Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist

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

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 multi- family 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 a long 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)

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 Wate r 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 se gments • 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 addi tional 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

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 inclu ded 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 si te 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

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 t he 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 envir onmental 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 Gene ral 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-permit- services/plans-maps-guidelines/general-plan

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 courtyar d 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 oth er half along BART Way. Of these trees, 36 are proposed for removal and one is proposed for relocation elsewhere on - site 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.

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 throu gh 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 beg in 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)

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-permit- services/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.

City of Fremont 9
Figure 1: Vicinity Map of the Fremont City Center

Project
Site

City of Fremont 10
Figure 2: Site Aerial

City of Fremont 11
Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan

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 proj ect 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 environ ment, 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 check list 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

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

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 a n 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 impacte d 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.

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 conc lusion 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.

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 gl are 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 t hat 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 Fre mont 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/community- development/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.

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 non - agricultural 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/

City of Fremont 18
site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regar ding 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 Upda te 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 res ult 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

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, 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

1.2.3 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.

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/community- development/planning-building-permit-services/plans-maps-guidelines/general-plan

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 non-
attainment 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

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 quality- related 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.

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 ai r 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 emi ssions. In 2023, the BAAQMD published an updated version of the CEQA Guidelines. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines include

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 long- term 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.

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.

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 q uality 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 signifi cant 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 operation- related 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 c onstruction 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.

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 construc tion 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 a nd 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 non - attainment. 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.

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 increas ed 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). Dispers ion 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.

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 wit hin 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 Construc tion 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.

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 r egulatory 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/planning- building-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.

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 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?
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 1 971 and a parking field

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 spec ies 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.

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

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 stormwat er 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),

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 requi red. 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 Pl an 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.

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 protect ion 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 identi fy 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/planning- building-permit-services/plans-maps-guidelines/general-plan

3. Vegetation Classification Reports and Maps, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Acce ssed November 20, 2023. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Reports-and-Maps

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

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 th e 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, uniqu e

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 compl ete, 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 excava tion 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 possibil ity 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.

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 pla ns 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 consult ing 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.

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 Sectio n 15300.2 (e) related to historic resources does not apply to the Project.

References

1. City of Fremont, 2023. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Planning and Zon ing. 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/planning- building-permit-services/plans-maps-guidelines/general-plan

3. City of Fremont Historic Resource Preliminary Review for 39039 Paseo Padre Parkway (APN 501 113005400), November 17, 2022

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.

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 resourc es, 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 wat er 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.

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 discuss ed 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.

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/planning- building-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.

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

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 1 971 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 differ ent 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 soil s report. Therefore, the project

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 acti vities.

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 th at 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

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, 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 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 r esult 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

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None

1.7.3 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

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/planning- building-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. 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.

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.

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 community- wide 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

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 project- generated 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.

City of Fremont 51
The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on building clean energy production and distribution infrastructure for a carbon- neutral future, including transitioning existing energy production and transmission infrastructure to produce zero- carbon 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 regula tion 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.

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-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. 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.

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
Materials-
LTS 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 -

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 shopp ing 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

City of Fremont 54
involving the release 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
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 ha zards 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 p roposed 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.

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 d ifferent 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 Calif ornia 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

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-building- permit-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.

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

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 t hat 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.

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 w ould 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 emplo y 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

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 bio- retention planters before it is discharged into the public storm drain system. These LID measures includ e 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, a nd 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 dif ferent 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 pollu tant 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

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 lan dscape-based treatment area located within the development, where the flow volumes would be metered and ultimately discharg ed 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, 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

1.10.3 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 construction - related 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 Exemp tion 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-building- 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. 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.

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 co nclusion 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

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 retrofit ted 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 adopt ed 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Fremont 65

1.12 MINERAL RESOURCES

Would the Project:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potential Impact: None
Mitigation: None required.

City of Fremont 66
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? The project site is not identified as containing any locally important mineral resources in the Fremont General Plan. There are no operating mines or quarries in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no impact to such resources would result and no mitigation is required.

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

Potential Impact: None
Mitigation: None required.

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

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

References

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

Available: https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning-building- 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. City of Fremont, 2023. SACGISA. Fremont Mapping. Available online at https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/gis.

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

City of Fremont 67

1.13 NOISE

Would the Project:

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Fremont 68
The nearest noise-sensitive use is the Kaiser Hospital to the east, approximately 400 feet from the eastern edge of the project site.

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

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

18.218.050 in the Municipal Code as shown below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Fremont 69
result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

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

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

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

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required

c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The City does not have a commercial, military, or general aviation airport. Moffett Federal Airfield is a joint civil- military airport located about 9.5 miles southwest of the project site. Hayward Executive Airport and Mineta San José International Airport, which are both public-use airports, are located approximately 10.1 miles northwest and

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required

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

City of Fremont 70
not result in significant effects related to noise or vibration, and would meet the criteria pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d) (2) for an Infill Exemption based on noise.

References

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

Available: https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning-building- 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. City of Fremont, 2023. SACGISA. Fremont Mapping. Available online at https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/gis

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

5. Project Plans. Prepared for the City of Fremont

City of Fremont 71

1.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING

Would the Project:

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Fremont 72
different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding unplanned population growth. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

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

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

Potential Impact: None
Mitigation: None required

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Fremont 73

1.15 PUBLIC SERVICES

Would the Project:

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

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

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

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

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

City of Fremont 74
Parks
Parks operated by the City of Fremont in the vicinity of the project site include Central Park. The City maintains a parkland standard of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The park development impact fee for new residential development is based on maintaining this ratio (City of Fremont, 2011).

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Fremont 75
Parks?
The increased population resulting from the project would be expected to marginally increase use of public parks.

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

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

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

Potential Impact: Less than Significant
Mitigation: None

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

References

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

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

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

City of Fremont 76

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

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

6. Fremont Fire Department, 2018. Annual Report.

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

City of Fremont 77

1.16 RECREATION

Would the Project:

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

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

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

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

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

City of Fremont 79

1.17 TRANSPORTATION

Would the Project:

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

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

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

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

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

City of Fremont 80

1.17.2 Discussion
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Construction worker trips would be likely to occur during the weekday AM and PM peak periods (7:00 AM to 9:00AM for AM peak, and 4:00PM to 6:00PM for PM peak). However, even a ssuming all workers arrived during the AM peak hour and departed during the PM peak hour, the number of trips during each peak hour would be significantly less than the City of Fremont’s threshold for completing a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), which is 10 0 net new trips in peak hours.

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Fremont 81
screening criteria. The project is located within a portion of the map that indicates the project is screened.

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

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

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

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

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required

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

City of Fremont 82
CEQA Conclusions Relative to the Project’s Consistency with the General Plan EIR Based on an examination of the analysis, findings and conclusions of the prior General Plan EIR, implementation of the Project would not substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts related to transportation as identified in that Program EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to transportation that were not previously identified. Although there are now new thresholds applicable to transportation impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR, these new thresholds and new information do not demonstrate that the Project’s effects related to transportation would be significant. The prior Program EIR did not identify any mitigation measures related to transportation that would apply to the Project and none would be needed.

References

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

Accessed November 27, 2023.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Fremont 83

1.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the Project:

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

Equal or
Less
Severe
New or
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
Applicable Mitigation,
Standards and
Requirements
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as
either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined
in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:

a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
LTs ◼ ☐ - No Impact
b) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth
in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resource Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe?
LTS with MM
Cultural-2
◼ ☐ SDR Cultural and
Tribal Cultural
Resources-2:

Accidental Discovery
LTs

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

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

City of Fremont 84

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

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

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

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

FMC 18.218.050(d) Cultural Resources:

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

City of Fremont 85
exposed, the need to stop excavation at the discovery, and the procedures to follow regarding discovery protection and notification of the project proponent and archaeological team. c. In the event that any human remains or historical, archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during ground disturbing excavation, the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5(e) and (f), and of subsection (c)(2)(D) of this section, requiring cessation of wor k, notification, and immediate evaluation shall be followed. d. If resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities that may be classified as historical, unique archaeological, or tribal cultural resources, ground disturbing activities shall cease immediately, and the planning manager shall be notified. The resources will be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and, in the planning manager’s discretion, a tribal cultural monitor. If the resources are determined to be historical, unique archaeological, or tribal cultural resources, then a plan for avoiding the resources shall be prepared. If avoidance is infeasible, then all significant cultural materials recovered shall be, as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. Any plan for avoidance or mitigation shall be subject to the approval of the planning manager.

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

Potential Impact: Less than Significant
Mitigation: None Required

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

References

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

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

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

City of Fremont 86

1.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Would the Project:

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

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

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

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

City of Fremont 87
Wastewater
USD operates Alvarado Treatment Plan, and provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services to approximately 350,000 people in Fremont, Newark, and Union City. The Alvarado Treatment Plan has a capacity of 33 million gallons per day (mgd), and in 2022 treated an average of 22.23 mgd (USD, 2016). The treatment plant provides both primary and secondary treatment. The District maintains over 839 miles of sewer lines and has 118,338 connections for residential living units (USD, 2022). Seven pump stations operate in USD’s service area, with most of Fremont’s wastewater going to the Irvington Pump Stat ion first before being conveyed to the Alvarado Treatment Plan.

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

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

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

52.2 gallons (ACWD, 2015).

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

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

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

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

City of Fremont 88

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

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

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required

City of Fremont 89
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? The Project would comply with all applicable waste reduction goals and regulations. The Project would be served by the City’s franchised waste hauler, Republic Services, in compliance with the applicable standards governing solid wastes and recyclables and would comply with all applicable waste reduction goals and regulations. During the construction phase, construction debris are required to be recycled or otherwise diverted from the landfill.

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

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required

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

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

References

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

City of Fremont 90

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Fremont 91

1.20 WILDFIRE

Would the Project:

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

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

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

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

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

City of Fremont 92
The City of Fremont adopted an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) (City of Fremont 2019) which outlines the framework used by the City should a natural disaster, including a wildfire, occur. Specifically, it provides guidance for personnel assigned to emergency management by delineating the strategic, operational, and tactical initiatives employed by the City in response to an emergency. The EOP assigns authority and responsibility, outlines coordination efforts and communications systems, and identifies and provides the location of predesignated emergency facilities, and resources. The Fire Department is currently working on a City of Fremont Hillside Evacuation Plan and is partnering with neighboring county agencies to collaborate on countywide evacuation planning. The City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (City of Fremont 2016) includes risk mitigation plans and strategies pertinent to relevant local hazards including natural disasters such as flooding, earthquakes, landslides, and wildfire. The plan also identifies key facilities, such as schools, hospitals, and utility infrastructure, which may be especially vulnerable in a disaster scenario.

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

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

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

Potential Impact: Less than Significant
Mitigation: None required

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

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

Potential Impact: Less than Significant
Mitigation: None required

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

References

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

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

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

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

Project Plans. Prepared for the City of Fremont.

City of Fremont 94

1.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

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

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

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

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

Because of the urban, built-up nature of the project site and the surrounding area, there is no potential for any cumulative considerable impacts related to agriculture, biological resources, his toric 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 propos ed 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 sig nificant impact on the environment though existing regulations and project design. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding causing substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly . The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required

Authority for the Environmental Checklist: Public Resources Code Sections 21083, 21083.5.

Reference: Government Code Sections 65088.4.

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

Fremont City CouncilApril 16, 2024

Fremont City Council
April 16, 2024