
653 SF
B4
1,012 SF
B4
1,012 SF
A1
A1 669 SF
669 SF
A1
669 SF
A1.1
654 SF
A1.2
653 SF
A3
582 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF
B2
1,152 SF
B2.1
1,136 SF
A7
798 SF
A1
669 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF

POOL RM
496 SF S2
547 SF
A1
669 SF

RESTROOM
B.O.H.

SHOWER
A4.1
715 SF
TRASH
TRASH

FIRE CNTL
150 SF
M
M

LOADING
ONLY

LOADING
ONLY
NO

PARKING AMBULATORY
EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F)
(F) (F)
EV
VAN
VAN
1 1
1 1 1
T
T
T
R
R
R
T
R
T
R
C

ELECTRICAL
738 SF
LOBBY
1,138 SF

LEASING
819 SF
CLUBROOM 1,067 SF

DOG SPA
208 SF
LOBBY 2
574 SF

LOADING
491 SF

ELECTRICAL
716 SF

PUMP RM - FIRE
342 SF

PUMP RM
342 SF
MAIL
732 SF
MPOE
448 SF
BIKE

PARKING
1,456 SF

FITNESS
2,448 SF
TRASH
701 SF
TRASH
765 SF

CO-WORKING
2,581 SF
B1
1,085 SF
S1
546 SF A1
669 SF
GARAGE
20,929 SF
A1
669 SF
B1
1,085 SF
B6
1,119 SF
S2
546 SF
A1.2
653 SF
B4
1,012 SF
B4
1,012 SF
A1
A1 669 SF
669 SF
A1
669 SF
A1.1
654 SF
A1.2
653 SF
A3
582 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF
B2
1,152 SF
B2.1
1,136 SF
A7
798 SF
A1
669 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF

POOL RM
496 SF S2
547 SF
A1
669 SF

RESTROOM
B.O.H.

SHOWER
A4.1
715 SF
TRASH
TRASH

FIRE CNTL
150 SF
M
M

LOADING
ONLY

AMBULATORY
EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
(F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F)
(F) (F)
EV
VAN
1 1
1 1
1 T
T
T
R
R
R
T
R
T
R
C

ELECTRICAL
738 SF
LOBBY
1,138 SF

LEASING
819 SF
CLUBROOM 1,067 SF

DOG SPA
208 SF
LOBBY 2
574 SF

LOADING
491 SF

ELECTRICAL
716 SF

PUMP RM - FIRE
342 SF

PUMP RM
342 SF
MAIL
732 SF
MPOE
448 SF
BIKE

PARKING
1,456 SF

FITNESS
2,448 SF
TRASH
701 SF
TRASH
765 SF

CO-WORKING
2,581 SF
B1
1,085 SF
S1
546 SF A1
669 SF
GARAGE
20,929 SF
A1
669 SF
B1
1,085 SF
B6
1,119 SF
S2
546 SF
A1.2
653 SF
B4
1,012 SF
B4
1,012 SF
A1
A1 669 SF
669 SF
A1
669 SF
A1.1
654 SF
A1.2
653 SF
A3
582 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF
B2
1,152 SF
B2.1
1,136 SF
A7
798 SF
A1
669 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF

POOL RM
496 SF S2
547 SF
A1
669 SF

RESTROOM
B.O.H.

SHOWER
A4.1
715 SF
TRASH
TRASH

FIRE CNTL
150 SF
M
M

LOADING
ONLY

AMBULATORY
EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
(F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F)
(F) (F)
EV
VAN
1 1
1 1
1 T
R
C

AMENITY
B5 1,050 SF
1,024 SF
B6
1,119 SF
T
R
C
10'-0"
10'-0"
T
R
C
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L4.1
T
T
T
R
R
R
T
R
T
R
C

RALEY'S

ELECTRICAL
738 SF
LOBBY
1,138 SF

LEASING
819 SF
CLUBROOM 1,067 SF

DOG SPA
208 SF
LOBBY 2
574 SF

LOADING
491 SF

ELECTRICAL
716 SF

PUMP RM - FIRE
342 SF

PUMP RM
342 SF
MAIL
732 SF
MPOE
448 SF
BIKE

PARKING
1,456 SF

FITNESS
2,448 SF
TRASH
701 SF
TRASH
765 SF

CO-WORKING
2,581 SF
B1
1,085 SF
S1
546 SF A1
669 SF
GARAGE
20,929 SF
A1
669 SF
B1
1,085 SF
B6
1,119 SF
S2
546 SF
A1.2
653 SF
B4
1,012 SF
B4
1,012 SF
A1
A1 669 SF
669 SF
A1
669 SF
A1.1
654 SF
A1.2
653 SF
A3
582 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF
B2
1,152 SF
B2.1
1,136 SF
A7
798 SF
A1
669 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF

POOL RM
496 SF S2
547 SF
A1
669 SF

RESTROOM
B.O.H.

SHOWER
A4.1
715 SF
TRASH
TRASH

FIRE CNTL
150 SF
M
M

LOADING
ONLY

LOADING
ONLY
NO

PARKING AMBULATORY
EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F)
(F) (F)
EV
VAN
VAN
1 1
1 1 1
T
T
T
R
R
R
T
R
T
R
C

ELECTRICAL
738 SF
LOBBY
1,138 SF

LEASING
819 SF
CLUBROOM 1,067 SF

DOG SPA
208 SF
LOBBY 2
574 SF

LOADING
491 SF

ELECTRICAL
716 SF

PUMP RM - FIRE
342 SF

PUMP RM
342 SF
MAIL
732 SF
MPOE
448 SF
BIKE

PARKING
1,456 SF

FITNESS
2,448 SF
TRASH
701 SF
TRASH
765 SF

CO-WORKING
2,581 SF
B1
1,085 SF
S1
546 SF A1
669 SF
GARAGE
20,929 SF
A1
669 SF
B1
1,085 SF
B6
1,119 SF
S2
546 SF
A1.2
653 SF
B4
1,012 SF
B4
1,012 SF
A1
A1 669 SF
669 SF
A1
669 SF
A1.1
654 SF
A1.2
653 SF
A3
582 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF
B2
1,152 SF
B2.1
1,136 SF
A7
798 SF
A1
669 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF

POOL RM
496 SF S2
547 SF
A1
669 SF

RESTROOM
B.O.H.

SHOWER
A4.1
715 SF
TRASH
TRASH

FIRE CNTL
150 SF
M
M

LOADING
ONLY

AMBULATORY
EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
(F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F)
(F) (F)
EV
VAN
1 1
1 1
1 T
T
T
R
R
R
T
R
T
R
C

ELECTRICAL
738 SF
LOBBY
1,138 SF

LEASING
819 SF
CLUBROOM 1,067 SF

DOG SPA
208 SF
LOBBY 2
574 SF

LOADING
491 SF

ELECTRICAL
716 SF

PUMP RM - FIRE
342 SF

PUMP RM
342 SF
MAIL
732 SF
MPOE
448 SF
BIKE

PARKING
1,456 SF

FITNESS
2,448 SF
TRASH
701 SF
TRASH
765 SF

CO-WORKING
2,581 SF
B1
1,085 SF
S1
546 SF A1
669 SF
GARAGE
20,929 SF
A1
669 SF
B1
1,085 SF
B6
1,119 SF
S2
546 SF
A1.2
653 SF
B4
1,012 SF
B4
1,012 SF
A1
A1 669 SF
669 SF
A1
669 SF
A1.1
654 SF
A1.2
653 SF
A3
582 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF
B2
1,152 SF
B2.1
1,136 SF
A7
798 SF
A1
669 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF

POOL RM
496 SF S2
547 SF
A1
669 SF

RESTROOM
B.O.H.

SHOWER
A4.1
715 SF
TRASH
TRASH

FIRE CNTL
150 SF
M
M

LOADING
ONLY

AMBULATORY
EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
(F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F)
(F) (F)
EV
VAN
1 1
1 1
1 T
R
C

AMENITY
B5 1,050 SF
1,024 SF
B6
1,119 SF
T
R
C
10'-0"
10'-0"
T
R
C
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L4.1
Key Map
(Work Area 2)
Key Map
(Second Floor Terrace)
Key Map
(Rooftop Terrace)
Legend
Tivoli Lighting Trash, Recycle, and
Compost Receptacles Bar-Height Counter
with Seating Built-in Sofa /Seating
Built-in Bench Existing Trees to
Remain
Raised Planters New 10’ Concrete
Media Wall with Sidewalk
Outdoor TV Screen
Fire Table
Accent Pottery and Planting
Tables / Chairs
Street Tree in Tree Grate
Bench
1 11
1 2 12
2 3 13
3 4 14
4 4
4 11
5 5
6 6
6 7
7 7
7 11
7 12
8 8
8 8
8 9
9 14 14
9 10
10 13

SECOND FLOOR TERRACE PLAN
WORK AREA 2 PLAN

ROOFTOP TERRACE PLAN

BART WAY
Note:

Occupiable Space is less than 734 SF

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR SUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023 0’ 4’ 8’ 16’ LANDSCAPE SECTION ELEVATIONS L4.3 Section A
Section B
Key Map

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR SUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
L5.1 0’ 10’ 20’ 40’ PLANTING PLAN -

GROUND LEVEL
T
T
T
R
R
R
T
R
A A
A A
T
R
C

ELECTRICAL
738 SF
LOBBY
1,138 SF

LEASING
819 SF

CLUBROOM
1,067 SF

DOG SPA
208 SF
LOBBY 2
574 SF

LOADING
491 SF

ELECTRICAL
716 SF

PUMP RM - FIRE
342 SF

PUMP RM
342 SF
MAIL
732 SF
MPOE
448 SF
BIKE

PARKING
1,456 SF

FITNESS
2,448 SF
TRASH
701 SF
TRASH
765 SF

POOL RM
496 SF
S2
547 SF
A1
669 SF

RESTROOM
B.O.H.

SHOWER
A4.1
715 SF
TRASH
TRASH

FIRE CNTL
150 SF
M
M

LOADING
ONLY

LOADING
ONLY
NO

PARKING AMBULATORY
EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
(F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F)
(F) (F)
EV
VAN
VAN
1 1
1 1
1 CONCEPT TREE LIST

POOL EVERGREEN CANOPY
TREES

RETAIL ACCENT TREES

PARKING LOT TREES

PERIMETER SCREEN TREES

POOL SCREEN / BACKGROUND
TREES
*See Sheet L5.3 For Shrub and Tree Schedules

POOL ACCENT PALM

GROUND LEVEL

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION

CONCEPT SHRUB LIST

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION WULCOLS

STORMWATER PLANTING

FOREGROUND /

MIDGROUND PLANTING

TURF BLOCK
*See Sheet L5.3 For all Landscape Area Calculations

PROTECTED OR RELOCATED EXISTING TREE -
REFER TO TREE SURVEY PLAN ON SHEET L3.0
AND L3.1
SIZE

STREET TREES

GROUND LEVEL
LOW

POOL AREA PLANTING MODERATE
HIGH

VINE PLANTING MODERATE
Shrub/tree layout, species selection, size, quantity, and spacing is preliminary and is subject to change based on updates to the buildings, site plans, and nursery availability. final information will conform to City of Fremont landscape requirements and will be provided during building permit approval process.

PLANTING NOTES:
24" BOX.

MINIMUM
24" BOX.

MINIMUM
20' BTH.

LOW / MODERATE
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L5.2

LOADING TRASH STAGING
AREA

TRASH STAGING
AREA

WALNUT AVENUE
Retail Shops
Retail A
(Grocery Anchor)

BART WAY
Protected Red Oaks
(Tags# 48-50)
Retail Shops
Relocated Olive
Tree (Tag #24)
Relocated Chinese
Pistache (Tag #32)
Backflow Devices to be
Screened with Shrub Material
Work
Area 2

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR SUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
PLANTING PLAN - L5.2
WORK AREA 2 & TERRACE LEVELS

RALEY'S

ELECTRICAL
738 SF
LOBBY
1,138 SF

LEASING
819 SF
CLUBROOM 1,067 SF

DOG SPA
208 SF
LOBBY 2
574 SF

LOADING
491 SF

ELECTRICAL
716 SF

PUMP RM - FIRE
342 SF

PUMP RM
342 SF
MAIL
732 SF
MPOE
448 SF
BIKE

PARKING
1,456 SF

FITNESS
2,448 SF
TRASH
701 SF
TRASH
765 SF

CO-WORKING
2,581 SF
B1
1,085 SF
S1
546 SF A1
669 SF
GARAGE
20,929 SF
A1
669 SF
B1
1,085 SF
B6
1,119 SF
S2
546 SF
A1.2
653 SF
B4
1,012 SF
B4
1,012 SF
A1
A1 669 SF
669 SF
A1
669 SF
A1.1
654 SF
A1.2
653 SF
A3
582 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF
B2
1,152 SF
B2.1
1,136 SF
A7
798 SF
A1
669 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF

POOL RM
496 SF S2
547 SF
A1
669 SF

RESTROOM
B.O.H.

SHOWER
A4.1
715 SF
TRASH
TRASH

FIRE CNTL
150 SF
M
M

LOADING
ONLY

LOADING
ONLY
NO

PARKING AMBULATORY
EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F)
(F) (F)
EV
VAN
VAN
T
T
T
R
R
R
T
R
T
R
C
1 1
1 1 1

AMENITY
B5 1,050 SF
1,024 SF
B6
1,119 SF
T
R
C
T
R
C
T
R
C

ELECTRICAL
738 SF
LOBBY
1,138 SF

LEASING
819 SF
CLUBROOM 1,067 SF

DOG SPA
208 SF
LOBBY 2
574 SF

LOADING
491 SF

ELECTRICAL
716 SF

PUMP RM - FIRE
342 SF

PUMP RM
342 SF
MAIL
732 SF
MPOE
448 SF
BIKE

PARKING
1,456 SF

FITNESS
2,448 SF
TRASH
701 SF
TRASH
765 SF

CO-WORKING
2,581 SF
B1
1,085 SF
S1
546 SF A1
669 SF
GARAGE
20,929 SF
A1
669 SF
B1
1,085 SF
B6
1,119 SF
S2
546 SF
A1.2
653 SF
B4
1,012 SF
B4
1,012 SF
A1
A1 669 SF
669 SF
A1
669 SF
A1.1
654 SF
A1.2
653 SF
A3
582 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF
B2
1,152 SF
B2.1
1,136 SF
A7
798 SF
A1
669 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF

POOL RM
496 SF S2
547 SF
A1
669 SF

RESTROOM
B.O.H.

SHOWER
A4.1
715 SF
TRASH
TRASH

FIRE CNTL
150 SF
M
M

LOADING
ONLY

AMBULATORY
EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
(F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F)
(F) (F)
EV
VAN
T
T
T
R
R
R
T
R
T
R
C
1 1
1 1
1 ELECTRICAL
738 SF
LOBBY
1,138 SF

LEASING
819 SF
CLUBROOM 1,067 SF

DOG SPA
208 SF
LOBBY 2
574 SF

LOADING
491 SF

ELECTRICAL
716 SF

PUMP RM - FIRE
342 SF

PUMP RM
342 SF
MAIL
732 SF
MPOE
448 SF
BIKE

PARKING
1,456 SF

FITNESS
2,448 SF
TRASH
701 SF
TRASH
765 SF

CO-WORKING
2,581 SF
B1
1,085 SF
S1
546 SF A1
669 SF
GARAGE
20,929 SF
A1
669 SF
B1
1,085 SF
B6
1,119 SF
S2
546 SF
A1.2
653 SF
B4
1,012 SF
B4
1,012 SF
A1
A1 669 SF
669 SF
A1
669 SF
A1.1
654 SF
A1.2
653 SF
A3
582 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF
B2
1,152 SF
B2.1
1,136 SF
A7
798 SF
A1
669 SF
S1
546 SF
S1
546 SF

POOL RM
496 SF S2
547 SF
A1
669 SF

RESTROOM
B.O.H.

SHOWER
A4.1
715 SF
TRASH
TRASH

FIRE CNTL
150 SF
M
M

LOADING
ONLY

AMBULATORY
EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
(F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F)
(F) (F)
EV
VAN
T
T
T
R
R
R
T
R
T
R
C
1 1
1 1
1 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L4.1

CONCEPT TREE LIST CONCEPT SHRUB LIST

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION WULCOLS
*See Sheet L5.3 For all Landscape Area Calculations *See Sheet L5.3 For all Landscape Area Calculations

TERRACE TREES

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
36" BOX
SIZE

PERIMETER SCREEN TREES
WORK AREA 2

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SIZE
24" BOX.

MINIMUM

STREET TREES

TERRACE LEVELS

PROTECTED OR RELOCATED EXISTING TREE -
REFER TO TREE SURVEY PLAN ON SHEET L3.0
AND L3.1
WORK AREA 2

STORMWATER PLANTING

FOREGROUND /

MIDGROUND PLANTING
LOW

LOW / MODERATE

TERRACE LEVELS

FOREGROUND /

MIDGROUND PLANTING

MODERATE
Shrub/tree layout, species selection, size, quantity, and spacing is preliminary and is subject to change based on updates to the buildings, site plans, and nursery availability. final information will conform to City of Fremont landscape requirements and will be provided during building permit approval process.

PLANTING NOTES:
24" BOX.

MINIMUM
0’ 5’ 10’ 20’
0’ 10’ 20’ 10’
0’ 5’ 10’ 20’
Key Map
(Work Area 2)
Key Map
(Second Floor Terrace)
Key Map
(Rooftop Terrace)

SECOND FLOOR TERRACE PLAN
WORK AREA 2 PLAN

ROOFTOP TERRACE PLAN

BART WAY
Note:

Occupiable Space is less than 734 SF
Protected Redwood
Trees (Tags# 53-58)

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR SUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
PLANTING LEGEND L5.3

CONCEPT TREE LIST

PERIMETER SCREEN TREES
Strawberry Tree 24"BOX.

MINIMUM

PARKING LOT TREES

RETAIL ACCENT TREES
Western Sycamore
Chinese Elm
Hackberry
Brisbane Box
European Olive
Western Sycamore
Holly Oak
Brisbane Box
Mondell Pine
(Final plant palette to be determined during construction documentation process)

COMMON NAME SIZE
Arbutus unedo
Platanus racemosa
Ulmus parvifolia 'Drake'
Celtis occidentalis
Lophostemon confertus
Olea europea - Field Dug
Platanus racemosa
Quercus ilex
Lophostemon confertus
Pinus eldarica

GROUND LEVEL

SYMBOL SPECIES

HYDROZONE LEGEND
(Final plant palette to be determined during construction documentation process) PLANT
FACTOR

IRRIGATION
METHOD

GROUND LEVEL

SYMBOL HYDROZONE HYDROZONE

AREA (SF)
% OF TOTAL

LANDSCAPE AREA

LOW WATER USE

HIGH WATER USE
(.1)
(.1)
(.9)
DRIP
DRIP
HIGH

EFFICIENCY

NOZZLES
1,585 SF
8,588 SF
1,043 SF
6 %
35 %
4 %
TOTAL: 25,041 SF 100%

WATER CONSERVATION STATEMENT
Plant material has been chosen for water conservation and reduced maintenance characteristics. A minimum of 40% of non-turf plants will have a low to very low irrigation water requirement.

MINIMUM TREE CLEARANCE NOTE:

1. Small trees (15' tall) shall be placed a minimum of 6' from buildings and a minimum of 4' from edges of paving, curbs or walls.

2. Medium trees (25' tall) shall be placed a minimum of 10' from buildings and a minimum of 4' from paving, curbs or walls.

3. Large trees (above 35' tall) shall be placed a minimum of 15' from buildings and a minimum of 4' from paving, curbs or walls.

4. 5' minimum from joint trench, water lines, water meters and fire hydrants.

5. 8' minimum from sanitary sewer and storm drains.

6. See City of Fremont LDRP pg. LSD-5 "City Standard Tree Clearances" for additional information.

IRRIGATION SYSTEM
All planting areas shall be irrigated with a fully automatic controlled irrigation systems using rain sensors and irrigated according to planting type groupings and environmental exposure as required by AB 325. The irrigation system shall be capable of repeat cycles in order to apply water at a rate the soil can absorb the applied irrigation water. A master control valve shall be installed to prevent over watering when valves malfunction. Domestic water is proposed for the project and shall comply with City of Fremont Services District standards and all local ordinances. Sprinkler and spray heads will not be specified in planter areas less than 10' wide.

CONCEPT SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER LIST
(Final plant palette to be determined during construction documentation process)

SYMBOL SPECIES COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low
WUCOLS
Grasspave 2 by Invisible Structures High

TREE QUANTITY VS PERIMETER PARKING QUANTITY
Total Proposed Trees: 111 Trees
Total Proposed Perimeter Parking: 43 Stalls

MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE
MAWA = (ETo) x (0.62) x (0.45 x LA)
ETo**
Total Project Landscaped Area
Total Special Landscaped Area
RESULT
ETo (inches / year)
LA (square feet)
SLA (square feet)
MAWA (gallons / year)

47.0 25,657
0 336,440

ESTIMATED TOTAL WATER USE
ETWU = (ETo) x (0.62) x [(PF x HA) / IE + SLA]
Low
Moderate

0.1 0.4

HYDROZONE PLANT FACTOR
(PF)

IRRIGATION
TYPE

IRRIGATION

EFFICIENCY
(IE)

HYDROZONE
AREA
(HA)(sq ft)
(PF x HA) / IE
(sq ft)
High
Swimming Pool & Spa

0.9 1.0
Drip
Drip
High Efficiency
Nozzles
-

0.81 10,173
14,441
1,043
754
1,256
7,131
1,159
931
TOTAL: 26,411 10,477
RESULT
MAWA = 336,440 ETWU = 305,300 gallons /
year

ETWU COMPLIES WITH MAWA
Aspidistra elatior
Baccharis pilularis
Carex tumulicola
Juncus patens
Muhlenbergia rigens
Muhlenbergia capillaris
Pittosporum tobira
Rhaphiolepsis
'Majestic Beauty'
Rhaphiolepsis umbellata
'Minor'
5 GAL. / 30" O.C.
5 GAL. / 36" O.C.
5 GAL. / 30" O.C.
5 GAL. / 30" O.C.
5 GAL. / 36" O.C.
5 GAL. / 36" O.C.
5 GAL. / 36" O.C.
5 GAL. / 36" O.C.
5 GAL. / 24" O.C.

Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Cast-Iron Plant
Coyote Brush
Berkeley Sedge
California Gray Rush
Deer Grass
Muhley Grass
Japanese Mock Orange
NCN
Dwarf Yedda Hawthorn
Muhlenbergia rigens
Muhlenbergia capillaris
Rhaphiolepsis umbellata
'Minor'
Rosmarinus officinalis
'Blue Spires'
Rosmarinus officinalis
'Huntington Carpet'
Cycas revoluta
Carex pansa
Ligustrum japonicum
'Texanum'
Pennisetum spathiolatum
Polystichum munitum
Strelitzia nicolai
Trachelospermum japonicum
Woodwardia fimbriata
5 GAL. / 36" O.C
5 GAL. / 36" O.C
5 GAL. / 24" O.C.
5 GAL. / 30" O.C.
5 GAL. / 18" O.C
15 GAL. / PER PLAN
5 GAL. / 30" O.C.
5 GAL. / 30" O.C.
1 GAL. / 24" O.C.
5 GAL. / 36" O.C.
15 GAL. / 36" O.C.
1 GAL. / 36" O.C.
5 GAL. / 48" O.C.

Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Deer Grass
Muhley Grass
Dwarf Yedda Hawthorn
Rosemary
Huntington Carpet
Rosemary
Sago Palm
Sand Dune Sedge
Japanese Privet
Slender Veldt Grass
Western Sword Fern
Giant Bird of Paradise
Star Jasmine
Giant Chain Fern

PLANTING NOTES

1. Shrub/tree layout, species selection, size, quantity, and spacing is preliminary and is subject to change based on updates to the buildings, site plans, and nursery availability. Final information will conform to City of Fremont landscape requirements and will be provided during building permit approval process.

2. All shrub areas shall receive a 3" thick layer of bark mulch.

3. Trees and plant material layout shall not impede fire rescue access to upper story exit windows in bedrooms.

4. Soil in planters shall be amended before planting with compost as specified as the soil amendment consistent with bay friendly basic practices checklist.

5. Minimum planter size for trees shall have an interior dimension of six feet (back of hardscape to back of hardscape) in any direction and have no less than 48 square feet of soil surface per City of Fremont LDRP.

TERRACE TREES

SYMBOL SPECIES COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS
PLANT
FACTOR

IRRIGATION
METHOD

TERRACE LEVELS

SYMBOL HYDROZONE HYDROZONE

AREA (SF)
% OF TOTAL

LANDSCAPE AREA
Camphor Tree
European Olive
Holly Oak

POOL ACCENT PALM
Cinnamomum camphora
Olea europea - Field Dug
Quercus ilex

POOL SCREEN / BACKGROUND TREE
Strawberry Tree
Brisbane Box
Mondell Pine
Arbutus unedo
Lophostemon confertus
Pinus eldarica
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Low

POOL EVERGREEN CANOPY TREES
Mediterranean Fan Palm
Date Palm
Chamaerops humilis
Phoenix dactylifera
5'-8' MULTI
20' BTH.

Low
Low
Strawberry Tree
Dragon Tree 36"BOX.

Saragota Bay Laurel
Arbutus unedo
Dracaena draco
Laurus nobilis 'Saragota'
Low
Very Low
Low

PROTECTED OR RELOCATED EXISTING TREES

GROUND LEVEL

SYMBOL SPECIES COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS

TERRACE LEVELS
Cycas revoluta
Carex pansa
Ligustrum japonicum
'Texanum'
Pennisetum spathiolatum
Polystichum munitum
Strelitzia nicolai
Trachelospermum japonicum
Woodwardia fimbriata
15 GAL. / PER PLAN
5 GAL. / 30" O.C.
5 GAL. / 30" O.C.
1 GAL. / 24" O.C.
5 GAL. / 36" O.C.
15 GAL. / 36" O.C.
1 GAL. / 36" O.C.
5 GAL. / 48" O.C.

Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Sago Palm
Sand Dune Sedge
Japanese Privet
Slender Veldt Grass
Western Sword Fern
Giant Bird of Paradise
Star Jasmine
Giant Chain Fern

TERRACE LEVELS
QTY
Protected or Relocated Existing Tree - Refer to Tree Survey Plan QTY
QTY
1,585 SF
20,845 SF
1,043 SF
616 SF
39 23
3 2
11 4

STREET TREES
Brisbane Box
Red Oak
Zelkova
Lophostemon confertus
Quercus rubra
Zelkova serrata
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
19 on Sheet L3.0 and L3.1

STORMWATER PLANTING

FOREGROUND / MIDGROUND PLANTING

VINE PLANTING
5 TURF BLOCK
5 GAL/PER PLAN
QTY

FOREGROUND / MIDGROUND PLANTING
10 Cycas revoluta
Carex pansa
Ligustrum japonicum
'Texanum'
Pennisetum spathiolatum
Polystichum munitum
Strelitzia nicolai
Trachelospermum japonicum
Woodwardia fimbriata
15 GAL. / PER PLAN
5 GAL. / 30" O.C.
5 GAL. / 30" O.C.
1 GAL. / 24" O.C.
5 GAL. / 36" O.C.
15 GAL. / 36" O.C.
1 GAL. / 36" O.C.
5 GAL. / 48" O.C.

POOL AREA PLANTING

STORMWATER PLANTING

FOREGROUND / MIDGROUND AND POOL AREA PLANTING

TURF BLOCK
MEDIUM WATER USE (.4) DRIP

FOREGROUND / MIDGROUND PLANTING
616 SF 100 %
TOTAL: 616 SF 100%
Clytostoma callistegioides
Distictis buccinatoria
Ficus pumila
Parthenocissus tricuspidata
Solanum jasminoides
Trachelospermum
jasminoides
Lavender Trumpet Vine
Red Trumpet Vine
Creeping Fig
Boston Ivy
Potato Vine
Star Jasmine
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
24"BOX.

MINIMUM
24"BOX.

MINIMUM
MEDIUM WATER USE (.4) DRIP 13,825 SF 55 %

0.81 0.81

0.81 5.B.b
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

GATEWAY PLAZA

FREMONT, CA
TCA # 2021-139

CLIENT NAME DDR RESUBMITTAL
JULY 11, 2023
0’ 30’ 60’ 120’ BIKE PARKING DIAGRAM A-5.1
EB
GM GM
T
T
T
R
R
R
T
R
C
T
R
A A
A A
M
M
D
S
D
D
S
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
D
D
R T
D

RAMP UP

LONG TERM

BIKE PARKING

PROJECT BOUNDARY

LIMIT OF WORK

PROPERTY LINE

SHORT TERM BIKE
PARKING, SEE L4.1
8 BIKE SPACES

SHORT TERM

BIKE PARKING,
SEE L4.1
10 BIKE SPACES

SHORT TERM BIKE
PARKING, SEE L4.1
8 BIKE SPACES
GARAGE
ENTRY

SECURITY
GATE

RESIDENTIAL

PARKING GARAGE

RETAIL PARKING LOT
21'-3"
31'-1"
26'-6"
5'-0" 5'-0"

LONG-TERM BIKE PARKING -

DERO DUPLEX DOUBLE TIER
SYSTEM
49'-2"
3'-0" 3'-0" 3'-0" 3'-0" ASSUMED CAPACITY - 2 BIKES PER RACK

A R C H I T E C T S
N
GATEWAY PLAZA 0' 15' 60' 30'
[PROJECT ADDRESS] 11-23-2022
KIMCO REALTY BIKE PARKING A-0.18
TCA# 2021-139
1" = 30'-0" 1 BIKE PARKING DIAGRAM - LEVEL 1

REQUIRED RESIDENTIAL BICYCLE PARKING
LONG TERM (2, PLUS 0.5 PER UNIT) 105
SHORT TERM (4, PLUS 1 PER 10 UNITS) 25

PROVIDED RESIDENTIAL BIKE PARKING
LONG TERM 105
SHORT TERM 26
(FMC 18.183.135)
1/8" = 1'-0" 2 LONG-TERM BIKE PARKING - ENLARGED PLAN
1/8" = 1'-0" 3 TYP.SHORT-TERM BIKE PARKING - ENLARGED PLAN

PROPOSED LONG-TERM BIKE
PARKING SYSTEM:

DERO DUPLEX DOUBLE TIER

PROPOSED SHORT-TERM BIKE
PARKING RACK:

FGP BIKE RACK BY LANDSCAPE FORMS
(6"D x 30"W x 21"H)
WALNUT AVE (public)
BART WAY (private)

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

WALNUT AVE

BART WAY (PRIVATE)
FREMONT GATEWAY PLAZA DEMOLITION PLAN C110
NORTH
LEGEND

DEMOLITION NOTES

PROTECTION NOTES

5.B.b
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Plans (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Exhibit “B”
Findings and Conditions of Approval
PLN2023-00198
Gateway Plaza Apartments
Discretionary Design Review Permit

FINDINGS
The findings below are made on the basis of information presented at the public hearing and contained in the staff report to the City Council dated April 16, 2024, incorporated hereby.

Discretionary Design Review Permit Findings:

Pursuant to Fremont Municipal Code (FMC) Section 18.235.060, the following findings must be made by the decision-making body in order to approve an application for a Discretionary Design Review Permit:
(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 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.

EXHIBIT B

GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS
PLN2024-00129(PLN2023-00198)

CITY COUNCIL HEARING
4/16/2024

5.B.c
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Exhibit B - Findings and Conditions of Approval (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) (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.

Tree Removal Finding:

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.

CEQA Finding:

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:

5.B.c
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Exhibit B - Findings and Conditions of Approval (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) 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 Compliance Checklist (included as 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 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.

II. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
General Conditions:

1. Conformance to Approved Plans and Exhibits. The project shall substantially conform to Exhibit “A” (Project Plans), the City Center Community Plan, and all conditions of approval set forth herein.

2. Allowable Uses. The proposed uses are allowed:

A five-story, market-rate apartment building containing 206 residential units and 263 automobile parking spaces within an integrated parking garage in accordance with the City Center District and City Center Community Plan standards and guidelines.

3. Minor Modifications to Approved Plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans and may be made, subject to review and approval of the Planning Manager and/or City Engineer. Minor modifications to building elevations and footprints that support a superior project design may be made, subject to review and approval of the Planning Manager and City Engineer. The Planning Manager and City Engineer shall retain the authority to determine the level of review required (i.e., depending on the severity or location of the modification, the project may be referred to the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission for public comment, review and approval).

4. Addressing. An application shall be submitted to the City’s GIS Division for approval of the addressing for the development prior to building permit issuance. Building addresses shall be plainly legible and visible from the public street. These numbers shall contrast with their background.

5. Construction Management Plan. The applicant shall provide a Construction Management Plan addressing the following items to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager and City Engineer or designee, prior to issuance of a building permit:
a. Project staging plan to maximize on-site storage of materials and equipment. b. A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak hours; lane closure proceedings; signs, cones, and other warning devices for drivers; and designation of construction access routes.

5.B.c
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Exhibit B - Findings and Conditions of Approval (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) c. Permitted construction hours, in conformance with FMC Chapter 18.160. City approved construction hour signs shall be posted on the site advising workers and surrounding neighbors of the approved construction hours.
d. Location of construction staging.
e. Identification of parking areas for construction employees, site visitors, and inspectors, including on-site locations and along neighboring roadways. f. Provisions for street sweeping to remove construction related debris on public streets. g. Vibration-reduction measures when working in areas in close proximity to occupied structures.

6. Development Impact Fees. The project shall be subject to citywide development impact fees. These fees include fees for fire protection services, capital facilities, park facilities and parkland, and traffic facilities. The fees shall be calculated at the rate in effect at the time of project SB 330 Preliminary Application approval (December 22, 2022; see PRP2023-00026).

7. Affordable Housing. The project shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Affordable Housing Ordinance (FMC Chapter 18.155).

8. Referrals. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the developer shall refer the project to the following agencies for approvals: Alameda County Water District (ACWD), Union Sanitation District (USD), and the Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (ACF&WCD).

9. Expiration. Approval of the Discretionary Design Review Permit shall expire forty-eight (48) months after the date of approval in accordance with the provisions of the Fremont Municipal Code. An extension of time may be requested by the applicant pursuant to the FMC 18.330.030 prior to the expiration of the approval.

10. Standard Development Requirements. Pursuant to FMC Section 18.218.040, as amended, the project shall be subject to all applicable standard development requirements to address resource protection, identified in FMC Chapter 18.218. The specific Standard Development Requirements to Address Resource Protection that are applicable to this project are as follows:
a. FMC 18.218.050 (a)(1) Air Quality and (a)(2) Construction Related Emissions – Supplemental Measures
b. FMC 18.218.050 (b)(1) Burrowing Owls, (b)(2) Nesting Birds, and (b)(3) Roosting Bats
c. FMC 18.218.050 (c) Construction Management Plan
d. FMC 18.218.050 (d)(1) Notification and (d)(2) Accidental Discovery of Cultural Resources
e. FMC 18.218.050 (e) Geology and Soils
f. FMC 18.218.050 (g) Construction Noise
The Standard Development Requirements provided in FMC Section 18.218.050 must be printed, in whole, on the Construction Plans for this project, prior to approval of a building permit, and shall be implemented before and during project construction activities.

11. Interior Noise. Indoor noise levels shall not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB(A) in new housing units. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a noise insulation study (memorandum) conforming to the methodology of the State Building Code shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval of the Planning Manager or designee.

5.B.c
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Exhibit B - Findings and Conditions of Approval (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

12. City Indemnification. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees (collectively “City”) from any claim, action or proceeding against the City to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney’s fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good faith.

Planning Conditions:

13. Parking Garage Security. The parking garage shall be monitored with cameras and sound monitors, and details of these security features shall be included in the project building permit submittal for review and approval.

14. Lighting Plan. A lighting plan, submitted in conjunction with a photometric plan, shall be subject to City review and approval during the building permit review process. The lighting plan should be designed to meet Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) standards. All lighting shall be consistent with the architectural design of the buildings. In compliance with the FMC, lighting will be reviewed to avoid substantial light or glare that may have an impact on day or nighttime views in the area. All wall lighting fixtures or sconces shall be of high quality, decorative lighting fixtures with concealed lighting elements. Sufficient security lighting shall be installed within parking garages, commons areas, plazas and walkways, subject to the review and approval of Planning Manager or designee, prior to issuance of a building permit.

15. Utilities Screening. All ground mounted utilities, which include but are not limited to transformers, backflow devices, and water meters, shall be undergrounded, integrated into the building or screened through walls and landscaping so that they are not visually obtrusive. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall submit plans for review and approval that shows how ground mounted utilities have been screened to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager.

16. Treatment of Service Doors. All service doors shall be color-treated to match the color of the building’s adjacent exterior walls. No service doors shall be allowed facing Mowry Avenue.

17. Private Open Space Areas. Balconies and patios shall be kept clear of laundry, storage, and mechanical equipment such that no such items or materials may be seen from the public right-of-way or walkways within the project site. If air conditioning or other mechanical units must be placed in patios, they shall be screened with screening material and painted to appear compatible with that of the units to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. The applicant/developer shall work with satellite/cable service providers on a universal, centralized satellite/cable service systems to minimize the amount of equipment (i.e., number of satellite dishes, control boxes, etc.) needed to provide optional service to all tenants. The cost to implement this system shall be borne by the applicant/developer of the project. In addition, all bedrooms, dens, and living rooms, shall be pre-wired with phone, cable and satellite connections. No external wiring of these utilities shall be permitted.

Landscape Conditions:

5.B.c
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Exhibit B - Findings and Conditions of Approval (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

18. Landscape Design Criteria. Proposed Landscape Design shall adhere to the City’s Landscape Development Requirements & Policies (LDRP), as amended.

19. Tree Planting Areas. All tree planting areas shall be a minimum of six feet in width and free of all utility structures and other built features, consistent with the spacing requirements defined in the LDRP.

20. Street Trees (Size). All street trees shall be a minimum 24-inch box size with the final tree selection coordinated and approved by the City Landscape Architect. City of Fremont Standard Detail for street tree planting (LSD-1) shall be included in the plan set.

21. Garage Ramp Screen. Screening of the parking garage ramp shall be to the satisfaction of the City Landscape Architect prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

Transportation Conditions:

22. Signage and Striping. On-site and off-site signing and striping plan will be required as part of the development review process and prior to the issuance of building permits. Installation of additional signing and striping may be required along the project frontages, pending City review of the off-site signing and striping plans. Include a general note on the signing and striping plans stating that all signing and striping shall conform to the latest provisions of CA MUTCD, Caltrans Standard Plans and Specifications, and the City of Fremont Standard Details.

Engineering Conditions:

23. Encroachment Permit and Construction Agreement. An encroachment permit for the street improvements is required. The encroachment permit shall be issued prior to or concurrently with issuance of the building permit. The public improvements conditioned as part of this entitlement requires the execution of an Improvement Agreement that guarantees the completion of the public street improvements to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The Improvement Agreement shall be fully executed by the developer prior to issuance of the encroachment permit. This agreement includes engineered plans prepared by the applicant’s consultant, reviewed, and approved by the City, surety (Faithful Performance, Labor and Material and Warranty) and insurance.

24. Street Improvements.
a. The developer shall be responsible to remove and replace curb, gutter, and sidewalk damaged during construction of the proposed project.
b. The developer shall remove and replace broken or uplifted curb, gutter, and bike path along project frontage.
c. The developer shall construct a minimum of 14-foot-wide sidewalk along Walnut Avenue frontage, except where a minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk is indicated in Exhibit “A” – Project Plans.
d. The developer shall construct the street improvement of Walnut Ave. to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Improvements shall include but are not limited to the following: curb & gutter, sidewalk, asphalt pavement, streetlights, fire hydrants, street trees, tree well planters, water, sewer and storm drainage facilities, joint trench facilities, and signing and striping.

5.B.c
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Exhibit B - Findings and Conditions of Approval (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) e. Reconstruction of the existing bike path may be required due to the potential drainage issue at the bike path. The drainage at the sidewalk and bike path will be evaluated with the street improvement plans and any necessary reconstruction of the existing bike path will be included as part of the approved street improvement plans. f. The developer shall be required to adhere to the City of Fremont Street Cutting Policy – Multiple Cuts within One Block.

25. Public Sidewalk Easement. The developer shall dedicate a minimum 4-foot-wide public sidewalk easement on Walnut Ave. along the project frontage to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and executed by the developer prior to issuance of the encroachment permit.

26. Public Access Easement. The developer shall dedicate a minimum 10-foot wide public access easement on Bart Way. along the project frontage. Project entry and monument signs, bioretention areas, and walls shall not be located within the easement. The easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City and executed by the developer prior to issuance of the building permit.

27. Grading and Geology.
a. Coverage Under Statewide Construction General Permit. Projects involving land disturbance of one acre or more are required to obtain coverage under the “Construction General Permit” (NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities). The applicant must file a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and obtain a Waste Discharge Identification number (WDID). A copy of the NOI must be submitted to the City’s Project Engineer prior to issuance of development permits (including demolition, grading, and building permits).
b. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The project plan set must include an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) sheet showing the Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented to minimize pollutant discharges related to construction activity. The ESCP must show the development site at the stage of maximum land disturbance. A copy of the ESCP and/or SWPPP Plan must be maintained on the project site at all times throughout the demolition/grading/construction process; the ESCP and/or SWPPP must be updated as necessary to show adequate BMPs appropriate for the current stage of the project.

28. Stormwater Treatment and Flow Control Facilities. The Project is required to implement post-construction measures to minimize stormwater pollutant discharges and increases in peak flows in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). The Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan provided by the developer as part of the entitlement approval is approved in concept only; the Final Stormwater Management Plan must contain/address all elements of the Final Stormwater Management Plan Checklist (available at www.fremont.gov/swmp). Developer is required to submit engineered plans, details and calculations that demonstrate compliance with Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit.

29. Quitclaim of Private Easements. Developer shall cause to quitclaim all existing private easements within the boundaries of the proposed project. Recorded quitclaim documents shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of the building permit.

5.B.c
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Exhibit B - Findings and Conditions of Approval (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

30. Undergrounding. All new utility service connections, including electrical and communications, shall be installed underground. Electrical transformers shall be installed in underground vaults within an appropriate utility easement or public service easement.

31. Storm. The developer shall submit a hydrology map and hydraulic calculations prepared, stamped, and signed by a licensed California Civil Engineer using a design storm of 15-year recurrence interval for primary facilities and 10-year recurrence interval for secondary facilities in accordance with the Alameda County Public Works Agency Hydrology and Hydraulics Criteria to ensure adequate conveyance of storm run-off from the project site.

Off-site construction of storm drainage facilities to mitigate projected flows may be required.

Fire Safety Conditions:

32. Emergency Vehicle Access Easement. An Emergency Vehicle Access Easement shall be provided for the common Fire Department access roadways. A copy of the recorded easement shall be made available upon request by the Fire Department. Recording shall occur prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

33. Fire Department Access Road. A Fire Department access road (Private EVAE) shall meet Fire Department standards for surface type; all weather, distance; not to exceed 150 feet in length without an approved turnaround, weight loads; 75,000 lb. minimum, turn radius; radii of 22.5 inside and 37.5 outside measured from the same point, grades; not to exceed 15 percent, cross grade, intersections and turnarounds shall be level (maximum 5%) with the exception of crowning for water run-off and vertical clearance; 13.5 minimum. These access roads shall be designated as Fire Lanes to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall or designee. Fire Department access roadways shall not be comprised of turf block.

34. Fire Pump Room. The fire pump room shall have an outside wall door that opens to the Fire Department access roadway.

35. Fire Flow. In accordance with the California Fire Code, Appendix B, “fire flow and duration shall not be less than that specified in table B105.1.” A reduction in required fire flow of 50% is required by the Fremont Municipal Code when the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system. The project shall consult with a Fire Protection Engineer and provide a complete set of calculation concerning the adequacy of the water supply from the source to the most remote fire hydrants and/or fire sprinkler system when applicable.

36. Code Compliance. The project shall meet all requirements of the currently adopted edition of the California Building, Fire and City of Fremont Municipal Codes in effect at the time of building permit / business license application.

Stormwater Conditions:

37. Pollution Prevention. Prior to issuance of a permit for land disturbance greater than one acre, the developer shall file a Notice of Intent with the State of California Water Resources Control Board and receive the State assigned WDID number. The developer shall provide a copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for City review and maintain a copy on the job site.

38. Stormwater Management Plan. The provided Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan is approved in concept only. Approval of the final Stormwater Management Plan is subject

5.B.c
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Exhibit B - Findings and Conditions of Approval (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) to City Engineer approval prior to Building Permit issuance. Approval is subject to the developer providing the necessary plans, site specific details, and calculations that demonstrate that the proposed stormwater treatment measures comply with the standards established with the most recent San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.

39. Operations and Maintenance Agreement (O&M Agreement). A Stormwater Management Measures Operations and Maintenance Agreement (aka O&M Agreement) shall be submitted for review and approval during the building permit phase. Template documents and instructions for completing the O&M Agreement may be found at https://city.fremont.gov/stormwaterpermit. Final building permit approval will not be given without an approved, executed O&M Agreement.

40. Silva Cell (SC) Systems. The applicant shall continue to work with staff to finalize the design of the proposed Silva Cell (SC) systems. The following design considerations will need to be addressed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to approval of any building permits for the project:
a. Trees being used must have root systems where the drip line will realistically access all of the treatment soil.
b. Shrubs or plants being used above SCs must be deep rooted plants where their roots will be able to access the treatment soil layer. Site specific details will be required to show how the SC’s will be constructed.
c. SC locations must include some sort of inspection ports (8”) for staff to see if the treatment measures are functioning properly. Ports should be located within the system if possible and at the point in which it connects to the storm drain collection system.
d. SCs will be designed in a way where they are at a reasonable depth below the ground surface to ensure that the adjacent tree root systems can access the SC’s. e. Irrigation for the trees supporting SC’s may require modification to ensure that the tree root systems can continue to grow into the SC’s during the dry season. f. SC designs will need to provide overflow drains to allow larger storm events to bypass the system.

Building Safety:

41. Building Code. Building permit plans shall comply with the California Residential, Building, Fire, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Energy, Green Building Codes and City of Fremont Municipal Codes in effect at the time of building permit submittal.

42. Soils Investigation. The applicant shall provide a Soils Investigation Report as part of the building permit submittal. Peer review of the soils report is required.

Environmental Services – Waste Management:

43. Trash Enclosure. The existing trash enclosure within the project site area shall not be modified or otherwise demolished without approval and construction of a replacement trash enclosure.

44. Trash Enclosure Use. The applicant shall provide a plan identifying the trash enclosures used by existing shopping center tenants, specifying which tenants use which enclosure, at the time of building permit submittal.

45. Collection Service. Weekly garbage, recycling and organics collection services are

5.B.c
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Exhibit B - Findings and Conditions of Approval (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) required for all commercial and residential properties and are provided by Republic Services on an exclusive basis. An organics/compost container must be located in the same area as the garbage and recycling drop-off.

46. Access. Each project must provide on-site access for garbage and recycling service with sufficient space for trucks to drive through or turn around. The required turning radius for garbage trucks is 22.5 feet for the inside radius and 37.5 feet for the outside radius. 14’ of height clearance is needed for trucks to drive under or through.

47. Collection. Applicant must ensure adequate, accessible and convenient areas for collecting and loading of materials by the garbage and recycling trucks. Trash/recycling/organics containers will be staged for pickup along the shared access agreement on the east side.

48. Trash and Chute Room. Trash rooms/enclosures at multi-family apartment and condominium housing shall observe the requirements of the CA Building Code and the requirements of Title 24 regarding accessibility to solid waste and recycling collection containers for persons with disabilities (CCR Title 24, Part 2). Trash rooms in mixed-use buildings additionally require a sanitary sewer connection requiring Union Sanitary District approval.

49. Trash Management Plan. A trash management plan shall be provided for review and approval by Environmental Services Division staff during the building permit phase of the project.

Requirements to be Completed Prior to Request for Final Inspection:

50. Final Engineering Certification. Upon completion of grading, the project engineer that prepared the final approved grading plan shall submit to the City a statement that the asbuilt grading conditions do not deviate from the approved plan by more than one foot of vertical elevation, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building occupancy permit.

51. Final Architectural Certification. Upon completion of construction, the project architect shall submit a letter to the City certifying that the building has been constructed in accordance with approved architectural plans, subject to review and approval of the Planning Manager.

52. Final Landscape Certification. Upon completion of all landscape work, the project landscape architect shall submit a letter to the Planning Division and Public Works Department certifying that the on-site and streetscape landscaping have been constructed in conformance with the approved landscape and irrigation plan, subject to the review and approval of the City Landscape Architect.

END OF CONDITIONS

5.B.c
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Exhibit B - Findings and Conditions of Approval (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR PERMIT

STAFF REPORT
DECEMBER 12, 2023
Proposal: GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS – PLN2023-00198 - To consider 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, 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.

Recommendation: Approve, based on findings and subject to conditions.

Location: 39160 Paseo Padre Parkway
APN: 507-465-13-1
(See aerial photo on following page)
Area: Development of a 331,832-square-foot building on a 3.23-acre portion of a 14.86-acre parcel.

People: 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:

The applicant requests approval of a Discretionary Design Review Permit to allow the construction of a new mid-rise apartment building within the southeastern portion of the Gateway Plaza Shopping Center. The five-story building would contain 206 market-rate apartment units and an integrated 263-space parking garage structure. To prepare the site for project implementation, 26,550 square feet of commercial floor area within the shopping center and 237 surface parking spaces would be demolished. The City has reviewed the proposed project and found it to be in conformance with applicable development policies, ordinances, and the General Plan.

Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator approve the Discretionary Design Review Permit as shown in Exhibit “A”, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval contained in Exhibit “B”.

INFORMATIONAL ITEM NO. 1

GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS
PLN2024-00129
(PLN2023-00198)

CITY COUNCIL HEARING
04/16/2024

5.B.d
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Informational Item No. 1 - Zoning Administrator Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Item X, Gateway Plaza Apartments PLN2023-00198
December 12, 2023 Page 2 of 15
Figure 1: Aerial Photo (2021) of Project Site and Surrounding Area.

SURROUNDING LAND USES:

Northwest: Gateway Plaza Shopping Center (Commercial – City Center) Southeast: Kaiser Hospital (Commercial – City Center)
Northeast: Office-Commercial (Commercial – City Center) Southwest: Mixed Retail-/Office-Commercial (Commercial – City Center) Project Site

5.B.d
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Informational Item No. 1 - Zoning Administrator Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Item X, Gateway Plaza Apartments PLN2023-00198
December 12, 2023 Page 3 of 15
BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS ACTIONS:

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 retail-commercial 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.

On December 22, 2022, a Senate Bill 330 Preliminary Application (PRP2023-00026) 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 them include those relating to “development impact fees, capacity or connection fees or charges, permit or processing fees, and other exactions” imposed by the City.

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 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 residentexclusive 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

5.B.d
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Informational Item No. 1 - Zoning Administrator Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Item X, Gateway Plaza Apartments PLN2023-00198
December 12, 2023 Page 4 of 15
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.

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 pedestrian-oriented 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:

5.B.d
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Informational Item No. 1 - Zoning Administrator Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Item X, Gateway Plaza Apartments PLN2023-00198
December 12, 2023 Page 5 of 15
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 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 highdensity 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 pedestrian-oriented environment in Fremont’s City Center, its five Town Centers, and the other Transitoriented 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.

5.B.d
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Informational Item No. 1 - Zoning Administrator Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Item X, Gateway Plaza Apartments PLN2023-00198
December 12, 2023 Page 6 of 15
HOUSING ELEMENT POLICY 3.03: Promote Housing Development in Highest Resource Neighborhoods.

HOUSING ELEMENT POLICY 3.04: Intensify Residential Development within Urban Neighborhoods.

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, highly-transparent 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 onethird 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.

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

5.B.d
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Informational Item No. 1 - Zoning Administrator Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Item X, Gateway Plaza Apartments PLN2023-00198
December 12, 2023 Page 7 of 15
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
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

5.B.d
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Informational Item No. 1 - Zoning Administrator Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Item X, Gateway Plaza Apartments PLN2023-00198
December 12, 2023 Page 8 of 15
(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.d
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Informational Item No. 1 - Zoning Administrator Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Item X, Gateway Plaza Apartments PLN2023-00198
December 12, 2023 Page 9 of 15
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
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.

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.d
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Informational Item No. 1 - Zoning Administrator Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Item X, Gateway Plaza Apartments PLN2023-00198
December 12, 2023 Page 10 of 15
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 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.

5.B.d
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Informational Item No. 1 - Zoning Administrator Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Item X, Gateway Plaza Apartments PLN2023-00198
December 12, 2023 Page 11 of 15
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.

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 low, very low, and extremely low income housing units.

Environmental Review
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 Compliance Checklist (Informational Item No. “1”), the project is consistent with the City Center Community Plan and the applicable standards of the City Center District. As such, the project qualifies for no further environmental review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

Furthermore, the project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Infill Development Projects, 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.

Each of the foregoing provides, without limitation, separate and independent basis for the no further environmental review finding.

5.B.d
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Informational Item No. 1 - Zoning Administrator Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Item X, Gateway Plaza Apartments PLN2023-00198
December 12, 2023 Page 12 of 15
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:

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 non-multifamily 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.

Tree Removal

5.B.d
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Informational Item No. 1 - Zoning Administrator Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Item X, Gateway Plaza Apartments PLN2023-00198
December 12, 2023 Page 13 of 15
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.

5.B.d
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Informational Item No. 1 - Zoning Administrator Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Item X, Gateway Plaza Apartments PLN2023-00198
December 12, 2023 Page 14 of 15
Analysis: As documented in the CEQA Environmental Compliance Checklist (included as 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 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.

PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT:

Public hearing notification is applicable. A total of xx notices were mailed to owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the site. The notices to owners and occupants were mailed on December xx, 2023. A Public Hearing Notice was published by The Tri-City Voice on December xx, 2023.

ENCLOSURES:

Exhibit “A” – Project Plans
Exhibit “B” – Findings and Conditions of Approval
Informational Item No. 1 – CEQA Environmental Compliance Checklist RECOMMENDATION:

1. Hold public hearing.

2. Find 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, 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;

4. Approve PLN2023-00198, as shown in Exhibit “A,” subject to the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit “B”.

5.B.d
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Informational Item No. 1 - Zoning Administrator Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) Item X, Gateway Plaza Apartments PLN2023-00198
December 12, 2023 Page 15 of 15
Existing Zoning
(Shaded Area represents the Project Site)
Existing General Plan
(Shaded Area represents the Project Site)

5.B.d
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Informational Item No. 1 - Zoning Administrator Staff Report (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal)

CEQA CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST

GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS
Introduction
City Center Community Plan
The City of Fremont’s City Center Community Plan (City Center Plan) covers an approximately 480‐acre planning area centrally located within the City of Fremont. This planning area is generally bounded by the Fremont BART Station and BART tracks to the north; Stevenson Boulevard, Sundale Avenue and Walnut Avenue to the west; Argonaut Way to the south; and Mowry Avenue plus the commercial properties to the west of Mowry Avenue to the west. This planning area is roughly contiguous with the General Plan’s ‘City Center’ land use designation. The City Center Plan surrounds, but does not include any areas of the complimentary Downtown Community Plan, which is bounded by the arterial roadways of Paseo Padre Parkway, Walnut Avenue, Fremont Boulevard and Mowry Avenue.

The City Center Plan provides policy guidance, illustrative concepts and implementation actions for transforming the area near central Fremont, BART and Downtown from an auto-oriented suburban area into a truly walkable, urban, transit-oriented City Center. It implements the General Plan while consolidating previous planning work within the City Center. The City Center Plan is intended to support and catalyze development in the Downtown District, which the City Center largely surrounds. The City Center Plan recognizes a limited number of sites where rapid transformation to an improved pedestrian environment may be possible. These sites include Gateway Plaza, the BART property around the Fremont BART Station, and the Hub Shopping Center.

The proposed Gateway Plaza Apartments Project is located within the Gateway Plaza area near the center of the City Center Plan, adjacent to the Downtown District.

One of the important goals of the City Center Plan (Goal #14) is for an active, well-connected Gateway Plaza, continuing its central role in the City Center by providing a ‘bookend’ to Downtown and a direct link to BART. The City Center Plan envisions a variety of options for evolution, transformation or targeted improvements in Gateway Plaza, all compatible with a broad vision for the area. The range of future possibilities could include pedestrian and façade improvements to existing buildings, targeted infill on existing surface parking lots, partial redevelopment of particular areas, or significant transformation of large portions of Gateway Plaza. However, for all of these options, the primary urban design goal is the introduction of better pedestrian and street connections between BART and Downtown, with a pedestrian-oriented urban character that integrates with surrounding areas.

Gateway Plaza is envisioned as distinct but synergistic with Downtown, with activity and success in one area spurring activity and success in the other.

Key policy guidance from the City Center Plan pertaining to desired land use and design for future development, including new development within the Gateway Plaza area, include the following:
• Goal 1, Mix of City Center Land Uses: The land use mix in the City Center is intended to be flexible and urban. It will implement the General Plan’s vision of a walkable, mixed-use, urban, and transit-oriented City Center, while providing Fremont with a core of civic and commercial activity complemented by employment, housing, services and entertainment. The flexible mix of residential and non-residential uses throughout the City Center could include “vertical” mixed-use buildings as well as “horizontal” mixed-use areas with different complementary uses side-by-side in an urban setting. • Policy 1.2, Development Flexibility: Allow flexibility in the use and scale of new development to respond to market forces.
• Policy 1.3, Mix of Uses: Encourage a diverse mix of uses in the City Center, including housing (senior housing, affordable housing, live-work, and mid- to high-density multi-family housing); office and other jobs-rich uses; retail that is transit-oriented and/or complementary to Downtown; service commercial; entertainment; lodging; and institutional and hospital uses.

INFORMATIONAL ITEM NO. 2

GATEWAY PLAZA APARTMENTS
PLN2024-00129 (PLN2023-00198)

CITY COUNCIL HEARING
04/16/2024

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 2
• Policy 1.6, Complementary Land Uses: Encourage complementary uses between the City Center and Downtown, with the City Center focusing on jobs, housing, and limited retail and services to complement Downtown’s civic and active retail focus.
• Policy 2.3, Surface Lot Infill: Prioritize infill development on surface parking lots throughout the City Center, including in Gateway Plaza.
• Policy 14.2, Flexibility for Future Gateway Development: Allow a range of future options for Gateway Plaza including continued use, evolution or transformation, as long as it is in line with the City Center vision to connect to and complement Downtown and create a pedestrian-oriented urban area. • Policy 14.4, BART Way Extension: If the Gateway Plaza site is redeveloped, seek to extend BART Way to Paseo Padre Parkway and beyond to Downtown.
• Policy 14.5, Drive Aisle Conversion: Consider opportunities to convert existing Gateway Plaza drive aisles to two-sided main streets by adding infill buildings and streetscape elements.

Consistent with the City Center’s vision, the proposed Project is a combination of redevelopment of underutilized retail space and infill development of a surface parking lot within the Gateway Plaza, replacing this space with a five-story apartment building with internal parking and a smaller surface parking area. The ground floor along the Walnut Avenue frontage would consist of a mix of fitness center, co-working space, bicycle parking and amenity spaces. The Project would include an internal ‘wrapped’ parking garage with residential units lining the building’s perimeter and open courtyard areas. The Project represents new infill development within the Gateway Plaza; helps transform the Gateway Plaza into a more walkable, mixed-use and urban location, and creates opportunities to add a walkable east/west pedestrian connection to the BART way extension.

City Center Code
The City Center Plan is implemented by Chapter 18.43 of the Fremont Municipal Zoning Code (City Center Code), which provides development standards and regulations for the entire City Center area. Specifically, the Project site has a zoning designation of City Center – Urban Office (CC-UO). Pursuant to the Fremont Municipal Code (FMC) Section 18.43.100, the following development standards apply; a) The intent and purpose of the CC-UO zone as applied to areas north of the Downtown is to provide a core of health care-oriented employment, services and commercial office/retail uses in support of the hospitals and other medical activities, and to generate the urban fabric that will connect the transit station area to downtown. Per Table 18.43.120, permitted uses in City Center’s Urban Office Zone include multifamily housing, including units within mixed-use buildings. b) The intended physical character of buildings is primarily a block-form, with buildings that are up to 12 stories expressed by a street-wall of up to four stories and tower-form volumes for stories five to 12.

Buildings are primarily housing-oriented with limited non-residential uses. Buildings are near or setback from the sidewalk to spatially define the streetscape. Massing is toward the front of buildings to spatially define the streets, provide service area in the rear, and promote compatibility with neighboring properties. c) Streetscape is to be in support of pedestrian activity and consist of a range of frontages such as shopfronts with wide awnings and shade trees, forecourts, and parking courts on side streets. d) Land use activity consists of a vibrant range from hospitals, medical office, office, retail, restaurants, grocery, bakery/deli, personal services, housing, and lodging. e) Parking is grouped and shared, including on-street parking, as practical to avoid occupying unnecessary amounts of land with parking. Parking is located on site or remotely, as allowed. f) One building shall be located within each building site. Building facades along streets shall be located within the build-to layer, and building facades shall extend along the frontages of the building site. g) Projects with at least 20,000 square feet of building site area shall provide at least 15 percent on-site public and semipublic open space. Residential projects shall provide private open space per Section

18.43.070(b)[2].
h) Building height standards provide for no minimum building height, but a maximum building height of 10 stories (120 feet)

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 3
i) Building massing standards provide that for every 100 feet of building length, there shall be a plane-break along the facade comprised of an offset of at least five feet in depth by 25 feet in length. The offset shall extend from grade to the highest story.

Based on City of Fremont Planning staff’s review, the proposed Project is consistent in all major respects with the development standards of the City Center’s Urban Office zone as defined in section 18.43.100 of the Fremont Municipal Zoning Code.

Prior Environmental Review / 2011 General Plan Update EIR In 2011, the City of Fremont adopted a comprehensive update of the City of Fremont General Plan General Plan Update). The 2011 General Plan Update lays out a broad vision for the City, with goals, policies and implementation measures to achieve that vision. The 2011 General Plan Update established year 2035 as the horizon year, or the year by which the City projects is the earliest time period that the growth anticipated in the Plan will be achieved. The General Plan update was found consistent with state and regional planning efforts to focus growth near existing transit stations and corridors.

Concurrent with adoption of the 2011 General Plan Update, the City also prepared and certified a General Plan Update EIR (SCH#2010082060). The 2011 General Plan EIR identifies potentially significant environmental impacts in the topics of Transportation and Circulation, Cultural and Archaeological Resources, Air Quality, Agricultural Resources, Noise, Utilities and Service Systems, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Global Climate Change. Mitigation were identified to reduce all potentially significant effects to a less-than-significant level, except for the following;
• Unacceptable levels of service at specified intersections and on specified roadway segments • Air quality emissions and Clean Air Plan consistency
• Noise increases related to traffic, and noise conflicts of incompatible uses and construction noise • Potential demolition of cultural and historic resources • Loss or conversion of prime or unique farmland to urban uses, and • Cumulative greenhouse gas emissions
No feasible mitigation was found capable of fully reducing these impacts.

Following adoption of the City’s General Plan Update and certification of the General Plan Update EIR, the City prepared the Fremont City Center Community Plan in 2015. The City Center Community Plan was initially envisioned as part of comprehensive update to the City of Fremont’s 2011 General Plan, and the development standards of the City Center Community Plan and Code are implementing documents of Fremont General Plan and guided by the General Plan’s adopted vision, policies, land use designation and other guidance.

When the City of Fremont adopted the 2015 City Center Community Plan, the City concluded that the environmental effect attributed to the City Center Community Plan had been fully anticipated under the General Plan Update EIR. At that time, the City made Findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that:
• the City Center Community Plan and its corresponding Center Code zoning text amendment, and the Zoning Map amendments are implementation measures of the General Plan; • an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2010082060) was previously certified for the comprehensive General Plan Update; and
• the potential environmental effect attributed to implementation of the City Center Community Plan have already been assessed in the General Plan Update’s certified EIR, and no further environmental review was required.

The Community Development Director was directed to file a Notice of Determination with the Alameda County Clerk’s office, acknowledging that the City Center Community Plan relied on the general Plan Update EIR for its CEQA review. Accordingly, the General Plan Update EIR is intended to provide (and has provided) streamlined environmental review for individual projects that are consistent with the density and intensity of development as anticipated in the City Center Community Plan, and to allow such projects to be exempt from additional environmental review, other than to address project‐specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or site that were not adequately addressed by the General Plan EIR, or as needed to address substantial new

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 4
information indicating that previously‐identified environmental impacts would be more significant than found in the General Plan Update EIR.

Fremont Standard Development Requirements
Subsequent to adoption of the City Center Community Plan, Fremont has adopted Standard Development Requirements (SDRs) as part of the Fremont Municipal Code. Where SDRs supersede mitigation identified in the General Plan Update EIR or are otherwise applicable, they are included in this analysis.

The Purpose of this CEQA Document
The environmental analysis in this CEQA Consistency Checklist has been prepared for the proposed Project pursuant to the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines.

Specifically, the following CEQA Consistency Checklist has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning), Section 15332 (Infill Development Projects) and section 15300.2 to determine if the Project requires additional environmental review and/or whether any exceptions a CEQA exemption may apply.
• Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified (e.g., the General Plan Update EIR) shall not require additional environmental review, except as necessary to examine whether there are project‐specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or project site.
• Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines exempts infill development from further environmental review when the Project would be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; occurs on a site no greater than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; is adequately served by utilities and public services; and where the site has no habitat value for endangered, rare or threatened species and approval would not result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality and water quality. • Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that a categorical exemption (e.g., a 15332 Infill Development project) shall not be used for a project if or when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time is significant; if there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances; if the project may result in damage to scenic resources; if the project is located on a site that is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code(i.e., the Cortese List of known hazardous sites); or if the project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

CEQA Determination / Findings
Based on the information and analysis contained in this CEQA Checklist, the Project is consistent with the development density and land use characteristics established by existing zoning and General Plan policies for which an EIR was certified (i.e., the Fremont General Plan Update, the City Center District zoning and the 2011 Fremont General Plan EIR).

The Project would be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements and/or mitigation measures as cited in the General Plan EIR. With implementation of those regulatory requirements and/or mitigation measures, this CEQA Checklist concludes that the Project would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of any significant impacts, and would not result in any new significant impacts that were not previously identified in that prior Program EIR, and that the project presents no exceptions to a CEQA categorical exemption.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15332 and Section 15183 and as set forth in this CEQA Checklist, the Project qualifies for one or more CEQA exemptions and/or CEQA streamlining provisions, because the following Findings can be made:

1. Class 32 Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15332): This Project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Infill Development Projects, which exempts infill development when the Project would be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; proposed development would occur on a site no greater than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; the site has no habitat value for endangered, rare or threatened species; approval would not result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality and

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 5
water quality; and the site is adequately served by utilities and public services. The Project presents no exceptions to a CEQA categorical exemption.

Therefore, the Project satisfies all applicable criteria and qualifies as being categorically exempt for further CEQA review. No further review or analysis under CEQA is required.

2. Consistency with Community Plan or Zoning (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183): As a separate and independent basis, the Project also is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning. The Project is 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. A Program EIR was prepared and certified by the City of Fremont for the General Plan and the Project is consistent with the development assumptions of that prior General Plan EIR. There are no project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the Project or its site that were not analyzed as significant effects in the prior EIR, no potentially significant off-site impacts or cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR, nor any previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the prior EIR was certified that would have a more severe adverse effect than discussed in the prior EIR. The programmatic mitigation measures from the General Plan Update EIR and/or SDRs are applied to the Project, and these measures and/or SDRs adequately address the potential environmental effects of the Project. The Project’s potentially significant effects have already been addressed as such in the General Plan EIR, and any such potentially significant effects will be substantially mitigated by the imposition of regulatory requirements and Project plans prepared pursuant to those regulations and other General Plan policy requirements.

Therefore, the Project meets the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and no further environmental review is required. Overall, based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the General Plan EIR, all of which are summarized in the CEQA Checklist of this document, the potential environmental impacts associated with the Project have been adequately analyzed and covered in that prior EIR. No further review or analysis under CEQA is required.

Each of the above findings provides a separate and independent basis for CEQA compliance.

This analysis concludes that the Gateway Plaza Apartment Project (PLN2023-00198) located at 39550 Liberty Street (APN 507-465-13-1) is within the scope of the Fremont General Plan Update EIR and that no further CEQA documentation is required.

The Fremont General Plan Update EIR is available at:

City of Fremont Community Development Department, Planning Division 39550 Liberty Street
Fremont, CA 94537
Or online at:
https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning-building-permitservices/plans-maps-guidelines/general-plan

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 6

PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Title: Gateway Plaza Apartments (PLN2023-00198) Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Fremont, Planning Division 39550 Liberty Street, PO Box 5006
Fremont, CA 94537-5006
Contact Person and Phone Number: Mark Hungerford (510) 494-4541 Project Location: 39160 Paseo Padre Parkway
APN 507-465-13-1
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

General Plan Designation: Commercial – City Center
Zoning: City Center – Urban Office (CC-UO)
Description of Project
The applicant proposes to 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.

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 buildings southwest (primarily) and northeast (secondary) 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 shopping center drive aisles that link to Paseo Padre Parkway.

The building would contain five stories of apartment units and vehicle parking and stand 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. These trees are evenly split, with roughly half of the trees located within the existing parking field adjacent to Walnut Avenue and the other half along BART Way. Of these trees, 36 are proposed for removal and one is proposed for relocation elsewhere onsite to make way for the project building and new parking field. 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.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 7
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.

The proposed project would require a Discretionary Design Review permit.

Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The project consists of one existing parcel measuring 3.23 acres. The parcel is part of the larger Gateway Plaza shopping center which covers approximately 15.8 acres of land between Paseo Padre Parkway, Walnut Avenue, Capitol Avenue, and BART Way. The Gateway Plaza shopping center was developed in the 1960s and currently contains approximately 204,000 square feet of retail-commercial floor area spread across 37 tenant spaces.

Anchor tenants within the center include a 62,400-square-foot supermarket, a 26,000 – square foot movie theater, and the 26,550 – square-foot building that would be demolished as part of the proposed project. The on-site parking field supporting the shopping center contains 820 unassigned vehicle parking spaces. Adjacent to the project site at the corner of Walnut Avenue and Civic Center Drive is an existing medical office building containing approximately 170,000 square feet of office space.

Across Walnut Avenue from the project site sits the Kaiser Foundation Fremont Hospital. Across Paseo Padre Parkway from the project site are several commercial buildings including banks and offices. Additional offices are located across Civic Center Drive from the project site. The surrounding area consists primarily of medical offices, commercial offices, and retail and service shopping centers. The Fremont BART Station is located approximately 1,500 feet away from the proposed project.

Construction Activities and Schedule
While the timeline for construction is variable and subject to change, construction is anticipated to begin immediately after building permit issuance. Construction activities would comply with Fremont Municipal Code requirements, which limit construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays (FMC, Section 18.160.010). Typical construction equipment such as dump trucks, backhoes, and bulldozers would be used in construction.

Standard Development Requirements
The City of Fremont has established standard development requirements to address resource protection (Fremont Municipal Code Chapter 18.218). These requirements apply to air quality (construction-related emissions), biological resources (special-status species), and cultural resources (notification of affiliated California Native American Tribes and accidental discovery of cultural resources). The proposed project would comply with these standard development requirements, which are described in subsequent sections of this Initial Study.

Project Approvals
The project is a private development proposal that involves private funds (no City, State, or federal funds). To allow the proposed project, the following approvals by the City would be necessary:
• Discretionary Design Review
• Tree Removal Permit
• Grading Permit
The project would be reviewed and discussed at a public hearing before the Zoning Administrator.

Other Public Agencies Requiring Approval
The project may also require permits and/or approvals from:
• Alameda County Flood Control District (ACFCD),
• Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and
• Union Sanitary District (USD)

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 8
AB52 Notification
The Project was not required to send notices to Native American Tribes per Assembly Bill 52. Therefore, no notices were sent.

Previous Environmental Review
Fremont General Plan Update EIR (SCH No. 2010082060) – available in-person at the City of Fremont Development Services Center and online at:
https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning-building-permitservices/plans-maps-guidelines/general-plan General Plan Conformance
As previously noted, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan for which a program-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified by the Fremont City Council in December 2011, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c), subsequent activities must be examined in light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document is required. Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the General Plan EIR, all of which are summarized in this CEQA Checklist, the potential environmental impacts associated with the Project have been adequately analyzed and covered in that prior EIR.

No further review or analysis under CEQA is required.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont
9 Figure 1: Vicinity Map of the Fremont City Center
Project
Site

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 10
Figure 2: Site Aerial

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 11
Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 12

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 mandates that no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for a project for which an EIR has been certified unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

3. 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;

4. 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

5. 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.

Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) states that, in approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis:

1. Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located;

2. Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior General Plan Update EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent;

3. Are potentially significant off‐site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior General Plan Update EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action; or

4. Are previously identified significant effects which, due to substantial new information which was not known at the time the General Plan Update EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior General Plan Update EIR.

The following pages of this document contain a CEQA Comparative Checklist that examines whether the Project’s potential environmental effects are within the parameters outlined by CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15183(b). The “Prior EIR” used for comparison is the Fremont General Plan Update certified by the City Council on December 13, 2011 (SCH#2010082060), including all impact determinations and significant thresholds utilized therein.

The General Plan Update EIR is hereby incorporated by reference and can be obtained from the City of Fremont Community Development Services Center at 39550 Liberty St., Fremont, CA 94538. The following CEQA checklist examines how the potential effects relate to the conclusions of the prior General Plan Update EIR, and whether any new or more significant impacts than those identified in that prior EIR would result from the Project.

This CEQA Checklist identifies potential environmental effects of the Project using a checklist method, with adequate explanation and evidence to support the Checklist entries and conclusions. The CEQA Checklist uses the following acronyms for CEQA conclusions:
• No Impact - for environmental factors that would not be affected in any manner • LTS - for less than significant impacts

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 13
• LTS w/SDRs or LTS w/MM - for impacts that would be reduced to LTS with implementation of identified City of Fremont Standard Development Requirements (or SDRs) and/or mitigation measures (MMs) as identified in an applicable prior program EIR (i.e., the General Plan Update EIR), and • SU - for significant and unavoidable impacts

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 14

1.1 AESTHETICS
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) Have a substantial adverse effect on
a public scenic vista?
LTS ◼ ☐ - LTS
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not limited to
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
LTS ◼ ☐ - LTS
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings?
LTS ◼ ☐ - LTS
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
LTS ◼ ☐ - LTS with
SDR

1.1.1 Environmental Setting
The project site is a 3.23-acre portion of the Gateway Plaza Shopping Center adjacent to Walnut Avenue and BART Way. The applicant proposes to construct a new five-story apartment building containing 206 units. The project site contains 58 trees in varying species, size, and condition. Paseo Padre Parkway and the BART rail line are considered scenic routes in the General Plan Community Character Element. The General Plan considers the East Bay hills north and east of the site as scenic views for neighborhoods and commercial centers, and Fremont residents have voted to protect these hills as open space on several occasions, confirming their value as a scenic resource. The East Bay hills, including Mission Peak, can currently be seen from the project site. The surrounding neighborhood consists of a mix of low-rise commercial buildings, and multi-story office and residential buildings. Views of the East Bay hills are partially obstructed by trees and the surrounding urban development. Existing lighting in the area consists primarily of streetlights in the public right of way and parking lot lighting for the surrounding development. The proposed development would partially displace an existing parking lot and the existing parking lot lighting would be modified to accommodate the proposed project. The existing buildings were evaluated for historic eligibility and determined to be ineligible for the historic register.

1.1.2 Discussion
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The General Plan does not identify any scenic resources in the vicinity of the project site and there are no scenic highways in the area. There are no identified existing scenic vistas that would be impacted by the proposed development. There is a limited scenic vista to the east bay hills to the east of the site but this view is partially obscured by the existing development and trees in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed project would not have a significant impact on views of the East Bay hills from Paseo Padre Parkway or the BART line. 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 scenic vistas. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 15
There is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, impacts from the construction and operation of the project on a scenic vista would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Potential Impact: Less than Significant
Mitigation: None Required
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The proposed project is not located near a state scenic highway. There are no rock outcroppings or historic buildings located on the project site. The site currently contains 58 trees of various species and size. Two trees would be relocated and 36 would be removed. Removal of these trees would be done in accordance with the City of Fremont Tree Preservation Ordinance (FMC 18.215). Removed trees would be replaced on site with new trees. Any trees removed and not replaced would be subject to tree mitigation fees to add to the urban canopy elsewhere in the City.

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 scenic resources. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic. There is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore impacts to scenic resources would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Potential Impact: Less than Significant
Mitigation: None Required
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The proposed project is located in an urbanized area, developed on all sides by a mix of commercial, and medical uses. The site currently contains a retail shopping center and parking lot. The nearest buildings to the project site that are not part of the shopping center are the Kaiser hospital across Walnut Avenue and a medial office building at the corner of Walnut Avenue and Civic Center Drive. The proposed project would conform to the applicable City zoning rules and development policies, which ensure that the project would be consistent with the General Plan goals and policies related to Aesthetics as evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

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 scenic quality. 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. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Potential Impact: Less than Significant
Mitigation: None Required
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The proposed project would be located in an urban area along parkway and arterial streets. The site would be illuminated by both building mounted and pole mounted lights. In accordance with Fremont development policies and the Fremont General Plan, the lighting would be configured in such a way as to prevent light spill onto neighboring properties and to avoid objectionable glare. Compliance with the exterior lighting requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (FMC 18.50.050) and Citywide Design Guidelines would ensure that the project would not create new source of substantial light and glare and impacts would be less than significant. As such, no mitigation is required.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 16
Construction activities for the site would be required to be within the City’s construction hours, which are limited to the daytime hours (7am to 7pm on weekdays; 9am to 6pm on Saturdays and holidays, no construction allowed on Sunday). Compliance with these hours would reduce construction-related impacts from light and glare to less than significant. For these reasons, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area and the impact would be less than significant with no mitigation 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 light or glare adversely affecting day or nighttime views in the area. 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: No Mitigation Required

1.1.3 Conclusions
CEQA Conclusions Relative to an Infill Development Exemption As fully addressed above, the Project site is not visible from a state designated scenic highway and would not damage scenic resources within a designated state scenic highway. No exception that would preclude a Class 32 Infill Development exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 (d) pertaining to scenic resources applies to the Project.

CEQA Conclusions Relative to the Project’s Consistency with the General Plan and EIR Based on an examination of the analysis, findings and conclusions of the prior Fremont General Plan EIR, implementation of the Project would not substantially increase the severity of any significant aesthetic impacts identified in that prior EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to aesthetics or visual resources that were not previously identified. The General Plan EIR did not identify any mitigation measures related to aesthetics or visual resources that would apply to the Project and none would be needed. No further environmental analysis of the Project pertaining to the topics of aesthetics is required.

References

1. City of Fremont, 2023. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Planning and Zoning.

2. Available online at https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/.

3. City of Fremont, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan. Community Character Element. Adopted

4. December 2011. Available: https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/communitydevelopment/planning-building-permit-services/plans-maps-guidelines/general-plan.

5. City of Fremont, 2023. SACGISA. Fremont Mapping. Available online at

6. https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/gis.

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

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 17

1.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST 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) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
SU ◼ ☐ - No Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract
No Impact ◼ ☐ - No Impact
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land,
timberland, or timberland zoned
Timberland Production, or result in the
loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use
No Impact ◼ ☐ - No Impact

1.2.1 Environmental Setting
The project site is a 3.23-acre portion of the Gateway Plaza Shopping Center adjacent to Walnut Avenue and BART Way. The applicant proposes to construct a new five-story apartment building containing 206 units. The site is currently improved with a 26,550 square foot commercial space and a parking field containing 237 vehicle parking spaces that serve the existing shopping center use. The commercial space is currently occupied by seasonal retail uses.

1.2.2 Discussion
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? The proposed project site is mapped as “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.1 No agricultural land use exists within the proposed project site or the Downtown District. This condition precludes the possibility of the conversion of Important Farmland to nonagricultural use. Therefore, no impact to prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance would result from the project and no mitigation is required. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its 1 California Department of Conservation, Important Farmland Finder. Accessed on November 3, 2023. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 18
site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding conversion of farmland. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic.

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) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? As shown on the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the site is classified as “urban and built-up land.” Furthermore, there are no agriculturally zoned lands or existing Williamson Act contracts in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract so no impact to such lands would result from the project. 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 zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic.

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
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
The site is zoned City Center – Urban Office (CC-UO) and the site does not contain any forest or timberlands, thus the project would not result in the loss of forest or timberland or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no forest resource impacts would result from the development of the project, 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 forest or timber land. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic.

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
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The proposed project is located in a built-up, urban area and does not contain any forest or timberlands.

Therefore, no forest resource impacts would result from the development of the project, 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 a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic.

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. 616 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 19
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The proposed project is located in a built-up, urban area and does not contain any forest or timberlands.

Therefore, no forest resource impacts would result from the development of the project, 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 conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, onsite, off-site or cumulative, for this topic.

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

1.2.3 CEQA Conclusions Pertaining to Agriculture
CEQA Conclusions Relative to an Infill Development Exemption No exception that would preclude a Class 32 Infill Development exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 (g) related to “other potential effects” (i.e., impacts to agricultural resources) applies to the Project.

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 agricultural or forestland impacts identified in that program EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to agriculture or forestlands that were not previously identified. The prior Program EIR did not identify any mitigation measures related to agriculture or forestlands that would apply to the Project and none would be needed.

References:

1. California Department of Conservation Important Farmland Finder.

2. Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.

3. California Department of Conservation, 2022. Williamson Act Status Report. Available at

4. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa/Pages/stats_reports.aspx.

5. City of Fremont, 2023. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Planning and Zoning.

6. Available online at https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/.

7. City of Fremont, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan. Community Character Element. Adopted

8. December 2011. Available: https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/communitydevelopment/planning-building-permit-services/plans-maps-guidelines/general-plan

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 20

1.3 AIR QUALITY
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 or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan or violate any air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation
SU ◼ ☐ - LTS
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)
Construction:

SU with MM
Air-3
◼ ☐ SDR Air Quality 1:

Construction-Related
Emissions
LTS with
SDR
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations
LTS with MM
Air-2
◼ SDR Air Quality 2:

Supplemental
Measures
LTS with
SDR
d) Create objectionable odors affecting
a substantial number of people
LTS ◼ - LTS

1.3.1 Environmental Setting
The project site is located at 39160 Paseo Padre Parkway (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 50-465-13-1) in Fremont, California. The project site consists of the Gateway Plaza Shopping Center, an existing outdoor shopping center in the City center. The center has a retail-commercial floor area of approximately 192,000 square feet and parking fields that contain approximately 824 surface parking spaces.

The proposed project would demolish approximately 26,550 square feet of existing retail commercial area and 237 surface parking spaces on a 3.23-acre portion of the shopping center. The proposed project would construct a five-story building containing 206 apartment units and an integrated, five-story parking garage containing 263 parking spaces. An additional 49 surface parking stalls would be improved for the shopping center’s existing retail uses.

The proposed project would comply with the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) building measures and Title 24 standards. In addition, the proposed project would be designed to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) 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.1 The proposed project would include a 150- to 250-horsepower (HP) 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 take place 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.

Air quality is primarily a function of both local climate, local sources of air pollution and regional pollution transport.

The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the amount of the pollutant released and the

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 21
atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain, and for photochemical pollutants, sunshine.

A region’s topographic features have a direct correlation with air pollution flow and, therefore, are used to determine the boundary of air basins. Fremont is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin), a large shallow air basin ringed by hills that taper into a number of sheltered valleys around the perimeter. Two primary atmospheric outlets exist. One is through the strait known as the Golden Gate, a direct outlet to the Pacific Ocean. The second extends to the northeast, along the west delta region of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers.

Fremont is within the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD, which regulates air quality in the Bay Area. Air quality conditions in the Bay Area have improved significantly since the BAAQMD was created in 1955. Ambient concentrations of air pollutants and the number of days during which the region exceeds air quality standards have fallen dramatically. Neither State nor national ambient air quality standards of the following chemicals have been violated in recent decades: nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, sulfates, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Those exceedances of air quality standards that do occur primarily happen during meteorological conditions conducive to high pollution levels, such as cold, windless nights or hot, sunny summer afternoons.

Both State and federal governments have established health-based Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and suspended particulate matter. In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride and visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. Two criteria pollutants, O3 and NO2, are considered regional pollutants because they (or their precursors) affect air quality on a regional scale. Pollutants such as CO, SO2, and Pb are considered local pollutants that tend to accumulate in the air locally. The BAAQMD is under State nonattainment status for ozone and particulate matter standards. The BAAQMD is classified as nonattainment for the federal ozone 8-hour standard and nonattainment for the federal particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5) 24-hour standard. As such, the primary pollutants of concern in the project area are O3, CO, and PM2.5.

Because of the conservative nature of the significance thresholds, and the basin-wide context of individual development project emissions, there is no direct correlation between a single project and localized air qualityrelated health effects. One individual project that generates emissions exceeding a threshold does not necessarily result in adverse health effects for residents in the project vicinity. This condition is especially true when the criteria pollutants exceeding thresholds are those with regional effects, such as ozone precursors like nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG).

Further, by its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to by itself result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the air districts have considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Occupants of facilities such as schools, daycare centers, parks and playgrounds, hospitals, and nursing and convalescent homes are considered to be more sensitive than the general public to air pollutants because these population groups have increased susceptibility to respiratory disease. Persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise also have increased sensitivity to poor air quality.

Residential areas are considered more sensitive to air quality conditions, compared to commercial and industrial areas, because people generally spend longer periods of time at their residences, with greater associated exposure to ambient air quality conditions. Recreational uses are also considered sensitive compared to commercial and industrial uses due to greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions associated with exercise.

These populations are referred to as sensitive receptors.

The City has adopted “Standard Development Requirements” under the Fremont Municipal Code Section

18.218.050, which include the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines best management practices to control dust during construction projects.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 22
Regulatory Framework:

Federal Regulations
The 1970 Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) authorized the establishment of national health-based air quality standards and set deadlines for their attainment. The CAA Amendments of 1990 changed deadlines for attaining national standards as well as the remedial actions required for areas of the nation that exceed the standards. Under the CAA, State and local agencies in areas that exceed the national standards are required to develop State Implementation Plans to demonstrate how they will achieve the national standards by specified dates.

State Regulations
In 1988, the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) required that all air districts in the State endeavor to achieve and maintain California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for CO, O3, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) by the earliest practical date. The CCAA provides districts with authority to regulate indirect sources and mandates that air quality districts focus particular attention on reducing emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources. Each nonattainment district is required to adopt a plan to achieve a 5 percent annual reduction, averaged over consecutive 3-year periods, in district-wide emissions of each nonattainment pollutant or its precursors. A Clean Air Plan shows how a district would reduce emissions to achieve air quality standards. Generally, the State standards for these pollutants are more stringent than the national standards.

The CARB is the State’s “clean air agency.” The CARB’s goals are to attain and maintain healthy air quality, protect the public from exposure to toxic air contaminants, and oversee compliance with air pollution rules and regulations.

Regional Regulations
The BAAQMD seeks to attain and maintain air quality conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin through a comprehensive program of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and education. The clean air strategy includes the preparation of plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations, and issuance of permits for stationary sources. The BAAQMD also inspects stationary sources and responds to citizen complaints, monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implements programs and regulations required by law.

Clean Air Plan
The Clean Air Plan guides the region’s air quality planning efforts to attain the CAAQS.8 The BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan, which was adopted on April 19, 2017, by the BAAQMD Board of Directors, is the current Clean Air Plan which contains district-wide control measures to reduce ozone precursor emissions (e.g., ROG and NOx), particulate matter and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan:
• Describes the BAAQMD plan towards attaining all State and federal air quality standards and eliminating health risk disparities from exposure to air pollution among Bay Area communities; • Defines a vision for transitioning the region to a post-carbon economy needed to achieve ambitious GHG reduction targets for 2030 and 2050;
• Provides a regional climate protection strategy that will put the Bay Area on a pathway to achieve GHG reduction targets; and
• Includes a wide range of control measures designed to decrease emissions of air pollutants that are most harmful to Bay Area residents, such as particulate matter, ozone, and toxic air contaminants; to reduce emissions of methane and other “Super-GHGs” that are potent climate pollutants in the near term; and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion.

BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. The guidelines provide recommended procedures for evaluating potential air impacts during the environmental review process, consistent with CEQA requirements, and include recommended thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and background air quality information. They also include recommended assessment methodologies for air toxics, odors, and GHG emissions. In 2023, the BAAQMD published an updated version of the CEQA Guidelines. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines include

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 23
thresholds to evaluate project impacts to protectively evaluate the potential effects of the project on air quality.

These protective thresholds are appropriate in the context of the size, scale, and location of the proposed project.

Local Regulations
The Conservation Element of the City of Fremont General Plan9 includes air quality policies and implementation measures intended to improve air quality over current conditions to meet or exceed State and regional standards.

The following policies and implementation measures are applicable to the project:
• Policy 7-7.2: Reduce Air Pollution Levels: Reduce City of Fremont air contaminant levels and particulate emissions below BAAQMD attainment levels, in particular, ozone and particulate matter levels. o Implementation 7-7.2.A: Construction Practices: Require construction practices that reduce dust and other particulate emissions and require watering of exposed areas at construction sites. o Implementation 7-7.2.B: Reducing Fireplace Emissions: Ensure new development complies with the City’s Wood Burning Fireplace Ordinance to assist in reducing fireplace particulate emissions. • Policy 7-7.3: Land Use Planning to Minimize Health Impacts from Toxic Air Contaminants: Coordinate land use planning with air quality data and local transportation planning to reduce the potential for longterm exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC) from permanent sources that affect the community. o Implementation 7-7.3.A: Limit New TAC Sources. Evaluate new sources of TAC emissions pursuant to BAAQMD guidelines and thresholds for an increased health risk of no more than 10 additional incidents of cancer per million exposures or contribute to a cumulative risk in excess of 100 additional incidents of cancer per million exposures. o Implementation 7-7.3.B: Limit New Residential Development in High Risk Areas. For infill development sites within existing neighborhoods, apply thresholds for review when new sensitive receptors are within areas exposed to health risk levels in excess of 100 additional incidents of cancer per million exposures. Infill development also includes conditional development of a mixed use and urban residential development nature within residential and commercial areas of Centers and Urban Corridors. When considering land use changes that add sensitive receptor uses outside of existing neighborhoods, apply thresholds for review when new sensitive receptors are within areas exposed to health risk levels in excess of 10 additional incidents of cancer per million exposures.
o Implementation 7-7.3.C: Incorporate TAC Controls with New Development. New development projects with sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of a freeway or major TAC source shall assess the TAC health risk for the site and incorporate, to the maximum extent feasible, risk reduction measures to reduce exposure to TAC. Risk reduction measures may include, but not be limited to, project phasing, site orientation, distance separations, landscape buffering, building air filtration systems, modified building design or building type, or off site improvements at a TAC source.

In addition, the City of Fremont Municipal Code (FMC) identifies standard development requirements for construction-related emissions in Section 18.218.050. FMC Section 18.218.050 requires the implementation of the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures for all proposed development projects and the implementation of the BAAQMD’s Additional Construction Mitigation Measures that are recommended for proposed development projects that would generate construction emissions above the BAAQMD’s thresholds.

FMC Section 18.218.050 Standard Development Requirements for air quality are as follows:
(a) Air Quality.

1. Construction Related Emissions. The following construction measures, as periodically amended by BAAQMD, are required for all proposed development projects to reduce construction-related fugitive dust and exhaust emissions:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times daily.
b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 24
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations (CCR)). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.

BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

2. Construction Related Emissions – Supplemental Measures. The following supplemental construction measures, as periodically amended by BAAQMD, are required for all proposed development projects that would exceed the thresholds of significance for construction criteria air pollutant and precursors provided in the most recent BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines:
a. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe. b. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
c. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity. d. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. e. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the total area of surfaces disturbed at any one time.
f. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. g. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a six- to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
h. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent. i. Idling time of diesel-powered construction equipment shall be limited to two minutes. j. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project-wide fleet-average 20 percent nitrogen oxide (NOx) reduction and 45 percent particulate matter (PM) reduction compared to the most recent Air Resources Board fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, aftertreatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available.
k. Low volatile organic compound (i.e., reactive organic gas) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings) shall be used. l. All construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall be equipped with best available control technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM. m. All contractors shall use equipment that meets the Air Resources Board’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 25

1.3.2 Discussion
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The applicable air quality plan is the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan (Clean Air Plan), which defines control strategies to reduce emissions and ambient concentrations of air pollutants; safeguard public health by reducing exposure to air pollutants that pose the greatest health risk, with an emphasis on protecting the communities most heavily affected by air pollution; and reduce GHG emissions to protect the climate. Consistency with the Clean Air Plan can be determined if the project: (1) supports the goals of the Clean Air Plan; (2) includes applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan; and (3) would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan.

Clean Air Plan Goals
The primary goals of the Bay Area Clean Air Plan are to: attain air quality standards; reduce population exposure and protect public health in the Bay Area; and reduce GHG emissions and protect climate.

The BAAQMD has established significance thresholds for project construction and operational impacts at a level at which the cumulative impact of exceeding these thresholds would have an adverse impact on the region’s attainment of air quality standards. The health and hazards thresholds were established to help protect public health. As discussed in the project’s Air Quality Memo prepared for the City by LSA Associates, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in the generation of criteria air pollutants that would exceed BAAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the Clean Air Plan goals. 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 conflicts with clean air plan goals. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic.

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) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The BAAQMD is currently designated as a nonattainment area for State and national ozone standards and national particulate matter AAQS. The BAAQMD’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of AAQS. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant.

In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is unnecessary. The following analysis assesses the potential project-level construction- and operationrelated air quality impacts.

Short-Term Construction Emissions
During construction, short-term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate emissions generated by demolition, grading, paving, building, and other activities. Emissions from construction equipment are also anticipated and would include CO, NOx, ROG, directly emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and TACs such as diesel exhaust particulate matter.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 26
Project construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building, paving, and architectural coating (painting). Construction-related effects on air quality from the proposed project would be greatest during the site preparation phase due to the disturbance of soils. If not properly controlled, these activities would temporarily generate particulate emissions. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit dirt and mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. PM10 emissions would depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of operating equipment.

Larger dust particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site.

Water or other soil stabilizers can be used to control dust, resulting in emission reductions of 50 percent or more.

The BAAQMD has established standard measures for reducing fugitive dust emissions (PM10). With the implementation of these Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would not result in adverse air quality impacts.

In addition to dust-related PM10 emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment powered by gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, SO2, NOx, ROG, and some soot particulate (PM2.5 and PM10) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic congestion in the area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles idle in traffic. These emissions would be temporary in nature and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction site.

As shown in the air quality memo for the project by LSA Associates, construction emissions associated with the project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds for ROG, NOX, exhaust PM10, and exhaust PM2.5 emissions. FMC Section 18.218.050 and General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure AIR-3 would require the implementation of the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures to incorporate best management practices (BMPs) in order to reduce construction fugitive dust impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, additional project-specific mitigation is not required. As such, construction of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS.

Long-Term Operational Emissions
Long-term air pollutant emission impacts are those associated with mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), energy sources (e.g., natural gas), area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment), and stationary sources (e.g., use of the fire pump) related to the proposed project.

PM10 emissions result from running exhaust, tire and brake wear, and the entrainment of dust into the atmosphere from vehicles traveling on paved roadways. Entrainment of PM10 occurs when vehicle tires pulverize small rocks and pavement, and the vehicle wakes generate airborne dust. The contribution of tire and brake wear is small compared to the other particulate matter emissions processes. Gasoline-powered engines have small rates of particulate matter emissions compared with diesel-powered vehicles.

Typically, area source emissions consist of direct sources of air emissions located at the project site, including architectural coatings, consumer products, and the use of landscape maintenance equipment. Stationary source emissions would be associated with use of the fire pump.

As described in the air quality memo prepared for the project by LSA Associates, the project would not exceed the significance criteria for daily or annual ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions; therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS.

The project would be subject to the City of Fremont Standard Development Requirements to Address Resource Protection (FMC 18.218, see above). This code section includes measures to protect air quality.

Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is non-attainment 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 net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is nonattainment. 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. 624 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 27
Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Sensitive receptors are defined as residential uses, schools, daycare centers, nursing homes, and medical centers. Individuals particularly vulnerable to diesel particulate matter are children, whose lung tissue is still developing, and the elderly, who may have serious health problems that can be aggravated by exposure to diesel particulate matter. Exposure from diesel exhaust associated with construction activity contributes to both cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks. Consistent with General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure AIR-2 and General Plan Implementation Measures 7-7.3.A through 7-7.3.B, the following sections evaluate the potential for exposure to TACs on sensitive receptors from construction and operation of the proposed project.

Construction Health Risk to Nearby Sensitive Receptors. According to the BAAQMD, a project would result in a significant impact if it would: individually expose sensitive receptors to TACs resulting in an increased cancer risk greater than 10.0 in one million, an increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 on the hazard index (chronic or acute), or an annual average ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). A significant cumulative impact would occur if the project, in combination with other projects located within a 1,000- foot radius of the project site, would expose sensitive receptors to TACs resulting in an increased cancer risk greater than 100.0 in one million, an increased non-cancer risk of greater than 10.0 on the hazard index (chronic), or an ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.8 μg/m3 on an annual average basis.

Impacts from substantial pollutant concentrations are discussed below. The proposed project site is located in an urban area in close proximity to existing residential uses that could be exposed to diesel emission exhaust during the construction period. As such, to estimate the potential cancer risk from project construction equipment exhaust (including diesel particulate matter), a dispersion model was used to translate an emission rate from the source location to a concentration at the receptor location (i.e., a nearby residential land use). Dispersion modeling varies from a simpler, more conservative screening-level analysis to a more complex and refined detailed analysis. This refined assessment was conducted using CARB’s exposure methodology, with the air dispersion modeling performed using the USEPA dispersion model AERMOD. The model provides a detailed estimate of exhaust concentrations based on site and source geometry, source emissions strength, distance from the source to the receptor, and site specific meteorological data.

As shown in Table C of the LSA Air Quality Memo, the risk associated with project construction at the maximally exposed individual (MEI) would be 35.93 in one million, which would exceed the BAAQMD cancer risk of 10 in one million. The total chronic hazard index would be 0.026, which would be below the threshold of 1.0. The results of the analysis indicate that the PM2.5 concentration would be 0.131 μg/m3, which would not exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold of 0.30 μg/m3. Therefore, implementation of the supplemental construction measures identified in FMC Section 18.218.050(a) would be required, including:
• Achieving a project-wide fleet-average 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average;
• Equipping all construction equipment with best availability control technology for emission reductions of PM; and
• Use of equipment that meets the CARB most recent certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines shall be incorporated into construction specifications to reduce substantial pollutant concentrations during project construction.

Based on these requirements of FMC Section 18.218.050(a), the project was modeled assuming the use of construction equipment that meets the CARB Tier 2 emissions standards equipped with Level 3 diesel particulate filters or equivalent. Table D of the LSA Air Quality Memo identifies the results of the analysis with implementation of the supplemental construction measures identified in FMC Section 18.218.050(a).

As shown in Table D of the LSA Air Quality Memo, the mitigated cancer risk at the MEI would be 6.00 in one million, which would not exceed the BAAQMD cancer risk of 10 in one million. Therefore, with implementation of the supplemental construction measures identified in FMC Section 18.218.050(a), construction of the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds and would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 28
Once the project is constructed, the project would not be a source of substantial emissions. Therefore, nearby sensitive receptors are not expected to be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during project construction or operation.

Operational Health Risk to Future Residents
Implementation of the proposed project would allow new residential uses that would include sensitive receptors.

LSA conducted a search of all stationary sources permitted by the BAAQMD within 1,000 feet of the project site.

Using the BAAQMD Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool, three stationary sources were identified within the project site vicinity.

As shown in Table E of the LSA Air Quality Memo, the highest risk would be 1.193 in one million, which is below the BAAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. The highest hazard index would be 0.002, which is below the threshold of 1.0. The results of the analysis also indicate that the highest PM2.5 concentration would be less than 0.001, which would not exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold of 0.3 μg/m3.

The BAAQMD cumulative threshold of cancer risk greater than 100.0 in one million, an increased non-cancer risk of greater than 10.0 on the hazard index (chronic), or an ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.8 μg/m3 on an annual average basis would also not be exceeded. Therefore, implementation of the project would not expose future residents to substantial pollutant concentrations associated with nearby stationary sources.

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 sensitive populations to substantial pollutant concentrations. 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 other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
During construction, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on site would create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and are not likely to be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project site. Additionally, the proposed uses that would be developed within the project site are not expected to produce any offensive odors that would result in frequent odor complaints. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. 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 other emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people. 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

1.3.3 CEQA Conclusion Pertaining to Air Quality
CEQA Conclusions Relative to an Infill Development Exemption As fully documented in the CEQA Checklist, the Project would not exceed the City’s applicable significance thresholds related to air quality. The Project would be required to implement the City’s SDR for Basic Construction and Enhanced measures for control of construction-related criteria pollutant emissions, and these measures would control construction-related emissions to levels of less than significant. The Project would not result in significant effects related to air quality, and would meet the criteria pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d) (3) for an Infill Exemption based on air quality.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 29
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 Fremont General Plan EIR, implementation of the Project would not substantially increase the severity of any significant air quality impacts as identified in that prior EIR. The project would not result in new significant impacts related to air quality that were not previously identified in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR did not identify any mitigation measures related to air quality that would apply to the Project, and no mitigation other than existing regulatory requirements would be needed. No further environmental review of the Project pertaining to the topics of air quality is required.

References

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

2. City of Fremont Waste Handling Guidelines. Available online at www.fremont.gov/whg.

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

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

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

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 30

1.4 BIOLOGICAL 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) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
LTS ◼ ☐ LTs LTS
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations
or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
LTS ◼ ☐ - LTS
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
LTS ◼ - LTS
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
LTS ◼ SDR Biology-2,
Nesting Birds and
Biology-3: Roosting
Bats
LTS with
SDR
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
LTS ◼ ☐ FMC 18.215:Tree
Preservation
LTS with
regulations
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
LTS ◼ ☐ - No Impact

1.4.1 Environmental Setting
The project site is a 3.23-acre portion of the Gateway Plaza Shopping Center adjacent to Walnut Avenue and BART Way. The applicant proposes to construct a new five-story apartment building containing 206 units. The site is currently improved with a 26,550 square foot commercial space constructed in 1971 and a parking field

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 31
containing 237 vehicle parking spaces that serve the existing shopping center use. The commercial space is currently occupied by seasonal retail uses. The project site is located in an urban area with no natural habitat in the immediate vicinity. The project site currently contains 58 trees with 37 of these trees to be removed as part of the development.

Regulatory Setting
Endangered Species. Both federal and state legislation provide a framework for protecting and facilitating the recovery of threatened and endangered populations of listed animal species.

1. The federal government regulates threatened animal species through the Endangered Species Act, which lists identified species and prohibits a “take” of any such species. The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act makes it unlawful to take (kill, harm, harass, etc.) any migratory listed bird.

2. The California Endangered Species Act establishes that it is the state’s policy to conserve, protect, and enhance endangered species and their habitats, and Cal. Fish & Game Code §§ 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 prohibit the “take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs.” Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (killing or abandonment of eggs or young) is considered a take.

3. The general plan identifies potentially occurring special‐status species in the City of Fremont. Nesting or roosting burrowing owls (commonly found on vacant or agricultural habitat with burrows of California ground squirrels) are a listed species, as are other birds with propensity to nest in local trees, and also various bat species that may be found in existing or abandoned structures on property slated for development.

4. The general plan also includes policies and implementation measures for the protection of rare, threatened, endangered and candidate species and their habitats consistent with state and federal law.

However, the general plan program EIR does not contain specific project level mitigation measures to address the occurrence of burrowing owls on vacant sites, nesting or special‐status bird species, or nesting or special‐status bat species that could occur in Fremont.

1.4.2 Discussion
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The project is located in an urban area and is paved or developed with structures across nearly the entire site.

The site does contain several trees within the parking lot and 37 trees are proposed for removal. Removal of these trees would be subject to the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (FMC 18.215). The City has adopted FMC

18.218.050 Standard Development Requirements to create universal development standards for resource conservation. Subsection (b) of FMC 18.218.050 contains specific rules to protect special status species including burrowing owls, nesting birds, and roosting bats.

FMC 18.218.050(b) Biology, Special-Status Species

1. Burrowing Owl. New development projects with the potential to impact burrowing owl habitat through grading, demolition, and/or new construction shall implement the following measures prior to grading or ground disturbing activities:
a. Preconstruction Surveys. Preconstruction surveys for burrowing owls shall be conducted prior to the initiation of all project activities within potential burrowing owl nesting and roosting habitat (i.e., agricultural habitat with burrows of California ground squirrels) to determine if suitable burrowing owl habitat is present. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in conformance with the most recent requirements and guidelines of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The biologist shall determine the number and time frame (prior to construction) of surveys to be conducted.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 32
b. Implement Buffer Zones. Areas currently occupied by burrowing owls shall be avoided for the duration of residing on site and/or the nesting period (February 1st through August 31st). The biologist will recommend a suitable buffer zone distance for avoidance of nesting or roosting habitat.
c. Passive Relocation. If burrowing owls cannot be avoided by the proposed project, then additional measures, such as passive relocation during the nonbreeding season, may be utilized to reduce any potential impacts. Measures for successful relocation shall be recommended by a qualified biologist in conformance with CDFW requirements and guidelines. d. Initiation of Construction Activities. When a qualified biologist is able to determine that burrowing owls are no longer occupying the site and passive relocation is deemed successful, construction activities may continue. The applicant shall submit the determination of the biologist to the planning manager for authorization to continue.

2. Nesting Birds. New development projects with the potential to impact nesting birds through tree or shrub removal shall implement the following measures prior to removal of any trees/shrubs, grading, or ground disturbing activities:
a. Avoidance. Proposed projects shall avoid construction activities during the bird nesting season (February 1st through August 31st).
b. Preconstruction Surveys. If construction activities are scheduled during the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey to identify any potential nesting activity.

The biologist shall determine the number and time frame (prior to construction) of surveys to be conducted.
c. Protective Buffer Zone(s). If the survey indicates the presence of nesting birds, protective buffer zones shall be established around the nests. The size of the buffer zone shall be recommended by the biologist in consultation with the CDFW depending on the species of nesting bird and level of potential disturbance.
d. Initiation of Construction Activities. The buffer zones shall remain in place until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. A qualified biologist shall monitor the nests closely until it is determined the nests are no longer active, at which time construction activities may commence within the buffer area.

3. Roosting Bats. New development with potential to impact special-status or roosting bat species through demolition of existing structures or removal of trees on site shall conduct the following measures prior to demolition:
a. Preconstruction Surveys. A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey during seasonal periods of bat activity (mid-February through mid-October) to determine suitability of structure(s) or trees as bat roost habitat.
b. Protective Buffer Zone(s). If active bat roosts are found on site, a suitable buffer from construction shall be established per the biologist. The biologist shall determine the species of bats present and the type of roost.
c. Mitigation and Exclusion. If the bats are identified as common species, and the roost is not being used as a maternity roost or hibernation site, the bats may be evicted using methods developed by a qualified biologist. If special-status bat species are found present, or if the roost is determined to be a maternity roost or hibernation site for any species, then the qualified biologist shall develop a bat mitigation and exclusion plan to compensate for lost roost. The site shall not be disturbed until CDFW approves the mitigation plan.

With the required implementation of the Standard Development Requirements, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on sensitive or special-status species 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 adversely affecting special status species. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic.

There is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 33
Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The project site is located within a built-up urban area. There are no nearby identified riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, polices, or regulations. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have also not identified any riparian or other sensitive habitat in the vicinity of the proposed project. The proposed project would drain into existing flood control channels, after treating stormwater runoff onsite, which are not natural watercourses which eventually flow to the San Francisco Bay. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on riparian or other sensitive community 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 riparian or other sensitive natural community. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic 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) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
The project site is currently developed with a commercial shopping center and does not contain any protected wetlands. The proposed project would develop the site within the boundaries of the existing shopping center and would not involve any undeveloped or natural land. The project would be subject to approval of stormwater treatment measures by the City of Fremont Environmental Services Division. The proposed project would treat stormwater on site and drain excess stormwater runoff into storm drains that, in turn, drain into existing flood control channels which eventually flow into the San Francisco Bay. The proposed project would be subject to City of Fremont Standard Development Requirements to Address Resource Protection (FMC 18.218) including the requirement to submit for review a construction management plan to control erosion, sedimentation, and stormwater pollution. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on state or federally protected wetlands 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 state or federally protected wetlands. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic.

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) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The proposed project site is located on an existing commercial shopping center. The project site is within an urban area and there are no native fish or wildlife species in the immediate vicinity. There are no migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites nearby. Existing wildlife that currently move through the site are urban‐adapted species that would likely continue to move through the site after project development. Typical urban wildlife that may move through the site include various native and non‐native birds, raccoon (Procyon lotor),

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 34
and small rodents, such as house mouse (Mus musculus) and Botta’s pocket gopher. The project site does not support any suitable habitat for wildlife nursery sites, including bird rookeries or roosting bat colonies. the project will implement the Standard Development Requirements (FMC 18.218), which would ensure that impacts to native or migratory fish or wildlife species, wildlife corridors, and native wildlife nursery sites would be avoided.

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 the movement of fish or wildlife species or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeding the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic.

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) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Chapter 18.218 Standard Development Requirements to Address Resource Protection of the City Municipal Code addresses special‐status species that could occur at the project site. Chapter 18.218.050 Standard Development Requirements: Biology, Special‐Status Species of the City Municipal Code also includes measures that require preconstruction surveys for nesting birds, burrowing owls, and roosting bats. As discussed in the Bio Report, the project would be required to be in compliance with the City of Fremont General Plan as well as the applicable sections related to resource conservation contained within the Fremont Municipal Code. These pre-construction surveys are required for the proposed project and would ensure potential impacts to special status plant and animal species would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Chapter 18.215 Tree Preservation of the City of Fremont’s Municipal Code requires a tree removal permit for removing, damaging, or relocating the following trees on private property:

1. A tree having a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 6 inches or more and located on a vacant or underdeveloped lot;

2. A tree having a DBH of 6 inches or more and located on a developed lot, which is the subject of a contemplated or pending application for a development project;

3. A native tree or tree of exceptional adaptability to the Fremont area having a DBH of 10 inches or more;

4. A tree having a DBH of 18 inches or more;

5. A tree that was required by the City to be planted or retained as mitigation for the removal of a tree;

6. A tree planted or retained as a condition of any City‐conferred development project approval, including approvals conferred prior to adoption of this chapter; or

7. One of six or more trees of the same species that are located on the same lot and that each have 6 or more inches in DBH.

According to the project plans, 21 trees would be removed and are subject to the City’s tree preservation ordinance. Since the removed trees on the site are protected by the City’s tree preservation ordinance, the removal or trimming, or transplanting of any of these trees would require a permit from the City and would likely be subject to the City’s mitigation requirements according to the ordinance. Impacted trees are typically mitigated with replacement trees at a minimum 1:1 ratio. The proposed tree mitigation ratio of replacing each removed tree with a 24‐inch box replacement tree will meet or exceed the City’s requirements. The remaining trees on the site should be protected in accordance with City standards. As the project will implement the required tree preservation measures contained within FMC 18.215 the potential impacts from conflicts with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources 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 local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic.

There is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 35
Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The project site is not located within the limits of a conservation plan and therefore would not conflict with any adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project has no potential impact resulting from a conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan 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 an adopted habitat conservation plan. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic.

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

1.4.3 CEQA Conclusion Pertaining to Biological Resources CEQA Conclusions Relative to an Infill Development Exemption The Project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. As fully documented in the CEQA Checklist, no special‐status plant species are likely to occur at the Project site. The Project would be required to implement SDR that ensure compliance with existing regulatory requirements for nesting birds, roosting bats and tree protection. These standard conditions of approval provide for the protection of active nests of migratory and other birds and bats, including their nests, roosts, eggs and young. With implementation of these regulatory requirements, any impacts to sensitive status species will be less than significant, and no additional mitigation is required. The Project would not result in significant effects to habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, and would meet the criteria pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(c) for an Infill Exemption based on endangered, rare or threatened species.

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 Fremont General Plan EIR, implementation of the Project would not substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts to biological resources as identified in that prior EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to biological resources that were not previously identified. The General Plan EIR did not identify any mitigation measures related to biology that would apply to the Project, and no mitigation other than existing SDRs would be needed.

No further environmental review of the Project pertaining to the topics of biological resources is required.

References

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

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

3. Vegetation Classification Reports and Maps, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Accessed November 20, 2023. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Reports-and-Maps

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

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 36

1.5 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
a) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
SU, even with
MM Cutural-1
◼ ☐ - LTS
b) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
LTS with MM
Cultural-2
◼ ☐ SDR Cultural
Resources 2:

Accidental Discovery
of Cultural Resources
LTS with
SDR
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
LTS with MM
Cultural-3
◼ - -
d) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
LTS with MM
Cultura-4
◼ SDR Cultural
Resources 2:

Accidental Discovery
of Cultural Resources
LTS with
SDR

1.5.1 Environmental Setting
The project site is a 3.23-acre portion of the Gateway Plaza Shopping Center adjacent to Walnut Avenue and BART Way. The applicant proposes to construct a new five-story apartment building containing 206 units. The site is currently improved with a 26,550 square foot commercial space constructed in 1971 and a parking field containing 237 vehicle parking spaces that serve the existing shopping center use. The commercial space is currently occupied by seasonal retail uses. City staff performed a historic analysis of the existing building and determined that it lacks historic significance and was therefore not eligible for the historic register.

1.5.2 Discussion
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
A historic evaluation was performed by City of Fremont staff in November 2022 and it was determined that the existing building, which would be demolished, lacks historic significance and is therefore not eligible for the historic register.

The City has adopted “Standard Development Requirements” under the Fremont Municipal Code Section

Per Fremont Municipal Code Section 18.218.050, if any potential cultural or historical resources are accidentally uncovered during earth moving operations, all work is required to cease at the project site and the City’s Planning Manager is to be immediately notified. The resources would then be evaluated by a qualified archeologist and, in the planning manager’s discretion, a tribal cultural monitor. If the resources are determined to be historical, unique

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 37
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 City has adopted FMC 18.218.050 Standard Development Requirements to create universal development standards for resource conservation. Subsection (c) of FMC 18.218.050 contains specific rules to protect cultural resources.

FMC 18.218.050 (c) 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 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.
e. As used herein, “historical resource” means a historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a); “unique archaeological resource” means unique archaeological resource as defined by Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(g); and “tribal cultural resource” means tribal cultural resource as defined by Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21074. Collectively, these terms describe “significant cultural materials.”
The project would be required to abide by these standard development requirements to protect any potential cultural resources within the project site inadvertently discovered during the course of development. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on historic 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 adverse changes to the significance of a historical 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: Less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 38
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
The proposed project is not found on any maps of known archeological resources in the City of Fremont records.

The City has adopted “Standard Development Requirements” under the Fremont Municipal Code Section

18.218.050, which include provisions for the protection of historical and cultural resources if they are accidentally discovered during the course of project work. These protections include noting on the plans the potential for exposing buried historical and cultural resources during earth moving operations and the requirement that the applicant retain a professional archeologist for a pre-construction briefing on what to do if any resources or human remains are accidentally discovered. Per Fremont Municipal Code Section 18.218.050, if any human remains are accidentally uncovered during earth moving operations, all work is required to cease at the project site and the City’s Planning Manager is to be immediately notified in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5(e) and (f). The resources would then be evaluated by a qualified archeologist 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. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the significance of an archaeological resource 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 adverse changes to the significance of an archaeological 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: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? The City has adopted “Standard Development Requirements” under the Fremont Municipal Code Section

18.218.050, which include provisions for the protection of historical and cultural resources if they are accidentally discovered during the course of project work. These protections include noting on the plans the potential for exposing buried historical and cultural resources during earth moving operations and the requirement that the applicant retain a professional archeologist for a pre-construction briefing on what to do if any resources or human remains are accidentally discovered. Per Fremont Municipal Code Section 18.218.050, if any human remains are accidentally uncovered during earth moving operations, all work is required to cease at the project site and the City’s Planning Manager is to be immediately notified in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5(e) and (f). The resources would then be evaluated by a qualified archeologist 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. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on human remains 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 adverse changes to human remains. 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. 636 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 39

1.5.3 CEQA Conclusions Pertaining to Cultural Resources CEQA Conclusions Relative to an Infill Development Exemption There is no exception to the Class 32 exemption for the Project related to historic resources. As fully documented in the CEQA Checklist above, no historic resources were observed during the pedestrian survey of the Project area, and the possibility that historic resources may become apparent during construction excavation is not considered likely but would be addressed by City of Fremont SDRs. The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. The exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 (e) related to historic resources does not apply to the Project.

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 to cultural resources as identified in that Program EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts to cultural resources that were not previously identified. The prior Program EIR did not identify any mitigation measures related to cultural resources that would apply to the Project, and none would be needed.

References

1. 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 Historic Resource Preliminary Review for 39039 Paseo Padre Parkway (APN 501 113005400), November 17, 2022

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 40

1.6 ENERGY
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 potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
N/A ◼ ☐ Green Building Code
(Title 24)
LTS with
regulations
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
N/A ◼ ☐ - LTS
The General Plan Update EIR did not include an Energy analysis.

1.6.1 Environmental Setting
The project site is a 3.23-acre portion of the Gateway Plaza Shopping Center adjacent to Walnut Avenue and BART Way. The applicant proposes to construct a new five-story apartment building containing 206 units. The site is currently improved with a 26,550 square foot commercial space constructed in 1971 and a parking field containing 237 vehicle parking spaces that serve the existing shopping center use. The commercial space is currently occupied by seasonal retail uses. The proposed development would be served by electricity and would not have plumbed natural gas service. The project site is within the service territory of Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E). According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), total electricity consumption in the PG&E service area in 2021 was 78,588 gigawatt-hours (GWh) or 78,587,869,096 kilowatt-hours (kWh).2 Of this total, Alameda County consumed 10,237 GWh or 10,237,401,835 kWh. PG&E is the natural gas service provider for the project site. According to the CEC, total natural gas consumption in the PG&E service area in 2021 was 4,467 million therms (4,467,074,766 therms). Of this total, Alameda County consumed 377 million therms or 377,052,605 therms. The average fuel economy for light‐duty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and SUVs) in the United States has steadily increased from about 14.9 miles per gallon (mpg) in 1980 to 22.9 mpg in 2020.6 The average fuel economy for heavy-duty trucks in the United States has also steadily increased, from 5.7 mpg in 2013 to a projected 8.0 mpg in 2021.7 Based on fuel consumption obtained from the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) California Emissions Factor Model, Version 2021 (EMFAC2021), approximately 553.9 million gallons of gasoline and approximately 155.9 million gallons of diesel will be consumed from vehicle trips in Alameda County in 2023.

Regulatory Framework
Federal and State agencies regulate energy use and consumption through various means and programs. On the federal level, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) are three federal agencies with substantial influence over energy policies and programs. Generally, federal agencies influence and regulate transportation energy consumption through establishment and enforcement of fuel economy standards for automobiles and light trucks, through funding of energy-related research and development projects, and through funding for transportation infrastructure improvements. On the State level, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the CEC are two agencies with authority over different aspects of energy.

The CPUC regulates privately owned electric, natural gas, telecommunications, water, railroad, rail transit, and passenger transportation companies and serves the public interest by protecting consumers and ensuring the provision of safe, reliable utility service and infrastructure at reasonable rates, with a commitment to environmental enhancement and a healthy California economy.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 41
The CEC is the State's primary energy policy and planning agency. The CEC forecasts future energy needs, promotes energy efficiency, supports energy research, develops renewable energy resources, and plans for/directs state response to energy emergencies. The applicable federal, State, regional, and local regulatory framework is discussed in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas memo prepared for the City of Fremont by LSA Associates.

1.6.2 Discussion
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
The proposed project would be subject to the Green Building Code (Title 24) and as such, would be required to meet minimum energy efficiency standards, thereby reducing overall energy use during the life of the project. City Standard Development Requirements to Address Resource Protection (Chapter 18.218 of the Fremont Municipal Code) include a provision to limit idling of construction equipment during the construction phase. The Fremont Zoning Ordinance contains provisions to limit the intensity of outdoor lighting for this type of development, thereby helping to reduce energy consumption. The Fremont General Plan Conservation Element (Chapter 7 of the Fremont General Plan) contains policies to support energy efficiency through building/site design. These policies include measures such as public information on energy efficiency, support of PG&E energy efficiency programs, and regional cooperation on energy efficiency. The City’s Landscape Development Review Policies implement the State’s Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (WELO) which requires the project to reduce landscape water consumption through design. Because of the required measures the project would have to take as part of the design and operation of the project, the proposed project would have a less than significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. Therefore 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 wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. 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 with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency In 2002, the Legislature passed SB 1389, which required the CEC to develop an integrated energy plan every 2 years for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels for the Integrated Energy Policy Report. The plan calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for ZEVs and their infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban designs that reduce VMT and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.

The CEC’s 2023 Integrated Energy Policy Report provides the results of the CEC’s assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California. As indicated above, energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the overall use in Alameda County. In addition, energy usage associated with operation of the proposed project would be relatively small in comparison to the overall use in Alameda County, and the State’s available energy resources. Therefore, energy impacts at the regional level would be negligible. Because California’s energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the proposed project’s total impact on regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct California’s energy conservation plans as described in the CEC’s Integrated Energy Policy Report. Additionally, as demonstrated above, the proposed project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 42
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 conflicts with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. 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

1.6.3 CEQA Conclusions Pertaining to Energy
CEQA Conclusions Relative to an Infill Development Exemption No exception that would preclude a Class 32 Infill Development exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 (g) related to “other potential effects” (i.e., impacts related to energy use) applies to the Project.

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 energy consumption impacts identified in that Program EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to energy use that were not previously identified. The prior Program EIR did not identify any mitigation measures related to energy resources that would apply to the Project and none would be needed.

References

1. City of Fremont, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan. Community Character 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. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Planning and Zoning. Available online at https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/.

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

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 43

1.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
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) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? (Refer to
California Geological Survey Special
Publication 42.)?
LTS ◼ ☐ - No Impact
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? LTS ◼ ☐ SDR Geology LTS with SDR
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
LTS ◼ ☐ SDR Geology LTS with
SDR
iv) Landslides? LTS ◼ ☐ - No Impact
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
LTS ◼ ☐ SDR Geology LTS with
SDR
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
LTS ◼ ☐ SDR Geology LTS with
SDR
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994, as updated),
creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
LTS ◼ ☐ SDR Geology LTS with
SDR
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
LTS ◼ ☐ - No Impact
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
LTS with MM
Cultural-3
SDR Cultural-2 LTS with
SDR

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 44

1.7.1 Environmental Setting
The project site is a 3.23-acre portion of the Gateway Plaza Shopping Center adjacent to Walnut Avenue and BART Way. The applicant proposes to construct a new five-story apartment building containing 206 units. The site is currently improved with a 26,550 square foot commercial space constructed in 1971 and a parking field containing 237 vehicle parking spaces that serve the existing shopping center use. The commercial space is currently occupied by seasonal retail uses.

The Hayward Fault is located approximately 1,200 feet to the northeast of the project site and the Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone passes approximately 750 feet away from the project site. The project site is not located in an earthquake induced landslide or liquefaction zone. As with any land in the San Francisco Bay Area, the project site could be subject to strong shaking during a major seismic event along one of the faults located in Northern California.

1.7.2 Discussion
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to California Geological Survey Special Publication 42.)
There are no known earthquake faults traveling through the project site. The nearest known earthquake fault is located approximately 1,200 feet from the edge of the project site. Therefore the project potential substantial adverse effects from the rupture of a known earthquake fault would be less than significant, 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 rupture of a known earthquake fault. 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. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
As with many sites in the San Francisco Bay Area, the project site has the potential for moderate to severe seismic ground shaking. The proposed building would be designed to withstand this level of seismic shaking and would be reviewed and inspected by the City’s Building Division for conformance with the applicable building codes. Therefore the potential for substantial adverse effects would be less than significant and, as such, 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 strong seismic ground shaking. 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. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? The proposed project is not located in an earthquake induced liquefaction zone according to the City of Fremont’s maps. The proposed project would be subject to the California Building Code and would be required to submit a geotechnical report through the building permit process. The geotechnical report will need to provide analysis and recommendations related to soil conditions and foundation design. The City peer reviews all geotechnical reports submitted and the City’s Engineering division reviews all grading plans. A building permit will not be issued until the project foundation conforms to the recommendations in the soils report. Therefore, the project

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 45
would have a less than significant impact related to soil instability or landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.

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 seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction. 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 iv) Landslides?
The project site is not located in an area prone to landslides according to the City of Fremont’s maps. The site is nearly flat and not near any slopes or hillsides. Therefore the potential for landslides is 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 landslides. 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) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Construction of the project would involve grading of the site. Grading has the potential to cause erosion and loss of topsoil. An erosion control plan would be required with plans submitted for grading and/or building permits to ensure that the project would not result in substantial soil erosion during grading and construction activities.

Because disturbance to the site would be greater than one acre, it would require coverage under the Statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit.

To obtain coverage under the General Permit, submission of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required, which outlines Best Management Practices (BMPs) required to reduce the potential construction impacts related to erosion and topsoil loss to less than significant. BMPs to minimize erosion and topsoil would include, but would not be limited to, physical barriers to prevent erosion and sedimentation, construction of sedimentation basins, limitations on work periods during storm events, use of infiltration swales, protection of stockpiled materials, and a variety of other measures that would substantially reduce or prevent erosion from occurring during construction. The C3 Technical Guidance Manual, provided through the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, of which the City of Fremont is a member (Clean Water Program, 2015) provides further details of specific BMPs, including measures for site design, source control, stormwater treatment, and hydromodification.

With adherence to the state, county and local requirements described above, impacts to life or property associated with soil erosion 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 substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. 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) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
The project site is not located in an earthquake induced liquefaction or earthquake induced landslide area. The proposed project would be subject to the California Building Code and would be required to submit a geotechnical report through the building permit process. The geotechnical report will need to provide analysis and recommendations related to soil conditions and foundation design. The City peer reviews all geotechnical reports submitted and the City’s Engineering division reviews all grading plans. A building permit will not be issued until

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 46
the project foundation conforms to the recommendations in the soils report. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact related to soil instability or landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. 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 soil instability or landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, offsite 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) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? The proposed project would be subject to the California Building Code and would be required to submit a geotechnical report through the building permit process. The geotechnical report will need to provide analysis and recommendations related to soil conditions and foundation design. The City peer reviews all geotechnical reports submitted and the City’s Engineering division reviews all grading plans. A building permit will not be issued until the project foundation conforms to the recommendations in the soils report. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact related to soil instability or landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. 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 expansive soil creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. 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) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
The project would be served by the local sanitary sewer system operated by Union Sanitary District. No on-site septic system would be required nor is one proposed for this project. Therefore, there would be 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 soils capable of supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. 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
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The City has adopted “Standard Development Requirements” under the Fremont Municipal Code Section

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 47
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. Because the project would be required to conform to standard development requirements contained within FMC Section 18.218.050 and because there are no identified paleontological resources or unique geologic features at the project site, there would be no significant impact to paleontological resources or unique geologic features 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 adverse changes to the significance of a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. 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

1.7.3 CEQA Conclusion Pertaining to Geology
CEQA Conclusions Relative to an Infill Development Exemption As analyzed above, the geological circumstances specific to the Project site are not unusual as compared to its surroundings or to other similar projects. The Project would not pose a reasonable possibility of causing a significant geologic effect on the environment or that would expose the Project to unusual geological hazards.

Therefore, the exception under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15300.2 (c) pertaining to unusual (geological) circumstances does not apply to the Project.

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 Fremont General Plan EIR, implementation of the Project would not substantially increase the severity of any significant geologic impacts identified in that prior EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to geology that were not previously identified. The General Plan EIR did not identify any mitigation measures related to geology that would apply to the Project, and no mitigation other than existing regulatory requirements would be needed. No further environmental of the Project pertaining to the topics of geology is required References

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 http://egis.fremont.gov/apps/public/.

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

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 48

1.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
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) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
SU ◼ ☐ - LTS
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for reducing
emissions of greenhouse gas?
LTS ◼ ☐ - LTS

1.8.1 Environmental Setting
The project site is a 3.23-acre portion of the Gateway Plaza Shopping Center adjacent to Walnut Avenue and BART Way. The applicant proposes to construct a new five-story apartment building containing 206 units. The site is currently improved with a 26,550 square foot commercial space constructed in 1971 and a parking field containing 237 vehicle parking spaces that serve the existing shopping center use. The commercial space is currently occupied by seasonal retail uses.

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced global climate change are:
• Carbon dioxide (CO2);
• Methane (CH4);
• Nitrous oxide (N2O);
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs);
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and
• Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

GHG emissions associated with the project would occur over the short-term from construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust. There would also be long-term GHG emissions associated with project-related area sources, energy consumption, water conveyance and treatment, and waste generation.

Regulatory Framework
Federal Regulations
While there currently are no adopted federal regulations for the control or reduction of GHG emissions, the USEPA commenced several actions in 2009 to implement a regulatory approach to global climate change, including the 2009 USEPA final rule for mandatory reporting of GHGs from large GHG emission sources in the United States. Additionally, the USEPA Administrator signed an endangerment finding action in 2009 under the CAA, finding that seven GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, NF3, PFCs, and SF6) constitute a threat to public health and welfare, and that the combined emissions from motor vehicles cause and contribute to global climate change, leading to national GHG emission standards.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 49
State Regulations
The CARB is the lead agency for implementing climate change regulations in the State. Since its formation, the CARB has worked with the public, the business sector, and local governments to find solutions to California’s air pollution problems.

Regional Regulations
The BAAQMD is the regional government agency that regulates sources of air pollution within the nine Bay Area counties.

BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
he BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines identify applicable GHG significance thresholds. The BAAQMD recommends these thresholds of significance for use in determining whether a proposed project will have a significant impact related to climate change. These thresholds evaluate a project based on its effect on California’s efforts to meet the State’s long-term climate goals. Applying this approach, the BAAQMD identifies and provides supporting documentation outlining the requirements that new land use development projects must comply with to achieve California’s long-term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. Based on this research, the BAAQMD has determined that new land use development projects need to incorporate design elements to contribute the “fair share” towards implementation of the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. If a project is designed and built to incorporate the identified design elements, then it will contribute its portion of what is necessary to achieve California’s long-term climate goals—its “fair share”—and an agency reviewing the project under CEQA can conclude that the project will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change.

Local Regulations
The Conservation Element of the City of Fremont General Plan15 includes GHG policies and implementation measures intended to reduce GHG emissions 25 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. The following policy is applicable to the project:
• Policy 7-8.2: Development Trends. Review development trends for consistency with targets of AB 32:

Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.

The City passed its first Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2012 with the goal of reducing municipal and communitywide GHG emissions 25 percent by 2020 from a 2005 baseline level. Some implementation successes include improving bike and pedestrian infrastructure, upgrading City streetlights with high-efficiency light emitting diode (LED) lighting, requiring all businesses to recycle, and establishing mandatory solar requirements for new residential construction. In addition, the City recently updated its CAP. The City’s new carbon neutrality goal forms the basis of the CAP update, or “CAP 2.0.” Within CAP 2.0, efforts to lower GHG emissions resulting from activity in the energy, water, waste, and transportation sectors will be paired with efforts to sequester CO2 and other GHGs from the atmosphere, so that by the year 2045, no new net GHGs will be emitted. In addition, the City will explore efforts to enhance the community’s resiliency to future climatic changes as well as to adapt to changes that are already underway.

1.8.2 Discussion
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
The proposed project would generate construction- and operational-related GHG emissions and contribution to global climate change. The BAAQMD has not addressed emissions thresholds for construction in their CEQA Guidelines; however, the BAAQMD encourages quantification and disclosure. Thus, construction emissions are discussed in this section.

Construction GHG Emissions
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would produce combustion emissions from various sources. During construction, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically use fossil-based fuels to operate. The

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 50
combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change.

The BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions.

However, lead agencies are encouraged to quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction. Using CalEEMod, it is estimated that construction of the proposed project would generate approximately 1,094.1 MT CO2e.

Operational GHG Emissions
Long-term GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would typically be generated from mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), area sources (e.g., maintenance activities and landscaping), indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption, waste sources (land filling and waste disposal), and water sources (water supply and conveyance, treatment, and distribution). Mobile-source GHG emissions would include projectgenerated vehicle trips to and from the project. Area-source emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping and maintenance on the project site. Energy source emissions would be generated at off-site utility providers as a result of increased electricity demand generated by the project. Waste source emissions generated by the proposed project include energy generated by land filling and other methods of disposal related to transporting and managing project generated waste. In addition, water source emissions associated with the proposed project are generated by water supply and conveyance, water treatment, water distribution, and wastewater treatment.

As discussed above, the General Plan FEIR found that implementation of the General Plan would result in per capita emissions of 5.5 MT CO2e per service population. Consistent with the General Plan FEIR, GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. Table G shows the calculated GHG emissions for the proposed project.

As shown in Table G of the Greenhouse Gas Memo prepared for the project by LSA Associates, the proposed project would generate approximately 1,037.5 MT CO2e. The proposed project would include 206 apartment units. Based on the City’s average household size of 3.08 persons per household per the most recent census, the proposed project would increase the local population by approximately 634 persons. The proposed project would not require any new employees; therefore, the total service population (residents plus employees) would be 634 people. As such, the project’s GHG emissions would result in a GHG efficiency of 1.6 MT CO2e per service population, which would be below the per capita emissions of 5.5 MT CO2e per service population identified in the General Plan FEIR.

Therefore, the proposed project would still contribute to the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the General Plan FEIR but would not result in any operational GHG impacts that are new or more significant than those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant.

Mitigation: None required
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The City has recently adopted a new Climate Action Plan (CAP). The City’s new carbon neutrality goal forms the basis of the CAP update, or “CAP 2.0.” Within CAP 2.0, efforts to lower GHG emissions resulting from activity in the energy, water, waste, and transportation sectors will be paired with efforts to sequester CO2 and other GHGs from the atmosphere, so that by the year 2045, no new net greenhouse gases will be emitted. In addition, the City will explore efforts to enhance the community’s resiliency to future climatic changes as well as to adapt to changes that are already underway. Through consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan, as demonstrated below, the proposed project would not conflict with the goals of the City’s 2012 CAP or the future CAP that is under development. Absent any other local or regional Climate Action Plan, the proposed project was analyzed for consistency with the goals of the 2022 Scoping Plan, EO B-30-15, SB 32, and AB 197.

In addition, the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan assesses progress toward the statutory 2030 target, while laying out a path to achieving carbon neutrality no later than 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing paths for clean technology, energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others, and is designed to meet the State’s long-term climate objectives and support a range of economic, environmental, energy security, environmental justice, and public health priorities.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 51
The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on building clean energy production and distribution infrastructure for a carbonneutral future, including transitioning existing energy production and transmission infrastructure to produce zerocarbon electricity and hydrogen, and utilizing biogas resulting from wildfire management or landfill and dairy operations, among other substitutes. The 2022 Scoping Plan states that in almost all sectors, electrification will play an important role. The 2022 Scoping Plan evaluates clean energy and technology options and the transition away from fossil fuels, including adding four times the solar and wind capacity by 2045 and about 1,700 times the amount of current hydrogen supply. As discussed in the 2022 Scoping Plan, EO N-79-20 requires that all new passenger vehicles sold in California will be zero-emission by 2035, and all other fleets will have transitioned to zero-emission as fully possible by 2045, which will reduce the percentage of fossil fuel combustion vehicles.

The proposed project would not conflict or otherwise interfere with the statewide GHG reduction measures identified in CARB’s Scoping Plan. For example, proposed buildings would be constructed in conformance with CALGreen and the Title 24 Building Code, which requires high-efficiency water fixtures and water-efficient irrigation systems. The project would also be subject to local policies that may affect emissions of greenhouse gases. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and no mitigation is required.

Potential Impact: None
Mitigation: None required.

CEQA Conclusions Pertaining to GHG Emissions
CEQA Conclusions Relative to an Infill Development Exemption As demonstrated above, the Project would not make a considerable contribution to cumulative effects related to GHG emissions, and the Project would be required to implement applicable regulatory requirements that serve to reduce the Project’s contribution to cumulative GHG emissions. The Project is consistent with the development assumed in Fremont General Plan EIR, and the Project’s potential contribution to cumulative GHG effects has already been addressed in that prior Program EIR. There are no further cumulative GHG effects associated with the Project, and an exception under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15300.2 (b) pertaining to cumulative GHG impacts does not apply to the Project.

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 GHG emissions or climate change as identified in that Program EIR. It would not result in new significant impacts related to GHG emissions or climate change that were not previously identified. The prior Program EIR did not identify any mitigation measures related to GHG emission that would apply to the Project and none would be needed.

References

1. City of Fremont, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan. Adopted December 2011. Available:
https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning-building-permitservices/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 Climate Action Plan Update 2023. Available online at https://www.fremont.gov/about/sustainability/climate-action-plan-update.

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. 649 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 52

1.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
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) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
LTS ◼ ☐ - LTS
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and/or
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
LTS ◼ ☐ - LTS
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
LTS ◼ ☐ - LTS
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
LTs ◼ ☐ SDR Hazardous
MaterialsLTS with SDR
e) For a project located within 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 result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
No Impact ◼ ☐ - No Impact
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
LTS ◼ ☐ - LTs
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires?
LTS ◼ ☐ - LTS

1.9.1 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-

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 53
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.

1.9.2 Discussion
The analysis in this section is supported by a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared by Roux Associates, Inc. in January 2023 and a Focused Phase II Subsurface Environmental Investigation Report prepared by Roux Associates, Inc. in July 2023.
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Project construction would involve the transport, use, and disposal of typical construction-related hazardous materials such as gasoline, diesel fuel, oils and lubricants, paints and solvents, and other substances. Use of such fluids would be required to conform to Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US Department of Transportation, State of California, and local laws and ordinances related to their routine handling. The use of such chemicals would not be particular to the project or represent a significant risk of site contamination.

Operationally, the proposed residential building and its accessory non-residential functions would be anticipated to utilize relatively small amounts of typical household hazardous materials such as cleaning products and landscape chemicals. The use of such chemicals would not be particular to the project or represent a significant risk of site contamination.

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 significant hazards to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. 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) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
A Phase I ESA was prepared in January 2023 for the project. As discussed in the ESA, the building proposed to be demolished as part of project activities has been inhabited by a number of uses including fitness facilities and a supermarket. The ESA found no historical recognized environmental conditions (HRECs) or controlled recognized environmental conditions (CRECs) at the project site, but did identify one recognized environmental conditions (REC) related to a former dry-cleaning facility that operated off the project site at 39250 Paseo Padre Parkway, within the Gateway Plaza shopping center. The dry-cleaning facility operated between 1990-2021 and was a known user of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) until 2002. Phase II ESAs conducted in 1997 and 2009 found no impacts to soil or groundwater, but did identify elevated soil vapor levels related to PCE use.

A Focused Phase II Subsurface Environmental Investigation Report was prepared in July 2023 to further evaluate soil vapor conditions in the areas surrounding the 39250 Paseo Padre Parkway tenant space. The Focused Phase II was conducted in accordance with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) guidelines, and included subslab soil vapor sampling, soil gas sampling, groundwater sampling, and soil sampling. Investigation results indicated that PCE and its degradation daughter product (Trichloroethene, or TCE) were not detected above laboratory reporting limits for the project site, and that PCE and TCE concentrations in soil gas did not exceed applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) screening levels. The investigation concluded that there appears to be no potential vapor intrusion concerns for the proposed project and no further investigations are recommended.

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 a reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 54
involving the release of hazardous materials. 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) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest existing or proposed schools are located approximately 1,700 feet southeast (Basis Independence, at 3300 Kearney Street) and 2,000 feet northwest (Kindercare Preschool, at 38700 Paseo Padre Parkway) of the site. Furthermore, as discussed above, the proposed project would not involve land uses that would transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials in substantial quantities.

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 emissions or handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school. 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) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Government databases include no records indicating the project site as a location involved in the release of hazardous materials. The Phase I ESA prepared for the site indicates that there are no Federal Superfund (National Priority List) liens or state environmental deed restrictions associated with the property, and that there are no files included on government databases (Cortese List) pertaining to site contamination. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to public or environmental hazards pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

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 a hazardous materials 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: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
e) For a project located within 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 result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
There are no airports in the vicinity of the project site, therefore the proposed project would not have the potential to result in an impact related to airport hazards. 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 safety hazards or excessive noise from a public airport or public use airport. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic.

There is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 55
Potential Impact: None
Mitigation: None required
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The proposed project would not alter or otherwise detrimentally impact any streets in the project vicinity. The existing roadway widths of Walnut Avenue and BART Way, which border the site to the southeast and northeast, respectively, would remain unchanged by implementation of the project. Emergency vehicle access easements (EVAEs) measuring 26’ in width would overlay BART Way, extend approximately 150’ from BART Way along the rear of the proposed building, and overlay portions of the redesigned parking field southwest of the building. As such, the project would provide adequate emergency access to on-site improvements, maintain emergency access to off-site improvements in the vicinity of the proposed building, and not conflict with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

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 impairing implementation or physically interfering with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. 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
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
The project site is located on nearly flat land within an urbanized area of the City that is not subject to wildfires or wildfire risks. As such, the project would not result in significant impacts related to exposure of people or structures to wildland fires.

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 a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. 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

1.9.3 CEQA Conclusion Pertaining to Hazard and Hazardous Materials
CEQA Conclusions Relative to an Infill Development Exemption There is no exception to the Class 32 exemption for the Project related to being a hazardous waste site. The Project is not located on a site that is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code. The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment as there is no known hazardous contamination at the site. The exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 (e) related to a hazardous waste site does not apply to the Project.

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 Fremont General Plan EIR, implementation of the Project would not substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials identified in that prior EIR. The Project would it result in new significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that were not previously identified. The General Plan EIR did not identify any mitigation measures related to hazards or hazardous materials that would apply to the Project, and no

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 56
mitigation other than existing regulatory requirements would be needed. No further environmental of the Project pertaining to the topics of hazards and hazardous materials is required.

References

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

Available online: https://fremont.gov/235/Standard-Details.

2. City of Fremont, 2007. Local Response Area (LRA) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the City of Fremont (FMC 7-13102). City Ordinance 33-2007.

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. City of Fremont, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan. Safety Element. Adopted December 2011.

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

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

6. Roux Associates, Inc., 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. January 6, 2023. Provided for the City of Fremont.

7. Roux Associates, Inc., 2023. Focused Phase II Subsurface Environmental Investigation Report. July 14, 2023. Provided for the City of Fremont.

8. TCA Architects, Kimley-Horn, and EPT Design, 2023. Project Plans. Prepared for the City of Fremont.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 57

1.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
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): Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or groundwater quality?
LTS ◼ ☐ FMC Chapter 18.210,
Stormwater Control
Plan
LTS with
regulations
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
LTS ◼ ☐ FMC Chapter 18.210,
Compliance with
NPDES Stormwater
Permit
LTS with
regulations
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through
the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:

LTS ◼ ☐ FMC Chapter 18.205
Grading, Erosion and
Sediment Control
LTS with
regulations
i) Result in substantial on- or offsite
erosion or siltation;
ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
offsite
iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? LTS with MM
Hydo-1
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
LTS ◼ ☐ - No Impact
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
LTS ◼ ☐ - No Impact

1.10.1 Environmental Setting
The project site is currently developed for commercial activity and is flat with impervious and pervious surfaces throughout. Stormwater currently drains controlled to existing stormwater drains on site that connects to the

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 58
current stormwater drain systems. Storm water in Fremont ends up in inlets into a concrete flood control channel controlled by the Alameda County Flood Control district.

The project area overlies the Niles Cone groundwater subbasin. Niles Cone has a series of relatively flat lying aquifers separated by extensive clay aquitards (Alameda County Water District, 2017). About sixteen wells are used to extract water from the groundwater basin. Together, these wells can produce up to 47.5 million gallons of water per day. This water is blended with San Francisco Regional Water System supplies before being delivered to customers (Alameda County Water District, 2023).

The project site is located within Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel No. 06001C0461G. According to this FIRM, the project site is located within an Unshaded Zone X, which is an area of minimal flood hazard higher than the elevation of the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood. The project site is not within a designated FEMA 100-year floodplain. The project is not located near any large, enclosed bodies of water.

Regulatory Setting
The State Water Resource Control Board’s (SWRCD) statewide stormwater general permit for construction activity (Order 2009-009-DWQ as amended by Order Nos. 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ) is applicable to all land-disturbing construction activities that would disturb one acre or more. Per SWRCB permit requirements, the applicant must comply with standard erosion control measures that employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) and develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The goal of the SWPPP is to implement measures in disturbed areas to minimize non-stormwater discharges (ie) discharge or accidental spills of fuels, oils, petroleum hydrocarbons, paints, solvents, cleaners, or other construction materials) and minimize stormwater discharge (ie) transport of sediments) into nearby drainage conveyances. Potential erosion and transportation of soil particles and/or environmental contaminants would be managed through standard construction BMPs that may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Identifying a construction schedule that restricts excavation and grading activities to the dry season (generally April 15 to October 15) to reduce erosion associated with intense rainfall and surface runoff • Implementing temporary erosion and sediment control measures in disturbed areas to minimize discharge of sediment into nearby drainage conveyances. These measures may include, but are not limited to, silt fences, stalked straw bales or wattles, sediment/silt basins and traps, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary vegetation.
• Establishing permanent vegetative cover to reduce erosion in disturbed areas by slowing runoff velocity, trapping sediment, and enhancing filtration
• Using drainage swales, ditches, and earth dikes to control erosion and runoff by intercepting and diverting runoff accumulation at the base of a grade, and avoiding flood damage along roadways and facility infrastructure
The SWPPP also requires implementation of permanent post-construction measures that would remain in service to protect water quality throughout the life of the project.

In addition to these state requirements, the applicant must also conform with provisions from the Fremont Municipal Code Chapter 18.210, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control.

The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates stormwater discharges from municipalities and local agencies in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, as well as the cities of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo under a single Municipal Regional Permit (Order No. R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008). This permit includes provision for new development and redevelopment projects. Provision C.3 requires source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures to address stormwater pollutants and to prevent increases in flow rates from developed areas. Source control and site design features must treat stormwater runoff from all on-site impervious surfaces on site before it is discharged into the public storm drain system. In addition, projects are required to evaluate opportunities for incorporating low-impact development strategies, such as self-treating landscape areas, re-use of stormwater, on-site infiltration, and evapotranspiration.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 59

1.10.2 Discussion
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
The proposed development would not violate any water quality standards. The project would be required to connect to the existing public sanitary sewer and storm drain systems that serve the area and would obtain its water from existing piped public water mains serving the site. The Alameda County Water District has reviewed the project and has not indicated any issues with meeting the project’s water demands without significantly impacting its supplies or its distribution system. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality 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 water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrading surface or groundwater quality. 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) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge in a way that may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The proposed project would obtain its water supply from the existing public water mains serving the site. The proposed project sits on an already developed site and would include modern stormwater development practices which would improve the current condition of the site. The project would be required to abide by the SWRCD general permit for construction activity and the applicant must comply with standard erosion control measures that employ BMPs as well as develop a SWPPP to minimize non-stormwater discharges. These measures would prevent damage to the groundwater resulting from the project’s construction and operation. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge in a way that may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin and no mitigation is required.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 60
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial on- or offsite erosion or siltation; ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Because the project would replace more than 10,000 square feet of existing impervious surface area with new impervious surface, it would be subject to the NPDES C.3 requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, which regulates the treatment of stormwater runoff on the site. The proposed project would result in approximately 262,000 square feet of impervious surface. The applicant would be required to incorporate low impact development (LID) techniques to treat stormwater runoff from all on-site impervious surfaces in bioretention planters before it is discharged into the public storm drain system. These LID measures include source control, site design, and treatment measures to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff and improve the quality of stormwater runoff.

The City of Fremont requires the implementation of BMPs described in the C3 Technical Guidance Manual, provided through Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, of which the City of Fremont is a member (Clean Water Program, 2015). These state and local requirements were developed to ensure that stormwater is managed, and erosion is controlled on construction sites. The BMPs would include but would not be limited to physical barriers to prevent erosion and sedimentation, construction of sedimentation basins, limitations on work periods during storm events, use of infiltration swales, protection of stockpiled materials, and a variety of other measures that would substantially reduce or prevent erosion from occurring during construction. The C3 Technical Guidance Manual provides further details of specific BMPs, including measures for site design, source control, stormwater treatment, and hydromodification. The grading and building plans submitted by the applicant must demonstrate compliance prior to issuance of building permits. Implementation of the above listed standard project requirements and conformance with the NPDES permit would ensure impacts to downstream waters from erosion and polluted stormwater runoff 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 modifying drainage patterns. 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) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Per the current Federal Emergency Management Agency flood zone maps the project site is not within a flood zone. The site is not located in any tsunami or seiche zones therefore there is no risk of pollutant release due to project inundation. Therefore, there is no risk of release of pollutants due to project inundation 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 release of pollutants due to project inundation. 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. 658 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 61
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The proposed project would not substantially alter existing drainage patterns or result in the alteration of the course of any water body. Drainage from the project would be directed into a landscape-based treatment area located within the development, where the flow volumes would be metered and ultimately discharged into the public storm drain system. Therefore, the impact of the project on the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan 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 conflicts or obstructions to a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. 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

1.10.3 CEQA Conclusion Pertaining to Hydrology and Water Quality CEQA Conclusions Relative to an Infill Development Exemption Approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to water quality. As fully documented above, the Project could potentially generate temporary increases in sediment loads and associated constructionrelated pollutants. However, the Project will be subject to City SDRs that require obtaining coverage under a statewide Construction General Permit, and to prepare and implement a SWPPP during construction, and that require preparation of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that provides controls designed to remove sediment and other pollutants from on-site runoff. With implementation of existing regulations pertaining to non-point source water pollution, the Project’s impacts on water quality will be less than significant, and the Project would meet the criteria pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d)(4) for an Infill Exemption based on no resulting water quality impacts.

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 Fremont General Plan EIR, implementation of the Project would not substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts related to hydrology as identified in that prior EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to hydrology that were not previously identified. The General Plan EIR did not identify any mitigation measures related to hydrology that would apply to the Project, and no mitigation, other than existing regulatory requirements, would be needed.

Further environmental analysis of the Project pertaining to the topic of hydrology is not required.

References

1. 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.

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. Clean Water Program. 2023. C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance. A handbook for developers, builders, and project applicants, Version 8.

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

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 62

1.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
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): Physically divide an established
community? No Impact ◼ ☐ - No Impact
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
LTS ◼ ☐ - LTS

1.11.1 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.

Regulatory Setting
The City of Fremont General Plan, which was adopted in December 2011, is the land use plan applicable to the proposed project. The project is not a component of a specific plan or local coastal program. The Fremont Municipal Code is the zoning ordinance applicable to the proposed project. The project is also subject to the City Center Community Plan adopted in May 2015.

1.11.2 Discussion
a) Physically divide an established community?
The project site is part of a shopping center within an existing commercial neighborhood within the City of Fremont. The proposed project would not divide an established community because the project would redevelop a portion of a shopping center and would not modify the public right of way or other existing routes of travel through the area. Therefore, there would be no environmental 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 dividing an established community. 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

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 63
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The proposed project would conform to the City of Fremont General Plan and the proposed use is allowed in the City Center Urban Office district subject to approval of a Zoning Administrator Permit. The project is consistent with the following goals and policies in the General Plan related to infill development and directing change for orderly growth and compatibility.

Land Use Element Policy 2-2.14: Maintaining and Improving Development Continuity Integrate new large-scale development projects into the fabric of the existing community rather than allowing such projects to be self-contained, walled off or physically divided from surrounding uses. New development should be viewed as an opportunity to improve connectivity between neighborhoods. To the extent feasible, circulation systems and open spaces in such developments should tie into existing streets and open spaces on the perimeter. In addition, existing development should be retrofitted over time to reduce unnecessary walls and barriers and improve pedestrian connections between neighborhoods.

Land Use Goal 2.2: Directing Change
Growth and development that is orderly and efficient, leverages public investment, ensures the continued availability of infrastructure and public services, reduces adverse impacts on adjacent properties, and protects the natural environment.

Land Use Policy 2-2.5: Zoning and Subdivision Regulations Use zoning and subdivision regulations to direct the city’s growth, ensure sufficient opportunities for new development, improve Fremont’s quality of life, create complete neighborhoods, reduce nuisances, achieve compatibility between adjacent properties and uses, address land use conflicts, and protect the health and safety of residents, visitors, and workers.

Conformance with the Fremont General Plan Goals and Policies above would ensure that the project avoids a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect resulting in 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 conflicts with a land use plan, policy, or regulation. 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

1.11.3 CEQA Conclusions Pertaining to Land Use
CEQA Conclusions Relative to an Infill Development Exemption The Project site is located within the city limits of Fremont, on a site of no more than five acres, and substantially surrounded by urban uses. Based on these characteristics, the Project would meet the criteria pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(b) for an Infill Exemption based on location, size and context. The Project is not located in a particularly sensitive environment. It would not affect any environmental resources of hazardous or critical concern as designated, mapped or adopted pursuant to law by federal, state or local agencies. The exception under CEQA Guidelines §15300.2(a) does not apply.

5.B.e
Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5121 : Gateway Plaza Apartments Appeal) City of Fremont 64
The prior Program EIR did not identify any mitigation measures related to land use that would apply to the Project and none would be needed.

References

Fremont City CouncilApril 16, 2024

Fremont City Council
April 16, 2024