Exhibit A - CEQA Checklist for New Community Center at Fremont Central Park

January 2025

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

NEW COMMUNITY CENTER AT FREMONT CENTRAL PARK
FREMONT, CALIFORNIA

This page intentionally left blank
January 2025

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

NEW COMMUNITY CENTER AT FREMONT CENTRAL PARK
FREMONT, CALIFORNIA

Submitted to:

City of Fremont
3300 Capitol Ave. Bldg. B
Fremont, California 94538

Prepared by:

LSA
157 Park Place
Pt. Richmond, California 94801
510.236.6810

Project No. 20231213

This page intentionally left blank
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) i TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... i LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................ iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1‐1

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ................................................................................... 2‐1

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 3‐1

3.1 Project Site ........................................................................................................................ 3‐1

3.2 Project Background and Objectives .................................................................................. 3‐7

3.3 Proposed Project ............................................................................................................... 3‐7

3.4 Approvals/Permits........................................................................................................... 3‐18

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................ 4‐1

4.1 Determination ................................................................................................................... 4‐1

5.0 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .................................................................. 5‐1

5.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 5‐1

5.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................. 5‐5

5.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 5‐7

5.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 5‐22

5.5 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 5‐28

5.6 Energy .............................................................................................................................. 5‐32

5.7 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................ 5‐36

5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................. 5‐42

5.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................. 5‐51

5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................... 5‐58

5.11 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................... 5‐73

5.12 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................... 5‐75

5.13 Noise................................................................................................................................ 5‐76

5.14 Population and Housing .................................................................................................. 5‐88

5.15 Public Services ................................................................................................................. 5‐90

5.16 Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 5‐93

5.17 Transportation ................................................................................................................ 5‐95

5.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 5‐102

5.19 Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................................... 5‐104

5.20 Wildfire .......................................................................................................................... 5‐109

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .......................................................................................... 6‐1

6.1 City of Fremont ................................................................................................................. 6‐1

6.2 LSA Associates, Inc. ........................................................................................................... 6‐1

7.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 7‐1

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) ii

APPENDICES
A: CALEEMOD OUTPUT SHEETS
B: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
C: FAULT RUPTURE HAZARD EVALUATION
D: PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

FIGURES
Figure 3‐1: Regional Location Map ..................................................................................................... 3‐3 Figure 3‐2: Project Site ........................................................................................................................ 3‐5 Figure 3‐3: Site Plan – Phase 1 ............................................................................................................ 3‐9 Figure 3‐4: Site Plan – Phase 2 .......................................................................................................... 3‐11 Figure 3‐5: Site Plan – Full Buildout .................................................................................................. 3‐13

TABLES
Table 3.A: Potential Permits and Approvals ..................................................................................... 3‐18 Table 3.B: Applicable City of Fremont Standard Development Requirements ................................ 3‐19 Table 5.3.A: Project Construction Emissions (lbs/day) ..................................................................... 5‐13 Table 5.3.B: Project Operational Emissions ...................................................................................... 5‐16 Table 5.6.A: Estimated Annual Energy Use of Proposed Project ..................................................... 5‐33 Table 5.8.A: Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................... 5‐46 Table 5.8.B: Project Compliance with the Climate Ready Fremont GHG Reduction Measures ....... 5‐47 Table 5.9.A: Hazardous Materials Database Search ......................................................................... 5‐55 Table 5.13.A: Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Proposed Project—Cumulative .................... 5‐82 Table 5.13.B: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ............................................................ 5‐83 Table 5.17‐A: Trip Generation (Typical Operations) ......................................................................... 5‐97

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AAQS ambient air quality standards
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACWD Alameda County Water District
AFY acre‐feet per year
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
Alternative Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan APE Area of Potential Effects
APN Assessor's Parcel Number
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan
bgs below ground surface
BMPs best management practices
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen Code California Green Building Standards Code California Register California Register of Historical Resources Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Clean Air Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Standards Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) iv CESA California Endangered Species Act
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 methane
City City of Fremont
CMP Construction Management Plan
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
Community Center Central Park Community Center
County County of Alameda
CWA Clean Water Act
dBA A‐weighted decibels
dbh diameter at breast height
DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DOC Department of Conservation
DPR Department of Parks and Recreation
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EQ Zapp California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FAR floor area ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FFD Fremont Fire Department
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) v FPD Fremont Police Department
FUSD Fremont Unified School District
GHG greenhouse gas
GP EIR General Plan Environmental Impact Report
gpd gallons per day
gpy gallons per year
GSAs Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
GSPs Groundwater Sustainability Plans
GWh gigawatt‐hours
HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HREC Historical Recognized Environmental Condition
HSC Health and Safety Code
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
I‐680 Interstate 680
I‐880 Interstate 880
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ldn day‐night average noise levels
Leq equivalent continuous sound level
LID Low Impact Development
LOS level of service
LTA Local Transportation Analysis
MEIR maximum exposed individual receptor
MGD million gallons per day
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity
mpg miles per gallon
MRP Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit
MT CO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) vi MUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices N2O nitrous oxide
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
National Register National Register of Historic Places NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O3 ozone
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OPR Governor's Office of Planning and Research
OS Open Space
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Pb lead
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size POTWs publicly owned treatment works
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
PRD Permit Registration Document
PRMP Parks and Recreation Master Plan
project Fremont Central Park Community Center Project
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC recognized environmental condition
ROG reactive organic gases
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
RWS Regional Water System
SB Senate Bill
SBA South Bay Aqueduct
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) vii SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SMARTs Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System SO2 sulfur dioxide
SR‐238 State Route 238
STEM science, technology, engineering, and math
SUV sport utility vehicle
SWP State Water Project
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TACs toxic air contaminants
Teen Center Central Park Teen Center
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USD Union Sanitary District
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UWMP 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
WDID Waste Discharge Identification Number
ZEV zero emission vehicle

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) viii This page intentionally left blank
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 1‐1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Environmental Checklist provides a description of the proposed Fremont Central Park Community Center Project (project) and substantial evidence to confirm that the proposed project would not require further environmental analysis per Section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Fremont (City) is the CEQA lead agency for the proposed project. The approximately 15‐acre project site is within the existing, 433‐acre Central Park, in Fremont, Alameda County. The proposed project would include the demolition of the existing Teen Center within Central Park and construction of a new, approximately 36,000‐square‐foot Community Center.

Section 3.0 provides a description of the location, existing site characteristics, the proposed project, and the required approvals and entitlements.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning) recommends using a written checklist or similar device to confirm whether the environmental effects of a subsequent activity were adequately covered in a program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This checklist confirms that the proposed project is within the planning area for the City of Fremont General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (GP EIR)1 and would have no new significant environmental effects and no new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the GP EIR, and, as such, the City can approve the proposed project as being within the scope of the General Plan covered by its EIR and no new environmental document is required.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the proposed project would not require further review under CEQA. This analysis finds that a Notice of Determination may be prepared for the project and filed with the Alameda County Clerk‐Recorder and the State Office of Planning and Research.

1 City of Fremont. 2011a. Fremont Draft General Plan Update, Draft Environmental Impact Report. July.

Website: https://www.fremont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/825/637750631748000000 (accessed August 14, 2024).

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 1‐2 This page intentionally left blank
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 2‐1

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project Title:

Fremont Central Park Community Center Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Fremont Public Works
39550 Liberty Street
Fremont, CA 94538

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Anne Quasarano, Principal Civil Engineer
(510) 494‐4767

4. Project Location:

The project site consists of a portion of Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 525‐1671‐3‐2 and is part of the existing, approximately 433‐acre Central Park, which is owned and operated by the City of Fremont (City).

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

City of Fremont Public Works
39550 Liberty Street
Fremont, CA 94538

6. General Plan Designation:

Open Space – City Parks

7. Zoning:

Open Space (OS)

8. Prior Environmental Document(s):

Final Environmental Impact Report for the Fremont Draft General Plan Update, September 2011, State Clearinghouse Number 2010082060

9. Location of Prior Environmental Document(s):
https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/community‐development/planning‐ building‐permit‐services/plans‐maps‐guidelines/general‐plan

10. Description of Project:

The City proposes to demolish the existing Teen Center within Central Park and construct a new approximately 36,000‐square‐foot Community Center south of the Fremont Main Library. See Section 3.0, Project Description, of this Environmental Checklist for a full project description.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 2‐2

11. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The project site is within Central Park, a 433‐acre park owned and operated by the City and is surrounded by park facilities associated with Central Park. A detailed description of the surrounding land uses and setting is provided in Section 3.0, Project Description.

12. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financial approval, or participation agreements):

Please see Section 3.4, Project Approvals.

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 3‐1

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following describes the proposed Fremont Central Park Community Center Project (project).

This section includes a summary description of the project’s location and existing site characteristics, required approvals, and entitlements.

3.1 PROJECT SITE
The following section describes the project location, existing conditions, surrounding land uses, and the regulatory setting.

3.1.1 Location
The project site consists of a portion of Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 525‐1671‐3‐2 and is part of the existing, 433‐acre Central Park, which is owned and operated by the City of Fremont (City).

Central Park includes various recreational and public uses, such as Lake Elizabeth, a visitors center, a sports complex, the Teen Center, and the Fremont Aqua Adventure Water Park.

The project site is located along the western shore of Lake Elizabeth within the City of Fremont Central Park and is bounded by Paseo Padre Parkway to the west and south, the City of Fremont Parks Corporation Yard and Sailway Drive to the south, the Fremont Main Library and Stevenson Boulevard to the north, and a children’s playground and Lake Elizabeth to the east.

Regional vehicular access to the project site is provided by Mission Boulevard, which is State Route 238 (SR‐238). In addition, Interstate 880 (I‐880) is approximately 2 miles west of the site. The Fremont Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station is 0.6 miles to the north. Figure 3‐1 shows the regional and local context of the project site. Figure 3‐2 depicts an aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding land uses.

3.1.2 Existing Site Conditions
The project site is currently developed with the existing, approximately 22,200‐square‐foot Central Park Teen Center (Teen Center), which includes a main hall, three program rooms, a patio adjacent to the main hall, and a commercial kitchen. The Teen Center opened in 1971 as the Fremont Main Library and was subsequently remodeled to serve as the Teen Center following construction of the current Fremont Main Library, which is at 2400 Stevenson Boulevard, approximately 750 feet northeast of the project site. The City’s Recreation Services Division still uses the Teen Center for programming and community rentals. In addition to the Teen Center, the project site includes a 148‐ space parking lot, which is accessed via two driveways on Sailway Drive; the remainder of the site is undeveloped, with some areas of turf and ornamental trees.

Topographically, the site is relatively flat, with an elevation of approximately 65 feet above mean sea level. A compression ridge associated with the Hayward Fault is immediately north of the project site.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 3‐2 This page intentionally left blank

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 3‐3 Figure 3‐1: Regional Location Map

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 3‐4 This page intentionally left blank

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 3‐5 Figure 3‐2: Project Site

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 3‐6 This page intentionally left blank

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 3‐7

3.1.3 Existing General Plan and Zoning
The project site is designated Open Space – City Parks in the City’s General Plan, and the zoning designation is Open Space (OS). The Open Space – City Parks category includes parks that are owned and operated by the City, including active and passive recreation areas. Typical uses include athletic fields, playgrounds, trails, tennis courts, and recreation centers. Central Park is categorized as a Destination Park in the City Parks and Recreation Master Plan and appropriate uses for a Destination Park are further defined in the City’s Parks Master Plan and the Parks and Recreation Element. City parks are generally subject to a height limit of 35 feet, with some exceptions, and an impervious surface coverage limit of 15 percent.

3.1.4 Surrounding Land Uses
As described above, the project site is within Central Park, a 433‐acre park owned and operated by the City. Land uses surrounding Central Park include commercial and low‐density residential uses to the south‐southwest across Paseo Padre Parkway, commercial and multi‐family residential uses and the California School for the Deaf to the north‐northwest across Stevenson Boulevard, and single‐ family residential development to the east.

3.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
In March 2022, the Fremont City Council adopted a new Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP).2 A high‐priority need identified in the PRMP, which was based on extensive public outreach, was the development of a multi‐use Community Center to replace outdated and failing buildings in Central Park.

With funding commitments from City and State sources, the City initiated the design for the Central Park Community Center (Community Center). Consistent with the recommendations in the PRMP, the Community Center would feature classrooms for exercise, dancing, and learning; places for meetings and informal social gatherings; a large banquet hall and kitchen for events and celebrations; outdoor plaza spaces and landscaping; and improvements to parking and site access.

The project's design would also include a new Gymnasium to be built when additional funding is secured.

3.3 PROPOSED PROJECT
The City proposes to demolish the existing Teen Center within Central Park and implement the phased construction of approximately 36,000 square feet of new Community Center, Gymnasium, and related uses in generally the same location but with a larger footprint between the site of the existing Teen Center and the Fremont Main Library. The proposed uses and project phasing are described below. Figures 3‐3 and 3‐4 depict the phased development of the site, and Figure 3‐5 depicts the overall site plan at project buildout.

2 City of Fremont. 2022. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan. February. Website:
https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/parks‐planning‐design/park‐planning/parks‐master‐ plan (accessed May 6, 2024).

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 3‐8 This page intentionally left blank

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 3‐9 Figure 3‐3: Site Plan – Phase 1

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 3‐10 This page intentionally left blank

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 3‐11 Figure 3‐4: Site Plan – Phase 2

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 3‐12 This page intentionally left blank

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 3‐13 Figure 3‐5: Site Plan – Full Buildout

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 3‐14 This page intentionally left blank

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 3‐15

3.3.1 Community Center
The proposed project would result in the development of the site with a new Community Center, which would consist of a one‐story, approximately 22,000‐square‐foot building with a maximum height of approximately 28 feet. The Community Center would include space for a lobby, exercise room, two classrooms, a conference room, an Event Hall with full kitchen, City staff offices, lockers, and storage and service areas. Three patio areas would be provided adjacent to the building façade.

In addition, an approximately 3,750‐square‐foot terrace would be provided to the east of the Event Hall, with views toward Lake Elizabeth. The Community Center would also include a one‐story, approximately 14,000‐square‐foot Gymnasium, with a maximum height of approximately 35 feet.

The Gymnasium would include a lobby area, fitness area, walking track and storage, and support facilities.

An outdoor “living room” would be provided west of the proposed Community Center that would ultimately connect to the proposed Gymnasium. The area north of the Community Center would be developed as an outdoor amphitheater/meadow with a series of curved lawn terraces with seat wall edges surrounding a raised stage with a shade canopy. A loop trail would encircle the proposed meadow and provide connections between the Community Center, Lake Elizabeth, the Fremont Main Library, and existing trails within Central Park. Nearby pickleball courts opened on June 3, 2024, as part of a separate project.

The proposed project is anticipated to be constructed in three phases:
 Phase 1 – Community Center and Outdoor Living Room: Phase 1 would include construction of 11,800 square feet of the new Community Center building, which would include a flexible fitness and dance room and flexible program rooms for arts, crafts, enrichment, and science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) learning. Exterior patios would also be provided to expand programs outdoors. Site preparation activities associated with Phase 1 would be demolition of the existing Teen Center, site grading, and utility installation (e.g., electrical, water, and sewer). Proposed improvements would include expansion of the existing Teen Center parking lot from 125 to 225 spaces; installation of a landscaped circular entryway; creation of a new access to Paseo Padre Parkway; and installation of patios, furnishings, and shade features to create an Outdoor Living Room between the Community Center and the future Gymnasium. Electrical power hookups would be installed to support a mobile coffee/snack cart and/or food truck(s). Figure 3‐3 shows the conceptual site plan for Phase 1.  Phase 2 – Event Hall and Event Terrace/Lawn: Phase 2 would include expansion of the Community Center building by 9,400 square feet to include the Event Hall and adjacent Event Hall Terrace. The event space would support an indoor seated table capacity up to 400 people and would include a lobby for entry and pre‐function events, and a commercial kitchen. The outdoor terrace and canopy would accommodate an additional 200 people and would include an adjoining ceremonial lawn area. The Event Hall could be flexibly partitioned into three spaces to host multiple smaller events. The all‐electric commercial kitchen is planned to support events for up to 600 people and could also be used for cooking classes. Figure 3‐4 shows the conceptual site plan for Phase 2.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 3‐16  Phase 3 – Gymnasium and Outdoor Amphitheater: Phase 3 would include construction of an approximately 13,500‐square‐foot Gymnasium building adjacent and connected to the Community Center. The Gymnasium would provide flexible use for basketball, volleyball, badminton and pickleball. This phase would also include a new outdoor amphitheater in the area between the Main Library and the new Community Center and expansion of the parking lot from 225 to 295 spaces to accommodate increased use of the Community Center. Figure 3‐5 shows the conceptual site plan for full buildout of the site.

Although the proposed project assumes that the Outdoor Living Room would be developed as part of Phase 1, depending on available funding, the Outdoor Living Room could be completed as part of the Phase 2 work. Timing for implementation of Phases 2 and 3 would depend on available funding; for the purposes of this Environmental Checklist, the environmental analysis considers full buildout of the project site and assumes that all of these recommended facilities would be constructed in a single phase. Figure 3‐5 depicts the overall project site plan at buildout.

3.3.2 Parking and Circulation Improvements
The existing 125‐space parking lot adjacent to the existing Teen Center would be reconfigured and extended, thus creating a designated parking lot with approximately 295 spaces. The reconfiguration would also include provision of a circular drop‐off area. No changes to the existing driveway access from Sailway Drive are proposed. However, a new driveway entrance to the site from Paseo Padre Parkway is proposed; this driveway would be limited to right turns only to and from Paseo Padre Parkway.

3.3.3 Sustainability Features
The proposed project would include implementation of Green Energy Elements, including a rooftop photovoltaic‐ready building,, electric vehicle charging, and backup battery power systems. These features are proposed to be funded by other sources through grants and/or in partnership with AVA Community Energy. The proposed project would be designed in accordance with Fremont’s sustainability policies adopted as part of “Climate Ready Fremont.” Proposed sustainability features would include:
 A rooftop photovoltaic‐ready building
 All‐electric building systems and kitchen
 Natural daylighting/shade control
 LED lighting
 Sustainable and low volatile organic compound (VOC) finishes  Low‐flow plumbing and irrigation
 Native and drought‐tolerant landscaping

3.3.4 Utilities and Infrastructure
The new Community Center would connect to existing utility infrastructure within and in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The proposed project would include the installation of a new electrical transformer, new water meters for domestic and fire protection, a new sewer connection, E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 3‐17 and storm drain infrastructure. Existing sewer and water service laterals would be removed during demolition of the existing Teen Center.

3.3.4.1 Water
A new domestic water connection with an above‐grade backflow device located 18 inches behind the property line would be provided for the Community Center in accordance with Alameda County Water District (ACWD) standard details. A new fire water connection with an above‐grade backflow device, fire department connection, and new fire hydrant(s), as required, would be provided for the Community Center in accordance with ACWD standard details, City of Fremont Fire Department Standards, and the California Fire Code. Domestic and fire water service lines would connect to the existing 12‐inch‐diameter water main in Paseo Padre Parkway. A stub from the new, on‐site water laterals would be provided for the future Gymnasium.

3.3.4.2 Sanitary Sewer
A new sanitary sewer lateral and grease interceptor would be provided for the Community Center and would convey sewage to the existing 8‐inch‐diameter sewer main in Paseo Padre Parkway in accordance with Union Sanitary District standards.

3.3.4.3 Stormwater
The project is required to implement permanent post‐construction stormwater best management practices (BMPs) in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, and the Alameda Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program requirements. The project is also subject to hydromodification requirements, ensuring that post‐development stormwater runoff does not exceed the predevelopment stormwater runoff flow.

Stormwater treatment measures such as bioretention basins and infiltration basins would be incorporated to capture and treat stormwater runoff generated from impervious surfaces in accordance with the stormwater management requirements. The project would infiltrate stormwater runoff into the native soil as required for hydromodification requirements and would discharge runoff via a bubbler and sheet flow into Lake Elizabeth, matching the pre‐development stormwater runoff flow.

3.3.5 Demolition, Tree Removal, and Construction
The existing Teen Center would be demolished and the new Community Center would be constructed generally in the same vicinity, resulting in 22,200 square feet of demolition.

Although the proposed project has been designed to minimize earthmoving and/or grading activities, approximately 6,500 cubic yards of earthwork (cut and fill) would be required. Cut and fill would be balanced on site.

Approximately 33 trees (i.e., 15 Italian cypress, 11 olives, 4 Canary Island pines, 1 eucalyptus, and 2 Raywood ash) are expected to be removed from the project site, and 45 trees would be planted as a part of the proposed project.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 3‐18 As described above, the proposed project would be constructed in three phases. Construction of Phase 1 would take place over an approximately 18‐month period and is anticipated to begin in the winter of 2025. Construction of Phases 2 and 3 would depend on the funding. However, for the purposes of this Environmental Checklist, the environmental analysis assumes that all of these recommended facilities would be constructed in a single phase. Construction staging areas would be determined by the Contractor and would be contained within the project site. Construction workers, equipment, and deliveries would access the site via Paseo Padre Parkway.

3.3.6 Operations
The new Community Center would allow the City to provide approximately 14 hours of programming on a weekly basis in the fall, winter, and spring, and 55 hours of weekly programming in the summer. The proposed Community Center would be staffed with 10 employees each day and would operate from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday, with most activities between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on the weekends. It is estimated that the new Community Center would accommodate approximately 210 visitors per day during the week and 440 visitors on weekends with the 10 staff members.

During the summer months, the new Community Center would host a summer camp program from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Monday through Friday with approximately 150 children and 15 additional staff per day. The proposed Gymnasium to be added as part of Phase 3 would accommodate an additional 140 visitors on weekdays and 320 visitors on weekends with 10 additional staff, as well as an additional 60 children and 5 additional staff for the summer camp program.

3.4 APPROVALS/PERMITS
A number of permits and approvals would be required for the proposed project. Although the City is the Lead Agency for the project, other agencies also have discretionary approval/permit authority related to the project. A list of these agencies and potential permits and approvals that may be required is provided in Table 3.A.

Table 3.A: Potential Permits and Approvals
Agency Permits/Approvals
City of Fremont
 Environmental Review
 Design Review Permit
City of Fremont Fire Department  Review/approve fire truck access and site fire flow design Alameda County Water District  Connection to water system Union Sanitary District  Connection to sanitary sewer system City of Fremont Building Division  Issuance of building permits  City of Fremont Public Works Department
 Grading Permit
 Emergency Vehicle Access Easement Vacation
Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (2024).

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 3‐19

3.4.1 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), cultural resources (notification of affiliated California Native American Tribes and accidental discovery of cultural resources), geology and soils (seismic‐related effects), hazardous materials (accidental release), and noise (construction‐related noise). The proposed project would be required to comply with these standard development requirements, which are uniformly applied to all development projects. The applicable standard development requirements are listed in Table 3.B, below, and discussed in the relevant topical sections of this document.

Table 3.B: Applicable City of Fremont Standard Development Requirements Environmental Topic FMC Section Standard Development Requirement Air Quality 18.218.050(a)(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.
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 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 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure Title 13, Section 2485 of the 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.

18.218.050(a)(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

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 3‐20 Table 3.B: Applicable City of Fremont Standard Development Requirements Environmental Topic FMC Section Standard Development Requirement 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 6‐ 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 1 percent. i. Idling time of diesel‐powered construction equipment shall be limited to 2 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 NOX reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low‐emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after‐treatment 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 CARB’s most recent certification standard for off‐road heavy‐duty diesel engines.

Biological, Special‐
Status Species

18.218.050(b)(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 CDFW. The biologist shall determine the number and time frame (prior to construction) of surveys to be conducted. 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 1 through August 31). 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.

18.218.050(b)(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 1 through August 31).
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.

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 3‐21 Table 3.B: Applicable City of Fremont Standard Development Requirements Environmental Topic FMC Section Standard Development Requirement 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.

18.218.050(b)(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.

18.218.050(b)(4) California Tiger Salamander: New development projects with the potential to impact California tiger salamander habitat through grading, demolition, and/or new construction shall implement the following measures prior to any grubbing, grading, or ground‐ disturbing activities:
a. Exclusion fencing shall be installed around the perimeter of the two fields to deter tiger salamanders from accessing the fields. The fencing should be regularly maintained, especially during the rainy season when salamanders could traverse onto the fields.
b. A qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys prior to grubbing and grading activities within the two fields. The biologist shall determine the number and time frame (prior to construction) of surveys to be conducted. c. A qualified biologist shall monitor initial grubbing and grading activities to ensure that no California tiger salamanders are present.

Construction
Management Plan

18.218.050(c) Prior to the issuance of the first construction‐related permit for a new development project, the project applicant and his/her general contractor shall submit a CMP for review and approval by the planning and building divisions and other relevant city departments, such as the Fire Department and the Public Works Department, as directed.

The CMP shall contain measures to minimize potential construction impacts, including measures to comply with all construction‐related conditions of approval (and mitigation measures if applicable) such as dust control, construction emissions, hazardous materials, construction days/hours, construction traffic control, waste reduction and recycling, erosion and sedimentation control, storm water pollution prevention, noise control, complaint management, and cultural and tribal cultural resource management as applicable. The CMP shall provide project‐specific information including descriptive procedures, approval documentation, and drawings (e.g., a site logistics plan, fire safety plan, construction phasing plan, proposed truck routes, traffic control plan, complaint management plan, construction worker parking plan, and litter/debris clean‐up plan) that specify how potential construction impacts will be minimized and how each construction‐ related requirement will be satisfied throughout construction of the project.

Cultural and Tribal
Resources

18.218.050(d)(1) Notification, Affiliated California Native American Tribes: Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by the City is made to undertake a project, the City shall provide formal notification to the designated contact or a tribal

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 3‐22 Table 3.B: Applicable City of Fremont Standard Development Requirements Environmental Topic FMC Section Standard Development Requirement 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 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 64352.4.

18.218.050(d)(2) Accidental Discovery of Cultural Resources: The following requirements shall be met to address the potential for accidental discovery of cultural resources during ground‐ disturbing excavation:
a. The project proponent shall include a note on any plans that require ground‐disturbing excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources. b. The project proponent shall retain a professional archaeologist to provide a preconstruction briefing to supervisory personnel of any excavation contractor to alert them to the possibility of exposing buried cultural resources, including significant prehistoric archaeological resources. The briefing shall discuss any cultural resources, including archaeological objects, that could be exposed, the need to stop excavation at the discovery, and the procedures to follow regarding discovery protection and notification of the project proponent and archaeological team. c. In the event that any human remains or historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources are discovered during ground‐disturbing excavation, the provisions of State 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 State 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.”

18.218.050(d)(3) Archaeological Monitoring: New development projects with the potential to impact subsurface archaeological or cultural resources through grading, demolition, and/or new construction, if so determined by a site‐specific study prepared by an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualifications standards for archaeology, shall implement the following measures prior to any grubbing, grading, or ground‐disturbing activities:
a. An archaeologist shall monitor construction‐related ground disturbance within the vicinity of project site features identified as having the potential to include subsurface archaeological, cultural, or tribal cultural resources that could be impacted through ground‐disturbing activities related to the construction of the project. Monitoring should continue until the archaeologist determines that there is a low potential for encountering subsurface archaeological, cultural, or tribal cultural resources. An archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualifications standards for archaeology shall oversee the monitoring. Any compensation for time and expenses related to this activity shall be borne by the project proponent.

18.218.050(d)(4) Tribal Cultural Monitoring and Training: Should the City receive a formal written request by the designated contact or a tribal representative of a traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribe pursuant to Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 64352.4 to have a tribal cultural representative present at the project site before or during E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 3‐23 Table 3.B: Applicable City of Fremont Standard Development Requirements Environmental Topic FMC Section Standard Development Requirement construction activities to identify or monitor sites or objects of significance to Native Americans or to provide construction worker tribal cultural resources awareness training, including applicable regulations and protocols for avoidance, confidentiality, and culturally appropriate treatment, the project proponent shall honor that request and include tribal cultural monitoring or training as a component of their project. The tribal cultural representative shall have the ability to request that work be stopped, diverted, or slowed if sites or objects of significance to Native Americans are encountered within the direct impact area and shall be consulted for recommendations regarding the appropriate treatment of such sites or objects. Any compensation for time and expenses related to this activity shall be borne by the project proponent.

Geology and Soils 18.218.050(e) New development projects with the potential to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death due to seismic activity and potential seismic‐related ground shaking (including liquefaction), if so determined by a site‐specific geotechnical study prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or his/her designee, shall implement the following measures prior to or during project construction, as applicable:
a. The project Geotechnical Consultant shall review all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements, and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls). The consultant shall verify that their recommendations, including those regarding the need for further evaluation for potential liquefaction and the presence and lateral extent of any undocumented fill as well as laboratory testing for corrosive soil, have been properly conducted and any necessary design measures are incorporated into the construction plans. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits for the project.
b. The project Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as‐built conditions of the project shall be summarized by the project geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Building Official/City Engineer for review prior to final (as‐built) project approval.
c. To further address and reduce impacts related to potential seismic activity and liquefaction, all grading, foundations, and structures for the proposed project would be required to be engineered and designed in conformance with applicable geotechnical and soil stability standards as required by the California Building Code (CBC), as adopted by the City.

Hazardous Materials 18.218.050(f) New development projects with the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, if so determined by a site‐specific environmental site assessment prepared to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal or Planning Manager, shall implement the following measures prior to or during project construction, as applicable:
a. An SMP shall be developed to provide guidelines for the appropriate handling and management of soil with known contaminants or REC concentrations above the applicable screening levels recommended in the DTSC HERO guidance document Human Health Risk Assessment or similar document provided by the DTSC. b. Prior to issuance of building and/or grading permits for site development, remediation work to remove known contaminants or RECs at the subject property shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the ACWD, Fremont Fire Department, DTSC, or other appropriate agency having jurisdiction, depending on the location (e.g., depth), the type of REC found, and the jurisdictional purview of the agencies. Completion of

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 3‐24 Table 3.B: Applicable City of Fremont Standard Development Requirements Environmental Topic FMC Section Standard Development Requirement the remediation work and procurement of an appropriate closure document or written statement that the remediation work has been satisfactorily completed and without further conditions or obligations shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City of Fremont Community Development Department. Compliance with this mitigation may require the applicant or their agent to complete a preliminary endangerment report, voluntary cleanup agreement, or other documentation as determined by the appropriate agency and receive concurrence that the site’s RECs have been resolved.

Noise 18.218.050(g) Construction Noise: To reduce the potential for noise impacts during construction, the following requirements shall be implemented:
a. Construction equipment shall be well maintained and used judiciously to be as quiet as practical.
b. 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.
c. All internal combustion engine‐driven equipment shall be equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. d. The contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
e. Loading, staging areas, stationary noise generating equipment, etc., shall be located as far as feasible from sensitive receptors.
f. The contractor shall comply with CARB idling prohibitions of unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
g. 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.
h. Temporary noise barriers, such as solid plywood fences, shall be installed around construction sites adjacent to operational businesses, residences, or noise‐sensitive land uses unless an existing wall or other barrier provides equivalent noise attenuation (Ord. 27‐2016 § 37, 12‐6‐16; Ord. 23‐2018 § 41, 10‐2‐18; Ord. 05‐2021 § 52, 4‐20‐21).

Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (2024).

ACWD = Alameda County Water District
BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Cal. Pub. Res. Code = California Public Resources Code
CARB = California Air Resources Board
CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act
City = City of Fremont
CMP = Construction Management Plan
DTSC = California Department of Toxic Substances Control HERO = Human and Ecological Risk Office
mph = miles per hour
NOX = nitrogen oxide
PM = particulate matter
REC = Recognized Environmental Condition
SMP = Soil Management Plan

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 4‐1

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist in Section 3.0.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

4.1 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project WOULD NOT have any significant effects on the environment that either have not already been analyzed in a prior EIR or that are more significant than previously analyzed, or that uniformly applicable development policies would not substantially mitigate. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, CEQA does not apply to such effects. A Notice of Determination (Section 15094) will be filed.

I find that the proposed project will have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR or are more significant than described in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. With respect to those effects that are subject to CEQA, I find that such effects WOULD NOT be significant and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION.

I find that the proposed project will have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR or are more significant than described in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. I find that although those effects could be significant, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the infill project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project would have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR or are more significant than described in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. I find that those effects WOULD be significant, and an infill ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required to analyze those effects that are subject to CEQA.

Signature Date

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 4‐2 This page intentionally left blank
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐1

5.0 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

5.1 AESTHETICS

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
i. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? j. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway

k. 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 a publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

l. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

5.1.1 City of Fremont General Plan Environmental Impact Report Findings Scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character, and light and glare were analyzed in the City of Fremont General Plan Environmental Impact Report (GP EIR). The GP EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas and scenic resources through compliance with General Plan Policies 2‐1.3, 4‐1.7, and 4‐1.8. The GP EIR also determined that, although development under the General Plan would result in a change in the existing visual character of those areas, it would not degrade the existing visual character, and the resulting change would be considered a less than significant impact. Additionally, the GP EIR determined that development under the General Plan would introduce new sources of light and glare within the community; however, implementation of General Plan Policy 4‐4.6 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

5.1.2 Project Analysis

5.1.2.1 Scenic Vistas
A scenic vista is generally defined as a public vantage point with an expansive view of a significant landscape feature. Fremont is on the east side of San Francisco Bay with the Mission Hills to the east, Union City to the north, and Milpitas to the south. Mission Peak provides a distinctive natural landmark from many vantage points within Fremont.3 Neighborhoods above Mission Boulevard are

3 City of Fremont. 2011b. General Plan Community Character Element, Chapter 4. Website:
https://www.fremont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/781/637750630790930000 (accessed August 14, 2024).

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐2 largely defined by their panoramic views across Fremont and San Francisco Bay. Elsewhere in Fremont, the East Bay Hills form a scenic backdrop for neighborhoods and commercial centers.

The project site is within an urban area and is currently developed, consisting of the Central Park Teen Center (Teen Center) building, a parking lot, undeveloped land with areas of turf, and ornamental trees. The project would result in the demolition of the existing Teen Center building and development of the one‐story Central Park Community Center (Community Center) and one‐ story Gymnasium. The new Community Center would consist of a one‐story, approximately 22,000‐square‐foot building with a maximum height of approximately 28 feet. The Community Center would also include a one‐story, approximately 14,000‐square‐foot Gymnasium, with a maximum height of approximately 35 feet. The existing 125‐space parking lot adjacent to the existing Teen Center building would be reconfigured and extended, thus creating a designated parking lot with 295 spaces.

The project site is southwest of Mission Boulevard, and as defined the City’s General Plan, would have the potential to be readily visible from public vantage points. The proposed buildings would be in generally the same location and with a larger footprint but would be of a similar height as the existing buildings. Therefore, the new buildings would not be more visible from any scenic vista, nor would they block existing public views of a scenic vista compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on publicly accessible scenic vistas.

5.1.2.2 Scenic Resources
As identified in the GP EIR, Fremont includes unique natural elements such as Central Park and Lake Elizabeth, landmark trees, and several scenic routes.4 The project site is within Central Park and adjacent to Lake Elizabeth. Paseo Padre Parkway, Stevenson Boulevard, and Fremont Boulevard are the closest scenic routes to the project site.

The proposed project would develop two new buildings and expand the existing parking lot, aiming to improve and replace the outdated and failing buildings within Central Park. The proposed project would be directly visible from Lake Elizabeth, Paseo Padre Parkway, and Stevenson Boulevard because these scenic resources are adjacent to the project site. However, the proposed project would not be directly visible from Fremont Boulevard due to intervening land uses. Approximately 33 trees are expected to be removed from the project site; however, 45 trees would be planted as a part of the proposed project.

The proposed project’s design would be consistent with the City’s design guidelines. The proposed buildings and parking lot would appear similar to existing on‐site development, including the existing Teen Center building and parking lot. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact with respect to substantially damaging any rock outcroppings, historic buildings, or other scenic resources within view of a State Scenic Highway.

4 City of Fremont. 2011a. Fremont Draft General Plan Update, Draft Environmental Impact Report. July.

Website: https://www.fremont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/825/637750631748000000 (accessed August 14, 2024).

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐3

5.1.2.3 Scenic Quality
The project site is in an urbanized area and would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. Land uses surrounding Central Park include commercial and low‐density residential uses to the south‐southwest across Paseo Padre Parkway, commercial and multi‐family residential uses and the California School for the Deaf to the north‐northwest across Stevenson Boulevard, and single‐family residential development to the east. As described in more detail in Section 3.0, Project Description, the project site is designated Open Space – Park in the City’s General Plan, and the zoning designation is Open Space (OS). Typical uses include athletic fields, playgrounds, trails, tennis courts, and recreation centers. Additionally, City parks are generally subject to a height limit of 35 feet.

The GP EIR determined that development under the General Plan would not degrade the existing visual character of these areas as developed urban and suburban environments. The proposed project would include the development of a Community Center and Gymnasium to improve the facilities at Central Park. The proposed project would be consistent with the OS General Plan and zoning designations, and the proposed buildings would not exceed the 35‐foot height limit for City parks. Although the proposed project would result in a slightly higher intensity of development compared to the existing development on the project site, the change would be consistent with the existing community uses and park setting. The proposed project would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to visual character.

5.1.2.4 Light and Glare
Interior and exterior lighting is currently installed within and around the existing buildings and parking lots within the project site and throughout Central Park. The proposed project would similarly include exterior security lighting located at and surrounding the new Community Center and parking area. Lighting installed as a part of the proposed project would result in lighting levels similar to current conditions on the project site and would not result in a significant increase in light and glare over current conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to day or nighttime views in the project area, and this impact would be less than significant.

5.1.3 Applicable Mitigation/Policies
No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures or policies are required.

5.1.4 Conclusion
The proposed project is generally consistent with the type and intensity of development analyzed in the GP EIR, is within the allowable height limits, would be consistent with policies related to visual character and design, and would not result in a substantial increase in light and glare. No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred, and no new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified has been identified that would lead to new or more severe significant impacts. Therefore, the GP EIR adequately evaluated visual resource impacts

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐4 that would occur with implementation of the proposed project, and no new or more severe impacts would occur.

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐5

5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project, and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
m. 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?

n. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
o. 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))?

p. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?
q. 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?

5.2.1 City of Fremont General Plan Environmental Impact Report Findings The GP EIR analyzed conversion of farmland, conflicts with existing agricultural zoning, and Williamson Act contracts. The GP EIR determined that development under the General Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact due to the conversion of the Guardino parcel and Interstate 680 (I‐680)/Palm properties from land designated as Prime Farmland and Unique Farmland to urban uses. The GP EIR also determined that development under the General Plan would not result in any conflict with existing agricultural zoning, since agricultural zoning designations would still be allowed in areas designated as Open Space in the General Plan. No impact on existing agricultural zoning would occur. Additionally, the GP EIR determined that land within Fremont that is currently under Williamson Act contracts is also designated as “Open Space‐ Hill Face”, “Open Space‐Hill”, and “Open Space‐Resource Conservation/Public”; therefore, future development on those areas under the General Plan is unlikely. Impacts associated with conflicts with Williamson Act contracts were determined to be less than significant.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐6

5.2.2 Project Analysis
There are no agricultural or forestry resources located within or near the project site. The project site is not located on the Guardino parcel and does not consist of the I‐680/Palm properties as discussed in the GP EIR. The project site area is predominantly urbanized and is classified as “Urban and Built‐Up Land” by the California Department of Conservation (DOC).5 Additionally, the proposed project site is not on land that is currently under a Williamson Act contract.6 As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, the project site is designated Open Space – City Parks in the City’s General Plan and zoned Open Space (OS). Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with agricultural zoning. In addition, Fremont does not contain woodland or forestland cover, nor land zoned for timberland production according to the City’s General Plan Land Use Map.7 Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to agriculture or forestry resources.

5.2.3 Applicable Mitigation/Policies
No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, or revisions to the project, or new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures or policies are required.

5.2.4 Conclusion
No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred, and no new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified has been identified that would lead to new or more severe significant impacts. Therefore, the GP EIR adequately evaluated agriculture and forestry resource impacts that would occur with implementation of the proposed project, and no new or more severe impacts would occur.

5 California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022. California Important Farmland Finder (map).

Website: maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/ (accessed August 16, 2024). 6 California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022. California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder (map).

Website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/ (accessed August 16, 2024). 7 City of Fremont. 2019. General Plan Zoning Map. Website: https://www.fremont.gov/home/show publisheddocument/803/637750630865770000. (accessed August 16, 2024).

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐7

5.3 AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
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?

c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

5.3.1 City of Fremont General Plan Environmental Impact Report Findings The GP EIR analyzed consistency with the Clean Air Plan 8 and control measures, exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TACs), odors, and traffic‐ and construction‐related impacts on air quality. The GP EIR determined that development anticipated under the General Plan would increase population and employment in Fremont, leading to additional air pollutant emissions from vehicle miles traveled (VMT). It was determined that compliance with General Plan policies and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations or programs would reduce air quality impacts, but VMT could disrupt or hinder the effectiveness of the CAP that relies on reductions in traffic‐related emissions. Many of the policies in the General Plan Mobility Element would support applicable 2010 CAP Control Measures.

Additionally, the GP EIR determined that development has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to TACs and exceed an increase of 10 or 100 chances of cancer risk in 1 million. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐2 would minimize potential TAC impacts and reduce the impact to a level considered less than significant.

The GP EIR determined that the potential impact associated with odors would be less than significant given the locations of sensitive land uses in relation to current and future commercial and industrial operations, and that no known future major odor sources were anticipated with development under the GP EIR. Traffic volumes for development anticipated under the General Plan were found to be below the BAAQMD screening criteria; therefore, the GP EIR found that development under the General Plan would not cause or contribute to a violation of the ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide (CO). Lastly, the GP EIR determined that exhaust emissions

8 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September 15.

Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning‐and‐research/plans/2010‐clean‐air‐plan/cap‐ volume‐i‐appendices.pdf (accessed October 2024).

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐8 from most construction projects anticipated under the General Plan could be reduced to a level considered less than significant through implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐3. However, larger construction projects, due to their size and construction schedule, might result in emissions that exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds; therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

5.3.2 Project Analysis
The project site is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin). The BAAQMD is the regional government agency that monitors and regulates air pollution within the Air Basin. The federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act mandate the control and reduction of specific air pollutants. Under these Acts, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the CARB have established ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for specific “criteria” pollutants that are designed to protect public health and welfare. Primary criteria pollutants include CO, reactive organic gases (ROGs), nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). Secondary criteria pollutants include ozone (O3), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5).

5.3.2.1 Clean Air Plan Consistency
The current air quality plan is the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan (Clean Air Plan)9, which identifies 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 greenhouse gas (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. The BAAQMD identifies control measures as part of the Clean Air Plan to reduce emissions from stationary, transportation, and other sources of emissions.

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 below, 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.

9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19. Website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning‐and‐research/plans/2017‐clean‐air‐plan/attachment‐ a_‐proposed‐final‐cap‐vol‐1‐pdf.pdf?rev=8c588738a4fb455b9cabb27360409529&sc_lang=en (accessed October 2024).

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐9 Clean Air Plan Control Measures. The control strategies of the Clean Air Plan include measures in the following categories: Stationary Source Measures, Transportation Measures, Energy Measures, Building Measures, Agriculture Measures, Natural and Working Lands Measures, Waste Management Measures, Water Measures, and Super‐GHG Pollutants Measures. The proposed project’s compliance with each of these control measures is discussed below.

Stationary Source Control Measures. The Stationary Source Control Measures, which are designed to reduce emissions from stationary sources such as metal melting facilities, cement kilns, refineries, and glass furnaces, are incorporated into rules adopted by the BAAQMD and then enforced by the BAAQMD Permit and Inspection programs. Since the proposed project would not include any of these stationary sources, the Stationary Source Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the proposed project.

Transportation Control Measures. The BAAQMD identifies Transportation Control Measures as part of the Clean Air Plan to decrease emissions of criteria pollutants, TACs, and GHGs by reducing demand for motor vehicle travel, promoting efficient vehicles and transit service, decarbonizing transportation fuels, and electrifying motor vehicles and equipment. The proposed project would result in the redevelopment of the site with a new Community Center that would locate community and recreational uses near existing similar facilities and commercial and residential uses, reducing the demand for travel by single occupancy vehicles.

The proposed project would also provide EV charging and pedestrian and bicyclist amenities, including crosswalks, sidewalks, bicycle parking, and landscaping, which would also help to reduce the demand for travel by single occupancy vehicles. In addition, the proposed project is located adjacent to bus stops running along Paseo Padre Parkway. The Fremont Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station is also located within a one‐mile radius from the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would support the ability to use alternative modes of transportation, would promote initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and would increase the use of alternate means of transportation. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the identified Transportation Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan.

Land Use and Local Impacts Measures. The Land Use and Local Impacts Measures are designed to promote mixed‐use, infill development to reduce motor vehicle travel and emissions, as well as to protect people from exposure to air pollution from stationary and mobile sources of emissions, especially in communities most heavily impacted by air pollution. The proposed project is an infill development project that would replace the existing uses with a similar land use building type. In addition, the proposed project is located in a high‐quality transit area and would provide employment opportunities to nearby residents. As described in the preceding section, the proposed project will also include amenities aimed to support the use of active transportation, such as walking, biking, or using public transit. Therefore, the proposed project would promote initiatives that would reduce motor vehicle travel and mobile source emissions.

Furthermore, as demonstrated in Sections 5.3.2.2 through 5.3.2.5, the proposed project emissions would be below the BAAQMD significance criteria thresholds and would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial levels of TACs.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐10 Energy Control Measures. The Clean Air Plan also includes Energy Control Measures, which are designed to reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants, TACs, and GHGs by decreasing the amount of electricity consumed in the Bay Area, as well as decreasing the carbon intensity of the electricity used by switching to less GHG‐intensive fuel sources for electricity generation.

Since these measures apply to electrical utility providers and local government agencies (and not individual projects), the Energy Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the proposed project.

Building Control Measures. The BAAQMD has authority to regulate emissions from certain sources in buildings such as boilers and water heaters but has limited authority to regulate buildings themselves. Therefore, the strategies in the control measures for this sector focus on working with local governments that do have authority over local building codes, to facilitate adoption of best GHG control practices and policies. The proposed project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 standards of the California Code of Regulations, established by the California Energy Commission (CEC), regarding energy conservation and green building standards. In addition, the proposed project would be designed in accordance with Fremont’s sustainability policies adopted as part of Climate Ready Fremont10 and would include rooftop photovoltaic ready, all electric building, natural daylight and shade control, LED lighting, low flow plumbing and irrigation, and native drought tolerant landscaping. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any of the Building Control Measures.

Agriculture Control Measures. The Agriculture Control Measures are designed to primarily reduce emissions of methane. Since the project does not include any agricultural activities, the Agriculture Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the proposed project.

Natural and Working Lands Control Measures. The Natural and Working Lands Control Measures focus on increasing carbon sequestration on rangelands and wetlands, as well as encouraging local governments to adopt ordinances that promote urban‐tree plantings. Since the proposed project does not include the disturbance of any rangelands or wetlands, the Natural and Working Lands Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the proposed project.

Waste Management Control Measures. The Waste Management Control Measures focus on reducing or capturing methane emissions from landfills and composting facilities, diverting organic materials away from landfills, and increasing waste diversion rates through efforts to reduce, reuse, and recycle. The proposed project would comply with local requirements for waste management (e.g., recycling and composting services). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the Waste Management Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan.

10 City of Fremont. 2023. Climate Ready Freemont – Fremont’s Pathway to a low‐carbon, sustainable, and resilient future. October 10. Website: https://www.fremont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/14218/ 638428261066300000 (accessed October 2024).

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐11 Water Control Measures. The Water Control Measures focus on reducing emissions of criteria pollutants, TACs, and GHGs by encouraging water conservation, limiting GHG emissions from publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), and promoting the use of biogas recovery systems.

Since these measures apply to POTWs and local government agencies (and not individual projects), the Water Control Measures are not applicable to the proposed project.

Super GHG Control Measures. The Super‐GHG Control Measures are designed to facilitate the adoption of best GHG control practices and policies through the BAAQMD and local government agencies. Since these measures do not apply to individual projects, the Super‐GHG Control Measures are not applicable to the proposed project.

Clean Air Plan Implementation. Consistency with the Clean Air Plan is determined by whether the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts or hinder implementation of control measures. As discussed above, the proposed project would generally implement the applicable measures outlined in the Clean Air Plan, including Transportation Control Measures, Building Control Measures, Land Use and Local Impacts Measures, and Energy Measures.

Additionally, as discussed further below, the project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. Therefore, the project would support the goals of the Clean Air Plan and would not conflict with any of the control measures identified in the plan that would bring the region into attainment. Therefore, the project would not disrupt or hinder implementation of the Clean Air Plan. This impact would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

5.3.2.2 Construction‐Related Air Quality Impacts
The BAAQMD is currently designated as a nonattainment area for State and national ozone standards and national particulate matter AAQS. The BAAQMD’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of AAQS. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant.

In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.

Therefore, additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is unnecessary.

Short‐Term Construction Emissions. During construction, short‐term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate emissions generated by demolition, grading, paving, building, and other activities. Emissions from construction equipment are also anticipated and would include CO, NOx, ROG, directly emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and TACs such as diesel exhaust particulate matter.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐12 Project construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building, paving, and architectural coating (painting). Construction‐related effects on air quality from the proposed project would be greatest during the site preparation phase due to the disturbance of soils. If not properly controlled, these activities would temporarily generate particulate emissions. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit dirt and mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. PM10 emissions would depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of operating equipment.

Larger dust particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site.

Water or other soil stabilizers can be used to control dust, resulting in emission reductions of 50 percent or more. The BAAQMD has established standard measures for reducing fugitive dust emissions (PM10). With the implementation of these Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would not result in adverse air quality impacts.

In addition to dust‐related PM10 emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment powered by gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, SO2, NOx, ROGs, and some soot particulate (PM2.5 and PM10) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic congestion in the area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles idle in traffic.

These emissions would be temporary in nature and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction site.

Construction emissions were estimated for the project using CalEEMod Version 2022.1. As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, the proposed project would be constructed in three phases.

Construction of Phase 1 would take place over an approximately 18‐month period and is anticipated to begin in the winter of 2025. Construction of Phase 2 and Phase 3 would depend on funding availability. However, for the purposes of this environmental evaluation, this analysis assumes that all the facilities associated with the proposed project, including a Community Center and Outdoor Living Room (Phase 1); an Event Hall and Event Terrace/Lawn (Phase 2), and a Gymnasium and Outdoor Amphitheater (Phase 3) would be constructed in a single phase. Therefore, construction of the proposed project was modeled under one phase to begin in the winter of 2025 and end in January 2027, which was included in CalEEMod. The proposed project would demolish approximately 19,275 square feet of existing buildings, which was also included in CalEEMod. This analysis assumes use of Tier 2 construction equipment. Furthermore, this analysis assumes that the proposed project would implement GP EIR Mitigation Measure AIR‐3, which incorporates most of the current best management practices (BMPs) recommended by the BAAQMD for fugitive dust control during construction activities. CalEEMod output sheets are included in Appendix A.

Construction‐related emissions are presented in Table 5.3.A, below.

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐13 Table 5.3.A: Project Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
Project Construction Average Daily
Emissions By Construction Year ROGs NOX Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Dust PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Fugitive
Dust PM2.5
2025 <0.1 1.6 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1
2026 0.5 13.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2
2027 0.5 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Maximum Annual Average Daily Emissions 0.5 13.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 BAAQMD Thresholds 54.0 54.0 82.0 BMP 82.0 BMP
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (October 2024).

BMP = best management practices
BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
ROGs = reactive organic gases

As shown in Table 5.3.A, construction emissions associated with the project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds for ROGs, NOX, exhaust PM10, and exhaust PM2.5 emissions. BAAQMD requires implementation of BAAQMD’s BMPs for Construction‐Related Fugitive Dust Emissions to minimize construction fugitive dust impacts. The GP EIR identified Mitigation Measure AIR‐3, which incorporates the BMPs recommended by the BAAQMD to reduce construction fugitive dust impacts to a less than significant level. However, since the GP EIR was adopted, the BAAQMD has updated their recommended BMPs. As such, Mitigation Measure AIR‐3 shall be modified as follows:

Mitigation Measure AIR 3: Implement BAAQMD‐Recommended Measures to Control Particulate Matter Emissions During Construction. Measures to reduce diesel particulate matter and PM10 from construction are recommended to ensure that short‐term health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors are avoided.

Dust (PM10) Control Measures:
 All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods. Active areas adjacent to residences should be kept damp at all times.
 All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off‐ site shall be covered. Cover all hauling trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard
 All visible mud or dirt trackout 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.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐14  Pave, apply water at least twice daily, or apply (non‐toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas.
 Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas and sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is deposited onto the adjacent roads.
 Hydroseed or apply (non‐toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (i.e., previously‐graded areas that are inactive for 10 days or more).
 Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non‐toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles.
 Limit traffic speeds on any unpaved roads to 15 mph.
 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.  Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.  All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph. Suspend construction activities that cause visible dust plumes to extend beyond the construction site.
 All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
 Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or farther from a paved road shall be treated with a 6‐ to 12‐inch layer of compacted wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
 Post a Publicly‐visible sign(s) shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations The Air District’s General Air Pollution Complaints number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐15 Additional measures to reduce diesel particulate matter and PM2.5 and other construction emissions:
 The developer or contractor shall provide a plan for approval by the City or BAAQMD demonstrating that the heavy‐duty (>50 horsepower) off‐road vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project‐wide fleet‐average 20 percent NOX reduction and 45 percent particulate reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average for the year 2011.
 Clear signage at all construction sites will be posted indicating that diesel equipment standing idle for more than 5 minutes shall be turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate, or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running continuously as long as they were on site or adjacent to the construction site.  The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid the need for independently powered
equipment (e.g. compressors).
 Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions.

The current BAAQMD BMPs are reflected in the City’s Standard Development Requirements to Address Resource Protection, Chapter 18.218.050 (a)(1) of the City of Fremont Municipal Code, which are required for all development projects, as listed in Table 3.B in Section 3.4.1, Standard Development Requirements. Therefore, with implementation of the City’s Standard Development Requirements to Address Resource Protection, as identified in Chapter 18.218.050 (a)(1) of the City of Fremont Municipal Code, and Mitigation AIR‐3, as modified, the proposed project would not result in any new or more significant construction‐related air quality impacts than were evaluated in the GP EIR. This impact would remain less than significant with mitigation as identified in the GP EIR.

5.3.2.3 Operational‐Related Air Quality Impacts
Long‐term air pollutant emission impacts are those associated with mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), energy sources (e.g., natural gas), and area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment) 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.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐16 Energy source emissions result from activities in buildings for which natural gas is used. The quantity of emissions is the product of usage intensity and the emission factor of the fuel source. However, the proposed project would not utilize natural gas. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate energy‐source emissions.

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.

Consistent with BAAQMD’s guidance for estimating emissions, the CalEEMod computer program was used to calculate the long‐term operational emissions associated with the project. The analysis was conducted using land use codes Health Club and Parking Lot. The Health Club land use was used to represent the build out of the proposed Community Center. As described in Section 5.17, Transportation, the proposed project would generate approximately 1,470 average daily trips, including summer trips. In addition, the proposed project would be designed to be all electric, which was included in CalEEMod. Where project‐specific data were not available, default assumptions (e.g., energy usage, water usage, and solid waste generation) from CalEEMod were used to estimate project emissions. CalEEMod output sheets are included in Appendix A.

Emission estimates for operation of the project were calculated using CalEEMod. The primary emissions associated with the project are regional in nature, meaning that air pollutants are rapidly dispersed on release or, in the case of vehicle emissions associated with the project, emissions are released in other areas of the Air Basin. The daily and annual emissions associated with project operational trip generation, energy, and area sources are identified in Table 5.3.B for ROGs, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5.

Table 5.3.B: Project Operational Emissions
Source ROGs NOX PM10 PM2.5
Pounds Per Day
Mobile Source Emissions 4.5 4.3 9.8 2.5
Area Source Emissions 1.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy Source Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Emissions 5.5 4.3 9.8 2.5
BAAQMD Thresholds 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Tons Per Year
Mobile Source Emissions 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.2
Area Source Emissions 1.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy Source Emissions <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Total Emissions 1.7 0.5 0.8 0.2
BAAQMD Thresholds 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (2024).

BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
ROGs = reactive organic gases
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐17 The results shown in Table 5.3.B indicate the project would not exceed the significance criteria for daily or annual ROGs, 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. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any new or more significant construction‐related air quality impacts than were evaluated in the GP EIR.

Localized CO Impacts. Emissions and ambient concentrations of CO have decreased dramatically in the Bay Area with the introduction of the catalytic converter in 1975. No exceedances of the State or federal CO standards have been recorded at Bay Area monitoring stations since 1991. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines) include recommended methodologies for quantifying concentrations of localized CO levels for proposed transportation projects. A screening level analysis using guidance from the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines was performed to determine the impacts of the project. The screening methodology provides a conservative indication of whether the implementation of a proposed project would result in significant CO emissions. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, a proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to localized CO concentrations if the following screen‐ ing criteria are met:
 The project is consistent with an applicable CMP established by the County of Alameda (County) Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways, and the Regional Transportation Plan and local Congestion Management Agency plans.  Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
 The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, or below‐grade roadway).

Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the policies or programs of the Alameda County Transportation Commission. The proposed project would not require a detailed CEQA transportation analysis because the proposed project meets the screening criteria and VMT generation potential is below the accepted threshold of significance, the overall project is not anticipated to have a significant VMT impact. Based on the latest traffic counts available from the City’s 2021 Traffic Flow Map,11 the traffic volumes at intersections near the project site range from 10,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day. The proposed project would generate approximately 372 AM peak‐hour trips and 181 PM peak‐hour trips; therefore, the project’s contribution to peak‐hour traffic volumes at intersections in the vicinity of the project site would be well below 44,000 vehicles per hour. Similarly, the project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles such that vertical and/or horizontal mixing would be substantially limited. As such, the proposed project would not result in localized CO concentrations that exceed State or

11 City of Fremont. 2021. Fremont 2021 Traffic Flow Map. Website: https://www.fremont.gov/home/ showpublisheddocument/11057/637963432012370000 (accessed October 2024).

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐18 federal standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any new or more significant ambient air quality impacts and would remain less than significant as identified in the GP EIR.

5.3.2.4 Short‐Term Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Toxic Air Contaminants 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. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site include residential uses located south of the site across Paseo Padre Parkway at approximately 600 feet.

According to the BAAQMD, a project would result in a significant impact if it would individually expose the maximum exposed individual receptor (MEIR) to TACs resulting in an increased cancer risk greater than 10.0 in 1 million, 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 microgram 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, exposed sensitive receptors to TACs resulting in an increased cancer risk greater than 100.0 in 1 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.

Construction activities can expose sensitive receptors to airborne particulates and fugitive dust as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., diesel‐fueled vehicles and equipment). However, construction contractors would be required to implement the City’s Standard Development Requirements to Address Resource Protection, as identified in Chapter 18.218.050 (a)(1) of the City of Fremont Municipal Code. With implementation of this standard requirement, project construction pollutant emissions would be well below the BAAQMD significance thresholds and would not result in substantial pollutant concentrations. Health Risk Assessment (HRA) analyses typically use PM10 emissions to represent diesel particulate matter emissions, consistent with Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance. As shown in Table 5.3.A, Project Construction Emissions in Pounds Per Day, the proposed project’s PM10 emissions would not exceed applicable BAAQMD thresholds. This indicates that significant mass emissions of PM10 would not occur. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate a substantial amount of diesel particulate matter emissions from off‐road equipment use or truck idling that would result in the generation of a substantial amount of TACs, and a significant health risk would not occur.

Furthermore, the nearest sensitive receptors are located approximately 600 feet from the project site, which is a sufficient distance for particulate matter to disperse prior to reaching the nearest sensitive receptor. Further reductions in health risk can be accomplished through implementation of BAAQMD Basic and/or Additional Construction Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure AIR‐3, as identified in the GP EIR, requires projects to demonstrate that the heavy‐duty (>50 horsepower) off‐ road vehicles to be used in the construction project will achieve a project‐wide fleet average of 45 percent particulate reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average, which would significantly reduce any potential risk during the construction period.

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐19 The GP EIR determined that construction activities could result in short‐term emissions of diesel particulate matter, also known TACs. The potential for individual development projects to exceed BAAQMD thresholds for construction emissions was identified as a potentially significant impact in the GP EIR (Impact AIR‐2). However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐2, as identified in the GP EIR, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure AIR‐2: Modify Implementation Measures of the Draft General Plan Update to Minimize Potential Exposures of Sensitive Receptors to TACs. Implementation 7‐7.3A: Prohibit Sensitive Receptors in Poor Air Quality Areas shall be modified as follows.

Minimize exposures of new sensitive receptors/land uses near sources of TACs such as freeways, rail lines, stationary air pollutant sources, and industrial areas where existing or projected air quality problems exist. The following measures should be considered to reduce TAC exposures:
 Site‐specific studies to identify the significance of TAC exposure and to identify whether or not additional mitigation measures are necessary. If so, implement the following examples of site‐ specific mitigation measures:
○ Site design to reduce TAC exposure;
○ Phased developments that delay occupancy of areas with highest TAC exposure to allow for the effects of lower future TAC emissions from CARB and BAAQMD regulations or
standards that are currently in effect (these regulations or standards require time to become more effective);
○ Landscape planning that includes trees or other vegetation to reduce TAC exposure;
○ Install and maintain filtration systems of fresh air intakes to buildings that sensitive receptors would occupy. Such a measure shall only be undertaken after site‐specific studies have identified the magnitude of exposures and level of reductions necessary to minimize exposures to acceptable levels; and
○ Reduce emissions at sources through a number of measures that may include physical treatments to stationary sources, restrictions on the use of those sources, parking/idling restrictions, and truck routing requirements.

The proposed project would be consistent with the construction assumptions and mitigation measures identified in the GP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to have a

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐20 significant impact on sensitive receptors. Therefore, the proposed would not result in new or more severe impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

5.3.2.5 Long‐Term Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Toxic Air Contaminants Primary sources for TAC emissions include power plants, refineries, factories, gas stations, and consumer products. The proposed project would include the construction of a 36,000‐square‐foot Community Center, which would not include any stationary sources of TAC emissions. As identified in Table 5.3.B, project operational emissions of criteria pollutants would be below BAAQMD significance thresholds; thus, they are not likely to have a significant impact on sensitive receptors.

Once the proposed project is constructed, the proposed project would not be a source of substantial emissions. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new sources of TACs. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of TACs.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

5.3.2.6 Odors
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.

Odor‐generating land uses typically include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and food manufacturing facilities. The proposed project would include the construction of a 36,000‐square‐ foot Community Center. Therefore, the proposed land uses would not be considered potential generators of odor that could affect a substantial number of people. 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. The proposed project would also include trash enclosures, which would reduce any potential for odors from project related waste. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in other emissions (e.g., those leading to odors) that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

5.3.3 Applicable Mitigation/Policies
No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic. No further revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures, beyond implementation of GP EIR Mitigation Measures AIR‐2 and AIR‐3 and the City’s Standard Development Requirements to Address Resource Protection are required.

5.3.4 Conclusion
The proposed project is consistent with the type of development analyzed within the GP EIR, and construction activities would be required to comply with GP EIR Mitigation Measures AIR‐2 and AIR‐3 and the City’s Standard Development Requirements to Address Resource Protection, as identified in Chapter 18.218.050(a)(1) of the City of Fremont Municipal Code. As such, the GP EIR E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐21 adequately evaluated the potential air quality impacts of the proposed project, and there would be no new impact associated with air quality.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐22

5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?

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?

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?

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

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?

5.4.1 City of Fremont General Plan Environmental Impact Report Findings The GP EIR analyzed the following topics related to biological resources: special‐status species, sensitive natural communities including waters of the United States, wildlife corridors, local policies and ordinances regarding biological resources, and habitat or natural community conservation plans. The GP EIR determined that numerous special‐status plants and animals are known to occur within or near Fremont; therefore, development under the General Plan could result in potentially significant impacts to special‐status species or essential habitat for special‐status species. However, compliance with and implementation of General Plan Policies 7‐1.1 through 7‐1.3, 7‐1.5, and 7‐1.7 would reduce potential impacts to special‐status species to a less than significant level. The GP EIR discussed that development under the General Plan could result in degradation and removal of annual grassland and oak woodland, thus impacting riparian habitats that support a high diversity of wildlife species, resulting in a potentially significant impact on sensitive natural communities. With implementation of General Plan Policies 7‐1.1, 7‐2.1, and 7‐2.2, development under the General Plan would result in a less than significant impact related to riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities. Additionally, the GP EIR discussed the City’s role as an important link for migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway. However, with implementation of General Plan Policy 7‐1.1, E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐23 development under the General Plan would result in a less than significant impact related to wildlife corridors. The GP EIR also determined that with implementation of General Plan Policy 7‐1.1, 7‐1.5, and 7‐5.4, the General Plan would not conflict with local policies or ordinances regarding biological resources or an adopted habitat or natural community conservation plan.

5.4.2 Project Analysis
A Biological Resources Assessment12 was prepared for the proposed project that included background research and field surveys. The Biological Resources Assessment is included in Appendix B of this checklist, and the findings of the Biological Resources Assessment are summarized below.

A biological resource records search was conducted of the most current versions of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database. Historic and current aerial imagery of the project site were also reviewed. A site visit was conducted on May 9, 2024.

The site is entirely developed with the existing approximately 22,200‐square‐foot Central Park Teen Center and a parking lot. The remainder of the site is undeveloped with some areas of turf and ornamental trees. A major feature of Central Park is Lake Elizabeth, which is immediately northeast of the project site.

The only vegetation communities on the project site are planted/ornamental landscaped, including turfgrass. At the time of the survey, it appeared that a portion of the northern side of the project site had not been recently mowed or maintained, and it was dominated by ruderal vegetation, including taller grasses and forbs.

A few California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi) and their burrows were seen. One bumble bee that could not be identified to species was seen flying on the site, visiting flowers of a mallow plant.

Common bird species that were observed in the park include American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), and rock pigeon (Columba livia). No large stick nests were detected. No large cavities in trees that could be used by owls or bats were detected either. No evidence of bat roosts (i.e., staining, guano) was seen on the site.

At the time of the survey, the only feature likely subject to United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and/or CDFW jurisdiction is Lake Elizabeth, which is outside of the project site and would not be impacted by project activities.

12 LSA Associates, Inc. 2024a. Biological Resources Assessment, Fremont Central Park Community Center Project. September.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐24

5.4.2.1 Special‐Status Species
Special‐status species are defined as follows:
 Species that are listed, formally proposed for listing, or designated as candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA)  Species that are listed, or designated as candidates for listing, as rare, threatened, or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA)  Wildlife species designated as Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected by the CDFW  Species that meet the definition of rare, threatened, or endangered under Section 15380 of the State CEQA Guidelines
 Species that local agencies consider taxa of special concern Special‐Status Plants. Special‐status plant species are rare due to a combination of factors, including restriction to rare soil types, vegetation communities or vernal pools, the inability to persist in developed or grazed areas, and the inability to compete with nonnative invasive species.

The IPaC list contained one federally protected plant species: Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens). The CNDDB query returned 14 special‐status plant species with recorded occurrences within 5 miles of the site. The CNPS query returned 7 special‐status plant species, 6 of which were also in the CNDDB. The resulting combined list of 23 species is detailed in the Biological Resources Assessment (Appendix B).

Of these 23 species, 22 were determined to have no potential to occur due to restriction to rare soil types, vegetation communities, or vernal pools, and inability to compete with nonnative invasive species. No special‐status plant species were observed during the reconnaissance‐level site visit.

One rare plant species (slender‐leaved pondweed [Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina]), has the potential to occur in Central Park because Lake Elizabeth provides potentially suitable habitat for this species. However, because the proposed project would not impact Lake Elizabeth, the proposed project would have a low potential to impact this special‐status plant species. Therefore, impacts to special‐status plant species would be less than significant.

Special‐Status Wildlife. The CNDDB query returned 18 special‐status wildlife species with recorded occurrences within 5 miles of the project site. The CNDDB also had occurrences for two great blue heron rookeries within 5 miles of the site. Great blue heron is not a special‐status species, but its large nesting rookeries are protected and tracked by the CNDDB. The IPaC list included an additional five federally protected species (San Joaquin kit fox [Vulpes macrotis mutica], California least tern [Sterna antillarum browni], western spadefoot [Spea hammondii], conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), and vernal pool fairy shrimp [Branchinecta lynchi]) for which the CNDDB does not have occurrences within 5 miles of the site. The combined list of the potential for each of these 23 species to occur on the site is included in the Biological Resources Assessment (Appendix B). For special‐status bird species, the potential to occur refers only for the potential to nest on the project site or within a buffer of the project site. The size of the buffer is species‐specific and is based on agency guidelines. For monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus plexippus), the potential E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐25 to occur refers to wintering roosts and reproduction because they too may fly over or forage on the site.

Based upon analysis of the CNDDB occurrences, conditions observed during the survey, and an analysis of habitat requirements for individual species, only two of these species were determined to have some potential to occur: burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and white‐tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). The CNDDB contains 12 presumed extant occurrences for burrowing owl within 5 miles of the project site. Although no white‐tailed kite nests were found during the site visit, the numerous trees in the project site and in the greater Central Park area provide suitable nest sites, and some foraging habitat is present in and around Central Park. This species is known to nest in Alameda County and could nest on the site.

The potential for protected resources to be impacted by construction of the proposed project is a function of the likelihood the species is present when the project is constructed, as well as the type and duration of construction activities. Another factor is the sensitivity of the species or resource to disturbance. For example, roosting bats may not react to construction activities near their roosts during the day, whereas a raptor may abandon its nest if construction is within 100 feet of its nest.

Construction of the proposed project could directly and indirectly result in significant impacts to special‐status wildlife species if they are present on the site during construction. Due to the potential presence of burrowing owl, white‐tailed kite and other nesting birds in or near the project area, the proposed project would be required to implement the City’s Standard Development Requirements to Address Resource Protection, Chapter 18.218.050 (b)(1) and Chapter

18.218.050(b)(2), as listed in Table 3.B in Section 3.4.1, Standard Development Requirements.

With implementation of the City’s Standard Development Requirements, impacts to special‐status wildlife, including white‐tailed kite, burrowing owl, and other nesting birds, would be reduced to a less than significant level.

5.4.2.2 Riparian Habitat and Sensitive Natural Communities The CNDDB contains occurrences for two sensitive natural communities (i.e., Northern Coastal Salt Marsh and Sycamore Alluvial Woodland) that have occurrences within 5 miles of the site. These sensitive natural communities are not present on the site.

The California Wildlife Conservation Board defines riparian areas as “transitional zones between terrestrial and aquatic systems that exhibit characteristics of both systems. They are typically vegetated with lush growths of grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees that are tolerant of periodic flooding and have sediments that are rich in nutrients and organic matter.” Some areas of riparian habitat and fringing freshwater marsh are present in Central Park, especially around Lake Elizabeth. Lake Elizabeth and associated wetlands and riparian woodland in Central Park attract numerous gulls, geese, and other resident or migratory waterfowl. The proposed project would not impact Lake Elizabeth, and there is no riparian habitat within the project site.

Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐26

5.4.2.3 Wetlands
As previously discussed, Lake Elizabeth is the only feature near the project site likely subject to USACE and/or CDFW jurisdiction. The proposed project would not impact Lake Elizabeth. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts to State and federally protected wetlands. No impact would occur.

5.4.2.4 Wildlife Movement and Corridors
The only vegetation communities on the project site are planted/ornamental landscaped, including turfgrass. These areas may provide some value for foraging, cover, and refuge for use by other bird species and by dispersing terrestrial animals. Many animals likely move through the site despite the development and human activity. Therefore, any additional work on the site would not result in significant further fragmentation of natural habitats or substantial impediments to wildlife movement, and any common urban‐adapted species that currently move through the project site would continue to be able to do so. As such, the project would not significantly interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors.

The site does not provide extensive and/or high‐quality habitat areas that would support large breeding populations of any terrestrial wildlife species; therefore, no native wildlife nursery sites are present. Several native bird species, however, likely nest within Central Park each year. Native bird nests could be considered nursery sites and are protected by the California Fish and Game Code as well as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Nesting birds in Central Park are acclimated to some level of regular human activity, but significant new activities could disrupt normal nesting behavior, leading to nest destruction or abandonment.

Implementation of the City’s Standard Development Requirements, as discussed in Section 5.4.2.1, would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds by ensuring that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided during project construction.

The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on wildlife movement and corridors.

5.4.2.5 Local Policies
Development of the proposed project would result in the removal of 33 trees. Approximately 45 trees would be planted as part of the proposed project. None of these trees qualify as “landmark”13

13 A “landmark tree” means a tree that has been so designated by resolution of the City Council as well as any tree that has been designated in the General Plan as a primary historic resource.

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐27 or “protected”14 trees under the City’s Municipal Code. Pursuant to Chapter 18.215 of the City of Fremont’s Municipal Code, a tree removal permit is required prior to removing, damaging, or relocating protected trees on private property; however, because the project site consists of a public park, a tree removal permit is not required. Nevertheless, the proposed project would include the planting of 45 new trees, which would replace the trees to be removed. There are no other local policies or ordinances related to biological resources that could be applicable to the project site.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. This impact would be less than significant.

5.4.2.6 Habitat Conservation Plans
The project site is not within any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact.

5.4.3 Applicable Mitigation/Policies
No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, or revisions to the project, or new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures or policies are required.

5.4.4 Conclusion
The proposed project is generally consistent with the type and intensity of development analyzed in the GP EIR and would be required to comply with the City’s Standard Development Requirements and the City Municipal Code related to protection of biological resources. As such, the GP EIR adequately evaluated the potential biological resource impacts of the proposed project, and there would be no new impacts associated with biological resources.

14 A “protected tree” means any tree under Section 18.215.050 that may be removed, damaged or relocated only subject to a permit or other authorization conferred pursuant to the provisions of this chapter; except for landmark trees, which are protected by special regulations set out in Chapter 18215 of the Municipal Code. Protected trees include private trees (other than landmark trees) that meet the following criteria: a tree having a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 6 inches or more on a vacant lot, a tree having a dbh of 6 inches or more on a developed lot with a pending development project, a native tree having a dbh of 10 inches or more, a tree having a dbh of 18 inches or more, a tree required to be planted as mitigation for tree removal or as a condition of approval, or one of six or more trees of the same species that are located on the same lot and each have a dbh of 6 inches or more.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐28

5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
g. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
h. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
i. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

5.5.1 City of Fremont General Plan Environmental Impact Report Findings The GP EIR analyzed potential impacts to historical and archaeological resources. The GP EIR determined that development under the General Plan may result in demolition, relocation, etc. of one or more historic resources. Development under the General Plan would require implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL‐1, compliance with the City of Fremont historic resource protection policies, design guidelines, regulations, and programs. After implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL‐1, the development under the General Plan would remain significant and unavoidable due to the continued potential for demolition or substantial material alteration of historic resources. The GP EIR also determined that implementation of General Plan Policy 4‐6.2., which requires proposed alterations to be consistent with The Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, which would reduce potential impacts associated with the alteration of historic resources to a less than significant level. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL‐2 through CUL‐4, which require work to halt when archaeological resources or human remains are uncovered during construction activities, impacts regarding these resources would be less than significant.

5.5.2 Project Analysis

5.5.2.1 Historic Resources
According to the Cultural Resources Study15 prepared for the proposed project, one built environment property (i.e., the existing Teen Center) was identified within the project area. The proposed project would include the demolition of the existing Teen Center. The Teen Center opened in 1971 as the Fremont Main Library and was subsequently remodeled to serve as the Teen Center following construction of the current Fremont Main Library on Stevenson Boulevard. Although associated with the development of Fremont, a pattern of events significant in the history of Fremont itself, Alameda County, and Statewide, the Teen Center does not appear to possess higher associative stature and therefore is not eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), or the City of Fremont Register as specified in the Historic Resources Ordinance (Chapter 18.175 of the

15 LSA Associates, Inc. 2024b. Cultural Resources Study. October.

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐29 Fremont Municipal Code.16 Therefore, this resource does not qualify as a historical resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21084.1, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(g). Because this built environment resource has been evaluated for significance as a historical resource and was found to be not eligible for Register placement, its demolition would not adversely cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

As described in the Cultural Resources Study, during the archaeological survey, an isolated chert core/tool was discovered in the northeastern portion of the project area (i.e., the Archaeological Area of Potential Effects [APE]). The artifact (LSA‐20231213‐ISO‐1) was recorded on the appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Series 523 forms. Isolates are categorically considered not significant under the evaluative criteria of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and CEQA.

The project area also has potential for buried pre‐contact archaeological resources given its position in the landscape along former streams and a marshy pond, and the extensive underlying Holocene‐ age alluvial deposits. The discovery of the isolated chert core/tool during the current study and the previous report of human burials discovered during construction of the Fremont Civic Center

0.1 mile north of the project area underscores the pre‐contact archaeological sensitivity of the project area.

The overall archaeological sensitivity of the project area is lessened by past land uses that included years of plowing for agriculture, later historical development within the central portion of the project area (which may have impacted previously extant pre‐contact and historic‐period archaeological resources), and ground‐disturbing activities associated with the creation of the current Central Park and Teen Center (including removal of past structures and roads, and construction‐related excavations). The depth of these landscape modifications in the project area is not known. Beneath the zone of disturbance, however, there may remain intact buried archaeological resources.

Given the potential for buried, intact, pre‐contact archaeological resources to be present within the project site, the measures in the City’s Standard Development Requirements to Address Resource Protection Chapter 18.218.050(d)(2) and 18.218.050(d)(3) shall be implemented. These measures are listed in Table 3.B in Section 3.4.1, Standard Development Requirements.

The proposed project would be required to implement the City’s Standard Development Requirements, which include archaeological monitoring and protocols for discovery of archaeological resources during construction; therefore, potential impacts to these resources would be less than significant.

16 City of Fremont. 2024. Fremont Municipal Code. Chapter 18.175 – Historic Resources. Updated April 29.

Website: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/#!/Fremont18/Fremont18175.html#18.175.120.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐30

5.5.2.2 Archaeological Resources
According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(1), “When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource.” Those archaeological sites that do not qualify as historical resources shall be assessed to determine if they qualify as “unique archaeological resources” (California PRC Section 21083.2).

Archaeological deposits identified during project construction would be treated by the City and project applicant—in consultation with a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology—in accordance with the City’s Standard Development Requirements to Address Resource Protection, as described above in Section

5.5.2.2. Therefore, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant.

5.5.2.3 Human Remains
Based on previous archaeological investigation and analysis, there is a potential for the proposed project to result in the disturbance of human remains during ground disturbing activities. If human remains are encountered at the project site, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e)(1) state that no further disturbance shall occur to the area of the find until the Alameda County Coroner’s Bureau has made a determination of origin and disposition of the human bone pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately and shall make a determination within 2 working days of being notified. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by phone within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall then immediately determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment of the remains within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. MLD recommendations may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials, preservation of Native American human remains and associated items in place, relinquishment of Native American human remains and associated items to the descendants for treatment, or any other culturally appropriate treatment.

Compliance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and PRC Section 5097.98 regarding the treatment of human remains would ensure that potential impacts to human remains would be less than significant.

5.5.3 Applicable Mitigation
No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, or revisions to the project, or new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures or policies are required, beyond the City’s Standard Development Requirements related to protection of cultural and tribal cultural resources.

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐31

5.5.4 Conclusion
The proposed project is generally consistent with the type and intensity of development analyzed in the GP EIR and would be required to comply with the City’s Standard Development Requirements related to protection of cultural and tribal cultural resources as well as Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and PRC Section 5097.98. Compliance with applicable regulations would ensure that the proposed project has a less than significant impact related to cultural resources.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐32

5.6 ENERGY

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation?

b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

5.6.1 City of Fremont General Plan Environmental Impact Report Findings CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines were updated in December 2018, and several new topics were added, one of which was Energy. This topic was not evaluated as a standalone topic in the GP EIR.

However, Energy was briefly discussed in the GP EIR under Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes. The GP EIR determined that development under the General Plan would require additional energy for construction and ongoing maintenance/operations. It was determined that development under the General Plan would not result in any significant increase in dependence on non‐ renewable energy resources or in a substantial increase in peak or base‐period energy. All new development would be required to incorporate applicable energy conservation features in compliance with CCR Title 24 (the CBC).

5.6.2 Project Analysis

5.6.2.1 Construction and Operation Energy Use
The following describes the potential impacts regarding energy resources that could result from implementation of the proposed project.

Construction Energy Use. The anticipated construction schedule assumes that the proposed project would be built over 13 months. Construction‐specific phases were assessed for their energy consumption under each construction sub‐phase: demolition, grading, site preparation, building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities.

Construction would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of construction materials, preparation of the site for grading and building activities, and construction of the building.

All or most of this energy would be derived from nonrenewable resources. Petroleum fuels (e.g., diesel and gasoline) would be the primary sources of energy for these activities. However, construction activities are not anticipated to result in an inefficient use of energy because gasoline and diesel fuel would be supplied by construction contractors who would conserve the use of their supplies to minimize their costs on the project. Energy (i.e., fuel) usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐33 Operational Energy Use. Energy use by the proposed project would be associated with electricity consumption and fuel used for vehicle trips associated with the project. The proposed project would not utilize natural gas, and no natural gas demand is anticipated during operation of the proposed project. Energy consumption was estimated for the project using default energy intensities by land use type in CalEEMod.

In addition, the proposed project would result in energy usage associated with gasoline to fuel project‐related trips. The average fuel economy for light‐duty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and sport utility vehicles [SUVs]) in the United States has steadily increased from about 14.9 miles per gallon (mpg) in 1980 to 22.8 mpg in 2021.17 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 2021.18 Fuel use associated with vehicle and truck trips generated by the proposed project was calculated based on the project’s trip generation described in Section 5.17, Transportation, which identifies that the proposed project would generate approximately 1,470 average daily trips. The amount of operational fuel use was estimated using CARB’s EMFAC2021 model, which provided projections for typical daily fuel usage in Alameda County.

Energy usage estimates associated with the proposed project are shown in Table 5.6.A.

Table 5.6.A: Estimated Annual Energy Use of Proposed Project Electricity Use (kWh per year) Natural Gas
(therms per year)
Gasoline
(gallons per year)
Diesel
(gallons per year)
472,256 0.0 182,441 112,263
Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (October 2024). kWh = kilowatt‐hours

As shown in Table 5.6.A the estimated potential increased electricity demand associated with the proposed project is 472,256 kWh per year. In 2022, Alameda County consumed 10,395 gigawatt‐ hours (GWh) or 10,395,384,395 kWh.19 Therefore, electricity demand associated with the proposed project would be approximately 0.01 percent of Alameda County’s total electricity demand.

The proposed project would comply with the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) standards. In addition, proposed new development would be constructed using energy efficient modern building materials and construction practices, and the proposed project also would use new modern appliances and equipment in accordance with the Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608). The expected energy consumption during construction and operation of the proposed project would be consistent with typical usage rates for recreational uses. Furthermore, the proposed project would include Green Energy Elements,

17 United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). n.d. “Table 4‐23: Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S.

Light Duty Vehicles”. Website: https://www.bts.gov/content/average‐fuel‐efficiency‐us‐light‐duty‐vehicles (accessed October 2024)
18 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2015. Medium and Heavy‐Duty Truck Prices and Fuel Economy 2013– 2026. Website: efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=206180 (accessed October 2024) 19 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2022. Electricity Consumption by County. Website:
http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed October 2024).

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐34 including a rooftop photovoltaic‐ready building, electric vehicle charging, and back‐up battery power systems. These features are proposed to be funded by other sources through grants and/or in partnership with AVA Community Energy.

In addition, the proposed project would result in energy usage associated with gasoline and diesel to fuel project‐related trips. As shown above in Table 5.6.A, vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would consume approximately 182,441 gallons of gasoline per year and 112,263 gallons of diesel fuel per year. Based on fuel consumption obtained from EMFAC2021, approximately 518.2 million gallons of gasoline and approximately 154.1 million gallons of diesel will be consumed from vehicle trips in Alameda County in 2027. Therefore, gasoline and diesel fuel demand generated by vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would be a minimal fraction of gasoline and diesel fuel consumption in Alameda County. Fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by project operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is the private utility that would supply the proposed project’s electricity services. In 2021, a total of 50 percent of PG&E’s delivered electricity came from renewable sources, including solar, wind, geothermal, small hydroelectric, and various forms of bioenergy.20 PG&E reached California’s 2020 renewable energy goal in 2017 and is positioned to meet the State’s 60 percent by 2030 renewable energy mandate set forth in Senate Bill (SB) 100. In addition, PG&E plans to continue to provide reliable service to its customers and upgrade its distribution systems as necessary to meet future demand. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel or energy and would incorporate renewable energy or energy efficiency measures into building design, equipment use, and transportation. As such, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

5.6.2.2 Conflict 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 zero emission vehicles (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

20 Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). 2021. Exploring Clean Energy Solutions. Website: https://www.pge.com/ en_US/about‐pge/environment/what‐we‐are‐doing/clean‐energy‐solutions/clean‐energy‐solutions. page?WT.mc_id=Vanity_cleanenergy (accessed August 2023).

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐35 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.

Furthermore, as detailed in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions section 5.8.2.3, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s CAP, Climate Ready Fremont, which includes energy measures that are intended to reduce energy consumption. These measures include transitioning to 100 percent clean energy and zero net energy, reduce energy consumption in building and operations, reduce demand on the electrical grid, and reduce VMT and single‐occupancy vehicle trips. As shown in Table 5.8.B, the proposed project would be consistent with the energy strategies from the CAP.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict or obstruct with local energy conservation policies and strategies as described in the Climate Ready Fremont plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

5.6.3 Applicable Mitigation/Policies
No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.

5.6.4 Conclusion
The proposed project is consistent with the type of development analyzed within the GP EIR and would be required to comply with existing regulations related to energy conservation. As such, the GP EIR adequately evaluated the energy impacts of the proposed project and there would be no new impact associated with energy.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐36

5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
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 Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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?

d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

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?

f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

5.7.1 City of Fremont General Plan Environmental Impact Report Findings The GP EIR analyzed seismic hazards, soil erosion and loss of topsoil, unstable geologic units, expansive soils, and soils incapable of supporting septic systems. The GP EIR discussed that Fremont is in a seismically active region; however, implementation of General Plan Policies 10‐1.1 through 10‐1.3 and 10‐2.1 through 10‐2.5 would reduce potential impacts associated with landslides, surface fault rupture, and seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction, unstable geologic units, and seismic ground shaking to a level considered less than significant. Additionally, it was determined that dam failure is unlikely and low risk due to structural engineering of dams and compliance with federal and regional requirements; therefore, impacts related to flooding as a result of failure of a dam or levee would be less than significant. Although development under the General Plan would disturb topsoil and potentially result in erosion, the GP EIR determined that implementation of General Plan Policy 10‐1.3 would reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant. The GP EIR determined that development under the General Plan would be connected to the Union Sanitary District facilities and would be subject to the CBC and Alameda County On‐site Wastewater Treatment System and Individual/Small Water System Ordinance. Therefore, development under the General Plan would result in a less than significant impact related to expansive soils and soils incapable of supporting septic systems.

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐37 The GP EIR analyzed potential impacts to paleontological resources. The GP EIR determined that although no paleontological resources are known to exist in those areas in the city where development under the General Plan would be anticipated, ground‐disturbing activities associated with new construction and utility installation could result in the destruction of unidentified subsurface paleontological resources. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL‐3, which requires work to halt when paleontological resources are uncovered during construction activities, impacts regarding these resources would be less than significant.

5.7.2 Project Analysis

5.7.2.1 Seismic Hazards
Fault Rupture. Fault rupture is generally expected along active fault traces that have exhibited signs of recent geological movement (i.e., within the past 11,000 years). Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones delineate areas around active faults with potential surface fault rupture hazards that would require specific geological investigations prior to approval of certain kinds of development within the delineated area. State regulations prohibit habitable structures from being sited within 50 feet of an active fault. According to the California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application (“EQ Zapp”),21 the project site is within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone for the active Hayward Fault.

A Fault Rupture Hazard Evaluation (Appendix C)22 was prepared for the proposed project in accordance with the Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and California Geological Survey (CGS) Special Publications 117A and 42. Previous evaluations of the Hayward Fault indicated that the “western” trace of the fault is located farther east than the mapped location by the CGS. A subsurface evaluation of the project site was performed between October 23 and November 10, 2023 and consisted of excavating and logging an exploratory trench. Similar to previous studies, the subsurface evaluation determined that there was no evidence of faulting in the underlying alluvial sediments. Additionally, in accordance with State regulations, the proposed project would implement a 50‐foot structural setback. The fault rupture hazard evaluation recommended review of future design plans and revisions to ensure the report’s accuracy.

The proposed project would comply with the provisions of the Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, and all other seismic safety criteria established by the City. As discussed above, the proposed project would implement a 50‐foot setback in compliance with State regulations and the City’s General Plan. All built structures (e.g., buildings, trellises, overhangs and patio spaces) associated with the proposed project would be located outside of the 50‐foot setback. Some improvements (e.g. parking, sidewalks, pathways, landscaping) would encroach into the 50‐foot setback to connect to existing facilities. These improvements do not constitute habitable structures and their placement within the 50‐foot setback is consistent with the State and local regulations. With implementation of General Plan policies and compliance with all

21 California Department of Conservation (DOC). n.d. California Geological Survey (CGS). California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application (“EQ Zapp”). Website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/ eqzapp/app/ (accessed August 20, 2024).
22 Ninyo & Moore. 2023. Fault Rupture Hazard Evaluation, Proposed Community Center, 4000 Paseo Padre Parkway. December.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐38 applicable regulations regarding fault rupture, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to fault rupture.

Seismic Ground Shaking. The intensity of an earthquake is a subjective measure of the perceptible effects of a seismic event at a given point. The Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale is the most commonly used scale to measure the subjective effects of earthquake intensity. It uses values ranging from I to XII.23
Mapping has been compiled by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for the likely shaking intensities in the Bay Area that would have a 10 percent chance of occurring in any 50‐year period. A large earthquake (magnitude

6.7 or greater) on one of the major active faults in the region would generate violent (MMI IX) ground shaking at the project site.24
The most significant adverse impact associated with strong seismic shaking is potential damage to structures and improvements. The risk of ground‐shaking impacts is reduced through adherence to the design and materials standards set forth in building codes. The CBC (Title 24, Part 2 of the CCR) provides for stringent construction requirements on projects in areas of high seismic risk. The design and construction for the proposed project would be required to conform with, or exceed, current best standards for earthquake‐resistant construction in accordance with the latest CBC requirements in effect at the time of building permit application. Seismic design provisions of current building codes generally prescribe minimum lateral forces, applied statically to the structure, combined with the gravity forces of dead and live loads. The code‐prescribed lateral forces are generally considered to be substantially smaller than the comparable forces that would be associated with a major earthquake. Therefore, structures would be able to (1) resist minor earthquakes without damage; (2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage but with some nonstructural damage; and (3) resist major earthquakes without collapse but with some structural and nonstructural damage.

Compliance with the CBC is a requirement for issuance of building permits for a project and a standard condition of City entitlements. The geotechnical report completed for the proposed project includes design recommendations to address potential concerns associated with strong seismic shaking. In addition, the proposed project would adhere to a 50‐foot setback in accordance with State regulations. Proper engineering design and construction in conformance with CBC standards, State regulations, project‐specific geotechnical recommendations, and General Plan Policies would ensure that potential impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Seismically Related Ground Failure. Liquefaction is the transformation of loose, fine‐grained sediment to a fluid‐like state similar to quicksand. This phenomenon occurs due to strong seismic

23 United States Geological Survey (USGS). n.d. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. Website:
www.usgs.gov/natural‐hazards/earthquake‐hazards/science/modified‐mercalli‐intensity‐scale?qt‐ science_center_objects=0#qt‐science_center_objects (accessed August 20, 2024). 24 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2018.

Probabilistic Earthquake Shaking Hazard Map. Website: https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webapp viewer/index.html?id=4a6f3f1259df42eab29b35dfcd086fc8 (accessed August 20, 2024).

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐39 activity and lessens the soil’s ability to support a structural foundation. The primary factors affecting the possibility of liquefaction in soil are (1) intensity and duration of earthquake shaking; (2) soil type and relative density; (3) overburden pressures; and (4) depth to groundwater. Soil most susceptible to liquefaction is clean, loose, fine‐grained sands and non‐plastic silts that are saturated.

The CGS has mapped Seismic Hazard Zones that delineate areas susceptible to liquefaction and/or landslides that require proposed new developments in these areas to conduct additional investigation to determine the extent and magnitude of potential ground failure. According to CGS data,25 the proposed locations for the Community Center and Gymnasium are not within but near a seismic hazard zone for liquefaction. As indicated in the Geotechnical Evaluation,26 the project site is in an area considered to be moderately susceptible to liquefaction. Based on the groundwater level encountered during subsurface exploration at approximately 45 feet below the ground surface and regional mapping of historic high groundwater levels, the proposed project would not require additional investigation to determine the extent and magnitude of potential ground failure.The proposed project would be designed and constructed consistent with the most current earthquake resistance standards for Seismic Zone 4 in the CBC, which includes specifications for site preparation, such as compaction requirements for foundations. In addition, the proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations identified in the fault rupture hazard evaluation and geotechnical evaluation prepared for the proposed project.

Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic‐related ground failure. This impact would be less than significant.

Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which surficial soil displaces along a shear zone that has formed within an underlying liquefied layer. Upon reaching mobilization, the surface soils are transported downslope or in the direction of a free face by earthquake and gravitational forces. The project site is relatively flat, and the geotechnical evaluation determined that the potential for lateral spreading is low. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to lateral spreading.

5.7.2.2 Landslides
A landslide generally occurs on relatively steep slopes and/or on slopes underlain by weak materials.

The project site is on a relatively flat area and is not located next to any hills. The project site is considered flatland and therefore would not be susceptible to landslides.27 Therefore, the potential for the proposed project to expose people or structures to risk as a result of landslides would be less than significant.

25 California Department of Conservation (DOC). n.d. California Geological Survey (CGS), California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application (“EQ Zapp”). Website: https://maps. conservation.ca.gov/cgs/ EQZApp/app/ (accessed August 20, 2024).
26 Ninyo & Moore. 2024. Geotechnical Evaluation. August. 27 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). n.d.

Landslide Hazard (Rainfall Induced) Map. Website: https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webapp viewer/index.html?id=4a6f3f1259df42eab29b35dfcd086fc8 (accessed August 20, 2024).

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐40

5.7.2.3 Soil Erosion
Grading and earthmoving during project construction has the potential to result in erosion and loss of topsoil. Exposed soils could be entrained in stormwater runoff and transported off the project sites. Because the proposed project would involve over 1 acre of land disturbance, it would be required to comply with the Construction General Permit,28 which requires preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to any ground disturbance activities. Although designed primarily to protect stormwater quality, the SWPPP would provide the details of the erosion control measures to be applied on the project site during the construction period, including BMPs for erosion control that are recognized by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Additional details regarding the SWPPP are provided later in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality. The geotechnical evaluation indicated that the expansion characteristic of the near surface soil is low. Compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and the General Plan would ensure that the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

5.7.2.4 Unstable Soils
As described in Sections 2.7.2.1 and 2.7.2.2, soils on the project site would not be subject to lateral spreading or landslides but could be subject to liquefaction. The proposed project would be required to conform with the CBC, General Plan Policies, and the site‐specific recommendations identified in the geotechnical evaluation, which would reduce risks related to unstable soils. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to unstable soils.

5.7.2.5 Expansive Soils
Expansive soils are characterized by the potential for shrinking and swelling as the moisture content of the soil decreases and increases, respectively. Shrink‐swell potential is influenced by the amount and type of clay minerals present and can be measured by the percent change of the soil volume.29 Soils within the project site contain clay and therefore have shrinking and swelling potential.

However, compliance with CBC requirements, as required by the General Plan, would ensure that geotechnical design of the proposed project would reduce potential impacts related to expansive soils to a less than significant level. As such, the risk of expansive soil affecting the proposed project is considered low and would represent a less than significant impact.

5.7.2.6 Septic Systems
Development of the proposed project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

28 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2022. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (CGP), Order No. 2022‐0057‐DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002. Website:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2022/wqo_2022‐ 0057‐dwq.pdf (accessed August 21, 2024).
29 Natural Resources Conservation Service. n.d. Web Soil Survey. Website: websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/ App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed August 21, 2024).

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐41

5.7.2.7 Paleontological Resources
The project site is generally flat and developed with the existing Teen Center, parking lot, and turf areas; there are no unique geologic features at the site. The project would be required to implement the City’s Standard Development Requirements to Address Resource Protection, Chapter

18.218.050(d)(2) of the City of Fremont Municipal Code (see Section 5.5.2.1), which provides measures to be implemented in the event the paleontological resources are discovered during ground‐disturbing activities. Therefore, potential impacts to these resources would be less than significant.

5.7.3 Applicable Mitigation/Policies
No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, or revisions to the project, or new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures or policies are required.

5.7.4 Conclusion
The proposed project is generally consistent with the type and intensity of development analyzed in the GP EIR, would be required to comply with the CBC, the City‐required regulations, and recommendations from current and future geotechnical investigations. As such, the GP EIR adequately evaluated the potential geology and soil impacts of the proposed project, and there would be no new impact associated with geology and soils.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐42

5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?

b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

5.8.1 City of Fremont General Plan Environmental Impact Report Findings The GP EIR included a discussion on global climate change that analyzed greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with implementation of the General Plan and potential conflicts with plans, policies, or regulations adopted to reduce GHGs. The GP EIR determined that development under the General Plan would potentially result in an increase in residents and jobs within Fremont that would result in the increase of GHG emissions. However, the expected emissions of the estimated residents and new jobs would equate to 5.57 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) per service population, which is below the threshold established by the BAAQMD of 6.6 MT CO2e per service population. Therefore, the GP EIR determined that the increase in GHG emissions associated with implementation of the General Plan would be less than significant. Additionally, the GP EIR determined that the General Plan promotes consistency with both State and regional level GHG initiatives related to GHG emission reductions. Implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact related to potential conflicts with plans, policies, or regulations adopted to reduce GHG emissions.

5.8.2 Project Analysis
GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, and are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. However, over the last 200 years, human activities have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to be released into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, and enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global climate change. 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)
 Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)
Although GHGs produced by human activities include naturally‐occurring GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O, some gases, like HFCs, PFCs, and SF6, are completely new to the atmosphere. Certain other E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐43 gases, such as water vapor, are short‐lived in the atmosphere compared to those GHGs that remain in the atmosphere for significant periods of time, contributing to climate change in the long term.

Water vapor is generally excluded from the list of GHGs because it is short‐lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation. For the purposes of this analysis, the term “GHGs” refers collectively to the six gases identified in the bulleted list provided above.

The sections below discus the project’s impacts related to the release of GHG emissions for the construction and operational phases of the project. Construction and operational GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod (refer to Appendix A).

Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines states that a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would do either of the following:
 Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

Currently, there is no Statewide GHG emissions threshold that has been used to determine the potential GHG emissions impacts of a project. Thresholds and their methodology are currently developed and revised by air districts in California.

In April 2023, the BAAQMD adopted the 2022 CEQA Guidelines,30 which identify applicable GHG significance thresholds. 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 necessary requirements that new land use development projects must implement to achieve California’s long‐term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. Based on the analysis, the BAAQMD found that new land use development projects need to incorporate specified design elements to contribute their “fair share” toward implementation of the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. If a project is designed and built to incorporate the identified design elements, then it would 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. The document concludes that if a project does not incorporate these design elements, it should be found to result in a significant climate impact because it would hinder California’s efforts to address climate change.

According to BAAQMD’s 2022 CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions if it would:

30 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2023. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. April.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐44 a. Include, at a minimum, the following project design elements:

1. Buildings
a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development).
b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary electrical usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

2. Transportation
a. Achieve a reduction in project‐generated VMT below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted SB 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA:

1. Residential Projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita

2. Office Projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee

3. Retail Projects: No net increase in existing VMT
b. Achieve compliance with off‐street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.
b. Or be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).

The City adopted its updated CAP, Climate Ready Fremont,31 on October 10, 2023. Climate Ready Fremont provides a series of local GHG reduction and climate adaptation measures to be undertaken through 2030 and 2045, including transportation, energy, and waste. Some of the key community‐level measures include: promoting clean power for residents and businesses; investing in EV charging infrastructure and encouraging the use of EVs; requiring green building for new construction; reducing plastic waste; and promoting active transportation options like biking and walking. In addition to reducing emissions, Climate Ready Fremont, demonstrates progress towards the City’s goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045.

In 2019, the City adopted a Carbon Neutrality Resolution for Fremont to achieve a 55 percent GHG emission reduction from a 2005 baseline level by the year 2030 and to become a carbon neutral city no later than 2045, in support of State GHG emission reduction goals codified in Assembly Bill (AB) 1279. The City’s new carbon neutrality goal forms the basis of the Climate Ready Fremont plan. The Climate Ready Fremont includes a post‐carbon framework that identifies seven key strategies to lower GHG emissions resulting from activity in the energy, water, waste, and transportation sectors

31 City of Fremont. 2023. Climate Ready Fremont. October 10. Website: https://www.fremont.gov/ home/showpublisheddocument/14218/638333186754130000 (accessed October 2024).

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐45 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.

Furthermore, as discussed in Climate Ready Fremont, new development projects that are consistent with the growth projections and applicable GHG reduction measures in Climate Ready Fremont are eligible for CEQA streamlining, per the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. Under these provisions, a project that is subject to discretionary review and is consistent with the City’s General Plan growth projections can show consistency with applicable GHG reduction measures in Climate Ready Fremont, and the level of analysis for the project required under CEQA can be streamlined. Furthermore, a project’s incremental contribution to cumulative GHG emissions may be determined not to be cumulatively considerable in such cases.

Therefore, the proposed project is evaluated in the following sections for consistency with the Climate Ready Fremont. The following sections discuss the project’s impacts related to the release of GHG emissions for the construction and operational phases of the project. Construction and operational GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod (refer to Appendix A) and are disclosed in the following sections for informational purposes. As discussed above, the project’s consistency with Climate Ready Fremont was used to determine the proposed project’s potential impacts related to GHG emissions.

5.8.2.1 Construction Greenhouse Gas 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 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 358.0 MT CO2e. Construction GHG emissions were amortized over the life of the project (assumed to be 30 years) and added to the operational emissions. When annualized over the life of the project, amortized construction emissions would be approximately

11.9 MT CO2e per year.

5.8.2.2 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Long‐term operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions from mobile, area, stationary, waste, and water sources as well as indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption. Mobile source GHG emissions would include project‐generated vehicle trips to and from the project site. 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 proposed

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐46 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.

Following guidance from the BAAQMD, GHG emissions for operation of the project were calculated using CalEEMod. Based on the analysis results, summarized in Table 5.8.A, the proposed project would result in emissions of approximately 1,854.6 MT CO2e per year. These estimated emissions are provided for informational purposes, and the significance of the proposed project is further analyzed below.

Table 5.8.A: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emission Type Operational Emissions (metric tons per year) CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Mobile Sources 1,705.5 0.1 0.1 1,733.6
Area Sources 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.5
Energy Sources 43.7 <0.1 <0.1 44.1
Water Sources 1.8 0.1 <0.1 4.0
Waste Sources 17.3 1.7 0.0 60.5
Amortized Construction Emissions 11.9
Total Operational Emissions 1,854.6
Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (October 2024).

CH4 = methane
CO2 = carbon dioxide
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
N2O = nitrous oxide

5.8.2.3 Consistency with Adopted Plans to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions As discussed above, a project would have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions if it would include the project design elements related to natural gas, energy, VMT, and electric vehicles, required by the BAAQMD or if it would be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). As discussed above, the City’s CAP, Climate Ready Fremont, meets the requirements for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy and is designed to streamline environmental review of future development projects in the City, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). Therefore, the proposed project is evaluated for consistency with applicable GHG reduction measures in Climate Ready Fremont as demonstrated in Table 5.8.B below.

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐47 Table 5.8.B: Project Compliance with the Climate Ready Fremont GHG Reduction Measures
GHG Reduction Measure Project Compliance
Measure BU‐1: Transition to 100
percent clean electricity
consumption.

Consistent. The proposed project would include implementation of Green Energy Elements, including solar panels. In addition, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is the private utility that would supply the proposed project’s electricity services. In 2022, a total of 40 percent of PG&E’s delivered electricity came from renewable sources, including solar, wind, geothermal, small hydroelectric, and various forms of bioenergy. PG&E reached California’s 2020 renewable energy goal in 2017 and is positioned to meet the State’s 60 percent by 2030 renewable energy mandate set forth in Senate Bill (SB) 100.

Measure BU‐3: Require new
nonresidential construction to be
zero net energy and low carbon.

Consistent. The proposed project would include the construction of a Community Center building, consisting of active recreational uses. The proposed project would be all‐electric, and no natural gas demand is anticipated during construction or operation of the proposed project. The elimination of natural gas in new development would help projects implement their “fair share” of achieving long‐term 2045 carbon neutrality consistent State goals.

Measure BU‐8: Reduce energy
consumption in buildings and
operations.

Consistent. The proposed project would comply with the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) standards, would be all‐electric, solar‐ready, and would include electric vehicle (EV) parking. In addition, the proposed new development would be constructed using energy efficient modern building materials and construction practices, and the proposed project also would use new modern appliances and equipment, in accordance with the Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, California Code of Regulations [CCR] Sections 1601 through 1608). The expected energy consumption during construction and operation of the proposed project would be consistent with typical usage rates for recreational uses; although the project’s implementation of the latest CALGreen Code standards and modern appliances would reduce energy consumption when compared to consumption in older buildings.

Measure BU‐10: Reduce overall
demand on the electrical grid.

Consistent. The proposed project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 standards of the CCR, established by the California Energy Commission (CEC), regarding energy conservation and green building standards. The proposed project would also include solar that would help generate a portion of the electricity on‐site to minimize demand on the electrical grid. In addition, PG&E plans to continue to provide reliable service to its customers and upgrade its distribution systems as necessary to meet future demand. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with measures related to reducing overall demand on the electrical grid.

Measure BU‐13: Reduce water
consumption in buildings.

Consistent. The project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 standards of the CCR, which includes a variety of different measures, including reduction of wastewater and water use. The proposed project would be required to comply with the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. As such, the proposed project is consistent with measures related to reducing water consumption in buildings.

Measure BU‐14: Increase the capture
of rainwater and use of greywater.

Consistent. As discussed above, the project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 standards of the CCR, which includes a variety of different measures, including reduction of wastewater and water use. The proposed project would also be required to comply with the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. In addition, the proposed project landscape area would include bioretention/flow through planters to capture all stormwater runoff. As such, the proposed project is consistent with measures related to the capture of rainwater.

Measure BU‐15: Increase sustainable
materials use and recovery in
construction and demolition (C&D).

Consistent. The California State Building Code requires a minimum of 65 percent of the debris from certain construction and demolition projects be recycled or salvaged for reuse. The proposed project would increase sustainable materials use and recovery in construction and demolition (C&D) by having construction debris generated at the project site be collected by Republic Services, and transferred to the Fremont Recycling and Transfer Station located at 41149 Boyce Road in Fremont.

Measure IN‐3: Install infrastructure to
support electric vehicle (EV) charging
and other zero‐emission vehicle (ZEV)
fueling needs.

Consistent. The proposed project would include EV standard parking spaces and charging stations consistent with CalGreen Tier 2 EV requirements. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with measures related to the installation of infrastructure to supporting EV charging.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐48 Table 5.8.B: Project Compliance with the Climate Ready Fremont GHG Reduction Measures
GHG Reduction Measure Project Compliance
Measure IN‐5: Improve pedestrian
and bicycle infrastructure as
identified in previous City plans and in
the new Active Transportation Plan.

Consistent. The proposed project would provide EV charging and pedestrian amenities, including crosswalks, sidewalks, bicycle parking, and landscaping, consistent with the intent of this measure.

Measure IN‐12: Reduce emissions
and air pollution associated with
diesel fuel use in off‐road equipment
and stationary sources.

Consistent. Once operational, the proposed project would not include off‐road equipment or stationary sources. In addition, with implementation of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, as required by Fremont Municipal Code (FMC) Section 18.218.050(a) and General Plan Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measure AIR‐3, would reduce the amount of construction vehicle idling consistent with this measure.

Measure LU‐1: Promote and enhance
active transportation options as
identified in the City’s Active
Transportation Plan and Mobility
Action Plan.

Consistent. The proposed project would result in the redevelopment of the site creating infill development that would locate recreational uses near existing residents and employees from existing commercial uses, reducing the demand for travel by single occupancy vehicles. The proposed project would also provide EV charging and pedestrian and bicyclist amenities, including crosswalks, sidewalks, bicycle parking, and landscaping, which would also help to promote and enhance active transportation.

Measure LU‐2: Reduce vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) and single‐occupancy
vehicle trips, as identified in the
General Plan.

Consistent. As discussed above, the proposed project would result in the redevelopment of the site creating infill development that would locate recreational uses near existing residents and employees from existing commercial uses, reducing the demand for travel by single occupancy vehicles. The proposed project would also provide EV charging and pedestrian and bicyclist amenities, including crosswalks, sidewalks, bicycle parking, and landscaping, which would also help to reduce the demand for travel by single occupancy vehicles. In addition, the proposed project is located adjacent to bus stops running along Paseo Padre Parkway. The Fremont Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station is also located within a mile radius from the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would support the ability to use alternative modes of transportation, would promote initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and would increase the use of alternate means of transportation.

Measure LU‐3: Encourage the
adoption of zero‐emission passenger
vehicles.

Consistent. As mentioned above, the proposed project would include EV standard parking spaces and charging stations consistent with CalGreen Tier 2 EV requirements. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with measures related to the installation of infrastructure to supporting EV charging. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with measures encouraging the use of EVs.

Measure LU‐4: Increase transit
ridership and promote transition to
zero‐emissions transit.

Consistent. As discussed above, the proposed project is located adjacent to bus stops running along Paseo Padre Parkway and the Fremont BART station is also located within a mile radius from the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would support the ability to use alternative modes of transportation and would promote initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and VMT.

Measure LU‐5: Increase
implementation of Transportation
Demand Management (TDM)
strategies as identified in the General
Plan.

Consistent. The proposed project would not require a detailed California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) transportation analysis since the proposed project meets the screening criteria and VMT generation potential is below the accepted threshold of significance, the overall project is not anticipated to have a significant VMT impact that would require the implementation of TDM strategies. Furthermore, the proposed project would result in the redevelopment of the site with residential and retail uses on an infill site that would locate residents and employees near existing commercial uses, reducing the demand for travel by single occupancy vehicles. The proposed project would also provide EV spaces, pedestrian and bicyclist amenities, including crosswalks, sidewalks, bicycle parking, and landscaping, which would also help to reduce the demand for travel by single occupancy vehicles. In addition, the proposed project is located adjacent to bus stops running along Paseo Padre Parkway and the Fremont BART station is also located within a mile radius from the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would support the ability to use alternative modes of transportation, would promote initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and VMT, and would increase the use of alternate means of transportation. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this measure.

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐49 Table 5.8.B: Project Compliance with the Climate Ready Fremont GHG Reduction Measures
GHG Reduction Measure Project Compliance
Measure LU‐6: Reduce the amount of
parking to encourage transit‐oriented
development (TOD) as identified in
the General Plan.

Consistent. The proposed project would not reduce the amount of parking; however, as discussed above, the proposed project would result in the redevelopment of the site creating infill development that would locate recreational uses near existing residents and employees from existing commercial uses, reducing the demand for travel by single occupancy vehicles. The proposed project would also provide EV spaces, pedestrian and bicyclist amenities, including crosswalks, sidewalks, bicycle parking, and landscaping, which would also help to reduce the demand for travel by single occupancy vehicles. In addition, the proposed project is located adjacent to bus stops running along Paseo Padre Parkway and the Fremont BART station is also located within a mile radius from the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would support the ability to use alternative modes of transportation, would promote initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and VMT, and would increase the use of alternate means of transportation.

Measure LU‐7: Apply smart growth
and low‐carbon land use
development principles.

Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (October 2024).

As demonstrated in Table 5.8.B above, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable strategies from Climate Ready Fremont. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the environment.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

As discussed above, Climate Ready Fremont contains strategies and measures to achieve a 55 percent GHG emission reduction from a 2005 baseline level by the year 2030 and to become a carbon neutral city no later than 2045, in support of State GHG emission reduction goals codified in AB 1279. The proposed project would be consistent with the applicable strategies from Climate Ready Fremont. Therefore, the proposed project would also be aligned with the City’s goal towards achieving carbon neutrality by 2045.

Furthermore, the proposed project would not be powered by natural gas, and no natural gas demand is anticipated during construction or operation of the proposed project. The elimination of natural gas in new development would help projects implement their “fair share” of achieving long‐ term 2045 carbon neutrality consistent with State goals. As such, if a project does not utilize natural gas, a lead agency can conclude that it would be consistent with achieving the 2045 neutrality goal and will not have a cumulative considerable impact on climate change.32 In addition, the proposed project would comply with the 2022 CALGreen Code standards regarding energy conservation and green building standards. The proposed project would also include solar panels and EV spaces. As such, the proposed project would include sustainable features that are aligned with the State goals for decarbonizing buildings and integrating renewable energy.

32 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2022. Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans. April. Website:

Microsoft Word ‐ FINAL CEQA Thresholds Report for Climate Impacts 03_30_22 revisions with tracked changes (baaqmd.gov) (accessed October 2024).

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐50 The proposed project would comply with existing State regulations adopted to achieve the overall GHG emission reduction goals identified in Climate Ready Fremont. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant GHG emissions related to construction or operational activities, nor would the proposed project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

5.8.3 Applicable Mitigation/Policies
No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures, are required.

5.8.4 Conclusion
The proposed project is consistent with the type of development analyzed within the GP EIR and would be required to comply with Climate Ready Fremont. As such, the GP EIR adequately evaluated the potential GHG emissions impacts of the proposed project there would be no new impact associated with GHG emissions.

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐51

5.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

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?

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 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?

f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

5.9.1 City of Fremont General Plan Environmental Impact Report Findings The GP EIR analyzed the following topics related to hazards and hazardous materials: use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials, accidental release of hazardous material and release within

0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school, hazardous material sites, an airport land use plan and private airstrip hazards, an emergency response or emergency evacuation plan, and exposure to wildland fire risk. The GP EIR determined that development under the General Plan would result in an increase in the number of businesses storing, using, transporting, and disposing of hazardous material. However, implementation of General Plan Policies 10‐6.1, 10‐6.2, 10‐6.4, and 10‐6.5 in combination with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), and California State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) regulations would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Although there would be an increase in the number of people exposed to a potential release of hazardous materials, the General Plan would implement the General Plan policies previously listed in addition to Policies 10‐6.6 and 10‐6.7 to ensure that impacts would be less than significant. The GP EIR identified a number of hazardous material sites within Fremont; however, implementation of General Plan Policy 10‐6.3 would ensure impacts would be less than significant. Development under

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐52 the General Plan would not impact an airport land use plan or private airstrips. The GP EIR determined that development under the General Plan would change circulation patterns and have the potential to impact emergency evacuation or response plans. However, compliance with General Plan Policies 10‐5.1 through 10‐5.5 would ensure that development would not interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Lastly, development under the General Plan would be required to comply with Policies 10‐4.1 through 10‐4.3 to reduce potential risks associated with wildland fires to a less than significant level.

5.9.2 Project Analysis

5.9.2.1 Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials The proposed project would result in the construction of a new, approximately 36,000‐square‐foot Community Center. Small quantities of commercially available hazardous materials (e.g., paint, cleaning supplies) would be routinely used at the project site and in the new Community Center during operation, similar to existing conditions. However, the City would be required to comply with existing government regulations33 in its use and disposal of these materials, and such materials would not be used in sufficient strength or quantity to create a substantial risk to human or environmental health.

Construction of the proposed project has the potential to create a hazard to the public or environment through the routine transportation, use, and disposal of construction‐related hazardous materials such as fuels, soils, solvents, and other materials. These materials are typical of materials delivered to construction sites.

The removal of hazardous building materials prior to demolition of structures is governed by federal and State laws and regulations. Federal regulations require that lead‐based paint be removed prior to demolition if the paint is loose and peeling. Loose and peeling paint must be disposed of as a State and/or federal hazardous waste if the concentration of lead exceeds applicable waste thresholds. State and federal construction worker health and safety regulations require air monitoring and other protective measures during demolition activities where lead‐based paint is present as well as notification to the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) for abatement activities.

Workers who conduct hazardous materials abatement and demolition activities must be trained in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Cal/OSHA requirements. Hazardous building materials removed during construction must be transported in accordance with United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) regulations and disposed of in accordance with the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the CCR, and/or the California Universal Waste Rule at a facility permitted to accept the wastes. Section 19827.5 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC) requires that local agencies not issue demolition or alteration permits until an applicant has demonstrated compliance with notification requirements under applicable federal regulations regarding hazardous air pollutants, including asbestos.

33 The United States Environmental Protection Agency regulates “small‐quantity generators” of hazardous wastes, which are defined as facilities that generate more than 100 kilograms (kg) (approximately 220 pounds [lbs]) but less than 1,000 kg (2,200 lbs), of hazardous waste per month.

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐53 If asbestos is identified, BAAQMD Regulation 11‐2‐401.3 requires notification to be made to BAAQMD prior to demolition activities. Other hazardous building materials, such as electrical equipment and fluorescent light ballasts containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and fluorescent tubes or thermostats containing mercury, must be removed from buildings prior to demolition and disposed of in accordance with the California Universal Waste Rule and other federal and State regulations. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that demolition and removal of existing structures on the project site would be less than significant.

Transport and use of hazardous materials would be subject to all applicable State and federal laws, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, the RCRA, the California Hazardous Materials Management Act, the California HSC, and CCR Titles 8 and 22. Therefore, compliance with existing regulations and General Plan policies would ensure that the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials by ensuring these materials are properly handled during construction of the proposed project. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

5.9.2.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions There are two main ways that the public and/or the environment could be affected by the release of hazardous materials from the project site, including (1) exposing workers and/or the public to potentially contaminated soil and groundwater during construction and/or operation of the project; or (2) exposing workers and/or the public to hazardous building materials (e.g., lead paint, asbestos) during demolition of existing structures.

As described above, small quantities of common hazardous materials would be used at the project site during construction and operation of the proposed project. Hazardous materials used during project operations would be similar to existing conditions. Improper use, storage, or handling could result in a release of hazardous materials into the environment, which could pose a risk to construction workers and the public. However, the City would be required to comply with existing government regulations in the use and disposal of these materials, and such materials would not be used in sufficient strength or quantity to create a substantial risk to human or environmental health.

The proposed project includes the demolition of the existing Teen Center and the construction of a new Community Center, Gymnasium, and walking trails. The removal of hazardous building materials prior to demolition of structures is governed by federal and State laws and regulations.

Federal regulations require that lead‐based paint be removed prior to demolition if the paint is loose and peeling. Loose and peeling paint must be disposed of as a State and/or federal hazardous waste if the concentration of lead exceeds applicable waste thresholds. State and federal construction worker health and safety regulations require air monitoring and other protective measures during demolition activities where lead‐based paint is present as well as notifying Cal/OSHA of abatement activities.

As described further below in Section 5.9.2,4, there are no known hazardous materials sites near the project site that would represent a significant risk to public health or safety (e.g., on‐site storage, leaking tanks, or approaching groundwater contamination plume). Therefore, it is unlikely that the soil and groundwater are contaminated with significant toxic or hazardous materials that would be released during construction. Additionally, compliance with the regulations described previously in

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐54 Section 5.9.2.1 would ensure that the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment during the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials by ensuring that these materials are properly handled during construction of the proposed project.

5.9.2.3 Emission of Hazardous Materials within 0.25 Mile of a School Little Tree Montessori School at 39550 Paseo Padre Parkway is within 0.25 mile of the project site.

The proposed project would not involve the handling of acutely hazardous materials. Although the proposed project would involve the use, transport, and/or disposal of hazardous materials, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable State and federal laws regarding hazardous materials during construction and operation.34 Therefore, the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school, and the impact would be less than significant.

5.9.2.4 Cortese List
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (Appendix D)35 was prepared for the proposed project. The project site and a 1‐mile radius encompassing the project site were evaluated via the SWRCB’s GeoTracker database,36 the DTSC’s EnviroStor database,37 and the Cortese List for the purposes of identifying recognized environmental conditions (RECs) or Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs). As identified in the Phase I Assessment, six open sites, eight sites with HRECs, and zero sites with RECs were identified within 1 mile of the project site, as detailed in Table 5.9.A.

As shown in Table 5.9.A, of the sites identified as an HREC within 1 mile of the project site, only one site is listed as an open case. A closed site indicates that regulatory requirements for response actions, such as site assessment and remediation, have either been completed or were not necessary; therefore, potential migration of residual contaminants in groundwater beneath the project site does not likely pose a risk to human health and the environment.

The one open site identified as an HREC is at 40093 Mission Boulevard, which is 0.58 mile northeast of the project site. Based on the site’s remediated nature, pending closure and its distance from the project site, this site does not represent a significant risk to public health or safety on the project site. As identified in the Phase I ESA prepared for the proposed project, none of the open sites were identified as an REC. Additionally, the proposed project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 10‐6.3, requiring remediation of contaminated sites. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

34 The United States Environmental Protection Agency regulates “small‐quantity generators” of hazardous wastes, which are defined as facilities that generate more than 100 kg (approximately 220 lbs), but less than 1,000 kg (2,200 lbs), of hazardous waste per month. 35 Millennium Consulting Associates. 2024. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. May. 36 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2024. Geotracker Database. Website: https://geotracker. waterboards.ca.gov/ (accessed August 21, 2024).
37 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2024. EnviroStar Database. Website:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ (accessed August 21, 2024).

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐55 Table 5.9.A: Hazardous Materials Database Search
Property REC / HREC Location Relative to the
Subject Property1 Status of the Property
39501 Canyon Heights Drive HREC Approximately 0.6 mile northeast
 Case closed as of 4/2/2002
 Gasoline and diesel detected in both soil and groundwater 39925 Mission Boulevard HREC Approximately 0.35 mile
east
 Case closed as of 12/14/2015
 Gasoline, diesel, waste oil, soil, and groundwater were contaminated
40093 Mission Boulevard HREC Approximately 0.58 mile
northeast
 Open case‐site assessment as of 11/29/2018
 PCE, soil, and soil vapor groundwater has not been impacted as of 2016‐2017
 Site has been remediated and requesting closure as of 2023 40735 Mission Boulevard HREC Approximately 0.87 mile
northeast
 Completed – Case closed as of 7/21/1992
 Gasoline‐Limited data available
39710 and 39700 Civic
Center Drive
HREC Approximately 0.3 mile
northeast
 Case closed as of 3/9/2000 and 8/10/2006
 Diesel and waste oil leaked to soil and soil was remediated 40077 Mission Boulevard HREC Approximately 0.5 mile
northeast
 Case closed as of 7/2/2014
 Gasoline and waste oil, soil, and groundwater were
contaminated
39445 Gallaudet Drive HREC Approximately 0.12 mile
northeast
 Case closed as of 7/10/1996
 Gasoline, soil, and groundwater might be at risk
39350 Gallaudet Drive HREC Approximately 0.23 mile
northwest
 Case closed as of 7/22/20
 Petroleum hydrocarbon and solvents affected the soil
4004 Mowry Avenue No Approximately 0.8 mile
west
 Open assessment and Interim Remedial Action as of
10/22/2020
 Gasoline was leaked on soil and groundwater
40871 High Street No Approximately 0.99 mile
southeast
 Active case with DTSC (EnviroStor) as of 8/1/22
 Lead and arsenic in soil are the contamination
40744 Fremont Boulevard No Approximately 0.86 mile
southeast
 Active case with DTSC (EnviroStor) as of 3/26/2018
 Gasoline and PCE
 Potential media of concern is soil vapor
40645 Fremont Boulevard No Approximately 0.88 mile
southeast
 This is an active case with DTSC (EnviroStor) as of 3/28/2023  VOCs are groundwater, soil vapor
 Soil was excavated, and vapor mitigation will be installed 4101 Mowry Avenue &
38853 and 38871 Bell Street
No Approximately 0.98 mile
west
 Active as of 1/15/2022 with EnviroStor Voluntary Agreement  Pesticides, herbicides, lead‐based paint, VOCs (PCE, TCE) contaminated soil, but not groundwater.

Sources: State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) (2024); California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) (2024). 1 The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment analyzed a 96.21‐acre subject property at the corner of Paseo Padre Parkway and Stevenson Boulevard. Thus, the location relative to the subject property listed in this column differs slightly from the location relative to the project site due to what was analyzed in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.

HREC = Historical Recognized Environmental Condition
PCE = perchloroethylene
REC = recognized environmental condition
TCE = trichloroethylene
VOCs = volatile organic compounds

5.9.2.5 Airport Safety Hazards
The City has not adopted an airport land use plan and has no public airports within the city limits.

The closest airports serving Fremont and the project site are Palo Alto Airport (approximately 10 miles from the project site) and Hayward Executive Airport (approximately 11 miles from the project site). These airports are farther than 2 miles from the project site. Therefore, the project would result in no impact regarding safety hazards or excessive noise for people residing within the project area.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐56

5.9.2.6 Emergency Response
The City adopted the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) Basic Plan in 2020.38 The EOP and the Fremont Fire Department do not designate specific roadways as evacuation routes. The proposed project would not alter or block adjacent roadways, and implementation of the proposed project would not be expected to impair the function of nearby emergency evacuation routes. The proposed project would design, construct, and maintain structures, roadways, and facilities in accordance with applicable standards associated with vehicular access, resulting in the provision of adequate vehicular access that would provide for adequate emergency access and evacuation. The proposed project would include vehicular access at several entry points along Paseo Padre Parkway and Stevenson Boulevard. The proposed project design would be submitted to and approved by the City’s Fire Department and reviewed by the City’s Police Department prior to the issuance of building permits.

Construction activities, such as installation of utility lines in public rights‐of‐way, may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic on the adjacent roadway. While these activities are taking place, the applicant’s contractors would implement adequate and appropriate measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required road closures. As a condition of project approval and prior to commencement of construction within a public right‐of‐way, the applicant’s construction manager would be required to obtain an encroachment permit from the City Engineer, and provide lane closure and traffic control plans to the City Engineer and local emergency service responders (i.e., ambulance companies, the Fire Department, and the Police Department). Adherence to the emergency access measures required by the City would ensure a less than significant impact related to implementation of or physical interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

5.9.2.7 Wildland Fires
The project site is in a Local Responsibility Area but is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) according to CAL FIRE mapping.39 Additionally, the City’s General Plan indicates that the project site is not within a VHFHSZ.40 Fire services to the City are provided by the Fremont Fire Department. The nearest fire station is at 39609 Stevenson Place (approximately

0.9 mile from the project site).

The proposed project is required to be designed in compliance with all applicable State and local standards and recommendations for new development. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the current California Fire Code. The California Fire Code calls for the installation,

38 City of Fremont. 2020b. Emergency Operations Plan, Basic Plan. May. 39 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2023. State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones for Alameda County Map. June 15. Website: https://34c031f8‐c9fd‐4018‐8c5a‐ 4159cdff6b0d‐cdn‐endpoint.azureedge.net/‐/media/osfm‐website/what‐we‐do/community‐wildfire‐ preparedness‐and‐mitigation/fire‐hazard‐severity‐zones/fire‐hazard‐severity‐zones‐map‐2022/fire‐ hazard‐severity‐zones‐maps‐2022‐files/fhsz_county_sra_11x17_2022_alameda_2.pdf (accessed August 23, 2024).
40 City of Fremontd. 2011. General Plan Safety Element, Chapter 10, Diagram 10‐8. Website:
https://www.fremont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/809/638506889017470000 (accessed August 23, 2024).

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐57 maintenance, and ongoing inspection of fire protection systems under the direction of the local fire chief. In addition, the Fire Code authorizes the fire chief to specify water supply and road design standards.

The proposed project would also be subject to requirements in Section 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code, the CBC, and the California State Fire Code, which include regulations concerning building standards for fire protection; fire protection and notification systems such as extinguishers and smoke alarms; safety for firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations; minimum standards for hazardous vegetation and fuel management, defensible space, and building construction; and minimum standards for emergency access and water supply for fire response.

Compliance with these existing regulatory requirements would reduce impacts related to the exposure of people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires to a less than significant level.

5.9.3 Applicable Mitigation/Policies
No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, or revisions to the project, or new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.

5.9.4 Conclusion
The proposed project is consistent with the type of development analyzed within the GP EIR and would be required to comply with existing regulations related to hazardous soil or groundwater conditions at the site during ground‐disturbing activities. As such, the GP EIR adequately evaluated potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials at or affecting the proposed project site and there would be no new impact associated with hazards and hazardous materials.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐58

5.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?

b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater management
of the basin?

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 erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site; 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?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

5.10.1 City of Fremont General Plan Environmental Impact Report Findings The GP EIR analyzed the potential for buildout of the General Plan to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge, alter drainage patterns, create or contribute to runoff water that would exceed the capacity of stormwater drainage systems or provide additional sources of polluted runoff, otherwise degrade water quality, place housing within a 100‐year flood hazard area, impede or redirect flood flows, expose people or structures to significant risk as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, and expose people or structures to significant risk due to inundation by seiche, tsunami, mudflow, or sea level rise.

The GP EIR determined that development under the General Plan would create additional impervious surfaces and automobile use and would result in the use of materials that could impair water quality such as fertilizers, pesticides, and toxic chemicals. Typically, increases in impervious cover result in an increase in stormwater runoff, higher peak stream discharges, and decreased groundwater recharge. In addition, erosion and sedimentation resulting from construction activities could represent a significant source of pollution conveyed in stormwater runoff. Further, development under the General Plan could allow additional pollutants to contaminate groundwater recharge supplies for the Niles Cone subbasin. The GP EIR also determined that land use patterns E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐59 and development under the General Plan could degrade water quality by creating erosive velocities and shear stress and ultimately cause erosion and sedimentation in drainage swales and streams.

However, implementation of General Plan Policies 7‐2.1, 7‐3.1, 7‐3.2, 7‐3.3, 7‐6.1, and 7‐6.2, in combination with the adoption and implementation of the current stormwater, building, grading, and erosion control regulations (i.e., NPDES permit requirements, Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Stormwater BMPs, and other development requirements) would reduce potential impacts on water quality to less than significant. Further, implementation of General Plan policies would ensure that impacts related to the depletion of groundwater supplies and recharge would be less than significant.

The GP EIR determined that land uses and development under the General Plan could increase stormwater runoff, and modifications to local and regional hydrology and future development may necessitate the construction of new drainage facilities for stormwater conveyance and management. Local storm drainage modifications, stream channel alterations, and structural bank stabilization measures could create significant flooding impacts, in some cases by moving the existing flooding and channel instability problems cross channel or downstream, or by changing the timing of peak flows and point of discharge of runoff. Specifically, the GP EIR identified that development within the tributary area of Laguna Creek (generally Irvington and the northeastern parts of the Mission San Jose Community Plan Area) has the potential to contribute runoff beyond the existing flood control capacity of Laguna Creek. With the exception of the Laguna Creek Drainage Facility, implementation of General Plan Policy 10‐3.2 would generally ensure that the potential impacts of future development on the capacity of stormwater drainage infrastructure and to cause on‐ and off‐site flooding would be reduced to less than significant. To address flooding within the Laguna Creek Drainage Facility and reduce potential impacts to less than significant, the GP EIR prescribed Mitigation HYD‐1, which requires implementation of General Plan Policy 10‐3.2 to include an update to the City’s Flood Control Ordinance with measures that ensure that prior to issuance of building permits for a project with a potential net increase in stormwater runoff, the City finds that a flood control management and design plan results in no net increase in runoff or is consistent with runoff volumes modeled by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.

The GP EIR stated that the General Plan would generally prohibit new development and redevelopment within areas designated as 100‐year flood hazard zones unless sufficient mitigation could be provided. In addition, General Plan Policies 10‐3.1 and 10‐3.5 and City development standards aimed at minimizing on‐site and off‐site flood damage would reduce potential impacts associated with development in the 100‐year flood hazard area to less than significant. In addition, the GP EIR determined that with adherence to General Plan Policies 10‐3.1 and 10‐3.5, development under the General Plan would not impede or redirect flood flows.

The GP EIR also determined that inundation by dam failure is unlikely and a relatively low risk due to the structural engineering of the dams in the vicinity of Fremont, compliance with federal and State laws enacted to enhance dam safety, and the City’s compliance with the ABAG Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Further, General Plan Policy 10‐3.3 would minimize the risk of exposing people and structures to the failure of dams in the project vicinity. In addition, the GP EIR determined that sea level rise could also expose Fremont to inundation impacts. However, implementation of General Plan Policy 10‐3.6 would minimize this impact. Therefore, the GP EIR determined that with

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐60 implementation of proposed General Plan polices and other existing flood prevention strategies and policies, potential inundation hazards from dam and levee failure and sea level rise to existing and future development would be less than significant.

The GP EIR also analyzed cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts within the local drainage area for surface water and groundwater within the Niles Cone subbasin. The GP EIR determined that because all future and planned projects in the region would convey stormwater runoff via different drainage systems (which would be required to have adequate capacity for any increased runoff) and would be required to comply with the requirements of the SWRCB C.3 regulations as well as City and County construction and flooding regulations, including (for projects located within the City) City of Fremont Conservation and Safety Policies, implementation of the General Plan, in combination with other planned projects, would have a less than significant cumulative impact on hydrology and water quality.

Overall, the GP EIR determined that the potential impacts associated with buildout of the General Plan related to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, the depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge, alteration of drainage patterns, creation or contribution to runoff water that would exceed the capacity of stormwater drainage systems or provide additional sources of polluted runoff, placement of housing within a 100‐year flood hazard area, impediment or redirection of flood flows, exposure of people or structures to significant risk as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, and exposure of people or structures to significant risk due to inundation by seiche, tsunami, mudflow, or sea level rise would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies.

5.10.2 Project Analysis

5.10.2.1 Water Quality Standards, Waste Discharge Requirements, Surface or Groundwater Quality In Fremont, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan establishes beneficial water uses and water quality objectives for waterways and water bodies within the region. Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that states identify water bodies, including bays, rivers, streams, creeks, and coastal areas, that do not meet water quality standards and the pollutants that are causing the impairment. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) describe the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive while still meeting established water quality standards. A TMDL establishes limits for pollutant discharges into impaired water bodies.

Under existing conditions, stormwater from the project site sheet flows to the east and discharges into Lake Elizabeth. Lake Elizabeth is an artificial lake created from Stivers Lagoon and serves as an element of the flood control system. Waters from Mission Creek, Morrison Creek, and other small drainages empty into Lake Elizabeth. Lake Elizabeth drains into Laguna Creek, which discharges into Mud Slough, and then into the San Francisco Bay (South). The SWRCB Surface Water Quality Assessment 2020–2022 Integrated Report for Clean Water Act Sections 303(d) and 305(b) does not list any impairments for Lake Elizabeth, Laguna Creek, or Mud Slough; however, San Francisco Bay (South) is listed as impaired for pesticides (chlordane, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane [DDT], and dieldrin), toxic organics (dioxin compounds, furan compounds, and PCBs), metals (mercury and E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐61 selenium), and invasive species.41 TMDLs have been adopted to address pesticides, dioxin and furan compounds, selenium, and invasive species that would be applicable to the proposed project.

Runoff water quality is regulated by the NPDES Program (established through the federal CWA). The NPDES program objective is to control and reduce pollutant discharges to surface water bodies.

Compliance with NPDES permits is mandated by State and federal statutes and regulations. Locally, the NPDES Program is administered by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.

Construction activities are subject to the SWRCB NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), Order No. 2022‐0057‐DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002.42 Any construction activity, including grading, that would result in the disturbance of 1 acre or more would require compliance with SWRCB’s Construction General Permit, which requires preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of Construction BMPs during construction activities. Construction BMPs would include, but not be limited to, Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site, and Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters.

Project operations are subject to the San Francisco Bay RWQCB’s Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2‐2022‐0018, as amended by Order No. R2‐2023‐0019, NPDES Permit No.

CAS612008 (Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit [MRP]).43 The MRP prohibits discharges, sets limits on pollutants being discharged into receiving waters, and requires implementation of technology‐based standards. The MRP requires co‐permittees to develop and implement standard design and post‐development BMP guidance to guide application of Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs to the maximum extent practicable.

MRP Provision C.3 addresses post‐construction stormwater management requirements for regulated projects. Regulated projects include new development and redevelopment projects that create or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, and special land use categories that create or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. Provision C.3 requires regulated projects to implement LID source control, site design, and stormwater treatment. LID employs principles such as preserving and recreating natural landscape features and minimizing impervious surfaces to create functional and appealing site drainage that treats stormwater as a

41   State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). n.d. 2020–2022 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List and 305(b) Report). Website: https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view. aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterboards.ca.gov%2Fwater_issues%2Fprograms%2Ftmdl%2F2020_20 22state_ir_reports_revised_final%2Fapx‐a‐303d‐list.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK (accessed September 4, 2024).
42   State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2022. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (CGP), Order No. 2022‐0057‐DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002. Website:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2022/wqo_2022‐ 0057‐dwq.pdf (accessed August 21, 2024).
43   San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2022. San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2‐2022‐0018, as amended by Order No.

R2‐2023‐0019, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. May 11.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐62 resource rather than a waste product. Practices used to adhere to these LID principles include measures such as rain barrels and cisterns, green roofs, permeable pavement, preserving undeveloped open space, and biotreatment through rain gardens, bioretention areas, bioswales, and planter/tree boxes. MRP Provision C.3.g pertains to hydromodification management, which requires certain regulated projects to ensure that stormwater discharges from the project site do not cause an increase in the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the existing condition.

Provision C.3.g provides various exceptions from hydromodification management requirements, including if the post‐project impervious surface area is less than or the same as the pre‐project impervious surface area or is less than 1 acre.

Chapters 18.205 (Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control)44 and 18.210 (Storm Water Management and Discharge Control)45 of the City’s Municipal Code also regulate stormwater discharge in Fremont by requiring approval of a grading permit prior to any grading or clearing activities and compliance with NPDES Permit requirements. These chapters protect water quality by avoiding pollution of watercourses with nutrients, sediments, or other earthen materials generated on or caused by surface runoff; reduce (to the maximum extent practicable) non‐storm water discharges to the Fremont storm drain system; control the discharge to the Fremont storm drain system from spills, dumping, or disposal of materials other than storm water; and reduce pollutants in storm water discharges to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, General Plan Policies 7‐2.1, 7‐3.1, 7‐3.2, 7‐3.3, 7‐6.1, and 7‐6.2 pertain to protecting and improving water quality in Fremont.

Construction. The proposed project would include demolition of the existing Teen Center located within Central Park and construction of a new Community Center and associated site improvements.

Pollutants of concern during demolition and construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality.

During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and sedimentation compared to existing conditions. In addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (e.g., paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete‐related waste may be spilled or leaked, and they have the potential to be transported via stormwater runoff into receiving waters.

Because construction of the proposed project would disturb greater than 1 acre of soil, the proposed project is subject to the requirements of the Construction General Permit. As required by the Construction General Permit, the Construction Contractor would be required to prepare a SWPPP and implement construction BMPs detailed in the SWPPP during construction activities.

Construction BMPs would include, but are not limited to, Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site and Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters.

44 City of Freemont. n.d.‐c Title 18 Planning and Zoning, Chapter 18.205, Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control. Website: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/#!/Fremont18/Fremont18205.html #18.205 (accessed September 4, 2024).
45 City of Freemont. n.d.‐c Title 18 Planning and Zoning, Chapters 18.210, Storm Water Management and Discharge Control. Website: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/#!/Fremont18/ Fremont18210.html#18.210 (accessed September 4, 2024).

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐63 Prior to the commencement of any land‐disturbing activities, the Construction Contractor will obtain coverage under the SWRCB NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2022‐0057‐DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System No. CAS000002) (Construction General Permit). This will include submission of Permit Registration Documents (PRDs), including a Notice of Intent for coverage under the permit to the SWRCB via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTs). The Construction Contractor will provide the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) to the City, or designee, to demonstrate proof of coverage under the Construction General Permit. Project construction will not be initiated until a WDID is received from the SWRCB and is provided to the City, or designee. In addition, the proposed project would be required to obtain a grading permit pursuant to Chapter 18.205 of the City’s Municipal Code. In order to obtain the grading permit, the Project Applicant would be required to demonstrate to the City Engineer that the proposed grading or clearing activities would not endanger storm drains or water courses and would not interfere with the existing drainage course, which would help to protect water quality.46
According to the Geotechnical Evaluation47 prepared for the proposed project, the historic high groundwater level at the project site is more than 40 feet below the ground surface (bgs). In addition, groundwater was encountered at approximately 45 feet bgs during geotechnical borings.

The proposed project will require excavation to a maximum depth of 8 feet bgs. Due to the depth to groundwater, construction of the proposed project is not anticipated to require groundwater dewatering.

Compliance with Chapter 18.205 of the City’s Municipal Code and the Construction General Permit would ensure that construction impacts related to water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, and water quality for both surface and groundwater would be less than significant.

Operation. Pollutants of concern from long‐term operations include pathogens (bacteria/viruses), metals, nutrients, motor vehicle lubricants, coolants, disc brake dust, toxic organic compounds, pesticides/herbicides, sediments/total suspended solids, trash and debris, and oil and grease. As discussed above, the SWRCB Surface Water Quality Assessment 2020–2022 Integrated Report for Clean Water Act Sections 303(d) and 305(b) does not list any impairments for Lake Elizabeth, Laguna Creek, or Mud Slough; however, San Francisco Bay (South) is listed as impaired for pesticides (chlordane, DDT, and dieldrin), toxic organics (dioxin compounds, furan compounds, and PCBs), metals (mercury and selenium), and invasive species. TMDLs have been adopted to address pesticides, dioxin and furan compounds, selenium, and invasive species in San Francisco Bay (South) that would be applicable to the proposed project.

Because the proposed project would create more than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface area, the proposed project would be considered a regulated project and is subject to the development requirements of the MRP. Compliance with the MRP for new development and

46 City of Freemont. n.d.‐d. Title 18 Planning and Zoning, Chapter 18.205, Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control, Section 18.205.100 Findings. Website: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/#!/ Fremont18/Fremont18205.html#18.205 (accessed September 4, 2024). 47 Ninyo and Moore. 2024. Geotechnical Evaluation, Central Park Community Center, 40000 Paseo Padre Parkway, Fremont, California. August 5.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐64 redevelopment in Fremont is achieved through adherence with Chapter 18.210 of the City’s Municipal Code. As required by Chapter 18.210 of the City’s Municipal Code, the proposed project would be required to comply with the requirements of the MRP, and associated guidance documents such as the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program C3 Technical Guidance Manual and the City’s Stormwater Control Plan Guidance Manual. Provision C.3 of the MRP requires regulated projects to implement LID source control, site design, and stormwater treatment to treat 100 percent of the runoff from the project site. LID BMPs mimic a project site’s natural hydrology by using design measures that capture, filter, store, evaporate, detain, and infiltrate runoff rather than allowing runoff to flow directly to piped or impervious storm drains. LID employs principles such as preserving and recreating natural landscape features and minimizing impervious surfaces to create functional and appealing site drainage that treats stormwater as a resource, rather than a waste product. Practices used to adhere to these LID principles include measures such as rain barrels and cisterns, green roofs, permeable pavement, preserving undeveloped open space, and biotreatment through rain gardens, bioretention areas, bioswales, and planter/tree boxes. Site design BMPs are stormwater management strategies that emphasize conservation and use of existing site features to reduce the amount of runoff and pollutant loading generated from a site. Source control BMPs are preventative measures that are implemented to prevent the introduction of pollutants into stormwater. Stormwater treatment BMPs are structural BMPs designed to treat and reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff prior to releasing it to receiving waters. The proposed project would include LID stormwater management elements such as bioretention/infiltration basins, which would treat stormwater runoff. Overflows from the bioretention/infiltration basins would discharge via bubbler and sheet flow to Lake Elizabeth, similar to existing conditions.

MRP Provision C.3.g pertains to hydromodification management, which requires certain regulated projects to ensure that stormwater discharges from the project site do not cause an increase in the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the existing condition. During operation, the proposed project would incorporate bioretention/infiltration basins to limit the volume and rate of increased stormwater flow to the downstream existing storm drain system and receiving waters by infiltrating stormwater at the project site. These stormwater detention measures would retain and infiltrate the increased stormwater runoff associated with a 10‐year storm event. Overflows to Lake Elizabeth would be controlled by the bioretention/infiltration basins to ensure that discharges to Lake Elizabeth are at a rate equal to the pre‐project condition 10‐year storm event flow level. This would ensure that stormwater discharges from the project site do not cause an increase in the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the existing condition.

Compliance with Chapter 18.210 of the City’s Municipal Code and the MRP would ensure that operational impacts related to water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, and water quality for both surface and groundwater would be less than significant.

Overall, because the proposed project would be required to comply with existing stormwater, building, grading, and erosion control regulations (i.e., NPDES permit requirements, Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Stormwater BMPs, and other development requirements), the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Impacts would be less than significant.

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐65

5.10.2.2 Groundwater Supplies
The City, including the project site, are underlain by the Niles Cone Subbasin of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin. The primary source of recharge for the Niles Cone Subbasin is from percolation of runoff from the Alameda Creek watershed and, to a lesser degree, direct stormwater capture.48 The Niles Cone Subbasin is managed by the Alameda County Water District (ACWD) and is designated as a Medium Priority basin pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). According to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), water levels in indicator wells have generally ranged from sea level to approximately 20 feet above mean sea level from the early 1970s to the present.49 In addition, the estimated storage to mean sea level is 47,000 acre‐feet and the estimated storage to 400 feet below mean sea level is 1,361,000 acre‐feet.50 Construction. As previously discussed, according to the Geotechnical Evaluation51 prepared for the proposed project, the historic high groundwater level at the project site is more than 40 feet bgs. In addition, groundwater was encountered at approximately 45 feet bgs during geotechnical borings.

Construction of the proposed project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the nearby basin because, similar to existing conditions, groundwater recharge could occur at the project site during construction activities. Furthermore, construction activities will not demand substantial water supplies during construction; demand for water during construction would be limited to portable hand‐washing facilities and vegetation restoration, if necessary, which would result in a negligible demand. Therefore, construction impacts associated with a substantial decrease in groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge would be less than significant.

Operation. The proposed project would demolish the existing approximately 22,200‐square‐foot Teen Center located within Central Park and construct a new approximately 36,000‐square‐foot Community Center. The proposed project also includes parking and other site improvements.

Because the proposed project would intensify the uses at the project site, implementation of the proposed project could increase the water demand from existing conditions at the project site.

Water service for the proposed project would be provided by the ACWD. ACWD sources water from the California State Water Project, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and Regional Water System (SFPUC and RWS), and local supplies. The State Water Project (SWP) and RWS supplies are

48 Alameda County Water District (ACWD). 2021a. Urban Water Management Plan 2020‐2025, Final Version Including Minor Edits. May 13. Website: https://www.acwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/4116/Final‐2020‐ 2025‐UWMP‐Version‐Including‐Minor‐Edits (accessed September 9, 2024). 49 California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2006. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118, Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, Niles Cone Subbasin. January 20. 50 California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2006. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118, Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, Niles Cone Subbasin. January 20. 51 Ninyo and Moore. 2024. Geotechnical Evaluation, Central Park Community Center, 40000 Paseo Padre Parkway, Fremont, California. August 5.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐66 imported through the South Bay Aqueduct (SBA) and Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct, respectively. Local supplies include fresh groundwater from the Niles Cone Subbasin, desalinated brackish groundwater from portions of the groundwater basin previously impacted by saltwater intrusion, and surface water from the Del Valle Reservoir. A portion of the ACWD SWP supplies are also used for supplemental groundwater recharge when Alameda Creek supplies are insufficient or when groundwater levels fall below critical thresholds.52 The ACWD Urban Water Management Plan 2020‐ 2025 (UWMP)53 included an analysis of the projected water supply availability and demands under average year, single dry year, and multiple dry year conditions. ACWD coordinated preparation of the UWMP with the City and includes water demand associated with projected future land use conditions as described in the City’s General Plan. According to the UWMP, under normal year water supply conditions, ACWD will have sufficient supplies to meet projected future water demands as adjusted for estimated future water use efficiency savings. This analysis also indicates that during these hydrologic conditions, ACWD would have sufficient supplies available (in excess of the projected demands) for placement in groundwater storage for later use in the service area in dry years. Under the single dry year scenario, the ACWD SWP supplies would be cut back by approximately 90 percent, and ACWD would need to rely on local and off‐site groundwater storage to help make up for this shortfall. Under near‐term conditions, ACWD would incur no additional supply shortfall under this single dry year scenario; however, under future projected levels of demand, ACWD can expect to incur shortages of up to 18 percent under this scenario. In the event there is insufficient local groundwater storage or that ACWD is unable to recover its full contractual amount from groundwater storage, ACWD would look to secure additional supplies through a DWR drought water bank or similar water purchase/transfer program. In addition, ACWD would also likely implement the water shortage contingency plan described in the UWMP. The results of the multiple dry year scenario analysis are similar to the single dry year analyses and find that under current and projected future demands, ACWD could withstand these conditions without any additional shortages. However, after demand completes its rebounds after the recent drought and with future demand growth, ACWD can expect to have interim year shortages of up to 16 percent under this scenario. As with the single dry year condition, both local groundwater storage and off‐site groundwater storage would play key roles in offsetting shortfalls in ACWD’s other local and imported supplies.

Operation of the proposed project would involve the use of groundwater sources for potable water.

However, because the UWMP includes water demand associated with buildout of the City’s General Plan and the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations of the project site, the proposed project’s water demand has been included in the water supply availability and demands analysis in the UWMP. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

52 Alameda County Water District (ACWD). 2021a. Urban Water Management Plan 2020‐2025, Final Version Including Minor Edits. May 13. Website: https://www.acwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/4116/Final‐2020‐ 2025‐UWMP‐Version‐Including‐Minor‐Edits (accessed September 9, 2024). 53 Alameda County Water District (ACWD). 2021a. Urban Water Management Plan 2020‐2025, Final Version Including Minor Edits. May 13. Website: https://www.acwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/4116/Final‐2020‐ 2025‐UWMP‐Version‐Including‐Minor‐Edits (accessed September 9, 2024).

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐67 Development of the proposed project would result in an increase in impervious surface area on the project with the replacement of the approximately 22,200‐square‐foot Teen Center with a new approximately 36,000‐square‐foot Community Center and expansion of the parking lot, which could decrease on‐site infiltration. As described above, groundwater recharge for the Niles Cone Subbasin is from percolation of runoff from the Alameda Creek watershed and, to a lesser degree, direct stormwater capture. Under existing conditions, infiltration at the project site could occur via pervious surface area, such as landscaped areas and open space, and Lake Elizabeth. During operation, the proposed project would incorporate bioretention/infiltration basins that would infiltrate stormwater at the project site, contributing to groundwater recharge. Overflows from the bioretention/infiltration basins would discharge via bubbler and sheet flow to Lake Elizabeth, similar to existing conditions. Therefore, although the proposed project would increase impervious surface area, the on‐site bioretention/infiltration basins would ensure that groundwater recharge at the project site would not be substantially impacted by the proposed project.

For the reasons listed above, impacts related to the decrease of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge would be less than significant.

5.10.2.3 Alteration of Drainage Patterns
Under existing conditions, stormwater from the project site sheet flows to the east and discharges into Lake Elizabeth. Lake Elizabeth is an artificial lake created from Stivers Lagoon and serves as an element of the flood control system. Waters from Mission Creek, Morrison Creek, and other small drainages empty into the Lake Elizabeth. Lake Elizabeth drains into Laguna Creek, which discharges into Mud Slough, and then into San Francisco Bay (South). With implementation of the proposed project, the project site would maintain a similar drainage pattern as existing conditions. The proposed project would include LID stormwater management elements such as bioretention/ infiltration basins, which would infiltrate stormwater at the project site. Overflows from the bioretention/infiltration basins would discharge via bubbler and sheet flow to Lake Elizabeth, similar to existing conditions. These stormwater detention measures would retain and infiltrate the increased stormwater runoff associated with a 10‐year storm event. Overflows to Lake Elizabeth would be controlled by the bioretention/infiltration basins to ensure that discharges to Lake Elizabeth are at a rate equal to the pre‐project condition 10‐year storm event flow level, as required by the MRP.

Construction. During grading and other construction activities, soil would be exposed, drainage patterns would be temporarily altered, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and siltation compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion and siltation could occur at an accelerated rate. The proposed project would be required to comply with the Construction General Permit (which requires the preparation of a SWPPP to identify construction BMPs to be implemented during construction of the proposed project to reduce impacts on water quality, including those impacts associated with soil erosion and siltation) and would be required to obtain a grading permit pursuant to Chapter 18.205 of the City’s Municipal Code. Compliance with Chapter 18.205 of the City’s Municipal Code and the requirements in the Construction General Permit, including implementation of construction BMPs, would ensure that construction impacts related to on‐ or off‐site erosion or siltation would be less than significant.

Compliance with Chapter 18.205 of the City’s Municipal Code and the requirements in the

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐68 Construction General Permit would also ensure that construction of the proposed project would not contribute additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06001C0462G (effective 8/3/2009), the entirety of the project site is located in Zone X, which is identified as an area of minimal flood hazard.54 The project site is not located within a 100‐year floodplain. Therefore, the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows. The SWPPP would also include construction BMPs (e.g., soil binders, straw mulch, non‐vegetative stabilization, fiber rolls, sandbag barrier, straw bale barrier, stabilized construction entrance/exit, stabilized construction roadway, and entrance/outlet tire wash) to control the rate and amount of on‐site surface runoff and to direct flows to ensure that stormwater runoff from the construction site does not result in on‐ or off‐site flooding. Therefore, construction impacts related to a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff that would result in on‐ or off‐site flooding would be less than significant. In addition, construction of the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows.

Operation. After the completion of project construction, the proposed project would not significantly alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. However, operation of the proposed project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces on the project site, which would result in a net increase in stormwater runoff that could lead to downstream erosion in receiving waters. As previously discussed, the proposed project is subject to the development requirements of the MRP.

Compliance with the MRP for new development and redevelopment in the City is achieved through adherence with Chapter 18.210 of the City’s Municipal Code. The proposed project would comply with Provision C.3.g of the MRP (pertaining to hydromodification management) by incorporating bioretention/infiltration basins to limit the impact of increased stormwater flow to the downstream existing storm drain system and receiving waters by infiltrating stormwater at the project site. These stormwater detention measures would retain and infiltrate the increased stormwater runoff associated with a 10‐year storm event. Overflows to Lake Elizabeth would be controlled by the bioretention/infiltration basins to ensure that discharges to Lake Elizabeth are at a rate that is equal to the pre‐project condition 10‐year storm event flow level, which would ensure that stormwater discharges from the project site during operation do not cause an increase in the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the existing condition and do not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in on‐ or off‐site flooding. Therefore, operational impacts related to on‐ or off‐site erosion or siltation and flooding would be less than significant. Compliance with Chapter 18.210 of the City’s Municipal Code and the MRP would also ensure that the proposed project would not contribute to an exceedance of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or contribute additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts related to stormwater drainage system capacity and polluted runoff would be less than significant.

Overall, because the proposed project would be required to comply with existing regulations including the Construction General Permit, Chapters 18.205 and 18.210 of the City’s Municipal Code, and the MRP, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the

54 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). n.d. Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06001C0462G. Map Effective August 3, 2009. Website: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=lake%20 elizabeth%2C%20fremont%20 (accessed September 5, 2024).

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐69 project site in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff resulting in flooding on or off site, create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant.

5.10.2.4 Release of Pollutants Due to Project Inundation Flooding. As discussed above, according to FEMA FIRM No. 06001C0462G (effective 8/3/2009), the entirety of the project site is located in Zone X, which is identified as an area of minimal flood hazard.55 During construction, BMPs would be implemented to ensure that during a rain event, pollutants would be retained on site and would be prevented from reaching downstream receiving waters in accordance with the Construction General Permit. During operation, the proposed project would include LID stormwater management elements such as bioretention/infiltration basins pursuant to Chapter 18.210 of the City’s Municipal Code and the MRP, which would ensure that pollutants would be treated and prevented from reaching downstream receiving waters. Overflows from the bioretention/infiltration basins would discharge via bubbler and sheet flow to Lake Elizabeth, similar to existing conditions. Therefore, impacts associated with the release of pollutants resulting from inundation of the project site due to flooding would be less than significant.

Tsunami. The project site is approximately 27 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. Based on the distance from the Pacific Ocean, the project site is not located in a tsunami hazard zone and would not result in the release of pollutants due to inundation caused by a tsunami. Impacts associated with the release of pollutants resulting from inundation of the project site due to a tsunami would be less than significant.

Seiches. Seiches are waves that are created in an enclosed body of water such as a bay, lake, or harbor and go up and down or oscillate and do not progress forward like standard ocean waves. The project site is adjacent to Lake Elizabeth. Lake Elizabeth is an approximately 83‐acre artificial lake created from Stivers Lagoon that serves as a recreation resource and as an element of the flood control system. Although this body of water could experience a seiche during ground shaking, the proposed project would develop the project site with the same uses as existing conditions (i.e., Community Center). Furthermore, the proposed project would include LID stormwater management elements such as bioretention/infiltration basins, which would address pollutants in stormwater before infiltrating at the project site. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantially greater potential impact associated with the release of pollutants due to seiche as compared to existing conditions. Therefore, impacts associated with the release of pollutants due to inundation cause by a seiche would be less than significant.

55 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). n.d. Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06001C0462G. Map Effective August 3, 2009. Website: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery= lake%20elizabeth%2C%20fremont%20 (accessed September 5, 2024).

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐70 Dam Inundation. According to the DWR Division of Safety of Dams, the project site is not located within a dam inundation area.56 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the release of pollutants due to flooding cause by a dam failure. No impact would occur.

For the reasons outlined above, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the release of pollutants from a flood, tsunami, seiche, or dam inundation that is greater than existing conditions. Impacts would be less than significant.

5.10.2.5 Implementation of a Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan
The project is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB adopted a Basin Plan (amended March 7, 2023)57 that designates beneficial uses for all surface and groundwater within their jurisdiction and establishes the water quality objectives and standards necessary to protect those beneficial uses. As previously discussed, the proposed project would comply with existing NPDES permit requirements, including the Construction General Permit and MRP, and would implement construction and operational BMPs to reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff. Compliance with these regulatory requirements, associated guidance documents, and the City’s Municipal Code would ensure that the proposed project would not degrade or alter water quality that would cause the receiving waters to exceed the water quality objectives or impair the beneficial use of receiving waters. As such, the proposed project would not result in water quality impacts that would conflict with the Basin Plan. Construction and operational impacts related to a conflict with the Basin Plan would be less than significant.

The SGMA was enacted in September 2014. The SGMA requires governments and water agencies located within high‐ and medium‐priority groundwater basins to halt overdraft of the basins. The SGMA requires the formation of local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs), which are required to adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) to manage the sustainability of the groundwater basins. As previously discussed, the project site is located within the Niles Cone Subbasin of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin. The Niles Cone Subbasin is managed by the ACWD and is designated as a Medium Priority basin pursuant to the SGMA. As an exclusive local agency responsible for groundwater management and a GSA, the ACWD submitted an Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Alternative) for the management of the Niles Cone Subbasin under the SGMA in 2016. The ACWD Alternative preserves and continues the successful sustainable groundwater management already being performed by the ACWD. This is accomplished by continuing groundwater management under pre‐existing authority by which the ACWD carries out groundwater management efforts within the Niles Cone Subbasin in addition to the authorities of a GSA under the SGMA. The existing planning and operating policies and documents under which the ACWD currently manages the Niles Cone Subbasin and the existing information that demonstrates that the ACWD has operated the Niles Cone Subbasin within its sustainable yield for at least 10 years

56 California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). n.d. California Dam Breach Inundation Map. Website: https://fmds.water.ca.gov/maps/damim/ (accessed September 5, 2024).
57 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2024. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay Basin. April 17. Website: https://www.waterboards. ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/basin_planning.html (accessed September 5, 2024).

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐71 satisfies the requirements of an Alternative. These existing documents and information show that the ACWD has managed the Niles Cone Subbasin sustainably for decades, thereby meeting the objective of the SGMA. On July 17, 2019, the DWR approved the ACWD Alternative for the Niles Cone Subbasin.58
As previously discussed, according to the Geotechnical Evaluation59 prepared for the proposed project, the historic high groundwater level at the project site is more than 40 feet bgs. In addition, groundwater was encountered at approximately 45 feet bgs during geotechnical borings. The proposed project will require excavation to a maximum depth of 8 feet bgs. Due to the depth to groundwater, construction of the proposed project is not anticipated to require groundwater dewatering and would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Operation of the proposed project would involve the use of groundwater sources for potable water. However, because the UWMP includes water demand associated with buildout of the City’s General Plan, and the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations of the project site, the proposed project’s water demand has been included in the water supply availability and demands analysis in the UWMP. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

Further, as described above, groundwater recharge for the Niles Cone Subbasin is from percolation of runoff from the Alameda Creek watershed and, to a lesser degree, direct stormwater capture.

Under existing conditions, infiltration at the project site could occur via pervious surface area (e.g., landscaped areas and open space) and Lake Elizabeth. During operation, the proposed project would incorporate bioretention/infiltration basins that would infiltrate stormwater at the project site, contributing to groundwater recharge. Overflows from the bioretention/infiltration basins would discharge via bubbler and sheet flow to Lake Elizabeth, similar to existing conditions. Therefore, although the proposed project would increase impervious surface area, the on‐site bioretention/ infiltration basins would ensure that groundwater recharge at the project site would not be substantially impacted by the proposed project.

For the reasons above, impacts related to conflict with, or obstruction of, implementation of water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plans would be less than significant.

5.10.3 Applicable Mitigation/Policies
No substantial changes in environmental circumstances, or revisions to the project, or new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified have occurred for this topic that would lead to new or more severe significant impacts.

The GP EIR identified only one mitigation measure related to hydrology and water quality.

Mitigation Measure HYD‐1, prescribed in the GP EIR, requires an update to the City’s Flood Control

58 Alameda County Water District (ACWD). n.d. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Website:
https://www.acwd.org/566/Sustainable‐Groundwater‐Management‐Act (accessed September 5, 2024). 59 Ninyo and Moore. 2024. Geotechnical Evaluation, Central Park Community Center, 40000 Paseo Padre Parkway, Fremont, California. August 5.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐72 Ordinance with measures that ensure that prior to issuance of building permits for a project with a potential net increase in stormwater runoff, the City finds that a flood control management and design plan results in no net increase in runoff or consistency in runoff volumes modeled by Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Mitigation HYD‐1 would not be applicable to the proposed project.

5.10.4 Conclusion
The proposed project is consistent with the type of development analyzed within the GP EIR and would be required to comply with existing regulations related to stormwater discharge. As such, the GP EIR adequately evaluated the hydrology and water quality impacts of the proposed project, and there would be no new impact associated with hydrology and water quality.

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐73

5.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
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?

5.11.1 City of Fremont General Plan Environmental Impact Report Findings The GP EIR analyzed the physical division of an existing community, a conflict with applicable land use plans/policies/regulations, and a conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. The GP EIR determined that development under the General Plan would not result in the physical division of any existing community within Fremont. Implementation of General Plan Policy 4‐1.11 would limit the potential for future physical division of existing neighborhoods, and development under the General Plan would have no impact in terms of physically dividing any existing community. Additionally, development under the General Plan would substantially increase the intensity of land uses in those portions of Fremont where strategic urbanization is desired beyond what would be permitted under current plans, policies, and regulations. However, with implementation of General Plan policies, future development would maintain compatibility with existing residential neighborhoods. Impacts would be considered less than significant.

5.11.2 Project Analysis

5.11.2.1 Division of an Existing Community
The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a feature (e.g., an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (e.g., a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community, or between a community and outlying areas. For instance, the construction of an interstate highway through an existing community may constrain travel from one side of the community to another; similarly, such construction may also impair travel to areas outside of the community.

The project site is a portion of an existing City park that is located in an urban area and surrounded by commercial, residential, and public uses. The existing Teen Center would be demolished, and the proposed Community Center would be constructed in approximately the same location though with a larger footprint as the existing Teen Center. No changes to the existing driveway access from Sailway Drive are proposed; however, a new driveway entrance to the site from Paseo Padre Parkway is proposed. The proposed project would not result in the realignment or closure of any existing roads. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the physical division of an established community or adversely affect the continuity of land uses in the vicinity, and this impact would be less than significant.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐74

5.11.2.2 Conflict with Land Use Plans
The project site is designated Open Space – City Parks in the City’s General Plan, and the zoning designation is Open Space (OS). The Open Space – City Parks category includes parks that are owned and operated by the City, including active and passive recreation areas. Typical uses include athletic fields, playgrounds, trails, tennis courts, and recreation centers. The appropriate uses in any given park are based on the park’s classification and standards and are further defined in the City’s Parks Master Plan and the Parks and Recreation Element of the City’s General Plan. Development within City Parks are generally subject to a height limit of 35 feet, with some exceptions, and an impervious surface coverage limit of 15 percent.

Per the State CEQA Guidelines, policy conflicts do not, in and of themselves, constitute significant environmental impacts. Policy conflicts are considered to be environmental impacts only when they would result in direct physical impacts or where those conflicts relate to avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts. As such, associated physical environmental impacts are discussed in this IS/MND under specific topical sections.

The project site is located in an urban area in Fremont. It is surrounded by residential uses, commercial uses, and public facilities. The proposed project would demolish the existing Teen Center and construct a new Community Center in approximately the same location, though with a larger footprint, as the existing Teen Center. The proposed project would be consistent with the type and intensity of development assumed for the project site in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and would not require any variances. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect, and this impact would be less than significant.

5.11.3 Applicable Mitigation/Policies
No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.

5.11.4 Conclusion
The proposed project is consistent with the type of development analyzed within the GP EIR and would be generally consistent with the development standards envisioned in the GP EIR; therefore, the GP EIR adequately evaluated the land use impacts of the proposed project, and no new impacts related to land use and planning would result.

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐75

5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
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?

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?

5.12.1 City of Fremont General Plan Environmental Impact Report Findings The GP EIR analyzed the loss of availability of known mineral resources and locally important mineral resource recovery sites. The GP EIR determined that development under the General Plan would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources or locally known mineral resource recovery sites with the implementation of Policy 7‐5.1. The impact would be less than significant.

5.12.2 Project Analysis
According to the City’s General Plan Conservation Element, Diagram 7‐4 (Mineral Resources and Sites Subject to SMARA) does not identify mineral resources or designated mineral resource sites located on the project site.60 Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on mineral resources.

5.12.3 Applicable Mitigation/Policies
No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures or policies are required.

5.12.4 Conclusion
No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred, and no new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified has been identified that would lead to new or more severe significant impacts. Therefore, the GP EIR adequately evaluated mineral resource impacts that would occur with implementation of the proposed project, and no new or more severe impacts would occur.

60 City of Fremont. 2011c. General Plan Conservation Element, Chapter 7, Diagram 7‐4. Website:
https://www.fremont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/791/637750630830170000 (accessed August 21, 2024).

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐76

5.13 NOISE

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project result in:
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 applicable standards of other agencies?

b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
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 2 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?

5.13.1 City of Fremont General Plan Environmental Impact Report Findings The GP EIR analyzed future traffic‐ and rail‐related noise, exposure of new land uses to excessive noise levels and ground‐borne vibration, permanent noise increases above existing levels, noise impacts associated with land use incompatibility, and construction noise and vibration. The GP EIR determined that traffic noise within the City ranges from 57 dBA Ldn (day‐night average noise levels in A‐weighted decibels) in the shielded residential areas to 75 dBA Ldn along the interstates. The General Plan would expose those living and working at sites that may be developed in the future (particularly residential uses adjacent to principal streets and railroad lines) to excessive noise levels.

Development under the General Plan would implement Mitigation Measure NOI‐1A, which requires project‐specific planning for noise reduction, and Mitigation Measure NOI‐1B, which updates noise/land use compatibility policies within the General Plan to facilitate project review and the CEQA process. With implementation of mitigation, the GP EIR found that impacts related to future traffic‐ and rail‐related noise would be less than significant. Additionally, the GP EIR determined that those living adjacent to railroad lines and BART could be exposed to ground‐borne vibration. With implementation of General Plan Policy 10‐8.10, development under the General Plan would have a less than significant impact regarding ground‐borne vibration. The GP EIR determined that development would result in increased traffic and traffic‐related noise, and any roadway where the increase would exceed 3 dBA Ldn would be considered a significant impact. Several roadways would experience a substantial increase in noise; therefore, impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable. Development under the General Plan would introduce commercial uses adjacent to residential uses. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI‐3, which requires project‐specific noise analysis, would reduce impacts to less than significant. However, the temporary transitional nature of some commercial areas transitioning into mixed‐use neighborhoods would result in conflicts with existing and new development that cannot be effectively mitigated in the short term. Therefore, the GP EIR determined that impacts would be significant and unavoidable under those circumstances.

The GP EIR determined that even with implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI‐4 and NOI‐5, development under the General Plan may result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to construction noise and vibration.

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐77

5.13.2 Project Analysis
This section compares noise impacts from the proposed project with impacts identified in the 2011 GP EIR. The proposed project would include a Community Center in a developed area in Fremont.

Operational noise can be categorized as mobile source noise and stationary source noise. Mobile source noise would be attributable to the additional trips that would be a result of the proposed project. Stationary source noise includes noise generated by the Community Center.

The primary existing noise sources in the project area are transportation facilities. Traffic on Stevenson Boulevard, Paseo Padre Parkway, and Sailway Drive contributes to the ambient noise environment. In addition, operational noise from adjacent uses (e.g., nearby parks and pedestrians) is audible on the project site.

Certain land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others. Examples of these include residential areas, educational facilities, hospitals, childcare facilities, and senior housing. The closest sensitive receptors include the Fremont Main Library, which is approximately 70 feet west of the project site boundary, and the single‐family residential uses along Paseo Padre Parkway, approximately 180 feet south of the project site boundary.

5.13.2.1 Noise and Land Use Compatibility
The City sets forth normally acceptable noise level standards for land use compatibility. An exterior noise level of less than 65 dBA Ldn is considered to be “normally acceptable” for outdoor sports and recreation, and neighborhood parks and playgrounds designated areas and 60 dBA Ldn or less for schools, libraries, and meeting halls.

For stationary sources, the General Plan identifies a noise level standard of 50 dBA Leq (equivalent continuous sound level in A‐weighted decibels) during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 45 dBA Leq during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).

The GP EIR found that new land uses could be exposed to excessive noise levels. However, The GP EIR identified Mitigation Measure NOI‐1A, which requires project‐specific acoustical analyses, and Mitigation Measure NOI‐1B, which updates noise/land use compatibility policies within the General Plan to facilitate project review and the CEQA process, to reduce potential noise and land use compatibility impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures NOI‐1a and NOI‐1b are listed below.

Mitigation Measure NOI‐1A: Project‐Specific Planning for Noise Reduction. Utilize site planning to minimize noise in residential outdoor activity areas (backyards of single family homes and shared outdoor space in multi‐family developments) by locating the areas behind noise barriers, the buildings, in courtyards, or orienting the terraces to alleyways rather than streets, whenever possible. The goal is a maximum noise level of 60 dBA Ldn from roadway traffic and BART with conditionally acceptable levels in urban development areas of 65 dBA Ldn, and 70 dBA Ldn from railroad trains.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐78 Mitigation Measure NOI‐1B: Revision of Draft General Plan Update Noise/Land Use Compatibility Policies. Revise and clarify the following General Plan policies related to Noise and Land Use Compatibility to facilitate the project review and CEQA process as they relate to community noise:

Policy 10‐8.1: Site Development Acceptable Noise Environment. A noise environment which meets acceptable standards as defined by the State of California Building Code and local policies contained herein.
 Implementation 10‐8.1.A: New development projects shall meet acceptable exterior noise level standards. The “normally acceptable” noise standards for new land uses established in Land Use Compatibility for Community Exterior Noise
Environments shown in Figure 10‐11 shall be used as modified by the following:

The goal for maximum acceptable noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dB(A). This level shall guide the design of future development, and is a goal for the reduction of noise in existing development. A 60 Ldn goal will be applied where outdoor use is a major consideration (e.g., backyards in single family housing developments and recreation areas in multi‐ family housing projects). The outdoor standard will not normally be applied to small decks associated with apartments and condominiums, but these will be evaluated on a case‐by‐case basis. When the City determines that providing an outdoor Ldn of 60 dB(A) or lower cannot be achieved after the application of appropriate mitigations an Ldn of 65 dB(A) may be permitted at the discretion of the City Council.

Indoor noise level shall not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB(A) in new housing units. A noise insulation study, conforming to the methodology of the State Building Code, shall be prepared for all new housing, hotels, and motels exposed to an exterior Ldn of 60 dB(A) or greater and submitted to the building department prior to issuance of a permit. Railroad noise sources may create instances when the outdoor noise exposure criterion can exceed 65 Ldn up to 70 Ldn for future development, recognizing that train noise is characterized by relatively few loud events.

Railroad noise influence shall be evaluated independent of other noise sources. Indoor noise level shall not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB(A) in new housing units. Typical maximum instantaneous noise level in bedrooms at night should not exceed 50 dB(A).

Typical maximum instantaneous noise levels in other rooms and E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐79 bedrooms during the daytime should not exceed 55 dB(A). The typical maximum noise level is the maximum level that is exceeded during 30 percent of the measured passbys, based on the measurement of at least 10 events during the daytime and the nighttime.

Appropriate interior noise levels in commercial, industrial, and office buildings are a function of the use of space and shall be evaluated on a case‐by‐case basis. Interior noise levels in offices generally should be maintained at 45 Leq (hourly average) or less.
 Implementation 10‐8.1.B: Continue to use noise guidelines and contours to determine if additional noise studies are needed for a proposed new development. Prepare a format and guidelines for noise studies.
 Implementation 10‐8.1.C: Limit new residential development, excepting vertically integrated mixed use development, where the ambient noise level due to commercial or industrial noise sources will exceed the noise level standards as set forth in Table 10‐12, Noise and Land Use Compatibility Standards for Industrial and Commercial Noise, modified by the following as necessary unless effective mitigation measures are incorporated into the design of the project:

The noise level standards specified in Table 10‐12, shall be reduced by 5 dBA for simple tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises.

Where the ambient noise level exceeds the noise level standards, the standards shall be adjusted upwards to the ambient levels.

Policy 10‐8.2: Acceptable Noise Environment. Guidelines articulated by Figure 10‐11 are not intended to be applied reciprocally. In other words, if an area currently is below the desired noise standards, an increase in noise up to the maximum should not necessarily be allowed. The impact of a proposed project on an existing land use should be evaluated in terms of potential for adverse community response based on a substantial increase in existing noise levels, regardless of the compatibility guidelines.

5.13.2.2 Stationary Source Noise Impacts
The proposed project would redevelop the Teen Center and park space that could result in an increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project area associated with building usage for events, outdoor play, parking lot noise, and mechanical equipment from the proposed facilities.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐80 Outdoor Facilities. The proposed uses are expected to be similar to those of the existing Central Park, inclusive of the Community Center prior to its period of non‐operation. For any instances in which noise levels generated would result in a disturbance, the City’s Municipal Code would be utilized to minimize the operational impacts classified as nuisance issues. Additionally, typical activities at the proposed facility’s outdoor living areas and amphitheater are not expected to generate excessive noise levels and would only occur during daytime hours. The closest outdoor facility (the amphitheater) would be approximately 350 feet from the closest sensitive receptor (the Fremont Main Library). To achieve compliance with the City’s threshold of 50 dBA Leq at nearby sensitive receptors, noise levels at the outdoor patios and amphitheater should not exceed 67 dBA at 50 feet.

Multi‐Use Facilities. It is expected that the proposed Community Center would install heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. It is expected that the equipment installed would comply with the City’s noise standard of 50 dBA Leq during daytime hours and 45 dBA Leq during nighttime hours. The specific design of on‐site mechanical equipment associated with the proposed structure has not yet been determined. However, mechanical equipment systems typically would be shielded from direct public exposure and housed on rooftops, within equipment rooms, or within exterior enclosures. The use of building mechanical systems is typically intermittent, would likely be limited to the daytime hours of operation, and would be largely masked by ambient traffic noise levels.

In addition to building mechanical equipment, the proposed facility would include various noise‐ generating interior recreational uses, including multi‐purpose rooms. In general, noise generated by interior recreational activities would typically not be detectable within approximately 50 feet of the exterior of the structure. Predicted noise levels at the nearest noise‐sensitive land uses would be largely masked by ambient traffic noise levels and reduced by distance attenuation, and therefore would not be anticipated to result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels that would exceed the City’s noise standard of 50 dBA Leq during daytime hours and 45 dBA Leq during nighttime hours.

Therefore, for the reasons described above, the proposed project would not generate 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 applicable standards of other agencies. This impact would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not result in any new or more significant stationary noise impacts than were identified in the GP EIR.

5.13.2.3 Mobile Source Noise Impacts
Motor vehicles with their distinctive noise characteristics are the dominant noise source in the project vicinity. The amount of noise varies according to many factors, such as volume of traffic, vehicle mix (percentage of cars and trucks), average traffic speed, and distance from the observer.

Implementation of the proposed project would result in new daily trips on local roadways in the project site vicinity. A characteristic of sound is that a doubling of a noise source is required in order to result in a perceptible (3 dBA or greater) increase in the resulting noise level.

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐81 The guidelines included in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA‐RD‐77 108) were used to evaluate traffic‐related noise conditions along roadway segments in the project vicinity. This model requires various parameters (including traffic volumes, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry) to compute typical equivalent noise levels during daytime, evening, and nighttime hours. The resultant noise levels are weighted and summed over 24‐hour periods to determine the Ldn values. Table 5.13.A provides the traffic noise levels for the opening year with and without project scenarios. These noise levels represent the worst‐case scenario, which assumes that no shielding is provided between the traffic and the location where the noise contours are drawn.

Table 5.13.A shows an increase of 1.8 dBA in project‐related traffic noise on Sailway Drive north of Paseo Padre Parkway. An increase of less than 3 dBA Ldn would not be considered substantial, and the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to increased noise levels.

Therefore, this impact would remain less than significant as identified in the GP EIR.

5.13.2.4 Construction Noise
Average construction noise levels range up to 88 dBA Leq at 50 feet during the noisiest construction phases. The site preparation and grading phases, including excavation of the site, tend to generate the highest noise levels because earthmoving machinery is the noisiest construction equipment.

Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backfillers, bulldozers, draglines, and front loaders. Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders.

Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full‐power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.

In addition to the reference maximum noise level, the usage factor provided in Table 5.13.B is used to calculate the hourly noise level impact for each piece of equipment based on the following equation:




 50log20.).log(10..)( DFULEequipLeq
where: Leq (equip) = Leq at a receiver resulting from the operation of a single piece of equipment over a specified time period
E.L. = noise emission level of the particular piece of equipment at a reference distance of 50 feet
U.F. = usage factor that accounts for the fraction of time that the equipment is in use over the specified period of time
D = distance from the receiver to the piece of equipment Each piece of construction equipment operates as an individual point source. Using the following equation, a composite noise level can be calculated when multiple noise sources operate simultaneously:

𝐿𝑒𝑞 ሺ𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒ሻ ൌ 10 ∗ logଵ଴ ൭෍ 10
௅௡
ଵ଴
௡
ଵ
൱

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐82 Table 5.13.A: Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Proposed Project—Cumulative Roadway Segment
Existing Background Background – With Project
ADT
Ldn (dBA)
50 ft from Centerline
of Nearest Lane
ADT
Ldn (dBA)
50 ft from Centerline of
Nearest Lane
ADT
Ldn (dBA)
50 ft from Centerline of
Nearest Lane
Increase from
Existing Conditions
(dBA)
Stevenson Boulevard
north of Civic Center
Drive
20,680 66.1 21,200 66.2 21,380 66.2 0.0
Stevenson Boulevard
south of Civic Center
Drive
21,690 66.3 22,200 66.4 22,480 66.5 0.1
Civic Center Drive west
of Stevenson Boulevard 5,480 55.7 5,800 55.9 5,900 56.0 0.1 Civic Center Drive east of
Stevenson Boulevard 790 48.5 1,000 49.5 1,000 49.5 0.0 Paseo Padre Parkway
west of Stevenson
Boulevard
25,430 64.0 26,100 64.1 26,730 64.2 0.1
Paseo Padre Parkway
east of Stevenson
Boulevard
28,770 66.1 29,300 66.2 30,570 66.4 0.2
Sailway Drive north of
Paseo Padre Parkway 2,340 53.2 2,600 53.7 3,960 55.5 1.8 Paseo Padre Parkway
east of Project Driveway 28,690 66.1 27,700 65.9 29,990 66.3 0.4 Source: Compiled by LSA (October 2024).

Note: Shaded cells indicate roadway segments adjacent to the project site.

ADT = average daily traffic
Ldn= day‐night noise level
dBA = A‐weighted decibels
ft = foot/feet
5‐83
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) Table 5.13.B: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Description Acoustical Usage Factor (%)1 Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) at 50 Feet2 Auger Drill Rig 20 84
Backhoes 40 80
Compactor (ground) 20 80
Compressor 40 80
Cranes 16 85
Dozers 40 85
Dump Trucks 40 84
Excavators 40 85
Flat Bed Trucks 40 84
Forklift 20 85
Front‐end Loaders 40 80
Graders 40 85
Impact Pile Drivers 20 95
Jackhammers 20 85
Paver 50 77
Pickup Truck 40 55
Pneumatic Tools 50 85
Pumps 50 77
Rock Drills 20 85
Rollers 20 85
Scrapers 40 85
Tractors 40 84
Trencher 50 80
Welder 40 73
Source: Table 1, FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide (FHWA 2006).

Note: Noise levels reported in this table are rounded to the nearest whole number. 1 Usage factor is the percentage of time during a construction noise operation that a piece of construction equipment is operating at full power.
2 Maximum noise levels were developed based on Specification 721.560 from the Central Artery/Tunnel program to be consistent with the City of Boston’s Noise Code for the “Big Dig” project.

FHWA = Federal Highway Administration
Lmax = maximum instantaneous sound level

Using the equations from the methodology above, the reference information in Table 5.13.B, and the construction equipment list provided, the composite noise level of the loudest construction phase was calculated.

Once composite noise levels are calculated, reference noise levels can then be adjusted for distance using the following equation:

𝐿𝑒𝑞 ሺ𝑎𝑡 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑋ሻ ൌ𝐿 𝑒 𝑞 ሺ𝑎𝑡 50 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑡ሻ െ 20 ∗ lo gଵ଴ ൬ 𝑋 50൰
In general, this equation shows that doubling the distance would decrease noise levels by 6 dBA while halving the distance would increase noise levels by 6 dBA.

As identified above, the closest receptor includes the Fremont Main Library located north of the project site, approximately 610 feet from the center of the project site. The 610‐foot distance would

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐84 decrease the noise level by approximately 22 dBA compared to the noise level measured at 50 feet from the construction activity. Therefore, the closest off‐site receptors may be subject to short‐term construction noise levels of 66 dBA Leq when construction is occurring at the center of the project site.

The GP EIR identified that although construction noise would be localized to the individual site location, businesses and residences would be intermittently exposed to high levels of noise throughout the plan horizon. Construction activities would elevate noise levels at adjacent businesses and residences by 15 to 20 dBA or higher. Such a large increase in noise levels, although short term in duration, would be a potentially significant impact (Impact NOI‐4). The GP EIR identified that with Mitigation Measure NOI‐4, construction noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure NOI‐4 Modification, Placement, and Operation of Construction Equipment. Construction equipment should be well maintained and used judiciously to be as quiet as practical. The following measures, when applicable, are recommended best practices to reduce noise from construction activities near sensitive uses:

Standard Development
 Ensure that construction activities (including the loading and unloading of materials and truck movements) are limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and
between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekends or holidays.  Ensure that excavating, grading, and filling activities (including warming of equipment motors) are limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekends or holidays.
 Contractors equip all internal combustion engine‐driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
 Contractors utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
 Site plan for large site loading, staging areas, stationary noise‐ generating equipment, etc. as far as feasible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area.
 Comply with the CARB idling prohibitions of uneasy idling of internal combustion engines.
5‐85
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) The proposed project would not result in any new or more significant construction‐period noise impacts than were identified in the GP EIR. The proposed project would require the implementation of the Municipal Code, the City of Fremont General Plan, and Mitigation Measure NOI‐4, as included in the 2011 GP EIR. Mitigation Measure NOI‐4 is generally consistent with Section 18.218.050(g), Standard Development Requirements to Address Resource Protection, in the City’s Municipal Code, which would aide in minimizing construction noise levels to the extent feasible.

5.13.2.5 Construction‐Related Vibration
The GP EIR identified that construction projects may, in some cases, be located directly adjacent to existing structures, including weakened structures. Construction activities may include demolition of existing structures, site preparation work, excavation of below‐grade levels, foundation work, pile driving, and new building erection. Demolition for an individual site may last several weeks and at times may produce substantial vibration. Excavation for underground levels would also occur on some project sites, and vibratory pile driving could be used to stabilize the walls of the excavated area. Piles or drilled caissons may also be used to support building foundations.

Depending on the proximity of existing structures to each construction site, the structural soundness of the existing buildings, and the methods of construction used, vibration levels may be high enough to damage existing structures. Given the close proximity of many existing structures, ground‐borne vibration impacts would be potentially significant.

As with any type of construction, vibration levels may at times be perceptible. However, construction phases that have the highest potential of producing vibration (pile driving and use of jackhammers and other high‐power tools) would be intermittent and would only occur for short periods of time for any individual project site. By use of administrative controls such as notifying neighbors of scheduled construction activities and scheduling construction activities with the highest potential to produce perceptible vibration to hours with least potential to affect nearby businesses, perceptible vibration can be kept to a minimum and would not result in a physical or perceived significant impact.

The GP EIR found construction‐related vibration impacts to be potentially significant (Impact NOI‐5).

The 2011 GP EIR identified that with Mitigation Measure NOI‐5, construction vibration impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure NOI‐5 Limitations on Construction Activities Generating Excessive Vibration. The following best practice measures when applicable are recommended to reduce vibration from construction activities:
 Comply with construction hours ordinance to limit hours of exposure.
 Avoid impact pile driving where possible. Drilled piles causes lower vibration levels where geological conditions permit their use.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐86  Minimize or avoid using vibratory rollers and tampers near sensitive areas.
 When vibration‐sensitive structures are adjacent to a subject site, survey the condition of the existing structures and, when necessary, perform site‐specific vibration studies to direct construction activities. Contractors shall continue to monitor effects of construction activities on surveyed sensitive structures and offer repair or compensation for damage. Construction Management Plans (CMPs) for substantial construction projects shall include predefined vibration reduction measures,
notification requirements for properties within 200 feet of the construction schedule, and contact information for on‐site coordination and complaints.

Common sources of ground‐borne vibration and noise include trains and construction activities such as blasting, pile driving, and operating heavy earthmoving equipment. Construction of the proposed project would involve grading, site preparation, and construction activities but would not involve the use of construction equipment that would result in substantial ground‐borne vibration or ground‐ borne noise on properties near the project site. No pile driving, blasting, or significant grading activities are proposed. The closest structure to the project site is the Fremont Main Library, approximately 70 feet northwest of the project site boundary. Construction vibration levels at a distance of 25 feet or greater would not exceed the threshold for damage for modern structures of

0.5 inch per second peak particle velocity (PPV). In addition, the proposed project would comply with Mitigation Measure NOI‐5, although not required. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any new or more significant construction‐period vibration impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

5.13.2.6 Ground Vibration from Operations
The proposed project would not generate vibration levels related to on‐site operations. The roadways surrounding the project area, including Paseo Padre Parkway, and the existing driveways are paved, smooth, and unlikely to cause significant ground‐borne vibration. In addition, the rubber tires and suspension systems of buses and other on‐road vehicles would make it unusual for on‐road vehicles to cause ground‐borne noise or vibration problems. It is, therefore, assumed that no such vehicular vibration impacts would occur and, therefore, no vibration impact analysis of on‐road vehicles is necessary.

For the reasons listed above, the proposed project would not result in generation of excessive ground‐borne vibration or ground‐borne noise levels. This impact would be less than significant.

5.13.2.7 Aircraft Noise
The project site is located approximately 10.1 miles east of Palo Alto Airport and approximately

10.7 miles south of Hayward Executive Airport. The project site is not within the 65 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contours and is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip.

Although aircraft‐related noise may be audible on the project site, the proposed project would not 5‐87
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels due to the proximity of a public airport. This impact would be less than significant.

5.13.3 Applicable Mitigation/Policies
No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures, beyond implementation of GP EIR Mitigation Measures NOI‐1A, NOI‐1B, NOI‐4, and NOI‐5 and the City’s Standard Development Requirements Chapter 18.218.050(g), related to construction noise

5.13.4 Conclusion
The proposed project is consistent with the type of development analyzed within the GP EIR, and construction activities would be required to comply with GP EIR Mitigation Measures NOI‐4 and NOI‐5. As such, the GP EIR adequately evaluated the potential noise and vibration impacts of the proposed project, and there would be no new impacts.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐88

5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
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)?

b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?

5.14.1 City of Fremont General Plan Environmental Impact Report Findings The GP EIR analyzed population growth, displacement of existing housing units, and displacement of people. The GP EIR determined that development under the General Plan would not induce population growth since new residential development would be intended to accommodate Fremont’s portion of the region’s anticipated population growth. Impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, the GP EIR found that development under the General Plan would potentially result in loss of existing housing units and displacement of those currently living in those housing units. However, development under the General Plan would increase the total number of housing units due to increased residential densities, which would reduce the impact associated with the loss of existing housing units to a level of less than significant. Additionally, the total number of people anticipated to be displaced by the General Plan is not considered by the City to be substantial.

5.14.2 Project Analysis

5.14.2.1 Population Growth
The proposed project would be undertaken to provide the residents of the City with a new and updated Community Center, Gymnasium, walking trails, and parking. The proposed project does not include residential units and would not directly induce population growth on the project site. The new Community Center would include similar staffing levels to the existing Community Center, and therefore would not indirectly induce substantial population growth. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to population growth.

5.14.2.2 Displacement of Housing and People
The project site is currently developed with park uses and public use buildings, which does not include any residential units. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the displacement of existing housing. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to the displacement of homes.

5.14.3 Applicable Mitigation/Policies
No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was 5‐89
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures or policies are required.

5.14.4 Conclusion
No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred, and no new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified has been identified that would lead to new or more severe significant impacts. Therefore, the GP EIR adequately evaluated population and housing impacts that would occur with implementation of the proposed project, and no new or more severe impacts would occur.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐90

5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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:

i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?

5.15.1 City of Fremont General Plan Environmental Impact Report Findings The GP EIR analyzed fire protection and emergency medical response, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities. The GP EIR determined that development under the General Plan would not require the provisions of new or physically altered fire stations (the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts) in order to maintain acceptable response times, and impacts regarding fire protection and emergency response would be less than significant. While development under the General Plan may require an increase in police staffing and support equipment, it would not be expected to require the construction of a new police station or the expansion of the existing police station, and the impact would be considered less than significant.

The GP EIR determined that compliance with General Plan Policies 9‐9.1 and 9‐9.2, which require coordination with the Fremont Unified School District (FUSD) and payment of impact fees to FUSD, would ensure that development under the General Plan would have a less than significant impact on schools. Additionally, the GP EIR determined that implementation of mitigation measures and General Plan policies related to public services would reduce impacts on park and recreational facilities to less than significant. Increased demands on other public facilities resulting from development under the General Plan would not necessitate expansion of those facilities beyond the number of facilities already planned. Therefore, impacts related to other public facilities would be less than significant.

5.15.2 Project Analysis

5.15.2.1 Fire Protection
The Fremont Fire Department (FFD) provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the project site. The FFD continuously operates 11 fire stations, and primary service to the project site 5‐91
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) would be provided by Fire Station 09, which is located at 39609 Stevenson Place, approximately

0.9 mile east of the project site.61
The proposed project would demolish the existing Teen Center and construct a new, slightly larger Community Center that would provide programming with which to better serve the community, which could result in an increase in use and related daytime population of the project site thereby incrementally increasing the demand for emergency fire service and emergency medical services compared to existing conditions. However, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable codes for fire safety and emergency access. In addition, the FFD would also review the project site plans to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided prior to issuance of building permits.

The FFD would continue providing services to the project site and would not require additional firefighters to serve the proposed project. The construction of a new or expanded fire station would not be required. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact on the physical environment due to the incremental increase in demand for fire protection and life safety services, and the potential increase in demand for services is not expected to adversely affect existing response times to the site or within Fremont. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse impact associated with the provision of fire and emergency services beyond those identified in the GP EIR.

5.15.2.2 Police Protection
The Fremont Police Department (FPD) provides police protection to the project site. The FPD headquarters are located at 2000 Stevenson Boulevard, adjacent to and approximately 0.5 mile east of the project site.62
The proposed project could result in a marginal increase in daytime population on the project site and incrementally increase demand for emergency police services to the project site compared to existing conditions. However, the FPD would continue to provide services to the project site and would not require additional officers or the construction of new or expanded police facilities to serve the project site because the proposed project would include the expansion of an existing use on a previously developed site and would not result in a permanent population increase within Fremont. The increased demand for police protection services resulting from the proposed project would not be substantial and would not require the construction of new or alteration of existing police protection facilities to maintain an adequate level of police protection service. No physical impacts associated with the provision of police protection services would occur. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse impact associated with the provision of additional police facilities or services, and impacts to police services would represent a less than significant impact.

61 City of Fremont. n.d.‐a. Fremont Fire Department. Website: https://www.fremont.gov/government/ departments/fire/about‐us‐mission‐responsibilities‐goals/fire‐stations (accessed August 25, 2024). 62 City of Fremont. n.d.‐b. Fremont Police Department. Website: https://www.fremontpolice.gov/about‐ us/about‐fremont‐police (accessed August 25, 2024).

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐92

5.15.2.3 Schools
Public schools in Fremont are operated by the FUSD. The FUSD currently has 29 elementary schools, 5 middle schools, and 7 high schools.63 The proposed project does not include the construction of any new residential uses. As described in Section 5.14.1.1, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not substantially induce housing or population growth, either directly or indirectly, within Fremont. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase in the number of school‐age children in the area, and the proposed project would not result in any new or more significant impacts to existing schools beyond those identified in the GP EIR.

5.15.2.4 Recreation
The project site is located within the existing Central Park. The project site is currently developed with the existing, approximately 22,200‐square‐foot Central Park Teen Center, which includes a main hall, three program rooms, a patio adjacent to the main hall, and a commercial kitchen. As a part of the proposed project, the existing Teen Center would be demolished and upgraded with a new Community Center, Gymnasium, and walking trails. Portions of Central Park may be inaccessible during construction of the proposed project, thereby increasing demand for other nearby parks. However, this impact would be temporary in nature and would subside after construction of the proposed project is complete. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any new or more significant impacts to existing neighborhood or regional park facilities beyond those identified in the GP EIR.

5.15.2.5 Other Public Services
The project site includes an existing Teen Center. During construction of the proposed project, the existing Teen Center would be inaccessible to Fremont residents. However, this impact would be temporary in nature and would subside after construction of the proposed project is complete.

Once complete, the proposed project would result in a larger Community Center with more capacity to serve users. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any new or more significant impacts to existing public services beyond those identified in the GP EIR.

5.15.3 Applicable Mitigation/Policies
No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.

5.15.4 Conclusion
The GP EIR adequately evaluated public service impacts, and the proposed project’s impacts are included in and analyzed by the GP EIR. Development of the proposed project would fall within the development assumptions evaluated within the GP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would have no new impact on public services.

63 Fremont Unified School District (FUSD). n.d. About Fremont Unified. Website: https://fremontunified.org/ about/welcome/ (accessed August 25, 2024).
5‐93
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25)

5.16 RECREATION

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
a. Would the project 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?

b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

5.16.1 City of Fremont General Plan Environmental Impact Report Findings The topic of recreation is included in the Public Services section of the GP EIR. The GP EIR determined that development under the General Plan may include additional parks and recreational facilities. Development of parks and recreational facilities would result in construction‐related impacts similar to those associated with other development projects; however, implementation of mitigation measures outlined in the GP EIR would reduce impacts to less than significant. Existing parks and recreational facilities would not be expected to become overused or deteriorate with increased demand. With implementation of General Plan policies calling for mechanisms to pay for new maintenance obligations and for design of parks to reduce maintenance demands, development under the General Plan would have a less than significant impact on parks and recreational facilities.

5.16.2 Project Analysis
The proposed project would temporarily increase the use of other parks and recreation facilities during project construction due to demolition of the existing Teen Center and general construction disturbance within Central Park. The increased use at surrounding parks and recreational facilities would be temporary in nature and would subside after construction of the proposed project is complete. Additionally, the proposed Community Center and Gymnasium may decrease use at other parks and recreation facilities once the project is complete because the proposed project would provide additional recreational opportunities for the community. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on existing parks or other recreational facilities.

5.16.3 Applicable Mitigation/Policies
No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐94

5.16.4 Conclusion
The GP EIR adequately evaluated the environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project, including parks and recreation impacts. Development of the proposed project would fall within the development assumptions evaluated within the GP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would have no new impact on parks and recreation. 5‐95
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25)

5.17 TRANSPORTATION

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

d. Result in inadequate emergency access?

5.17.1 City of Fremont General Plan Environmental Impact Report Findings The GP EIR analyzed Congestion Management Plan (CMP)/roadway segments, travel demand, traffic congestion, emergency access, hazardous design features, air traffic patterns, 2035 traffic conditions, and conflicts with policies supporting alternative transportation. The GP EIR determined that development under the General Plan would result in unacceptable levels of service (LOS) at various intersections within Fremont. With implementation of mitigation, the LOS of some intersections would remain at levels considered a significant and unavoidable impact, while the LOS at other intersections would be reduced to levels considered less than significant. The GP EIR determines that development under the General Plan would not affect air traffic patterns or conflict with policies supporting the use of alternative modes of transportation. Additionally, the GP EIR determined that compliance with General Plan policies related to minimizing road hazards associated with overgrown vegetation, structures blocking sight lines, and other visual obstructions would ensure that development under the General Plan would have a less than significant impact related to hazards associated with design features. The GP EIR also determined that development under the General Plan would have a less than significant impact on emergency access because all proposed development would be subject to review and approval by the City (including the FFD and FPD) to ensure that projects do not impede emergency access.

5.17.2 Project Analysis

5.17.2.1 Transit, Roadway, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities The proposed project would include the demolition of the existing Teen Center and construction of a new Community Center in approximately the same location. The project site is accessed via two driveways on Sailway Drive. As part of the proposed project, the existing 125‐space parking lot adjacent to the existing Teen Center building would be reconfigured and extended, thus creating a designated parking lot with approximately 295 spaces. The reconfiguration would also include provision of a circular drop‐off area. No changes to the existing driveway access from Sailway Drive are proposed; however, a new driveway entrance to the site from Paseo Padre Parkway is proposed that would be limited to right turns only to and from Paseo Padre Parkway.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐96 Trip Generation. Data were provided by City staff regarding proposed programming and estimated visitation for proposed facilities in order to develop the proposed project trip generation. Table

5.17.A summarizes the vehicle trip generation for daily and peak‐hour average trips. The proposed project is expected to generate an average of 670 daily vehicle trips on a typical weekday during the non‐summer months, including 10 AM peak‐hour trips and 181 PM peak‐hour trips. During the summer months, the proposed project is expected to generate 1,470 daily vehicle trips on a typical weekday, including 372 AM peak‐hour trips and 181 PM peak‐hour trips. In addition, special events are anticipated to generate up to approximately 890 vehicle trips. The events would occur primarily on Friday evenings or on weekends outside of the AM and PM peak hours.

Vehicular Access and Circulation. On December 28, 2018, the California Office of Administrative Law and the OPR cleared and adopted the revised State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. Among the changes to the guidelines was the removal of vehicle delay and LOS as the sole basis of determining environmental impacts under CEQA. With implementation of the adopted guidelines, transportation impacts are to be evaluated based on a project’s effect on VMT. On July 1, 2020, the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 became effective statewide. The discussion of the project’s consistency with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 is discussed under Section

5.17.2.2, below.

Demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in an increase in traffic on local roadways during the construction period due to heavy equipment transport to and from the site, the arrival and departure of construction workers, and the import/ export of construction material. Prior to issuance of the first construction‐related permit, the City would be required to prepare a CMP in accordance with the City’s Standard Development Requirements to Address Resource Protection identified in Chapter 18.218.050 (c) of the Fremont Municipal Code. The CMP would include construction traffic control. Traffic associated with construction would be short term, temporary, and subject to a CMP, which includes a traffic control plan, construction worker parking plan, proposed truck routes, etc. Therefore, demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project would not conflict with a policy related to the roadway system.

Consistent with City requirements, a Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) has been prepared for the proposed project. The LTA includes an analysis to ensure that sufficient traffic operations are maintained with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not conflict with a policy related to the roadway system. This impact would be less than significant.
5‐97
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) Table 5.17‐A: Trip Generation (Typical Operations)
Phase/Activity Description
Typical Weekday Typical Weekend
Daily
AM Peak Hour
(8:00 to 9:00 AM)
PM Peak Hour
(5:00 to 6:00 PM) Daily Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Phases 1 and 2 (Community Center)
Typical Operations Monday thru Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. with most activities Monday
thru Thursday 4:00 to 8:00 p.m. and 9:00
a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on weekends.

Estimated 210 visitors on weekdays, 440
visitors on weekends, and 10 staff on all
days.
400 10 0 10 53 52 105 800 80 79 159
Summer Camp Weekdays from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.,
about 150 kids and 15 staff per day
570 129 129 258 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Phase 1 and 2 Typical Operations – Non‐Summer 400 10 0 10 53 52 105 800 80 79 159 Phase 1 and 2 Typical Operations – Summer 970 139 129 268 53 52 105 800 80 79 159 Phase 3 (Gym)
Typical Operations Monday thru Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. with most activities Monday
thru Thursday 4:00 to 8:00 p.m. and 9:00
a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on weekends.

Estimated 140 visitors on weekdays, 320
visitors on weekends, and 10 staff on all
days.
270 0 0 0 38 38 76 580 44 44 88
Summer Camp Weekdays from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.,
about 60 kids and 5 staff per day.
230 52 52 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Buildout Typical Operations – Non‐Summer 670 10 0 10 91 90 181 1,380 124 123 247 Buildout Typical Operations – Summer 1,470 191 181 372 91 90 181 1,380 124 123 247 Source: Fehr & Peers (2024).

Trip generation is based on the following assumptions:

1. Number of visitors and staffing levels per day and time of day as provided by the City of Fremont on September 30, 2024.

2. Typical Operations: Drive mode share of 90%, auto occupancy of 1.1 persons per car.

3. Summer Camps: Drive mode share of 100%, auto occupancy of 1.2 persons per car, all kids are dropped off and picked up and each drop‐off and pick‐up generated two trips

4. Includes a 10% increase to account for other trips such as deliveries, rideshares, etc.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐98 Pedestrian Facilities. Pedestrian facilities in the study area consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. The project is expected to increase the number of pedestrians using the sidewalks and crosswalks. Existing sidewalks are provided along both sides of Paseo Padre Parkway and along the south side of Sailway Drive with landscaped setbacks from the curb in some locations. In addition, pedestrian paths are provided through the park site. The overall network of sidewalks and crosswalks in the vicinity of the project site has adequate connectivity and provides pedestrians with safe routes to nearby destinations. The project would not remove any pedestrian facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies for new pedestrian facilities. In addition, the proposed project would include development of a loop trail that would encircle the proposed meadow and provide pedestrian connections between the Community Center, Lake Elizabeth, the Fremont Main Library, and existing trails within Central Park. The proposed project would also include a sidewalk connection from the new access driveway at Paseo Padre Parkway to the new Community Center as well as pedestrian connections to the new Community Center from the reconfigured parking area.

The proposed project is not anticipated to eliminate off‐site pedestrian facilities, create hazardous conditions for pedestrians by changing off‐site geometric features or introducing incompatible vehicle types to the roadway system, or conflict with any existing or planned pedestrian facilities.

Therefore, impacts to pedestrian facilities would be less than significant.

Bicycle Facilities. There are some bike facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project site, including existing paved trails through the park, and Class II buffered bicycle lanes on Paseo Padre Parkway and Stevenson Boulevard. The City of Fremont’s 2017 Bicycle Master Plan identifies both Paseo Padre Parkway and Stevenson Boulevard as future Class IV separated bikeways. The proposed project design would not eliminate bicycle facilities that connect to the area circulation system and would not conflict with existing or planned bicycle facilities, nor would it create a hazardous condition for bicyclists by changing off‐site geometric features or introducing incompatible vehicle types to the roadway system. In addition, the proposed project would include provision of on‐site bicycle parking, including 16 short‐term bicycle parking spaces located near the main entry and 2 long‐term bicycle spaces for staff, and development of a loop trail that would encircle the proposed meadow and provide bicycle connections between the Community Center, Lake Elizabeth, the Fremont Main Library, and existing trails within Central Park. Therefore, impacts to bicycle facilities would be less than significant.

Transit Service. Alameda County Transit (AC Transit) provides public transit service adjacent to the project study area. AC Transit currently operates a total of 132 bus lines and connects with 16 other public and private bus systems, 28 BART stations, 7 Amtrak stations, and 2 ferry terminals. AC Transit operates several routes in the vicinity of the project site: Route 215 (weekdays), Route 216 (weekdays and weekends), and Route 239 (weekdays). All three routes provide access to the Fremont BART station. Route 216 also provides access to the Union City BART station. Route 215 has a frequency of 60 minutes and runs from 6:20 a.m. to 8:20 p.m. on weekdays. Route 216 has a frequency of 60 minutes and runs from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and weekends. Route 239 has a frequency of 30 minutes and runs from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays. Currently, the bus stop nearest the proposed project is located on Paseo Padre Parkway near the Sailway Drive intersection, adjacent to the project site. Bus stops are also located on Civic Center Drive at Stevenson Boulevard north of the project site.
5‐99
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) While the proposed project could generate new demand for the public transit services and facilities that serve the area, transit system and transit vehicle capacities are not expected to be exceeded; and the proposed project is not in conflict with existing or planned public transit facilities. Therefore, impacts to public transit would be less than significant.

For the reasons outlined above, impacts to roadways and bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities would be less than significant.

5.17.2.2 Vehicle Miles Traveled
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) seeks to evaluate a project’s potential impact related to its VMT. In June 2020, the City of Fremont adopted the City of Fremont Transportation Analysis Handbook,64 which includes VMT metrics, thresholds, and screening criteria for evaluating a project’s VMT impact. Based on the City’s thresholds and screening criteria, a project can be screened out for a formal VMT analysis if certain criteria are met that would signify that a project would be presumed to result in a less than significant impact with respect to VMT. A project’s impact on VMT is considered less than significant and should not require further VMT analysis if the project meets at least one of the following criteria:
 Small Infill Projects
○ Single‐family detached housing of 15 units or less;
○ Single‐family attached or multi‐family housing of 25 units or less; ○ Office of 10,000 square feet of gross floor area or less; or ○ Project generating 110 trips a day or less for other land use.  Local Serving Retail consisting of 50,000 square feet of total gross floor area or less without drive‐through operations.
 Local Serving Public Facilities (e.g., police stations, fire stations, passive parks, public utilities, and other similar facilities).
 Location‐Based Screening for Residential and Office Employment Projects ○ Location is either:
■ Within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop; or
■ In an area with low (below the threshold) VMT per capita/employee and in an area with planned growth
○ And meets the following:
■ Density
□ Minimum gross floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.75 for employment projects □ Minimum of 35 units per acre for residential projects

64 City of Fremont. 2020a. City of Fremont Transportation Impact Analysis Handbook. June. Website:
https://www.fremont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/391/637747611844000000 (accessed October 4, 2024).

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐100 □ If located in an area that has a maximum density below 0.75 FAR or 35 units per acre, the maximum density allowed must be met.
■ Parking: No more than the minimum number of parking spaces required. ■ Does not replace affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate or high‐income residential units.
■ Consistent with Plan Bay Area, the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission).
 Restricted Affordable Residential Projects or Components:
○ Affordability: 100% deed‐restricted affordable housing (exception for the manager’s unit(s)); affordability must extend for a minimum of 55 years for rental homes or 45 years for for‐ sale homes. Affordability for this purpose is restricted to households making 80 percent or less of the area’s median income;
○ Location is within an area with below‐average VMT per capita; and ○ Parking is no more than the minimum number of parking spaces required.

The proposed project would construct a new Community Center to serve Fremont residents. The proposed project therefore qualifies as a local serving public facility, would meet the City’s VMT screening criteria based on this type of community‐serving facility, and is presumed to result in a less than significant impact related to VMT.

5.17.2.3 Design Features or Incompatible Uses
As discussed in the GP EIR, implementation of General Plan Mobility Policy 3‐3.6: Road Hazards would minimize road hazards associated with overgrown vegetation, structures blocking sight lines, and other visual obstructions, and requires that new development is reviewed to ensure that ingress and egress locations, driveways, crosswalks, and other circulation features are sited to minimize accident hazards, thereby reducing potential design hazards to a level considered less than significant.

The project site is accessed via two driveways on Sailway Drive. As part of the proposed project, the existing 125‐space parking lot adjacent to the existing Teen Center building would be reconfigured and extended, thus creating a designated parking lot with approximately 295 spaces. The reconfiguration would also include provision of a circular drop‐off area. No changes to the existing driveway access from Sailway Drive are proposed; however, a new driveway entrance to the site from Paseo Padre Parkway is proposed. The new driveway entrance would be constructed consistent with City design standards with signing and striping consistent with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).65 Based on review of the preliminary site plan, the location of the proposed parking lot driveways on Sailway Drive and the proposed driveway on Paseo Padre Parkway would meet the sight distance requirements between vehicles turning into and out of the driveways and the vehicles, bicycle, and pedestrians moving along these streets.

65 California State Transportation Agency and Department of Transportation. 2014. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Revision 7. March.
5‐101
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) Therefore, the project would not create a hazard due to a geometric design feature or dangerous intersection.

The proposed project consists of a recreational facility within an existing park, which currently provides for vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access. Therefore, the proposed project and travel modes to the proposed project, including pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile would be compatible with the existing use of the site and existing infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to hazards associated with a design feature or incompatible uses.

5.17.2.4 Emergency Access
As discussed in the GP EIR, all development proposed following adoption of the General Plan would be subject to review by the City (including the FFD and the FPD) prior to approval to ensure that individual development projects do not impede emergency access, thereby reducing potential impacts to a level considered less than significant.

Factors such as the number of access points, roadway width, and proximity to fire stations determine whether a site provides sufficient emergency access. In addition to the existing driveways that would be retained, one new access driveway at Paseo Padre Parkway would be constructed to provide additional vehicular access, including emergency vehicle access. The design, construction, and maintenance of project site access locations and on‐site roads would be in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and would be required to meet all emergency access standards. Consistent with City requirements, the FFD and FPD would review the proposed site plan and would provide input on final design in relation to emergency access prior to issuance of a building permit.

While the proposed project may increase traffic congestion in the vicinity of the project site, emergency vehicles would still retain the right to preempt traffic signals and use lights and sirens to indicate to drivers that they need to yield. Thus, the project’s impacts to emergency vehicle access would be less than significant.

5.17.3 Applicable Mitigation
No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.

5.17.4 Conclusion
The GP EIR adequately evaluated the environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project, including transportation impacts. Development of the proposed project would fall within the development assumptions evaluated within the GP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would have no new impact on transportation.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐102

5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
e. 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:

i. 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)? Or

ii. 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.

5.18.1 City of Fremont General Plan Environmental Impact Report Findings CEQA was amended in 2014 to include tribal cultural resources as a separate impact category. As such, the GP EIR, drafted in 2011, did not include an analysis of tribal cultural resources. However, the GP EIR analyzed prehistoric and historic resources and included mitigation measures related to historical and archaeological resources, which included tribal cultural resources at that time.

5.18.2 Project Analysis
There are no known tribal cultural resources, as defined by PRC Sections 5020.1(k) and 5024.1, located within or in the immediate vicinity of the site. However, there is a potential to disturb unrecorded tribal cultural resources during construction‐related activities. As noted in Section 5.5, the proposed project would be required to implement the City’s Standard Development Requirements related to protection of cultural and tribal cultural resources and comply with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and PRC Section 5097.98 related to human remains.

Compliance with applicable regulations would ensure that potential impacts associated with tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

Separate (non‐CEQA) tribal notification was conducted under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and that consultation is ongoing. However, this document supports the finding that further CEQA review is not required for this document; therefore, the City is not required to conduct formal tribal consultation under AB 52 for this project. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
5‐103
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25)

5.18.3 Applicable Mitigation
No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.

5.18.4 Conclusion
The GP EIR adequately evaluated the potential tribal cultural resources impacts for the proposed project. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant and additional mitigation is not required.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐104

5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?

c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which 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?

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?

e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

5.19.1 City of Fremont General Plan Environmental Impact Report Findings The GP EIR analyzed water supply, storm drainage and flood control, sanitary sewers, solid waste, gas, electricity, and telecommunications service. The GP EIR determined that development under the General Plan would increase water demand; however, with implementation of mitigation, impacts related to water supply would be less than significant. Additionally, with implementation of the policies and programs regarding drainage facilities and flooding contained in the General Plan, development under the General Plan would have a less than significant impact related to flooding and drainage infrastructure. The GP EIR determined that the Alvarado Treatment Plant would have the capacity to accommodate the level of development anticipated under the General Plan; however, sewer infrastructure would need to be reassessed to determine accommodation capacity in areas where development would be anticipated at higher densities than would be permitted.

With implementation of mitigation, impacts related to sanitary sewers would be less than significant. The GP EIR determined that development would increase demand for solid waste and disposal; however, compliance with General Plan policies would limit potential effects associated with the collection and disposal of solid waste to a level considered less than significant.

Additionally, the GP EIR determined that increased demand for utility services would result in a less than significant impact because utility providers routinely increase the capacity of their systems to meet demands associated with growth. Compliance with General Plan policies would reduce impacts associated with construction needed to expand service to specific sites that may be developed under the General Plan.
5‐105
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25)

5.19.2 Project Analysis

5.19.2.1 New or Expanded Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, Solid Waste Services, and Energy A variety of local and regional purveyors in this area provide and maintain utility and service system facilities associated with electricity, water, stormwater, wastewater, solid waste, and communications. These existing services and potential impacts to these services are discussed below.

Wastewater. The Union Sanitary District (USD) provides wastewater collection and treatment for properties within Fremont and the surrounding area. USD operates a 33‐acre wastewater treatment facility in Union City that serves Fremont, Newark, and Union City, and maintains over 830 miles of underground pipeline.

The proposed project would include a new sanitary sewer lateral and grease interceptor for the Community Center and would convey sewage to the existing 8‐inch‐diameter sewer main in Paseo Padre Parkway. The new sanitary sewer lateral would be constructed in accordance with USD standards and would not cause significant environmental effects.

Water. Water is supplied to Fremont by the ACWD. The ACWD updated its UWMP in 2021.

According to the UWMP, the average daily water demand within the entire ACWD service area is projected to be 40,900 acre‐feet per year (AFY) in 2025, 40,200 AFY in 2035, and 47,600 AFY in 2045.66 In addition, the UWMP indicated that the ACWD does not anticipate any supply deficits in normal years or single‐dry years throughout the planning horizon. However, as demand in the service area continues to grow through the year 2045, the amount of projected supply available for dry year banking will be reduced.67
As discussed in Section 5.19.2.2, below, the proposed project would not substantially increase demand for water and would therefore not exceed the capacity of existing water treatment facilities. The proposed project would not require the construction of new water treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities other than those already planned. The proposed project would include the installation of new water connection with an above‐grade backflow device located 18 inches behind the property lines that would connect to the existing 12‐inch‐diameter water main in Paseo Padre Parkway. The proposed project would connect directly to existing mains, which have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project on water infrastructure would be less than significant.

Stormwater. The proposed project would be designed in compliance with NPDES regulations, the MRP, and the Alameda Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program requirements. The proposed project would infiltrate stormwater runoff into the native soil as required for hydromodification requirements, and would discharge runoff via a bubbler and sheet flow into Lake

66 Alameda County Water District (ACWD). 2021b. Urban Water Management Plan 2020‐2025, Table 2‐5:

District Estimated Future Water Demands (AF/yr).
67 Alameda County Water District (ACWD). 2021a. Urban Water Management Plan 2020‐2025, Final Version Including Minor Edits. May 13. Website: https://www.acwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/4116/Final‐2020‐ 2025‐UWMP‐Version‐Including‐Minor‐Edits (accessed September 9, 2024).

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐106 Elizabeth, matching the pre‐development stormwater runoff flow. The proposed project would include bioretention basins and infiltration basins to capture and treat stormwater runoff generated from impervious surfaces.

As discussed in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, implementation of appropriate source control, site design measures, and stormwater treatment measures in compliance with the MRP and City Municipal Code would ensure that post‐project runoff does not exceed estimated pre‐project rates and durations. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the construction of any new or expanded stormwater infrastructure beyond that which was already analyzed as part of the proposed project, and this impact would be less than significant.

Electricity. The project site is currently served by electrical and telecommunications infrastructure.

The proposed project would connect directly to existing telecommunication infrastructure and require installation of a new electrical transformer.

The proposed project would connect to existing utility services within or adjacent to the project site.

The relocation or reconstruction of new or expanded water, wastewater system, stormwater drainage, or telecommunications facilities would not be required. Although the proposed project would include a new electrical transformer, impacts would be less than significant.

5.19.2.2 Water Supply
According to the comparison of available supply with projected demands from the 2020‐2025 UWMP for the ACWD, the ACWD does not anticipate any supply deficits in normal years through the year 2045.68 In future years, multiple‐year drought conditions could cause supply shortfalls; however, any potential supply shortfall experiences during a drought would be met through local groundwater storage and off‐site groundwater storage. Because the proposed project is consistent with the current land use and zoning designations for the site, development of the project would be considered consistent with the growth assumptions utilized to estimate the ACWD’s projected water demands. Thus, the project’s associated increase in water demand would have been accounted for in the ACWD UWMP.

According to the UWMP, the projected single dry year demand within the entire ACWD service area is projected to be 58,200 AFY in 2025, 57,400 AFY in 2035, and 63,900 AFY in 2045. According to the CalEEMod results, provided in Appendix A, operation of the proposed project is anticipated to demand approximately 2,010,867 gallons per year (gpy) of water. This represents a negligible portion (less than 0.01 percent) of the average daily water demand within the entire ACWD service area for years 2025, 2035, and 2045.

In addition, the project design would be required to adhere to CBC standards for water conservation (e.g., low‐flow plumbing fixtures). With compliance with the CBC, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on water supply in normal, dry, and multiple dry years.

68 Alameda County Water District (ACWD). 2021a. Urban Water Management Plan 2020‐2025, Final Version Including Minor Edits. May 13. Website: https://www.acwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/4116/Final‐2020‐ 2025‐UWMP‐Version‐Including‐Minor‐Edits (accessed September 9, 2024). 5‐107
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25)

5.19.2.3 Wastewater Treatment Capacity
The wastewater treatment system in the USD comprises 830 miles of underground pipeline throughout the service area that pipes wastewater to the Alvarado Treatment Plant located at 5072 Benson Road in Union City, California, approximately 7 miles northwest of the project site. The treatment plant treats an average of 25 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater and has a permitted physical capacity of 33 MGD. As such, approximately 76 percent of the allowable capacity is treated on a daily basis.

The proposed project would generate additional wastewater flows into the regional wastewater treatment plant operated by the USD. However, the proposed project is consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the site. As such, the project is consistent with what is anticipated for buildout under the City’s General Plan and would have been included in the capacity project’s calculations for the wastewater treatment plant. The proposed project would result in typical wastewater discharges that would not require new methods or equipment for treatment that are not currently permitted for the Alvarado Treatment Plant, which would serve the proposed project.

Based on the CalEEMod results, the proposed project is estimated to produce approximately 982,593 gallons of wastewater per year (4,958 gallons per day [gpd]).69 This represents a negligible portion (approximately 0.015 percent) of the Alvarado Treatment Plant’s permitted physical capacity of 33 MGD. In addition, considering that approximately 76 percent of the allowable capacity of the treatment plant is treated on a daily basis, the treatment plant would have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project. The increase of wastewater as a result of the proposed project would not be considered an adverse impact to the plant’s current capacity because of the relatively small increase in demand and the remaining available capacity of the wastewater treatment plant. As such, wastewater generated from the proposed project would not cause the Alvarado Treatment Plant to violate any wastewater treatment requirements, and this impact would be less than significant.

5.19.2.4 Solid Waste
Solid waste generated at the project site would be collected by Republic Services and transferred to the Fremont Recycling and Transfer Station located at 41149 Boyce Road in Fremont, which is approximately 3 miles southwest of the project site. The Fremont Recycling and Transfer Station mainly transports materials to the Altamont Landfill, located approximately 22 miles northeast of the project site at 10840 Altamont Pass Road in Livermore. The landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of 124,400,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 65,400,000 cubic yards as of June 2016. The landfill accepts a maximum of 11,150 tons per day and has an expected closure date of December 2070.70

69 In the absence of an official wastewater generation rate, wastewater can be reasonably assumed to be 90 percent of water use.
2,010,867 gallons of indoor water use per year * 0.9 = 1,809,780 1,809,780 gpy = 4,958 gpd
70 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). n.d. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery. Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/ SiteActivity/Details/7?siteID=7 (accessed September 4, 2024).

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐108 On average, public/institutional uses generate 0.007 pound per square foot of garbage per day.

Therefore, because the proposed project would result in the addition of 35,500 square feet of building space, the proposed project would result in the generation of 249 pounds of solid waste per day, or 0.1245 ton. As noted above, the Altamont Landfill has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. As such, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity to accommodate the project’s waste disposal needs, and impacts associated with the disposition of solid waste would be less than significant.

5.19.3 Applicable Mitigation
No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.

5.19.4 Conclusion
The GP EIR adequately evaluated the environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project, including utilities and infrastructure impacts. Development of the proposed project would fall within the development assumptions evaluated within the GP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project has no new impacts related to utilities and infrastructure.

5‐109
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25)

5.20 WILDFIRE

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
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?

c. Require the installation or maintenance 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?

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?

5.20.1 City of Fremont General Plan Environmental Impact Report Findings In December 2018, CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines were updated to include wildfire analysis in the CEQA Appendix G checklist. As such, the 2011 GP EIR did not include a separate wildfire section.

However, the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the GP EIR briefly discussed the General Plan’s impacts related to wildfire risk. The GP EIR determined that the General Plan would allow limited development in areas of high wildland fire risk. Compliance with General Plan policies would ensure that risks associated with wildland fires would be less than significant.

5.20.2 Project Analysis

5.20.2.1 Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan As previously discussed in Section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the proposed project would design, construct, and maintain structures, roadways, and facilities in accordance with applicable standards associated with vehicular access, resulting in the provision of adequate vehicular access that would provide for adequate emergency access and evacuation. The proposed project would not alter or block adjacent roadways, and implementation of the proposed project would not be expected to impair the function of nearby emergency evacuation routes. Primary access to the project site is via a driveway along Sailway Drive. This driveway would be retained and one new driveway along Paseo Padre Parkway would be constructed to provide additional vehicular access. In the event of an emergency on the site, visitors could exit the site via Paseo Padre Parkway via Sailway Drive and subsequently access I‐680 or use Stevenson Boulevard via Paseo Padre Parkway to assess State Route 238 (SR‐238).

In addition, operation of the proposed project would not cause permanent alterations to vehicle circulation routes and patterns nor impede public access or travel upon public rights‐of‐way. Prior to approval of final maps and improvement plans for any development project within Fremont, plan

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐110 review and approval by the FFD is required. Internal roadways and ingress/egress for the project site would be required to meet State and local standards regarding turning radius, road width, and emergency vehicle access. Therefore, potential impacts to an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant.

5.20.2.2 Expose Project Occupants to Wildfire Risk
The proposed project would not include any design features that would increase the potential for a wildfire. The proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.

As described in Section 5.9, the project site is located in a Local Responsibility Area, but not located within a VHFHSZ. The topography of the project site is relatively flat at approximately 65 feet above sea level. Additionally, the City’s General Plan indicates that the project site is not located within a VHFHSZ.71 Although the project site is located in an urban area, it is located within the existing Central Park and is surrounded by vegetated park areas that could become flammable during the dry months (summer and fall).

Construction of the proposed project would involve the use of some flammable materials (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic oils, paints, and solvents) or other wastes. During construction, there would be increased human activity and ignition sources, including equipment that could create sparks, be a source of heat, or leak flammable materials on the project site. However, all construction equipment is required to have fire suppression equipment (e.g., a fire extinguisher) on board or at the work site, secondary containment would be required for fuel‐powered equipment, and a spill kit would be required to be kept on site during construction for use in case of any leaks or spills of flammable materials. These existing requirements would reduce the potential exacerbation of wildfire risks related to construction activities.

Operation of the proposed project would be consistent with the existing use and allowable zoning for the project site. The proposed project is required to be designed in compliance with all applicable State and local standards and recommendations for new development (e.g., the FFD requirements for providing a water supply system for fire protection and adequate emergency and fire access). The project would be required to comply with the California Fire Code applicable at the time of building permit application. The current California Fire Code calls for the installation, maintenance, and ongoing inspection of fire protection systems under the direction of the local Fire Chief. In addition, the California Fire Code authorizes the Fire Chief to specify water supply and road design standards. Prior to approval of final maps and improvement plans for any development project within Fremont, plan review and approval by the FFD is required.

The proposed project would also be subject to requirements in Section 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code, the CBC, and the California Fire Code, which include regulations concerning the following: (a) building standards for fire protection; (b) fire protection and notification systems (e.g., extinguishers and smoke alarms); (c) safety for firefighters and emergency

71 City of Fremont. 2011d. General Plan Safety Element, Chapter 10, Diagram 10‐8. Website:
https://www.fremont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/809/638506889017470000 (accessed August 23, 2024).
5‐111
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) responders during emergency operations; (d) minimum standards for hazardous vegetation and fuel management, defensible space, and building construction; and € minimum standards for emergency access and water supply for fire response.

Compliance with these existing regulatory requirements would ensure that the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Impacts would be less than significant.

5.20.2.3 Installation or Maintenance of Infrastructure
The proposed project involves the demolition of the existing Teen Center and construction of a new, larger Community Center and associated improvements, including a new access driveway off Paseo Padre Parkway and utility connections. Following construction of the new Community Center, a new Gymnasium would be constructed. Utility connections/lines would be constructed in conformance with City standards as detailed in Section 5.19, Utilities and Service Systems. The project is located in an urbanized area that is served by existing water and roadway infrastructure and does not require the installation or maintenance of wildland protection features (e.g., fire roads, fuel breaks, or emergency water sources). In the absence of any need for such features, no impact (temporary or ongoing) would result from development of the proposed uses.

5.20.2.4 Expose People or Structures to Significant Risks Construction of the proposed project would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Construction stormwater permit. As discussed in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would implement an SWPPP that specifies BMPs and erosion control measures to be used during construction to manage runoff flows. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to implement LID techniques required by the MRP and detailed in Section 5.10 that would not significantly alter drainage patterns compared to existing conditions. Furthermore, the project site is not located within a flood zone or within an area identified as having potential for landslides. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to expose people or structures to downslope or downstream flooding or landslides. This impact would be less than significant.

5.20.3 Applicable Mitigation
No substantial changes in environmental circumstances have occurred for this topic, nor revisions to the project, nor new information that could not have been known at the time the GP EIR was certified leading to new or more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.

5.20.4 Conclusion
The GP EIR adequately evaluated the potential impacts related to hazards (and by extension, wildfire) of the proposed project, and no new impacts would result.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 5‐112 This page intentionally left blank
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 6‐1

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

6.1 CITY OF FREMONT
The following individuals reviewed and provided input on the Environmental Checklist and Technical Reports:

Anne Quasarano, Principal Civil Engineer, City of Fremont Department of Public Works Mark Hungerford, Senior Planner, City of Fremont Community Development Department

6.2 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
157 Park Place
Pt. Richmond, CA 94801
Theresa Wallace, AICP, Principal in Charge
Shanna Guiler, AICP, Associate/Project Manager
Olivia Gastaldo, Environmental Planner
Lauren Peachey, Environmental Planner
Pam Reading, Principal/Environmental Planning
Amy Fischer, Principal/Air Quality and Noise Specialist Cara Cunningham, Associate/Air Quality and Noise Specialist Bianca Martinez, Air Quality Specialist
John Kunna, Associate/Biologist
Rory Goodwin, Associate/Senior Cultural Resources Manager Kendra Kolar, Archaeologist
Michael Hibma, Associate/Architectural Historian
JT Stephens, Principal/Noise Specialist
Moe Abushanab, Noise Specialist

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 6‐2 This page intentionally left blank
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 7‐1

7.0 REFERENCES
Alameda County Water District (ACWD). 2021a. Urban Water Management Plan 2020‐2025, Final Version Including Minor Edits. May 13. Website: https://www.acwd.org/DocumentCenter/ View/4116/Final‐2020‐2025‐UWMP‐Version‐Including‐Minor‐Edits (accessed September 9, 2024).
_____. 2021b. Urban Water Management Plan 2020‐2025, Table 2‐5: District Estimated Future Water Demands (AF/yr).
_____. n.d. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Website: https://www.acwd.org/566/ Sustainable‐Groundwater‐Management‐Act (accessed September 5, 2024).

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022a. California Important Farmland Finder (map).

Website: maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/ (accessed August 16, 2024) _____. 2022b. California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder (map). Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/ (accessed August 16, 2024). _____. n.d. California Geological Survey (CGS), California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application (“EQ Zapp”). Website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/ EQ ZApp/app/ (accessed August 20, 2024).

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2023. State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones for Alameda County Map. June 15. Website: https://34c031f8‐c9fd‐ 4018‐8c5a‐4159cdff6b0d‐cdn‐endpoint.azureedge.net/‐/media/osfm‐website/what‐we‐ do/community‐wildfire‐preparedness‐and‐mitigation/fire‐hazard‐severity‐zones/fire‐ hazard‐severity‐zones‐map‐2022/fire‐hazard‐severity‐zones‐maps‐2022‐ files/fhsz_county_sra_11x17_2022_alameda_2.pdf (accessed August 23, 2024).

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2024. EnviroStar Database. Website:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ (accessed August 21, 2024).

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2006. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118, Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, Niles Cone Subbasin. January 20.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR), Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). n.d. California Dam Breach Inundation Map. Website: https://fmds.water.ca.gov/maps/damim/ (accessed September 5, 2024).

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). n.d. SWIS Facility/ Site Activity Details, Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery. Website:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/7?siteID=7 (accessed September 4, 2024).

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 7‐2 California State Transportation Agency and Department of Transportation. 2014. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Revision 7. March.

City of Fremont. 2011a. Fremont Draft General Plan Update, Draft Environmental Impact Report.

July. Website: https://www.fremont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/825/ 637750631748000000 (accessed August 14, 2024).
_____. 2011b. General Plan Community Character Element, Chapter 4. Website:
https://www.fremont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/781/637750630790930000 (accessed August 14, 2024).
_____. 2011c. General Plan Conservation Element, Chapter 7, Diagram 7‐4. Website:
https://www.fremont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/791/637750630830170000 (accessed August 21, 2024).
_____. 2011d. General Plan Safety Element, Chapter 10, Diagram 10‐8. Website:
https://www.fremont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/809/638506889017470000 (accessed August 23, 2024).
_____. 2019. General Plan Zoning Map. Website: https://www.fremont.gov/home/showpublished document/803/637750630865770000 (accessed August 16, 2024). _____. 2020a. City of Fremont Transportation Impact Analysis Handbook. June. Website:
https://www.fremont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/391/637747611844000000 (accessed October 4, 2024).
_____. 2020b. Emergency Operations Plan, Basic Plan. May. _____. 2022. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan. February. Website:
https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/parks‐planning‐design/park‐ planning/parks‐master‐plan (accessed May 6, 2024).
_____. 2024. Fremont Municipal Code. Chapter 18.175 – Historic Resources. Updated April 29.

Website:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/#!/Fremont18/Fremont18175.html#18.175. 120.
_____. n.d.‐a. Fremont Fire Department. Website: https://www.fremont.gov/government/ departments/fire/about‐us (accessed August 25, 2024).
_____. n.d.‐b. Fremont Police Department. Website: https://www.fremontpolice.gov/about‐ us/about‐fremont‐police (accessed August 25, 2024).
_____. n.d.‐c. Title 18 Planning and Zoning, Chapter 18.205, Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control.

Website: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/#!/Fremont18/ Fremont18205.html#18.205 (accessed September 4, 2024).

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 7‐3 _____. n.d.‐d. Title 18 Planning and Zoning, Chapter 18.205, Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control, Section 18.205.100 Findings. Website: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/#!/ Fremont18/Fremont18205.html#18.205 (accessed September 4, 2024). _____. n.d.‐e. Title 18 Planning and Zoning, Chapters 18.210, Storm Water Management and Discharge Control. Website: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/#!/Fremont18/ Fremont18210.html#18.210 (accessed September 4, 2024).

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). n.d. Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06001C0462G.

Map Effective August 3, 2009. Website: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search? AddressQuery=lake%20elizabeth%2C%20fremont%20 (accessed September 5, 2024).

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, Table 1.

Fremont Unified School District (FUSD). n.d. About Fremont Unified. Website:
https://fremontunified.org/about/welcome/ (accessed August 25, 2024).

LSA Associates, Inc. 2024a. Biological Resources Assessment, Fremont Central Park Community Center Project. September.
_____. 2024b. Cultural Resources Study. October.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). n.d.‐a. Landslide Hazard (Rainfall Induced) Map. Website: https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/ apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4a6f3f1259df42eab29b35dfcd086fc8 (accessed August 20, 2024).
_____. n.d.‐b. Probabilistic Earthquake Shaking Hazard Map. Website: https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/ apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4a6f3f1259df42eab29b35dfcd086fc8 (accessed August 20, 2024).

Millennium Consulting Associates. 2024. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. May.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. n.d. Web Soil Survey. Website:
websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed August 21, 2024).

Ninyo & Moore. 2023. Fault Rupture Hazard Evaluation, Proposed Community Center, 40000 Paseo Padre Parkway. December.
_____. 2024. Geotechnical Evaluation, Central Park Community Center, 40000 Paseo Padre Parkway, Fremont, California. August 5.

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2022. San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2‐2022‐0018, as amended by Order No. R2‐2023‐0019, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. May 11.

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) 7‐4 _____. 2024. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay Basin. April 17.

Website: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/basin_planning.html (accessed September 5, 2024).

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2022. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (CGP), Order No. 2022‐0057‐DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002.

Website: https://www. waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_ quality/2022/wqo_2022‐0057‐dwq.pdf (accessed August 21, 2024). _____. 2024. Geotracker Database. Website: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ (accessed August 21, 2024).
_____. n.d. 2020–2022 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act) Section 303(d) List and 305(b) Report). Website: https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2F www.waterboards.ca.gov%2Fwater_issues%2Fprograms%2Ftmdl%2F2020_2022 state_ir_reports_revised_final%2Fapx‐a‐303d‐list.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK (accessed September 4, 2024).

United States Geological Survey (USGS). n.d. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. Website:
https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake‐hazards/modified‐mercalli‐intensity‐scale?qt‐ science_center_objects=0#qt‐science_center_objects (accessed August 20, 2024).

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) APPENDIX A

CALEEMOD OUTPUT SHEETS

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) This page intentionally left blank

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) APPENDIX B

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) This page intentionally left blank

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) APPENDIX C

FAULT RUPTURE HAZARD EVALUATION

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) This page intentionally left blank

E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025
F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) APPENDIX D

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

F REMONT C ENTRAL P ARK C OMMUNITY C ENTER P ROJECT F REMONT , C ALIFORNIA
E NVIRONMENTAL C HECKLIST
J ANUARY 2025

T:\1‐PWC\9087 ‐ Central Park Community Center\1 ‐ DESIGN\DOC\Environmental\CEQA\FremontCC_Checklist.docx (01/29/25) This page intentionally left blank

Fremont City CouncilFebruary 11, 2025

Fremont City Council
February 11, 2025